I admit Im no pro, and I don't care what MP will be like if I get my great single player and co-op. If there's lacks in it I likely start to search a culprit from old multiplayer.

That still doesn't change the thing I have opinions and ideas and would like multiplayer more with more players, and ability to go atleast to 3 vs 1 or 2 vs 2 vs 2. Besides, I didn't see any lag while playing co-op and MP, everything was very smooth, besides frequent disconnections which happen with every game. PT MP achieved the story releateness and pretty similiar spy controls, which I first was excited of MP. After first online plays I have to say it was pretty chaotic, a lot was boring in empty quiet areas and then suddenly it became horrible running and gunning again and again, nothing like single player. I'd like to see more of that steady stealth, or maybe action based fits Conviction better. AI, objects and TV and radio like outside interests might change everything. Life instead of empty untouchable houses. I still didn't hate the old MP, I just think it's time for change, not make the same over and over. I liked the idea and exectution in PT, but CT being almost exact same made me think blaah.

But it doesn't really matter, it's just an idea. I really want the single player.

Real SP-ish online stealth is nice, but... would you sneak through an mostly empty building or just run to get to the part where sneaking is necessary? I think the latter, because else you're wasting precious game time.

I'd welcome another Coop.

And SCDA on the PC is laggy. 4 out of 5 games = instant disconnect and even if you make it in, someone drops after a while. The same with SCCT Coop.

quote:

Originally posted by kalle90:

quote:

Originally posted by savior2006:
Everything Scworld said.
2-8 players? Dude...can you imagine a setup like that on Clubhouse, or even Factory? The mecenaries could effectively barricade the objectives and the spies would have to bum-rush a single one just to get that.
You'd need maps twice as big as the ones in Double Agent to justify that amount of people. And with more people and larger maps come less of a focus on teamwork. It would be a small scale Call of Duty match in which one team had all the guns.

I also suggested having more player in game. Surely the maps and all other gameplay would be made to suit it. Enough room for sneaking around, but not making mercs think enemy is too far so I give up. PT and CT, and DA feel somehow rush and run, nothing like single player's slower guard and find a alternative way. I think more players would even increase teamwork, can't just do 1 vs 1 fights and run to objectives. It's easy to know where 2 enemies are, but 4 gives surprises and suspense, if they all won't stand in one place, which rarely is good tactic. Many times being lone merc against 2 suicidal spies running and hitting me, and doing 2 objectives at opposite ends of level, not good.

I've always wanted to be single spy against 7 mercs, or other way around. Up to 8 players, multiple teams like Red, Blue, Green, Yellow and free choice bethween Merc and Spy could be amazing, if overall game is based on it. Variable and different maps to suit all needs and variations. Plus, we could use the evolved levels too, not just old.

We likely won't get it or any spy vs. merc.

So you want red spies fighting blue spies while yellow mercs snipe from a balcony only to be blown up by frags from sequent-colored green mercenaries. You want a four-way class based competition game.
Its not always easy being a merc and knowing where a spy is. Say the sound detector goes off in front of you. The direct path ahead of you is clear. So that just leaves every other part of the map in front of you. Here's an idea. How about you and I play CT in Aquarius and you go to one end of the map. I run around and you try to guess where I am, because its so easy.
You say that both PT and CT promote rushing the objectives. This is only true if the map is large enough so that their are many routes and the spy can be anywhere. Even then there's the issue of mines, and the fact that the mercs will eventually home in on the spy.
Double Agent is, however, a rushy game as close range stealth is no longer wise and there are no mines to stop the spies.
If two spies and taking objectives, its because either they were lucky are they communicated and coordinated what they would do. You, however, should have a partner too. Send him one way while you go the other.
Sorry to sound like a know-it-all at the game. I've only been playing for a month. But...how long have you been playing, Kalle? Like Scworld said, you really don't seem to like Versus at all.

Well, about 10 full matches and many that ended to disconnection pretty quickly, but that happens with all games frequently, I don't blame SC of it.

Basically it would just give more options, it would be up to 8 players and up to 4 teams. You could still play 2 vs 2, just variety offering addition. I wouldn't get rid of old, just add a lot to it. Who wouldn't want to be Splinter Cell against 7 mercs, or super merc surrounded by 7 spies. And the multiple teams, and ability to choose have spies and mercs in same team.

When I was Merc standing in position was very weak tactic and slow walking isn't good either so it's just running around top speed placing traps and waiting for alarm or lucky vision of spy. Spies have to adapt to that so they have to run quickly and use vents all the time slowing down only at security systems, and then there's the eventual alarm when I get to objective, either it's rather easy kill for merc, or I have no worries at all because mercs are nowhere near. Pretty far from single player constant tension.

2 enemies and 1 ally are so few it's easy to use memory in battlefield, "ally killed one enemy and I saw the other at lobby so no problems" I don't know where exactly but it eases the things a lot. 4, or 7 mercs, or spies would make the suspense more constant, if there would be levels suitable different team variations.

Halo is mostly about small red vs. blue, but bigbattles, multiteams and free for all give it a lot more depth. In customs it's even possible to play 7vs1 or any kind of variation of 16 players and 8 teams. Splinter Cell just includes two classes and surely I would mix them in there too.

How can two noobs discuss about this I like it ok, but I want better in future, not only the same. Basically I would just add a lot to it (not just 2 gadgets and maps), not change much of anything.

Did you just call someone with over 2000 hours of SCPT (top 10 ranked, yeah ranked was ok-ish in PT) and SCCT gameplay (me) a noob?

Adding more people equals less teamwork. You'll end up with a Battlefield clone.

quote:

Originally posted by scworld:
Did you just call someone with over 2000 hours of SCPT (top 10 ranked, yeah ranked was ok-ish in PT) and SCCT gameplay (me) a noob?

Adding more people equals less teamwork. You'll end up with a Battlefield clone.

What if I did

Seriously, I ment the me and Savior2006, not the god besides us.

Like I said, option. Me, and many others would sometimes want things with more people. Variety and casuality.

More people doesn't necessarily mean less teamwork, it's all about the game itself (very tiny maps would require less teamwork, bigger ones would be more exciting). If gameplay would be the old way with stealth, how could it become Battlefield clone? Two completely different games. Teamwork with 8 is harder to master than 2, 8 have way more potential. Some people say having the one ally makes game easy and unskilled. Opinions, opinions.

It would be addition, not one way change.

With more people, you don't need to rely as much on eachother, because there's always someone to back you up.

Of course, an organised team of 8 people will beat an unorganised random bunch, but that's beside the point.

Well...Kalle, I suppose I could level with you on the goofy custom options if there was a filter in the lobby for them.
But what if there's too much focus on them? That's what worries me.
I go to the Chaos Theory lobby, and almost half the servers are Deathmatch. I have no problem with a littl DM for kicks, but a lot of people do nothing but DM. Take my friend, Stealthy Black for instance. He'd been doing it for so long that, once he was in my Story mode server, he was lukewarm at best.

quote:

Originally posted by savior2006:
Well...Kalle, I suppose I could level with you on the goofy custom options if there was a filter in the lobby for them.
But what if there's too much focus on them? That's what worries me.
I go to the Chaos Theory lobby, and almost half the servers are Deathmatch. I have no problem with a littl DM for kicks, but a lot of people do nothing but DM. Take my friend, Stealthy Black for instance. He'd been doing it for so long that, once he was in my Story mode server, he was lukewarm at best.

The execution is Ubi's job, I don't know nearly enough of the coming game (though it's Conviction, not old style) to give any right way to do it. Plus because I don't care MP that much and we likely never see another spyVSmerc, I don't really bother to make any deep suggestions. More players and team would just be a great simple addition.

Simple solution would be filters for searching and locking rooms to certain player limit and options. There's the base of 2vs2 so there would likely be a lot of players in it during the entire lifespan of the game. There would be just extra rooms, which would give for example 2vs2vs2vs2 or 1vs7 matches.

If people like deathmatch more than objectives, then people should be allowed to play it. People will leave if they can't do what's fun, Ubi can't force people to stay and play objectives. Few of the people now playing DM would change to Objective matches if DM would be taken away, most would just leave the game. I like objectives more, if they would be taken away would I go to DM? Not likely, I would just change the game.

quote:

With more people, you don't need to rely as much on eachother, because there's always someone to back you up.

Of course, an organised team of 8 people will beat an unorganised random bunch, but that's beside the point.

Don't you? The whole game would be made to suit the options. There would be the small levels great for 1vs1, which would be good for 4vs4 action rushes too. Then there would be the larger levels, I see those would require a lot more 4vs4 teamwork than current state does.

Players would have a lot more tactics to play with, will the 4 stay pretty close to each other and open up the other parts of level, or have 2 teams of 2, or everyone with own paths. Killing 1 of them wouldn't mean easy run to goal, there would still be 3, and knowing everyone's location would be harder than knowing the 1 we now have to do. Teams of 4 have a lot more ways to do things than teams of 2, so teamwork is even more critical if gameplay suits it. Then start thinking all the possibilities and variations like 2vs6 or 3vs2vs2vs1 and ability to be whichever charachter in any team. I see there would just be more excitement and uncertainity, perfect for Splinter Cell. It would even feel more like single player; few spies against many mercs, multiple spy or merc teams against each other, spies and mercs(SWAT) forming a team infiltrating enemy territory...

Using apples and oranges comparison: What would you think if there was only 1 level and 4 equipment? It would be restricted and get repetive no matter how good they would be.

I see no problem with having team or normal death match, or the standard hacking modes in the game, variety is a great thing... If people choose a game mode and it becomes popular, then that's what majority of people want... It seems most want to deny people of that because they want their game type to be the most popular... Forcing it on people won't help.

The biggest problem thats been with Splinter Cell PT/CT is that mostly everyone wanted to play a hacking game with a DM playstyle, it was pretty obvious to players, and the devs who tried to cater to gamers with spy versus spy, as thats what gamers where doing. Many didn't care for the hacking part... You could create a room and if x player wasn't a spy he would leave the room straight away... They need to add variety, they need to make the game appealing, i.e fun and intuitive, spy versus spy, or fugitive vs spy, have game modes which are objective based... but most of all it should be intuitive, not 3rd person for one team and first person for the other, otherwise you're just going to get the same PT/CT effect where players will only play as the Spy team... if not leave the game.

There are "traditional" game modes that you can have... Capture intelligence files, and bring it back to the base where you need to upload via a satellite placed on the roofs of certain buildings... similar to capture the flag... Mission based game modes where you need to use crowds, and infiltrate certain buildings, to gather intelligence, or destory intelligence, with mission goals based on the singleplayer premise, disable security, building power, make entry to the building by sewer, front door, back door, climb up drain pipes, and smash windows to get inside... while being chased by a hunter force...

You could indeed make a competitive MP like ETQW, with athletic Spies and a hunter force. Would probably be nice and I might even play it. But it's not as original as the old-skool. :P

quote:

The biggest problem thats been with Splinter Cell PT/CT is that mostly everyone wanted to play a hacking game with a DM playstyle, it was pretty obvious to players, and the devs who tr

Lots of assumptions for your 3 hours of play time.

I don't deny it, it's true. But it depends on the time, age and nationality of the players.

Ok, you guys've convinced me. More variety in the modes would be a better thing as long as there are filters.
PS: Nice to see you back, Vicky!

quote:

Originally posted by scworld:
You could indeed make a competitive MP like ETQW, with athletic Spies and a hunter force. Would probably be nice and I might even play it. But it's not as original as the old-skool. :P

quote:

The biggest problem thats been with Splinter Cell PT/CT is that mostly everyone wanted to play a hacking game with a DM playstyle, it was pretty obvious to players, and the devs who tr

Lots of assumptions for your 3 hours of play time.

I don't deny it, it's true. But it depends on the time, age and nationality of the players.

Thank you for assuming I've played for just 3 hours... Just because I'm not a fan of the mode doesn't mean I base my opinions on hearsay or be biased... Julian Gerighty, when I talked to him at Leipzig when they where showing off SCDA, had said there where many things wrong with Pandora and Chaos Theory... heck hes even said it in Video interviews... many interviews with Ferland have cropped up the same answer too. One that it was taking longer then normal for people to learn the maps, and people wanted Spy versus Spy, more and more people where playing hacking game with a DM playstyle, this is something the dev's noticed by the way, hence created Spy Vs Spy... You can go back and look at PT, it was very similar when it came out, I would go Merc, as soon as I switch over to Spy, gamers would leave the game... Or you would join games where gamers wouldn't swap from Spy... It's a common thing that passed down into CT, on PC and xbox, if it's like that now with the small community of players I wouldn't know... It has nothing to do with Age or Nationality, it is down to the prefered playstyle thats all, most people prefer to play as "spy" rather then Merc...

If they want to make a new game they have to make it even, both teams should be from the same perspective, given the same list of goals, but to prevent the other team... Games like Counter-Strike have similar teams, what seperates them is their goals and weaponry, they act a little different, but you generally don't find one player always going to CT side, they usually don't mind playing T as they're well balanced, and the playstyle is consistent for bot teams, exception to the mission objection, plant bomb or prevent hostage rescue, vice versa for CT... This is an example by the way... Most MP games are balanced with both teams playing from the same perspective to reduce learning curves and generally have an intuitive game experience, the complexity comes from trying to outsmart the other team...

I don't think you will find a game mode AS Original as the SvM, you may find soemthign close but a lot more intuitive on gamers, to create such a draconian experience again would fail on the basic principles of game design and usability.

Usability is measured in effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction.

I believe that it's possible to find new concepts. As long as the tutorial is good enough, it should work out fine.

I think that's part of the attraction to SvM; it is not, as you say, like Counter-strike, where the teams vary only superficially, but rather they have two entirely different play styles. This only becomes a problem if one is more enjoyable than the other, or if they are unbalanced. I don't find either the case in SvM. Apparently some do, which is suggested by more people playing Spies. I don't think this means SvS is the way to go, as that really is a step backwards; it goes back to the days of 2 teams that are exactly the same just trying to kill each other, or variations of that. A better way would be to make mercs more enjoyable to play as, or perhaps make the spies less powerful is people believe they are overpowered. I don't really see that as the case though, I think most people just find playing as spies more 'fun'.

I think that 1. we need the CT type coop, as personally, I think it was awesome. If you don't agree with me, fine, but I'm just saying.. Anyways. With Conviction, I think that the spies need to have a gun back, but that mercs need their mines and other 'toys' back too. I think the idea of having a versus match in a huge urban area with civilians everywhere would be pretty sweet, but the spies would need a disguise to walk around in public right? But then the mercs couldn't tell the spies from the npc's.. lots of problems with it, but it could work out. I think though that there should be some Campaign missions that you use your 'stealth training' and not just walking around in public with a hoodie. I think that Conviction can become even greater than the games that came before it, but Montreal can't make the mistake of forgetting what Conviction was built on, on the basis of a stealth game. If they forget about that, then all Conviction will be is a literally different game that uses a name that we all know and love. I mean, think of it like this. If Montreal forgets the stealth aspect of the SC games, it would be like Bungie making a racing game called 'Halo Adventures', using Master Chief, and giving us some line like 'Master Chief is stuck in some alien tournament and cannot escape unless he wins the race', and we just drive vehicles around a track. Would YOU feel betrayed by Bungie if they did that, using MC in a RACING GAME!?? I would.

Halo Adventures would be no way comparable with issues about Conviction. Splinter Cell Adventures would be, where Sam would be in galactic tournament.

It's more like Halo Zero, which is 2d actionplatformer. There's a whole lot of different things, but it releates to story and same basic gameplay.

Conviction is still very much the old SC in my eyes. Sam just is a fugitive now instead of tactical weapon.

personally i think they should make all the multiplayer game types from the previous games. Like pandora and chaos should be mixed together. I say that cause pandora had alot more alarms which made it difficult to get to the objectives which was good and in chaos theory it was a little easy to get to them. With the double agent multiplayer they need to put the mines and spy cam and sticky cams and all that good stuff back on and they need to make the heart beat a optional choice so people can choose to play without it. I think that would give everyone what they want in styles of gameplay for conviction then no one can complain and it would be a really good online game

Csj, this is a forum full of guys like me. Trust me...someone...somewhere will complain.

Atleast you know it unlike Bungie forum people who yell about everything without any thinking. "I love BR but it would be better if it had grenade launcher, automatic fire option, more bullets and accuracy"

A lot more sophisticated. What other to excpect.

Thing is that some people come up with ideas, some just complain. "Make the L/S somehow, I don't know how and I don't care, just make it"