f13.net

Activision 'hints' at COD MMO (http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/03/activision-ceo.html)

Count me as a fanboi already.


Unless it's WoW in modern warfare skin.

WWII MMOFPS: Count me in.    :awesome_for_real:

It really all depends on how they go about it.

Ya, its hard to speculate without any sort of gameplay description.

Bloodworth, knock it off with the large multi picture sigs.

Sorry, was trying something. Didn't know it automatically applied. Was trying to use the more streamlined ones  :-P.

SIGN ME UP.  NOW.

It's easy to see that implementation can make a HUGE difference. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_Online)

Yeah, played it :grin: Im a big MMOFPS fan.

I would be very concerned on how they merge the FPS combat , and the RPG aspects one comes to expect from an MMO.

We dont need another TR/SWG:NGE..not even a FPS.

Huxley...meh...PvE, and already some things i don't like in Competitive FPS.

Planetside style, or no dice.

That isn't even an admission of working on something. At most it's a "we're trying to figure out how to turn that money faucet on."

2012 or bust.

I was a big WWII OL fan when it first hit the shelves.  Sadly, it never lived up to the hype nor its potential.  If someone had the means to do it right (like a persistant BF1942), I'd move back into my mother's basement.  

They already got the Ding Gratz of MMO in COD4's MP.  The game design and fun has proven, at least, solid.

I played WWIIOL for far longer than it needed or deserved. Color me interested.

Exactly. String those maps together into a persistent environment and charge for access (flat fee, so you don't get that the imbalance xtrans would bring to a game all about skill). Heck, I wonder if some industrious folks could mod the maps to allow certain doors to zone into other maps, bouncing across servers.

I don't need 2000 vs 2000 people on a map, because density and quality is more important than raw numbers. 16 v 16 is too small to be called "massive" though.

And yet games with even smaller numbers are being called "massive" these days. Given how loose the defintion of an MMOG is now it's really hard to say what they are actually contemplating.

I stopped wondering what they were thinking at the end of the original story :-)

This is pure wish mode here. And since it could be anything, it's hard to wish for anything. I don't even think I'd need a specific number of players vs a specific number of players. COD4 proves to me you can do a lot just with level design by itself, whereas that same number of people playing on a standard ground Crysis map would feel positively quiet. Too many factors.

All they need to say though is COD4 gameplay in a massive setting, and I'll be there like a drooling DAoC beta convert.

I've heard games like this are great investment opportunities!!  Count me in  :awesome_for_real:

It's possible to do it. CRS took 5 and a half years to fix the bad design, management and programming errors on WW2OL 1.0. The mythically unity 2 engine is...scheduled to come out this year, but it's still only a game run by 12 people. Only took nearly 10 years to get there, but the game is stable (both server and front end), the design (mostly) works and the games finally going to get a playable Tutorial (for the China release in 3(?) months) of some sort.

CODMMOG can work (though a pure sim with planes needing joysticks to fly would be right out) but it won't be easy. Still, start it in 1944-across-the-rhine-and-oder for the oh-so-important US forces, lower the graphics (a LOT, but modem video cards can still make it look nice) and probably ignore air and sea combat (get enough kills and you can call in the tank busters)...and yer, it could be up there in EQ or LOTR numbers of players.

Actually, I've been hoping they do COD4: Modern Warfare. Tired of WWII, and I don't think there's room for another WWIIO.

Same here.  I'm sick of all the WWII FPS scene.  I loved the modern warfare theme in COD4. 

Even better, use the military theme and technology from Starship Troopers (the novel, not the movie).

I guess I'm the complete opposite.  I prefer WWII games.  Why?

Meaningful theater, stylized era, less reliance on tech, slower combat (more strategy, less twitch), broad array of terrain types (Africa, Europe, Pacific islands). 

I'd love to see BF1942 done as an MMO.  Sadly, I think I'm one of a handful that prefers this.  I hated the desert combat add-on for BF1942 and most people loved it. 

A Civil War era game or 1914 era game might be pretty wild.

I'm with ya. I do however, prefer large battles. The one thing that i think would be a barrier is just what Darniaq like about COD4, the very static maps. There is a point where that breaches the realm of "instancing" (If thought about in MMOized terms) and, becomes one-time-consumed content. If most of the...um.. Gameplay is based on the map, and not the units, soldiers, and strife between the sides, ETC.. it will become stale quickly. After all, its not like DIKU where you will do a heavily scripted instance over and over for the loots ((http://forums.snapstream.com/vb/images/smilies/mur.gif)). No, IMO, any successfully, long lived MMOFPS will need the emphasis placed on the interactions between players, factions (To include territory and Resources), and not the environment /NPC's(To a point).

A model somewhere between WW2Online (Large world, Front lines, supply chains),  planetside (Personalized avatars, Outfits, squads and equipment spawns {tanks and shitt}, Cert system, looting, shooting style), and COD4 (Graphics/setting/look and shooting style/Tech level).

Don't get me wrong, I actually like all those things about WWII FPS games. But there's just been too many of them. It's like Fantasy to MMOs in that. And in terms of contemporary/near-future setting, I prefer COD4 over Crysis, mostly due to level design and look/feel.

Ultimately though, if they made COD4 achievements into a WWII themed MMOFPS, I wouldn't cry over it :-)

*Will not make Redneck Joke. Will not make Redneck joke*

Eh, go ahead.  Never stops anyone else.

Im in the same boat of thought as this guy

 i'm quite stoked if it turns into something like a global BF2 domination game where we can fight in multiple theatres of war.

If CRS has been able to keep that girl alive for all these years updating the content the entire time (something Planetside lost long ago), I have complete faith that this is a real (niche) genre that can turn a profit if only somebody did it a little bit better.

As someone who played MMOFPSes more than MMORPGs, my 2 cents to anyone making one would be to address the problems that WW2OL and Planetside had.

Planetside had bullshit persistence, where the day-to-day battle never created any sort of victorious outcome, but the game play and sense of personal achievement was pretty damn fun (though the achievement sense lacks in comparison to todays Xbox Live world).

WW2OL had amazing persistence where fighting for cities could go for days on end with bombing campaigns and intense door-to-door fighting and at the end of it all you either pushed the Nazis back where they belong, or sent those limey sons of bitches swimming back across the channel before the map reset. The engine, however, was ridiculously bad by anybody's standards (with the exception of the damage system which was amazingly detailed), and the rest of the game play was nearly as shitty.

Combine the successes of those two games, ditch the flaws, and I'm pretty sure there is money to be made. You stick the COD brand on that, and you're going to make a lot more money.



OH! And crucial note! MMOFPSs have servers in regional locations that will not provide a good ping to most of your users. As a result, slower game play is better game play. I dodged so many fucking vans in Planetside that still ran me over because of the difference on his screen and my screen, and I also played in the days where surge implants were used as a 'tactic' to rush up to the top of a tower because if you ran fast enough your character would warp into the ceiling and shit so no one could see you. Despite WWIIOL being awful, the slow pace of game play made it so that people didn't warp behind you, for which I am very grateful.

Loosely on topic, Fallen Earth is meant to have about 20% of its world open to PvP and it will definitely have more of an FPS feel than a lot of MMOs.

However... until Fallen Earth is in its public beta, I still think of it as vapour. 

Define "slow pace of game play". I'm very, very bad at FPS games because I'm lousy at aiming and dodging. I could handle vehicles in Planetside, but not MAXs or infantry, for example. When I had time to aim and had to compensate for the vehicle's momentum, everything fell into place. Bunny hopping and hiding behind trees? Not so much.

WW2Online was the slowest FPS I have ever played, comparable to the most extreme of tactical shooters. The infantry game consisted mostly of running to a bush/tree line, going prone, staying still for a good 5 minutes while investigating your surroundings to make sure no one saw you and/or was shooting at you, and then running to the next line of trees. It really wasn't even an FPS by most standards, there was no center-screen crosshair. Your default position was with your gun at your hip, and in order to aim you held down mouse 2 to bring the gun sight up to your eye. You actually aimed down the barrel of the gun through the iron sight with no zoom, and had to lead your target and adjust for distance.

Because of this, the game was predominantly about understanding your range and aiming accordingly in order to hit long distance targets with your rifle, and then hiding and hoping no one saw your muzzle flash.

I think an MMOFPS should be a little bit faster paced than that, but should probably stay somewhere below Planetside if it wants to make the latency less of an issue. In general, you should try to have players crouching/going prone in order to return fire so that no one is moving while shooting, which is when real lag-out bullshit tends to go on.

Ahh, memories. I had a 50 kill mission one day after I climbed a tree and spent a couple of hours sniping at incoming infantry as they tried to capture a town.

I'd hit that, too.

Negative. I wont play that game. Then again, i am NOT advocating Unreal/Quake type movement. Honestly, plantsides style and pace is good to me (or QW:ET).

Having (mandatory) to stop to shoot is lame.

I want something more like:

I'm a TF2 player, and a big fan of Quake/Unreal -- so it's fair to say that I prefer faster games. My point was more so that MMOFPS games face unique technical limitations, and if you aren't in the mood to try and break down huge barriers, it's a whole lot easier to design a slow paced game where players are more often stationary than moving. You could go faster than that and probably have 'not bad' warping, but I think you can make a fun game based more on long range stationary combat than close range moving combat, and avoid a lot of lag issues as a result.

I agree, this is exactly why I refuse to participate in real-life combat as well until they implement recoilless and auto-balancing weaponry.

You can pick two. Large World or COD Graphics. I don't believe you can do both personally. Don't forget, Large World needs Large groups of players. Eve does it by having any combat bigger than 2 people meaning you zoom out so far all you see is 2 Crosshairs and a target list to auto fire at.

Large world to me doesn't mean zoneless. Link together a bunch of maps and control the number of people allowable in each to some degree. Most other MMO do this already anyway (or just crash the zone/region/world/game when the cap is met).

^ Like planetside.

Like creating a quilt of COD4 maps. PS was fine for its time, but whatever it takes to play it (re: previous pages), it's not enough FPS for me.

I said nothing of the like.

Also, EVE has *considerably* less grass, trees, junk to hide behind, walls, windows, and similar shit.