Anyone who's been talking to me recently can attest to the extent that this game has caught my imagination. What excites me most about the game is the opportunity for tactics on a grand scale.

Those Europeans are normally first out of the gate with good new ideas and this one is no exception. What they propose to do (and have done previously with DoD i belive) is to play out the entire war through the different maps in the game. Armies are created at the beginning of the war and then split into units with commanders making strategic decisions. Each map is played out over long periods of time (12 hours is proposed on that site). And after the battle is decided the war moves on into a new theatre of operation.

When i first read about the concept i though it would be a brilliant way to bring the potential of BF1942 to life. But it raises the question of where do clans and ladders fit into it all? What I propose will probably not be too popular but i think it has potential. Rather than having groups forming mini-armies or clans, players join regiments that suit their fighting style and preferred class. So each army would have a dedicated engineers core, medical core, scout core etc. These groups train separately on skills and together on tactics and for each map subsets of the cores (so to scale to the 32 or 64 players limit) would be selected according to the strategy that will be used.

This isn't to say that the idea of clans need be ditched, but i think in the context of a massive war like that proposed above it just doesn't fit. There will no doubt always be clan ladders and wars but i honestly think unless clans expand to be 32players then the potential of the game is being wasted.

Anywho i'll shut up now and see what you guys think of this. Should we try get something like this going in Australia (and New Zealand?), maybe have Interstate wars. Or should something like this be reserved for big lans?

sounds 1337, id join if it happened sounds ub3r fun.

If they where to play out the coarse of history and ze axis win ( in the game ) its not quite running the coarse of history, is it?

and your point would be.........

We can rewrite history.
Sign me up for the airbourne!

Regiments? Somewhat like Royal Queensland Regiment?

Sounds awesome. Go RQR!

Sounds like a good name for it eye_kandy, let's use it!

I am thinking of making some sort of thing like this for qgls ...
maybe not quite as extreme ... but allong the same ideas.

because clan v clan games (unless they where like 32 vs 32) are going to suck wang.

because clan v clan games (unless they where like 32 vs 32) are going to suck wang.

utter crap 16 v 16 is sufficient

rommel: sufficient but not optimal, i'm not debating that you can have a perfectly enjoyable game 16v16 but if the maps and the game allow 64 then why wouldn't you take advantage of it.

The two teams vs two teams idea was the best I've heard so far.

That is, 2 8 man teams vs another 2 8 mans teams for 16 vs 16.

The teams would be shuffled around so everyone fights each other team and fights along side each other team. It would make for some interesting combos.
Like having very rival clans having to team up :D

Denny, with the servers running like they do now, 64 player isnt going to happen without a super chunky server.

i love the idea fo 2 x 8 man teams. That means 4 clans play in one game. if the game gets larger than 32 players then respawn time would have to be increaded to 60 seconds otherwise it would be an on slaw.

maybe not but tatics would be interesting.

yes it is tollazor - stop trying to crush the dream!

my 32 player server at qgl .... p3 850 512 meg ram, was running the server betweent 17 adn 35 fps with 32 players .. double that with 16 players.

Although some situations may be that (for example) RQR team up with some other awesome team, and play two n00b clans. it would be domination.

rommel: sufficient but not optimal, i'm not debating that you can have a perfectly enjoyable game 16v16 but if the maps and the game allow 64 then why wouldn't you take advantage of it.

Indeed it is not optimal, but its the most practical for online clan play, at a lan, 32 v 32 would be nice, but what clan has 32 member? :(

rommel: hence the needs to do away with the clan paradigm, form a Queensland army and conquer the world.

Rommel - don't play in clans then, that's what the regiment idea is there for.

the idea of 2 teams vs 2 teams is that they don't play 1 game together they play 3 or 4 games together, play with all teams on all sides of a map.

People are missing the point, Denny's idea has nothing to do with clans, forget about clans, rules for clan games are a totally separate issue. I think what Denny proposes is a pretty awesome idea actually, it'd take a fair bit of planning, but I'd be in for it, sounds like a cool and really original idea.

rommel: hence the needs to do away with the clan paradigm, form a Queensland army and conquer the world.

that being the point where teamwork and communication become flakey.

You still have teamwork and communication, it just has to be more structured. Whereas in a small 6v6 environment anyone in the team can yell out to anyone else, in a 32v32 environment it'd have to be more structured. You'd almost have to have smaller squads/clans within the larger "regiment" (that seems to be the adopted term), and each squad would have a leader I guess, who co-ordinates that squad, then all the leaders co-ordinate with each other, so you dont have 32 different people all trying to communicate with each other.

yeah as khel said clans are fine, think of them as private little armies, i'm proposing a conglomerate of regiments who all specialise in particular facets of warfare.

clan wars would be an entirely different competition that could easily run in tandem with this proposal.

Stop speaking big words denny. Break it down for me brother.

What are all the areas of expertise?

You still have teamwork and communication

yes... i realise this, but like i said, flakey..

The two T2 clans I have been in both had 30+ members at their hieght and alomst always play 16v16.

Big games are great but there are some problems that go along with having such large teams.

1)Organising so many ppl to be in the same place and on time.
2)Team positions
3)Day to day comunications
4)In game comms (ever had 16 ppl yelling down Roger wilco)it's not much fun trust me.

What I reckon could work was if clans form alliances with other clans. Have clans that have 10-20 players (you'll need extras to make sure you always have enough ppl).

You could have two clans playing on the same side each one having a different area to cover ie Clan1 protects point B on the map while Clan2 attacks point A ect ect.

Of course you'd only form an alliance with a clan you got on with and not unrealiable SK clan full of tking tossers.Although any clan would be able to form an alliance with what ever clan they want and at any time prior to the acceptance of a match.Obviously the challenging clan/clans would have gotten together prior to the challenge to talk about who they want to attack. eg clanA ask clanB to help them knock off ClanC. ClanC then enlists the help of ClanD and accepts the challenge.

The two attacking clans obviously wouldn't know at that time who the second team would be. But that would add to the fun of it. It would be upto clan leadders to do the diplomatic work between the clans they want to work with.

Ladders could be made up to give points equally to both clans that are on the winning side,that wouldn't be a problem.

Thats enough for now I have more ideas, I'll postthem later.

If two clans play together and one proves to be a hassle then you just don't ask them for help anymore.

You'd also find that the most active and realiable clans would get asked for assistance most often,because they can be counted on to 1)show up and 2)have enough people. But obviously the most skilled clans will be the most sought after as partners in wars.

If by chance there are clans that have enough players to stand alone in a 16v16 game any wins they got would gain them 2pts. But if two clans got together for a match and won they'd only get a point each. It's always going to be harder to run a big team than a smaller one.

i read the first few posts then quickly jumped down to the bottom... but hows this

clans can be made up of 4, 6 or 8 players. these clans would then get asked to play in a war, depending on how good they are etc

like, heres clan X, they have an uber scout, a decent engy, a not so good tank man, and good medic, they have decent skills in terms of vehicles, but are generally uber defence.

theres clan y, they have concentrated mainly in assault, majoring in tank work and apcs. they would be your ideal choice for gunslinging assault.

theres clan z, they are the airborne squad, thats all they do, day in, day out.


then you can say, okay, i want to have a big war against team whatever, i want to do a lot of infiltration work, so i pick up clan z, dont need much defense, so ill go with the gung ho clan y etc

somtehing like a pick n pay, clans dont necessarily have to be 16-32 players, they can be 4-8 and then be asked to play alongside another clan, as a combined team.

so the best clan may not be the one that wins the most, but the most versatile, and hence the one that gets asked to play the most.

i dunno, rambling food for thought, its all up here though. /me taps noggin

tung yes that's basically what i had in mind.

wars are fought by groups of regiments who all specialise in particular areas.

I think organisation will be the killer, but apart from that, sounds like a mad idea!

Clans should be the size of a standard DOD clan imo or maybe just a little bit bigger.

It's hard enough to get 1 team of 16 people together at the same time let alone 4 clans of say 4 people each.

I'm all for the idea. The individual clans could play seperately, but I still feel that they should be grouped under one name.

Example, say clantag RQR (as an example). You could have RQR-a, for the RQR airborne division. Or RQR-s for the RQR scouts. They're all seperate clans, as much as f-zero, nK or sync, but they're grouped under one heading of RQR.

Understand?

Yes, I understand now.

Sounds completely cool.

youse are all slow like canadians

but yes you understand what i mean now.

Taipan you need to get your head around the fact that apart from forming a strategy these ARE NOT CLANS.

When i first read about the concept i though it would be a brilliant way to bring the potential of BF1942 to life. But it raises the question of where do clans and ladders fit into it all?

potential and a couple of bucks will buy you a cup of coffee.

the real quaestion will be: 'will enough gamers want to play the game competitvely'



I think not. It's a cool game, but 'coolness' takes 2nd place to popularity. How many Tribes 2 comps have you seen between Ausgamers lans lately? not a lot. this game will be the same methinks.


great game, high system specs, uber teamwork required.

odds are the lowest common demoninator will win again.... CS




such is life

koopz: but i think this game already has the huge groundswell of support to keep it going

odds are the lowest common demoninator will win again.... CS

I'm afraid you're right. I played CS for a few minutes the other day, the first time in years (literally) and I can't for the life of me see why people like it... it has nothing remotely interesting, original or fun in it.

sounds pretty fuken decent ey

Well then its up to us to make SURE it works.

I'm in! How about a BF 1942 comp like this next AusGamers league fellas?

sif
its hard enough to get 5 CS players to turn up, let alone 32

:(

QGL vs Shafted.

That should be a big enough player base.

indeed

its hard enough to get 5 CS players to turn up, let alone 32

And if you read what was happening you would know thats what we are saying ... so something more out of the box has to be introduced... Othwise its going to suck wang.

utter crap 16 v 16 is sufficien

16 v 16 is the smallest you can realy play before it starts to get sparce. On Ihugs 8v8 it does get very empty at times, in fact more often than not one good player runs around capping half of the bases while another good player chases him around.

Even then 16v16 isn't the answer because You won't get that many people showing up constantly.

Again we are trying to look outside the box.

that being the point where teamwork and communication become flakey.

Then you would have to break down to squad based action. Have different teams who jobs are different things. Difuse the team structor up so you can get amazing s*** happening.

As for team communication, I used to play tribes and never have to make a call to rodger wilco, unless it was a simple command, or notice. Actualy truth be told my hotkeys had almost all of the information I needed to tell my team ... Where I Was (In general), if I could see people and how many (I see 1, 2, 3 and many), what kind of units they where. I could tell people what my general tactics where going to be the whole lot.

If I did have to make a verbal command it was because I was doing something that I probably shouldn't or our opponants just did something realy wild and wacky.

Verbal communications tools are limited if you use things like rodger wilco. Teamsound has always allowed for multiple channles, the ability to add hotkeys for automatic messages, and the ability to verbalise into other peoples channles but not cop slaw from the defence team talking (to announce that you just saw heaps of toons comming in just say).

The secret to running a large collection of Clans would be centralised leadership. That is the problem here. Who makes up tactics, and overall stratigy. Who decides who is going to be flying, and who are in tanks and who are the poor saps running everywhere.

If we can solve those problems, we could probably organise State vs State online games. Maybe even a State Vs State lan ... That was the reason we got ADSL into the venues after all.

When i first read about the concept i though it would be a brilliant way to bring the potential of BF1942 to life. But it raises the question of where do clans and ladders fit into it all?

Clans ... Well I suppose clans only get reputation. If you discovered that in the mix of allies you have to fight today (because you clan is axis) is RQR, and the other hardliners ... you know you are in for a world of hurt. The best clans will still imite a level of awe in plebicite clans.

Ladders: Ladders are pretty simplistic tools, and most of them are run with bodgy rules that we don't need to use. Armys vs Armys is pretty simple ... Imagine if Ausgamers ran a online comp, in which QLD had to raise 64 Soldiers. It wouldn't matter who they are ... It wouldnt matter which fag clan won ... QLD players beat those pesky mexicans !

Again organisation is the killer of this out of the box idea.

I lost the plot talking about communication ...

I was reffereing to-:

1. You should know what the f*** you are doing.
2. Go do whatever the f*** you are doing.
3. Don't do anything you where not supposed to do.

If Team B, is Defend the Airbase then thats what Team B does. Sure it might be boring, but you have better chances of winning :D

I think a game like BF1942 could benefit a LOT from player selected and enforced classes aka RTCW. If your going to be a grunt, then your a f***in grunt, you dont jog up to your local arifield and hop in a aircraft..ect...

I think players should be given the option of what class they want to be/are good at..ie. ace sniper or excellent pilot and go with that for that round. Each side has a limited number of classes and away you go. You die, you get to select the same or another class, if someone else has snapped up a pilots job and the allocated number of classes are full then you take what you can get.

As for massive wars, good idea but a s***load of co-ordination.

As for comms the latest Teams speak allows for multiple channels and sub channels apparently. You can have each of your teams on different channels (pilots talking to pilots ect.. funny that) I also believe its possible to have some members on a channel that can hear both and pass on info to those on his channel who cant. gotta check this out./

NOW who remebers that ambitious project that Eidos were attempting several years ago now...FLYING NIGHTMARES?? It was exactly this game BUT the big thing they were intending to do was to have each side have a Supreme Commander who had a third person view of the battlefield and could command (set waypoints ect..) and pass on information to troops in the field.

The concept was brilliant. People who wanted to be pilots could be, tank commanders, grunts, artillery units, the works..and the tactical RTS type people could have had a game were they were commanding real people instead of NPC's...but alas the concept got canned due to lack of funds from memory. :(

If your going to be a grunt, then your a f***in grunt, you dont jog up to your local arifield and hop in a aircraft..ect...

Personally, I think that detracts from the appeal of the game.

but the thing is, many people prefer manning the a-a guns than flyinhg

or driving jeeps around

its what you choose to specialise in, and from there, what youve chosen gets you in

ie, maybe ack-ack guys are in demand, so youll get picked up for a major clan etc

I think a game like BF1942 could benefit a LOT from player selected and enforced classes aka RTCW. If your going to be a grunt, then your a f***in grunt, you dont jog up to your local arifield and hop in a aircraft..ect...

Only problem with that is the level of realism and freedom. Sure a soldier could probably get into a fighter, take off and start flying - but how well? I don't think hard enforcement (ie you're not allowed to use it at all) is the answer so perhaps having differing skills for each person in that particular field. For example, if a soldier gets into a plane, he is going to be pretty crappy at it and probably crash, or not even be able to start it (random inabilities like this would make it interesting). So basically, you might hop in a plane as a sailor or a soldier, start it and fly away on one occasion but not be able to do it on another occasion.

Perhaps in a tank, you might sometimes be not able to fire the cannon, for example.

...or have it like Americas Army where you have to reach a certain proficiecny at training before a class is open to you...

I dunno why these game companies don't hire us..we are full of great ideas!!

:)

You're supposed to be spy sorta characters so of course you can use all the vehicles. Classes would just be silly as one of the big things about the game is that you can bounce around the map doing different stuff, not just another game where you stand around next to stuff you want to use but can't coz you 'dont know how'. The idea of the game is fine and by all indications people like it alot, leave it be. If there's one thing about this game i've seen is not-thought-out remarks about 'what it should be' or changes that *have* to happen.

and btw, screw realism. You don't need altimeters to fly planes, having 10 people in a b-17 wouldn't be a good idea, rockets are better not being like quake etc.

Numbers was my point in the earlier post I wote.

Denny your idea while sounding nice would take a s*** load of organisation.

On the other hand having clans of smaller numbers team up on a match by match basis would be a s*** laod easier.

It wouldn't take long for the serious players and clans to figger out who the other serious clans are, thus knowing who to ask to suport them in a match.

Once indiviual team sizes gets over about 12 people it becomes hard to keep them all informed and together.Not to mention people not being able to play from time to time because of real life commitments.

For a team to field 16 ppl per game you realisticly need at least 20-24 ppl on the teams roster. Then what else happens is you get the nights when everyone shows up wanting a game and some have to sit out(which will piss those ppl off).

A good comp would be that each clan must field say 8 players said clan can then get any other clan they like to play with them to make up the 16 players on there side. Obviously they'd have to ask the other clan if they want to help them out in a match. If those two clans win they'd be given a point each on the ladder for the victory.

What this does is allow smaller numbers of ppl to be more easily organised becuase 8 ppl are easier to sort out than 16-20 or more. This would also give serious clans more oppertunity to play more games.

One of the biggest problems with T2 is trying to have a good number of teams competing in a ladder plus having those teams able to field 16 ppl per match. Add to that that all the talented players gravitate to the top clans.Which leaves a huge skill gap between the clans on the bottom of a ladder and the ones on the top.

You could quite easily have some of the best players getting around in an 8 man clan for BF42. But because you have to use other clans to help you win the skill would be more evenly spread across the comp.

Lets look back inside the box and not try anything new ...

Speaking about "classes" again, one thing I've noticed in Firearms is that people generally stick to what they're good at, which is good because FA doesn't force you to be one particular class. I prefer being a mortar slut, mainly because I can sit back behind friendly lines and blast the crap out of the enemy without ever being touched :). I do however have to sometimes go and put artillery markers out in the field because my team is either full of newbies or just not playing as a team. Anyway, enough of that ranting.

and btw, screw realism. You don't need altimeters to fly planes, having 10 people in a b-17 wouldn't be a good idea, rockets are better not being like quake etc.

Uh and why wouldn't it be a good idea? The sheer fun of working as a team in a bomber would be great. If one person f***s up, the whole lot of you could end up in little bits over Europe.

Does sound like fun,
Just hope the netcode/client to server/server to client is fixed for the full release. Otherwise this kinda thing would definately have to be restricted to Lans

I'm wondering, seeing as this game has now offically gone gold why they havent released the refresh rate fix for the demo as well as the other fixes? Surley those fixes would have been completed before the code went off to pressing?

I thought that it got held back, and that the going gold was just a rumour.

Does sound like fun,
Just hope the netcode/client to server/server to client is fixed for the full release. Otherwise this kinda thing would definately have to be restricted to Lans

The netcode is uber. I can play games with a constant 300ms ping to the homeland server and have a awesome night. Hop on the Gaymarinia servers tho and it starts to smell like ass

Psyco, the game did the typical EA thing and got rushed to release, presumably over the popularity of the demo. Then on a surprise move, EA decided to pull it at the last moment and fix it. Thankfully.

Typo, if you have the bandwidth the netcode is allright.

However, if you use the same bandwidth settings (or similar) as Half-life the network performce is really bad.

Psyco, the game did the typical EA thing and got rushed to release, presumably over the popularity of the demo. Then on a surprise move, EA decided to pull it at the last moment and fix it. Thankfully.

I read that it never went gold in the first place and that the "2nd" announcement was the real one.. but then again it wouldn't surprise me that Ea are screwing around, hell look at V8 challenge.. WORST. TECH-SUPPORT. EVER.

Taipan, you should go start a new thread about bf1942 ladders, cos your ideas are good for ladder games, but they are completely unrelated to the actual point of this thread. Denny's original idea was to try something new, something completely unrelated to our current concept of ladder/clan games, so while the points you are raising are good, they are completely out of context.

While I agree organisation would be a bitch, the whole uber 32v32 player wars is a great idea, and the state vs state thing would make it even better. Rather than "clan" rankings your army/regiment/battalion or whatever you want to call it would get a reputation as being kickass, then within that the different squads/clans would get their own reputation. Like if RQR was a regiment, and as a regiment they had a reputation for laying down smack, but within RQR the engineer corps also had a reputation for being crazy ass mofos who hang onto the wings of planes and parachute in behind enemy lines to sabotage the enemy. How cool would that be!

khel: sif the RQR engineer core is gonna use my cool ideas

MY IDEAS DAMMNIT

MY PARATROOPER CORE

IT'S ALL MINE@!#!@#

No, it's now ©RQR®

Copyright ©2002-2100
kAnDy Marketing.
All rights reserved.

I still don't know people are not blowing there loads over State vs State games ...

who knows typo

phillistines the lot of them