Tactical Zones or Tweak to Cap Zones

[Holy.Death]

This tweak to Spawn System got me thinking. Why people ignore some points of the map that are tactically important?

Because they play to maximize their score (for various reasons - because they're on top of the scoreboard, because they think that's the way it's meant to be played or they want points for unlocks). How to make people play more tactically without forcing them?

Offer them something that'll make them defend objectives in a natural way, making combat more tactical - Tactical Zones. People not attacking the cap zone directly, but covering places where the enemy can shoot the attacking units thus providing protection for their teammates and taking part in winning the map will earn you points for killing people in the "tactical zones" while the enemy will be more willing to defend cap zone from these points, because he'll gets points multipliers (not +1 for each kill, but +1 for kill and +2 for killing people while being in the tactical zone). They'll not only gain more points, but will help protect the main objective.

Here is the idea how to set tactical zones:

Spoiler!

How these zones are set? Some are HMG enplacements that once manned will make life a living hell for the enemy teams. Others are trenches and good shooting places (with some cover) to kill the attackers trying to flank or (like on Mamayev) tunnels that can be blocked by assault or machine gunner. Each tactical zones will have to be adjusted basing on the way the map is constructed.

We can make these zones in two ways:

- Just add these places to cap zone (which could create problems with defending team placing their people there).
- Make them separated zones - you wouldn't help to hold the "main" cap zone, but you'll get points the same way as you do while in "regular cap zone" (for killing while being in the Tactical Zone) and you'll cover people holding the main objective by making sure nothing will get past.

Let me know what you think about this guys.

[MrHello]

Another cool idea which sounds like an improvement over the current system which allows people to run willy nilly.

[PeteAtomic]

Yeah, why not. More things to get people involved, the better.

[Proud_God]

Always nice to see the discussions going on these issues!

I think it would be a lot of work to update all the maps, and that some extra points gained would not make that much of a difference in player behaviour.
Also, determining what areas are 'tactical' will always be arbitrary. (eg: 'why is this spot not tactical? I can get good shots here!')

I do think however that the thought behind your post is interesting: Why should a rifleman who excels at long range be encouraged to get into a narrow, close quarter capzone?

Food for thought...

[Holy.Death]

I think it would be a lot of work to update all the maps, and that some extra points gained would not make that much of a difference in player behaviour.

From my experience most of the people are power gaming - they don't do things that are rational or tactical, but what's the most efficient, they try to maximize their results. I've seen a lot of evidence for that:

People in RPG MMO will wear any gear, even if it's ballet skirt, if stats are good enough to give them advantage. It looks stupid. It doesn't not serve any roleplay value, but people do this.

So, what people do in Red Orchestra 2?

They try to find a place from where they can shoot enemy. At first they attempt to go on foot, but if the team isn't playing tactically they'll quickly stop attacking and will try to be sharpshooters instead - it doesn't matter if they know how to shoot at distance, they just want to do something, to kill someone without being killed. Because for them the game is about killing people. Or getting upgrades. Or being on top of the scoreboard.

Upgrades require kills and points, with Tactical Zones you'd gain both AND you'd play tactically, really helping your team to win the match which is the most important part of any match. Stick doesn't encourage people to try harder and smarter, the carrot might. It'd channel people much more naturally to the areas that are worth being in and killing people from them.

Also, determining what areas are 'tactical' will always be arbitrary. (eg: 'why is this spot not tactical? I can get good shots here!')

Of course, but that's common sense than anything else, right now manning HMG on the left side of the Church (a bit behind it) on the Spartanovka map won't earn you points for objectives, but for killing people. But at the same time you cover village on the left side and you prevent Germans to attack the Church from there. You help holding the objective indirectly.

That should be kind of thinking behind setting Tactical Zones. As they are done now they can make people abandon tactically defensible position (which helps you to prevent the main objective from being flanked), because "action" is somewhere else and you don't get much points for that. Conclusion people will make? "It's not worth it, I go somewhere else" and he leaves position undefended and ripe for the taking for the enemy who'll use it as a leverage - if the team is smart, of course - to realize their objectives (and enemy gets points for killing people inside the Tactical Zones).

[Uniform764]

I would love this. So many times I set up my MG outside a cap zone and cut down their blokes before they reach the zone I'm protecting

[>< f4ct0r...13]

Great Idea, but the game has enough "go here" messages already.

You mention someone occupies a spot only for points. If they're successful, is it not a tactically important spot?

Tactically important spots cannot be contrived, because the battle changes, and no-one will agree on what is tactically important.

To best reward those who take effective tactical spots in the battle, a meaningful honor system is needed. When team wins contribute to an inherently fragile honor, players who care about their honor will gravitate to tactically important spots naturally, and work together, naturally.

[Holy.Death]

Great Idea, but the game has enough "go here" messages already.

I am not so sure - the game really needs some kind of Small Arms Tactics manual or in-game helper to make people realize how important all these things (placement, covering each other, etc.) are. Maybe people shouldn't be guided by hand, but they need some start, especially when they're new.

You mention someone occupies a spot only for points. If they're successful, is it not a tactically important spot?

Not sure what you mean so I'll try to answer in a few ways:

- If people play for points/be on top of scoreboard it doesn't matter for them if spot is tactically important or if they're successful, because they don't get good amount of points. Even manning HMG outside the cap zone won't bring you as much points as shooting from inside of the zone with automatic rifle.

- If people play for kills alone it doesn't necessarily means that spot is tactically important. It might be, but it might be not. Bolt-action riflemen who are playing sharpshooters, but in fact manage to make two or three kills for a whole match can be a good example of that.

Tactically important spots cannot be contrived, because the battle changes, and no-one will agree on what is tactically important.

The most important is to capture or defend the objective and Tactical Zones should be organized with that in mind. That'd depend on the map, cover, etc. but I think it's doable. Maybe it won't be perfect, but it'd help people do the right thing and play more tactically.

To best reward those who take effective tactical spots in the battle, a meaningful honor system is needed.

I am for multiple good changes that'll change overall gameplay for the better.

[>< f4ct0r...13]

Originally Posted by Holy.Death

I am not so sure - the game really needs some kind of Small Arms Tactics manual or in-game helper to make people realize how important all these things (placement, covering each other, etc.) are. Maybe people shouldn't be guided by hand, but they need some start, especially when they're new.

Education, education, education. The people who are interested in learning about WW2 tactics can find the material. RO2 Forum should provide it too...encourage it even.

Tactics won't work as long as there is no FOW. There is no need at all to team up right now.

Not sure what you mean so I'll try to answer in a few ways:

- If people play for points/be on top of scoreboard it doesn't matter for them if spot is tactically important or if they're successful, because they don't get good amount of points. Even manning HMG outside the cap zone won't bring you as much points as shooting from inside of the zone with automatic rifle.

What do points matter if the team wins? ;-)

- If people play for kills alone it doesn't necessarily means that spot is tactically important. It might be, but it might be not. Bolt-action riflemen who are playing sharpshooters, but in fact manage to make two or three kills for a whole match can be a good example of that.

Exactly. So what is the decider of good tactical position? A pre-programmed objective, or team win?

The most important is to capture or defend the objective and Tactical Zones should be organized with that in mind. That'd depend on the map, cover, etc. but I think it's doable. Maybe it won't be perfect, but it'd help people do the right thing and play more tactically.

So...every map would be the same, eh? Run fromt actical point to tactical point, shoot, die, repeat? No re-playability there.

I challenge you to get out of the box, and remove the computer from the equation. Only have motivations for sound tactical play to be within the play itself.

I am for multiple good changes that'll change overall gameplay for the better.

Amen, brother. btw, it's good to see you on the server you play. There is hope for us yet.

[Proud_God]

Originally Posted by >< f4ct0r...13

there is no FOW.

I've seen you make this remark a lot before. I assume you mean the enemy spotted markers? Note that it does not track enemies and it doesn't convey more information that can be conveyed with text / chat messages anyway.

[>< f4ct0r...13]

Originally Posted by Proud_God

I've seen you make this remark a lot before. I assume you mean the enemy spotted markers? Note that it does not track enemies and it doesn't convey more information that can be conveyed with text / chat messages anyway.

There are many, many, many, things that take away from FOW. Some may even surprise you.

The point is: if the computer is taking away the challenge, then there is no reason to have friends or tactics.

[Holy.Death]

Tactics won't work as long as there is no FOW. There is no need at all to team up right now.

Not exactly, tactics can work, even in current state. It does give you an edge over disorganized bunch of players, but you're right that with current "it's just another FPS" attitude people just... run and shoot. I find it stupid.

What do points matter if the team wins? ;-)

That's the point - I think winning is more important, but some play for points. Finding a way to make even such players more useful to the team is important as it can help the whole team and satisfy Point Collectors at the same time.

Exactly. So what is the decider of good tactical position? A pre-programmed objective, or team win?

There is no good answer, I am afraid. I am open for propositions and insight. Good tactical position is the one that allows you to defend objective in someway. Placing machine gun in tight pass or placing sharpshooters at the windows overlooking open spaces are both sensible choices. Point is to make all such ideas viable for the players.

So...every map would be the same, eh? Run fromt actical point to tactical point, shoot, die, repeat? No re-playability there.

I challenge you to get out of the box, and remove the computer from the equation. Only have motivations for sound tactical play to be within the play itself.

I see what you mean. Good point. But here comes the question: how to motivate people? Making the game deadly only makes them afraid of taking risks and they simply camp at their spawn, because they're fed up with dying all the time... Maybe education... Good training missions...

[>< f4ct0r...13]

Originally Posted by Holy.Death

Not exactly, tactics can work, even in current state. It does give you an edge over disorganized bunch of players, but you're right that with current "it's just another FPS" attitude people just... run and shoot. I find it stupid.

By definition, tactics happen in every game. Whether or not the tactic makes sense, is another thing.

The key is education. Open a new room on the forums, that discusses tactics, and encourage real-world and era-specific tactical discussion.

The most important tactic is to stay alive. From there, one can do other things. As long as the computer is telling a person everything about the battle, and one can't trust their ears either, then "run and shoot" players are employing the best tactic that there is.

I enjoy fire and movement. Look around, there are people doing it.

That's the point - I think winning is more important, but some play for points. Finding a way to make even such players more useful to the team is important as it can help the whole team and satisfy Point Collectors at the same time.

Well, if they're getting points, they're doing something. However, I get your point. First, we cannot define what is fun for a player. We must accept that others will do what is fun for them.

Point collectors can find a much more gratifying play experience when the honor system is meaningful. If a person's honor was dynamic, and affected by the things he does on the battlefield, then a person who cared about their points would do things that make a high honor.

Dynamic honor ratings could also influence who is in your squad. Higher honor players spawn together, therefore guaranteeing that your squad will be working together more than a low-honor squad. They may even be equipped differently too (hmm, opens up dynamic scenario ideas).

Make high honor a true distinction, and people will seek it with enthusiasm. They will do the things that will give them points. The game will also be very re-playable, because one has good days and bad days. One day your honor may be 10, the next day 70.

A meaningful hero system would also encourage people to play intelligently and together. Heroes generated by in-game actions and within the proximity of friends would encourage people to seek 'heroic instances". Its a complicated idea, but very simple in execution. Re-playability is off the charts, because heroic instance lists could be added to infinitely.

Steam achievements for all the hero instances, and honor? Snappy.

There is no good answer, I am afraid. I am open for propositions and insight. Good tactical position is the one that allows you to defend objective in someway. Placing machine gun in tight pass or placing sharpshooters at the windows overlooking open spaces are both sensible choices. Point is to make all such ideas viable for the players.

The guy who had one kill the whole game may have stopped that MG from setting up. One can never speak badly of another's experience. we just don't know what it is. However, there are varying degrees of usefulness, and meaningful honor/hero systems could illustrate it.

I see what you mean. Good point. But here comes the question: how to motivate people? Making the game deadly only makes them afraid of taking risks and they simply camp at their spawn, because they're fed up with dying all the time... Maybe education... Good training missions...

Education, and meaningful honor/hero system.

I truly believe that the honor system and hero system I describe would change the way games are played, offer a lot of re-playability, and still be able to provide everyone with the experience they will have.