Skirmish is a highly debated gametype in the majority of RO/RS's community. It is something different than TE, it's on smaller maps and doesn't try to emulate the experience of a full-scale battlefield. Nevertheless, it's something the game needs so that small groups of players which know each other (e.g. clans) can play against each other without any problems with the game feeling empty. Smaller firefights aren't unrealistic at all and could lead to a slow, tactical, stealthy and tense experience.
Although, many members of the dedicated community (mostly a lone wolf I would assume) in the RO/RS-Franchise disagree that a gametype as such is needed. But this is not up to the debate. Skirmish wasn't that successful in the beta because for one thing, many said members of the dedicated community won't even try it and for another thing the whole gamemode (and the setup of the beta-servers) had flaws.
First thing first which everyone will agree with me:
Beta-Skirmish servers always had one map in the map-pool. There was no way to vote for a different kind of map after the match was over. Why was that? This leads to people getting bored playing the same map all over again and empty skirmish servers. Some of the participants encouraged people to switch servers after a match was over. Sometimes with success, sometimes not. Map-Voting was present on TE and Supremacy servers so why not in skirmish?
And now the case of the gametype itself:
It's important that new players will understand the game nearly from the start. It doesn't have to be easier but it has to be clear what you and your team have to do in order to achieve the goal, who is whom and the basic principle of the gametype. In the current gametype this line is slightly blurred. People probably know the concept of the domination gametype from other games. This is what they will assume what it is in the first game. But in skirmish, the whole gametype is round based and the spawn system is quite difficult to understand at first sight. The teams are constantly encouraged to take an objective or they'll loose their respawn. I don't want it to be a domination gametype but it needs to be simplified in a way. But this is not the only problem and it gets quite complex.
In Skirmish you're in a constant battle with yourself between camping or moving but you don't really want to. You have to move to get to objectives, may it be the first one or the next one because your team won't get a respawn. But you are constantly discouraged to do so by many different things:
Although, many members of the dedicated community (mostly a lone wolf I would assume) in the RO/RS-Franchise disagree that a gametype as such is needed. But this is not up to the debate. Skirmish wasn't that successful in the beta because for one thing, many said members of the dedicated community won't even try it and for another thing the whole gamemode (and the setup of the beta-servers) had flaws.
First thing first which everyone will agree with me:
Beta-Skirmish servers always had one map in the map-pool. There was no way to vote for a different kind of map after the match was over. Why was that? This leads to people getting bored playing the same map all over again and empty skirmish servers. Some of the participants encouraged people to switch servers after a match was over. Sometimes with success, sometimes not. Map-Voting was present on TE and Supremacy servers so why not in skirmish?
And now the case of the gametype itself:
It's important that new players will understand the game nearly from the start. It doesn't have to be easier but it has to be clear what you and your team have to do in order to achieve the goal, who is whom and the basic principle of the gametype. In the current gametype this line is slightly blurred. People probably know the concept of the domination gametype from other games. This is what they will assume what it is in the first game. But in skirmish, the whole gametype is round based and the spawn system is quite difficult to understand at first sight. The teams are constantly encouraged to take an objective or they'll loose their respawn. I don't want it to be a domination gametype but it needs to be simplified in a way. But this is not the only problem and it gets quite complex.
In Skirmish you're in a constant battle with yourself between camping or moving but you don't really want to. You have to move to get to objectives, may it be the first one or the next one because your team won't get a respawn. But you are constantly discouraged to do so by many different things:
- In the current build, footsteps are quite loud. That wouldn't be a problem if it was easier to be quieter. But the current movement doesn't let players be silent. It's completely normal that the sacrifice of being silent is the velocity, but even if you crouch+aim, try to walk or crawl.. you'll always make sounds. It's useless atm. This needs to be balanced by making it easier to be silent. My suggestion would be making crawling, crouching+aiming completely silent. The same goes for every movement-mode with walking enabled. Or camping is overpowered.
- The maps are very open and there are many routes you can take. For a large scale gametype, this is alright but it's a totally different thing in small maps. You're encouraged to lay down somewhere nearby an open field and just watch... watch till an enemy will cross the field. He won't be able to check all the corners you can hide in. There is way too much to check all at once. In the future, there needs to be a certain balance between how many corners you have to check and how much you can control at once. There is a reason why people are trying to improve Counter-Strike maps for years!
- Skirmish is trying to combine two things that are hard to balance: Round based gameplay but with respawns within a round. It's possible to do that but it needs a lot of work to really get it to work properly. It shows it's weaknesses when experienced players try to play the game. So how is this encouraging to camp? Well, if the enemy team respawns you'll know where they will come from. You are in a huge advantage because you already have the time to position yourself perfectly, preferably near their spawn where they will not expect you. It's not rare that a decently experienced player can mow down an entire respawned team all at once. I was called a hacker a lot but it was just pure positioning. Not to mention that I can hear their footsteps and I won't move one small bit because I would make sounds too.
- To populate an empty server with one or more people you'll have to wait in the ready-up phrase where you can do nothing but stare at the screen. Why not open up the map where you can shoot each other already?
- Respawn-Tunnels and SL-Spawning need to vanish. The same goes for RPG's. We need Attack+Defend Classes, one SL-Tactical Class and one Sniper-Class.
- Since Skirmish's respawn system is hard to understand (especially for new players) I would encourage TWI/AMG to use Insurgency's Firefight-Mode instead. It's easy to explain: You'll respawn when your team has capped an objective. The problem with respawns within rounds still remains but it proofs to work way better than the current system. Positioning is still overpowered but I bet AMG/TWI don't want to change to a roundbased non-respawn mode like Search&Destroy/Defuse again although it might be way better and easier to balance.
- Overhaul the footsteps
- Overhaul the map-design
- Refine the classes and their abilities in the small-scale gametype.
- If you die you can freeroam the entire map and spectate every single player on it. Even the enemies. This leads to people calling out the enemies for other players and to confusion for newbies. It's confusing because it will be harder to understand which team is yours and they will rarely follow the gameplay of a single player and look at unimportant things instead. Make "first-person" and "over the shoulder" spectating the only thing which is possible. Only on your team. Except you are a full spectator ofc!
