The Firefight Project

[nervousquirrel]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firefight Project - www.ProjectFF.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary/Goals:

Our project is being designed with gameplay goals in mind. Those goals are to create intense, struggle oriented gameplay that incorporates the concepts of cover, flanking, and suppression in such a way that they are all effective and integral. Moreover, in line with the concept of a firefight, we are designing each weapon so that no player can so easily eliminate another player.

The kind of gameplay we are going for will have the players taking cover and manuvering, just as much as it will have them shooting and killing. The idea is to do away with conventional design where players simply frag, and move to a design where players have to acctually fight and struggle for a kill.

Setting:

This project is set in a modern urban environment, pitting US infantry against an opposing force, details about which we have yet to announce.

More Information:

Our current concern is developing the project. This is why our site is so simple and has no media on it. Our intentions are to build a productive team and produce substantial and representative content before we start releasing media to the public.

Although we currently have a substantial core team, we can always use more help. With that said, we are accepting members in all positions (Level Design, Programmer, Texture Artist, Weapon Modeler, Player Modeler, Model Animator, Skinner, Sound Design), and if you are interested, please contact Squirrel at fconcepcion@gmail.com.

Check the final post for more information

[⌐■_■]

I like the concept very much!

[Kosmo]

Sounds rather cool, but please, try to keep away from the "rendered weapon models without textures" and try to release something playable even if it doesn't have all the core elements intact but something to tell that you are alive and developing it from time to time.

[Crackerjack]

Wait wait... so this is another modern combat mod... just like BF2 and Insurgency (not bashing on the games just talk about their overall themes).. Im a little confused at what seperates your mod from all others. I mean I duck and shoot and take cover in DOD: S but thats because i dont want to get killed. I really dont see any interesting new features that pits your mod against the rest. And please dont give new graphical features as in realistic muzzle fire, night vision, weather,.. The community wants new gameplay!

Well sir what ever you do goodluck.

[The Postman]

Wait wait... so this is another modern combat mod...

Exactly what I was thinking. Well, good luck chum.

[curman]

Blender and I were on this team, I think Blender still is.

HI FRANK!!!11

[nervousquirrel]

Sounds rather cool, but please, try to keep away from the "rendered weapon models without textures" and try to release something playable even if it doesn't have all the core elements intact but something to tell that you are alive and developing it from time to time.

That why we dont have a site yet

Wait wait... so this is another modern combat mod... just like BF2 and Insurgency (not bashing on the games just talk about their overall themes).. Im a little confused at what seperates your mod from all others. I mean I duck and shoot and take cover in DOD: S but thats because i dont want to get killed. I really dont see any interesting new features that pits your mod against the rest. And please dont give new graphical features as in realistic muzzle fire, night vision, weather,.. The community wants new gameplay!

Well sir what ever you do goodluck.

I HOLD THE SAME OPINION YOU DO ABOUT CLONES, AND I PROMISE YOU NEW GAMEPLAY

Although I certainly can't speak for the other projects, our main focus is more than "modern combat mod". Infact, the fact that it is a modern combat mod simply speaks for the setting, and not the gameplay persay. Although we will have contemporary weapons, it's the way we are designing the game that will perpetuate firefights.

Again, where most mods might be looking to make a "modern combat mod", we are simply using modern combat as a setting, and in truth are making a "firefight mod in a modern combat setting".

I would explain further, but for now I'm trying to be discrete untill we have something representative, and can thus establish ourselves.

If you're interested, that is, would like to possibly join the team, hit me up on AIM or through email and I'll be able to answer more of your questions.

Also (sorry I know this is god awful long), check this out, it's a quote from a previous post.

Our project's focus is on the following:

Designing gameplay dynamics that support and perpetuate...

a) engagements that are significant and last

b) realworld tactics such as maneuvering around the battle field,

suppression fire, and flanking

c) the use of cover as an effective tool in combat (if you're behind

significant cover, but have a bit of a leg or something sticking out, the

odds of getting hit are fairly slim)

With regards to your question about realism... I see it this way: there are two schools of thought when considering realism.

The first is the prevalent model that focuses on high damage and an accuracy system that allows for very accurate fire under certain circumstances (i.e. CS, Rainbow 6, Ghost Recon, etc..). This sort of gameplay does not particularly allow a real exchange between opposing players, as the accuracy system only allows for pointing and clicking... and exposing yourself at all in games like this usually means death and the end to what could have been and interesting encounter.

The second is ours, the model focuses on the reality that firefights do not end quickly. Engagements in the realworld are struggles that involve more than just crouching, pointing, and killing. Engagements last for indefinite periods of time, but for lengths of time that are more than the standard game dynamics in the so called "Realism Mods" allow. There are elements like fear and skill with weapons that one cannot translate so well into a game (refer to the article written by W. J. Frisbee Jr. entitled "Fire fight Dynamics"). In order to have the same dynamics, one must look at other solutions to creating a sustained firefight in a game.

In my model the way you simulate this reality is by designing the game so that it is more about manuvering and getting the "one up" on the opposition, rather than finding the single pixel floating above cover and clicking on it. We change the objective from quick kills, to having to work for a kill. This involves manipulating dynamics such as accuracy, damage, movement, etc... so that no one person could end an engagement so quickly as they could in "realism mods"; but are still capable of killing, should they be in a tactically superior position/situation (whatever that entails). In the real world, it's all about exposing your target and making sure you are covered adequatley, and we have not overlooked that.

More about cover:

Where I think the first model mentioned above is lacking is in it's support of cover. Any "exposedness" in the first model equates to quick death, whereas in the real world that is not precisely true, and where in a game that makes for "point and click fests" rather than involved, exciting circumstances in which teams can employ necessary tactics in a virtual world.

Basically:

Having an engagement that can be ended by the click of a mouse before anything has really even begun is not as awsome as having to fire at eachother, suppress the enemy, and go in for the kill.

[Lurker]

Sounds like Brothers in Arms on Source - that's sex. Good luck

[nervousquirrel]

Modern combat is a setting, not a gameplay style for us. The gameplay is something onto itself.

As per your statement that we are like Brothers in Arms:

I understand how you might want to equate our project to other projects, and although it isn't accurate, perhaps for the purposes of explaination your example fits, but only vaguely. For instance, and this is only one example of many, BiA was full of annoying stalemates. It was terrible. Granted, it also had it's good points, but damn...

Anyways, our project naturally draws from what I've learned in other games. The do's and don'ts that is. However, to try to say that we are doing a "different version of XYZ game" isn't accurate.

We're really going to break some ground with this game, and we need talent to help support the design we've created. If you're interested, hit me up on any of my contact points and we can discuss the project further.

If you're not interested though, feel free to hit me up as well.

[Kamikazi!]

As per your statement that we are like Brothers in Arms:

I understand how you might want to equate our project to other projects, and although it isn't accurate, perhaps for the purposes of explaination your example fits, but only vaguely. For instance, and this is only one example of many, BoA was full of annoying stalemates. It was terrible. Granted, it also had it's good points, but damn...

You say you want to delay the killing and have more suppression, but you are disgusted at a game that does this?

[RD]

Boa?

[nervousquirrel]

As per your statement that we are like Brothers in Arms:

I understand how you might want to equate our project to other projects, and although it isn't accurate, perhaps for the purposes of explaination your example fits, but only vaguely. For instance, and this is only one example of many, BoA was full of annoying stalemates. It was terrible. Granted, it also had it's good points, but damn...

You say you want to delay the killing and have more suppression, but you are disgusted at a game that does this?

I'm saying that although BiA proposed one system for suppression and firefights, and it worked to an extent, I consider it to be quite flawed. Moreover, I want to stress that we are not building off of BiA, our game is absolutely unique, and unfortunately for the time being you'll have to take my word for it.

[nervousquirrel]

Boa?

Brothers in Arms, pardon. BiA.

[Kamikazi!]

I'm saying that although BiA proposed one system for suppression and firefights, and it worked to an extent, I consider it to be quite flawed. Moreover, I want to stress that we are not building off of BiA, our game is absolutely unique, and unfortunately for the time being you'll have to take my word for it.

What flaws are you going to fix?

[nervousquirrel]

Well like I said, we aren't trying to fix BiA.

We are making our game with origninal ideas, completely independent of BiA or any other game. The only way that other games have influenced this project, naturally, is by showing us things that don't work.

I dont know how to answer your question, I don't have a list of things that need to be fixed in BiA. Again, don't make the mistake of associating us with BiA, I only said that it vaguely parallels our project, not that we are another type of BiA game. I want to stress that we are a different project altogether.

Our game is like BiA in that things like suppression and flanking will be effective and useful. However, unlike BiA, our model for doing so is VERY different.