Jump to content
KalciferKandari

Reinforcement of consistency, the theme, and imagination

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of the things you mention as missing are already planed mate. Logistics and so on are all on the way...look more at the official post, recaps and info on the mainpage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer 1 - Logistical gameplay mechanics are planned for future updates. If I recall correctly, supplies will have to be taken from main (the main spawn location) to the player placed FOBs (radio / hideout) in order to ensure resources for expanding and building fortifications as well as ammunition for players to use as resupply points. Once this is in place I would consider this question to be a non-issue. Simply put, all of the forces operate from some form of stronghold that has a large ammunition / equipment / resource cache, whether that be in the form of an actual FOB or the whole town in the case of insurgents and militia which would be more inclined to spread their resources out across multiple locations.

 

Answer 2 - Not a good idea. Letting players set their own capture / objective points would mean you would have to dedicate a whole lot of time towards creating a player (and often idiot) proof system. Things like balancing would come into play as well as an agreement between the teams. For example, you would have to set X amount of distance between capture points and eventually teams could set locations that give them an advantage.. yet they're not strategic locations at all. This is something that would work in a co-op game vs AI, not player vs player.

 

The current objectives are fine. They are clearly thought of from a game designers perspective and the locations are often obvious strategic ones (mine, hilltop, farms, industrial etc). The fact that the environments AND objectives are made side by side is awesome. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have multiple layouts for one map. Maps are versatile and fit many game modes. There's enough tension and suspense already especially when playing against an organized team that splits up at the start of the game.

 

I fear dying in SQUAD, that's for sure. I've learned to fear it over the countless times that I've died from a stray round and the amazing times I get pinned behind some hard cover. At the end of the day it's the individuals' decision to value their life. Lives in SQUAD are valuable. I can tell you a team that isn't composed of people who instantly hit give up every time they get incapacitated will win every time. It's disturbing how people currently throw away tickets. Extra layers of the game such as screaming, panic and gore would most likely get in the way. Someone posted before that they like an aspect of another game (Insurgency IIRC) that makes the players characters shout when they're hit, reloading etc. I would find this extremely annoying as it takes away the option for me to shout that down local / squad channel myself. The whole point is that you're the one in the shit, not your character.

 

Answer 3 - That's really out of the whole... scope of the game. You're forgetting one main thing again. The players are the ones that make these epic missions for themselves. What you're describing is your typical Hollywood style mission from AAA shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield (and trust me, I love the atmospheres they create) but you don't want to merge that with this. It's much better to mount an assault on a hilltop or fortified position created by players on the enemy team than a staged game mode with some fancy intro or cinematic. The fact that you're leaving the game mode as an "unimaginative" base allows for players to make their own plans and epic firefights. Every single decision set by the Squad Leader is basically a player made objective which links back to your second question.

 

Finally, I think you have to see the line between realism and game play. I'm all down for having to load crates by hand into the back of a truck to drive out to an outpost created by players, then unloading it and setting it up for others to use..but there's always going to be something to complain or have an idea about when it comes to realism. That's why game play has to be more important than realism. One minute someone is asking for airdrops the next they're asking for runways and radio comms with pilots because a cargo plane doesn't just magically appear to drop stuff off for you without being in contact with you or taking off.

 

Either way, most of the stuff you've mention is already in the game.. and the rest is coming. Minus the OTT Hollywood style stuff. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer 1 - Logistical gameplay mechanics are planned for future updates. If I recall correctly, supplies will have to be taken from main (the main spawn location) to the player placed FOBs (radio / hideout) in order to ensure resources for expanding and building fortifications as well as ammunition for players to use as resupply points. Once this is in place I would consider this question to be a non-issue. Simply put, all of the forces operate from some form of stronghold that has a large ammunition / equipment / resource cache, whether that be in the form of an actual FOB or the whole town in the case of insurgents and militia which would be more inclined to spread their resources out across multiple locations.

 

Answer 2 - Not a good idea. Letting players set their own capture / objective points would mean you would have to dedicate a whole lot of time towards creating a player (and often idiot) proof system. Things like balancing would come into play as well as an agreement between the teams. For example, you would have to set X amount of distance between capture points and eventually teams could set locations that give them an advantage.. yet they're not strategic locations at all. This is something that would work in a co-op game vs AI, not player vs player.

 

The current objectives are fine. They are clearly thought of from a game designers perspective and the locations are often obvious strategic ones (mine, hilltop, farms, industrial etc). The fact that the environments AND objectives are made side by side is awesome. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have multiple layouts for one map. Maps are versatile and fit many game modes. There's enough tension and suspense already especially when playing against an organized team that splits up at the start of the game.

 

I fear dying in SQUAD, that's for sure. I've learned to fear it over the countless times that I've died from a stray round and the amazing times I get pinned behind some hard cover. At the end of the day it's the individuals' decision to value their life. Lives in SQUAD are valuable. I can tell you a team that isn't composed of people who instantly hit give up every time they get incapacitated will win every time. It's disturbing how people currently throw away tickets. Extra layers of the game such as screaming, panic and gore would most likely get in the way. Someone posted before that they like an aspect of another game (Insurgency IIRC) that makes the players characters shout when they're hit, reloading etc. I would find this extremely annoying as it takes away the option for me to shout that down local / squad channel myself. The whole point is that you're the one in the shit, not your character.

 

Answer 3 - That's really out of the whole... scope of the game. You're forgetting one main thing again. The players are the ones that make these epic missions for themselves. What you're describing is your typical Hollywood style mission from AAA shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield (and trust me, I love the atmospheres they create) but you don't want to merge that with this. It's much better to mount an assault on a hilltop or fortified position created by players on the enemy team than a staged game mode with some fancy intro or cinematic. The fact that you're leaving the game mode as an "unimaginative" base allows for players to make their own plans and epic firefights. Every single decision set by the Squad Leader is basically a player made objective which links back to your second question.

 

Finally, I think you have to see the line between realism and game play. I'm all down for having to load crates by hand into the back of a truck to drive out to an outpost created by players, then unloading it and setting it up for others to use..but there's always going to be something to complain or have an idea about when it comes to realism. That's why game play has to be more important than realism. One minute someone is asking for airdrops the next they're asking for runways and radio comms with pilots because a cargo plane doesn't just magically appear to drop stuff off for you without being in contact with you or taking off.

 

Either way, most of the stuff you've mention is already in the game.. and the rest is coming. Minus the OTT Hollywood style stuff. :P

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 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.

 

Answer 1 - Yup! To add to that (answering the second part of answer 2).. an injury penalty (or something similar) system / anims will be in place later on as well. It's not going to be as it is now where you just have some jam, less saturation and carry on. Gore is too gimmicky unless it's WW2. It's a level of detail that wouldn't fit with the rest of the game, at least at this moment. Something similar to having a really detailed building in the middle of whiteboxes.

 

Answer 2 - Well, consistency wise.. you get a set of orders and you execute. I doubt a simple Squad Leader would make such bold decisions when it comes to these large maps with several complexes and key points of interest. One solution could be to hide non-active objectives, so that players don't instantly know where they are at the start of the game but that would mean that you're not adhering to a set mission and you would have an issue once all objectives have been active. You could potentially add a "commander" that decides the layout or objectives but it's a video game.. there's only so many things you can do.

 

Like I said, the decision to value your life is up to you on an individual level. If you can't allow yourself to fear for your life through the game then you should at least make the effort to not waste tickets. After all, whether you fear for you life in the game or not you're trying to win a match against an enemy... not waste tickets / resources because the game doesn't give you PTSD.

 

Answer 3 - Fair enough. Well, all in due time. Weapon emplacements and helos are planned as well. No, they're not out of the realm for sure but if you think about it their objective (in this case, game mode) was to assault an objective and hold it.. not to survive an onslaught. Again, something the players have the power to decide. If an SL wants to make a fortress on a hill in a good position you can sure bet on it the enemy is going to go through some crazy shit similar to D-Day trying to assault it.

 

There's going to be some Black Hawk Down moments too, eventually. Everything is going to be in place for that chaotic experience..

 

Consistency with physics.. I don't understand what you mean. Currently you have resources (which will eventually come from logi transports from a main base.. there's nothing further to expand on after the fact that they come from a main base) that are used to create fortifications. It's a perfect blend of consistency and game play.. you place down some support poles, build up to a certain state and finally a finished state. I'm not sure how you could change that without adding additional steps to it that wouldn't make the gameplay overly slow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer 1 - Yup! To add to that (answering the second part of answer 2).. an injury penalty (or something similar) system / anims will be in place later on as well. It's not going to be as it is now where you just have some jam, less saturation and carry on. Gore is too gimmicky unless it's WW2. It's a level of detail that wouldn't fit with the rest of the game, at least at this moment. Something similar to having a really detailed building in the middle of whiteboxes.

 

Answer 2 - Well, consistency wise.. you get a set of orders and you execute. I doubt a simple Squad Leader would make such bold decisions when it comes to these large maps with several complexes and key points of interest. One solution could be to hide non-active objectives, so that players don't instantly know where they are at the start of the game but that would mean that you're not adhering to a set mission and you would have an issue once all objectives have been active. You could potentially add a "commander" that decides the layout or objectives but it's a video game.. there's only so many things you can do.

 

Like I said, the decision to value your life is up to you on an individual level. If you can't allow yourself to fear for your life through the game then you should at least make the effort to not waste tickets. After all, whether you fear for you life in the game or not you're trying to win a match against an enemy... not waste tickets / resources because the game doesn't give you PTSD.

 

Answer 3 - Fair enough. Well, all in due time. Weapon emplacements and helos are planned as well. No, they're not out of the realm for sure but if you think about it their objective (in this case, game mode) was to assault an objective and hold it.. not to survive an onslaught. Again, something the players have the power to decide. If an SL wants to make a fortress on a hill in a good position you can sure bet on it the enemy is going to go through some crazy shit similar to D-Day trying to assault it.

 

There's going to be some Black Hawk Down moments too, eventually. Everything is going to be in place for that chaotic experience..

 

Consistency with physics.. I don't understand what you mean. Currently you have resources (which will eventually come from logi transports from a main base.. there's nothing further to expand on after the fact that they come from a main base) that are used to create fortifications. It's a perfect blend of consistency and game play.. you place down some support poles, build up to a certain state and finally a finished state. I'm not sure how you could change that without adding additional steps to it that wouldn't make the gameplay overly slow.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer 1 - Logistical gameplay mechanics are planned for future updates. If I recall correctly, supplies will have to be taken from main (the main spawn location) to the player placed FOBs (radio / hideout) in order to ensure resources for expanding and building fortifications as well as ammunition for players to use as resupply points. Once this is in place I would consider this question to be a non-issue. Simply put, all of the forces operate from some form of stronghold that has a large ammunition / equipment / resource cache, whether that be in the form of an actual FOB or the whole town in the case of insurgents and militia which would be more inclined to spread their resources out across multiple locations.

 

Answer 2 - Not a good idea. Letting players set their own capture / objective points would mean you would have to dedicate a whole lot of time towards creating a player (and often idiot) proof system. Things like balancing would come into play as well as an agreement between the teams. For example, you would have to set X amount of distance between capture points and eventually teams could set locations that give them an advantage.. yet they're not strategic locations at all. This is something that would work in a co-op game vs AI, not player vs player.

 

The current objectives are fine. They are clearly thought of from a game designers perspective and the locations are often obvious strategic ones (mine, hilltop, farms, industrial etc). The fact that the environments AND objectives are made side by side is awesome. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't have multiple layouts for one map. Maps are versatile and fit many game modes. There's enough tension and suspense already especially when playing against an organized team that splits up at the start of the game.

 

I fear dying in SQUAD, that's for sure. I've learned to fear it over the countless times that I've died from a stray round and the amazing times I get pinned behind some hard cover. At the end of the day it's the individuals' decision to value their life. Lives in SQUAD are valuable. I can tell you a team that isn't composed of people who instantly hit give up every time they get incapacitated will win every time. It's disturbing how people currently throw away tickets. Extra layers of the game such as screaming, panic and gore would most likely get in the way. Someone posted before that they like an aspect of another game (Insurgency IIRC) that makes the players characters shout when they're hit, reloading etc. I would find this extremely annoying as it takes away the option for me to shout that down local / squad channel myself. The whole point is that you're the one in the shit, not your character.

 

Answer 3 - That's really out of the whole... scope of the game. You're forgetting one main thing again. The players are the ones that make these epic missions for themselves. What you're describing is your typical Hollywood style mission from AAA shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield (and trust me, I love the atmospheres they create) but you don't want to merge that with this. It's much better to mount an assault on a hilltop or fortified position created by players on the enemy team than a staged game mode with some fancy intro or cinematic. The fact that you're leaving the game mode as an "unimaginative" base allows for players to make their own plans and epic firefights. Every single decision set by the Squad Leader is basically a player made objective which links back to your second question.

 

Finally, I think you have to see the line between realism and game play. I'm all down for having to load crates by hand into the back of a truck to drive out to an outpost created by players, then unloading it and setting it up for others to use..but there's always going to be something to complain or have an idea about when it comes to realism. That's why game play has to be more important than realism. One minute someone is asking for airdrops the next they're asking for runways and radio comms with pilots because a cargo plane doesn't just magically appear to drop stuff off for you without being in contact with you or taking off.

 

Either way, most of the stuff you've mention is already in the game.. and the rest is coming. Minus the OTT Hollywood style stuff. :P

You nailed it. Totally agree with you with Answers 2 and 3. Well written and well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×