Can We Learn Anything From Battlefield 1942 for WvW?

[Arnox.5128]

This thought came to me suddenly as I saw a kinda old video that was lambasting Battlefield 5 and comparing and contrasting it to BF1942. Now, obviously WvW and BF1942 have their differences, but perhaps we can still learn something since BF1942 was and is still a big-a** game, size, objectives, and tactics wise. Thoughts?

 

Was also thinking of Return to Castle Wolfenstein's Enemy Territory for the smaller scale skirmishes.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Arnox.5128

[DanAlcedo.3281]

I have never played any of these games and I'm to lazy to look them up. 

 

Could you tell us what you exactly are talking about? 

[MrForz.1953]

Large scale battles on open maps with objectives such as flag capping. 1942 (and to some extent, BF2) were notorious in that it had just the right amount of arcade to have them refrain from being tedious. I loved the games to pieces but I'm not sure there's anything one could transplant from the old BF series to WvW that isn't already there and that is compatible with GW2's or even just a MMORPG's design.

[Clownmug.8357]

Team balance/team shuffle and maybe voice chats. It'd be fun to hear people spamming "need a medic!" whenever a pug zerg gets rolled over.

[Dawdler.8521]

1) BF2142 is the vastly superior game if you want to go far back - it took everything DICE did wrong with BF2 such as vehicle hitboxes and weapon damage/accuracy and reverted it back to BF1942 standards, then turned it up to 11 with Titan mode.

 

2) There is not much to "learn" because WvW already got the fundamentals down, most notably getting fast back into the action (the BF series has over the years really messed up vehicle spawning IMO and put too much focus on grunt work).

 

3) Have an orchestra play the main theme, it'll be fine.

 

Wolfenstein ET was basicly a corridor shooter and from what I remember the best part of that was the heal and revival system keeping the combat intense but ssssshhhh... dont say that on the WvW forum. People wont want to hear that.

[schokelmei.8271]

Yeah, two things.

1)Don't suck like Battlefield

2)Don't be a part of EA

[Stand The Wall.6987]

objective/ map design.

 

in gw2, if there is proper defense or even a little bit of resistance you need many more times the numbers on the offensive side. this encourages zerging, which encourages defensive siege monkeys, and the game shifts from a massive 60v60 war to a 5v5 siege battle. total garbage. they should've kept the open objective format like in the battlefield series or most any game with capture the objective type gameplay. with how wvw is designed, most of the time either the zerg plows through the objective or the objective is too well defended to attempt to take, meaning you need a zerg. if they wanted to keep wvw design with walled objectives then they should've made wvw into corridor type maps.

[Woop S.7851]

Ah that's a classic! 👍 similar to like Starcraft (resource management) + Team fortress classic (strategic shooter), those were the days! Any thoughts on the BF commander system and/or objectives system they had? 😁

[Dawdler.8521]

30 minutes ago, Woop S.7851 said:

Any thoughts on the BF commander system and/or objectives system they had? 😁

You mean placing waypoints no one ever listened to and then giving up and just use the commander slot to spam radar and artillery strike for that sweet 50+ to 0 kdr?

[MrForz.1953]

43 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

You mean placing waypoints no one ever listened to and then giving up and just use the commander slot to spam radar and artillery strike for that sweet 50+ to 0 kdr?

And ruin your ears with the unlimited spotting.

[Magnuzone.8395]

Stay high/back and keep you eyes on your plane. Oh sry, wrong 1942 game.

[Arnox.5128]

2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

You mean placing waypoints no one ever listened to

 

Sooo... A regular WvW PUG commander then.

 

8 hours ago, DanAlcedo.3281 said:

I have never played any of these games and I'm to lazy to look them up. 

 

Could you tell us what you exactly are talking about? 

 

BF1942 was a squad-based massive scale WWII FPS with vehicles. RTCW:ET was a squad-based small-scale WWII FPS without vehicles (mostly).

 

8 hours ago, Clownmug.8357 said:

maybe voice chats

 

Actually, that's a really good point. Why the hell doesn't GW2 offer VoIP support? It's such a pain in the a** to use Discord or Teamspeak or whatever the hell the latest commander of the day is using.

 

6 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Wolfenstein ET was basicly a corridor shooter and from what I remember the best part of that was the heal and revival system keeping the combat intense but ssssshhhh... dont say that on the WvW forum. People wont want to hear that.

 

Why would they not want to hear that? GW2 already has a downed and healing mechanic. lol

 

6 hours ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

objective/ map design.

 

in gw2, if there is proper defense or even a little bit of resistance you need many more times the numbers on the offensive side. this encourages zerging, which encourages defensive siege monkeys, and the game shifts from a massive 60v60 war to a 5v5 siege battle. total garbage. they should've kept the open objective format like in the battlefield series or most any game with capture the objective type gameplay. with how wvw is designed, most of the time either the zerg plows through the objective or the objective is too well defended to attempt to take, meaning you need a zerg. if they wanted to keep wvw design with walled objectives then they should've made wvw into corridor type maps.

 

I don't know if the zergs alone are a problem, per se... It's just that there's so many reasons to form a zerg and little reason to spread out into smaller more coordinated groups. The only reason it would make sense to break off is to take the odd camp or ruin here and there and also to focus on different areas of a keep's border walls. Which isn't even needed most of the time. Biggest exception by far is Stonemist Castle.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Arnox.5128

[Stand The Wall.6987]

18 minutes ago, Arnox.5128 said:

I don't know if the zergs alone are a problem, per se... It's just that there's so many reasons to form a zerg and little reason to spread out into smaller more coordinated groups. The only reason it would make sense to break off is to take the odd camp or ruin here and there and also to focus on different areas of a keep's border walls. Which isn't even needed most of the time. Biggest exception by far is Stonemist Castle.

space and siege mechanics are the problems with the current objective design imo. if the map was corridor like and the objectives remained the same, there would be constant action and people wouldn't have to spend most of their time looking for it during off hours. if the map was the same but the objectives weren't walled and too numerous, then zergs wouldn't be necessary to take objectives and siege wars wouldn't ensue which is just as much a waste of time as trying to find a fight. walled, numerous, spread out objectives that rely on siege and supply is bad design for a wvw type mode imo.

[Woop S.7851]

 Siege turtle confirmed during live stream (PvE), notes:

• Can carry multiple players at once (siege tank/personnel carrier)
• Drivable? 🏇
• Have super-awesome laser cannons 🔫
• Moderate speed/movement
• Siege turtle from GW1 as a reference 🐢

Classics like Starcraft Siege Tank + Battlefield 2142 Battle-Walker comes to mind, any thoughts on the WvW aspects of this mechanic?  (if it's integrated in the future?) Spawn timer? Location? Speed etc? 🤗

[kash.9213]

If you want a similar vibe to BF1942 or even the original CoD we'd need to add some kind of mechanic or system that creates or feeds a large moving front line or something that can allow players to contribute to the match who like fighting or moving with a team more than sieging, although a moving front line would involve sieging. There would need to be some effort towards atmosphere. It would allow people to fine tune their activity more while still overlapping groups of players. It would be called a pve gimmick though.

[Dawdler.8521]

6 hours ago, kash.9213 said:

If you want a similar vibe to BF1942 or even the original CoD we'd need to add some kind of mechanic or system that creates or feeds a large moving front line or something that can allow players to contribute to the match who like fighting or moving with a team more than sieging, although a moving front line would involve sieging. There would need to be some effort towards atmosphere. It would allow people to fine tune their activity more while still overlapping groups of players. It would be called a pve gimmick though.

WvW already have this. Its why keeps and towers are "connected" by being within siege range. Its not a hard front, but its the same concept.

 

Well, except for DBL where Anet threw good WvW design out the window but you get the idea.

[kash.9213]

11 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

WvW already have this. Its why keeps and towers are "connected" by being within siege range. Its not a hard front, but its the same concept.

 

Well, except for DBL where Anet threw good WvW design out the window but you get the idea.

Sieging your way down a lane on a map should feel like that. Nothing really hits close aside from maybe SMC or a good Bay fight or something though and it's rare to have comparable strength 2 or 3 ways. 3 ways deciding they're going to fight now for an hour great when it happens, but not the same thing, without something that you have to hold, fights are going to be a quick crash then everyone rolls up to their own hill to prep for the next one.