AA5 Discussion Thread (Renamed)

16465666769

Comments

  • Twitchr.Carbon8Twitchr.Carbon8 Posts: 292Player
    V_NillaJ wrote: »
    V_NillaJ wrote: »
    doogle! wrote: »
    Wish they'd at least give a hint of life happening in Huntsville.

    The weather is bipolar, the economy is booming, and parking stinks if you show up late.

    This is the info I need. Also, what is the doughnut policy there? Is there a handbook or job aid for when doughnuts are required, quantity and freshness?

    Edit: I'd this sounds like sarcasm, I promise it's not. Genuinely curious

    It's funny that you ask... there legitimately is an official donut protocol. If you're going to be late, you get rewarded with a terrible parking spot... and the responsibility to supply donuts to the team.

    Good, I'm glad that it is an established practice.

    Any trips out to the range, or general field trips recently?
  • LWOF_BrOkenArrowLWOF_BrOkenArrow Posts: 341Player
    As said by both users and devs, they can't compete with other studios budgets. They have to do something truly unique and make it legitimately feel like the army. It has to be both sim (in the sense you feel the Army experience) and gamey to appease the masses.

    I think that for AAV then, they can add a campaign/story for that purpose. I think they have plenty of story to go off with the comics, so that would be covered at least.


    Teamwork is essential, it gives the enemy other people to shoot at



    P0asKE2.jpg
  • CrushmasterCrushmaster Posts: 501Player
    What level of Soon™ are we on for news?
  • jgvn11jgvn11 Posts: 74Player
    What level of Soon™ are we on for news?

    Yes.
  • Dct.F|LeventeDct.F|Levente Posts: 569Beta Tester
    What level of Soon™ are we on for news?

    All of them.
    Theory and reality are not that different. In theory.
  • -pR|Arkeiro-pR|Arkeiro Posts: 762Player
    edited February 6
    If those levels are similiar to the honor levels we can wait another half century

    Over 1.4k Golden Hawkeyes.
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,140Player
    There was a comment that Hollywood made months ago about the dev team wanting to get something out there before the end of 2020 due to political uncertainty... meaning that if anyone were to be president except for Trump military spending will probably get cut and a marketing project like a video game would probably be one of the first cuts. So who knows? Maybe we'll see something sooner rather than later.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • [kT]B4DSEED[kT]B4DSEED Posts: 26Player
    As said by both users and devs, they can't compete with other studios budgets. They have to do something truly unique and make it legitimately feel like the army. It has to be both sim (in the sense you feel the Army experience) and gamey to appease the masses.

    I don't think the gameplay has ever been bad, I think in that aspect it actually competes quite well. It's mostly the quantity of bugs and quality of maintenance that drives players away + the fact that most gamers don't even know the game exists. If they would just throw out some marketing or sponsorships then it would see quite a few more players I'm sure.
  • LWOF_BrOkenArrowLWOF_BrOkenArrow Posts: 341Player
    As said by both users and devs, they can't compete with other studios budgets. They have to do something truly unique and make it legitimately feel like the army. It has to be both sim (in the sense you feel the Army experience) and gamey to appease the masses.

    I don't think the gameplay has ever been bad, I think in that aspect it actually competes quite well. It's mostly the quantity of bugs and quality of maintenance that drives players away + the fact that most gamers don't even know the game exists. If they would just throw out some marketing or sponsorships then it would see quite a few more players I'm sure.

    You'd think that the army could invest just a tiny* bit more in this series with the budget it has...
    Teamwork is essential, it gives the enemy other people to shoot at



    P0asKE2.jpg
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 698Player
    As said by both users and devs, they can't compete with other studios budgets. They have to do something truly unique and make it legitimately feel like the army. It has to be both sim (in the sense you feel the Army experience) and gamey to appease the masses.

    I don't think the gameplay has ever been bad, I think in that aspect it actually competes quite well. It's mostly the quantity of bugs and quality of maintenance that drives players away + the fact that most gamers don't even know the game exists. If they would just throw out some marketing or sponsorships then it would see quite a few more players I'm sure.

    You'd think that the army could invest just a tiny* bit more in this series with the budget it has...

    As opposed to what, investing it personnel, training and resources?
  • LWOF_BrOkenArrowLWOF_BrOkenArrow Posts: 341Player
    doogle! wrote: »
    As said by both users and devs, they can't compete with other studios budgets. They have to do something truly unique and make it legitimately feel like the army. It has to be both sim (in the sense you feel the Army experience) and gamey to appease the masses.

    I don't think the gameplay has ever been bad, I think in that aspect it actually competes quite well. It's mostly the quantity of bugs and quality of maintenance that drives players away + the fact that most gamers don't even know the game exists. If they would just throw out some marketing or sponsorships then it would see quite a few more players I'm sure.

    You'd think that the army could invest just a tiny* bit more in this series with the budget it has...

    As opposed to what, investing it personnel, training and resources?

    I think the army could certainly throw a few million towards this project and accomplish its mission to :,"To deploy, fight and win our nation’s wars by providing ready, prompt and sustained land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict as part of the joint force", at the same time

    Besides, I'm pretty sure this falls under the U.S. Army Accession Support Brigade's task of "Connecting America's People with America's Army.", (Assuming that's the unit in which the management of this game falls under)
    Teamwork is essential, it gives the enemy other people to shoot at



    P0asKE2.jpg
  • .!.dgodfather.!.dgodfather Posts: 449Player
    AAPG wouldn't become popular if Kobe Bryant had endorsed it. A bad game can't bring a crowd if it is marketed. Certainly don't waste money on AAPG.
    Fragweiser Website
    Make AA Great Again!
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,140Player
    edited February 18
    AAPG wouldn't become popular if Kobe Bryant had endorsed it. A bad game can't bring a crowd if it is marketed. Certainly don't waste money on AAPG.

    I agree. AAPG had no shot. The game had some good mechanics in certain places, but it really didn't do anything new or different. There were times that I really enjoyed the game, but anyone who objectively looked at the game could see why it wasn't popular and marketing wasn't it.

    I've said it a bunch of times on this thread, in today's market unless you are doing something new or different then your game will go unnoticed. It's not enough to just say hey let's remake AA2 or AA3 or take the best aspects of all the games. A standard army shooter will go nowhere. It needs to do something unique. R6: Siege is the best example I have of a game that was able to carve out a large player base and achieve longevity in this market where the next big game is thrown away after a few months. Why? Because it does something unique (operator model, gadget system, destructible environments in a round based game), supports their competitive scene, and consistently adds content that keeps people coming back for more. Personally, I'm not a fan of R6 Siege's gameplay, but people seem to love it. AAPG was the most standard shooter you could find whose only draw was that it was free.

    It's also why I say that when people say AAPG is unpopular because if the lack of Army content (e.g., training) I shake my head. I do think they're an important part of an America's Army game and need to be included in AA5 in order for the game to accomplish its goals, but let's be honest... no one plays a video game to do training. The gameplay is the #1 more important thing.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 698Player
    doogle! wrote: »
    As said by both users and devs, they can't compete with other studios budgets. They have to do something truly unique and make it legitimately feel like the army. It has to be both sim (in the sense you feel the Army experience) and gamey to appease the masses.

    I don't think the gameplay has ever been bad, I think in that aspect it actually competes quite well. It's mostly the quantity of bugs and quality of maintenance that drives players away + the fact that most gamers don't even know the game exists. If they would just throw out some marketing or sponsorships then it would see quite a few more players I'm sure.

    You'd think that the army could invest just a tiny* bit more in this series with the budget it has...

    As opposed to what, investing it personnel, training and resources?

    I think the army could certainly throw a few million towards this project and accomplish its mission to :,"To deploy, fight and win our nation’s wars by providing ready, prompt and sustained land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict as part of the joint force", at the same time

    Besides, I'm pretty sure this falls under the U.S. Army Accession Support Brigade's task of "Connecting America's People with America's Army.", (Assuming that's the unit in which the management of this game falls under)

    Throwing some hot dogs on the grill at a high school football game, or having the K-9s tackle a redman at halftime would do better than AAPG has done at your second point. Your first point completely sailed over my head...it's a stretch.

  • Dudash.dflDudash.dfl Posts: 11Player
    I check these forums once every couple of months just hoping to see an official announcement about AA5...I really hope it's still being developed. I reeeeeally want this to succeed!

    I'm one of those aholes who wants as close to an AA2 clone as possible (selfish reasons, I guess). Maybe taking the best from both AA2 and 3 but I know most people think that wont work in today's market :chuffed:

    Lastly, for the leveling system, for some reason I just loved the simplistic honor system AA2 had (I know, more AA2 requests). Just something about seeing many different player levels in a server which gives you an "idea" on their potential skill, time involved in the game, etc. I don't like the real rank system we've had from the previous releases because eventually you just see most people with the same few ranks. I just want it close to the scaling that the original AA had where to get to the 80s or 90s it took a very long time.
  • LWOF_BrOkenArrowLWOF_BrOkenArrow Posts: 341Player
    AAPG wouldn't become popular if Kobe Bryant had endorsed it. A bad game can't bring a crowd if it is marketed. Certainly don't waste money on AAPG.
    Dudash.dfl wrote: »
    I check these forums once every couple of months just hoping to see an official announcement about AA5...I really hope it's still being developed. I reeeeeally want this to succeed!

    I'm one of those aholes who wants as close to an AA2 clone as possible (selfish reasons, I guess). Maybe taking the best from both AA2 and 3 but I know most people think that wont work in today's market :chuffed:

    Lastly, for the leveling system, for some reason I just loved the simplistic honor system AA2 had (I know, more AA2 requests). Just something about seeing many different player levels in a server which gives you an "idea" on their potential skill, time involved in the game, etc. I don't like the real rank system we've had from the previous releases because eventually you just see most people with the same few ranks. I just want it close to the scaling that the original AA had where to get to the 80s or 90s it took a very long time.

    I strongly dislike the amount of time it takes to level up in this game. I've been playing for about 460 hours now, and yet I'm still a SFC. One thing I can assure you, is that to get to the 80s or 90s now, it'd probably take thousands of hours spent playing the game.

    It doesn't take long to get the basics of this game. There really isn't much to master... Once you hit E-4 chances are you're as good as any E-9 ( I know I was). So there really isn't a need for extremely high levels that take forever to get to.

    Teamwork is essential, it gives the enemy other people to shoot at



    P0asKE2.jpg
  • Dudash.dflDudash.dfl Posts: 11Player
    I should actually re-phrase my leveling request - I guess it's been a very long since I played PG, so I thought the level cap was quite low but apparently not :)

    Regardless, I still think it should take a long time because at least you have something to "play for" rather than getting capped out quickly and you are done. I'm not the biggest fan of what CoD does where when the new season starts they lower you back down to a min. level (55 or 60?) Then you build your way back up. Personally, I'd rather it just take a long time to get to the max level, like it was in the original AA.

    They could do something like CoD where the number matches up with a real rank so you can have both but after the first handful of lower ranks, I couldn't tell you which one is higher or lower unless it's clear with the # of stripes or something without having to really think about it lol (I know, sad)
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,140Player
    edited February 24
    Pub play rankings are kind of pointless unless they're tied to some sort of progression system. Of course there's always a question of making a system that's fair and doesn't give long time players an unfair advantage. Otherwise, you get the "just a number" system that shows how long you've been playing with no real meaning. Won't appeal much to the average gamer.

    Competitive ranks mean more to people and are more of a show of skill level (similar to CS' Silver, Gold, MG, etc.) rather than just time played. I'd rather that be the main focus if it comes to rankings.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • LWOF_BrOkenArrowLWOF_BrOkenArrow Posts: 341Player
    edited February 25
    Pub play rankings are kind of pointless unless they're tied to some sort of progression system. Of course there's always a question of making a system that's fair and doesn't give long time players an unfair advantage. Otherwise, you get the "just a number" system that shows how long you've been playing with no real meaning. Won't appeal much to the average gamer.

    Competitive ranks mean more to people and are more of a show of skill level (similar to CS' Silver, Gold, MG, etc.) rather than just time played. I'd rather that be the main focus if it comes to rankings.

    You mean like a tournament system or something that shows your ranking?

    Or maybe like an ELO rating but for FPS titles?
    Teamwork is essential, it gives the enemy other people to shoot at



    P0asKE2.jpg
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,140Player
    edited February 25
    Pub play rankings are kind of pointless unless they're tied to some sort of progression system. Of course there's always a question of making a system that's fair and doesn't give long time players an unfair advantage. Otherwise, you get the "just a number" system that shows how long you've been playing with no real meaning. Won't appeal much to the average gamer.

    Competitive ranks mean more to people and are more of a show of skill level (similar to CS' Silver, Gold, MG, etc.) rather than just time played. I'd rather that be the main focus if it comes to rankings.

    You mean like a tournament system or something that shows your ranking?

    Or maybe like an ELO rating but for FPS titles?

    Ranked matchmaking like CSGO and various other games. Just tie your ranking with Army rankings and you're good to go. CSGO also has pub rankings that are similar to what America's Army has always had that are just based on XP over time. No one really cares about it. The days when you can have a 0-100 honor system and have people actually care about getting to the next number with nothing attached to it are long gone. Gaming has changed a lot since the early 2000s.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
Sign In or Register to comment.