   A new genre of multiplayer maps! Interesting battlefield mod idea?
  I have an idea for a mod for battlefield 1942 ( a multiplayer shooting game) and would love to have some feedback. This mod will not change the visuals but will be a new kind of map. I'm calling it 'Mission' maps. So you would have next to 'CTF', 'TDM' and 'conquer' also 'Mission' maps.What's so special about 'Mission' maps? Rules of the game:- When you die, you are death for good. You will not respawn immediately again. You will have to wait for the next game until you can play again. You can follow the rest of the game from different interesting camera angles. You can also communicate with death comrades. (This is the same Game cycle system as Counterstrike's) - In the game two different teams have mission based opposite goals. For instance a mission could be: Free the hostages. The other team tries to avoid the escape. Team 1 wins if they free the hostages and rescue them to a certain point. Team 2 wins if team 1 does not succeed in this mission within a certain time frame. (Also Counterstrike inspired)- A new soldier type is invented: The General. He will be the one who decides which vehicles will be used for each new game. With a limited budget he can buy from a list the vehicles he wants. He will have to pick wisely, depending on the map, the objective and what he thinks the opposite team will use. He will also have to take in acount what the talents of his players are so that the vehicles fit them.- The general will get an extra radio which allows him to have a very structured, organised and clear view of the battlefield. If used wisely this communication and coordination interface can lead to victory!- If your general is killed, the team loses. - The number of possible vehicles will be limited so that you are forced to put more soldiers into one vehicle. This promotes teamwork and feels more fun, realistic, certainly when it's mission based. - Once a vehicle is destroyed it will also not respawn again and will be, just like the players, out of game. This style of map could be played in all other mods as well as the original. We can create maps for Desert Combat, EOD, battlefield 1942, etc. Using their original maps and vehicles and all but changing the way the map works with the rules from above. Crating 'Mission' maps. That's it folks! Let me know what you think about it! Would you like to play this game?-- Marc[edited by - MarcDM on February 10, 2004 11:03:46 AM]
  Two games come to my mind "America''s Army" and "Savage".  "America''s Army" for the perma-death until the end of the round and "Savage" for the Leader/RTS element of the game.Both AA and Savage have taken game playing in a direction not seen in other games.  Too bad Savage had such a poor publisher with poor distribution/marketing ability as well as being pushed out the door prior to being completed.Would BF1942 be able to handle the "General" aspect of the game?  You mention a couple of features which may beyond the ability of simple mod for 1942.BF1942 certainly can handle the permadeath aspect.  I remember RTCW had an option for perma death where you could set the number of lives available to players.  It totally forced a change in the way the game was played since life was more valuable.Great ideas though, I am true believer the FPSer genre has only been touched on the surface.  Mods are one of the best features of the FPSers out there.I will get a lot of flack, but I am always surprised at how people are so loyal to CS when the gameplay is so basic compared to say 1942, AA, Savage or RTCW.Mojo ;  Dead on, AP.The game doesn''t have to end when the general dies. It could be interesting when the team loses comm and intel.   _GEo.RHS Band;  Also, one aspect of "The General" feature of gameplay that needs attention is non-team player type of person such as the  player sin 1942 who would drive the aircraft carrier off the map or the leaders in Savage who did not know the game play requirements required to lead causing the team to lose.  If your mod this would be similar to a general not picking any or the wrong vehicles or killing himself with a grenade to immediately lose the game.Mojo;  Sounds like counter-strike, with a game-selected leader and vehicles.It could be done well, but it could also end up like CS 1.6How fun it will be depends 100% on the implementation rather than the base ideas. ;  Talking with dead comrades? Maybe only people who "purchase" ouija boards at the beginning of the game should have this ability. After all, it represents a good source of tactical data. Maybe you should give ghosts the ability to block other ghost''s views by positioning their ethereal bodies. ;quote:Original post by ExtrariusIt could be done well, but it could also end up like CS 1.6What happened to CS 1.6? There are some years since I stopped playing CS.  ;  Its not just CS 1.6, but ever since about 1.3 the creators have made some seriously flawed decisions IMO. For example, when you land from a jump, you move very slowly for seconds afterwards (no stamina bar or anything like that, just you jump then you move slow, but you can still jump constantly while you''re moving slow). Another example is that in CS1.6 there is a riot shield that you can use instead of a rifle, and you can use both a pistol and the shield at the same time. The shield is impervious to damage, but only protects from the front 1/3 of a circle, but to shoot your pistol you have to move the shield aside reducing protection to about 1/5. It is extremely unbalanced since only CTs can buy it (but Ts can pick it up if they kill somebody with one). Also, weapons have been rebalanced over the versions to be less precise and accurate each version, except the sniper rifles (can still get perfect shots running around with the scout).EtcIts all subjective, and there are many people that still play, but I also know many that found 1.6 to be the last straw. ;  he means talking to dead comrades when you are dead too   -www.penten.tk- "The problem with America is stupidity. I''m not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don''t we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?" -xterm-;quote:Original post by Avatar God  Dead on, AP.The game doesn''t have to end when the general dies. It could be interesting when the team loses comm and intel.   _GEo.RHS Band I agree, if the team loses when the general dies, that''s not very fun for a group of newbies and that could possibly stimulate flaming