If OFP:DR and Endwar had a multiplayer baby...

By TheBMT
Offline
  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: Sep 2009
  • Link

TheBMT says...

Posted this in the Codemasters forums:

This probably could be in ideas and suggestions... but hardly anybody reads those forums. So here is some ideas I have been working on. Overall the goal here is to hope that Codemasters sees this and gets an "idea" to do something similar. In a future update.

Go Big:
Starting off I am assuming most of you have played the competitive multiplayer and the campaign missions. For me it seems there is a disconnect between the two modes. As it currently stands the competitive multiplayer is very similar in style to most FPS that are in the market. To truly stand out in the market of FPS the game's substance of controlling units isn't enough. To truly stand out there needs to be a system in place that is comprehensive and builds on teamwork.

Pick a side:

When you load up multiplayer you either choose US forces or PLA forces. In the beginning weapon choices are given to you like they are now. But as you progress in rank in your chosen faction you will start to unlock new abilities(I know your thinking COD perks right now, but no). An example would be that everbody is an infantryman to start. That is the core gameplay. As you move up the ranks you unlock access to the ability to operate a tank/helicopter/etc. It shouldnt be really high up, maybe about 5-10 ranks. As you rank up you will earn access to a Spec Ops level of customization. From there you can purchase*How do I pay for it?* new weapons, attachments, camo(to a degree), etc. Custom loadouts would be unlocked too. Allowing you to have a spec ops squad amongst other normal infantry when playing multiplayer could be key.

So you have two factions, so what?:

Imagine the whole map of Skira, or if its nearby look at the map. There are 38 names of areas on the map. I havent had the opportunity to check each individual area but we have played in Mologa, Raskova airfield, and I cant remember where the other 2 are located. But lets take each of those maps and look at them as pieces to a puzzle. 17 vs 17 is what the map breaks down to in terms of US has 17 and PLA has 17. Each map should be available as a 4v4 squad size or for some other maps 2v2 squad size. 4v4 is like chokepoint and Mologa. 2v2 would be kinda like the Raskova airfield minus all the extra land. Basically 2v2 would be for infiltration or other objective types. *this relates to rules and conditions*

Each day there would be several missions available with territories that are connecting on a "frontline". Basically each win counts as a 1 win for each faction. Everbody would have access for 23 hours to these maps, with a 1 hour carryover for the servers to tabulate the results. From these results either your frontline moves forward in certain territories or back. To win the war the conditions could be to control "all" the territories or just 36 of 38(adjustments?)

How do I pay for it?:

Each match depending on the several variables like, if you won, did you keep squad alive, did you keep moral up, etc you will earn a "payout" from command. This may be mercenary like, but look at it as what soldiers usually get paid broken up into each match. Then at the end of the day the top command will give out a bonus if your faction won the objectives of that day. These can be either cash bonuses, access to new weapons for a day, or fire support for a day, etc.

Rules and Conditions:

First off, connections issues I hope they have fixed before this is even attempted. Going into the rules I believe:

1. Annhilation matches should be set to experienced or hardcore. Normal respawning to a point total of 50-75 on a time frame of 30 min. But if they reach 30 min and dont yet have the win through points, they need to win by at least 5 points(kills).
2. Infiltration matches should be experienced or hardcore. This could be restricted respawning for experienced or no respawn. But at least for hardcore no respawn.
3. Other modes if anybody has any ideas that would work like capture a convoy, rescue mission, etc.
4. Fire Support should be limited to your rank. It should also be limited to what territories you control.
5. Parties and Clans, there is no reason once this is implemented that people in a party cant start their own match together, or clans start a match together.
6. Switching sides results in a loss of rank and abilities. Money idk, maybe keep half or 1/4.


So this is what I was thinking, so that this forum and many fan forums can be used to develop a teamwork and comraderie for a common goal.
Offline
  • Posts: 124
  • Joined: Sep 2009
  • Link

Toohats says...

sounds good your sayin have basicly the theater of war from endwar but when your an infantry squad? that would be an amazing game especially with DR's gameplay
Offline
  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: Sep 2009
  • Link

TheBMT says...

Yea I think it would match up great. Having to unlock the ability to use better guns and operate more complex vehicles would be ideal. Anybody can drive a jeep or whatever. But the heli/tank/apc stuff is a bit overpowered atm. If they were introduced about 2-3 weeks later into the game, or you had to earn it. I think people would adapt faster.
Offline
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: Jan 2010
  • Link

Ross says...

I think it is a great idea. I have been thinking for some time now that a game like OFPDR should be more like Eve, with an intereactive campaign map that changes based on individual play and battles.

If you look at CounterStrike's http://www.finalbattleground.com/ they have kind of done something similar.

Frontlines: Fuel of War also has a similar concept of pushing the control of battle based on individual wins.

If you are going to take this seriously someone should really sit down and look at how this could be coded. I think it will need a big server to host all the maps and the massive amount of registered players and the stats. I don't think that you can run battles on a daily basis however, but have them open-ended- perhaps even awards for times. I think it is a more realistic expectation that it could take days or weeks to complete a campaign- I think it would be more exciting too. Imagine having a website with an overall view of the campaign with details coming in all the time of updates of the battles.
Offline
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: Jan 2010
  • Link

Ross says...

PS just found that Arma 2 which OFPDR is based on is pretty much the best it gets
Sorry, you need to be logged in and have a validated account to post on the forums.

OFPHQ Stats

Users Online

(Members: 0, Guests: 9)

twitter