What makes TTR TTR?
|
08-19-2005, 04:41 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-19-2005 04:51 AM by shift.)
Post: #4
|
|||
|
|||
RE: What makes TTR TTR?
If you don\'t mind I\'ll do a bit of dirty double posting stuff to add some things I\'d like to see in the new TTR.
- Make the game to adjust dinamically to the playercount This one was one of the biggest issues with the old TTR. By definition TTR is a teamplay game. That proved to be a real handicap in the moments where the playerbase was minimal (like now) making difficult even for hardcore TTRers to play 1vs1 or 2vs2 games. And thinking that you guys are talking about servers with playercounts of around 128 ppl, well, this worries me. You\'ll have a problem with the game if it can\'t be played with low playercounts. Especially at first, where just the hardcore will be there to play and we\'ll be the ones that\'ll make the core base at servers, attracting possible new players. After all, nobody wants to play on an empty (or almost empty) server. Just take into account a server full of hardcorers; being veeery optimistic that\'d be around (25/128 ) players. Still not enough. Also, having to defend 4 objectives in a 2vs2 match doesn\'t work. Defense in those cases gets rather difficult, so everyone wants to go attacker. Also, making TTR able to be fun with low playercounts can make the game survive even in the worst moments (like the post 1.2 disaster, when basically the 80% of players left). So, what the idea I\'m playing about would be to make the quantity of objectives related to playercount. Things affected would be: - Number of objectives - Global map time count - Respawning time It\'s illogical to have a map thought for 128 players, where there would probably be about lots of objectives, when just 4 or 6 players are in. Cutting down the objectives here would make things fairer for both teams. Maybe there could be an \"objective priority list\" and those lower objectives would be the ones cut down in case of need. Also, with low player counts some map times are excessive. They should be shortened in that case. Same for respawning times. If you are the only defender and you have to wait 40 seconds to respawn, you\'r screwed. Apart from this, the high playercount you all have mentioned can drive to other problems, like massification at the objectives. This can be good in fact, giving a more real-like feeling of warfare (lots of men running and shooting to take that hill), but it can be a real pain in the ass if you want to do a minimal teamwork. Just thinking about trying to make a coordinate attack with 64 more players makes me trhive. So, maybe you could adopt a \"squad based\" game style in the new TTR. Players are grouped in squads by default, and each squad has its own objective. This little groups would be easier to manage and coordinate, making them more effective and, finally, fun to play. Once an objective is won or lost that squad is given another objective, basically supporting another squad that is already defending or attacking. And, finally, watch map times. Apart from all that I\'ve already mentioned there\'s a problem that relates map times with teamplay. If you make maps about 40mins long (as we already have in Merderet) or longer (128 players suggest that) you have the danger of loosing some players in the match process (not everybody will be willing to play the same map for almost an hour, so some ppl will just quit). And, losing half the team in the heat of the battle can kill your tactics, having to reasign orders each time a player leaves or joins. But maybe this isn\'t really a real big issue, not sure here. Oh, and keep the server bug-free. Server crashes were one of the reasons that killed TTR (even hardcore TTRers left an afternoon of good fun because of it, just imagine the impact it had in newcomers...). |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 19 Guest(s)