Map Roaming = Lonewolf incentive

[Arc_Shielder]

As a fan of Project Reality (mod for BF2) and Arma 2 (in well organized PvP events), one of the things that drawn me to buy RO2 is how well it could merge the best out of fast paced FPS and mil-sim minded FPS.

But the one thing that makes me cringe is the total freedom to roam around the map with the enough range to even spawnkill. I would like for the Dome of Death to be more extensive and dynamic. In the sense that if when you have a full offensive team and a full defensive team, there is absolutely no reason for the defenders to go meters beyond its objective, down behind enemy lines. It promotes lonewolfing and spawnkilling. It could be said the same thing when an attacker goes beyond its attacking objective as well. Regardless of the gamemode even.

I wish this could be improved. There is more than enough margin on the sides of each flag to flank the opponent. Heck, if one can go beyond enemy lines, I'm pretty sure he can flank the enemy more effectively by staying in line of the flag.

It would be better for immersion and better for teamwork.

 

[SQBsam]

Arc, I completely understand your worry, often in RO2 the map degenerates into lonewolf charges being cut down whilst masses of inter squad infantry attempts to snipe. However this problem could not be solved by tunnelling the playable area, which would simply force the game into an artificial close quarters.

I believe there should be points awarded for simply following the squad leader, and a teamwork system much like Americas Army 3. This would encourage squads to work together, in closer proximity to each other, the points system meaning that they are less inclined to go for kills and would rather just stick together.

Ooh, Edit: This thread probably belongs more in the Ideas and Suggestions area.

 

[>< f4ct0r...13]

Introducing arbitrary boundaries to teams is like playing a WW2 game with radar.

It is ahistorical, all things being equal. The best defense is a good offense.

SQBSam has a great alternative, but alas, his idea is moot as long as player leveling is meaningless.

If player levels were a measure of a player's skill and teamwork instead of hours logged, then awarding points for teamwork would mean something, and then would encourage teamwork.

 

[Arc_Shielder]

And why shouldn't it be arbitrary?
It's not an argument to imply that WWII was made of blood thirsty rambos that sneaked behind enemy lines to get a few good kills.

Squads had disciplinary boundaries as well as objectives to fulfill. The first is not being respected due to obvious reasons, and as I learned in PR, sometimes an unrealistic feature promotes a more realistic behavior.

There is absolutely nothing favorable to players who step away from the objectives. They're not with their squads and sometimes even when they alone shred down a significant amount of enemy reinforcements, his team still manages to lose. Egotistical behavior sometimes isn't rewarded, but for the most part it shouldn't at all.

 

[Six_Ten]

There is absolutely nothing favorable to players who step away from the objectives. They're not with their squads and sometimes even when they alone shred down a significant amount of enemy reinforcements, his team still manages to lose. Egotistical behavior sometimes isn't rewarded, but for the most part it shouldn't at all.

Feel free to install the SDK and create that kind of map if you like. It is antithetical to everything I love about RO and RO2, so I won't be making anything like that, but the great thing about the mapping tools is that you can really make just the kind of map you want.

 

[>< f4ct0r...13]

And why shouldn't it be arbitrary?
It's not an argument to imply that WWII was made of blood thirsty rambos that sneaked behind enemy lines to get a few good kills.

Squads had disciplinary boundaries as well as objectives to fulfill. The first is not being respected due to obvious reasons, and as I learned in PR, sometimes an unrealistic feature promotes a more realistic behavior.

There is absolutely nothing favorable to players who step away from the objectives. They're not with their squads and sometimes even when they alone shred down a significant amount of enemy reinforcements, his team still manages to lose. Egotistical behavior sometimes isn't rewarded, but for the most part it shouldn't at all.

Actually, one of the things that made the Soviets so formidable in Stalingrad is that they *did* travel in roaming squads, often turning up behind the German positions.

"Gangster tactics". Look it up.

Essentially, if you don't like what they're doing, stop it with ability, not with game rules.

Isn't the game easy enough already without more crutches? Heck, the last map "upgrade" made them much easier!

Finally, if you can't find the rambo using your radar, then, well, you should figure out the game before trying to change it.

 

[Arc_Shielder]

1 soldier doesn't equal a squad which nulifies your argument. And please, to imply that I suck at the game because I dislike one element of the gameplay is one of the most childish remarks that one can bring to a discussion.

Please don't derail the thread and bring something constructive to the table.

How you take this proposed change as a crutch, is beyond me, because if anything it will simulate the closest thing to a frontline for each team. It wouldn't certainly get easier.

 

[Arc_Shielder]

You have flags that cover most of the map and generally are a vertical AAS line. What kind of reasoning is it that you're being funneled too much already?
That's all there is to it...

What I see are a bunch of players taking the concept of what should be teamwork oriented game and bring the "right of choice" to promote even more lonewolfing. This game should be set apart from the likes of COD and BF3 and here you are bringing this into a legitimate right to do whatever your want even if detracts the enjoyment of others that bought the game for how it was intended to play.

I actually believe certain games should force the player to interact with gameplay elements according to its orientation. Right now RO2 commercially promotes a TW oriented game (which seems to be giving a clear sign how the DEVs would like the game to play out) and yet in reality doesn't seem to know where it's heading.

Either come up with a squad interface that incentives players to play as a squad or limit their advancement in order to force them to aid their team. Even if they somewhat lonewolf they could be really helpful in a frontline rather than cheap tactics that anyone should be ashamed of defending.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

You have flags that cover most of the map and generally are a vertical AAS line. What kind of reasoning is it that you're being funneled too much already?

Limited covers and high density of combatants (on 64 players servers anyway) leads to few very obvious attack paths that are camped and turned into meat grinder.

People should be encouraged to cooperate because cooperation itself should net the reward through better performance. This sort of "lol you die if you step into this area" doesn't encourage teamwork/squad play, it just puts bunch of lone wolves that you despise into smaller area. Having bunch of people in smaller area is not what any sensible tactician would call "cooperation". It'll just lead to mindless shootout.

 

[Nightingale]

In a real war, moving out of the "combat zone" would probably result in you being shot from far away by enemy units you were not expecting to engage directly. We need an artificial "combat zone" in order to stop players from taking advantage of an unrealistic "safe" zone on the sides of the battlefield.

 

[r5cya]

In a real war, moving out of the "combat zone" would probably result in you being shot from far away by enemy units you were not expecting to engage directly. We need an artificial "combat zone" in order to stop players from taking advantage of an unrealistic "safe" zone on the sides of the battlefield.

why?
there's just as many enemy on the outskirts, looking to pick off lone wolves, as there are lone wolves. if you want to rush the cap do it. there's no reason to ruin anyone elses idea of a good time though.

 

[Arc_Shielder]

Limited covers and high density of combatants (on 64 players servers anyway) leads to few very obvious attack paths that are camped and turned into meat grinder.

People should be encouraged to cooperate because cooperation itself should net the reward through better performance. This sort of "lol you die if you step into this area" doesn't encourage teamwork/squad play, it just puts bunch of lone wolves that you despise into smaller area. Having bunch of people in smaller area is not what any sensible tactician would call "cooperation". It'll just lead to mindless shootout.

Of course it doesn't show real cooperation, but it forces the player to be a tiny bit helpful to the team as opposed to nothing. And if it makes these egotistical players not play the game through this system, wouldn't it be better?

I have a hard time understanding why would this particular system create any kind of bottleneck. There are already places to camp, the maps are small enough for that. And it's not a handful of lonewolves spreading across the map that suddenly closing them down will make both teams go WWI.

I'm talking about a horizontal line limiting any kind of advancement beyond the attacking objective. Like the very tip further away of its capping radius.
Why would any sensible tactician would want to go beyond that when it's the only thing you need to do?

why?
there's just as many enemy on the outskirts, looking to pick off lone wolves, as there are lone wolves. if you want to rush the cap do it. there's no reason to ruin anyone elses idea of a good time though.

Not sure what to say about the first part of this comment as it is plain silly.

This is supposed to be a TW oriented game so the priority should be established to those who want to play the game as such. Their notion of a "good time" should certainly be more valued than the ones you speak of.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

Of course it doesn't show real cooperation, but it forces the player to be a tiny bit helpful to the team as opposed to nothing. And if it makes these egotistical players not play the game through this system, wouldn't it be better?

It won't just restrict egotistical players though... it'll simply restrict everyone into more confined area.

If anything, restricting player movement into smaller, more confined area actually attracts the crowd that just wants some thoughtless shootout (nothing wrong with that crowd as I too enjoy mindless action when I'm in the mood for it). Take a look at all the popular FPS. You have these tiny maps and group of players that flock exclusively to tiny maps, like BF3's Metro and CoD4's shipyard (that tiny map with 4 crates lol). Both games with those maps are the home of most nonsensical mindless action. Metro for example, has linear direction and often players will be forced into huge groups because they have nowhere else to go... but what you get is anything but teamwork, just bunch of lonewolves mindlessly shooting for easy points.

I have a hard time understanding why would this particular system create any kind of bottleneck. There are already places to camp, the maps are small enough for that. And it's not a handful of lonewolves spreading across the map that suddenly closing them down will make both teams go WWI.

Because you suggested that players be confined to even smaller area than what's available currently. The maps already feel small, and your suggestion is that TWI should restrict the maps further so that players are forced into the cap zone. How is funneling players down into narrower path not going to create bottleneck when the game already suffers from some bottleneck with 64 players on certain maps?

I'm talking about a horizontal line limiting any kind of advancement beyond the attacking objective. Like the very tip further away of its capping radius.
Why would any sensible tactician would want to go beyond that when it's the only thing you need to do?

To provide cover and to position themselves on vantage points. For example, body guards have a simple mission, which is to protect the client. That doesn't mean every single body guard swarm around the client because he/she is the 'objective'. Few stay with the client, few go elsewhere to stake out vantage points, etc.

If an objective is to take over a building, you don't just swarm the building... you may first take less defended building across the street to provide cover fire, or take alternative routes through some remote alley to avoid being seen, etc.

 

[>< f4ct0r...13]

1 soldier doesn't equal a squad .

Ever since the age of automatic weapons, he does, actually.

You need to check out modern infantry tactical theory.

Modern is typically understood to be logistically, from the American Civil War, and in terms of weaponry, from the Franco -Prussian War of 1895.

Good luck in your studies.

 

[>< f4ct0r...13]

This game should be set apart from the likes of COD and BF3

Then go after:

Radar
Spawning With Enemy Weapons
Ridiculous Run and Stamina
Juvenile Canned Voices
Arbitrary, Pathed Maps
Last Stand...er...Mortal wounding ro whatever you call it

Good luck.

Going after the guy who can be a dynamic contribute in the way that modern warfare allows is definitely NOT a big fish. Unless you use your radar to find him.

 

[Sarkis.]

Spawning With Enemy Weapons

To a certain extent, possibility of spawning with some enemy weapons is actually more realistic than not being able to do so.

 

[r5cya]

Not sure what to say about the first part of this comment as it is plain silly.

This is supposed to be a TW oriented game so the priority should be established to those who want to play the game as such. Their notion of a "good time" should certainly be more valued than the ones you speak of.

the first part? it's a question. why. it was directed at Nightingale. as was the second part. so you don't have to understand anyway.

what's all this "TW oriented game" you speak of? are you trying to say Tripwire's idea of a "good time", is more important than their customers? if you think so, i can most assuredly say, it's not and i'm pretty sure they will agree with me. they build games cause they love gaming, but it's also a business. you really think they think of themselves first and the customer second? have you been reading the forums? they (TWI) have shown plenty in the past they want what makes us happy.

 

[Arc_Shielder]

Ever since the age of automatic weapons, he does, actually.

You need to check out modern infantry tactical theory.

Modern is typically understood to be logistically, from the American Civil War, and in terms of weaponry, from the Franco -Prussian War of 1895.

Good luck in your studies.

Nice try at twisting what was said. No one said anything about efficiency but squad's cohesion. Until you find in your books something about single soldiers getting away from their respective squad for some tasty kills, please stop throwing history where isn't required.

 

[evil lemon325]

Ever since the age of automatic weapons, he does, actually.

You need to check out modern infantry tactical theory.

Modern is typically understood to be logistically, from the American Civil War, and in terms of weaponry, from the Franco -Prussian War of 1895.

Good luck in your studies.

Modern is typically understood to be logistically, from the American Civil War, and in terms of weaponry, from the Franco -Prussian War of 1895.

and in terms of weaponry, from the Franco -Prussian War of 1895

Franco -Prussian War of 1895.

Franco-Prussian War

1895

wat

 

[ross]

Tethering players to their squad, team, or some arbitary area of the map is extremely counterproductive and would cause me to quit grudgingly playing the game and straight up drop it like a burning rock.

If people want to work in squads, they will. Incentivising it with points is fine, but forcing it with any kind of mechanic is abhorrent as far as I am concerned, and the mere mention of player tethers has been more than enough to turn me away from buying games in the past.

If I think my squad leader is a retard and I can be more effective somewhere else on the field, then I go there. As it happens I am a pretty aggressive player and I play for the objectives, so I seldom actually go looking for 'tasty kills'. People who sit on the far end of the map or behind the enemy spawn exit rather than in an objective annoy me, but certainly not enough to want a player tether. If they want to suck at the game, fine. Get some friends in the server or get on VOIP and coordinate the rest of your team, let them fade into obscurity as you cap out. If your team sucks, hard luck, the game is there to be played and not hold your hand for you.