Support NeoGAF

[Arsenic]

I'm surprised. Glad to hear, though 2k+ isn't a bad number in my opinion.

Oh no not at all. But it socom standards, its terrible :lol

But you can still catch a full room pretty often. Its deff not dead

 

[Kittonwy]

The thing is, with 32 players, people DON'T. You can force them (by making it the only way to be successful) but in regular play you rarely get that many people to work together as a team, and on top of that it's not everyone's favourite way to play. The great thing about the SOCOM 1/2 community is that you will often be in games where complete strangers are working together, but then again you only need to worry about 2-8 people per team. With SOCOM 3/CA you have to get 2-16 people to work together. A lot less chance of it happening.

That's why I was saying, the great thing about SOCOM 1/2 is that you can play it how you like, and if you were good enough, you can be successful in any which way. Obviously, in clan matches you would play as a team because that is the most successful way to play if you have a good group of people and strategies to work with.

Yeah but even with 40 players teh gaf clan could be facing another team with both teams using team tactics in Resistance, why can't SOCOM do the same rawr?

JUST ADD A PARTY SYSTEM. So you have PARTY playing against PARTY instead of just a bunch of random dudes. The problem with just having these servers with no party system is that only the clans would be making rooms and then you have random dudes playing together. The lack of a party system will end up being the biggest bane to SOCOM if Slant Six doesn't smarten up and add it.

 

[PAYBACKill]

Yeah but even with 40 players teh gaf clan could be facing another team with both teams using team tactics in Resistance, why can't SOCOM do the same rawr?

JUST ADD A PARTY SYSTEM. So you have PARTY playing against PARTY instead of just a bunch of random dudes. The problem with just having these servers with no party system is that only the clans would be making rooms and then you have random dudes playing together. The lack of a party system will end up being the biggest bane to SOCOM if Slant Six doesn't smarten up and add it.

the server list works great, its very socom, and doesn't need to change.


What the difference is between resistance and socom is it isn't running around in a V...playing as a team would mean a lot of thought if its a team wide set up, and it would be very tied to a particular map. You could get away with the buddy system, a sniper and someone watching his six, for example...but yeah. Party systems are awesome for casuals, clans really dont need them. Ill pass, thanks.

 

[Router]

I haven't played SOCOM since the first game. I need to get back into the series.

 

[Sol..]

Yeah but even with 40 players teh gaf clan could be facing another team with both teams using team tactics in Resistance, why can't SOCOM do the same rawr?

JUST ADD A PARTY SYSTEM. So you have PARTY playing against PARTY instead of just a bunch of random dudes. The problem with just having these servers with no party system is that only the clans would be making rooms and then you have random dudes playing together. The lack of a party system will end up being the biggest bane to SOCOM if Slant Six doesn't smarten up and add it.

It's not necessary. Sometimes parties can ruin games for people who aren't in parties. hince why IW had to add pick up playlists. The SOCOM system is fine. The party system was only necessary to make up for many of the problems of various games throughout Live. In a stable, persistant system it just isn't needed.

Although it wouldn't hurt to complement the old. I just wouldn't use it. All i need to know is go to East 2.....where everybody knows your name. Damn shame there are people out there who just don't know that feelin'. It literally ruined multiplayer gameplay for me (in a good way).

 

[Doel]

Yeah but even with 40 players teh gaf clan could be facing another team with both teams using team tactics in Resistance, why can't SOCOM do the same rawr?

JUST ADD A PARTY SYSTEM. So you have PARTY playing against PARTY instead of just a bunch of random dudes. The problem with just having these servers with no party system is that only the clans would be making rooms and then you have random dudes playing together. The lack of a party system will end up being the biggest bane to SOCOM if Slant Six doesn't smarten up and add it.

A party system doesn't automatically = people playing as a team. With or without a party system, you still end up with friends in a room playing together and some lone wolves. The lobby system is great the way it is and what makes SOCOM what it is. It builds small communities around different servers, has servers built around clan matches only, allows you to easily find a game that's playing a random set up maps and modes, etc.

They've already confirmed this lobby system is coming back. Whether they also want to add a party system on top of that is up to their own discretion. I personally don't feel it needs it.

 

[Kittonwy]

the server list works great, its very socom, and doesn't need to change.


What the difference is between resistance and socom is it isn't running around in a V...playing as a team would mean a lot of thought if its a team wide set up, and it would be very tied to a particular map. You could get away with the buddy system, a sniper and someone watching his six, for example...but yeah. Party systems are awesome for casuals, clans really dont need them. Ill pass, thanks.

Objective games in Resistance is far from running around in a V, team play in Resistance have very specific roles.

Server list works great for what? You have a bunch of friends who want to play against another organized group then what? Make a room? Wait for people to show up? Hope for another clan to drop by to play? What if they don't?

In Resistance you can have a clan, all of them in a party, then the game just take your entire team from contest to contest through the match-making system, making sure the two sides are balanced.

 

[Ravenn17]

Remember how awesome the community was on s1? Clans would battle it out over who was best on a particular server, and people identified themselves based on the server they reside on. That community aspect was still present on s2, but not as much. It was completely dead on s3 as far as I can tell.

 

[Ravenn17]

Objective games in Resistance is far from running around in a V, team play in Resistance have very specific roles.

Server list works great for what? You have a bunch of friends who want to play against another organized group then what? Make a room? Wait for people to show up? Hope for another clan to drop by to play? What if they don't?

In Resistance you can have a clan, all of them in a party, then the game just take your entire team from contest to contest through the match-making system, making sure the two sides are balanced.

When s2 was active, a room would fill up in a matter of minutes. If you made a room with 5+ people, you wouldn't have a problem getting people to join up. If you was just you and your buddy, you could easily find a room that fit your interests( map, gametype, # of people).

 

[Kittonwy]

A party system doesn't automatically = people playing as a team. With or without a party system, you still end up with friends in a room playing together and some lone wolves. The lobby system is great the way it is and what makes SOCOM what it is. It builds small communities around different servers, has servers built around clan matches only, allows you to easily find a game that's playing a random set up maps and modes, etc.

They've already confirmed this lobby system is coming back. Whether they also want to add a party system on top of that is up to their own discretion. I personally don't feel it needs it.

With a party system you'll more likely have a bunch of friends because you don't just invite random strangers, so at least YOUR side is going to play as a team instead of starting a room and have it filled up with a bunch of strangers, and your team is more likely to be matched up against people who are doing the same. I'm sorry but the lack of a party system is archaic, without it you're going to have a whole lot of random players in a FFA DM environment and that's fucking sucks for team work.

 

[Kittonwy]

When s2 was active, a room would fill up in a matter of minutes. If you made a room with 5+ people, you wouldn't have a problem getting people to join up. If you was just you and your buddy, you could easily find a room that fit your interests( map, gametype, # of people).

Who cares when your room is filled up with just a bunch of people who don't know each other and don't know how to play as a team? Basically you'll have two or three guys you know instead of 7-8 which is often what we have with the Resistance GAF clan, in our case it's ALWAYS a team situation, and we get to play against other teams. The problem is to promote situations where you have more than just you and your buddy, and this lobby system non-sense can't cut it, you basically have to have some kind of system outside the game to organize clan vs. clan activities instead of clans regularly just running into each other even randomly.

 

[Ravenn17]

Who cares when your room is filled up with just a bunch of people who don't know each other and don't know how to play as a team? Basically you'll have two or three guys you know instead of 7-8 which is often what we have with the Resistance GAF clan, in our case it's ALWAYS a team situation, and we get to play against other teams. The problem is to promote situations where you have more than just you and your buddy, and this lobby system non-sense can't cut it, you basically have to have some kind of system outside the game to organize clan vs. clan activities instead of clans regularly just running into each other even randomly.

Pubs on SOCOM are just for fun. Real shit is done in wars. There are a few sites that do the clan activities for you, and I think most people are content with that.

Most people don't want to use "teamwork" every time they log on. It's refreshing sometimes when you can do things how you want without being pressured by a leader or teammates. I think the separation between serious play and casual play is a good thing.

 

[Doel]

Kittonwy just doesn't get it and I'm tired of continuously trying to explain the phenomenon of SOCOM to him. He doesn't get it, what made it what it is, and why some aspects of it can't change. I'm washing my hands clean of him, the constant devil's advocate.

 

[Arsenic]

Pubs on SOCOM are just for fun. Real shit is done in wars. There are a few sites that do the clan activities for you, and I think most people are content with that.

Most people don't want to use "teamwork" every time they log on. It's refreshing sometimes when you can do things how you want without being pressured by a leader or teammates. I think the separation between serious play and casual play is a good thing.

Thats exactly what socom is, not JUST teamwork, but just for fun "i dont give a fuck" play. Of course you're not like that ALL the time, and that is why they created clan servers.

 

[Kittonwy]

Kittonwy just doesn't get it and I'm tired of continuously trying to explain the phenomenon of SOCOM to him. He doesn't get it, what made it what it is, and why some aspects of it can't change. I'm washing my hands clean of him, the constant devil's advocate.

It's a shooter just like every other shooter, not a phenomenon that is immune to criticism. I want it to be popular not turn into a fucking niche shooter because it's lacking in a convenient feature that lets people play together without having to make rooms all the time. It's not like I'm picking on SOCOM either, I see a great feature in a shooter on the PS3 and I expect that to be implemented in other shooters on the PS3. Don't you want your favorite shooter to get better and more accessible to people?

 

[Kittonwy]

Pubs on SOCOM are just for fun. Real shit is done in wars. There are a few sites that do the clan activities for you, and I think most people are content with that.

Most people don't want to use "teamwork" every time they log on. It's refreshing sometimes when you can do things how you want without being pressured by a leader or teammates. I think the separation between serious play and casual play is a good thing.

Too much separation between serious and casual play, too much serious work to organize clan vs clan contest. Party system makes the series BETTER, why wouldn't you want your series to be BETTER? I'm not saying they should do away with the lobby system.

 

[JaCk BuRtOn]

It's a FPS just like every other FPS, not a phenomenon. I want it to be popular not turn into a fucking niche shooter because it's lacking in a convenient feature that lets people play together without having to make rooms all the time.

It's not a fuckin FPS and thats one of the thing thats great with this game !

 

[Kittonwy]

It's not a fuckin FPS and thats one of the thing thats great with this game !

You can play it in first person as well, it's a shooter, and multiplayer feature-wise it'll have to compete with other shooters, that's what I meant. Why do you want to make it hard for people who are in a clan to just stick to a party and be able to go from game to game as a group instead of having to organize clan matches or make a room and play against random people? That makes no sense. SOCOM is PS2's biggest shooter franchise and I don't see why it has to not keep up with other shooters.

 

[BirdBomb]

because the set up for socom is fine as is? if you want to group up then you make a room. if that room gets boring you find a new room and join. socom was never a game that needed a party feature, it's not hard to find a good game and play. and you constantly went up against other groups of people who knew each other because it was just as easy for them to find a good game and get in together. you made it seem like you and a few buddies create a room and go up against a bunch of tactic less strangers who have never played each other and that couldn't be farther from the truth. hell most clans stick to one server so odds are if you play that one server you know an assload of people on it. it's pointless to try and compare that aspect of socom to other games or the party aspect of other games to socom because they simply aren't the same.

instead of wasting time on party features, improve upon the hit detection and map designs from the last 2 games in the series.

 

[RiverBed]

Kittony is proposing a new feature. if you think it is unneeded, ignore it. but completely brushing the thought off seems short-sighted for me.

I say the more modes and options the better. use what you like and leave the rest. I am sure others would love what you don't like.

 

[Kittonwy]

because the set up for socom is fine as is? if you want to group up then you make a room. if that room gets boring you find a new room and join.

Why the fuck would you need to leave a room due to boredom if the game takes your party from one randomized map to another, thus keeping things fresh? The point is to keep the party together, YOUR PARTY, YOUR FRIENDS (more than two or three), not you and your friends and then having to deal with a bunch of random dudes in the lobby, or having to deal with dudes going into a room, looking around, and leaving.

socom was never a game that needed a party feature, it's not hard to find a good game and play. and you constantly went up against other groups of people who knew each other because it was just as easy for them to find a good game and get in together. you made it seem like you and a few buddies create a room and go up against a bunch of tactic less strangers who have never played each other and that couldn't be farther from the truth. hell most clans stick to one server so odds are if you play that one server you know an assload of people on it. it's pointless to try and compare that aspect of socom to other games or the party aspect of other games to socom because they simply aren't the same.

You're assuming SOCOM Confrontation will have a huge community from the get-go which might or might not be true, or that when these people look at the way SOCOM is set up they might prefer something more feature-rich and comprehensive. Having a comprehensive party system attract people who are not already hardcore SOCOM fans, and the series needs that in order to grow and survive because other games constantly pull gamers from the SOCOM series as well. Why do clans have to stick to one server? They should be able to go from server to server constantly battling other clans without having to wait for the other clan to drop by their own server. A party/match-making system keeps the clan on its toes, instead of just practicing all the time, you're battling different people all the time.

instead of wasting time on party features, improve upon the hit detection and map designs from the last 2 games in the series.

They should do BOTH, it's not like they don't have the resources to implement a party/match-making system AND improve hit detection/map designs.

It's like you don't want any real improvement to the overall online experience but instead just keeping everything the same circa SOCOM II 2003.

 

[PAYBACKill]

Why the fuck would you need to leave a room due to boredom if the game takes your party from one randomized map to another, thus keeping things fresh? The point is to keep the party together, YOUR PARTY, YOUR FRIENDS (more than two or three), not you and your friends and then having to deal with a bunch of random dudes in the lobby, or having to deal with dudes going into a room, looking around, and leaving.

The socom community...hmm. Ok. If you weren't hardcore into the series, playing in clans, warring for hours a night...I can see where you are coming from, this seems like a bunch of people not listening to reason. Party system works GREAT in resistance, why not keep it for SOCOM?

Your gb avatar tells me you are into wars...but honestly most top tier s2 clans didn't use gb, and we played the absolute best s2 guys...guys from tacu ( all of which we destroyed, mind you) , the TSK clan lead by Pablo Escobar, SF who fought on behalf of SS, PMS's official socom 2 team, etc. We went back and beat the #5 clan on gb at the time in an absolute massacre...so really, gb to socom doesn't mean much at all. but I digress....

You are talking about a game that gaf as a whole or gaming journalists as a whole don't 'get'...it got like 8.5's from most reviewers , but to socom fans, it is the only true 10 game that exists. 100,000 people on nightly for years on s2...I was on socom CA at 10 am friday morning ( eastern time) a month ago...2800 people still on and warring. This is the game that made me and the SIXTY guys in my clan buy ps3's...others are just waiting to get the ps3 when socom hits. we are waiting, and we don't want confrontation fucked up. The socom fanbase is huge, much larger than the resistance fanbase has ever been, and these are the kinds of people who had no problem whatsoever with the lobby/ server list system. You know there are hundreds of clans on, you know EVERYONE has to look through the same server list, and you know most serious clans war with things turned off.

You're assuming SOCOM Confrontation will have a huge community from the get-go which might or might not be true, or that when these people look at the way SOCOM is set up they might prefer something more feature-rich and comprehensive. Having a comprehensive party system attract people who are not already hardcore SOCOM fans, and the series needs that in order to grow and survive because other games constantly pull gamers from the SOCOM series as well. Why do clans have to stick to one server? They should be able to go from server to server constantly battling other clans without having to wait for the other clan to drop by their own server. A party/match-making system keeps the clan on its toes, instead of just practicing all the time, you're battling different people all the time.

Dude, this is socom.gif

see above...but once you splinter the users into pieces, so half go to the party system and never see the server list or never set up the ROE prior to the war, the enitire serious side of the gaming population suffers. How many clans warred every single night , for hours each night, in Resistance? How hidden is its server list?? You have to go out of your way to even know it exists. I would rather have a 'party system' be the one thats hard to find if it does get implemented.

They should do BOTH, it's not like they don't have the resources to implement a party/match-making system AND improve hit detection/map designs.

It's like you don't want any real improvement to the overall online experience but instead just keeping everything the same circa SOCOM II 2003.

Again, this is the socom fanbase who played the awful looking s2 and s1 for thousands of hours. you don't know who you are addressing...these are the LAST people that want their series fucked around with...whenever change came, it was usually bad. Vehicles, etc. Bad.


SOCOM does EXTREMELY well when its hardcore crowd is pleased. You casual players have SO many games you enjoy coming out...resistance 2, killzone 2, cod 4, whatever...but leave socom to the real players who know exactly what the perfect socom experience needs to be.

 

[Evolved1]

Socom doesn't need a party system. Fuck. Can they just get back to what was good about these games?

The server list was almost perfect.

Listening to people who wanted more players, vehicles and all the other shit is what ****ed up this franchise.

For people like me who spent, literally, thousands of hours playing Socom I & II... I feel like they owe us a game that isn't full of non-Socom shit.

 

[Evolved1]

Kittony is proposing a new feature. if you think it is unneeded, ignore it. but completely brushing the thought off seems short-sighted for me.

I say the more modes and options the better. use what you like and leave the rest. I am sure others would love what you don't like.

Fuck you. New features are what screwed Socom fans in the past. Go play a different game if you don't like Socom.

Hey... go play Socom III... 'cause that shit definitely ain't Socom.

 

[Ravenn17]

Your gb avatar tells me you are into wars...but honestly most top tier s2 clans didn't use gb, and we played the absolute best s2 guys...guys from tacu ( all of which we destroyed, mind you) , the TSK clan lead by Pablo Escobar, SF who fought on behalf of SS, PMS's official socom 2 team, etc. We went back and beat the #5 clan on gb at the time in an absolute massacre...so really, gb to socom doesn't mean much at all.

The best clans did in fact play on GB/Socom Battles. If you didn't play with [G], zT, =Dp=, <XR> on s1, or LiQ, dpX, Happyface, or [G] on s2 - you didn't play with/ against the best. Period.

What was the name of that top 5 clan, btw?

 

[Doubledex]

It's a shooter just like every other shooter, not a phenomenon that is immune to criticism. I want it to be popular not turn into a fucking niche shooter because it's lacking in a convenient feature that lets people play together without having to make rooms all the time. It's not like I'm picking on SOCOM either, I see a great feature in a shooter on the PS3 and I expect that to be implemented in other shooters on the PS3. Don't you want your favorite shooter to get better and more accessible to people?

You fail! This post is BS and so you say: "I do not get it! I don't know why SOCOM is so geat"

 

[PAYBACKill]

The best clans did in fact play on GB/Socom Battles. If you didn't play with [G], zT, =Dp=, <XR> on s1, or LiQ, dpX, Happyface, or [G] on s2 - you didn't play with/ against the best. Period.

What was the name of that top 5 clan, btw?

Not even close. GB clans have records full of wins from their buddy from down the street coming in as a ref and making snap rulings in favor of their friends, or faked charges of illegal 203 usage, etc.


We played vs [G] in s2 out of your list, and we have archived war reports from each war about it I am trying to get access to now to get some usernames for you.


All the same, GB simply wasn't about top level competition...it likes to look very official but the refs are really just some kid, who has friends who also are into gaming, who cheat together. Or people don't report losses. etc. The whole thing is meaningless. The best , BEST s2 clans never even gave a shit about gb ranking and just played...TSK was fucking astonishing how they adapted round by round, but even with that, we eeked out a victory. Your little gb top 5 really is insignificant when you look at total amount of clans playing s2 vs who was on gb. But hey...play us in confrontation if you doubt what I am saying.


edit: also tL I wanna say is the tag of that other top 5 (around 11 months after s2's release) clan

 

[Ephemeris]

You guys made me realize I've never really did find a *proper* replacement for Socom 2. COD4 came really close for me (and maybe the way I dominated the Warhawk beta.. when I wasn't having connection issues :lol ) but S2 holds a special place in my heart.

Ah. The memories.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

so people dont want any changes in Socom online feature? nothing new?

c'mon people, i was'nt the hardest core Socom 2 player, but it was my first REALLY fun console online experience. But that does'nt mean it cant be improved upon. I dont see why Adding(not removing anything) a Party system would hurt the series. Socom 3 did'nt "suck" cuz of general added feature set, but cuz of Gameplay features they added.

 

[Doel]

Kittony is proposing a new feature. if you think it is unneeded, ignore it. but completely brushing the thought off seems short-sighted for me.

I say the more modes and options the better. use what you like and leave the rest. I am sure others would love what you don't like.

Umm NO. They listened to you before and what happened? A little thing called SOCOM 3 which ruined the franchise beyond belief. The only remaining feature that remained from SOCOM games of past was the lobby system.

I've explained this countless times before but kittonwy and other people who don't get why SOCOM's lobby system was so popular and perfect for the game, and seem to keep ignoring these points. Maybe if I put them in point form it'll be easier to understand:

- SOCOM's community was based around servers
- ie: East 5 was populated by particular clans and people who you became familiar with
- Finding clan wars was easy and occurred often. Just make a room with the title "Looking for 3v3", and you'd have your war in a matter of minutes.
- SOCOM is a game where each map is a best of 11 rounds, each round being 6min. Many tight games could last upwards of 40min.
- Therefore, if you are in the middle of a game and your buddy just got on, in SOCOM's lobby system he could hop right in. In a party-based system he'd have to wait for your, possible, 40min match to finish before he could play with you.

 

[Ravenn17]

Not even close. GB clans have records full of wins from their buddy from down the street coming in as a ref and making snap rulings in favor of their friends, or faked charges of illegal 203 usage, etc.


We played vs [G] in s2 out of your list, and we have archived war reports from each war about it I am trying to get access to now to get some usernames for you.


All the same, GB simply wasn't about top level competition...it likes to look very official but the refs are really just some kid, who has friends who also are into gaming, who cheat together. Or people don't report losses. etc. The whole thing is meaningless. The best , BEST s2 clans never even gave a shit about gb ranking and just played...TSK was fucking astonishing how they adapted round by round, but even with that, we eeked out a victory. Your little gb top 5 really is insignificant when you look at total amount of clans playing s2 vs who was on gb. But hey...play us in confrontation if you doubt what I am saying.


edit: also tL I wanna say is the tag of that other top 5 (around 11 months after s2's release) clan

Can you name any clan you know from US east that beat ANY of the clans I listed? I find it very hard to believe that your clan beat [G] in their prime. Post your archive when you get the chance.

 

[-tetsuo-]

wasnt this supposed to come out like month ago?

 

[PAYBACKill]

Can you name any clan you know from US east that beat ANY of the clans I listed? I find it very hard to believe that your clan beat [G] in their prime. Post your archive when you get the chance.

will do.




also...if you doubt....lets see how things go in confrontation... we'll give you a war. We'll give you a war you won't believe.



leave your quicksniping at the door, btw.

 

[Ravenn17]

will do.




also...if you doubt....lets see how things go in confrontation... we'll give you a war. We'll give you a war you won't believe.



leave your quicksniping at the door, btw.

Haha, I can't wait. Let's just hope I don't flush Confron down the toilet like I did with S3. :lol

BTW, do you guys still have your disc? We should get together sometime.

 

[dork]

Is this ever coming out ?

 

[BirdBomb]

Why the fuck would you need to leave a room due to boredom if the game takes your party from one randomized map to another, thus keeping things fresh? The point is to keep the party together, YOUR PARTY, YOUR FRIENDS (more than two or three), not you and your friends and then having to deal with a bunch of random dudes in the lobby, or having to deal with dudes going into a room, looking around, and leaving.

you would leave a room due to a laggy host, or annoying teammates, or a crappy map you didn't want to play, or any other number of reasons. the way socom 2 was set up was perfect. take a look at a game like call of duty 4, amazing amazing game but its party system is heavily flawed. just because you add a party system doesn't mean it makes the game better. there are PLENTY of other things they should be concerned with above adding a party feature to a game that doesn't need it.

You're assuming SOCOM Confrontation will have a huge community from the get-go which might or might not be true, or that when these people look at the way SOCOM is set up they might prefer something more feature-rich and comprehensive. Having a comprehensive party system attract people who are not already hardcore SOCOM fans, and the series needs that in order to grow and survive because other games constantly pull gamers from the SOCOM series as well. Why do clans have to stick to one server? They should be able to go from server to server constantly battling other clans without having to wait for the other clan to drop by their own server. A party/match-making system keeps the clan on its toes, instead of just practicing all the time, you're battling different people all the time.

the server system is far superior. no problems, and it gives each server a personality. you think clicking on "find game" with your party and joining some random game on some random server sounds better than going to good old east 6 where you know there is great competition and battling it out every night? no thanks man, you can keep the party system, i'll keep what has worked in this franchise from the start. clans don't have to stick to one server in socom, they simply choose to. and you do still get new challenges all the time. clan a on east 7 hears that clan b on central 1 is a good clan, clan a hops onto that server and plays against them. you are obviously not a hardcore socom player so you are obviously oblivious to what any of us are talking about but again, to hell with a generic party system.

They should do BOTH, it's not like they don't have the resources to implement a party/match-making system AND improve hit detection/map designs.

who is to say they have the resources? who is to say they don't run into a huge problem with party or *BARF* matchmaking set up for socom and screw the game up? have you ever played halo online? you want socom to be like that? :lol

It's like you don't want any real improvement to the overall online experience but instead just keeping everything the same circa SOCOM II 2003.

no one said they don't want improvement. a matchmaking/party system simply isn't a guaranteed improvement. and what's wrong with wanting something to be like one of, if not THE greatest online shooter consoles have ever seen?

 

[Kittonwy]

you would leave a room due to a laggy host, or annoying teammates, or a crappy map you didn't want to play, or any other number of reasons. the way socom 2 was set up was perfect. take a look at a game like call of duty 4, amazing amazing game but its party system is heavily flawed. just because you add a party system doesn't mean it makes the game better. there are PLENTY of other things they should be concerned with above adding a party feature to a game that doesn't need it.

Dedicated server? Reporting system? Things work very well in Resistance, especially the party system, if you've played with the gaf clan you would know, that's where I'm coming from, not COD4. I have never used COD4 as a standard for anything.

the server system is far superior. no problems, and it gives each server a personality. you think clicking on "find game" with your party and joining some random game on some random server sounds better than going to good old east 6 where you know there is great competition and battling it out every night? no thanks man, you can keep the party system, i'll keep what has worked in this franchise from the start. clans don't have to stick to one server in socom, they simply choose to. and you do still get new challenges all the time. clan a on east 7 hears that clan b on central 1 is a good clan, clan a hops onto that server and plays against them. you are obviously not a hardcore socom player so you are obviously oblivious to what any of us are talking about but again, to hell with a generic party system.

Far superior to WHAT? You're WAITING for people to join your lobby instead of letting the game TAKE you from one battle to another. If you don't have enough of a userbase in the beginning your servers aren't going to be as busy as you would like and you might not have a choice but to seek out other servers in which case the party/match-making system would do it for you, carrying you from one ranked contest to another instead of having to play custom game all the time.

who is to say they have the resources? who is to say they don't run into a huge problem with party or *BARF* matchmaking set up for socom and screw the game up? have you ever played halo online? you want socom to be like that? :lol

Why would they not have the resources for a franchise spanning four games and millions of copies? Have you played Resistance online with the gaf clan? Because I want SOCOM to be exactly like that, it would be awesome. Why would it be like HALO online? The userbase is different, most people I've played online aren't total assholes.

no one said they don't want improvement. a matchmaking/party system simply isn't a guaranteed improvement. and what's wrong with wanting something to be like one of, if not THE greatest online shooter consoles have ever seen?

It's an improvement in terms of functionality, if implemented well that is, but there's no reason why it wouldn't. What's wrong with wanting something to be the best online shooter on consoles? Nothing. Why would you want SOCOM to be missing important features which could possibly prevent it from being the best online shooter on consoles? A shooter that is totally accessible online to players instead of limiting itself to clans and clans alone after a couple of months?

 

[Kittonwy]

Umm NO. They listened to you before and what happened? A little thing called SOCOM 3 which ruined the franchise beyond belief. The only remaining feature that remained from SOCOM games of past was the lobby system.

I've explained this countless times before but kittonwy and other people who don't get why SOCOM's lobby system was so popular and perfect for the game, and seem to keep ignoring these points. Maybe if I put them in point form it'll be easier to understand:

- SOCOM's community was based around servers
- ie: East 5 was populated by particular clans and people who you became familiar with
- Finding clan wars was easy and occurred often. Just make a room with the title "Looking for 3v3", and you'd have your war in a matter of minutes.
- SOCOM is a game where each map is a best of 11 rounds, each round being 6min. Many tight games could last upwards of 40min.
- Therefore, if you are in the middle of a game and your buddy just got on, in SOCOM's lobby system he could hop right in. In a party-based system he'd have to wait for your, possible, 40min match to finish before he could play with you.

SOCOM 3's problem was the maps being too big, that has nothing to do with making online more convenient and accessible which is NOT going to ruin SOCOM Confrontation.

You don't have a SOCOM community right now on the PS3. If we're talking about an existing community on the PS3, I can understand but the goal here is to make it as feature-rich, easy and accessible for PS3 owners not just limiting to some people, some of whom don't even have a PS3 yet. Why not offer both lobby AND a party/match-making system? The whole point is it's NOT convenient to make the player choose through a whole bunch of servers and then a whole bunch of game rooms, some with passwords, some without, to find his group, it's a pain in the ass, it requires a lot of organizing prior to setting up a game night, it's ARCHAIC. Invite your friends into a party, hop from one game to another, is simple and fun.

 

[BirdBomb]

Dedicated server? Reporting system? Things work very well in Resistance, especially the party system, if you've played with the gaf clan you would know, that's where I'm coming from, not COD4. I have never used COD4 as a standard for anything.

and i am coming from socom, where the current set up works great. i don't care if you haven't used cod4 as a standard for anything, i didn't use it as a standard either. it is simply proof that slapping a party system into an online shooter doesn't always equate to success or better than what was there.

Far superior to WHAT? You're WAITING for people to join your lobby instead of letting the game TAKE you from one battle to another. If you don't have enough of a userbase in the beginning your servers aren't going to be as busy as you would like and you might not have a choice but to seek out other servers in which case the party/match-making system would do it for you, carrying you from one ranked contest to another instead of having to play custom game all the time.

far superior to there being no server lists and everything done party style with matchmaking? who cares if you have to go to other servers at the start? you still have the freedom to go wherever you want. and you can play ranked games in socom wherever you want any time you want whether they are generic auto playlists created by zipper or user created rooms. i am starting to wonder if you really spent much of any time on socom at all.

Why would they not have the resources for a franchise spanning four games and millions of copies? Have you played Resistance online with the gaf clan? Because I want SOCOM to be exactly like that, it would be awesome. Why would it be like HALO online? The userbase is different, most people I've played online aren't total assholes.

maybe because each new incarnation has dropped in sales, this one is being passed off to some small no name company as an online only game? not to mention, it's a ps3 title and ps3 titles and sales don't exactly go hand in hand. and again, adding this would just take time away from shit it shouldn't be taken away from, like netcode, hit detection and bug testing.

It's an improvement in terms of functionality, if implemented well that is, but there's no reason why it wouldn't. What's wrong with wanting something to be the best online shooter on consoles? Nothing. Why would you want SOCOM to be missing important features which could possibly prevent it from being the best online shooter on consoles? A shooter that is totally accessible online to players instead of limiting itself to clans and clans alone after a couple of months?

clans and clans alone? what are you talking about? what important features is socom missing? i can't think of any. it was fine without a party system. the game was basically perfect until they started trying to tinker and fuck it up like you are wanting them to do.

 

[Kittonwy]

and i am coming from socom, where the current set up works great. i don't care if you haven't used cod4 as a standard for anything, i didn't use it as a standard either. it is simply proof that slapping a party system into an online shooter doesn't always equate to success or better than what was there.

It's a good option for players, party system/match-making allows for easy access for players who don't have the time to organize clan vs. clan matches but would like to get together with their friends and be able to go from game to game in a ranked environment, having to browse through servers then a whole list of games to find the one you MIGHT like is an intimidating task, right now the current set up is NOT accessible, if SOCOM is to be successful it has to cater to both its hardcore fanbase AND people who just want to play shooters casually but organized enough that one can get together with friends.

far superior to there being no server lists and everything done party style with matchmaking? who cares if you have to go to other servers at the start? you still have the freedom to go wherever you want. and you can play ranked games in socom wherever you want any time you want whether they are generic auto playlists created by zipper or user created rooms. i am starting to wonder if you really spent much of any time on socom at all.

In a party system/match-making environment, clans can still create games, it's just easier for clans to hop from contest to contest without having to go to the trouble of inviting other clans and wait for people to show. The point is NOT having to browse through game after game looking for one you like, just grab a bunch of friends, and hop into one game, then another, then another, your party stays together on one team.

maybe because each new incarnation has dropped in sales, this one is being passed off to some small no name company as an online only game? not to mention, it's a ps3 title and ps3 titles and sales don't exactly go hand in hand. and again, adding this would just take time away from shit it shouldn't be taken away from, like netcode, hit detection and bug testing.

Slant Six isn't exactly a no-name, if you're arguing that it's not going to be selling millions then there's even a greater need to make sure you have a party/match-making system to make sure it's accessible to people who buy this game, and make it easy for just anyone to get into this game. Things like netcode, hit detection and bug-testing are fundamental things they NEED to get right, REGARDLESS of whether they add a party system or not, what the party system does is make the online experience better for non-dedicated clans, not everyone feels the need to sign up for gamebattle or some other site just to set up contests.

clans and clans alone? what are you talking about? what important features is socom missing? i can't think of any. it was fine without a party system. the game was basically perfect until they started trying to tinker and fuck it up like you are wanting them to do.

S2 was back in 2003, it's just silly to think that online shooters haven't improved during all this time. If S2 is so perfect why even make Confrontation? Why even buy Confrontation? Just go back to S2 if it's so great. There's no point other than just making it HD with better graphics, which is NOT THE POINT of growing the franchise, especially with a smaller userbase. I don't want them to fuck up anything, adding a party system isn't going to fuck up anything, NOT adding a party system is going to make the game inaccessible to those of us who are very much used to the convenience offered in games like Resistance where we're accustomed to just getting together and start playing instead of waiting for another clan or having to join a site to set up competition when the party/match-making system provides plenty of that. Not everybody wants to just play custom games, you can still play custom games with a party system, why do you feel it's necessary to make sure people like myself who enjoys a party system in Resistance won't be able to get into the new SOCOM? Why do you want to make sure SOCOM stays archaic in terms of its online implementation?

 

[BirdBomb]

It's a good option for players, party system/match-making allows for easy access for players who don't have the time to organize clan vs. clan matches but would like to get together with their friends and be able to go from game to game in a ranked environment

you can already do this with ease without matchmaking or a party system.

having to browse through servers then a whole list of games to find the one you MIGHT like is an intimidating task

intimidating how? have you ever played a socom game online?

right now the current set up is NOT accessible

of all the things i have heard since the first socom was released, this is the first time i have ever heard someone complain that the server/lobby system is "NOT accessible". the current set up is very accessible and a breeze to use.

if SOCOM is to be successful it has to cater to both its hardcore fanbase AND people who just want to play shooters casually but organized enough that one can get together with friends.p/quote]

again, have you ever played a socom game online past socom 2? you make it out to be impossible to buddy up with some friends and join some games unless you're in some clan war. you are very ignorant to the way socom works.

In a party system/match-making environment, clans can still create games, it's just easier for clans to hop from contest to contest without having to go to the trouble of inviting other clans and wait for people to show.

you don't have to sit and wait for people to show. the games fill up quickly.

The point is NOT having to browse through game after game looking for one you like, just grab a bunch of friends, and hop into one game, then another, then another, your party stays together on one team.

or maybe your party is forced to join opposite teams like halo 3. or maybe your party is broken up and you lose 1-2 players each time you try to join a game like call of duty. who knows. also, you can find a good game on a socom server rather quickly. it's not like you have to browse through 50 games to find a good one.

Slant Six isn't exactly a no-name, if you're arguing that it's not going to be selling millions then there's even a greater need to make sure you have a party/match-making system to make sure it's accessible to people who buy this game

the least accessible version of socom is also the highest selling version.

and make it easy for just anyone to get into this game. Things like netcode, hit detection and bug-testing are fundamental things they NEED to get right, REGARDLESS of whether they add a party system or not, what the party system does is make the online experience better for non-dedicated clans, not everyone feels the need to sign up for gamebattle or some other site just to set up contests.

better in your opinion.

S2 was back in 2003, it's just silly to think that online shooters haven't improved during all this time. If S2 is so perfect why even make Confrontation? Why even buy Confrontation? Just go back to S2 if it's so great.

well if resistance is so great with its party system, stick with that. no one said shooters haven't improved since 2003. but socom sure as shit isn't one of the shooters that has improved.

There's no point other than just making it HD with better graphics, which is NOT THE POINT of growing the franchise, especially with a smaller userbase. I don't want them to fuck up anything, adding a party system isn't going to fuck up anything, NOT adding a party system is going to make the game inaccessible to those of us who are very much used to the convenience offered in games like Resistance where we're accustomed to just getting together and start playing instead of waiting for another clan or having to join a site to set up competition when the party/match-making system provides plenty of that. Not everybody wants to just play custom games, you can still play custom games with a party system, why do you feel it's necessary to make sure people like myself who enjoys a party system in Resistance won't be able to get into the new SOCOM? Why do you want to make sure SOCOM stays archaic in terms of its online implementation?

archaic and inaccessible :lol just stick to resistance dude.

 

[Doel]

Kittonwy this game obviously isn't for you, so why do you care.

When the game was announced they clearly said "THIS IS A GAME FOR THE FANS". They are no longer trying to go for Battlefield and Halo crowds. They want to win back the SOCOM fans, the ones that helped sell the first two games over a million a piece.

And what the large majority of SOCOM fans want is pretty obvious from our replies in this thread, and it's not like we've all been locked in a cage since 2003. We've experienced party systems, we've experienced other shooters and how they do things, and we still want back the original SOCOM online interface. I was big into Halo 2, Rainbow Six 3, Halo 3, Resistance, Rainbow Six Vegas, and now CoD4 (though its starting to die off for me already), and what I want and know is best for the SOCOM series is for it to use the same type of lobby system that was used for the past games in the franchise.

 

[Kittonwy]

Kittonwy this game obviously isn't for you, so why do you care.

Why do I care when I own every single console SOCOM game (I think I have the first PSP game as well)? SOCOM is obviously not for me I guess. Yeah I'm just here to shit on SOCOM because I've been supporting the franchise and want it to improve and be viable, yeah that makes sense.

When the game was announced they clearly said "THIS IS A GAME FOR THE FANS". They are no longer trying to go for Battlefield and Halo crowds. They want to win back the SOCOM fans, the ones that helped sell the first two games over a million a piece.

And you're SURE that SOCOM fans wouldn't appreciate having a party system so they can just get a group together and go from game to game against different people without having to bother with things like map/weapon selection?

And what the large majority of SOCOM fans want is pretty obvious from our replies in this thread, and it's not like we've all been locked in a cage since 2003. We've experienced party systems, we've experienced other shooters and how they do things, and we still want back the original SOCOM online interface. I was big into Halo 2, Rainbow Six 3, Halo 3, Resistance, Rainbow Six Vegas, and now CoD4 (though its starting to die off for me already), and what I want and know is best for the SOCOM series is for it to use the same type of lobby system that was used for the past games in the franchise.

I'm not asking for the lobby system to be abolished, just a party/match-making system added so friends playing in a group who don't want to bother with the lobby, wouldn't have to.

 

[Kittonwy]

you can already do this with ease without matchmaking or a party system.

Not that easy.

intimidating how? have you ever played a socom game online?

Yes.

of all the things i have heard since the first socom was released, this is the first time i have ever heard someone complain that the server/lobby system is "NOT accessible". the current set up is very accessible and a breeze to use.

Some people don't complain how shit it is to search through a lobby, they move on to another game and never come back. This is how you lose your userbase, not through loud complaints but silent switch-outs. What works for SOCOM hardcore might not work for people who just want to get a group together and play against different people.

again, have you ever played a socom game online past socom 2? you make it out to be impossible to buddy up with some friends and join some games unless you're in some clan war. you are very ignorant to the way socom works.

Yes I've played SOCOM past SOCOM 2.

you don't have to sit and wait for people to show. the games fill up quickly.

You might have to if you don't have millions of people picking this up, there's nothing wrong with having the game bring people together instead of have people spend time trying to decide which game they might want to go into.

or maybe your party is forced to join opposite teams like halo 3. or maybe your party is broken up and you lose 1-2 players each time you try to join a game like call of duty. who knows. also, you can find a good game on a socom server rather quickly. it's not like you have to browse through 50 games to find a good one.

In Resistance we don't have people forced to join opposite teams and we don't lose people each time, most of the time it's actually a very stable experience and most of us play for a couple of hours and almost on a daily basis. The point is NOT having to search for a game, but to have the game do the searching for you.

the least accessible version of socom is also the highest selling version.

And that's ok from a gameplay standpoint because?

better in your opinion.

My opinion is always better, your point?

well if resistance is so great with its party system, stick with that. no one said shooters haven't improved since 2003. but socom sure as shit isn't one of the shooters that has improved.

And you're ok with that?

archaic and inaccessible :lol just stick to resistance dude.

I have been sticking to Resistance dude. I'm hoping that Slant Six gives me a reason to pick this up and get back to the SOCOM franchise. You have Resistance 2 and Killzone 2 next year and if both have better online set-ups, it's going to be hard for SOCOM to pull those people off.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

I think this arguement could be stopped with the SOCOM "hardcores" here cant just post what they would like to see in Socom Confrontation Feature wise online.

...that or some actual INFO FROM Slant Six :|

 

[BirdBomb]

Not that easy.

actually yea, it was always pretty darned easy, even on a ps2 online setup.

Yes.

apparently not. wtf is so intimidating about finding a game to join? :lol

Some people don't complain how shit it is to search through a lobby, they move on to another game and never come back. This is how you lose your userbase, not through loud complaints but silent switch-outs. What works for SOCOM hardcore might not work for people who just want to get a group together and play against different people.

some people don't complain because it wasn't "shit" to browse a lobby. i really don't know why you continue to make it seem as if it was a complete pain in the ass to find a game on socom. maybe you simply had no friends on the game or were just really picky. you lose your userbase by making drastic changes to a game instead of sticking to core mechanics that worked. socom is solid proof of this.

Yes I've played SOCOM past SOCOM 2.

how about you start acting like it then instead of ranting on here about inane bullshit that doesn't apply to socom? how hard was it to group up with friends and play a game? as hard as going to friends list and clicking "join game". OH NOES! how the fuck did zipper expect us to be able to do that? wow, just fuck wow. resistance has clearly blazed the trails of online gaming. no longer do we have to sit through an exhausting session of hitting 3 buttons to join a game with friends. how did we ever survive before resistance? questions, questions that need answering!

You might have to if you don't have millions of people picking this up, there's nothing wrong with having the game bring people together instead of have people spend time trying to decide which game they might want to go into.

there won't be millions of people picking this up, and that was never a problem with the original 2 games and it won't be a problem now. even if only 25,000 people are online, that's enough to fill up almost 100 socom servers.

In Resistance we don't have people forced to join opposite teams and we don't lose people each time, most of the time it's actually a very stable experience and most of us play for a couple of hours and almost on a daily basis. The point is NOT having to search for a game, but to have the game do the searching for you.

ok so because one game does a good job with something, that must mean all games do. i mean, there are never bugs or problems with games. every game is 100% flawless. if you want to do matchmaking, socom has matchmaking.

And that's ok from a gameplay standpoint because?

who said anything about gameplay? The online mode in socom 1 was primitive and shitty. no stats, no clan system, no friends list, no way to know who was talking at times, etc etc. yet the gameplay you speak of more than made up for it.

My opinion is always horribly ignorant and wrong, your point?

fixed for accuracy.

And you're ok with that?

are you dull? the whole reason hardcore socom'ers like myself are disagreeing with this stupid idea is because it is NOT ok that socom morphed from a realistic shooter requiring skill to a mass appeal battlefield clone piece of shit. we have explained that already, do keep up plz.

I have been sticking to Resistance dude. I'm hoping that Slant Six gives me a reason to pick this up and get back to the SOCOM franchise. You have Resistance 2 and Killzone 2 next year and if both have better online set-ups, it's going to be hard for SOCOM to pull those people off.

if it has gameplay no one will give a shit that you don't have a super awesome party system. call of duty 4 versus halo 3 is evidence enough of that

 

[Kittonwy]

actually yea, it was always pretty darned easy, even on a ps2 online setup.

Compared to what? By today's standard you won't even know if your friends have their PS2 turned on, let alone trying to invite them to a room to start a game.

apparently not. wtf is so intimidating about finding a game to join? :lol

Because I don't need to find a game when the game can just find one for me and my party.

some people don't complain because it wasn't "shit" to browse a lobby. i really don't know why you continue to make it seem as if it was a complete pain in the ass to find a game on socom. maybe you simply had no friends on the game or were just really picky. you lose your userbase by making drastic changes to a game instead of sticking to core mechanics that worked. socom is solid proof of this.

Why browse lobbies WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO? You lose your userbase by not offering something that makes the online experience more convenient, something that other games have already offered and gamers have become accustomed to while you're busy making Confrontation. You make it sound like making the online interface better is going to drive people away, making the maps large and badly implementing vehicles might be what drove them away but not a better online interface, which could only help the game. Maybe you're so afraid of change that you're confusing the two and somehow you think ANY change will ruin the series when the series needs to continue to improve and evolve.

how about you start acting like it then instead of ranting on here about inane bullshit that doesn't apply to socom? how hard was it to group up with friends and play a game? as hard as going to friends list and clicking "join game". OH NOES! how the fuck did zipper expect us to be able to do that? wow, just fuck wow. resistance has clearly blazed the trails of online gaming. no longer do we have to sit through an exhausting session of hitting 3 buttons to join a game with friends. how did we ever survive before resistance? questions, questions that need answering!

Why even go back to the old ways of having to find friend and join game when you can gather all your friends by inviting them to your party (or get invited to a party) and the game can take you from contest to contest? I'm sure we survived PS2 era graphics, little to no physics, poor animations, but it doesn't mean we can't move forward.

there won't be millions of people picking this up, and that was never a problem with the original 2 games and it won't be a problem now. even if only 25,000 people are online, that's enough to fill up almost 100 socom servers.

The harder you make it for people to play online, the fewer people will be online, why not have a party/match-making system that will make things EASIER for people to enjoy the game? The more accessible the game is, the more popular it will be, what do you have against that?

ok so because one game does a good job with something, that must mean all games do. i mean, there are never bugs or problems with games. every game is 100% flawless. if you want to do matchmaking, socom has matchmaking.

I mean match-making by matching YOUR PARTY against different players/group.

It doesn't mean they can't try to take something a game does well and make it their own, THAT IS HOW YOU IMPROVE, you don't need to go back to square one, if someone does something better, you take it and you improve upon it, making it BETTER. We don't reinvent the wheel everytime we build a car, do we? Do you need to discover electricity everytime you turn on your tv? Do you rub two sticks together to make fire to light a cigarette?

who said anything about gameplay? The online mode in socom 1 was primitive and shitty. no stats, no clan system, no friends list, no way to know who was talking at times, etc etc. yet the gameplay you speak of more than made up for it.

Don't get me wrong I like the gameplay MECHANICS of SOCOM 1 and 2, but a better online interface makes the overall online experience better, which in turn makes the online gameplay better.

fixed for accuracy.

I'm right and WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF CHANGE? If you want to play SOCOM 2, play SOCOM 2, there's no reason to simply remake SOCOM 2 with prettier graphics, remaining stagnant would be the worst thing that can happen to the series, if it doesn't evolve it will become irrelevant.

are you dull? the whole reason hardcore socom'ers like myself are disagreeing with this stupid idea is because it is NOT ok that socom morphed from a realistic shooter requiring skill to a mass appeal battlefield clone piece of shit. we have explained that already, do keep up plz.

I'm not proposing the game to turn into a battlefield clone. I'm only proposing an addition to the online interface that will make getting a group of friends and going into randomized ranked games easier, that won't make it into a battlefield clone.

if it has gameplay no one will give a shit that you don't have a super awesome party system. call of duty 4 versus halo 3 is evidence enough of that

Actually why can't a game have BOTH? It would make the game better.

Seriously they might not implement a party system or have the time to at this point, so I don't see why you are so against it, it's just something that would bring more people into the series, every online shooter can use a good party system.

 

[PAYBACKill]

Kittonwy, I think I can help clear this up.


Resistance and other online shooters need a party system to keep folks together room to room because the matches don't last all that long.


a war in socom can go 11 6-minute rounds per map, out of 3 maps. This is the most extreme example of course but this would be a 3 hour 20 minute war, where you stayed in the same passworded server with your opponents and your clanmates. All you need to do is find one at the start of the evening, which happens within 5 minutes anyway.


I think the compromise between your idea and what we socom fans actually want would be a party system where once you got your clan in a room and counted up how many you had on that night, you could THEN go browse the lobby to find a war....then...here's the part where everyone wouldbe happy....then you could press a button to bring your clan TO that room, instantly. This would keep it socom while improving interface.

 

[Sol..]

...that or some actual INFO FROM Slant Six :|

not happening ROFL.

Spoiler

well it's not so funny. It's mean and stupid and now i don't like Slant Six

 

[BirdBomb]

Compared to what? By today's standard you won't even know if your friends have their PS2 turned on, let alone trying to invite them to a room to start a game.

compared to anything? you want an online game that was a pain in the ass to find games on? play timesplitters, unreal tournament on dreamcast, or tribes aerial assault. but don't bother trying to say it was hard or grating to find a good game on socom because anyone who has spent time with the game knows you are full of shit. also, we are past the time when gamers don't know who is online and who is not.

Because I don't need to find a game when the game can just find one for me and my party.

socom has matchmaking already, it was useless and shitty because no one used it. it simply doesn't work in the socom universe. so what you are going to end up with is a pathetically small amount of people actually using it. socom gamers didn't care for it, and they won't care for a party system either, especially since it will fuck up what is already working.

Why browse lobbies WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO? You lose your userbase by not offering something that makes the online experience more convenient, something that other games have already offered and gamers have become accustomed to while you're busy making Confrontation.

you lose your userbase by adding features and elements people don't want instead of focusing on gameplay where it counts. socom is solid proof of this. we've been over this already, move on.

You make it sound like making the online interface better is going to drive people away,

better says who? oh wait i forgot, every game is 100% flawless and no problems exist in any of them. the party system in call of duty 4 is flawless. halo 3 never splits groups up and forces them to join other teams, or slaps them into fucking retarded games like shotty snipers on valhalla for the millionth time. none of that ever happens, because omg resistance was so great. not everyone cares for party features, socom doesn't need it.

making the maps large and badly implementing vehicles might be what drove them away but not a better online interface, which could only help the game. Maybe you're so afraid of change that you're confusing the two and somehow you think ANY change will ruin the series when the series needs to continue to improve and evolve.

no, there is no "might be" about it and again, anyone who knows socom knows that is the truth. if you want a full fledged online title with a lot of fluff, play resistance or halo 3. not every game needs all that shit, convenience or not. good gameplay is good enough for most, socom proved that. shit graphics, average at best online interface, yet insanely popular. and that doesn't mean you can just take socom 2 and slap it on ps3, no one ever said that and idk why you keep falling back on that. a series can stay true to itself and still evolve.

Why even go back to the old ways of having to find friend and join game when you can gather all your friends by inviting them to your party (or get invited to a party) and the game can take you from contest to contest? I'm sure we survived PS2 era graphics, little to no physics, poor animations, but it doesn't mean we can't move forward.

because that sucks? no thanks, i'd rather find a game myself that i know i will want to play rather than being thrown into bitter jungle. and most socom gamers agree. so good luck with a matchmaking system that no one will use. i mean, splintering the online userbase like that is always a great idea. i enjoy being shit out of luck with halo when it comes to just having a list of custom games i can join. great success.

The harder you make it for people to play online, the fewer people will be online, why not have a party/match-making system that will make things EASIER for people to enjoy the game? The more accessible the game is, the more popular it will be, what do you have against that?

you continue to talk as if it was a pain in the ass to play socom online :lol

I mean match-making by matching YOUR PARTY against different players/group.

because socom players aren't going to do matchmaking. a group of socom gamers are going to go to "their" server and set up a game and play. you could take the exact same online interface of socom 2 and simply with the advancements that have been made since then in terms of friends lists and it is a fucking breeze to buddy up and play. so don't waste your time creating and tinkering with a party system when no one gives a shit. and if joe blow down the street logs on and is dumbfounded and confused by the lack of a party system and wants to return the game, then oh well. he's probably the idiot in demolition that doesn't know how to defuse the bomb anyway

It doesn't mean they can't try to take something a game does well and make it their own, THAT IS HOW YOU IMPROVE, you don't need to go back to square one, if someone does something better, you take it and you improve upon it, making it BETTER. We don't reinvent the wheel everytime we build a car, do we? Do you need to discover electricity everytime you turn on your tv? Do you rub two sticks together to make fire to light a cigarette?

actually yea, when two games are immensely popular and highly successful then the two sequels radically change the game and are commercial/critical flops, you do need to go back to square on. and again, that doesn't mean you have to port over socom 2 with no changes whatsoever, no one is saying that. if socom confrontation is set up with parties and matchmaking i simply won't play because the lobby system gave the game a unique feel and made the community aspect incredible and you simply cannot have both.

Don't get me wrong I like the gameplay MECHANICS of SOCOM 1 and 2, but a better online interface makes the overall online experience better, which in turn makes the online gameplay better.

yea, improve the online aspect. flesh out the clan aspect of it. make lots of stats easily available like call of duty 4. but don't fuck the whole thing up by emphasizing party and matchmaking. that might be an improvement to you but it sure isn't to socom gamers. but hey, maybe they don't want to make monies.

I'm right

joke post?

and WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF CHANGE? If you want to play SOCOM 2, play SOCOM 2, there's no reason to simply remake SOCOM 2 with prettier graphics,

god all these posts later and you still can't grasp the simple notion that some games simply don't need to follow suit, some games simply should copy cat other games and become just another generic online shooter. it's really not hard to understand. socom online set up = perfect. improve some little things to make it more modern, but keep the uniqueness of it intact. parties and matchmaking = no thanks. you cannot have a party system with matchmaking and still have relevant custom games, it simply doesn't happen unless you want all custom games to be unranked and a waste of time.

remaining stagnant would be the worst thing that can happen to the series, if it doesn't evolve it will become irrelevant.

or the game can make drastic changes and become irrelevant. oh wait, that's never happened before. i mean, everyone LOVES socom 3 and combined assault. who doesn't love running around for an hour in ridiculously large maps only to be gunned down from afar by some jackass randomly firing from a humvee? i mean, that is so much better than socom 2.

I'm not proposing the game to turn into a battlefield clone.

too late, it already has, because they followed your logic.

I'm only proposing an addition to the online interface that will make getting a group of friends and going into randomized ranked games easier, that won't make it into a battlefield clone.

and completely ruin the online aspect of the game. yea, you want socom to play like halo :lol

Actually why can't a game have BOTH? It would make the game better.

having to do matchmaking to play ranked games isn't fun. joining random game after random game is fucking lame. again, stick to resistance.