Jump to content

KalciferKandari

Member
  • Content count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About KalciferKandari

  • Rank
    Grunt
  1. Reinforcement of consistency, the theme, and imagination

    Answer 1 - Injury penalties will be good, get shot in the arm, can't hold your gun properly for example. Gore conveys that soldiers aren't terminators, and plenty of soldiers get badly injured, especially by explosives, no reason to treat the human body differently in WW2 settings and modern settings. It's pertinent, and would certainly fit better when a more detailed injury system is in place. Answer 2 - Uncertainty is more for what is known about the other team. For instance, you are stationed at a town, your general brief is to defend it and the assets in it, you have received intelligence of a hostiles in the area, but also think that the other team may think they are a patrol, are they going to get ambushed? Do they know there are hostiles in a town nearby? They might not know they have intelligence on them. The defenders may have good emplacements so do they go out and ambush, or wait for the patrol to reach them? Is the patrol mechanised? Are there key buildings or assets? Is it in the defender's interests to fight? Maybe they want to load valuable equipment and leave and hold off as long as possible. Etc. etc. This relies on a brief with what the orders are, and what intelligence is known before the round starts, and should be accessible during the round. That builds tension, as neither side truly knows what is going on. As opposed to, 'there are three flags, we need to take them in order, the enemy are going to do the same', it's so 1 dimensional. Answer 3 - Would be nice to see things like bunkers, etc, particularly for super power armies versus super power armies, not many games do that. Consistency with physics. It follows that things that come from off the map, such as a truck full of players (say canvas truck worth a certain number of tickets, where players come out from behind the canvas curtain at the back), already existed there and didn't spawn in because no one saw them spawn in, so as far as the player is concerned, it is consistent with physics. Conversely, if a player, or tank, or whatever just materialises from thin air in plain sight, it is clear that is not consistent with physics and the suspense of disbelief is lost. Why reinforcements are trickling in, and how preposterous the scenario is does not conflict with the consistent physics, that is another element of the suspense of disbelief and can either be embraced Battle Royale style or any number of other possibilities, or glossed over. Materialisation and dematerialisation is immensely jarring, far beyond that of the contrived scenario.
  2. Reinforcement of consistency, the theme, and imagination

    Valid points. Answer 1 - Good that logistics is planned, maybe should pay more attention to announcements. Answer 2 - Still think objectives should be more open and have a reason behind them. Sitting on a point for a set amount of time is really getting old. The idea that either side doesn't necessarily know what the objective of the other is, or what their packing, etc. is compelling. Also, with regards to giving certain players responsibilities, this is already in the game in the form of squad leaders as a basic command structure. They are already a critical role and effect the game in a big way, it's not a huge extension to give them the freedom to realise a mission brief in the way they see fit. Not saying specifically how this should be done, just saying that experimentation could be done. People throwing away tickets is disturbing, and part of that is there is not dread when faced with the prospect of dying. Screaming, maybe not, sure, but meaningful injuries do have a place, where you need to be extracted by a medic in order to respawn for example if you're not quite dead, or you need to somehow get your gun to 'give up', and so on. Seeing some level of gore reinforces this too, just to sell that 'Oh shit, the guy standing next to me just got torn up'. Answer 3 - Not scripted. The description was just to convey the kind of suspense just adding good logistics creates, and the idea of additional scenarios. More variety could be added, for that example, AA guns, Blackhawks, that's it. Remember D-Day happened, and that was insane, so these crazy missions aren't out of the realm of what has happened in reality. It was an example, just to portray the kind of things that could be experimented with. Realism wasn't the emphasis, consistency was. Consistency with physics. To remove 'pinging' into existence, logistics must be added. That's why "off the map" was mentioned, not saying the whole world needs to be simulated to have consistency, but it would be nice if you needed to drive a truck to an FOB to resupply or even set it. Suspense of disbelief can be maintained through doing things where the players can't see, such as spawning things off the map.
  3. A few broad questions and comments (not necessarily directed to just the developers) with regards to the game design, which many games suffer from, particularly multiplayer games, and perhaps it is time for a studio to step in and address them - (Disclaimer: the tone is critical and supposed to drive conversation, it's not meant to be offensive.) (Question 1) Firstly, why aren't there logistics in the game? Where assets are brought in from off the map (paradrops, truck convoys, and so on), and soldiers don't just materialise from nothing, so there are convoys that you have an incentive to protect, etc, supply lines becoming an important aspect to the game. Sick of things 'pinging' into existence, it really undermines the realistic theme. At least have the game obey basic laws of physics, even if the premise of fighting in the bizarre Battle Royale arena style scenario is peculiar, and really that should also be baked into the concept of the game anyway. (Question 2) And at the same time, why are the objectives so contrived? They should be set by the players based on a loose mission brief, these absurd 'capture points' where you need to sit in a location, which no leader in their right mind would want to defend, for an arbitrary amount of time is getting old. It removes legitimate strategy, and the element of restriction of information, and particularly the role uncertainty plays in building tension and suspense, not knowing what your opponent is going to do. And subsequently players should fear death more, probably by the additions such as pain (screaming, panic, not being quite dead, etc.), gore, and a accompanying medic requirements, such as evacuation (body dragging), medic tents and so on (again supporting the need for logistics, but not necessarily needing immensely sophisticated damage systems, although localised wounds effecting the abilities of the soldier would be a massive improvement). (Question 3) Why are the gamemodes so unimaginative? It would be incredible if one of the supply methods for the logistics to be airdrop from a low orbiting starship for example, that wouldn't be completely outside of the realms the suspense of disbelief considering the game's theme. Consider how surreal it would be. Okay, maybe that's not completely serious suggestion, but frankly it would be badass to cross science fiction with modern military, that would be a strange and wonderful combination. Really though, more grounded than that but still extreme, outlandish maps and gamemode could be added, keep the theme but place it in an alternate universe in some outrageous war. Things such as a D-Day like assault on a fortress, charging in on Blackhawks evading flak fire, landing, taking out the flak to enable paradrops, overrun the fortress and win, it could be sensational. These mind numbing, boring, tired gamemodes that demean the building of dread need to end, and imagination brought back. Everyone jumping out of trucks at the staging area and piling into Blackhawks while sirens wail as the rotors spin up, flying for a couple of minutes in the relative calm, then suddenly the flak begins and all hell breaks loose. That's terrifying, and of course can be applied to a less crazy scenario. Nothing stopping these things from becoming a reality, especially considering the studio has complete creative freedom over the game. Emphasis though should be on the consistency aspect, particularly logistics. The materialising of assets really demeans combat in general. What do you think?
×