I remember things differently. I was in the Socom 2 beta and there was some feedback on the forums. A board moderator got direct feedback from the devs and relayed it to the boards occasionally. We also received a patch about a week into the beta (it was unplayable before that). They also tweaked a lot of the weapons post beta.GQman2121 said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
SOCOM Confrontation - The thread (bringing back the REAL!)
- Thread starter Doel
- Start date
The Take Out Bandit
Member
Doel said:
What's juvenile about my stance? No more juvenile than saying "everybody that agrees with me is right and everyone who doesn't is 'juvenile'".
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.
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...
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...
Warhawk definitely seems like more of your thing, and after playing the beta I could tell that it was not my thing though it was fun in short bursts.The Take Out Bandit said:What's juvenile about my stance? No more juvenile than saying "everybody that agrees with me is right and everyone who doesn't is 'juvenile'".
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.
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.
Ya but I doubt they would go all the way back to that naming scheme. I didn't even remember that to be completely honest and I have in fact played the game in the past month.dabig2 said:
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!
recklessmind said:
Yea, and it's also why the series has never been a big mainstream success. There's a lot of stuff that needs to be updated, all the socom players are for some reason scared of the game evolving. Change can be a very good thing. Like the mic question...why exactly would anyone want to push to talk when you could have a squad system or open mic?
dralla said:
Squad system would be awesome.
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".
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.
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.
BUCKFUSH187
Member
so when does this game come out, it better not be after COD4. If they were smart they would release it in august.
The Take Out Bandit
Member
dralla said:
SOCOM's mic system is such rancid ass.
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
Doel said:
Can you explain to me exactly why you couldn't do the same exact thing in Resistance? It's called a Custom games list, it's been in online gaming forever. There's no reason to split the base into 50 different servers. Do you know how non-user friendly that is? Can you imagine not being a big online gamer logging into Confrontation and seeing the screen filled with 50 different servers?
Doel said:
Are you implying that people never quit out of Socom matches with the server setup? Quitting out of games is just a part of online gaming, there's absolutely no way of stopping it, get used to it.
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.
Both your arguments are horrible.dralla said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And please, don't change the lobby system. I want freedom when I play online.
NEW NEWS! Slant Six explains the online lobby/match making system in one of their posts:
A mix of both. I'm happy with it
A mix of both. I'm happy with it
Doel said:NEW NEWS! Slant Six explains the online lobby/match making system in one of their posts:
A mix of both. I'm happy with it
Awesome news!
*hugs PS3*
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
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.
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.
GotchaForce
Member
I was never into the realistic military stuff until R6: Vegas. I'm interested in this but if I get Call of Duty 4 what are the reasons I should get this?
Doel said:NEW NEWS! Slant Six explains the online lobby/match making system in one of their posts:
A mix of both. I'm happy with it
No clan party-> random ranked games? Like wtf. The whole point of having a clan is being able to play WITH the clan AGAINST other people in RANKED games. I don't want to play no custom game (all shotty, all sniper, one hit kill) bullshit.
Kittonwy said:No clan party-> random ranked games? Like wtf. The whole point of having a clan is being able to play WITH the clan AGAINST other people in RANKED games. I don't want to play no custom game (all shotty, all sniper, one hit kill) bullshit.
But you can join a ranked game before it starts in the pre-game lobby. You cannot do this with Resistance if I'm not mistaken, hence the need for a party.
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).
TTP said:
But it is not the same.
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.
They haven't said anything about that stuff yet.recklessmind said:
It doesn't sound like you've had much experience with SOCOM games. The so-called 'Custom games' are not bastardized versions of the game like it is in Resistance. 90% of the rooms people make involve Clan Recruiting, Medley rooms (a rotation of all the maps), Clan Wars, or just basically normal rooms with a selection of maps. And then there are the occasional 'Pistols Only' and 'Sniper's boundary' rooms.Kittonwy said:No clan party-> random ranked games? Like wtf. The whole point of having a clan is being able to play WITH the clan AGAINST other people in RANKED games. I don't want to play no custom game (all shotty, all sniper, one hit kill) bullshit.
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.
Because they will be completely different experiences. SOCOM is very unique which you don't quite understand till you wrap your hands around it and really dig into it, and CoD4 looks to be very unique online as well. Both games will be worth it.robut said:
Doel said:
I've played SOCOM since 1, granted I've played more SOCOM 1 than any of the other ones (I have CA but I haven't really started it, didn't play much of 3 which I also own), but this whole "search teh lobby" set-up is cumbersome and not conducive to just getting a clan together and playing other people. I want to set up a party, invite the clan, and then jump in and out of games against dudes, why is this not reasonable versus having to set up a room, invite the clan, and then still have to wait for other dudes to show up?
But you're talking about a room, it's still a room, it's not a party system, it's not centered around the clan, when all is said and done it's still a room where dudes can go in and out of, it doesn't belong to the clan, it's not exclusive to the clan while still being able to play other dudes you don't know, after the round, the other dudes are still there, it's not an exclusive chat space for the clan. SOCOM can benefit from a party system to a great extent.
I wasn't referring to SOCOM when I was talking about that, just an example of an annoying custom game set-up. I much rather prefer a pre-determined, well-balanced set-up, I'm not a big fan of pistol-only or shotty-only either.
Don't get me wrong, I LIKE SOCOM, on the other hand, I'm advocating a party system that is something that can improve the community aspect by letting one gather his friends but the game handling much of the match-making process. Right now it seems the two are mutually exclusive. I don't want to go into the match-making process without the clan, I don't play solo, and as a clan I would prefer being able to be matched up against similarly skilled (or unskilled) players, without having to set up a room and then waiting for dudes to show even after most of the clan has shown up ready to play. Dudes have to decide to go into the room and want to play, whereas a match-making process just dumps the dudes who already want to play into a set up against your party and everybody has to put in the effort or lose, after the round, you don't have to care whether the dudes would want to hang around, because your party can be matched up against other dudes, no "waiting for dudes to show". You know, kind of like how you can have a bunch of friends in your HOME room and then go into a game?
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.