Good report. Very nicely done. Comprehensive and informative. I'm sure we will learn more about what you can and cannot do/share as this moves forward.
BF2 bots (unmodded) ran only on 16 player maps, and that was fine.
Running a 16 player map with bots in BF4 should really not be a major feat. Of course, it may be limited in relation to what sorts of vehicles the bots use, but some bots are always better than no bots.
15 bots and you should not bog down any computer that can run BF4/3. I think they just really don't want to fool with it and want to force everybody to be on line to play anything BF in the first place.
BF2 bots (unmodded) ran only on 16 player maps, and that was fine.
Running a 16 player map with bots in BF4 should really not be a major feat. Of course, it may be limited in relation to what sorts of vehicles the bots use, but some bots are always better than no bots.
15 bots and you should not bog down any computer that can run BF4/3. I think they just really don't want to fool with it and want to force everybody to be on line to play anything BF in the first place.
@okassar As you say. If that were the only thing the CoD crossovers mess up in BF, it would be almost ok.
Some of the biggest CoD-overs are things like never dropping ammo when playing support, yet screaming for "ammo", running around round after round with a noob toob as though it has been surgically attached, and becoming specialists in the art of reviving downed players in the middle of continued massed enemy fire. O_O
Joystick works very nicely too. Just remember you may need to change the default "pad" settings for "on foot" or you might end up shooting your gun nonstop every time you spawn or reload it. O-O
Training ground is a good idea. They realized very quickly with BF3 that it was a major oversight.
Co-op though was also a lot of fun. It's really a shame they didn't include a few new co-op missions with each DLC expansion. I think a lot of players would have enjoyed a jet co-op similar to the jet mission in the campaign game.
I also think someone from DICE should explain why it would be SO hard to include a bots capability in BF4. I think it's more just somebody there didn't want to bother than any real technical or even monetary consideration. Unfortunate indeed. :-(
Star Craft 2 and Command and Conquer are considered RTS games.
So is the Company of Heroes series.
Yet, they are quite different from the Total War series in many ways.
People who play SC2, C&C, and CoH, but who haven't yet tried TW games are still RTS fans. They just haven't tried the whole palette yet.
That's why a video like Zorine made here is good for people like that. It breaks things down into understandable chunks.
For example, you would be surprised how many people play TW games only on the campaign map - sometimes because they think that is how it is supposed to be played - that doing a real time battle is "just an option". It's not as obvious as you might think to a lot of people.
I remember the first time I played Shogun 1, their first game. The concept was so new I couldn't really get the hang of it at first. Some months later, I came back to it and tada, it all clicked and I have been loving TW games ever since, playing real time battles every chance I get during the campaign game.
On the other hand, I have a Civ devotee relative I gave TW to as a present who sees no point at all in doing real time battles in the campaign and consequently does not hold TW games in as high a regard as Civ - because he does not understand TW games are not really made to be played like Civ - you can, but they are not nearly as much fun.
This is all I have seen so far. I was hoping Zorine might be able to get some more info on this for us:
"There is also a cap on the number of armies a faction can have at any time based on the faction's power.
A faction can gain more power by conquering more regions and filling its coffers with gold.
This system has been implemented to make battles more decisive and for them to have a bigger impact on a war between two factions."
Took out the link because it remained "pending" forever.
I personally don't like arbitrary, artificial limits in games like this. That's why I'd like to know more about the how and the why of it? I suspect some of it may have more to do with limiting game engine resource usage than with anything dealing with "pure game design elements".
Limiting us by limiting the number of "generals" would also be bringing back old artificial dev aids to artificially reduce "game engine resource usage" like they used to do when computers were far more limited than they are today. The problem with games like this today is they are cramming in so much visual fluff that the basic game core engine suffers. The visuals are crowding out the game itself - that's overkill imo.
duderdave's comments