if reinforcement pools stay shared among your team.

[Zetsumei]

I'm a big promoter for individual reinforcements for the reasons that I do not believe that all of the random people playing together on a team will try to play safer so that after 10 minutes the entire team doesn't run out of reinf.

I believe that its better to give more individual effects for using up reinforcements for the single reason that players will become more aware and pay more attention to it. And that its easier to fix the shortcomings of egoism in individual reinforcements than global reinforcements.

This discussion however goes about the what if scenario that the shared reinforcement pool stays in HOS

If the reinforcement pool however is still shared among the team I hope that the player is continuously pointed (after he dies) to the matter of how he's contributing to the loss of reinforcements.

What does this mean?

- Show the effect of an individual player's actions on reinforcements statistically. Aka say to the player whether whether he is generally dying too quickly and depleting reinforcements too fast. A lot of people probably don't even know they are super quickly depleting the teams reinforcements.

- Beside showing reinforcements in a percentage number like now, show how many lives on average every person has got left. A figure saying 20% reinf left says less than saying, that there are on average 2 spawns per player left. Aka make people aware of the meaning of the reinforcement amount, make the numbers tangible.

- Clearly show the teams reinforcement state and your reinforcement/death statistics every time after you died. So people do not need to specifically look for the reinforcement state hidden in the scoreboard but are simply pointed to it directly every single time that they die.

- Make dying more important for your statistics and score like displaying someone's deaths/minute in the scoreboard, and for score for instance show a (points/minute)*(point/death) ratio.

 

[Extension7]

I like this Idea a lot. I think it should be a server option to have separate or shared reinforcements. (The more options the better?)

Maybe we can go with squad reinforcements, each squad of said number will have their own reinforcement percentage and all, making the squads work together as one more often rather than joining a squad just to spawn more into the map to save running time (bc2)

I figure if you make it independent, the less teamwork. But if you can make it squad based, it might work out.

 

[Sensemann]

I am totally with you Zetsumei. At the current stats system, many people will hunt the top spot, aka most points or kills to stay on top and they think they are the best. On the contrary, I often see the same names popping up on the kill info the whole time. Nading 3, while killing themselves with the same nade.

A couple of days ago on Zhitomir, a guy was complaining about my low score (he had 32 points), while I had 13 points. Now I would say I saw him dying at least 8 times. I only did twice.

If the k/d-ratio would be shown, many people would change their behavior and take more care about not getting killed too often in order to stay on top of the scoring list.

Please understand that I do not care about the stats, but try to play realistically, no run'n'gun style because I strongly believe that in reality, a soldier would do everything to survive first and only then try to kill somebody else...

 

[213]

the scoreboard usually shows how many times someone has died.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Now I am really against separate or individual reinforcement pools (public servers), but since this isn't about that and its about shared reinforcements, I agree with Zetsumei suggestions as long as its an option that can be toggled as sort of a helpful hints thing.

Generally, I would say I have a rather decent Kill/death ratio but I do have bad days. I know how reinforcements can be depleted, so if I am having an off day, I don't need something popping up reminding me of this, nagging or discouraging me... hence have it as an option.

 

[Taisenki]

Solution :

Add it as an option. Team respawn or individual respawn. Let the dedicated server decide

 

[kalle]

I think it's a bit unfriendly to new players. Also some classes are prone to die more often, in the end all assault classes would have used up their respawns while the sniper barely lost any. And it is after all a teamplay game.

 

[FlyXwire]

Solution:

Was to make a game's incentives systems based on the individual's kill/death ratio ranking, thereby scoring incentives gained for staying alive based on penalties for dieing, and this being built as the original *behavior* system (making each individual's achievements linked to their global gameplay results inherently).

If the suggestions already stated here are intended to impress upon players their need for gameplay teamwork, then this is something best done within a clan system, OR, something that is learned over time by players in public sessions.

Just an understanding, but gamer performance should be a product of what works best in a game, because the game's design promotes it, not because it's being expressed as the perferred style that's promoted.

 

[Zetsumei]

For clan gaming you need a win condition, the rest like scores and stats are just nifty to have. For a clan actually a shared pool of reinforcement works best because there is actually a person people listen to. Like if a clan leader says player X play more secure or whatever he'll do so. In public games nobody will listen.

About individual reinforcements logically different classes should use reinforcement differently. Which actually makes people switch from special classes more quickly if they under perform and die a lot as they can for instance not afford to use the sniper any more and need to go rifleman.

Assault classes should be allowed to die more than defensive classes, when using a team pool this doesn't work. If a sniper costs 4x the reinf with a shared pool the sniper won't care that he's using all of the team their reinforcements he'll just continue playing like he does till the reinf run out and at that moment he'll join another server.

And to stop new players from running out basically like with countdown every achievement by the team could give someone some more reinf. Aka rather than giving every individual all reinforcements at the start every player got like x spawns per capture. So after a cap zone is capped everybody's reinf resets back to the amount for the next one.

Showing the current state of your reinforcement basics wouldn't work if it were included in the hint system. As most people turn the hints off from the get go. Similarly to stating that the enemy is capping zone x it should state after you died what your effect is to the teams depletion.

 

[FlyXwire]

Most these things are best accompished through Gentlemen's Understandings and via private play sessions (isn't this a major reason for clan play anyway).

Public sessions should have clear formats that can be easily understood, so that the game ends up being about the action and accomplishing clear objectives. The TWI designers have stated they want RO2 to be more accessable (as compared to RO), and so hope is it doesn't become less, despite having more options available on the server's side.

It's just a reality of public gaming that some random gameplay is to be expected, so game formats shouldn't fall apart merely because of this possibility. When I read this post initially, I thought there's no more random game behavior (or maybe make that "predictable") than RO's old bot intelligence, and because RO2's going to fill open game slots with AI troopers, the thought crossed my mind, how in the heck would it be possible to impress upon a bot the need to observe reinforcement discipline within these varied MP game formats?

If you want better teamwork, then TWI is best to spend it's time refining the game's AI as much as possible, instead of trying to enforce programmed behavior from us human types.

 

[Zetsumei]

If you want better teamwork, then TWI is best to spend it's time refining the game's AI as much as possible, instead of trying to enforce programmed behavior from us human types.

Euhm I'm not suggesting enforcing any behaviour on the player, I'm suggesting to make people aware of the effect of reinforcements. Individual reinforcements are probably the simplest thing ever that is proven to work in other games, as people understand the concept of having lives in a game and because of that will make sure they will have some lives left.

But as some don't like that its better to make people aware of the existence and impact of reinforcements is actually something that makes the game easier. Most people don't know it exists in its current stage so as it is currently it might as well be completely removed or made more clear that it exists and actually effects the game play. Why show it in a percentage when nobody got an idea what that actual percentage means, show reinforcements in a tangible number.

Reinforcements atm generally do not make a team play more cautious in public or whatever because its far too distant from a player and simply too complicated to grasp the individual effects, reinf are only annoying because when you start playing for instance konings platz as axis that you know you'll probably loose because you run out of reinforcements. Because a few people on your team prefer to keep attacking rather than defending.

So that is why for public gaming I think that either reinforcements should be completely scrapped or a player should feel and know that reinforcements are important for winning the match and something to watch out for. And players should get a tangible feeling of what certain actions mean for reinforcement. Players simply need feedback.

But overall I don't like systems where one player got the power to ruin it for the rest of the team, I prefer systems that let the team that generally played the best win. If a team got one player running into the arty the entire time he shouldn't be able to ruin the chance of the entire team to win that map imo.

Its not so much a case of teamwork or no teamwork. But rather a stable and unstable balance within the reinforcement system.

 

[FlyXwire]

Playing the game will demonstrate how players best learn to win or lose a match.

Wasteful players or teams should lose more often if the game's combat mechanics work. If players don't care losing a lot, then no reinforcement awareness (or call it what you like) will make a difference.

Most people try to get better at what they do anyway, especially if the task is competition-based, so if a game format has a limited reinforcement pool, won't this become something learned in the process of our experience?

Maybe this is all much more complicated than my thinking, but then should it be?

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

The notification for players would be a nice idea, I agree for the simple fact that I'm sure many players aren't really aware that they can deplete the reinforcements. As more players become aware of how the game is played and just what reinforcements mean, more (not all I'm sure) will hopefully not run out and waste their life.

At the same time, as someone who doesn't want all sorts of text and icons popping up all over my screen, I don't want to have to see that. I think I have enough grasp of how ROHOS will probably play (if reinforcements are similar to ROOST) to not want to be pestered.

And then there will always be those players who will waste lives regardless of whether they are notified or not. There just will be and its unlikely you will change how they play. What you want to do is inform those players that are unaware of that fact who actually will try to not waste their lives. Let them learn, then give them the choice to not be bothered with that info once they realize about reinforcement levels, and allow them to turn off that game hint.

 

[Zetsumei]

Playing the game will demonstrate how players best learn to win or lose a match.

Wasteful players or teams should lose more often if the game's combat mechanics work. If players don't care losing a lot, then no reinforcement awareness (or call it what you like) will make a difference.

Most people try to get better at what they do anyway, especially if the task is competition-based, so if a game format has a limited reinforcement pool, won't this become something learned in the process of our experience?

Maybe this is all much more complicated than my thinking, but then should it be?

People maximize their personal fun. And if that takes away another persons fun then they won't bother holding back unless they care for those other persons. In a public game most people do not care for their fellow man so they don't care if their fun will ruin the chances of the rest of the team.

Wasteful players and teams should lose more often yes. But at the moment its rather that if you have a team full of good players, that 2 or 3 people can ruin it for the entire team. Performance should be judged by the average of the entirity of the team, and not by the performance of a few individuals.

In a game there will always be people trying to do **** and they will always find ways to do it.

In clan play you have natural teamwork as every body knows and trusts each other, this is absent in public play in a lot of cases. As the people you play with do not know you and do not care about you.

- In clan play a team based pool of reinf would work.
- In clan play you do not need spawn protection as you can direct someone to cover your spawn.
- In clan play you do not need score incidentives to get people to cap instead of just kill people.
- In clan play you can have many capzones open without any need for additional focussing the player. The team will decide themselves what to focus on.


- In public people will grab what they can grab from a reinforcement pool without caring if they will grab too much.
- In public nobody will bother to defend the spawn so a spawnkiller cannot enter.
- In public if there is no score/ perk / achievement bonus for capping a lot of people will just focus on killing rather than winning the map.
- In public if you have multiple capzones open people will cap and move right to the next capzone, resulting in people running around capping in circles. With people being normally distributed over capzones. Resulting in a need for a higher focus and more restrictions in movement.

 

[Fedorov]

the problem is that those wasteful players will be out of the game too fast if they deplete a smaller pool of reinforcements just for themselves. so it may end up having a completely unbalanced team by the middle of the round and your team gets steamrolled just by numbers, because 4 guys depleted their lives too fast.

If I'm a careful player and I know I'm not gonna die much, my reinforcement pool will not be used, and would be a waste for the team, as I'd rather give it to the crazies to hold the frontline for a while longer.

:IS2:

 

[FlyXwire]

People maximize their personal fun. And if that takes away another persons fun then they won't bother holding back unless they care for those other persons. In a public game most people do not care for their fellow man so they don't care if their fun will ruin the chances of the rest of the team.

I play on all sorts of public servers, and I find efforts towards cooperation on most of them. It starts with the simple realization that there's safety in numbers, and the more eyes and guns on target works to protect the group as a whole better. Next, there's the realization that team deaths and respawning means a team's strength and effectiveness drops, causing individual team members to become more vunerable as a result. It doesn't take long for new players to the genre to realize that there's strength in numbers and advantages in working together.

Performance should be judged by the average of the entirity of the team, and not by the performance of a few individuals.

Teamplay is just coordinated individual effort. It also sounds like you may not have embraced the concept of the hero in RO2 yet. As you know, there's also going to be opportunities available in RO2 for achieving individuals to earn, such as valuable assets which can make their teams more effective, so again, team performance will depend very much on individual performance.

There's another RO2 concept that's been emphasized by TWI here: accessibility.

Accessibility is a general term used to describe the degree to which a product, device, service, or environment is accessible by as many people as possible. Accessibility can be viewed as the "ability to access" and possible benefit of some system or entity.

If you have issues with public servers and their availability for play, then you're not promoting one of the underlying motivations that RO2 will become a more accessible gaming product.

 

[Zetsumei]

Sure there is an advantage in working with numbers and working together, I never said anything against that. Heck your statement got nothing to do with what I said :\ the case that reinforcements are seemingly infinite till they run out. People don't care about reinforcements till it's already too late. Its too distant from the player.

Teamplay is a coordination of individual efforts and I never stated against that. But when judging a team the judgement should be about the performance of the entirety of the teams achievements and not those of an individual person. Team performance depends on the accumulation of individual performances, and that shouldn't be possible to be ruined by 1 or 2 individuals.

I don't see in what way making it easier and clearer to players what reinforcements entails goes against accessibility. If anything its exactly making the darn thing more accessible.

Reinforcements are too distant at the moment and aren't accessible to intuitively utlize. I want the system for public play to become more accessible by bringing in a direct feedback loop.

@ Federov you're stating a what if scenario that didn't really happen in any of the previous games with individual lives. What makes you think that it will happen here?

Especially if you get new lives/reinforcements with a steady pace during the actual game so you won't be long without reinforcements if you run out. And as previously i've suggested the ability to give someone else some of your lives.

 

[FlyXwire]

I don't see in what way making it easier and clearer to players what reinforcements entails goes against accessibility. If anything its exactly making the darn thing more accessible.

TWI just needs to clearly explain the MP game modes in their manual, and most players will understand their concepts.

I think from the general player's perspective, not knowing the state of a team's reinforcements would be just as interesting, and probably a bit more realistic too.

Besides, isn't this part of what all this mood music is suppose to be conveying......"Um Team, I don't know about the rest of you, but by the sound of our music we must be getting our asses kicked".

 

[Fedorov]

Besides, isn't this part of what all this mood music is suppose to be conveying......"Um Team, I don't know about the rest of you, but by the sound of our music we must be getting our asses kicked".

We need someone to play "Push it to the limit" to raise the morale of the troops!! (It worked in Iron Crescendo, we were getting our asses kicked hard in Danzig for hours, and someone played it on TS, we completely demolished the German team that round)

YouTube - Push It To The Limit (Scarface) - Paul Engemann

 

[FlyXwire]

Too funny Fedorov!

(sorta a Jukebox Hero moment, eh)

Oh man, I can see it now, tonight's objective.....capture that damn jukebox!