Anakin wrote:and not such an complex editor like zero

I've used a lot of level editors in the last 15 years, and Zero is incredibly easy to use in comparison with lots of other games.

Teancum wrote:

Anakin wrote:and not such an complex editor like zero

I've used a lot of level editors in the last 15 years, and Zero is incredibly easy to use in comparison with lots of other games.

I think the problem lies within the documents, as personally I had trouble understanding them in some areas, and I guess that was a factor which made me lose interest in modding.

Eggman wrote:it would be awesome to be able to check out AI behavior and the general flow of a map from the bird's eye view of the editor.

1. Load up your map in BF2.
2. Start an IA match.
3. Spawn and hide out of the line of fire in a ditch or something.
4. Freecam.

Fiodis wrote:

Eggman wrote:it would be awesome to be able to check out AI behavior and the general flow of a map from the bird's eye view of the editor.

1. Load up your map in BF2.
2. Start an IA match.
3. Spawn and hide out of the line of fire in a ditch or something.
4. Freecam.

I'm aware of that. Trust me. Basically I'm talking about a different modding process in an ideal world where everything would be more integrated into a single program that allowed you to test things before putting them in-game. In the grand scheme of things I like the process we've been given for modding BF2, but it can be a real hassle when making only minute adjustments to sides or scripts to constantly go back and forth between editing, munging, loading up the game, testing the change, quitting, making a tiny change, munging, loading the game, testing, and so on. It's especially annoying when you're testing for a very specific situation - for example, how one unit class interacts with another. It's a real pain to have to go hunting around the map to find a single unit and try to engage with it or watch it, and even then there are going to be other units interfering with the testing.

And of course this is veering away from my original point of wanting to be able to test planning and barriers in the editor, but it all fits into how I wish modding could work. I could go on and explain, but that would become an off-topic wall of text.

If i could edit the engine, i would change the fast pace nature of it.

not saying run and gun is a bad thing, but the game is more of a spray and pray no real skillz needed type of game. anyone who can operate a computer can play it relatively well, all I'm saying is there is a lack of realism involved, and getting kills is more of a luck thing than a strategy.

for example take a look at Battle Field 2142, it takes time to become really good at that game online, since they limited the chances of rocket noobing by making rockets go off target unless facing against an vehicle. and even though it is a run and gun style of game play, its more strategic than battle front 2 which is just run into a room release several clips and see what you hit.

also i disliked the heroes just because it was to overpowered, plus i always thought that battlefront should be more from the view of the soldiers than the heroes because we already know the views of the heroes from the movies and most other video games.

other than that i would just change the maps to be more strategy inducing and other things to make each map different from the rest, when most battlefront 2 maps all seemed the same (which gets old fast if your internet is down =P) that is my opinoin.

Personally, I'm fairly satisfied, although it'd be cooler if there were different legion skins, some more vehicle variety, ground maps with flyers, and probably larger scaled more epic maps, maps that required teamwork (something I really want from video games, and also why I REALLY WANT A PS3 TO PLAY MAG).

Yeah. i agree about the multiple level thing. Making barrier height changeable and same with the planning. I also really think the bf saber animations are lacking after playing jedi knight 3: Jedi Academy. there are so many saber moves/tricks in that games that its awesome to just muck around having light-saber duels...also think it would've been better to have more jedi/sith/force users involved in the gameplay of bf...........jedi are never seen in the stock game (apart from the campaigns and player hero), and are rarely very involved in mods/maps as units

What do YOU think is missing from SWBF2?

Indigenous species such as Felucians, Kaminoans or Polis Massans for example or even small creatures.

WompRats would be great on Mos Eisley - as well as lot's of other civilians. The game severely lacks city maps, in my opinions. Most maps only have 2 or 3 routes to take across the map - cities can give more options.

another thing the game lacks is indoor gameplay, yes i know there is coruscant and tantive iv, but what i have realised is that there is not much going outside, then going into a building as a defensive measure. like in hoth how they use the bunkers, though the positioning of them makes them near useless to the empire, and only useful when defending against the walkers. other than that they are jsut a building. i would have liked to see more interior/exterior maps, where the player has to go through buildings to reach a command post, or buildings that would be great for holding a position, cause even in Naboo there is not one building you can enter other than the balcony bridge and the rotunda (which is more an gazebo that is open to anyone) other than that you really can't do much else which is such a shame, naboo would have been 10X better if you could have roads that are bridged by buildings instead of just taking the roads.

Weapon pickups like in Mav's Bakura Assault map, but a smoother transition for the pickups, because, to tell the truth, Mav's system was buggy.

Master of Stickmen wrote:Weapon pickups like in Mav's Bakura Assault map, but a smoother transition for the pickups, because, to tell the truth, Mav's system was buggy.

Name one bug.

*I would point out that it did exactly what it should have done according to what I told it to do(there were several redundant checks to ensure that, and I promise you that what was there was in my opinion the ideal way to emulate that function). Please don't do me the disservice of assuming that my work had "bugs" if it simply didn't do what you wished it would have done.

Eggman wrote: I'm aware of that. Trust me. Basically I'm talking about a different modding process in an ideal world where everything would be more integrated into a single program that allowed you to test things before putting them in-game. In the grand scheme of things I like the process we've been given for modding BF2, but it can be a real hassle when making only minute adjustments to sides or scripts to constantly go back and forth between editing, munging, loading up the game, testing the change, quitting, making a tiny change, munging, loading the game, testing, and so on. It's especially annoying when you're testing for a very specific situation - for example, how one unit class interacts with another. It's a real pain to have to go hunting around the map to find a single unit and try to engage with it or watch it, and even then there are going to be other units interfering with the testing.

And of course this is veering away from my original point of wanting to be able to test planning and barriers in the editor, but it all fits into how I wish modding could work. I could go on and explain, but that would become an off-topic wall of text.

I totally agree with this. My situation is terrible because I have to use two computers: one that supports ZE but not the game itself, and one that supports the game but not ZE. I have to zip up my maps and email them to myself every time I need to do a test. It's the most tedious thing imaginable.

EraOfDesann wrote:

Eggman wrote: I'm aware of that. Trust me. Basically I'm talking about a different modding process in an ideal world where everything would be more integrated into a single program that allowed you to test things before putting them in-game. In the grand scheme of things I like the process we've been given for modding BF2, but it can be a real hassle when making only minute adjustments to sides or scripts to constantly go back and forth between editing, munging, loading up the game, testing the change, quitting, making a tiny change, munging, loading the game, testing, and so on. It's especially annoying when you're testing for a very specific situation - for example, how one unit class interacts with another. It's a real pain to have to go hunting around the map to find a single unit and try to engage with it or watch it, and even then there are going to be other units interfering with the testing.

And of course this is veering away from my original point of wanting to be able to test planning and barriers in the editor, but it all fits into how I wish modding could work. I could go on and explain, but that would become an off-topic wall of text.

I totally agree with this. My situation is terrible because I have to use two computers: one that supports ZE but not the game itself, and one that supports the game but not ZE. I have to zip up my maps and email them to myself every time I need to do a test. It's the most tedious thing imaginable.

Yup, been there before.

EraOfDesann wrote:

Eggman wrote: I'm aware of that. Trust me. Basically I'm talking about a different modding process in an ideal world where everything would be more integrated into a single program that allowed you to test things before putting them in-game. In the grand scheme of things I like the process we've been given for modding BF2, but it can be a real hassle when making only minute adjustments to sides or scripts to constantly go back and forth between editing, munging, loading up the game, testing the change, quitting, making a tiny change, munging, loading the game, testing, and so on. It's especially annoying when you're testing for a very specific situation - for example, how one unit class interacts with another. It's a real pain to have to go hunting around the map to find a single unit and try to engage with it or watch it, and even then there are going to be other units interfering with the testing.

And of course this is veering away from my original point of wanting to be able to test planning and barriers in the editor, but it all fits into how I wish modding could work. I could go on and explain, but that would become an off-topic wall of text.

I totally agree with this. My situation is terrible because I have to use two computers: one that supports ZE but not the game itself, and one that supports the game but not ZE. I have to zip up my maps and email them to myself every time I need to do a test. It's the most tedious thing imaginable.

Couldn't you just a. use a network or b. use a usb/external hd??

Skyhammer_216 wrote:

EraOfDesann wrote:I totally agree with this. My situation is terrible because I have to use two computers: one that supports ZE but not the game itself, and one that supports the game but not ZE. I have to zip up my maps and email them to myself every time I need to do a test. It's the most tedious thing imaginable.

Yup, been there before.

Am there now. Though I do use a USB.

But back on topic, looking through not often visited folders, I'm finding references to all sorts of cool-looking stuff that it seems were cut for whatever reason. I see textures for a radar frame, an RC-style HUD, no less than 13 reticule textures....

While those reticle textures are fairly easy to replace. That's actually a very good idea, it'd be a very simple, but nice, addition to make a mod unique.

Yes, but it seems that different weapons were meant to have different reticules. Which would be awesome. I don't think we can vary reticules with weapons, only scopes, right?

I'm not sure, I'll check it sometime.

lucasfart wrote:Couldn't you just a. use a network or b. use a usb/external hd??

Wow... I can't believe this never occurred to me. I feel like an idiot now.