So the devs got layed off and we are basically stuck with the game as-is. As much as this is wishful thinking, imagine if DBG would allow players to create updates for the game as a community? Even if the community were allowed to start adding their things to the game we would need a system to make sure that everything that is added is qualitatively good enough to enhance the game without adding massive bugs and that the creator does not give himself a massive advantage just to farm. So the question is, how can we support a mostly independent community group to select which improvements to the game get added and which wont? I think that first part is the most important. We dont want the community as a whole to vote as that simply becomes a mess. A small group of players with access to a PTS where they can load in works people have uploaded somewhere to test it and evaluate it. They can give feedback to the creator ("causes lag, has animation problems, a 400 damage 750RPM gun is a tad much" etc) and if good enough and enough people vote for it and not against it they could add it. Should there perhaps be a goal set by these people, say "we are currently looking to improve the vehicle game by doing X" and then combine certain uploads, or ask the creators to make specific changes to make it better fit? Does anyone have a good idea how we could handle this? Because if we do, then DBG might be like "what the hell we already hired a youtube persona as a test so why not do this with a dying game?".
Ciao Demigan, Unfortunately, the chances are slim to non existing. There are quite a few reasons for that: 1. PS2 is a multiplayer game so it needs an infrastructure to run (ISP, network devices, servers, backups, UPS, air conditioning systems, electricity, hosting, maintenance, monitoring, ...). Those are running costs which someone has to pay, Even if you had 1000 developers willing and capable to work for free you would still need DBG to pay bills every months. If they do want (or can't) they'll pull the plug anyway 2. To develop you need tools and a working environment. It means access to the game engine, building and packing tools, debuggers, IDE, source code repository, 3rd party libraries etc. Also those things cost money in terms of licenses. Someone has to pay those as well (see above) 3. Aside from the tools, you need varied experience/knowledge. Nowadays a triple A (an Indie less, but not so many less) PC game has a team of 25-50 people. Big franchise have easily double that amount. There is a reason for that: you need Design expert, 2D expert, 3D expert, net-coding, UI, weapons, collision detection, level builders, graphic artists, storytellers, ... Depending on your role, you will either working by configuring an engine, by writing programming code, by creating scripts, by creating 3D objects ... Goodwill is not enough, you need specific skills 4. Aside from the above, you need training. You need someone to walk through the tools you will need to use everyday, what works and what does not work. Manuals? Documentation? The most important things depend on oral traditions. And there is nobody left to speak to. There have been examples of games donated as open source and that led either to new versions of the game or community patches fixing a good number of bugs. But that was in another age of complexity: I can think about Falcon 4, the Gothic franchise, the three episodes of Stalker.... Very, very old and single-player games. More recently I can remember attempts to redesign old episodes of the Elders Scrolls lore (basically taking the old story with modern graphics) but those have failed. The level of complexity nowadays exceeds the goodwill of a few people. I have developed myself open-source additions/modules for games, but again that was in the past (in another life, I was a software engineer and not a suit - yes, the one that cuts you a bonus check-) and without any support from the publisher: most of the work has been done by reverse-engineering data files since the source code was not available.
1: I was thinking that DBG still keeps the game running as it does now. They collect money from sales to pay for server services and updates keep happening... but updates happen through a community collaboration instead of developers. 2: it is unfortunate they probably wont make a solid environment for it, but we've already seen people do some quick (I assume) changes like make the gag of a working 4-barreled Prowler, or Wrel's Vanguard with Harasser physics or the Colossus that was made possible in a similar way to the 4 barreled Prowler. 3: I was thinking of a more modding type change at the start. Copying an existing weapon, changing its skin and then its stats to give it a unique function shouldnt be too hard, with the most effort in finding a balanced range of stats to perform that function. And with things like the bullet cloning and bullet bounces we could add a whole range of new weapons. We still have options for artillery, rebalancing infantry and vehicles, adding a range of resource-costing rocketlaunchers and other weapons, use the drop-pod system as a construction-light system to call down items and equipment, modify vehicles like the Valkyrie to have additional turrets at the cost of rumble seats and add this as an extra vehicle etc etc. 4: Considering some of the things the community has already done I think we could have a lot of great stuff. I personally dont care much if the graphical side is a bit buggy or ugly as long as the gameplay improves beyond what it is now. Just imagine if someone manages to activate the "normal" flight controls that SOE said they had made but didnt release because they wanted to see how the current one fared?
I'm sure plenty of player/programmers would foot the cost of development tools. But damn, it would be a ton of work to do anything. What's that song about fixing code? You squish 1 bug and create 10. We see it constantly, from people who've worked on this game for years, they'll fix a weapon sound and all of a sudden the gun is invisible, and stuff like that.
"Don't try to improve it because it could get bugged" isn't exactly the best argument is it? It could also get better...
I'd typically agree, but I'm just thinking back to past patches when they had a full team. I still think this game will improve. I imagine 95% ofd what they'll do in the future will just be tweaks to balance, and Wrel undoing much of vehicle CAI is a HUGE step in the right direction. With just him behind the wheel and him going along with the community with those changes, it might actually be a good time to get some key basic things done. But yeah, I'm with you, anything the community can do to help would be great, I still think the biggest thing the community could do is to start being cool towards everyone else. Like teyi g to balacnce fights in their own, limiting cheese, not **** on small fights with ESF...
I'm supportive of this idea, but I don't think it'd go well. HOWEVER, why don't we just hire dev volunteers from the community to work on this game? They don't gotta show up in person or whatever. You just talk to them over discord or something. Why haven't they done that? There are plenty of people who want to fix this game. They'd do it for free, or recognition at the least. I'd like to be an idea man, but I can't code or anything. We need coders to code the stuff people want. This has probably already been suggested and I am missing something.
I like where your head is on this one demi, just gotta make sure they don't end up with biased input. (Which we were getting anyways....)
Bad idea, last thing we need is a bunch of hack creators getting to know all vulnerabilities through access to the source code. Wasn't it encryption of game assets or something which holds off certain hitbox hacks? Also, I think there is a way to create cosmetics for community people already which are then monetized and put into the store.
Hold. Up. CapEnTrade gave me an idea that DBG probably won't work with. How many people left when Higby was fired? What if they get news that he is back? Rehire him as a consultant or back to his old job as Creative Director, make it public knowledge, get his to fix everything wrong with the game. That'll get people back. Even if they can't pay him, they can at least say sorry.
This is exactly why I'm looking for an organization structure to filter that out as much as possible. With the way the devs went with the game we know that it is never 100% anti-bias proof, but do you really think that leaving the game as-is would be better than trying to upgrade it? Even just universal additions like better command tools, easier access to certain features like underbarrel weapons and the addition of NS equipment would be better than not doing anything. As for cheats and access to the source code. It would be better to have occasional updates rather than none, and you could allow people who make good contributions increasingly more access to the source code. Its not perfect, but always better than leaving the game to die as-is. From experience, lots of cheating happens simply because of displeasure with how a game is run. If it is run by enthousiastic people who are visually busy improving things a lot of cheating will go away. Cheating will never go away completely and you can never stop them all, but you can make it harder with more and faster policies and perhaps some select community members.
Afraid i've been wondering just how much cash is flowing in right now. I cancelled my membership due to the incessant cheating - and i've been supporting PS2 like forever and would be happy to continue doing so if they managed to get a grip on the situation. In every squad / platoon I joined, there were very very few members - which DBG need as a constant / steady source of revenue. If everyone unsubscribes, well, that's the end of that. Maybe they should start by looking for willing game monitors to check out the dodgy players. We had a guy from Soltech offering to do just that a few weeks ago (I wouldn't envy anyone doing this on Soltech though !)
Absolutely not, the game should be worked on. If wrel would enlist in the community as a free form of work it would benefit everyone.
At least the game works now - which it will continue to do until someone decides to update it. As said above, every patch has a risk of introducing new bugs and glitches, or reactivating old ones. Uncoordinated patching only imrpoves the game if every patch: fixes a bug or two is rolled back/fixed if it contains new bugs Thus, to add a new NS weapon or something, the developer also needs to pay a "price". This in the form of fixing one unreleated bug, such as the nonworking launch pads or the glitch which causes infantry units to shoot infinitely in full auto. If the "price" is not paid bugs are guaranteed to accumulate gradually diminishing the play value of the game until even the most enthusiastic player uninstalls.
