The Firefight Project

[Kamikazi!]

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.

So far I still have no idea of what your game is going to be about. It isn't like BiA, but it is. I am back to nothing on what your game is about.

[nervousquirrel]

Bah, I'm sorry if I've confused you. 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.

[Kamikazi!]

Bah, I'm sorry if I've confused you. 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.

Have you designed that model yet? Can you explain that model in detail?

[nervousquirrel]

We have a very detailed, strong design document in place. Moreover, we have a progressive system setup for making builds based off of the design document and testing the concepts therein. Currently we are working on an Alpha build that will test the core concepts of the project.

As for describing the mod in detail, I cannot do so for the time being. The details exist, but I want to release details when we have a full site to support and establish our ideas, and we are not going to put up a site untill we have adequate content.

This puts us in a spot since a site attracts people to help produce content, however this is why if someone approaches me with an interest in joining the project, I am willing to answer any questions they have.

AIM: Nervousquirrel

Email: fconcepcion@gmail.com

[Kamikazi!]

You might get more people if you can show some competent ideas instead of "Trust me". Core design ideas are more attractive to artists/developers than some unskinned weapon renders on the front page. You need to assure people they are not wasting their time by giving you free content for something that could fail before it is even out.

In a nutshell, you should show you can strongly back up your idea and it is ready for content before you announce it and look for artists.

There are a LOT of modifications promising a LOT of things, but few give solid proof backing up why it really is cool. You need to sell your ideas to people to get them really interested.

[Lurker]

All I'm saying is that the gameplay of Brothers in Arms fits directly into this criteria:

"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) "

The battles in Brothers in Arms lasted for a while, and it was tedious to say the least to pick any part of an enemies body off. So as far as your criteria is concerned, you are holding quite close to the Brothers in Arms gameplay model. Then again, you can see the difference between games like Brothers in Arms and Operation Flashpoint, but from my understanding you're planning on having this be a first-person shooter with squad command that includes the 4 Fs (Find, Fix, Flank, Finish).

Not that being like Brothers in Arms would be so bad, I personally thought both Road to Hill 30 and Earned in Blood were terrific, just that I find it odd that you would claim Brothers in Arms to be terrible and not be able to properly differenciate your project from it. What I said was that it sounded "like Brothers in Arms", correctly. Whether or not you do break new ground, what I take from your posts so far is that it IS very similar to the Brothers in Arms gameplay model, and whether or not you use a different squad command system the overall gameplay is going to be similar. Then again, it could be otherwise and I could just as easily be wrong/confused.

Either way, I didn't want to be a pest but you do have me intrigued and I'm wondering what model you plan to use that will not suffer from the same flaws as Brothers in Arms and other games do.

Your game might be nothing like Brothers in Arms, but the gameplay you've laid out so far will draw many comparisons, you had to have known that.

[nervousquirrel]

You're right. Very good point. I've been thinking about putting together a "Portfolio" of sorts to explain the points of our project. The only problem is deciding how to do that without making too much information available, and likewise by not making a site that is to vague. We'll figure that out, but thanks, you made an excellent point.

[Lurker]

You're right. Very good point. I've been thinking about putting together a "Portfolio" of sorts to explain the points of our project. The only problem is deciding how to do that without making too much information available, and likewise by not making a site that is to vague. We'll figure that out, but thanks, you made an excellent point.

http://www.insmod.net/info.php

Reference the Insurgency Mod's info page for a successful way of doing that. That's been up for God knows how long, and it gives you a good rundown of what the mod is and isn't.

[nervousquirrel]

All I'm saying is that the gameplay of Brothers in Arms fits directly into this criteria:

"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) "

The battles in Brothers in Arms lasted for a while, and it was tedious to say the least to pick any part of an enemies body off. So as far as your criteria is concerned, you are holding quite close to the Brothers in Arms gameplay model. Then again, you can see the difference between games like Brothers in Arms and Operation Flashpoint, but from my understanding you're planning on having this be a first-person shooter with squad command that includes the 4 Fs (Find, Fix, Flank, Finish).

Not that being like Brothers in Arms would be so bad, I personally thought both Road to Hill 30 and Earned in Blood were terrific, just that I find it odd that you would claim Brothers in Arms to be terrible and not be able to properly differenciate your project from it. What I said was that it sounded "like Brothers in Arms", correctly. Whether or not you do break new ground, what I take from your posts so far is that it IS very similar to the Brothers in Arms gameplay model, and whether or not you use a different squad command system the overall gameplay is going to be similar. Then again, it could be otherwise and I could just as easily be wrong/confused.

Either way, I didn't want to be a pest but you do have me intrigued and I'm wondering what model you plan to use that will not suffer from the same flaws as Brothers in Arms and other games do.

Your game might be nothing like Brothers in Arms, but the gameplay you've laid out so far will draw many comparisons, you had to have known that.

Yeah, I knew it would draw comparisons. Firstly, I think it's importaint to mention that our project is multiplayer. Not sure if that was understood.

Assuming it was, the example regarding stalemates was just one example. Your example about picking people off when their heads showed up is what I meant by that. It was very annoying to me, didnt like it at all. By the way, I also think it's importaint to note that I've never played BiA Multiplayer, only Single Player.

The similarities in both BiA and our project lie in that we share the concepts of suppression and flanking. That is where it ends, as we are handling this game differently, and it will not limit you to doing only those two tactics. What else is possible is up to the player. We've simply designed a framework that is conducive to firefights and the afore mentioned tactics.

Consider this example: Tomb Raider was a great game. It was a very popular game for it's jumping puzzles and the like. Then came Prince of Persia: Sand of Time. Famous also, to an extent, for similar gameplay, but a completely different game. It was similar to Tomb Raider (BiA), but surpassed it and was essentially different from it (http://www.ProjectFF.com). It did what Tomb Raider did better, and did so in totally different ways.

If you're that interested, hit me up. I'd love to discuss details with you. Btw, do you mod at all?

[curman]

Frank say Hi to me.

[nervousquirrel]

lol, hey curman.

[curman]

You had me at hello, where can I sign up again to join.

[nervousquirrel]

:roll:

[Crackerjack]

hmmm interesting im starting to realize your gameplay a little better and the more i think about it the more interesting it sounds. But really your making your mod soley rely on the mappers. If the mappers have absolutly no clue what their doing then you mod is fucked. What I would percieve as a good map... is small but tactiful... something like what RD is working on in the level editing forums... Small and tactiful..though not appealing visually. I bet you jump right in the action and have a blast. I could see myself possibly making a small tactiful map for this mod in the future. But i dont see myself joining a mod anytime soon, exspecially one that has no existing content or code completed. Not throw down your mod its just that I have been on one to many mods that have died and my work has gone to waste. Or i just lose interest. I will be watching this mod and keep me informed of its progress because i might get lazy and stop checking.

[Skjalg]

I dont really see how you can focus so much more on flanking techniques than other firefight mods out there..

If you break it down, its just a strategy used in all Firefight games, when players actually team up that is, even CS.. and especially DOD...

Its not something you can implement via code, its something you can encourage with the map layout, yes, but thats already done in X number of mods. Saying you will focus on that gives me nothing, since i could just make a map for DOD focusing on that, and we'd have your mod in a map.

+ realistic modelbehaviour behind cover.. oh please.. everyone sais they'll have that..

I might've misunderstood badly tho, since my english understand sucks at times, but i wish you good luck with your project anyways Tho i wish people would start thinking outside the box instead of following the old modern WAR combat mod.