Fear of Death

[FlyXwire]

The usage of the word authentic gaming experience is a bit odd. As having only 1 life is for a lot of games an authentic gaming experience. Where as having unlimited lives is authentic as well. Trying to find a sweet spot between commonly found authentic gaming experiences, doesn't suddenly make it not authentic.

I never use the term "realistic" in descriptions of game experiences, so call it odd if you may, but actually I believe this comes from a very reasoned point of view.

I also believe authentic military game tactics should work in-game as much as possible. Problem is, games can promote the use of unauthentic tactics too, because these gamey tactics happen to work just fine. K/D ratios and force ratios are authentic military measurements, so I feel comfortable using these for this discussion.

Of course we all know games need balancing mechanics and such, because they're games, but again I'll prefer to compare the actual gameplay experience as much as possible to the authentic measureables, like whether a game actually promotes the use of authentic tactics or not. This is why having a K/D rank-up system on the front-end of a game's design, might work better towards balancing in-game actions, the tactics used, and thoughts about "fear of death", than the inevitable scenario limiters and balancers that have to be applied on the back-side so to speak.

 

[dogbadger]

i'm still loving my 'hero experience grows faster the longer you have been alive in the combat zone' idea.
shame no one else is

 

[FlyXwire]

I'm getting the feeling that Zets knows more about the HEROES rank-up system than he can say.

If it's going to work like COD's, based only on overall kill tallies and shootin' challenges, then lets hope the perks aren't going to be too powerful (like what some have hope for here by expecting only cosmetic achievements).

 

[Zetsumei]

I don't know anything about the heroes rank up system. And I'm sadly currently not affiliated with HOS in any way. If I were I wouldn't end up posting stuff here .

If anything I'm a promoter of being able to use realistic tactics, however purely by promoting kill/death ratios you wont get there. You need to promote the kills/minutes (you need both quantity K/M and quality K/D ) and next to that the teamwork achievements such as capping.

Next to that players in a computer game will never fear dying, and you cant expect that of players. But you can try to make it that people reduce taking risks that could create a persons death.

Having things such as individual reinforcements won't change the balance of a map unless one team got more reinforcements than the other team. But the game is already like that in roost with the big pool of reinforcements. So I truly do not know why the talk about balance comes into play when talks are about fear of death.

A lot of real world tactics for instance are based on utilizing suppressive fire, at the moment suppressive fire simply does not exist in Roost. Every shot is aimed to kill, rather than suppress. As people simply do not fear dying they rather take their chances.

If you want an authentic experience then you need both a somewhat filled battlefield as the war wasn't fought with 32 men. And you need a severe reluctance to die as you only live once. I do not know why you keep calling things limiters and balancers, especially as this doesn't really have to do anything with balance. Its about making a persons life important in the territory game. You can do this partly by stats, perks, achievements, points etc. But the main part is by actually making it more important for a player to stay alive by actual in game feedback.

With individual reinforcements, there isn't really any new limit placed on the players, as the reinforcement limit is there already in ROOST just shared with a big group. The only difference is that your own doings affect yourself directly. This allows people to get a grip on the importance of the reinforcements. Reinforcements are so distant to players now that they might as well not be there.

 

[IVIARSHALL]

I'm curious how it would go if each person had a number of respawns / reinforcements.

So in ROOST, each player would have on average 10 lives, if you have 160 total spawns for reinforcements on a 16v16 server.

If instead, each player gets 10 respawns, people might be more careful about getting killed, since they can't leach from the pool.

You could even incentivise different roles by giving them fewer or higher spawns - like less spawns for snipers (makes sure they stay back and do their job).

Sounds great. But what to do if you disconnect or someone else enters for you?

 

[Zetsumei]

The lives could be assigned to a steam id, so if you leave and connect within the same game you retain your old lives.

New players could be given the average of the team that he joins.

And in order to stop people from running out too early and having to wait the entire game , rather than giving 10 lives straight away they could be given away in smaller chunks at different stages of the map.

Next to that it could be made for instance that you can give some of your lives to other players (and actually gaining points for giving it to players without reinforcements). And finally allow the team to vote to give up the game and just loose rather than having to wait 5 minutes for an AFK person in the spawn.

 

[FlyXwire]

I do not know why you keep calling things limiters and balancers, especially as this doesn't really have to do anything with balance.

Placing further restrictions on the number of times a player can regenerate in-game, or having some time delay on respawning are simply play limiters. So no, I don't buy having to sit around waiting for the game to decide when I can play in a mission.

Placing short time limits on the period one player-side can achieve an objective, or requiring certain Kills/Minute to score successfully further dictates the type of gaming to be expected. This type of gameplay doesn't promote players to be concerned about "fear of death", instead this limits gameplay to rushes against the clock.

Actually, I think requiring certain kills/minute to rank these achievements will have the opposite affect of promoting "fear of death".

 

[Zetsumei]

Placing further restrictions on the number of times a player can regenerate in-game, or having some time delay on respawning are simply play limiters. So no, I don't buy having to sit around waiting for the game to decide when I can play in a mission.

Placing short time limits on the period one player-side can achieve an objective, or requiring certain Kills/Minute to score successfully further dictates the type of gaming to be expected. This type of gameplay doesn't promote players to be concerned about "fear of death", instead this limits gameplay to rushes against the clock.

Actually, I think requiring certain kills/minute to rank these achievements will have the opposite affect of promoting "fear of death".

The game is a rush against the clock as you have only a few minutes per objective and only 30 minutes to capture a complete zone. So if the game is a rush against the clock it makes sense rewarding someone for killing loads. (Note: If you're dead you cannot kill, so you need to stay alive as well for a high kill/min ratio).

Making players save their life is important, but players must actually cap and kill enemy soldiers as well. Every person you kill returns to his previous position in about a minute. So if you make less kills than 1 kill per minute then you're not really doing well even if you have a 20:0 kill/death ratio. K/D would work well as a measurement device in Countdown, but for territory, you need a quantity index.

I'm not placing further restrictions i'm utilizing restrictions already in place no matter what you say actually having limited reinforcements is quite realistic.

Roost currently already got limited reinforcements so I'm not adding any additional restrictions. My suggestion is about making reinforcements individual. So no new restrictions are added beside giving a player more responsibility for his actions. Its a method that has been proven to work in very arcade games, so it will pretty much definitely work in a game with a user base that is per default a bit less run and gun ish.

 

[FlyXwire]

The game is a rush against the clock as you have only a few minutes per objective and only 30 minutes to capture a complete zone. So if the game is a rush against the clock it makes sense rewarding someone for killing loads. (Note: If you're dead you cannot kill, so you need to stay alive as well for a high kill/min ratio).

Which is where this discussion began I believe. So now we've been forwarding ideas on mechanism for actually promoting "fear of death". If you enjoy modes where rushing against the clock, capturing zones, and killing loads is the standard reflex, then there's lots of games that fit this bill nicely.

Making players save their life is important, but players must actually cap and kill enemy soldiers as well. Every person you kill returns to his previous position in about a minute. So if you make less kills than 1 kill per minute then you're not really doing well even if you have a 20:0 kill/death ratio. K/D would work well as a measurement device in Countdown, but for territory, you need a quantity index.

Gameplay depends on lots of variables, such as the basic game mode chosen, map sizes, objective(s) and their positions, troop and weapon types allowed, respawn locations and distances to objectives, etc., and all this is so conditional it's really something that can't be generalized about so easily.

I'm not placing further restrictions i'm utilizing restrictions already in place no matter what you say actually having limited reinforcements is quite realistic.

Don't think I ever stating you actually said much concerning limiting lives, or promoting respawn-delays, but then you cared to differ that these could be playing limitations, so I guess you're involved by default.

Roost currently already got limited reinforcements so I'm not adding any additional restrictions. My suggestion is about making reinforcements individual. So no new restrictions are added beside giving a player more responsibility for his actions. Its a method that has been proven to work in very arcade games, so it will pretty much definitely work in a game with a user base that is per default a bit less run and gun ish.

I guess you've wanted this discussion to be about limiting reinforcements, but I'm not actually talking about reinforcements pro or con, but about not limiting player regeneration or for suggestions about delaying respawning as a means of promoting "fear of death". Again, you assume I'm discussing your ideas, but probably not. My suggestion is for considering using K/D as a means of promoting "fear of death", because it's an idea how players might equate staying alive with achieving positive things from their gameplay. This is an idea that could work through the "character progession" feature that's going to be new in RO:HOS, so this isn't relating to current or older game features, but more to games like COD/BFBC2 that have "perk systems".

 

[Zetsumei]

The game is not only about being cautious, the goal should always remain to win the map. And for winning the map you need to cap objectives and actually make kills as well. K/D ratio in a game with re-spawns is simply not enough for a basis to judge performance.

Gameplay depends on lots of variables, such as the basic game mode chosen, map sizes, objective(s) and their positions, troop and weapon types allowed, respawn locations and distances to objectives, etc., and all this is so conditional it's really something that can't be generalized about so easily.

Gameplay depends on loads of variables and i'm not stating it isn't, but in territory and countdown time plays a crucial role. And in territory simply stating a kill/death ratio doesn't say a lot about a persons performance, as a kill/death ratio lacks a quantitative amount. If you want to play a game where kills/minute do not matter than you should probably play countdown as there are far less re-spawns there.

The kill/death ratio that can be achieved and is needed to be successful on a map differs on a per map basis, and similarly does the kill/minute ratio that is needed. But even if those things change on a per map basis they always remain to be important factors.

As I said using stats, perks and achievements to promote the importance of staying alive is good. However those systems should not solely promote staying alive. Those systems need to promote teamwork as well as the advancement through the map and the quantity of kills (K/M). As long as there is a clock ticking down in maps, and people re-spawning, the factor of kills/minute remains important for judging performance.

Currently people do not care for wasting reinforcements, stats can stop people from wasting the reinforcements a little. However that doesn't fix that people have no idea how their individual actions affect the reinforcement pool.

 

[FlyXwire]

The game is not only about being cautious, the goal should always remain to win the map. And for winning the map you need to cap objectives and actually make kills as well.

I mentioned the need to promote team-wise gameplay and scoring objectives in post on both page 1 & 2 of this thread, and even though this is implied by the nature of the game modes being selected to play at any one time, I did so for clarity anyway.

Using the new character progression system coming to RO:HOS as an additional tool to encourage more authentic gameplay, or what some have coined as infusing "fear of death" into the equation , is just that, another tool that can be used.

 

[Tiger2]

My basic suggestion: let players with ridiculously high flag caps get priority in choosing their preferred class. That is the only way I can see this Heroes scheme working.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

For your normal pub play (I mean no special game modes such as the ones Zets is often mentioning... that is a different topic all together), overall I still feel that ROOST has it right.

Now for that to be right, many factors must be taken into account. Xendance sorta started to hit on it. Respawn times, reinforcement levels, distance to the area of battle and the objectives are all things that hopefully have been setup correctly by the level designer and play tested to give the kind of gameplay that was meant for that map. Many maps are different so this will lead to different gameplay with certain maps. This would allow players to be cautious when necessary and to take risks and chances when needed to cap/recap objectives.

Limiting lives per player can have its own adverse effects, leaving a only few good/lucky/cautious players left on a map when all the others have wasted their lives... then the gameplay gets dull (like trying to seed a server with only a few players in game; boring) while all of the others sit twidling their thumbs on the sidelines waiting for the round to end.

Excessive respawn times or long treks back into the battle can get boring and I use the original DH map of Omaha as an example. I thought is was a great map EXCEPT for the long respawn times, the long walks back into battle only to get killed before you even see the enemy only to repeat the process. In the end, even for a realistic community like theirs it was too much.

Also, you don't need to punish players who may just be having a bad/unlucky day because they are teamkilled or the other team is having a great round.

Also, on top of all that, you can't stop all the rambos and those players who are probably more stationary than they should be. Find the method that works best for most players.

For me, most of the time my fear of death is the wait to respawn (again, a reasonable time), the trek back into battle (reasonable as well), and just my own personal pride and gameplay experience. In most instances I am doing the team more good by staying alive at an objective*** that being sidelined waiting to respawn and running back into the game.

***Edit I should add, staying alive and denying the other team their objectives by killing them or just preventing them from going where they want in general.

 

[FlyXwire]

Well-reasoned Moe.

Just some thoughts on game design (or even scenario crafting).....don't punish players for doing what they might want to do, instead reward them for pursuing methods or objectives you think should be encouraged (like allowing them to *discover* that authentic tactics actually work best in-game).

Something I learned while making wargames and missions decades ago, is to try and avoid the urge to hit players over the head to conform them to your gameplay ideas, but to encourage them instead to figure out the best ways to succeed. In the end some players will just game the game for whatever thrill that gives them, but if a game is any good, authentic tactics will end of working best anyway.

Rat maze maps and timed rush scenarios often just mask shallow game design, and after awhile most everyone comes to recognize these deficiencies too.

 

[Floyd]

One thing I think some may perhaps be overlooking....
Perks/rewards that are based upon stats may result in having to have "white-listed" maps. Witness Killing Floor for example. As "silly" a game as it is, look at all the turmoil caused from leveling maps. I'm sure TW is learning from that experience and will come up with a system (or not include stats) that will avoid that fiasco altogether.
The ability to pad stats is one reason that I personally pay no attention to them at all.

 

[Zetsumei]

Limiting lives per player can have its own adverse effects, leaving a only few good/lucky/cautious players left on a map when all the others have wasted their lives... then the gameplay gets dull (like trying to seed a server with only a few players in game; boring) while all of the others sit twidling their thumbs on the sidelines waiting for the round to end.

Also, you don't need to punish players who may just be having a bad/unlucky day because they are teamkilled or the other team is having a great round.

Also, on top of all that, you can't stop all the rambos and those players who are probably more stationary than they should be. Find the method that works best for most players.

Lives are limited for players already, and my statements arent based on pure theoretical bases. Its about the effect i've seen in other games utilizing it. I've never seen it end with just a few guys left alive. If people have a direct connection to the reinforcements they will end up playing more secure if they are running out. Only a few people can run out early. And to stop the rare cases of exploitation to happen, security systems can be added to bridge deficiencies, while the current issues cannot be stopped unless suddenly all the players try to truly work as a team.

My suggestions for individual reinforcements are exactly for public play rather than for special cases as clan play. As in clan play a team pool actually works. As you have a clan leader that actually manages the reinforcement of a team and calls out when to fall back or not. In public till the reinforcements hit 0% it feels like an infinite amount. Whether you die more often as a person or not feels like it won't matter to the total reinforcements amount, which makes it that people don't use reinforcements sparingly.

Regarding teamkilling individual reinforcements actually works better as simply if you tk someone the person you tked respawns out of your pool rather than his own. Aka if you tk someone a few times you're out of re-spawns and not the person you tked.

The negative possible affects that can come with individual reinforcements can be bridged and fixed. The issues with team based reinforcements cannot be fixed unless magically a team starts acting as a real team. Something that I haven't seen on any public server since i started playing RO in 2004. There are always some people that want to ruin everything for other players, and I just think they should be able to. Sure there are often people that want to work as a team, but just as many that just want to rambo.

The biggest issue with my point is that ideology wise its a worse solution than a team based pool. As you want to have teams play each other as an actual team. But reality shows that a lot of players play only for themselves and their own satisfaction rather than the common good for the team. Which results that individual stimulation and steering of players works better than appraising a team as a whole (heck if a team looses loads of people actually blame other players rather than accept that everybody just played bad as a whole).

In clan based situations this is different, as then a team knows each other and is truly fighting for a common goal. Which is why exactly in clan based situation you would want to have a shared reinforcement pool, and want to judge the overal team performance rather than the performance of an individual. But in a group of players that doesn't know each other and doesn't fully trust each other, you cant punish an entire group for the misdoings of an individual player. Especially as you cannot really choose who you play with and who will join the server.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

See, I have to disagree a bit. Sure there are maps out there where there are so many reinforcements, you will almost never run out. In fact, some it is just about impossible.

But I remember in ROOST back when there were more players of course, that on maps such as Berezina players would pay heed to the reinforcement level, and really be careful. Not so much now this past year or so for whatever reason, although there are those that try to remind the others of it, but for two or three years since ROOST was released, it really seemed to me to be the case that players would be more careful when reinforcements became lower. I always felt the average ROOST player was a cut above most other gamers in realizing the effect they had on reinforcement levels etc. (NOT just those in clan matches, I'm sure there are a lot of pub players who can match the best clan player, and there are clan players who would be an embarrassment to the average pub player and vice versa)

I still feel that reinforcements should be based on a team level, to actually represent the amount of reinforcements that are available to that side during a map round. To me, that feels more right than allowing reinforcements to be based on how many lives a player gets.

On that note, perhaps certain classes can be limited such as officers (on a platoon level or higher) or other specialties such as sniper. Just a certain number of respawns and that is it.... you automatically switch to rifleman. But then that is sort of a different topic, although related.

I will say, that if things went as you suggested Zetsumei, then charging a TK'er a life out of their own pool is a good idea, especially if its not forgiven.

In any case, its most likely already decided by the devs how reinforcements will work. Which ever way it falls, I hope that they have decided, somehow, to use the best ideas of theirs and our so it works out best for the majority of us who are involved.

 

[Zetsumei]

The difference in clan matches has got nothing to do with skill or any difference to the individual players themselves. The difference is in believing into the team you are playing with, and trusting the players around you.

If you would play with a constant big group of like minded players on the same public server all the time you would get the same result.

At times there is a slight change in playing style in the last few percent before it hits 0% of the reinforcements. However a lot of people keep playing as they are purely because they do not trust the rest of the team to be conservative. There are always some players trying to be cautious and warning people over voip to use the reinf sparingly. But the majority of the players still doesn't listen.

For fun try and spectate on a 24/7 danzig server. You will see a huge change in the pace when suddenly the reinforcements are out. People play full out till perhaps 90% reinforcements are gone, then some people will play more cautious. But when the meter hits 0% suddenly everybody plays super cautious going as far as hiding into their own spawn building.

The change of pace from 5% reinforcements to 0% reinforcements is huge currently. With individual reinforcements how cautious people play is more spread out over the entire range of reinforcements. So there is far less of a big jump or change of pace down the end.

On a map like koningsplatz plenty of times the axis are trying to attack while basically their reinforcements do not allow agression. Making the game end either at the siegessaule or the final cap due to the axis running out of reinforcements. If players are more concious about the reinf they use and have left, they will adapt their playing style in order to stay alive for the entire duration. And retreat earlier on. As can be showcased in other games utilizing it.

In koningsplatz to not run out of reinforcements the axis players need to live for 2 minutes average before dying. Yet most players attack the allies heavily in the first caps resulting in the game inevitable running out of reinforcements in the later caps.

Its simply an utopian thought to expect everybody on your team to care about the reinforcements. A lot of people end up dying a lot quicker than the average they should have while actually staying alive for 2 minutes on average shouldn't be too hard for even the newest of players. Most other maps actually you to stay alive for 1 single minute.

I'm not talking about super low amounts of individual reinforcements, Im asking for amounts that any new player can manage and not run out of. But I just want players to be concious about the reinforcements in the game, rather than the majority not bothering to take notice of it.

If a map got low reinforcements players should play more careful to not run out. Players should not play as they normally do till they are forced to play cautious. Reinforcements can hardly be used as a balanced method. As can be accounted with people running out of reinforcements while they only need to stay alive for a single minute.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

While I don't agree with everything on this topic, I will agree that nowadays are definitely different than average pub play even a year or two ago.

The average pub player who populates a 24/7 Danzig server these days would definitely serve to further your point in this matter. Most likely these days, many of the pub players with the way they play more or less make your point more valid. I can't really argue there...

It's one of the reasons I have been playing DH more lately, the players on average really seem like they are more into it for the team and not necessarily themselves.

 

[FlyXwire]

"Fear of Death" is individual.

"Fear of losing a match", or "Fear of running out of reinforcements" deals with aggregates.