Battlezone 2.5

Moderators:GSH, VSMIT, Red Devil, Commando

User avatar
blue banana
Sabre
Posts:332
Joined:Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:08 pm
Location:Banana Land, UTC−6:00 MDT
Contact:
Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by blue banana » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:28 am

Going along with ZA, I too will give my opinions, however it should be known not all of them I currently like:

Scrap Costs:
I would like this because, like how I stayed earlier, I feel the current scrap system is also unbalanced. But don't get me wrong, there are some things that should stay.

Treads:
I disagree with this. A pet peeve I have with BZ1 is that everything is hover based. Having variety in the units, such as hover, treads, walking, flight, and even wheels, adds to the overall experience. It is more realistic for a present-day sci-fi game, our in my eyes at least. It also gives players more things to deal with.

Building Sizes:
I visualized this as reducing the size of stuff like the bomber bay, training fac, etc. I also await to see how this works.

Tech Tree:
The tech tree is pretty good, I really have no big issues. A change could be for the better or worse, out just something different. Reverting to BZ1 style could though, be effective. If that is to happen, I think it should be a partial change. Keep the building requirement for units (ie Sabre needs a Relay Bunk), but I think removing the building build tree is great.

Mortar Rebalancing:
????

Power Change:
I love the way BZ1 had the way power worked, requiring a power source near the building. However, there should be some clarification. It it's probably going to be bigger than I imagine, but it would be great if this thing works out.

RubiconAlpha
Rattler
Posts:98
Joined:Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:37 am

Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by RubiconAlpha » Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:40 am

GSH wrote:Ideas are fine, implementation is the hard part. The one thing I don't like is the name. If you really think that Battlezone 1 is superior -- and that's a personal feeling -- then don't try to say that a "Battlezone 2.5" is more like Battlezone 1. Sorry, Battlezone II's designers had their say in what they wanted to make, and it wasn't Battlezone 1 with larger assets. Some people still think BZ2's designers pissed in their cornflakes and want revenge. Just live and let live, and pick a name that doesn't unnecessarily try and annoy everyone who does like Battlezone II.

Same with people trying to make a "Battlezone 3" - you don't own that name.

-- GSH
I have to agree with GHS on this one. This mod project sounds more like something that would follow Battlezone, with units and feel than an "updated" Battlezone II: Combat Commander. Calling a mod "Battlezone 2.5" but going backwards in design towards the original Battlezone is going to feel like a slap to some.

Frankly, I would rather see a mod more like BattlezoneClassic expanded, with updated units and gameplay styles to bridge the gap between the games, than a major re-write of everything we know and have got accustom to with BZ2. Just my two cents.

User avatar
MrTwosheds
Recycler
Posts:3059
Joined:Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:37 am
Location:Outer Space
Contact:

Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by MrTwosheds » Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:58 pm

I can see some problems with altering the tech tree too much. Access to powerful weapons, blast, blink, APC's etc too early into the game would be a serious unbalancing.
The Silence continues. The War Of Lies has no end.

User avatar
Ded10c
Recycler
Posts:3815
Joined:Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:05 am
Location:Stoke-on-Trent
Contact:

Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by Ded10c » Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:15 pm

OP doesn't intend for the project to be called BZ2.5, it's just a good way of getting the initial idea across.
battlezone.wikia.com needs your help!

User avatar
blue banana
Sabre
Posts:332
Joined:Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:08 pm
Location:Banana Land, UTC−6:00 MDT
Contact:

Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by blue banana » Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:43 pm

I probably too see where GSH could be getting at. It reminds me of the dilemma with BZE, ever heard of it? It probably was a mere attempt to bring BZ1 everything BZ2 had, alongside added updates. Of course, the way this mod is going I dont anticipate it going in that direction anytime soon, but it should be noted. Dont go over the edge with the mod and make it another BZ1 with BZ2 textures and models, otherwise I probably wont play it.

Eddy
Rattler
Posts:56
Joined:Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by Eddy » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:09 pm

Naming conventions aside, anyone can make a mod and include whatever they want in it. I found a mod that was a Star Wars themed overhaul of Battlefield 2142. Whether or not a mod is enjoyable to play depends on each person's preferences. If enough people like it, then the mod is successful. There's no "dilemma" in creating a mod unless someone chooses to have a problem with it. When that happens, it's the person's problem, not the mod's.

Tribes had a number of successful mods that radically changed gameplay (anyone remember Shifter?). I'm sure the Tribes purists hated Shifter but me and a bunch of my buddies played the crap out of it. Without those Tribes mods, I think a lot of people would have become bored and left Tribes a lot sooner.

Eddy

User avatar
Ded10c
Recycler
Posts:3815
Joined:Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:05 am
Location:Stoke-on-Trent
Contact:

Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by Ded10c » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:57 pm

The problem with BZE is that it's standalone, so it's not a mod. It's a fork and potential replacement, which since it's incompatible and in a separate server session only serves to divide the community as a whole.
battlezone.wikia.com needs your help!

Eddy
Rattler
Posts:56
Joined:Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by Eddy » Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:00 pm

No version of BZ is compatible with a previous version, they all have separate server sessions (I thought you were aware of that). The different versions of BZ are not mutually exclusive either, play any or all of them. It's narrow minded people that try to make it one vs the other.

The star wars mod for BF2142 is not compatible with stock BF2142 and even runs on it's own server. That's the nature of significant mods.

User avatar
Ded10c
Recycler
Posts:3815
Joined:Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:05 am
Location:Stoke-on-Trent
Contact:

Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by Ded10c » Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:29 pm

That's not the point I was making. The first sentence of the post is critical.
battlezone.wikia.com needs your help!

Eddy
Rattler
Posts:56
Joined:Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by Eddy » Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:07 pm

How is that critical? Dx could add a check for 1.4 files during install and make it not stand alone. How does that make a difference?

1.5 is not stand alone only because Ken doesn't include some of the resource files. 1.5 has been made into a standalone as you are well aware by you know who. So how are the two different?

So help me understand how the first sentence relates to the rest of your post?

User avatar
blue banana
Sabre
Posts:332
Joined:Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:08 pm
Location:Banana Land, UTC−6:00 MDT
Contact:

Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by blue banana » Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:05 pm

Omfg, stop living in denial. BZE was meant to replace the original BZ, in purpose and probably definition too. There is nothing wrong with it, but it is not a mod. My post about BZE was a response to GSH and to advise against completely making the mod so different it could replace the game altogether.

Now please, eat your dinner and stop fighting.

User avatar
General BlackDragon
Flying Mauler
Posts:2406
Joined:Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:37 am
Contact:

Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by General BlackDragon » Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:24 pm

Eddy wrote:How is that critical? Dx could add a check for 1.4 files during install and make it not stand alone. How does that make a difference?
Legal vs not legal. If BZE required a retail copy of BZ1 to install, no one could ever question it's legality.
Battlezone Classic Public Forums
*****General BlackDragon*****

User avatar
Ded10c
Recycler
Posts:3815
Joined:Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:05 am
Location:Stoke-on-Trent
Contact:

Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by Ded10c » Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:25 pm

Eddy wrote:How is that critical? Dx could add a check for 1.4 files during install and make it not stand alone. How does that make a difference?

1.5 is not stand alone only because Ken doesn't include some of the resource files. 1.5 has been made into a standalone as you are well aware by you know who. So how are the two different?

So help me understand how the first sentence relates to the rest of your post?
Dx could have added that check, yet he did not. That is the difference. He chose to make BZE its own standalone package; the original does not have to be there for it to be played, which means it can replace the original.

I can't choose to download a copy of BZE without BZ included as I can 1.5, so I don't see the relevance there.

Don't make me link to those threads again. I couldn't care less for Dx's petty rules for that particular board.
battlezone.wikia.com needs your help!

Eddy
Rattler
Posts:56
Joined:Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by Eddy » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am

General BlackDragon wrote:
Eddy wrote:How is that critical? Dx could add a check for 1.4 files during install and make it not stand alone. How does that make a difference?
Legal vs not legal. If BZE required a retail copy of BZ1 to install, no one could ever question it's legality.
So how is using unlicensed source code and removing the CD check legal? We have argued the legal aspect to death. Nothing being done with the source code is legal without a license.

In this case, its irrelevant to the point. The question or concern was BB's comment about a mod going too far. My point is that's nonsense. Mods are successful if people play them or not if they they don't. So why get hung up on what someone does or doesn't do in a mod? It will either live or die based on its own merit.

User avatar
blue banana
Sabre
Posts:332
Joined:Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:08 pm
Location:Banana Land, UTC−6:00 MDT
Contact:

Re: Battlezone 2.5

Post by blue banana » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:42 am

Eddy wrote:My point is that's nonsense.
+1 for mentioning it your point, AFTER 3 posts and not backing it up. If it is "nonsense", it is to be decided by Zamu, not you.
Eddy wrote:So why get hung up on what someone does or doesn't do in a mod?
Please, tell us what gives you the authority to ask this question.

Speak no further, I silence you with the wave of my hand.

Post Reply