• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Unit Cohesion

ViViD

Grizzled Veteran
Dec 2, 2005
584
26
In many games, pub servers the majority of people are split into lone wolves and team work players or those that want to be. I was thinking of a new scoring mechanism that may help.

Say you have a similar system like in BF2 you have a squad of 4 people, you could have a point system and apart of that point system includes how close you are with your squad commander. That would in effect get people to stay closer together, like within 10-40m of your commander that means you gain a semblence of unit cohesion.

So players you wish to play the lone wolf person still can by not joining a squad, but there won't be as many point involved as within a squad. If in a squad individual scores are not shown but the effectiveness of the squad.

So if you want a decent score, the best way to go is join a squad, stay within a certain distance of your commander and all that other thing you can assosiate as a score.
 
worluk said:
but in real life your epenis (and GB RAM) doesnt decide wether you **** up others fun

IMO everything that forces me to rely on some moron takes away fun (see tanks)

That's why Worluk wins Clanwars singlehandedly. We the rest of us just lines up to fulfil the rules :D j/k

But I agree that teamwork cannot be forced by the game. It should come naturally, as people realize that they are just much more effective when playing as a team... but that's just an utopia.
 
Upvote 0
I think that this will come naturally if the voice com system works as well as it does in Source. Even better if the sound actually comes from a player's location in the world.

*yells "grenade" in mic*

*yelling comes from where he is in the world*

*players around him dont run up and get blown to pieces*

If RO can pull this off it will immediately become the most realistic and fun shooter ever (though it alrealdy is :)).
 
Upvote 0
make joining a squad an option, if you don't want to be lead around by a moron leave the squad and join another, or better yet. . . start your own. the counterposing arguments on these forums aren't usually well thought out.

i think the squad system in bf2 is workable, albeit with alot of changes. even if joining a squad is so only squad members can hear each other, instead of everyone on the team hearing everybody. context specific conversation can lead to some amazingly effective teamwork. especially in the context of defending objectives. a squad can work out which positions to take, and communicate effectively when the enemy is sighted and what to do in a changing situation, all in real time. it's necessary imo.

red orchestra's lack of a good squad system is a real problem, but i don't know what's gonna be in the retail game.

but as for vivid's proximity to commander scoring idea, not a bad suggestion to ponder at least.
 
Upvote 0
Zell said:
You should have played in the 2.x days, that syatem was used instead of the one now. We commonly had people shouting "n2! n3!" for more people. It was good, people actually worked together. :D
really? i think not really more than nowadays, but you dont see it as easy as in that times. Most of the times i got the feeling im in the capzone with like the same 3 guys that already where there in 2.0 too.
Though i liked the oldcapsystem better :)

The best thing for teamplay is one strong player actually trying to coordinate the chaotic bunch, saying focus objects and positions for key roles like MGs or Snipers. It doesnt matter if 2 or 3 guys wont follow those suggestions on a full public.
Not only its an option for the random public player to follow or not, its also less restricting and annoying than some pseudo-gameplay enhancing approaches like spawning around an officer (on RO sized maps :D) or getting points for staying close to him
 
Upvote 0
Zell said:
You should have played in the 2.x days, that syatem was used instead of the one now. We commonly had people shouting "n2! n3!" for more people. It was good, people actually worked together. :D
Funny, I remeber sitting in kauksus BR shouting that for 5 minutes till some loner accidently came by and ignored the objectve still.
You are probably getting old Zell ;), where everything that 'used to be' seems better because you forget the downsides of it and only remeber the moments it worked. Which was not more often then now :)
 
Upvote 0
Maybe I explain it better it doesn't really stop game play of players and force to play a certain way.

But it allows points for those you wish to play in squads, so those who are point centric will want to learn to play in squads or help each other out.

Currently the point system is geared to individual stats only, therefore why would anyone wish to participate in a squad, I agree you cannot force people to play in a squad format, but you can atleast give them incentive too.

Currently the point system is incentive only for individuals, so in affect we are hindering squad work and rewarding individual efforts.

I really think the whole idea of FPS scoring system really need to be shaken up to encourage teamwork not indivdual stats. BF2 was getting there but I do believe we not there yet.

You don't have just one Squad leader and you have to nominate yourself to be a squad leader. Really guys think about how much influence the scoring system has over the way we play and if we can change it for rewarding teamwork within a squad rather then individual efforts we would all be much better off.
 
Upvote 0
ViViD said:
You don't have just one Squad leader and you have to nominate yourself to be a squad leader. Really guys think about how much influence the scoring system has over the way we play and if we can change it for rewarding teamwork within a squad rather then individual efforts we would all be much better off.

The problem with teamscore is that it can't be awarded properly. You'd need a jury to find out the best teamplayers, as teamwork does not equal "sticking close to the commander". Also, the point-whoring is mainly a "problem" of public play, as players don't gain anything else except their personal score. And this problem can't be solved, unless we introduce a global ranking system, similar to BF2, but where only round wins would count towards your progression...

In clan-play though, where winning a round does actually mean something, at least I do not even look at the scoreboard. Also, because I am a MGer, I mainly guard positions off the "frontline", to prevent that we are flanked. Due to that I usually get much less kills then my mates. But that does not matter, as I know that I took valuable part in winning that match.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Just curious, after playing CoD2-Singleplayer, will there be something like battle-chatter in RO:O? Would make the whole game much more enjoyable, especially when moving around in a squad.

Just imagine not having to click yourself through a rather ineffective menu like in the old RO (damn, what was the button for screaming 'granada' already?) - imagine your soldier crying "GRENADE" just because an enemy grenade landed before his feet, without having to press anything. Would make the game far more realistic, because in real life, you shout, instantly, no hesitation, while in RO, 90% of the nades kill you without realizing that a grenade was there.

Squad-play can be easily enforced by some little stipulations that make sticking to your squad much more effective than running around alone - like, you could respawn next to your commander (if you died within, let's say, 50 Metres range), you get those grenade warnings, you get better fire support and so on.

Any of you played BF2? BF2 has got a neat voicecomm, really quick and easy to use, implement something like that into RO and ppl will actually use the voicecomms.
Hmmm... and we should be able to do some finger gestures to move our allies round - always shouting seems ineffective to me, as the enemy should hear that, but the enemy can't see any fingers being moved to direct other players.


As a player of BF2, I see one big issue with the global scores and rankings - you just get too much pointfarmers, ppl who exploit weaknesses in the game infrastructure (and believe me, BF2 has LOTS of weaknesses), which nullifies many positive effects of this global ranking.
In my opinion, the ranks just serve as some kind of penis-comparability-device, not much more. You can't really identify a good teamplayer by good teamplay stats, as there are much more pointwhores than one might think. Just think of a medic who revives you, even during an artillery strike. He might get team-points for it, but it definitely isn't anything like teamplay. I hope you get the point.

Encouraging teamplay isn't that easy, especially on pubs.
 
Upvote 0