Whats the most important feature...

[Ginger Lord]

Of Ham and Jam to you?

Whats the bit that you are looking forward to?

You can only choose one.

[DarkAvenger]

The concept.

Mainly the teamplay bit. Its very hard to find a good game that includeds teamplay... I hope it works they way its supposed to. (Concept also includes factions and time period... for me at least.)

[jackx]

Same here... the prospect of a game conductive to teamplay and immersion...

[Defpotec]

Since others have voiced teamplay... I'll voice keeping it historically accurate.

[fess]

For me, deffinetly the chance to play with a wider force then the usual American/German scenario.

[Jed]

Parachuting attack dogs.

[mXed]

Parachuting attack dogs.
shh !!
don't tell them!

[DarkPenfold]

Distance-based damage.

[Tostig]

Gameplay

[Ginger Lord]

Polled!

[War Pig]

Jed's undies.

Nah. I'd say teamplay (along with good gameplay). 8)

[Pierog]

mechs and lasers

[Slackiller]

I'll choose teamplay/gameplay :)

[ceacar99]

i chose historic acuracy.

to me that means also ACURATE representations of the real world weapons in game. that means no death star k98's(overall the k98 was about as good as a good lee enfield), no sub machineguns that cant hit something 30ft away, none of this "you cant fire machineguns on the move" bull that shows up in some games. i want a proper realistic and historic representation of the war, at least the equipment involved.

now people pull this bull of saying "but ceacar, if we are truely acurate one team will allways have the advantage!". thats pretty stupid thinking honestly. all sides won battles against each other. the real reason why one side won over the other was how they were orginised, NOT that one side had a piece of equipment and the other didnt.

[Ginger Lord]

I can tell you now, if you want proper accurate represenations of all weapons like real life, go get Red Orchestra.

Things need to be changed for gameplay's sake otherwise you'd get people proned in corners with enfields doing volleyfire and killing people 800yrds away.

[jackx]

War isn't supposed to be fair. Rules are there not to ensure fairness, but to be used to one's advantage in the overall political context, and broken as needed where they cannot be enforced.
A (competitive) gaming environment is quite different from that, or at least we have come to expect it to be quite different from that... current gaming competitions are controlled environments in which players are purposely limited in the means they can employ to achieve victory. If we abandon that concept, we might get something a lot closer to "war", but I'd consider it highly questionable if it'd be enjoyed by many. After all, getting "outcheated" isn't what I look for in the multiplayer games I play.

[Tostig]

Just a quick suggestion here:

If people would like accuracy then I suggest that they join the army - it is far more accurate then any computer game is willing to be, for example you actually feel tired if you sprint for too long and you feel pain if your jump from too high a distance or if you are unlucky enough to get shot.
Real life also has another advantage - content. It has many different classes, each with their own equipment and abilities, and literally hundreds of different sides. It's also layered in game play. For example you could choose not to join the army and instead try your hand at politics. It's like WW2OL's strategy but far, far more complex.
Now we get to the really important bits - graphics (you squint when you go into sunlight for crying out loud, unless you've spent money on sunglasses that is!). Everything has a texture, a colour, even a temperature. How long do you think it will be until Developers put smells or even real life's level of particle physics, let alone thermodynamics or the sheer complexity of light?
Oh but you are probably thinking "Real Life has consequences" - it does! It's the ultimate relationship simulator. Don't cook a good enough dinner, then Jim will be less likely to guard your back. It's like the Sims but in infinitely more detail. Consequences do wonder for game play because players are actually experiencing emotions. When someone gets shovelled in the back of the head they don't go: "Grrr, got to wait twenty seconds to re-enforcements" instead they go: "Oh my god! Holy Jesus! I hope I get out of this alive."

So, to get to the point of this - Games are games rather than reconstructions. Guess what; the M16 and the AK are imbalanced. Some people end up in a shitty spawn zone. Why am I not writing furious rants to my deity of choice? Because apart from being an Atheist I also recognise that reality isn't meant to be fun. Computer games on the other hand are, or at least at least engrossing. They are utterly different in their intentions. I like good graphics and historical realism but only in moderation - suspension of belief and enjoyment are far, far more important to me then prettiness or the receiver of a MkIII* semi-automatic boomerang with under slung wurzle launcher.

[fess]

Bravo. Good Points.

[Pierog]

thus far i think we are treading a nice line between realism and fun...

Realism in games is usually there to be immersive.

You can't transmit true realism to the player with a computer...


Plus, since when are missing huds realistic. I don't get it. Huds are there to give you info you normally would have just naturally. you need a hud to tell you you were shot in the leg, since normally you would feel that.

Also, in real life its much easier to count your bullets. I've shot a full 30 round mag in an m3 and stopped at 29, checked the mag, it was empty, but there was 1 in the chamber. Its much easier to feel each shot, you dont get that in a video game.

[ceacar99]

I can tell you now, if you want proper accurate represenations of all weapons like real life, go get Red Orchestra.

Things need to be changed for gameplay's sake otherwise you'd get people proned in corners with enfields doing volleyfire and killing people 800yrds away.

people talk about the lee enfield's effective range as if people actually fought at those ranges. i know in france you might see fights sometimes at those ranges but when you think about it. try to hit a mansized target, that is prone at 800 yards IRON SIGHTS. its an incredible feat.

take ww2 online, something i learned from that game, adaptation. here is an example. i used to play axis all the time and for the longest of time the axis didnt have a tank realy big enough to take on a british heavy tank named the matilda. sometimes with a good solid hit you can kill it at less than 500m but most of the time when the axis encounters matildas real teamwork begins to take place. the tankers, piolets and pretty much anyone who has information relays it around. they "call out" the mattildas so EVERYONE knows its there. then some brave sods begin the carefull work of moving a 88 anti aircraft in place while someone else lures the matilda tanks within sight of them. while the axis armor could not handle matildas the 88's kill whatever they can touch in one hit normally(cept ships) as long as they are hitting it at less than 1k. even at ranges longer than that they still slaughter the enemy.

the adaptation is that the 88s are very stationary weapons requireing trucks for movement, but they are the only way the axis can handle a matilda other than sending in a sapper with 8kg of tnt and hoping for the best(a well placed charge can take out any tank, a badly placed one may do nothing).

the reality is that in all games true teamplay starts to take place when each side has a serious obsticle to overcome. in dod often when a mg42 gets set up and just becomes this thing that wont die the allies will begin to co-ordinate and think about thier assault. because of that eventually the mg dies. sometimes the co-ordination is nothing more than "calling out" the mg, sometimes its more.

what i REALY hate in alot of games is when they try to "ballence" the weapons in game. it winds up of this long road of never getting it right. the correct path is not to remove the weapon or even weaken it but simply provide a possible path for the enemy to overcome it. give each side their own advantages that they can use for victory. when you get into this shit of ballencing for gameplay you get into making every weapon a practical clone of each other. just how dod source ballenced the mp40 thompson, bar and stg. they are practically the same weapons!(in thier classes, smg and auto rifle/assault rifle).

there is an example in this game too. the axis will have the mg34 wich is a exelent belt fed gpmg. its mobile and has a good fairly fast but lasting sustained rate of fire. in other words it can be a monster of an enemy. however the british army has the bren, very mobile fast weapon. extreemly acurate and easy to set up for suppression. in other words a machinegun enplacement killer. the bren uses its mobility and acuracy to suppress(or kill) a threatening enemy machinegunner while his allies sneak up and nade the enplacement. a tactic that was used in ww1 with a similar weapon(in how it was used), the chauchat. despite being considered a horrid weapon the chauchat gunners were some of the most decorated men in the first world war because the tactic was so sucessfull. the same is true about lmg gunners in the second world war, they are just plain effective weapons with ADAPTATION.

the acurate representations of the weapons in the war is something that is nessisary. now i can understand scaling down acuracy but scale down acuracy as a whole then. DONT sit there and play the change a weapon's stats for ballence game. it will just ruin ham and jam in the long run.

[Agent 00Shoe]

the acurate representations of the weapons in the war is something that is nessisary. now i can understand scaling down acuracy but scale down acuracy as a whole then. DONT sit there and play the change a weapon's stats for ballence game. it will just ruin ham and jam in the long run.

:roll:

[jackx]

the acurate representations of the weapons in the war is something that is nessisary. now i can understand scaling down acuracy but scale down acuracy as a whole then. DONT sit there and play the change a weapon's stats for ballence game. it will just ruin ham and jam in the long run.

For you perhaps. For those of us who want to have fun while playing a computer game, I'd suppose balanced gameplay that, because the result ultimately depends on the player and the player's use of equipment, and not on equipment, provides long-term-motivation and reason to compete and try to improve one's playing ability, would be preferable. Or perhaps I'm just insane and people actually play games to get frustrated, and not to enjoy them...

If you want war, go find yourself one to fight in, there are plenty to go around, and you should be able to get all the discomfort, violence and "realism" that you want. Who knows, maybe you'll even enjoy it.

[Blue]

If you want war, go find yourself one to fight in...

That line is getting old.

[Ricochet]

If you want war, go find yourself one to fight in...

That line is getting old.

That doesn't make it any less true though. Total realism in games always ends up being fairly annoying IMHO...

[ceacar99]

im not saying total absolute realism. i want acurate representations of the weapons in game. i dont want a perfectly realistic stamina system, i dont want a uber realistic health system. hell perfectly realistic could suck.

imagine, your in a firefight with your k98. you put out 5 shots and now you are recharging your weapon with a stripper. the stripper breaks and you only get a couple shots into the weapon along with you cutting yourself. you loose 5 hp. doesnt sound very fun for gameplay huh?

i am not proposing that, im proposing acurate respresentations of the weapons in game. understand that no weapon in the entire war was so superior to the others that it made them useless in comparison. a garand is a preferable choice to a k98(overall it is more effective because of its automatic fire) but that did not mean it deominated the k98. it ment that the people who use the k98 had some obsticles to overcome. just like the allies had some obsticles to overcome against some of the other german weapons.

im ham and jam it will be fine. a lee enfield is pretty much as good as a k98 only it has the bonus of 10 rounds. a sten isnt as good as a mp38/40 however and the mg34 and bren are a good contest involveing different technique to exell. in reality equipment wise both armies are PRETTY WELL MATCHED. there is no superiority over the other there. part of the "superiority" some people see in the equipment of armies is that it was designed for a different doctrine. the bren was designed for light infantry doctrines. the mg34 was designed for alot of things but what it was primarily designed for was the superior firepower doctrine. just different views on how war should be fought.

the point is that there wont be any great unballence if you make the weapons acurate representations of thier true selves that will never happen. the only reason why one team would loose to the other continually is one of the teams doesnt know how thier equipment should be used.

[Pierog]

how about everytime you prone in the dirt your weapon jams, and you have to press a complex string of keyboard letters to trigger each step of the unjamming animation...

and you run into a tree you get knocked out... make sure you don't get clipped on a door or you might dislocate your shoulder.

Oh, your ironsights are off, too bad, 13 year old boys are machining them since the german war machine is falling apart...

[KominAaa]

how about everytime you prone in the dirt your weapon jams, and you have to press a complex string of keyboard letters to trigger each step of the unjamming animation...

and you run into a tree you get knocked out... make sure you don't get clipped on a door or you might dislocate your shoulder.

Oh, your ironsights are off, too bad, 13 year old boys are machining them since the german war machine is falling apart...

Youre feeling lonely after the battle and want to think about some hot woman,Lindsay Lohan ain't born yet,so you have to fantasyze about Frida.

[ceacar99]

how about everytime you prone in the dirt your weapon jams, and you have to press a complex string of keyboard letters to trigger each step of the unjamming animation...

and you run into a tree you get knocked out... make sure you don't get clipped on a door or you might dislocate your shoulder.

Oh, your ironsights are off, too bad, 13 year old boys are machining them since the german war machine is falling apart...

exactly why i dont want "perfect" realism. i dont even want red orchestra realism. i want acurate representations of the weapons in game for once. i dont want to see this dod make everything unlike the real world versions bullshit. a bren in ham and jam should behave like a real world bren, NOT like an assault rifle. a mg34 should behave like mg34 and nothing else.

[2ltben]

Realism and accuracy arn't just singular terms, but they can be further broken down into more detailed and sensible terms:

Aesthetic Realism, having authentic graphics, settings, and whatnot.

Functional Realism, the player's ease and extent of control ingame.

Narrative Realism, not just dropping players into a World War 2 setting with guns and letting them shoot eachother, but having the players retain their sense of agency and immersion in the game, not breaking the fourth wall and letting them know that they're playing a game.

Personally, I hold Narrative Realism above all else, but so few seem to address it properly.

[Blue]

You mean we can't have things like flashing marquees with melt-aways that tell you how much damage you did to bill, bob and john? Or a sports commentator with a testosterone abundance telling you how GODLIKE you are?

Let's not forget the compass/radar that tells you where everyone is, their elevation relative to you and their hitpoints.

I agree we don't need to be gimped when we're shot low or lose our weapon when our hands are hit, but I would like a fairly belieavable damage system. I find damage (and to a lesser extent movement speed) to be the maker-oder-breaker of a realistic war experience. If it takes 4-5 shots to the chest (or the arms if the hitboxes are opaque so to speak) then an ounce of blood will be redirected away from my groin :cry:

[Book]

Didn't read the entire thread...good ideas I'm sure to be galore. But I have never experienced a WW2 game that had the teamplay and gameplay that were unique and exciting. I feel that to be the most important feature, but it will also be the hardest feature to improve upon. I wish you fellows the best of luck.

[Blue]

We'll we've seen very hard core teamplay elements like in Enemy Territory, and the laid back approach such as Call of Duty or Medal of Honor where you're a team in name only until you start working together lol

I'm sure Ham and Jam will fall somewhere in the middle, where classes rely on each other without cartoonish exaggerations. if they can find that sweet spot, im sure the rest of the mod will fall into place.

[Bic-Ball]

Shields.

[Book]

Wacky waving flailing arm inflatable tube men.

[b0b]

Wacky waving flailing arm inflatable tube men.

actually i love those guys, maybe we could put some of them in...

[Xplosiv]

I chose teamplay, although a while back I made a thread based on my wishes of focusing this game on realism - I've now decided that it is much more important that you make teamplay your number 1 priority. I myself would leave 'total realism' to games like Red Orchestra (as already mentioned), but im my opinion I would also like historical realism (in a way that the maps are historically correct and accurate - which i'm guessing is already being done :)).

As long as this game isn't a counter strike style 1337 fest with soldiers armed with super accurate weapons, bunny hopping idiots (<this is why I also back the people who want some sort of stamina meter etc) and SCORE WHORES :O

Thats another thing, I've (and i'm sure many others have) seen decent games looking teamplay orientated - only to be ruined by a scoreboard. If you want team gaming, scoreboards are a bad idea, they are evil! :O They only create one man armies. If you want to, go right ahead and add them in - but from what i've seen they are not the way when it comes to teamplay :(

[2ltben]

See what you need is a gimmick. My gimmick? I talk in this cheesy 20s Chicago accent, see.

[Forbin]

Parachuting attack dogs.

LOOOKOUT!

http://hometown.aol.com/bwynne/smokyjump.jpg

[Forbin]

But seriously IMO the most important is a rich environement with more than just 3 cloned guns in a deathmatch run and gun environment. Ye old Day of Defeat was amazing because it balanced itself out by the sheer volume of content rather than mirroring opponents arsenal. There was more than one way to skin a cat, and it kept things interesting.

Which is sort of why i think that you guys shouldn't exclude americans all-together (if that's what you're leaning towards). The more features and time-frames applied to the game, the better it could get. If you allow the mapper to decide what setting, period and teams you'll enable the community to creatively develop.

If as a mapper I want to create a berlin map, where americans and russians are fighting on opposite sides to take out the germans, that would be great. Or if I want to do a join opperation where para-dropped brit units need to unite with american units before assaulting a bridge, that'd be pretty tight too.

Elimination of americans alltogether can be an elimination of a strong target audience as well. There are some guys that are just patriotic, and though i whole-heartedly support your commonwealth focus as a Canadian, I can see some Americans being completely uninterested.

[Ginger Lord]

Well thats their problem for having a closed mind too, the Americans won't be in period. If the American people only want to play as Americans well, tough for them to be honest. Theres not really a polite way of saying it.

After a few versions of the mod you'll probably have British Infantry, Airborne, Canadians, ANZAC's, Free French, German Infantry, Fallshirmjagers, Italians and whatever else.

Whilst the commonwealth nations tended to use the same weapons, they did have others to use as well, 1928 Thompson w/ Drum Mag, Ross Rifle, Owen gun, Lanchester etc. I don't have to go into how many German weapons we could do :P

At the moment there is 3 main weapons per side, each are completely coded different to the opposing teams class. We're not nerfing the Enfield because it has 5 rounds more, or the MG34 because it has a higher rate of fire than the Bren, you just have to deal with it.

[Forbin]

do you have stationary MGs like the vickers, will they be portable, or do you think they won't be in the game at all? Actually this is probably totally the wrong thread to ask it in, but since we're on the topic of weapons.

[jaboo224]

Those questions will be answered in due time. but for now we closed down the question section. youll just have to wait for another round i guess.

[edubya42]

I voted other....Meaning no mazes...by mazes I mean maps like DOD where both teams are just forced into each other. Maps that are more open, but with cover would be cool, and I nice change.

[ceacar99]

one map that i REALY liked was actually for firearms mod for hl1. it was titled thanatos, it was a city combat map with LOTS of ways to out manouver the enemy, plenty of alleys, apartment buildings, and other things for people to use. it was only good in a full 32 player game but it was awesome.

ham and jam city combat maps should take that kind of mentality, where dod maps like flash(i think im thinkin of flash....) just have straight on conflict, create maps with alot of optional flanks. in cities, this would mean alleys, running through buildigns and even sewers. in the field that could mean gullies, large areas of visual cover, hills, sandbags and trenches for the players to weave through and find a way around their oponent without getting all shot up.

[fess]

You could use Caen perhaps? I'd agree with ceacar, maps that have lots of various routes to out manouveur an enemy and defend would be great to see.

[War is Hell]

The biggest feature would and always is team play. If I wanted a single player experience I would go buy Call of Duty.