westy91

Less run 'n' gun and more emphasis on squad tactics...?

34 posts in this topic

Just a thought ahead of steam, it would be worth turning away from the whole COD style run 'n' gun stuff and going towards more fireteam/squad based stuff. Something that emphasizes how battles were really fought in WW2. Would also be one hell of a sweet way to utilise squads as they expand with the new players on steam and would limit the current LMG army we're seeing at times. Brains over brawn anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, westy91 said:

Just a thought ahead of steam, it would be worth turning away from the whole COD style run 'n' gun stuff and going towards more fireteam/squad based stuff. Something that emphasizes how battles were really fought in WW2. Would also be one hell of a sweet way to utilise squads as they expand with the new players on steam and would limit the current LMG army we're seeing at times. Brains over brawn anyone?

For everyone person willing to do this, there are 5 who just want action fast.  Moving around as a team is inherently slower.  The bigger the team, the slower the speed.  

 

What type of mechanic/incentive could be introduced that could force/promote such behavior?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, westy91 said:

Just a thought ahead of steam, it would be worth turning away from the whole COD style run 'n' gun stuff and going towards more fireteam/squad based stuff. Something that emphasizes how battles were really fought in WW2. 

A key requirement for realistic tactics is individual fear of death. Tactics often involve suppression, and the essense of suppression is your enemy wanting to stay alive, therefore keeping their head down. This game doesn't have fear of death, at this point anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, yes. But you also have a game that works when player numbers are low and people choose not to play together 

 

Perhaps another thing that could be rewarded with an adjusted XP system, where you're rewarded with more points for grouping up abs achieving your mission objectives as a team 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2017 at 8:16 PM, brady said:

Voice

hope they're prioritizing this above new units and other steam stuff.

they may screw it up to uselessness and never touch it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 2:40 PM, brady said:

Yes, but how ?

In the 'DID YOU KNOW' that you see every time you spawn in.

Have if jam packed with helpful hints on what squads do. Etc. Instead of fact info.

Every day, depending on side, feature a squad too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fear of death isn't the issue.

The fact that you don't need squad tactics to feel successful is the issue.

Which I believe goes back to the lack of player density.

You have to remember that the only reason we have infantry squad tactics is because they needed a way to overcome the stretch of entrenched defensive networks of infantry and their supporting weapons. There was no way to turn the flank, so you needed a superior way to move forward and assault when mass charges no longer worked.

No such need exists in WW2OL, usually, because there's a lack of player density. There's not much of a sense of a frontline in terms of infantry numbers. Flanks are too easily turned due to lack of numbers.

There are not usually fields of fire of machine guns that lock down your approach path. If there were, your only option is to use squad tactics to gain one up on the enemy emplacements.

Lack of in-game tools and encouragement is another factor. But I contend that the tools don't mean much until players feel some need to use them.  Ie. When playing solo is unfruitful enough that you decide it's better to give up some of your time and freedom to plug yourself into a coordinated structure for overall success.

Edited by rise27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep saying it... Area capture, remove cps and bring in a grid based area capture system, bring back climbing or change out the buildings to make each one multistory enetrable with windows.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2017 at 9:36 AM, Capco said:

What type of mechanic/incentive could be introduced that could force/promote such behavior?

One possible way to 'value survival' would be to decrease a variable in the background by, say, 5 points every time a player gets killed.  Every minute that the player is active (not AFK) within the game, on a mission, add 1 point to this variable.  A person that manages to survive an average of 5 minutes per spawn would thus have a variable that fluctuates around 0.  A character that dies a lot because they run in with guns blazing will have their variable drop deep into the negatives very quickly.  Take the amount of the variable and divide it by, say, -10, and apply the result as a despawn delay -- so a variable with a value of -62 would incur a 6.2s despawn penalty.  The delay message should clearly state something along the lines of "Your corpse is being returned to your widow.  You promised her you'd come home safe..."  Make the variable persistent across all characters (i.e. store it server-side with other account details) so that it can't be bypassed by just force-quitting the game and restarting with a different persona.

Good players, that survive longer than 5 minutes on average, will have the variable increase over time.  Apply a hard cap of, say, +20.  That way a good character could still suffer a string of bad luck (I'm thinking specifically of being spawn camped) without seeing a spawn delay.

Of course I've pulled all of the numbers out of the hat.  In reality the 5 minutes would more logically be "the average sortie time for the last 6 months for that particular type of unit across the entire player base".  The -10 divisor and +20 hard cap are purely arbitrary and should be well-considered by someone who actually knows what they're talking about.  Because they are stored server-side, they can be initially set a bit high and slowly constrained to promote survival behaviour without having to patch the clients (or even advise the player base).

Edited by ottomatic1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could remove rank points for dying, but there are other games that do something like that, and it still does not exactly get people to play in an organized fashion.
It does though, induce a bit of concern over dying in general.
One might not be so inclined to rambo charge on a repeated basis if its going to return him to rank 1.

There will still be times where you might sacrifice and take one for the team, but those shouldn't be often enough to hurt ones rank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a lot of people are very nice and answer questions all the time, that is not what makes people run around. Noone likes dying but it is part the game. Alone figuring out how to avoid ai takes a few deaths.

What is needed is leadership. New players like myself have no clue what to do on the battlefield. Use names! Like "disi can you check that South Army base for me?" or "disi can you watch my tank?" and I am on my way (If I see it in chat, because we infantry are also busy sometimes). Rarely the mission leader writes into the chat what the purpose or plan for this mission is. The purple text is very noticeable and if someone says we need to take that army base, I see all the little men on the map go into the direction.

Or the leader of a mission could write "gather at point X" and then go in. Instead I read "only stupid players logged in again".

Make the mission creation dependent on the rank of the player and force to put at least some text into it and then auto-spam that mission briefing to everyone who joins in a purple text line. Instead of punishing new players.

Edited by disi
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"DSI please stand here and tell me if this bullet hurts?"

Of course you wont understand it because allied chat sounds like "Oh GI joe, Hotdog!"
But if you see allied chat, its me saying that, so its ok to stand still
:rolleyes:

 

Some ML's are good about making the mission objectives clear, and adapting them as needed, and setting .orders to let people know what is going on.
Sometimes the missions are thrown up quick, to flood the area with troops and FM's, and technically have no active leader.

You can make missions, you dont have to be the ultimate death with a rifle to set one up and organise and operate it.
Sometimes if there is no clear organized mission, you have to be the one to make one, and then try to get a group going on it.
 

Some times people dont fill out anything because they are too worried about spies
myself i dont worry about them, i got enough real life things to actually worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mission text would stay without leader like: "Head for target, capture CP, avoid enemy AI and bullets in general!"

Another could be: "Go into CP and wait, do not shoot anything or throw grenades!"

Or: "Gather at A1, then take A2, A3 and hold!"

p.s. I'll shoot in any general direction I hear chatter about hotdogs from now on...

Edited by disi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voice communications,  better mini-map design and organization of teams. Very similar to the way squad does it now expect this is a much larger scale game so you can put more sublevels than just squads...i.e. platoons and companies.

Voice Comms -> Basically, Local Voice Comm, Squad Voice Comm, Squd Leaders Platoon Leaders, Company Leaders.

Mini-Map Design -> Color Code Squad Members and Show them regardless of where they are on the map...highlight the squad leader, platoon, and company leaders.

 

Organization of Teams -> Actually build in squads, platoons etc into the game with formal structure that is reinforced on the mini-map and comms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the keys to increasing team play is to add a "Ready Room" option to the UI where Mission commanders can brief the team, coordinate ordinance and mission responsibilities, and work with HQ to coordinate with other missions on an overall strategy. This doesn't take anything away from those that want fast action. Yes, right now most players are fast action freaks because that's the way the game has been promoted for the last 6-7 years. But if CRS wants long term consistent membership, then building comradery and squad relationships is the way to go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system could do so much to facilitate game play - and it needs to terribly.

I find it absolutely impossible to direct 14 green tags one by one with chat.

Now, a few simple system tools and I'd have to say nothing- they'd get the picture and spawn exactly where needed.

It is so badly needed.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

problem is that there is a small tiny chat window which shows only 5 or 6 lines ... for 6 different chat channels. important information is kinda instantly gone most of the time ... specially for greentags

 

MOST ppl dont even know that you can expand that window ... but only for reading useful. i doubt that you can play well with a chat window up that overlays 75% of the screen :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mechwarrior Online solves this pretty good

You can form lances ... and once you have spawned in .. and stick together ... you get xp and credits for it (Lance in formation)

Edited by undercova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2017 at 7:50 PM, budder8820 said:

Mini-Map Design -> Color Code Squad Members and Show them regardless of where they are on the map...highlight the squad leader, platoon, and company leaders.

You can color code them some now, the squad in general, and the mission leader, so if you have your leader make the mission, that is 2 colors at least you can use now.
I have squad dark Orange and leader Yellow, a couple more might be nice.

 

You can not show them where ever they are on the map though
One reason on large scale is if they are not in your cell you do not receive data from them, game world is too big for that.
Everyone whose icon you see, you are trading data back n forth.
If you are in frankfurt and your buddy is in amiens, thats a lot of cells to span, not to mention what he is doing isnt terribly helpful to you trying not to die in frankfurt.
You could do it if it wasn't an MMO on a giant map, but your client has absolutely literally no idea what what joe blow is doing 3 cells away
you have no real time network communication from that cell, only indirect via chat or strat layer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thinking about this. Ro2 has a sort of command structure, with an officer in chief commanding lieutenants who are in command of a half section.

This might be something we could use, as a sort of slot based command structure for every mission. Slots could be restricted based on rank.

 

Mission Leader -- Overall command of the mission, appoints tasks for Sergeants.

Sergeants -- The Cat herders, it's their job to get their squad to the objected laid out the the ML and achieve it.

Privates -- Bodies, they do whatever the sergeant says, they don't need to worry about what the objective it, just stick with the sarge and follow orders.

 

The question is, how to incentivize it? Ro2 did this by giving bonus points for sticking with your squad and by allowing you to spawn on your lieutenant. Would points be enough of an incentive? Do we need a big [censored] arrow constantly pointing to your officer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to ask though.

If a big chunk of dev time was set aside to do some big new fancy squad UI thing, would it actually get used?

I ask this because back in 2001 2002 etc we had big squads, Huge squads actually.
I'm talking squads that could roll 30+ tanks into a town with trucks full of infantry behind them.

There were no special squad tools, each squad worked out those things in its own way, what ever worked best for them.
And they would run some pretty damned well organized ops.
And they had to teach EVERYONE how to play because everyone was a n00b then.

So i am wondering, if they did then with nothing, but we can not do now with better, will extra colors buttons and icons make some magic happen
that is somehow been forgotten?
Maybe i am just missing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

I have to ask though.

If a big chunk of dev time was set aside to do some big new fancy squad UI thing, would it actually get used?

I ask this because back in 2001 2002 etc we had big squads, Huge squads actually.
I'm talking squads that could roll 30+ tanks into a town with trucks full of infantry behind them.

There were no special squad tools, each squad worked out those things in its own way, what ever worked best for them.
And they would run some pretty damned well organized ops.
And they had to teach EVERYONE how to play because everyone was a n00b then.

So i am wondering, if they did then with nothing, but we can not do now with better, will extra colors buttons and icons make some magic happen
that is somehow been forgotten?
Maybe i am just missing something.

Missing something. I'm proposing a change to the mission interface, effectively forcing it's use. I've this sort of thing in action in Ro2. When a noob log on and as no idea what to do, he'll usually follow his squad leader around like a puppy dog simply because the game encourages it.

 

And frankly, the biggest obstacle to teamwork in this game is the playerbase. I came in to this game expecting fire team based play. In two years of "on again off again" playing I've experienced it exactly twice. Once on the German side where the squad I was playing with packed twelve guys into an APC to cap Antwerp. And once on the allied side, when me and a friend tried to teach a handful of newbs we knew how to play the game.

Any other time I tried to engage in that sort of thing with squads I've either been ignored completely, or expected to storm a CP by myself. Maybe the Axis does thing's differently, but the allies seem to have teamwork issues. It's gotten to the point where I only ever log on when my buddy does, as he seems to be the only one who wants a tank driver, ammunition carrier, bombardier, lookout, etc. Everyone else just wants Solid Snake it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem i am running into a lot is many new people are turning the UI off entirely, which prevents talking to them, organizing, helping etc.

I dont think everyone wants solid snake, but you can yell and yell and yell, and if they aren't listening, it won't do any good.


I have my squad set on open recruit, try to get the noobs into the action, try to reach out to them on squad chat,
Set mission orders, set waypoints set an FM, set up defenses, sit there and watch the map and try to guide and help people rather than playing sometimes.
Even try running multi crewed tanks and stuff for them.

But when they simply aren't hearing you, you can only do so much no matter what tool you have.

I also have a suspicion that there is a good number of them that may not speak english and so have no idea what is being said anyways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.