Thread: 8. What would you add to increase the level of replayability?

8. What would you add to increase the level of replayability?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,400

    8. What would you add to increase the level of replayability?

    (PS- I'm going on holiday for a week, but Chip will be looking after things for me in my absence)

  2. #2
    Originally Posted by Keir
    (PS- I'm going on holiday for a week, but Chip will be looking after things for me in my absence)

    SHEESSHH!! Here we go

    Single Player- I THINK WE KNOW SKIRMISH MODE!!!!!!!!!! More interesing missions, less beating around the bush to get to the "big ones," non scripted missions that I can beat with the same tactics every time, original missions that don't focus on completing historical battle after battle.

    MP-CONNECTION HOST!!!
    CONNECTION HOST!!
    CONNECTION HOST!!!

    There were so many games I played where half the players dropped before the game even started, this game needs the CONNECTION HOST FEATURE so we don't feel frustrated just tryin to play.

    MP could also benefit from just being able to cycle through maps instead of going back to the lobby, for people playing with low-end computers its especially painful and takes a long time.

    Also how many times can we say it, DYNAMIC MP MISSIONS!!

    That's all I have to say.

  3. #3
    Agree with Kai Robin

    There need to be more options for the MP matches. We've discussed a lot of them in other threads

    having SP leaderboards was a good idea and I want to see it again - my whole clan is ranked in the top ten for SP and its because we loved the game, I would just like to see changes - eliminate boosting by making a finite number of planes for the enemy - its ridiculous that they have infinite planes, and maybe more time goals (complete a mission in x amount of time) - and make the SP missions more complex, more missions where you have an enitre fleet

    have you considered a Silent Hunter-esque sub mode, especially utilizing the german wolfpack? A separate game mode that allows you to do nothing but terrorize the north atlantic shipping channels/UK fleet, possibly with a map editor? The Subs are fun but underused, as we've previously stated - this would be a good way for sub lovers to have their fun

    it could go into MP as well - imagine a map where one team was a wolfpack and the other side was the convoy - if the problems with DC planes and the "glass bottom" destroyer are corrected this could be quite a lot of fun

  4. #4
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,513
    Dynamic missions ala SHIII or Pacific Storm or Random mission
    Scenario editor
    MP and SP allowing custom setups.

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by chip5541
    Dynamic missions ala SHIII or Pacific Storm or Random mission
    Scenario editor
    MP and SP allowing custom setups.

    Save me typing hehe my thoughts exactly.

    Basically anything that will allow you to experience different force mixes and tactics, an essential for all us pocket protector admirals

    Also since most of the pple playing BSM have probably played the same Naval games (almost all that have some kind of flexible repayabilty) we kinda expect some of these features in a good ww2 sim....

    Linked Multiplayer maps would be sweet as well, so the outcome of one battle effects the next map you play, a kind of mini multiplayer campaign.

    Scenarios like convoy protection vs subs etc could be played as stand alone missions or linked to other missions, effecting the force mis in the next map etc.

    Also offically supported MOD TOOLS would be a very smart idea by EDIOS, just look at 'Company of Heroes' or the 'Total War' series for the extra replayablility and increasing the fan base. mod tools have done for those games.

  6. #6
    I totally agree with the above 3 posts. Basically thread #1 has most of the elements we need to accomplish better replayability.
    What makes BS:M score low on replayability is the fact that every component of the map/unit/mission IS FIXED, scripted, non-changeable. Some may argue that the SP missions are replayable on different difficulty settings - I'm not sure, however I appreciate the gamers taking pride to complete the game in "Veteran" mode where the AI is skilled to precise sharpshooting.
    Also for the Challenges - for me in an RTS replayability does not mean that I have to repeat the mission 20 times because I did not do the exact movements in the exact order to win. If I want this I play an arcade game, let's say Super Mario 8. The "sink the Houston" is a great example of that: an arcade map where 3 ships has to sink 15 ships in the same class.
    Another example is one of the SP missions where immediately after destroying an airfield 3 ships are suddenly appearing on the map near the landing troops out of nowhere - does not matter if the player carefully surveyed the area before - you just have to remember NEXT TIME to place appropriate forces there at the right moment... This is too arcade style for me in a game like this.

    If we look at from the structural viewpoint I see that the most critical element needs to be taken care of is the "strategic AI". Without this all the SP missions have to be heavily scripted and pre-defined. Although almost all RTS games are using scripting in SP missions it is mostly to keep the track of the storyline, but the battles can unfold in many different ways depending on how the human player approaches the situations.
    Without strategic AI (that does "understand" how to accomplish mission objectives and not just manage a unit) there is no skirmish mode and there is no way any dynamism can be added to the missions themselves. Also without this element it is not possible to allow dynamic (free) unit configurations for the battles that takes me to my second point.

    Configurable maps / startup units - many times we said this: this type of game needs the ability so the player is FREE TO CHOOSE the units it intends to fight out the battle. Many technical solutions has been proposed in the forum, the bottom line we need this in place.

    Thirdly for multiplayer mode there is a strong need to figure out a better player death(Re-spawning if you will)/server join management. The current multiplayer structure is - just like many other part of the game - very rigid that makes it difficult to enjoy the game and re-play the missions as a continuous flow.

    Once these three pillars are in place it will be relatively easy to enable all the functional features that will increase replayability by a few magnitudes at least.

  7. #7
    I can't really post anything else without saying what you guys have already said.

  8. I can't really post anything else without saying what you guys have already said.
    me too

  9. #9
    Ditto.

    scenario editor, changeable MP map placement, fog of war / intel settings determined by host. Basically all the afore mentioned scenario modifiers.

  10. #10
    The scenario editor would be the big one to add. The fog of war would be a nice addition too. Pretty much everything above cover's what's needed.

  11. #11
    All of the above plus...

    Continued DLC support and timely DLC. When my interest was starting to wane from the original release we got the Sibuyan Sea MP map and it held my interest until just very recently. Another DLC MP map(PACK!) would keep the online fresh and liven it up for us Die Hards who've played the out of this game since it's release. We love it, keep the love affair going.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    25
    A lot of good posts on this one.

    Variation for the Players and additional content. Absolutely.

  13. #13
    Its had to say anything other then what has already been said.

    DLC would be good but with an editor of our own the community can share there own creations.

    Mod support is also a must for replay value. Just look at what mods did for Battlefield 1942.

  14. #14
    I feel as many customizable and variable features as possible should be added to server/skirmish configuration to make for interesting play.

    Map editor and skirmish probably being a must, as said many times.

    Oh, and everything that was mentioned in threads 1 and 2.

    -Lexxy.

  15. #15
    Multi-Player Game play

    We need customization. We need other ways to play each map other than the 1 scripted scenario with the same units that never change. I suggest to maintain Balance that the developers put a minum of 5 scenarios for each mutliplayer map, each containing different objectives, starting locations, units.

    Multi-Player Match-Making.


    The biggest killer of re-playability for BSM was no party system matchmaking. I would love to play with my friends in custom games, but the problem was when we had a group of friends playing together we almost always won. I'm not exaggerating when I say we won 99% of the time.

    That is because no other groups of friends would go find servers to join. Everyone wanting to play with friends would create their own servers because you needed to be host to insure your teammates would get on the same team. That was usually done by kicking innocent people out of the server until your teammates filled all the slots.

    In this situation you never get a Team vs Team battle. You get a team vs Randoms battle and thats not fun for anyone.

    You guys need to take out the whole custom server search thing. All that does is by-pass matchmaking and allow people to choose any server they want. Well if people are choosing any server they want then they are not be matched up by true-skill.

    I suggest the Developers rent or buy ShadowRun, SaintsRow, Halo 2, etc and study what they have done. If they are not familiar with party system matchmaking the best way to understand it is to experience it for themselves.



    I'll say this and I hope this is strong enough emphasis on how important this is to me. If BSM II has no party system matchmaking that matches up teams vs teams of as closely skilled players as possible I wont' be buying it. I love the game, but I can't take be matched up wildly. 360 uses true skill for a reason and if the developers are not going to use it likes it's intended (to match up similarly skilled players) then I just won't support the game. I cant' stand playing people who are beginners or have no idea how to play. Those players need to be matched up to other new players and the good players should be matched up against each other for some nail biting matches.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by Shamrock
    Multi-Player Game play

    We need customization. We need other ways to play each map other than the 1 scripted scenario with the same units that never change. I suggest to maintain Balance that the developers put a minum of 5 scenarios for each mutliplayer map, each containing different objectives, starting locations, units.

    Multi-Player Match-Making.


    The biggest killer of re-playability for BSM was no party system matchmaking. I would love to play with my friends in custom games, but the problem was when we had a group of friends playing together we almost always won. I'm not exaggerating when I say we won 99% of the time.

    That is because no other groups of friends would go find servers to join. Everyone wanting to play with friends would create their own servers because you needed to be host to insure your teammates would get on the same team. That was usually done by kicking innocent people out of the server until your teammates filled all the slots.

    In this situation you never get a Team vs Team battle. You get a team vs Randoms battle and thats not fun for anyone.

    You guys need to take out the whole custom server search thing. All that does is by-pass matchmaking and allow people to choose any server they want. Well if people are choosing any server they want then they are not be matched up by true-skill.

    I suggest the Developers rent or buy ShadowRun, SaintsRow, Halo 2, etc and study what they have done. If they are not familiar with party system matchmaking the best way to understand it is to experience it for themselves.



    I'll say this and I hope this is strong enough emphasis on how important this is to me. If BSM II has no party system matchmaking that matches up teams vs teams of as closely skilled players as possible I wont' be buying it. I love the game, but I can't take be matched up wildly. 360 uses true skill for a reason and if the developers are not going to use it likes it's intended (to match up similarly skilled players) then I just won't support the game. I cant' stand playing people who are beginners or have no idea how to play. Those players need to be matched up to other new players and the good players should be matched up against each other for some nail biting matches.
    I agree completely with this.
    My clan solved this dilemma by joining game battles. The general public was bad, because, as you said, your team was facing four guys who had never played together before. I think we won 99% of 500-600 matches. This can be easily corrected.

    I said this in another post and meant it: I would rather lose a closely contested match against good opposition than destroy someone who should be playing somewhere else.