• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      RAT Chat Sunday 12/8 3pm server time!!!!   12/07/2019

      CRS is working overtime preparing and setting up the NEW SERVERS at the Portland colocation. This Sunday, December 8th, at 3:00 pm CST/9:00 pm GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). XOOM and the RATs are hosting a live chat discussing the move, and what services will be temporarily impacted in the process. Live chat link will be provided in discord channels when available. We look forward to chatting with you!
odonovan1

Suggestion: Death Penalty

25 posts in this topic

How many times have we seen infantry or other units from both sides charging into battle with no regard for their own survival? All they want to do is take out a couple enemies before their avatars get killed and they have to respawn. Without a thought, they then respawn and run right back into battle.

Although that may be very exciting for some people, it turns battles into console-style FPS death fests. There is no sense of immersion, as if you were really in a war. There is no urge for self-preservation. You die and just come right back. Big deal.

I propose some type of death penalty. Perhaps a person who gets killed can only use tier one weapons for the next 15 minutes. Perhaps those with better ideas could propose OTHER possible death penalties. *HINT!* ;) Whatever is done, it should be something which makes players truly paranoid about their avatars dying. Pretty soon, we'll see players working together to cover each other, laying down fire and using cover and concealment, tossing grenades into buildings before running in, and doing all those lovely things the real soldiers had to do to try and stay alive.

-Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess what would happen with your suggestion is: everyone playing as rifleman after 10 mins of ao. Rifle wars.... Rifle angry wars...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess what would happen with your suggestion is: everyone playing as rifleman after 10 mins of ao. Rifle wars.... Rifle angry wars...

If it did the first few times, that's fine. That means people would learn to 1) play smarter and 2) not keep dying and using up all the supplies. If you're afraid of having to use a bolt action rifle all the time, maybe you die too much.

-Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adlai Stevenson once observed that the problem with being the smart voter's candidate is that the other candidate gets most of the votes.

The problem with having a game designed for hard core realism-gamers would be that there aren't enough of them, and you'd go broke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've posted a few times over the years that a negative point mission should be possible.

as one who does not have a 1.0 K/D I'd end up losing rank most likely, but I'd also at some point actually care if I live or die ona mission.... once I start caring about living or dying then coordination with assets (LMG fields of fire, mortar targeting, phase lines, tactical movements) becomes the best way to gain rank -> more immersion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adlai Stevenson once observed that the problem with being the smart voter's candidate is that the other candidate gets most of the votes.

The problem with having a game designed for hard core realism-gamers would be that there aren't enough of them, and you'd go broke.

It's not even hard core realism. It's common sense. People should not want to play recklessly. At this time, the game encourages recklessness. The guys running out and getting killed over and over are running the supply out on all the best weapons, when that's exactly the type of thing we want to stop.

-Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That will just push all players to avoid risk and punish the players pushing the tough objectives. It also conflicts with the established gameplay where players are encouraged to throw their bodies on the objective.

It will break defense too, I can't imagine the complaints when a HC that spawns a SMG to clear a depot, kills 1-2 guys before dying, tries to spawn again and sees that he can only use a bolt action.

I've seen plenty of players make coordinated advances with covering fire and smoke over the years, I suggest you stop playing with scrubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That will just push all players to avoid risk and punish the players pushing the tough objectives. It also conflicts with the established gameplay where players are encouraged to throw their bodies on the objective.

Avoiding risk is playing smart. Good idea! It doesn't punish any players because it's the same level of risk on both sides. If you want to clear an area out, kill the enemy and they'll only be able to defend with bolt action rifles when they come back, so you get an advantage. The side that plays smarter wins. As far as "established gameplay" goes, that's exactly my point. Who has covering fire as they approach a CP, tosses an HE grenade into the building before entering, or does any of the other things soldiers did in RL, to stay alive?

It will break defense too, I can't imagine the complaints when a HC that spawns a SMG to clear a depot, kills 1-2 guys before dying, tries to spawn again and sees that he can only use a bolt action.

Well, don't go in alone, toss grenades in first, throw some smoke. Get some snipers in position to cover the windows. If you do it yourself, BY yourself, you deserve to only be using a bolt action rifle.

I've seen plenty of players make coordinated advances with covering fire and smoke over the years, I suggest you stop playing with scrubs.

They're the few and far between. I've seen many more ant trails of infantry coming from FRUs directly to their deaths, trying to take the same CPs by going in one at a time. As far as scrubs go, please tell the senior players in the Lancers they're scrubs to their (virtual) faces. You're MORE than a little off base there.

-Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*here's your sign*

no - just no.

There is no sense of immersion, as if you were really in a war.

you're not in a real war, never have been, never will be. you're in a game that very loosely simulates war with very broad strokes.

you spawn into the world from random spots, sometimes an army base, sometimes a building, sometimes a box in a field. you don't walk from one place, to the next, make camp, wait for orders .... and mostly just sit around waiting to do what some POG up the chain tells you to do.

it's a game dude, get over your gi joe fantasies.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*here's your sign*

no - just no.

Your opinion...

you're not in a real war, never have been, never will be. you're in a game that very loosely simulates war with very broad strokes.

I notice you use the word "simulates." I also notice a lot of people wanting historically accurate equipment and wanting that equipment to behave as closely as possible to its real-life equivalents. If it was "very broad strokes" we could just have both sides use "generic semi-auto rifle," "generic submachinegun," "generic tank," and so on.

it's a game dude, get over your gi joe fantasies.

Bite me. I didn't get to be almost 60 years old by "getting over" anything. This is a suggestion forum. This is MY suggestion. YOU get over it. And keep your G.I. Joe fantasies to yourself. Don't try to transfer them to me.

I'm personally going to laugh my azz off when this game is released on Steam. After a couple days, when the noobs rank up and can use all the good equipment, and they run in over and over, dying and wasting the supply, you'll be whining about how you have nothing left to use.

Play smarter. Last longer. Save the best equipment for the folks who can make the best use of it. If there's a death penalty, people who keep dying time after time will use up all the bolt action rifles. Good for them.

-Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion on this....

Just because I WANT to get better, and TRY to play smarter, does not mean that my skill level will ever actually be competitive in this game. Let's be honest, skill is not only not an unlock, but it is not guaranteed either, no matter how long or hard you play.

Personally, I SUCK at combat. Period. I die a LOT. I simply do not have the reflexes and skill of other players. I also have a computer that has never topped 60 FPS. This penalty would just about completely prevent me from playing any unit except a basic rifleman, which I enjoy playing not at all.

As a paying customer, however, I feel that I have a right to play all units, no matter what my skill level is, or how many times I die. With all due respect, the long term effect of this suggestion would be to drive away a large portion of less talented players, many of whom, like me, are also paid subscribers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when we get an influx of players from Steam, and they use all the equipment, so all you have to use is bolt action rifles, this will make it MORE likely for the game to retain players?

Order of events, without death penalty:

1) Noobs grab the best equipment

2) They run out and die over and over

3) The best equipment is gone

4) Noobs get bored and leave

5) The rest of the players are stuck with nothing but bolt action rifles

Order of events, with death penalty:

1) Noobs grab the best equipment

2) They run out and die

3) They have to use bolt action rifles

4) They run out and die over and over

5) Noobs get bored and leave

6) The rest of the players still have most of the best equipment left

Even if not all of us are the best players (and trust me, I suck pretty mightily, too), we can still stay alive better than console FPS players who will suicide over and over, running into situations with no planning and no thought of how to stay alive.

-Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the 15-minute rule was only implemented for people who got killed without "making it count"?

If you use a weapon, then die without a kill or a cap, then will the ban be enacted.

But if you get a kill or a cap, you can enter the game again normally after you die.

Then also the "ban" should vary through the tiers.

For example, if you waste an SMG, then you only get, say, two minutes of time out, but if you waste something with less supply, like an LMG, or a Sapper, you get the whole ten or fifteen minutes.

Just some suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And when we get an influx of players from Steam, and they use all the equipment, so all you have to use is bolt action rifles, this will make it MORE likely for the game to retain players?

Order of events, without death penalty:

1) Noobs grab the best equipment

2) They run out and die over and over

3) The best equipment is gone

4) Noobs get bored and leave

5) The rest of the players are stuck with nothing but bolt action rifles

Order of events, with death penalty:

1) Noobs grab the best equipment

2) They run out and die

3) They have to use bolt action rifles

4) They run out and die over and over

5) Noobs get bored and leave

6) The rest of the players still have most of the best equipment left

Even if not all of us are the best players (and trust me, I suck pretty mightily, too), we can still stay alive better than console FPS players who will suicide over and over, running into situations with no planning and no thought of how to stay alive.

-Irish

It almost sounds as if your goal is to get rid of the new players. That kind of makes the entire attempt to get new players useless, doesn't it? New players have to learn, and to do that, they have to die a lot. Idf we want this game to survive, the new players are extremely important in the long run. We can't pick and choose which ones are allowed to play with the nice toys.

I KNOW that there is a supply issue. but I can tell you my experience in tanother WWII game, and it takes a LOT to make me quit a WWII game. I logged in as a newbie...no one mentioned a supply issue. Of course I died a lot. Suddenly, I was told that the game was out of basic riflemen and I would have to choose another unit. I didn't qualify for a higher unit, so I was out of that battle. Then I was told that if I left the game before the match was over I would receive NO XP or rewards at all for playing. After that I left and haven't been back since. The moral? If you want new players, they have to be allowed to play without being penalized for being new.

If you punish new players for not being good at the game, and 'wasting' equipment, then they won't stick around long enough to learn HOW to be good at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely get that CRS needs subscribers, however they play. I think it's an over-simplified argument, though, to say that all noobs are run-and-gunners and all vets are tactics team players.

I'll accept that for purposes of discussion, though. Then the whole point of the grousing is that the game is progressively spoiled for the tactics team players as the percentage of run-and-gunners increases.

One of the few upsides of the game's economic struggles over the past decade, from the point of view of the tactics team players, has been that a lot of the early run-and-gun players left and only a few new ones have joined and stayed...likely because the existing mechanics haven't been overly run-and-gun friendly, compared to mass market games...and so the percentage of that gameplay style has been pretty low for a long time.

Obviously a lot of the potential players coming in via Steam will be run-and-gunners, checking to see if the game offers their kind of excitement and instant action. A "death penalty" approach to the game mechanics would be a bold statement by CRS that players here, however they might choose to play other game, would be expected to be tactics-team-oriented here.

Maybe that'd work, and those otherwise-run-and-gunners would discover that WWIIOL is uniquely complex and rewarding when played as a tactics-team game. Or maybe it wouldn't work, and CRS would have blown their big opportunity to succeed economically.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if CRS thinks that rolling the dice that way isn't what they want to do.

Maybe some way of reserving supply for tactics-team-players would be a workable middle approach...?

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

===

Maybe some way of reserving supply for tactics-team-players would be a workable middle approach...?

===

Give squads their own platoon or company sized flags? They control, they move around on map, only their squad members can use supply out of flag. Might even allow some supply restrictions to be set by the CO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this game is hardcore enough especially for newer/ younger players. BUT

a soft penalty like a negative mission score or minus rank points per death would be a small step - and simple and effective. given the current modality (or 'meta' or 'point') of gaming overall negative rank points might accomplish some of the OPs goals within the perspective of actual gaming.

or we could just line them up and shoot them all inside Vianden Castle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It almost sounds as if your goal is to get rid of the new players. That kind of makes the entire attempt to get new players useless, doesn't it?

I certainly DON'T want to get rid of new players, but I do want to weed out the ones who will use up all the equipment in a selfish, childish run to see how many times they can run into an enemy-occupied area in the shortest period of time...the "my fun is the only fun that counts" guys who are not here to learn the game and play on a team. They use up all the guns then get bored because "how DARE they have to play with a bolt action rifle like the peasants" and leave.

or we could just line them up and shoot them all inside Vianden Castle.

Now THAT is the kind of innovative, outside the box thinking that gets things done! Brilliant! ;)

-Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the "my fun is the only fun that counts" guys who are not here to learn the game and play on a team.

you do realize you're suggesting your way is the right and only way to play right? the insinuation then is your fun is the only fun that counts ...

i'll let that sink in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With town supplies, penalty will be determined by the side much more than it is right now with the infinite flags pilling combined with the JWBS providing endless of supplies.

If your Rambo spawns and died top tier armor 4 times in a row, you are going to suffer and he's going to get a lot of "love-hate" in channels and in pms. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you do realize you're suggesting your way is the right and only way to play right? the insinuation then is your fun is the only fun that counts ...

i'll let that sink in.

Maybe you should actually READ what I posted, then let THAT sink in.

So, you're saying that people who log in, run in recklessly and get killed over and over, using all the supply of the best equipment with no thought of others and with no penalty whatsoever, should be allowed to ruin the game for everyone else? I'm SUGGESTING everyone should have the chance to use the best weapons and that players that play recklessly, always take the best equipment, then die over and over, are ruining that and will very likely drive other players away.

I don't have a great KDR. When I log in, I look to see how many SMGs, semi-autos, et cetera we have in supply. If they're getting low, I look for another type of weapon, so folks with better KDRs can use the good stuff to make more of a difference for our side. I may take a grenadier and lob some rifle grenades over walls and into windows. I may take a bolt action and see if I can do some cutting and sniping. THAT is "my fun." I'm sorry if that's ruining the game for you.

-Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i understand what you're trying to get at but your suggestion won't do that. you'll drive away players.

if you want to get to your endgame you need to do so via incentives not draconian penalties. players will willingly alter their playstyle if incentivized to do so. in fact there have been quite a few papers written on the subject by phd carrying behavioral scientists and other researchers.

here is just one link to get you started - http://gamestudies.org/1501/archive

go read what other people have to say on the subject, i'm just one person who reads a lot on the subject. btw that's only one link and many of the articles aren't relevant to this debate. if you google around you'll find a lot of papers written that aren't listed in that archive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the difference between the game and the war. The game wants personal freedom, the war requires discipline.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is already a solution to this, unlike other fps there we have a unit limit, we cant respawn forever. If the guy tries to play like rambo and dies alot, after some amount of time he will lose all the units. On other fps playing like rambo can be a tactic to try to capture some town or whateaver after all if you die you can just try again, here after some amount of time he will be out of units.

 

On 05/08/2016 at 10:23 PM, odonovan1 said:

[...]There is no sense of immersion, as if you were really in a war. There is no urge for self-preservation. You die and just come right back. Big deal.[...]

 

This is a different kind of thing. And an real problem to immersion and to the game.

If you die to some rifleman on top of a church you as a player, know he is there and will be able to go back to the place to try to kill him and etc..

 

The problem is that, when you re-spawn you come back as another soldier, BUT you come with information about how the battle is going on, like some reincarnated being.

 

To help to solve this problem, you could include some bonus for players that don't re-spawn at the same place they spawned, de-spawned or died at least X minutes ago.

This would influence players to spawn at a different place, and so they wont have all the information they had about the battle.

Maybe one bonus could be the lack of underpop spawn delay, they will be able to spawn without waiting for the timer. 

The fact that he wont have any information about this new battle (like he would if he re-spawned at the other town) would probably balance the fact he is playing on the overpopulated and also, now, didn't had to wait for the spawn delay.

Also, the fact that is a bonus for players that respawn at a different place, instead of being an negative thing to players that respawn at the same place, allow players to continue respawning/playing as they usually do now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with this suggestion isn't the idea itself (personally I'm more for rank loss, but whatever), but what happens in underpop situations under camp.

 

Underpop guys try to rescue AB bunker, by your rule they are doing it with rifles while the overpop guys camp with their MGs and ensure victory.

 

Yaaaa.  No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.