Higby announces plans for battle islands......

I think this is a step in the wrong direction. I would rather have the game move against larger, seamless worlds. I e larger maps, not smaller.

During one of the playtests Higby was in a platoon with us and answered questions.

Higby Q&A During Playtest

One comment he made was regarding continetal links and a continental metagame.
It could be done with 4 continents or with 4 continents and battle islands - it wouldn't be ideal but it could be done.

So Hossin in the pipeline and battle islands in the works.


Personally I'm quite happy - it suggests to me that we get ever closer to have proper warpgate traversal and some PS1 style territory control and domination.

I find it hard to care to be honest, I can imagine the odd use of it for a outfit v outfit match. However we do enough of them in the regular game anyway.

I'd really rather we had a properly fleshed out resource system, cont locking and other features with might really deepen strategic gameplay like artillery systems and/or another base type or two before that much steam was being put into MLG.

Its just that well, 48v48 balanced fps combat, its just not that PS2, or even that unique.

I appreciate its something some people want and it might significantly increase the broader appeal of the game. But i'd like the core game to reach its potential first.

I'd like to think that when the player whom joined because of it, emerges from the confines of his MLG - he'll walk dazzeled like Plato's prisoner emerging from the cave. Into a world of dizzing strategic complexity, and to have me shouting at him over direct chat to join the frontal assault on the spaceship factor as the VS have almost launched their mechacrusier.

As long as this does not affect the majority of us playing the game for its massive battle "size matters", then I dont see an issue with them doing whatever to make MLG stuff more balanced and fun for those involved.

Just dont let it affect us.

pls higby.

BF4 is having 128 player maps.

With the current state of PS2, all I can say is... GG no re

It effects us because it's taking away production time from things that matter to us - i.e. Hossin.

Mehhh so far I've been really happy with the pace of gameplay improvements to PS2 so I don't mind if one of those features is just a PR move. Its probably because this is the only F2P game run and supported by a non-indy developer.

I didn't even get to start playing this game yet b/c of my crappy GPU and now that I've ordered the new M17, this happens. Oh my god... I need to ask the bank for my house back.

Is this confirmed?

Lol

uhm, no you're not.

You'll do 32v32 maybe.... but they're hard-capping at 64 players

In any case... I see nothing wrong with smaller battles as well. Often we intentionally seek out 25-48 per side fights.... how is this much different other than preventing some 60 man zerg from comin' in overpowering you out

That's just flat out wrong

Per Bach: "We're keeping to 64 players because we feel that's what's best." (paraphrased)

Exactly. Scope and scale is the only edge PS2 has over its competitors, everything else is pretty much crap. If they think taking this one thing away and scaling the game down is going to make it better, they can kiss it goodbye.

Boy....my bogus cheat ban may have been merciful. bleh.