criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
Community Transmission
December CC

How about making co op non era only to help level up hero

For the new trilogy, you don't even have four Darksiders to pick from

Replies

  • JediJulius
    739 posts Member
    edited November 11
    SQJACKIE wrote: »
    No. This is the only immersive mode don't ruin it

    Well in this mode ‘immersion’ is making my gameplay/progression less fun, so up front we have reached an impasse.
  • SQJACKIE wrote: »
    No. This is the only immersive mode don't ruin it

    CS and instant action are era locked. I am bored of clone wars era heroes and want to use the others in coop.
  • Mottflyer
    34 posts Member
    edited November 11
    Instant action and Co-Op should not be era locked for heros. It's silly.
    4tuyiuh1gd3g.png
  • SQJACKIE wrote: »
    SQJACKIE wrote: »
    No. This is the only immersive mode don't ruin it

    CS and instant action are era locked. I am bored of clone wars era heroes and want to use the others in coop.

    Then ask for coop for other eras

    One of these options would be much easier to implement. It’s not your idea.
  • Well one fix would be having swap out player models for all characters, meaning....
    I take luke and his abilities and swap his player model out with obi-wan/Anakin if playing in the clone wars coop. That way all hero's become cross era and player game style choice. General grievous is the only real problem with that.
  • It only takes four players for a co-op match. Make two options. one era locked and one not. See which more people play.

    Clone Wars burn out at this point . It was a mistake to make co-op clone wars.
  • the player model you see other people as could be a client side option if you don't want to see cross era people.
  • Or just bring co-op for all eras.

    b05.gif
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • Mottflyer wrote: »
    Instant action and Co-Op should not be era locked for heros. It's silly.

    giphy.gif

    Why should instant action have locked heroes? It’s a customizable offline experience. You should be able to do whatever the heck you want in Instant Action!
  • We’re about to see Co-op, IA, and CS for ST. Hold your horses.
  • JediJulius wrote: »
    Mottflyer wrote: »
    Instant action and Co-Op should not be era locked for heros. It's silly.

    giphy.gif

    Why should instant action have locked heroes? It’s a customizable offline experience. You should be able to do whatever the heck you want in Instant Action!

    Because it's an era-specific mode, that's why. If you want a total free-for-all, multi-era, sandbox mode, then make a request for one because Instant Action is not meant to be that.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • Zandelis
    2 posts Member
    edited November 12
    Yes, as others have said, please keep co-op, and cap supremacy and IA for that matter, era specific, but give us the other eras on their own maps as well! (I have no doubt they're coming, and I can't wait!) These game modes are just great, and I can't wait to enjoy them on maps from the other eras.
  • making IA non era specific would be options you turn on and off it doesn't take away from being able to keep it era specific if you wanted. So being against it not being era specific is just being a control freak for the sake of being a control freak.
  • JediJulius
    739 posts Member
    edited November 12
    JediJulius wrote: »
    Mottflyer wrote: »
    Instant action and Co-Op should not be era locked for heros. It's silly.

    giphy.gif

    Why should instant action have locked heroes? It’s a customizable offline experience. You should be able to do whatever the heck you want in Instant Action!

    Because it's an era-specific mode, that's why. If you want a total free-for-all, multi-era, sandbox mode, then make a request for one because Instant Action is not meant to be that.

    So those of us who want a simple, classic Conquest with any hero we want are screwed? How does allowing multiple heroes in a single player, offline mode hurt you? If it offends you THAT bad just only use era specific heroes or make it a toggle in the menu.
  • I'd say it needs to remain era locked but contain all eras in co-op and cs.
  • JediJulius wrote: »
    JediJulius wrote: »
    Mottflyer wrote: »
    Instant action and Co-Op should not be era locked for heros. It's silly.

    giphy.gif

    Why should instant action have locked heroes? It’s a customizable offline experience. You should be able to do whatever the heck you want in Instant Action!

    Because it's an era-specific mode, that's why. If you want a total free-for-all, multi-era, sandbox mode, then make a request for one because Instant Action is not meant to be that.

    So those of us who want a simple, classic Conquest with any hero we want are screwed? How does allowing multiple heroes in a single player, offline mode hurt you? If it offends you THAT bad just only use era specific heroes or make it a toggle in the menu.

    The "classic Conquest" you speak of in the OG BFII did not allow for the kind of cross-era play you're talking about now. It was an era-specific mode that had you fight to control territory as either the Republic or Separatists in the CW era, or as Imperials or Rebels in the GCW era. Even the old Instant Action, whilst letting you mix-and-match planets and eras, did not allow you to play as heroes and villains from different eras.
    This is why I'm saying that if you and others want a free-for-all, non-canon, toy box-style mode where you can have Republic vs First Order with heroes and villains from all eras and can pilot X-Wings, AATs, AT-STs, and LIUVs, then ask for one like that because DICE have decided to make Co-op and IA era-specific and that's how they shall remain.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • whats the difference between mos Eisley and theed visually during the clone and wars and during the ot and during the st? clothing people wear.
  • I can agree that single player modes should have an option to be cross era, along with hero modes. But really, the entire remainder of the multiplayer game should be accurate.
  • whats the difference between mos Eisley and theed visually during the clone and wars and during the ot and during the st? clothing people wear.

    I would be perfectly happy if they just put other ERA troopers and heroes in existing maps until they can finish new ones.

    By that I mean put all OT in one and all new trilogy in another one. As a temporary fix until they finish the "correct" maps.
  • the point is the only difference between an era is player cosmetics not world architecture or design. So having era selection is just changing the player models. Anyone having era selection or configuration per planet in IA is out of their mind or 10 years old and can't comprehend that it doesn't effect their option to not use it how they don't see fit.
  • the point is the only difference between an era is player cosmetics not world architecture or design. So having era selection is just changing the player models. Anyone having era selection or configuration per planet in IA is out of their mind or 10 years old and can't comprehend that it doesn't effect their option to not use it how they don't see fit.

    So very, very wrong, on so many levels.
    There is "world architecture" to contend with when you have Republic Juggernauts and a Venator on Kashyyyk, not to mention the freaking Imperial design of the Death Star. So having out-of-era factions on many of these places would most definitely be out of place.
    But besides that, it seems people are forgetting the most basic thing about IA; it's a cut-down version of CS. Ergo, IA is era-locked because CS is era-locked. The purpose of IA isn't to be a sandbox mode that lets you do whatever, it's purpose is to be a mode that gives players the feel of playing online without actually playing online, hence why the action is instant because the waiting time of an online match is removed.
    Again, if you want a proper offline sandbox mode, ask for it, because IA isn't going to be it.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • Janglesworthy
    286 posts Member
    edited November 13
    the point is the only difference between an era is player cosmetics not world architecture or design. So having era selection is just changing the player models. Anyone having era selection or configuration per planet in IA is out of their mind or 10 years old and can't comprehend that it doesn't effect their option to not use it how they don't see fit.

    So very, very wrong, on so many levels.
    There is "world architecture" to contend with when you have Republic Juggernauts and a Venator on Kashyyyk, not to mention the freaking Imperial design of the Death Star. So having out-of-era factions on many of these places would most definitely be out of place.
    But besides that, it seems people are forgetting the most basic thing about IA; it's a cut-down version of CS. Ergo, IA is era-locked because CS is era-locked. The purpose of IA isn't to be a sandbox mode that lets you do whatever, it's purpose is to be a mode that gives players the feel of playing online without actually playing online, hence why the action is instant because the waiting time of an online match is removed.
    Again, if you want a proper offline sandbox mode, ask for it, because IA isn't going to be it.

    Republic Juggernauts and a Venator those are ship models that you select and delete, then replace with a different era, file save as .ot .st .cw vartiation. Those ships do not change the rocks, the tree's, the grass, the terrain, the building architecture. They are cosmetics easily swapped with a script. The death star is also not a planet it's a space station and that's the only era specific location. Look at Naboo map in SP vs Mp, sp version is during the st era and mp is cw era.

    No one said IA is a sandbox, all people are talking about to having tickable options to select whatever hero's they want enabled and whatever era they want enabled. No one is asking for GTA V version of IA, they want arcade options available in IA. IA will be whatever the developers choose for it to be, today its CS only tomorrow they could add all of GA to it no one knows. I wouldn't be surprised at all if HvV is added to IA along with every other mode.

    The PC version has ot already modded into IA anyways so regardless pc will always have what is being asked for.
  • the point is the only difference between an era is player cosmetics not world architecture or design. So having era selection is just changing the player models. Anyone having era selection or configuration per planet in IA is out of their mind or 10 years old and can't comprehend that it doesn't effect their option to not use it how they don't see fit.

    I agree. I do not understand the immersive at all costs zealots. The cost maybe the player base. Era locking is fine as long as all eras are available. If they are not, and they currently are not, it only hurts the game. It is indeed just a video game.

    Keeping modes era locked won't do any good, if the player base keeps dwindling. Perhaps is time to try a new approach.

    A lot of maps could be used for more than one Era, at least temporarily, if they can not add all the maps. Also they have NOT added all the maps and eras. I haven't seen the announcement that they are.
  • Janglesworthy
    286 posts Member
    edited November 13
    the point is the only difference between an era is player cosmetics not world architecture or design. So having era selection is just changing the player models. Anyone having era selection or configuration per planet in IA is out of their mind or 10 years old and can't comprehend that it doesn't effect their option to not use it how they don't see fit.

    I agree. I do not understand the immersive at all costs zealots. The cost maybe the player base. Era locking is fine as long as all eras are available. If they are not, and they currently are not, it only hurts the game. It is indeed just a video game.

    Keeping modes era locked won't do any good, if the player base keeps dwindling. Perhaps is time to try a new approach.

    A lot of maps could be used for more than one Era, at least temporarily, if they can not add all the maps. Also they have NOT added all the maps and eras. I haven't seen the announcement that they are.

    Cochran
    ...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
    Gerald Broflovski
    Damn it! ... He's using the Chewbacca defense!
    Cochran
    Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.


    This argument sums up the entire game development theory for BF2
  • the point is the only difference between an era is player cosmetics not world architecture or design. So having era selection is just changing the player models. Anyone having era selection or configuration per planet in IA is out of their mind or 10 years old and can't comprehend that it doesn't effect their option to not use it how they don't see fit.

    So very, very wrong, on so many levels.
    There is "world architecture" to contend with when you have Republic Juggernauts and a Venator on Kashyyyk, not to mention the freaking Imperial design of the Death Star. So having out-of-era factions on many of these places would most definitely be out of place.
    But besides that, it seems people are forgetting the most basic thing about IA; it's a cut-down version of CS. Ergo, IA is era-locked because CS is era-locked. The purpose of IA isn't to be a sandbox mode that lets you do whatever, it's purpose is to be a mode that gives players the feel of playing online without actually playing online, hence why the action is instant because the waiting time of an online match is removed.
    Again, if you want a proper offline sandbox mode, ask for it, because IA isn't going to be it.

    Republic Juggernauts and a Venator those are ship models that you select and delete, then replace with a different era, file save as .ot .st .cw vartiation. Those ships do not change the rocks, the tree's, the grass, the terrain, the building architecture. They are cosmetics easily swapped with a script. The death star is also not a planet it's a space station and that's the only era specific location. Look at Naboo map in SP vs Mp, sp version is during the st era and mp is cw era.

    No one said IA is a sandbox, all people are talking about to having tickable options to select whatever hero's they want enabled and whatever era they want enabled. No one is asking for GTA V version of IA, they want arcade options available in IA. IA will be whatever the developers choose for it to be, today its CS only tomorrow they could add all of GA to it no one knows. I wouldn't be surprised at all if HvV is added to IA along with every other mode.

    The PC version has ot already modded into IA anyways so regardless pc will always have what is being asked for.

    Except people aren't talking about swapping out cosmetics, they're not talking about wanting DICE to change these maps to match each era for an era selector option, they're talking about simply using every map as it exists right now from every era with whatever factions and heroes they like. That is the very definition of a sandbox mode and it's what some people think IA should be but it is not DICE have designed it to be. It is, essentially, a preview of online play and as such it, in many ways, stays faithful to how online play in CS works.
    This is how it is and how it will undoubtedly continue to be, and people need to accept this and instead focus their efforts on requesting that OT and ST maps get added to CS in order for IA to also get more maps because that's the only way they'll be able to play as heroes from other eras in IA.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • Then why allow hvv with cross era heros and villians?
    Let's be consistent here right?
  • Then why allow hvv with cross era heros and villians?
    Let's be consistent here right?
    Because no one has EVER had a problem with inaccurate heroes in the Hero Modes. The Hero Modes are understood to be sandbox fantasy. They're not set in a particular era, they don't represent battles that might have actually happened in that era. They're just fantasy what-if fun-time. Compared to GA and CS, which are clearly set in one particular era, with troopers and vehicles and settings from that era. Nothing is inaccurate, it's all designed for immersion. Except the heroes.
  • Disney really needs to come out and separate the video game universe from the movie/tv universe, the VGU. Restricting gameplay based off the movies just hurts game development more than it helps when you get into games like these.
  • I don't really care about immersion or having things be accurate. Wouldn't bother me.

    Though it really isn't difficult to play hvv during double xp to level them up.
  • Meerkat wrote: »
    I don't really care about immersion or having things be accurate. Wouldn't bother me.

    Though it really isn't difficult to play hvv during double xp to level them up.

    Same. Immersion is not important to me. I just want an authentic Star Wars feel. I could care less if REY is on Geonosis.
  • Oh yeah
  • Disney really needs to come out and separate the video game universe from the movie/tv universe, the VGU. Restricting gameplay based off the movies just hurts game development more than it helps when you get into games like these.
    Yeah? Just have clones fighting the first order? Droids fighting stormtroopers? Imperial Wookiees? Republic Droidekas? Sounds like good Star Warsy fun.
  • JackTHorn wrote: »
    Disney really needs to come out and separate the video game universe from the movie/tv universe, the VGU. Restricting gameplay based off the movies just hurts game development more than it helps when you get into games like these.
    Yeah? Just have clones fighting the first order? Droids fighting stormtroopers? Imperial Wookiees? Republic Droidekas? Sounds like good Star Warsy fun.

    If that's how you want to interpret what I said sure. Clones vs First Order. I would call that mode Brother vs Brother from another mother. You could also call it Alpha vs *****.
Sign In or Register to comment.