PDA

View Full Version : 2. What did you think was redundant in BSM? Which part was the least accessible



Keir
27th Jun 2007, 12:32
Here's today's thread.

Shamrock
27th Jun 2007, 12:55
Well my response will be in regards to the 360.

The most redundant part of BSM was the puzzling decision of the developers to lock down the units/starting location/objectives for each map. Here we have these wonderfully huge online maps and yet we can only play the exact same game type, with the exact same units, in the exact same starting locations. Why?

I understand a need for balance and maybe this is why they didn't want to let us have any customization at all, but then why not have the developers create 3-5 different scenarios for each multiplayer map? For the Battle of the Philippines. Why not have

Scenario 1 (how it is now)
Scenario 2 (different set of units/objectives)
Scenario 3 (Different set of units/ojectives)

Then we have 1 map but many different ways to play it. This would of made having a small number of multi maps easier to swallow.

As far as least accessible



I'd have to say the least accessible part of BSM was the ability for new players to play the game online after it was initially released. It was ok the first week because everyone was new, but 1 month in and new players were dead meat. Not only did they get destroyed, but people would kick them out of the server mid game for not knowing what they are doing.

There was a tutorial, but the problem remained that their was a lack of proper matchmaking to pit these new users against people closer to their skill level. What happens? New guy gets the game, may or may not do the tutorial, and then gets destroyed online by veterans. New guy stops playing the game because getting butt whipped/kicked from game is not fun. New guy goes to xbox.com and posts how he thinks the game sucks. This scenario was even worse for the Demo. As it threw you into online matches with no directions or tutorial at all. People don't like getting whipped/yelled at/kicked from the game when they are learning to play. Common sense tells us people don't like admitting they are bad at a game, so instead of saying the game was to hard, they immediately bash the game and say it sucks. A lot of the negatives could of been avoided with proper match-making so people are being matched up by skill level/true rank.

I would also ask the dev's to consider making the tutorial mandatory. For instance playing the tutorial unlocks online multiplayer. Until it's completed you can't even access online. This is a team based game where people depend heavily on their teamates to win. No one should be jumping straight into multiplayer without a clue how to play. It only creates negativity all around. Negativity from the pissed off teammates and negativity from the new player who decided to skip the tutorial outright and then gets yelled at and kicked.

Kai Robin
27th Jun 2007, 13:12
Hey Keir,

I agree with the above and I think you'll get a universal reply that "unit lockdown" was the most redundant part of the game. It made no sense you could only use said unit in said mission exactly the way the devs wanted you to or you couldn' use it. Take for the example the "Iowa Mission Pack", you got "5" new units but you could only use them on two maps.

I also think the Henry Walker movies were pointless, none of us really liked Henry Walker, he was sorta scary looking, and while fiddling through my BSM folder which is 5 gigs, it turns out the actual game is only ~2gigs and Mr. Walker's footage takes up ~3, I'd much rather prefer that be applied to the game.

Redundant..uh, the whole MP setup, why can't we just choose a map list and cycle through? There's no need to go back to the lobby room (which lacks the features mentioned already) and restart the game.

Carriers not having their secondary guns....if it comes to Cv's running out of planes, which is certainly has, most of us would like some way to finish the fight, c'mon! NO ONE LIKES TO DRAW, UNLESS A WINNER IS DECLARED THE TIME YOU SPENT PLAYING IS A WASTE!

Ship formations, their needed, but it seems impossible to keep ships in formation. Also, why can't we form formations with other team mates? It'd be great if we could designate a "flagship" and once you join that group your ship can auto-move in formation letting you concentrate on gunnery, that would be super, Ultra, MEGA-KEWL!

Lexxy
27th Jun 2007, 13:22
What did you think was redundant in BSM?


PC Demo


Problem:

Before I purchased Battlestations Midway, I downloaded the free demo. Upon joining my first ever game on "The Islands Of Solomon", I was greeted with a picture of an airfield. The airfield did not move or do anything: it was just an airfield. I actually thought my PC had froze! - I actually had to resort to poking keys until I found ones that did stuff. This is frustrating, and many gamers would give up almost immediately: having to study a key chart is a bit much.

Possible Solution:

Include an in-game context, verbal/text tutorial - triggered by player action to run once only per profile. EG:

Game Event - Player Switches/Starts On Airfield
Tutorial Trigger - "Airfields House Squadrons Of Various Planes For You To Launch. Press The 'Launch Plane Key (SHIFT)' To Do This."


PC Options, User Registration


Problem:

Options are not available in game to change controls or audio settings on the fly. Additionally, the BSM options system includes settings for video preferences when a frontend was included to do this - redundant feature.

Gamespy user registration is overly complex and overwhelming for my taste. Can take many attempts before a successful registration. The HCI surrounding the "save these details" selection is terrible: if you miss that button your details get wiped - and theres so many fields it's difficult to remember what was what.

Possible Solution:

Include basic in game options in game. Nerf the in-game video settings which require a game restart.

Consider online user registration in the development process from the word go of the next games development: Make sure your design accomodates for a good integration of online platform features into the actual profile system of the game. A profile "wizard" may be a good way to do this, where the game profile name = online profile name. Online registration could thus be completed in three steps. By default, always save the information - apart from password. Use a checkbox for this.


Tutorials


Problem:

Tutorials are generally regarded as too tedious in some areas. Slow and steady may win the race, but I still want to be young when we get there.

Possible Solution:

Either consolidate the tutorial system's basic controls into a more interesting scenario, or drop the tutorials completely in favour of the above discussed context tutorial. The single player campaign could introduce features slowly using this method.


In Game User Status


Problem:

Having being pampered by ID's Quake and Epic's Unreal engine games, I somewhat expect a key to bring up a scoreboard, including player names, score and ping. The should definately catagorized by team, if I'm away making a cup of tea and the game starts - I have no idea who is on my team without studying the map. Perhaps team members should also show a small list of their currently active units on this board. Stylish prompts should be adopted to show game events: "Bob [Fuso] Torpedo'd By Ben [Narwhall]". *Not* The big black alpha transparent bar : it's ugly. This system could be used to show players who are dead, or spectating - so players can easily reassign spare units.

Possible Solution:

Implement all or some of the above.

That's all for now.

Cheers,

-Lexxy.

-=)CSF(=-Akagi
27th Jun 2007, 13:37
the most redundant part of the game is for me the lobby! or better this poor browser:scratch: its the pure comunication between the ppl here.


New guy gets the game, may or may not do the tutorial, and then gets destroyed online by veterans.
thats not an redundant part of the game, thats life!! the situation is in all online games the same! new player will be bashed from veterans!

the tutorial is ok and the most games dont have an expansive tutorial like BSM.
the problem is... that the ppl must play this and follow the instructions to learn!
but the most dont play the tutorial here, they enter the MP and dont know whats happen.
thats the reason that the CSF clan said "we wanna help new player and they can train and play whit us for an while" but this seems also not welcome for some ppl here!:confused:


Carriers not having their secondary guns....if it comes to Cv's running out of planes, which is certainly has, most of us would like some way to finish the fight, c'mon! NO ONE LIKES TO DRAW, UNLESS A WINNER IS DECLARED THE TIME YOU SPENT PLAYING IS A WASTE!

i agree complete here ,im an CV / planes player in this game and its sad that an CV can defend against an DD for example.
the reality is the most wartime carrier are based on BB´s and the most are fitted whit the secondary guns of an BB (like AKAGI & KAGA)

also redundant part of the game is (special for submarine comander) this "unlimited depth charges" and the camera if u use this depth charges. whit this u can follow subs on level 4 the hole time..... this is not reality!

videos are also not important here!

AKAGI
*ps* wishes to kai robin aka AERO7

Wolfpack Apone
27th Jun 2007, 13:42
i found the game highly acessible although I do agree with my fellows that cetain aspects like the n00b issue should be looked at.

many players would come into a lobby and they know how to sail a ship and fire its guns but the tutorials dont go through things like using a shipyard or carrier (or not that a recolect) so newer players always seem to struggle on maps like solomon, theres nothing worse than playing your socks off then a guy leaves cos hes gettin owned.

also certain maps have AI units (PTs in solomon, Sea planes in vella gulf) these should become accessable tot he first player who runs out of units in the game.

Hit points should be more balanced between single and multi player, for instance in the single player mission "Raid on Balikpan" those jap destroyers can be killed with a single precise shot from the fletcher class but in multiplayer destroyers can hang in a fire fight with other destroyers for several minutes if being piloted by a skilled player

Scipio65
27th Jun 2007, 13:52
What did you think was redundant in BSM?

Fixed unit types and placements on the MP maps. After a few go arounds most players knew where every unit on a map was before they could even be seen. The flexibility of the shipyards on Solomons made this one of the most creative maps for a while, until a few solid strats were developed that eliminates the shipyards very quickly. Take the shipyard flexibility that you have on the Solomons and throw that onto a map like Coral Sea and you immediately have vast improvement. Add a few more items, like free placement of units, limited radar and such, and you get rid of the most redundant aspect of the game.



Which part was the least accessible?

Not really sure what you mean by "least accessible". But for me, the least accessible aspects, during the learning phase, was learning the limitations and incapabilities of the AI. Whether it was the AI torp planes in my attack squadron, leaving my sub alone to go run a surface ship, or just forming up DDs with my CA. This is also where I still see the most problems with new players.

chip5541
27th Jun 2007, 14:21
I have to agree pretty much 100% with what has been typed above.

Dremora Warlord
27th Jun 2007, 15:44
Well, like stated before, I do think that one of the most redundant things is fixed starting positions. Most of us in here probably know exactly how to win on each map, and counter. On certain maps, like Coral, MI, Philipines, heck most maps, there should be random staring positions.

I think it should be just like End Game at Midway. That would be awesome. Even if you didn't move the ships too much, I think that the submarines should have very differenyt staring positions each game.

About the least accessible, I agree with Scipio. No point in retyping what he said. :)

chip5541
27th Jun 2007, 16:06
yes, that would be redundant.:lmao:

sblendo
27th Jun 2007, 18:14
What did you think was redundant in BSM?

agree with all in regards to strategies becoming set in stone with all maps due to lack of variation.

Also agree with the level of difficuty in "jumping" into the demo that was released. I'll confess I bought this game after becoming absloutely enamored after many hours of fun with the demo. But it took a while just to figure everything out. Perhaps first availble download is "Tutorial only" then quickly followed up by playable demo.

Matchmaking and Military Rank attached to your name will help separate the Vets from the new players. Or at least identify them prior to committing to a match.

Which part was the least accessible?

taking the word accessible as "object able to be easily used or obtained" I say that Subs are least accesible in BS:M. All the ships have unlimited ammo for AA and Artilary (they do have limited Torps) but the subs bread and butter is torps and while It's OK that they are limited, I think they should be able to be more effective in using them.

some points have been made:

• limit amount of Depth Charges on Destroyers
• Become invisible at level 4 to the "omniscient" underwater cam.
• Longer Oxygen supply
• Not seeing Torps on Map would help them.
• Perhaps increase Torp Speed in game making it harder to avoid them.

I think the line drawn between fun game and sim is a difficult one and the work so far has been great. So I don't think things should be simply tossed because it's not sim. Just tweaked. So underwater cam is ok for me, but at level 4 no visual would be nice. Obviously Guns did not reload this fast or ships stop and go and repair as fast as in the game. Fun first. Sim where it can work.

I concur with CV's having the guns for some self preservation and as a means to end a match that has run out of planes and ships and reduced to only CVs.

Cpt.sharp
27th Jun 2007, 19:05
I think the nail has been hit on the head in every post. Its the set in stone games. If you played it once you have played it a million times. maybe after the brifing you are given the choice of starting points that you think the Enermy will not expect you. This would also mean randomising the starting point of the AI.

Which part was the least accessible?
how about ships that were said to be ingame and were not :) or one's that are ingame but we can not control ;)

apart from that, I know some people had problems getting online. There was little help for getting gamespy working and setting up your ports. most games give you a port number to open, I dont think we had one with BSM. Gamespy for some was a nightmare but with the help offerd in the forums i think most got it working in the end.

mortalstakes
27th Jun 2007, 22:11
I agree with everything I've seen above.

Redundant: How similar the strategies needed to win in SP were. The AI is very poor and reacted almost identically every time. Some of the challenges could be hard, but once you realized that the enemy cruiser was going to chase you in a straight line every time, how hard was it to patent the fall away shot?

A crazed voice telling me we lost a ship every time a PT boat went down was a close second, lol

The guys above me hit the nail right on the head as far as accessibility is concerned - I would classify the demo as Very Difficult for almost all gamers to pick up and play.

Controlling a fleet. You play through all those SP missions (and don't get me wrong, I love the SP, but I'm not blind to its flaws) and you only get to command a good sized force in the last two missions, and even those were small - you had to go online and play 1v1s to get that chance

lets have some SP that actually gives you control of a real fleet, like a carrier group, some BB's, a sub or two

I agree with what scipio said about the AI, and what Sblendo said about matchmaking/ranks

I'm not the kind of gamer that wants to roll right over people - I'd rather have a hard fought loss to a skilled opponent than beat some novice's brains out - a rank system that lets you know what kind of player you're dealing with would go a long way toward achieving this goal

and all the points on subs are good ones - they are fun to use but as I (and several others) have already said, they're practically useless due to how easily they can be dealt with and how hard it is to get in unless all enemy radar carrying units are already dead

Sith Darthfoxx
28th Jun 2007, 02:46
I love Shamrocks multiple Scenerio ideas for a single map, it greatly enchances replayability.

Least Accessible...Perhaps the using Formation in online as the AI would never set it up correctly if there was any hint of another ship nearby.

Dogmeatz
28th Jun 2007, 04:38
OK great thoughts so far from pple



A crazed voice telling me we lost a ship every time a PT boat went down was a close second, lol

Agree i found not knowing if it was my ship or another when they were alll yelling about going down, an audio filter that makes radio from other ships sound filtered or staticy would help the player get some sense of where messages coming from.

On Redunadancy.

1. Training Missions could be compiled into 1 or 2 missions rather than the long winded 9 at moment.

2. Single player Movies - sure they looked nice, but for me a few more missions would have outwayed loosing all the movies. As in it all costs money in production an i prefer gameplay to movie. The game engine is more than good enough to make all the neccessary movies, im thinking HomeWorld and Company of Heroes series where all movies in Single Player campaign are made using the game engine, a much cheaper option im sure.

3. Damage Control for Subs seems to have not be finished so could be considered redundant i suppose. Damage control is in general a little to fast and powerful in my opinion, for instance 3 men on pumps on a BB makes torp planes kinda redundant :) . If it was toned/slowed down by 25% i think would make a more realistic and fun battle.

4. PT boats are not fully finished maybe, there formations dont seem to work in that they all seem to collide with the leader. Also turning on auto torps for all pts in a squad is very timeconsuming, and could be facilitated by a hotkey.

5. Game seriously needed more PC Hotkeys, the ALT order system is nice but shows it obvious origins from xbox a few hotkeys for pc would have been nice.
Examples for needed keys - auto move, CAP, Auto Torp on/off, Landing etc.

but of course gotta say all these above issues didnt ruin BSM for me, it is such a fun game and being the first in a new genre is aways going to have to go through abit of evolutionary growth :)

Shamrock
28th Jun 2007, 07:58
Ah the patented I thought of something else post.


I'm not sure if redundant is the right word for this issue, but we definitely had a problem dead players quitting. This was even more troubling if that person was the host. Most of the time what would happen is the host would

A Quit and the game was over
B. Kick someone still alive and took his units



We absolutely need either host migration, so if the host quits someone else takes the server duties over or we need something to do for dead players.

For instance you lose all your units.

Maybe your given a PT boat and can not damage any "alive players", but you can damage anyone that is dead. Be it the other team in their PT boats or Teammates that are dead. Just something, anything to do. Maybe even add stat tracking to kills in Dead mans mode. Or a achivement for 100 kills in dead mans mode. I'm speaking of killing other dead players of course.

Lexxy
28th Jun 2007, 12:20
@Shamrock:

Host migration might be outthinking the problem. Right now all BSM's servers are listen-servers - and thus the problem is caused by quiting hosts. Persistant dedicated servers removes the problem and also prevents server failure when all peers drop.

A mini-game while dead strikes me as too arcadey for my taste. A greater emphasis on staying alive also gives the game a good atmosphere. Better spectate modes (Free look, Free Chase Cam) + notification to your teammates that you are shipwrecked will help. As your last ship sinks, a letter box could appear to really signify that "you're out". Given that we would like to see many more units and bigger maps anyway - I believe that it shouldn't be a problem for teammates to get you back in the game. Especially if their HUD is "nagged" by you being dead.

-Lexxy.

It3llig3nc3
28th Jun 2007, 14:28
Coming in relatively late in the thread most of my points are already listed.

Redundant
1.
By far the most redundant part is the tutorial system. The tutorial aims to be very extensive and tries to "imitate" a navy training program. For a game like this it is the least favorable way to achieve the goal: get the newbie player accustomed to the game's system.
There is no new under the sun and most RTS games are using a much different approach: the tutorial is kind of built into the first single player missions including verbal or written aids helping the player to complete them.
And this is the most annoying part of BS:M for me: the trouble is that in addition to the tutorial the first 4 single player missions are very simplistic - I may say OVERLY simplistic requiring to command only ONE or a few vehicles: the perfect ground for tutorial "type" missions. Thirdly add to this the first missions for the "Challenges" sections which are also very easy exercises with the various type of units and you find the 3rd "sub-tutorial" in the game
After all it looks like an awful lot of development, scripting and design resources were "wasted" on this. If all these efforts were to put into building 3 "tutorial missions" and more REAL full scale battle missions or multiplayer maps it had been a better for everyone.

2.
Although for me it is not exactly "redundancy" but the static handling of units is a living disaster for me. All the time all the same. Many people said this before me so I won't iterate it but giving ZERO flexibility in unit organization in a "strategy" game is a huge mistake. End of story.

3.
I will call the "Challenges" section redundant in the game for the following reasons:
A) looking at the number of missions there it would have been better to develop a second campaign (the IJN one) instead of this segment.
B) if something the "Challenges" section probably trying to imitate a skirmish mode where you practice against AI but it is the worst substitute idea for skirmish I have ever seen

Least Accessible
It is quite a vague question, but here is my take in it
1. Subs - it was debated over the forum many times that this unit class is somewhat a "black sheep" in the family. Not really finished, has strange "skills" and in my own mind this is the unit that had to be taken the farthest from reality in order to "fit" into the game's concept.
2. I will classify this as an accessibility problem but for me the air-wing squad management and the fixed air-squads are a serious problem that I was not able to "access". Details in the forum but like the 3 plane squad that have only 1 plane "alive" in it but can't launch more from the carrier..., the way to freely combine bombers and fighters into one squad no way to define formation for the squad, etc... Air Unit management in my mind is too "primitive".
3. Finally the thing which is least accessible - in fact NOT accessible is the multiplayer in game player status and player and server management.

-=)CSF(=-Akagi
1st Jul 2007, 12:32
at last the japanes voice is redundant.
im sure the most dont know whats happen if the game talks in japanese!
or it should be an option were you can change it in english!

AKAGI

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/2654/bsm1vb3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)