|
Member
(08-04-2007, 04:59 AM)
|
#101
Originally Posted by GQman2121:
|
|
|
|
Member
(08-04-2007, 05:52 AM)
|
#103
Originally Posted by garrickk:
Balancing > Zipper |
|
grrrrrrr bungle snitches!
rrrrrrrrrrrrr baba britches! sumthin sumthin itches! DRAGGGUUULLLAAA!!! (08-04-2007, 06:49 AM)
|
#104
Originally Posted by Doel:
I'm not claiming SOCOM 3 is perfect, shit that huge desert stage was too large for 32 players, and horribly barren. That doesn't mean nice larger than S2 stages cannot be made. Ah well, it's a moot point. You'll keep playing SOCOM 2 and SOCOM 2-like SOCOM games. I admit, I only bothered with SOCOM (boohoo, a mere 300 some hours on-line) because it was remotely intriguing, and the PS2 was severely lacking on-line content. Now with the PS3 and PSN, there are more on-line games in my preferred areas so I can probably do without. Warhawk will likely replace the spot the SOCOM series filled for my on-line gaming fix. :) |
|
Member
(08-04-2007, 07:39 AM)
|
#105
Thank god they elaborated that the radar enemy blips are indeed optional and only for non-ranked games. That was probably the most hated on feature of this game.
Now, the next main point is how their online lobby system will look like. And any other Socom'ers miss the country-named rooms from Socom 1? I would definitely like a little more "flavor" than US-East#, West#, Central#, etc... |
|
Member
(08-04-2007, 07:47 AM)
|
#106
Originally Posted by dabig2:
In s2 and s3, it was like US East 5333 and so on. |
|
(08-04-2007, 12:41 PM)
|
#107
Originally Posted by The Take Out Bandit:
And my juvenile comment was directed at the way you seemed to be attacking me and putting words in my mouth (I never said they can't advance the series, there are just other ways of doing that). Not about your opinions.
Originally Posted by dabig2:
As long as they have that same lobby structure as past SOCOM games I'll be happy. They can name them whatever they want, just give me that lobby structure! |
|
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
(08-08-2007, 12:41 AM)
|
#109
Originally Posted by Doel:
|
|
Member
(08-08-2007, 12:52 AM)
|
#110
Originally Posted by recklessmind:
|
|
Banned
(08-08-2007, 01:03 AM)
|
#111
Originally Posted by dralla:
I don't get the whole 9 billion servers thing, the last thing I want to do is to have to search a bunch of servers just for a game and not finding it. Why not just hop on, start a party and invite everyone on your friends list or clan, jump into some ranked games? Want to play against another clan? Just make a game and then tell the other party to join, much simpler than the whole "meet me at US EAST 5 at 8PM, oh shit I was late when I make teh room everybody couldn't find it so they left". |
|
Have a fun! Enjoy!
(08-08-2007, 01:39 AM)
|
#113
Originally Posted by dralla:
|
|
(08-08-2007, 01:40 AM)
|
#114
There is no problem with it evolving, but it IS possible to evolve the franchise without changing the feel of the game and runing the community. Like I've suggested, giving your player more range of actions and movement would be a way to evolve it (hanging from ledges, laying on your back and throwing a nade behind you, that sort of thing).
There is a very particular reason why it needs to retain the same server-based layout. I don't mind them adding a party system for ranked match-making in addition to the server interface, but that server-based layout NEEDS to be there. SOCOM has been about meeting new people, joining clans, having clan matches, and that is where their online interface and lobby system excels. I can make a room, call it "[SBS] Recruiting", add the maps I want play, and then people who are looking for a clan may join the room and try out for the clan. I then can send them a clan invite while still in the game. And if I chose to leave the room, the next person in line takes over as host and nobody gets booted from the room and they can continue to play. And each clan has their home server where they like to play and are familiar with the clans in their server. The clan I was in had US East 5 as our home server, and we became familiar with the other clans and people that played in that server, formed relationships, sometimes mergers, etc. It was really its own community, and each of the servers was like a mini community. Not to mention SOCOM uses a round-based system where the first team to win 6 rounds (6min each) wins the match. How could you possibly accomplish that in another way without people leaving in the middle of a game? Remember, match making doesn't allow people to join in the middle of a current game. SOCOM Confrontation needs to retain that system or it truly will not feel like a SOCOM game. |
|
(08-08-2007, 01:44 AM)
|
#115
so when does this game come out, it better not be after COD4. If they were smart they would release it in august.
|
|
(08-08-2007, 02:01 AM)
|
#116
Originally Posted by BUCKFUSH187:
|
|
(08-08-2007, 02:12 AM)
|
#118
After it's E3 no-show, and tidbits from Seth Luisi of Sony saying that they aren't rushing it, and it'll come out when it's done, leads me to believe its been delayed till next year.
|
|
I am Wayne Brady.
(08-08-2007, 02:37 AM)
|
#120
Originally Posted by Defuser:
can not find a definative answer for the life of me. i've asked around, looked everywhere. Some people seem set on a early 08 release, and some people are like "november, duhhh every SOCOM comes out in november". I want my SOCOMs nowsies. |
|
grrrrrrr bungle snitches!
rrrrrrrrrrrrr baba britches! sumthin sumthin itches! DRAGGGUUULLLAAA!!! (08-08-2007, 02:43 AM)
|
#121
Originally Posted by dralla:
Trying to escort hostages, pinned down by enemy fire, and you can't request back-up because some cunt is on the comm. bitching about last nights math homework or some other bullshit. I don't mind the lobbies, but that's mainly because I use the random game selection option. Although that's problematic as I've joined "private rooms" that are magically not private because morons can't figure out how to password protect their allegedly private rooms. :lol |
|
Member
(08-08-2007, 03:08 AM)
|
#122
Originally Posted by Doel:
Originally Posted by Doel:
This weak quitting arguement is exactly what I'm talking about..Socom fans are fucking delusional using their flakey logic to justify the lack of change in a series which clearly needs it. |
|
(08-08-2007, 03:34 AM)
|
#124
Originally Posted by dralla:
1. How is sifting through a list of 300 matches better then having them split up among different servers. I can not figure out for the life of me how ANYONE prefers 1 page of every single room that is up. SOCOM 2 had 40K unique players on at once on a nightly basis. That would be insane! Its well known that SOCOM has one of the best online interfaces/lobby set-ups around. It spawns a sense of community in each server that you don't get with traditional, 1 page, set-ups. Your opinion on this is in the minority. *Not to mention, each server has its own 'Medley' rooms where it cycles through all the maps in the game with the default settings. These rooms have been very popular and its easy to join a server and then join one of these rooms.* 2. People quit SOCOM matches, but people also JOIN SOCOM matches in the middle of a game. The current make-up of match-making doesn't make this possible. Which is why it should stick to ranked games only (and even then, how would it be done unless they cut down the round count). And with a pure match-making set-up, there is no sense of community. |
|
(08-08-2007, 03:41 AM)
|
#126
Originally Posted by Safe Bet:
|
|
Member
(08-08-2007, 03:59 AM)
|
#127
1. It's called a filter. It's very easy to filter out games you don't want to see. or better yet jump right into matchmaking which puts you against players of the same skill level. Thus, every player would not appear on the custom server list. SII had 40K people, and how many do you expect to see on the PS3? There's only 5 million PS3's out there. Another reason why the server set up is not needed, the PS3's tiny userbase. And if it's so well known how 'great' the lobby system is, why has no other company used it!? I guess it's so good they wouldn't feel right using it.
2. Again, there's nothing you can do about quitting, it just comes with online gaming. EVERY game has quiiters wether they use matchmaking, server list, ect. It doesn't stop people from playing Resistance's matchmaking.
Last edited by dralla; 08-08-2007 at 04:12 AM.
|
|
Member
(08-08-2007, 04:10 AM)
|
#128
Originally Posted by dralla:
You sound like a guy who wants socom to be like every other tactical shooter. Us fans arent delusional, we just want Socom to remain unique as it is. |
|
Member
(08-08-2007, 04:13 AM)
|
#130
Originally Posted by dralla:
|
|
(08-08-2007, 04:33 AM)
|
#133
dralla, all I can tell you is that SOCOM was/is applauded for having a neatly organized lobby set up and online interface. And with that came other benefits such as the communities built around each server which you still haven't addressed in any of your responses.
The media does have a couple hardcore SOCOM fans, namely N'Gai and Joe Rybicki. And if you listen to the 4min clip to the 1up podcast I have posted in my topic where they discuss SOCOM, John and Garnett both played and understand what SOCOM is about, and also shed light on the fact that SOCOM 3 de-railed the franchise. You don't even seem interested in SOCOM and are just looking for a debate. I'm not sure why you're posting in this topic. |
|
Member
(08-08-2007, 04:49 AM)
|
#134
I just want Slant Six to give the room creators more options, rather than forcing changes upon them. If you want to implement enemy radar, fine, let the room creator decide whether he/she wants that in the game. (Which they are doing; thumbs up)
And please, don't change the lobby system. I want freedom when I play online. |
|
(08-08-2007, 07:25 PM)
|
#135
NEW NEWS! Slant Six explains the online lobby/match making system in one of their posts:
Quote:
|
|
Have a fun! Enjoy!
(08-08-2007, 07:32 PM)
|
#136
Originally Posted by Doel:
*hugs PS3* |
|
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
(08-08-2007, 09:39 PM)
|
#138
Doel... have they said anything about animation?
I could live with, basically, Socom I gameplay wrapped up in Socom II community/server features... I mean... I would pay for that. But then again... I wouldn't mind if they updated the player animation a bit. So far, I've seen nothing new. I think they need to rework some stuff: like all player movement when prone... add a roll and a fast crawl... Another thing I notice (and maybe this only bothers me) is that the player never seems to drop his weapon down like in the old games... it's always up, and at the ready. One of the things I always liked about Socom is how to could lightly press the R1 to shoulder your weapon. It gave you a variety of different animations (most noticeable was when you had a handgun equipped) and would also give you an advantage over a person who still had their weapon down by their hip. I hate how in Ghost Recon MP the dude always has his rifle up by his face... looks so retarded when you're running full speed. More animations could improve the game and keep to the spirit of the originals. A Syphon Filter roll... the slide you see in GRAW... stuff like that. Rifle butt attack to the face... a contextual knife kill, if you can sneak up behind someone a wait a sec or two. Better animation and player abilities would do so much more to advance the franchise than adding things like vehicles and gigantic maps/player counts. Imo. |
|
Banned
(08-08-2007, 10:31 PM)
|
#140
Originally Posted by Doel:
|
|
Have a fun! Enjoy!
(08-08-2007, 10:37 PM)
|
#141
Originally Posted by Kittonwy:
In SOCOM (as well as in Warhawk), all u need to do is check your clan members list to see if anybody is online and then you just select "Join game" to reach him. At the end you get the same results (meet up with your guys in a ranked match). |
|
Banned
(08-08-2007, 10:47 PM)
|
#143
Originally Posted by TTP:
The party lobby in Resistance is where the clan can gather before going into the game, and it's JUST THE CLAN where you can discuss strategy and other shit without people from outside the clan meddling in our conversations, and it keeps the clan together, THEN the whole clan can jump into AND OUT OF a ranked game. I want to automatically play on the same side as my clan/folks on my friends list, NOT against them. Right now this kind of system (like that in Warhawk) is very much match-centric and not party/clan-centric, clans and friends can drift in and out of a game, I would much prefer a system like Resistance where the games come and go while the clan/party stays intact. People jump in and out of the party, the party jump in and out of games, games begin and end without affecting the integrity of the party, instead of what we have here which is you have to be in a game to recruit your clan and it's not really a party system, and if there isn't enough room you have to leave part of your clan behind instead of your whole clan jumping in as one entity. Right now the clan is just a list, there's no real party. I want to party.
Last edited by Kittonwy; 08-08-2007 at 10:52 PM.
|
|
(08-08-2007, 11:41 PM)
|
#146
Originally Posted by recklessmind:
Originally Posted by Kittonwy:
You can easily stay in the same rooms with your clans because when the host leaves it seamlessly switches to the next person in line. Doesn't boot the room or pause the action. And after a game it brings everyone back to the lobby. Also, you've never had the ability to change things like how many bullets it takes to kill someone, and you hopefully never will.
Originally Posted by robut:
Last edited by Doel; 08-08-2007 at 11:44 PM.
|
|
Member
(08-08-2007, 11:50 PM)
|
#147
Originally Posted by Safe Bet:
|
|
Banned
(08-09-2007, 01:52 AM)
|
#150
Originally Posted by Doel:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not trying to knock the game, I just want the game to take a look at something Insomniac has done with their match-making and community, because it works and it works very well, it makes it very easy for people who aren't actively involved in hardcore clans but want to play with friends in ranked situations to be able to do so.
Last edited by Kittonwy; 08-09-2007 at 02:13 AM.
|