Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Thread: Must-Haves for the new Battlestations

Must-Haves for the new Battlestations

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    29

    Must-Haves for the new Battlestations

    I am a huge fan of Midway -- and still see it as one of the best games on Live; that is, when played with the right people.

    Pacific NEEDS a cutting-edge matchmaking system. Online rankings, truskill comparisons and ranked squad games. I made a lot of friends playing Midway (especially with the demo when there were a lot of people playing).

    All games need to take a piece from Halo and its matchmaking system. I don't care if its directly ripped off or not, but it works, and works well.

    I'd also like to see an overhaul in the "start locations" for units, or maybe allow us to place start locations of our ships in order to help diversify the battles a bit from each other. In Midway, once you knew a map, it was the same thing over and over.

    I have really high expectations for Pacific, fixing the matchmaking and keeping the game fresh is all that the game really needs to be a smash hit. Midway had the gameplay / teamwork and strategic value going for it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    I can definitely agree with you, but the problems lie in how each is executed. No one can really agree.

    The matchmaking system would be effective, but how would one determine true skill? As things stand currently, kills are only awarded to player-controlled units, not the AI controlled stuff (not even your wingmen). It could also be exploited, as everyone knows, by playing a map like Solomon and just arranging with someone on the other team to start slaughtering your units.

    On the other hand, ranked squad games are much easier to control, since match-wide victories are just that - victories. There can be little to no denying that, so I imagine that if a clan (CSF for example) could create their own group and have a tally for their wins/losses/etc. A minor problem would then hinge on what would happen when half of the CSF is on one side and half is on the other.

    Changing start locations can be a good idea, but only if executed properly. There have to be limits - i.e spawning both submarines on top of the enemy CA on Coral would be a just plain retarded idea. I think it would be far easier to have a larger, more open map like Coral where fleet movements are different every time, rather than having a potentially exploitable system of picking where your units start. I can also imagine the idiot in charge of a high-value unit (like a carrier, or a CA or BB) spawning his/her ships in the corner of the map "for the lulz".

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by justice7
    I am a huge fan of Midway -- and still see it as one of the best games on Live; that is, when played with the right people.

    Pacific NEEDS a cutting-edge matchmaking system. Online rankings, truskill comparisons and ranked squad games. I made a lot of friends playing Midway (especially with the demo when there were a lot of people playing).

    All games need to take a piece from Halo and its matchmaking system. I don't care if its directly ripped off or not, but it works, and works well.
    Agreed, a ranking system is needed, but I'm wary of trueskill based ranking systems. I have seen a trueskill based ranking system in a fellow Eidos game, Kane and Lynch, and boosting there has ruined K&L online. If Eidos does use a trueskill based ranking system, I hope they look outside their own games for inspiration rather than go for a similar system to K&L. What worries me is that the online system for K&L bears a strong resemblence to that in BSM, with what appears to be the same net code and lobby system in both games. And yes, a match making system would be good, Eidos needs to catch up with the current technology. Eidos hasn't released a real "next-gen" game in the 3 years since the Xbox 360 came out.
    I'd also like to see an overhaul in the "start locations" for units, or maybe allow us to place start locations of our ships in order to help diversify the battles a bit from each other. In Midway, once you knew a map, it was the same thing over and over.
    What I'm really hoping for is either a map editor, or a system where the host can choose the map and then each player can choose their own units and place them within a set starting area at either end of the map.
    I have really high expectations for Pacific, fixing the matchmaking and keeping the game fresh is all that the game really needs to be a smash hit. Midway had the gameplay / teamwork and strategic value going for it.
    Same here.

  4. #4
    I think these points have all already been brought up and discussed ad nauseam. :P

  5. #5
    i think most things have been said already

    but i think that a map editor is worth a lot more than a ranking system

    of course if we get both its better but if i would have to choose i would go for the editor
    -=)CSF(=-Haruna

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by Colosseum
    I think these points have all already been brought up and discussed ad nauseam. :P
    True, but they are all important and until we know that Eidos Hungary has addressed these points we should keep raising them.

  7. #7
    I'm new to the forums so sorry if this has been answered. If a ship is sunk in shallow water, will it fall through the sea floor or will some of the ship still be visible?

  8. #8
    in BSM there is no sea floor at all

    so if a ship sinks in shallow water it "falls through"

    but as far as i remember from reading some previews that has been changed
    -=)CSF(=-Haruna

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    I think adding the seafloor is a good idea, if only for submariners so they can see where the shallow water IS, rather than having a good fleet sub (*cough*Sibuyan*cough*) start surfacing without, any visual rhyme or reason.

    On the topic of the seafloor, do you think ship carcasses will sink to the bottom and stay there for the rest of the match, or something? If it won't detriment the game performance-wise, then I think it'd be pretty cool.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by Arrow
    I think adding the seafloor is a good idea, if only for submariners so they can see where the shallow water IS, rather than having a good fleet sub (*cough*Sibuyan*cough*) start surfacing without, any visual rhyme or reason.

    On the topic of the seafloor, do you think ship carcasses will sink to the bottom and stay there for the rest of the match, or something? If it won't detriment the game performance-wise, then I think it'd be pretty cool.
    I hope if a ship that sinks in shallow water then it will remain partially above water. And you should be able to ground ships, since having a 70,000 ton battleship cruising along 20ft from a beach looks rather stupid. Hey thats an idea, having areas of shallow water in which only smaller ships can go, with channels for larger ships. Some kind of sonar icon that showed how much clearance you had between the keel and seabed and whether the depth was increasing or deacreasing would mean you wouldn't be always running ashore. And if ships hulks remained on the seabed, having a ship sink in a channel could block the channel, or provide an unseen obstacle for an enemy to run aground on. I wouldn't like all the maps to be like focussed on this, like I wouldn't like all the maps to be set at night, but this could provide some interesting tactical variety if done right.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    Therein lies a problem, however. If a grounded ship can't sink, then does that mean it's invincible? Since we have weapon repair and all, destroying the turrets wouldn't do a thing.

  12. #12
    Maybe having a new damage system, where turrets are harder to knock out, but once they are knocked out they take a longer time to repair? Or making turret damage permament which would give the new repair docks something to do. And you could always have magazine explosions as one of the ways a sinking ship can die. Alternatively, or in addition to this, you could have it so repairs ceased when the ship went down, leaving the ship to shoot it out until it blew up or lost all its guns.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    29
    i'd just like to reiterate out of every new feature Pacific could have, a ranked squad-based matchmaking system is by far my #1 feature request.

    If they could even simply patch Midway with this feature it would be fantastic. In Halo you can sit back, play with your friends and it finds new opponents for you -- just choose a playlist and go.

    Gears of War 2 is addressing this issue; no reason why Pacific will not.

  14. #14
    It would also be cool if you could use planes to spot targets on the other side of an obsatcle. Like, say you were in a battleship on one side of a mountain island, and there was a small fleet on the other side. Just send a plane to the location and rain lead on the fleet.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    Originally Posted by TrickMyWarthog
    It would also be cool if you could use planes to spot targets on the other side of an obsatcle. Like, say you were in a battleship on one side of a mountain island, and there was a small fleet on the other side. Just send a plane to the location and rain lead on the fleet.
    It can be possible when you intend to fire over obstacles, but for standing in one spot and sending a single plane to start blasting would be...kind of overpowered. The way the ships are scaled means that you'd be practically firing around the globe.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by Arrow
    Therein lies a problem, however. If a grounded ship can't sink, then does that mean it's invincible? Since we have weapon repair and all, destroying the turrets wouldn't do a thing.
    i think thats easy to solve
    the ship sinks as far as it can go and you simply cant control it anymore like it sunk in deep water
    so you have a beached but useless wreck
    -=)CSF(=-Haruna

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by Arrow
    It can be possible when you intend to fire over obstacles, but for standing in one spot and sending a single plane to start blasting would be...kind of overpowered. The way the ships are scaled means that you'd be practically firing around the globe.
    I was talking about something like in Steel Monsters with that big island. Where they're still in range but you cant train your guns on them because there's a big mountain in the way. This is how it could work; you could send a plane to the location, position it somewhere where it can see the enemy, then you can switch to the plane and it could have some sort of spotting reticle as one of the weapons. The plane could control itself and circle one area, and the reticle could be controlled like the B-17's guns.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    I had a hunch that's what you meant, and it can definitely work under the right circumstances. Steel Monsters specifically, I don't think would work because the whole point of Steel Monsters is to be a giant naval deathmatch - adding planes there would defeat the whole point. But in another scenario, with a CV and/or a shipyard capable of launching planes with the sole purpose of that - it can definitely work.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by TrickMyWarthog
    I was talking about something like in Steel Monsters with that big island. Where they're still in range but you cant train your guns on them because there's a big mountain in the way. This is how it could work; you could send a plane to the location, position it somewhere where it can see the enemy, then you can switch to the plane and it could have some sort of spotting reticle as one of the weapons. The plane could control itself and circle one area, and the reticle could be controlled like the B-17's guns.
    At the current maximum gun range of 1.6 miles for a typical BB, the angle of impact for a shell is around 5 degrees from the horizontal. So the shells trajectory is almost flat and you wouldn't be able to fire over the island anyway. Now if BSP has longer gun ranges, and if the designers take some liberties by raising the shells flight path then it might work, but otherwise this isn't possible.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    17
    I really hope, there's a better solution for the carriers/airfields.

    The current system almost forces you to kamikaze your planes, so either carriers should have a lot less planes or an entirely different system.

  21. #21
    Originally Posted by Starfury
    I really hope, there's a better solution for the carriers/airfields.

    The current system almost forces you to kamikaze your planes, so either carriers should have a lot less planes or an entirely different system.
    More aircraft in the air, and less planes on the carrier. If you had a total of 80 planes, which is about right for most of the fleet carriers, and could put up 20 at a time, then you would only have 4 waves. Anyone who crashed their planes would run out really fast.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    That's one way to do it. Why didn't we think of that? >.>

  23. #23
    Originally Posted by David603
    At the current maximum gun range of 1.6 miles for a typical BB, the angle of impact for a shell is around 5 degrees from the horizontal. So the shells trajectory is almost flat and you wouldn't be able to fire over the island anyway. Now if BSP has longer gun ranges, and if the designers take some liberties by raising the shells flight path then it might work, but otherwise this isn't possible.
    I love the Idea, It's just what we need to avoid the "Ring around the Rosie" that SO many people seem to enjoy. I'd love to see something put in place so that people couldn't hide behind the island and force me to play a game of chase for 20 minutes where not a shot gets fired. Also the shell trajectory is NOT that flat. They would very easily clear the island on steel monsters at range. I'm not saying the guns should be fired to clear every Island at range. Like if you fired over a higher island, the range should be shorter and you should have to be closer to the island.

  24. #24
    Originally Posted by battleshipman
    I love the Idea, It's just what we need to avoid the "Ring around the Rosie" that SO many people seem to enjoy. I'd love to see something put in place so that people couldn't hide behind the island and force me to play a game of chase for 20 minutes where not a shot gets fired. Also the shell trajectory is NOT that flat. They would very easily clear the island on steel monsters at range. I'm not saying the guns should be fired to clear every Island at range. Like if you fired over a higher island, the range should be shorter and you should have to be closer to the island.
    On BSM the shells have a high, short trajectory, which is completely unrealistic. The steepest angle you will find a shell falling at is around 40 degrees, and this would occur at around 35,000m. But from the videos, it looks like the shell trajectory has been made more realistic, and I think gun range has been extended as well from the videos.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444
    To reiterate my own stance on the matter, I definitely want the idea implemented, but I'm not sure if it should be done specifically with planes.

    But since seaplanes are already in it I suppose it won't matter at this point >.>

Page 1 of 2 12 Last