Forgotten Hope Public Forum

Forgotten Hope 2 => General Discussion => Topic started by: LHeureux on 18-07-2011, 10:07:47

Title: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LHeureux on 18-07-2011, 10:07:47
I replied this on the FH2 thread in the PR forums. People were talking about the lack of people using VOIP in FH2 and that's what make them leave or don't grab as much as other people on the mod. What do you think of this? :

Quote
Well FH2 teamplay is more random, if you create a squad, people will most of the time follow you and obey your orders. If you use a mic, people will stick to your squad and be more respontive.

In FH2 all players tend to know what the other guy wants. Exemple : I have a bazooka and another dude too, I just say "Follow me!" he follows me and face the back of a Panther, I say "Fire!", we both destroy the Panther. The maps are smaller, all the gameplay is smaller, people are clustered together and IMO the teamwork is just perfect for the mod.

The fact of spotting a tank with the command makes it appears on the minimap for everyone, same as saying "Tank in H6kp4" and then lasing it, it's red on the minimap, so the Sherman next to you will know where to be heading or looking.

Another exemple, defending a flag on Bastogne : I found a good place where you need to go up a ladder to get to a destroyed house roof, giving a good firing position. I spotted a guy with a MG and said "Follow me" then I got up the ladder and said "Hold this position", he then said "Copy that" and started firing on the germans coming accross the fields.

I like the fact that I can make a easy teamplay with that random blue guy by using some commo rose action and the spotting ability, that's what is FH2 Teamwork. Seeing people leaving the mod because of "not enough VOIP" is sad. Just learn to use the other ways to get teamwork to work.
Please discuss.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 18-07-2011, 10:07:01
Teamwork exists if people arent selfish. Lack of VOIP? I think all FH2 servers have VOIP enabled so I dont know what that is supposed to mean.

As always, FH2 has the tools for teamwork but doesnt force people to it like PR most of the time does. Some players just never learn that playing in a squad and for the team is far more important than doing their own thing (they can still do it while doing teamwork too). I hardly ever have moments in which _I_ dont experience teamwork. I play in squads with people I know and I use VOIP, so I also receive teamwork. If I dont receive teamwork and Im not satisfied, I change squads or make my own. However, some people dont pursue teamwork and that's fine in my books, as long as they do something productive and not stupid things.

War doesnt need one man.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LHeureux on 18-07-2011, 10:07:05
I meant the lack of persons using VOIP.

Like you I like teamplay and I change squads often to find one where the SL got a NCO kit and gives orders, etc. But it's not that of a deal to be in a squad that is not teamwork oriented, because like I said, in FH2 it's easy to get that' random blue guy to do teamwork things.

Some people even perform better alone.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 18-07-2011, 10:07:39
You don't need to be in a squad to play for the team*. I would say squad play can sometimes be anti-teamplay as well, a bunch of dudes out doing something that doesn't gain the team
I always join a squad, but I don't need a "leader" to tell me which flag to attack or what to do, I know this anyway. And it is not more teamplaying running around close to someone in your squad, than it is running close to someone else in your team.

Squad is nice for the extra spawnpoint, not much else.


*team = the 32 dudes together
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Ahonen on 18-07-2011, 10:07:09
You don't need to be in a squad to play for the team*. I would say squad play can sometimes be anti-teamplay as well, a bunch of dudes out doing something that doesn't gain the team
I always join a squad, but I don't need a "leader" to tell me which flag to attack or what to do, I know this anyway. And it is not more teamplaying running around close to someone in your squad, than it is running close to someone else in your team.


Doesn't VOIP make a squad much more viable teamwork wise?

You can tell each other exactly where that guy who killed you is, which direction that panzer is facing, when and where you'll need a rifle grenade shot, or where to set up the squad's MG.

When spotting enemies, there's a huge difference between just yelling "enemy unit spotted" and telling your squad an APC full of infantry and a tank are coming and from where.
When a US AT comes up, you can tell your tank where he is or where he'll come from, greatly improving the tank's survivability in urban combat.

You don't even need a scout to spot, unless there's a bunch of friendlies nearby who would also benefit of knowing where some enemies are.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LHeureux on 18-07-2011, 10:07:46
You don't need to be in a squad to play for the team*. I would say squad play can sometimes be anti-teamplay as well, a bunch of dudes out doing something that doesn't gain the team
I always join a squad, but I don't need a "leader" to tell me which flag to attack or what to do, I know this anyway. And it is not more teamplaying running around close to someone in your squad, than it is running close to someone else in your team.


Doesn't VOIP make a squad much more viable teamwork wise?

You can tell each other exactly where that guy who killed you is, which direction that panzer is facing, when and where you'll need a rifle grenade shot, or where to set up the squad's MG.
Yes of course but using VOIP in FH2 is..strange..? I mean, typing gets way better results, mainly because of the language barrier, sometimes people with a big german accent speaks and some of the squad members don't even understand. With a mic you're never sure if people understand you or if they hear you well enought with all the action going in FH2.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LHeureux on 18-07-2011, 10:07:50
To reply to your edit, most of the time people will see or hear the same thing than you, they'll see the halftrack and the tank. Mainly because of the small size of flag positions and map layouts.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: General_Henry on 18-07-2011, 11:07:10
the principle is, if you will die without teamwork, you will use teamwork.

128 server is a great proof of this. Because you die a bit too too easily alone.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 18-07-2011, 11:07:35
Doesn't VOIP make a squad much more viable teamwork wise?
It helps squad play, sure. But it doesn't necessarily means it's better for the team.
I often see silly squads out doing some "elite specOps mission" thinking they are this awesome bunch of dudes that just because they're hugging and VoIP:ing, is "team"playing. While at the same time the rest of the team is dying and trying to get the flag and stop the bleed, a.k.a playing the gamemode.
DICE did a good job making 5-6 guys play together with squad-chat, VoIP, squad-orders etc, and in vBF2 a good squad usually dominates the map, plus it's awesome for clanmatches. However Squads even further gives people an incentive to ignore the game mode in this game. You dont really care about the game mode primarily when you're in a Voip:ing, hugging squad, you care about your squad, and the game mode becomes secondary, therefor it's not actually gaining the team.

Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: jan_kurator on 18-07-2011, 12:07:18
Doesn't VOIP make a squad much more viable teamwork wise?
It helps squad play, sure. But it doesn't necessarily means it's better for the team.
I often see silly squads out doing some "elite specOps mission" thinking they are this awesome bunch of dudes that just because they're hugging and VoIP:ing, is "team"playing. While at the same time the rest of the team is dying and trying to get the flag and stop the bleed, a.k.a playing the gamemode.
DICE did a good job making 5-6 guys play together with squad-chat, VoIP, squad-orders etc, and in vBF2 a good squad usually dominates the map, plus it's awesome for clanmatches. However Squads even further gives people an incentive to ignore the game mode in this game. You dont really care about the game mode primarily when you're in a Voip:ing, hugging squad, you care about your squad, and the game mode becomes secondary, therefor it's not actually gaining the team.
And a good commander is needed then to coordinate squads on battlefield. I know what some ppl think about it but I still think that FH2 need some commander tweaks to make him more important and support ppl playin as commander.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 18-07-2011, 12:07:22
Commander isn't needed at all unless he has the UAV. That guy doesn't know anything that the other 31 guys doesn't know, so he isn't "coordinating" anything. He just sits in his radio and pretends.

If the Commander could send real orders, aka draw "combat areas" for squads, or if squads achieved points or weapons for accomplishing the commanders orders, then perhaps it would work.
As of now, he's an extra artillery piece, nothing more.
We talked losely about the Commander, but pretty much agreed on that he will never be really useful. That is the reason so many maps lack commander radio.
Personally, if it was possible, I'd rip out the commander feature entirely and get that one guy to be on the battlefield instead.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: KAIZER SOSA on 18-07-2011, 13:07:51
I understand people's defensive take here but I'll honestly say with my short time with FH2 so far - I rarely ever hear any on VOIP. That to me is a deal breaker of sorts, because while yes - there can be randoms directing randoms through commo-rose it doesn't always yield fruitful results.

One example of many might I add is a recent match I had in Vossenack. The Allies where filtering out into Crossroads and no body was there to defend it at all. I told my squad members on VOIP that it needs to be defended or they're going to flank us. I also used the commo-rose to convey this message, I also wrote it down in Team chat as well - several times.

Nothing. Very few people heeded the call for defense even though I'm sure they can see Team chat, here me shouting "Follow Me", and in the case of my squad telling them multiple times via VOIP. It ended up with maybe me and another guy who weren't even in my squad mind you to defend it on our own against a Sherman and crap load of Aliied Infantry. It turned out half my squad had VOIP but they just didn't care, it seems that mentality is popular from most of the gamers I've played with on FH2 which is quite unfortunate. So VOIP or not its more of a question about team play, which I scarcely seen on FH2 from my short experience so far.

Point is - Is FH2 successful? Yes. It's great.

Can FH2 benefit from a more team orientated community? Yes.

Well screw you Kaizer does the question above there means there is no team work from us, the community? No. Your taking something on the Internet a little too personal and misunderstood the point.

The reason why some are turned away from FH2 is because your not always going to get what the game can ultimately deliver if you are used to a heavy VOIP presence in your games. I am one of those folks who favor VOIP, especially in games like this where like it or not coordination is needed to attain victory. This is why I immediately signed up for WAW, because I want to play this wonderful mod to it's fullest potential - I can't do that in pubs unfortunately because there isn't many players communicating at all in FH2 (on a number of servers).

I had one match the other day with a team using full VOIP (Ironically full of PR players) and it was the best game I've had so far in FH2. Because the coordination and communication was there. Team work was prevalent and because of that we did the best and won.

Is VOIP necessary for team play? No.

Does it make a team better? No.

But it makes players who feel that presence a little better knowing its there. If VOIP was used more often in FH2 it would attract more players, most of those newly attracted players would most likely be team orientated players.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 18-07-2011, 13:07:40
I still argue that a good level design will encourage teamplay way better than talking in headset will do, and it feels more natural, fluid and "epic" with 32 guys fighting for the same goal, using the weapons and the map to reach their objectives.

VoIP is a nice extra tool to be able to chat with 5 guys, but it's nothing compared to what a good level can make players do.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Topdogger on 18-07-2011, 13:07:16
I know everyone hates the can't we implement such a thing as its in PR.
BUTTTTTTT Would the compass bearing system not encourage more team play in your squad and voip usage i.e machine gunner point 100.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: AfterDune on 18-07-2011, 13:07:48
My reply in the FH2-thread on the PR forums about VOIP;

Quote
If people like to play with others and use voip to improve communication, I don't think it's sad if they leave the mod when they don't find what they're looking for.

VOIP doesn't necessarily increase teamwork, it improves communication. Not using VOIP does not mean there can't be any teamwork of course. But, typing is slow and unnecessary when you only want to tell your squadmate something. FH2 is fast(er) paced, so there's often not a lot of time to type things out anyway, especially in the heat of battle. And using "fire" or "follow" certainly isn't something you always want to use. In many cases, you want to let your squadmate know something, you want him to know it fast and you don't want to give your position away by shouting.

Next to what I state above, I personally enjoy a game much more when you're able to actually talk with your squadmates, or laugh with them when something funny happens, or share the frustration after yet another failed attack, etc. "Hahaha" could never replace actual laughter, just like "ah, ffs, sh*t!" could never replace the actual tone of voice, sighs and mumblings, etc.

As long as most people are not using VOIP, people won't be encouraged to start using it. I've been playing FH2 for quite a long time now and I'm at a point where I'm can't be arsed to get some VOIPage going. If others are using it, I'll use it as well, but otherwise, why would I bother if most people don't want to use it anyway.

I believe FH2 will be even more enjoyable when way more people use VOIP.

I don't think good level design will be more helpful than VOIP. To me it's not really comparable. Sure it helps to understand what kits to use in what situations and what could be a good approach, but a level is static, players are not.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: KAIZER SOSA on 18-07-2011, 13:07:54

I don't think good level design will be more helpful than VOIP. To me it's not really comparable. Sure it helps to understand what kits to use in what situations and what could be a good approach, but a level is static, players are not.

Have to say I agree.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Ts4EVER on 18-07-2011, 13:07:31
Depends on what you see as team work. When I see 12 people running towards the same objective on Hurtgen that is enough team work for me.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LuckyOne on 18-07-2011, 18:07:28
So the conclusion is: teamwork is viewed and experienced differently by different persons. Personally I like to play in squads that are using VOIP but I can't always be bothered to talk... However the lack of a way to convey information about enemy positions precisely and quickly putts me off somewhat.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Gezoes on 18-07-2011, 18:07:24
I like that answer, LHeureux. You don't need a mic for teamwork and it's ok if people don't have one. Green chat can be hilarious too. But it is often more rewarding and fun with VOIP. I'd say more players than the usual suspects carry VOIP. Say there's really close enemy, I often instantly press B and talk. It's faster. In a previously silent squad, there's often more chatter afterwards.
 
Don't be a teamnazi. Help the team and/or go for the flag, but have some fun doing it. Simple.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Eglaerinion on 18-07-2011, 18:07:44
So the conclusion is: teamwork is viewed and experienced differently by different persons. Personally I like to play in squads that are using VOIP but I can't always be bothered to talk... However the lack of a way to convey information about enemy positions precisely and quickly putts me off somewhat.
Use scout kit. Underused kit but one of the most powerful ones.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: mnenoch on 18-07-2011, 18:07:40
I just want to add that it could be a lot of the time that people don't use VOIP in FH2 (at least in the game) is because their mics don't work in FH2. I know mine doesn't because for some reason BF2 doesn't see my usb mic at all. Otherwise I would be using it.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LuckyOne on 18-07-2011, 18:07:59
So the conclusion is: teamwork is viewed and experienced differently by different persons. Personally I like to play in squads that are using VOIP but I can't always be bothered to talk... However the lack of a way to convey information about enemy positions precisely and quickly putts me off somewhat.
Use scout kit. Underused kit but one of the most powerful ones.

Yes I use it a lot, but I have a hard time spotting the enemy sometimes... I just get those ? ? ? spammed all over the minimap.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Slayer on 18-07-2011, 18:07:50
Yes I use it a lot, but I have a hard time spotting the enemy sometimes... I just get those ? ? ? spammed all over the minimap.
Then maybe your "line of fire" from your binocs is hitting something else on it's way, like an anti tank barrier, or sandbags. Then you get those question marks. When you have a clear vision on a tank, you can either press Q and then select armor spotted or just press Auto.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Ajs47951 on 18-07-2011, 19:07:56
not everyone can use VOIP some people would if they could like me. I can't really use it because I already have a ping of 150-400ms and useing Voip for me just adds 100ms more. my internet is so fucked up that when i play on the Wolf east cost server i have a ping of 300ms and i live Indiana but if i playing that Russian server I only have a ping of 50-100ms! :o
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Dago Red on 18-07-2011, 19:07:41
PR trolls.  They'll never be happy.  Sadly, we had to start banning them on Wolf sometime last summer.  There was a new one each week coming in just to troll, nonstop, about how inferior FH is to PR and starting flame wars and basically disrupting the entire server.  Some didn't stop when asked repeatedly and it became clear they were there just to foul things up as long as they could get away with it.

YOU KNOW WHAT? 

Most of the people I knew who played FH1 that never stuck with FH2 (a good 60% of the old Wolf community) didn't like FH2 because it was TOO MUCH like games like PR.  Too punishing to the casual player or newbie. Too little for the lone soldier to accomplish without support. Too much reliance on squads for spawn points and weapons access. Too long between firefights on huge maps with too few jeeps and kubels to race around in. 

I, along with many others, got over most of this. But I still understand where my friends are coming from. FH2 and PR are just not as much "easy fun" as FH1 was.  There is so much more learning curve and limitations to what one can do on his own for an hour of fun after work before bed.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 18-07-2011, 19:07:25
I don't think good level design will be more helpful than VOIP. To me it's not really comparable. Sure it helps to understand what kits to use in what situations and what could be a good approach, but a level is static, players are not.
adorable thought. Fact is; players do pretty much the same thing in every round of FH2. The margins are very thin. And the things they do, are things that the mapper have designed them able to do.

voIP helps you and 5 guys chat easier to eachother, it is nothing compared to a well designed level, take hurtgen as example. Remove VOIP and you have pretty much the same experience as with it, because the power of the design dicates what the players can and cant do, not their communication.

In 4x4km open map with no design, boundaries or clear target, and with dynamic random controlpoints, Id say VoIP is much more needed, maybe even a requirement to be able to finish the map. (sorry for the pun, couldnt resist it...)
So again, it all falls back on the core design which type of communication can be helpful, if needed at all. In most FH2 maps, the objectives are so obvious, you don't really need to chat. That is why most VOiPs I've been in in FH2, are silent.

@Dago Red, I dont see any trolls here.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: AfterDune on 18-07-2011, 19:07:45
I wonder what you think of vBF2, Dago Red. If you like that gameplay, I understand why FH2 or PR isn't your cup of tea. BF2 mods these days just don't survive out there if they only offer content without affecting gameplay. There's enough proof of that on moddb for example, crapload of dead or hardly active mods. The only way to survive is to make the game harder, or at least very different from vBF2.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Hockeywarrior on 18-07-2011, 19:07:34
I replied this on the FH2 thread in the PR forums. People were talking about the lack of people using VOIP in FH2 and that's what make them leave or don't grab as much as other people on the mod. What do you think of this? :

Quote
Well FH2 teamplay is more random, if you create a squad, people will most of the time follow you and obey your orders. If you use a mic, people will stick to your squad and be more respontive.

In FH2 all players tend to know what the other guy wants. Exemple : I have a bazooka and another dude too, I just say "Follow me!" he follows me and face the back of a Panther, I say "Fire!", we both destroy the Panther. The maps are smaller, all the gameplay is smaller, people are clustered together and IMO the teamwork is just perfect for the mod.

The fact of spotting a tank with the command makes it appears on the minimap for everyone, same as saying "Tank in H6kp4" and then lasing it, it's red on the minimap, so the Sherman next to you will know where to be heading or looking.

Another exemple, defending a flag on Bastogne : I found a good place where you need to go up a ladder to get to a destroyed house roof, giving a good firing position. I spotted a guy with a MG and said "Follow me" then I got up the ladder and said "Hold this position", he then said "Copy that" and started firing on the germans coming accross the fields.

I like the fact that I can make a easy teamplay with that random blue guy by using some commo rose action and the spotting ability, that's what is FH2 Teamwork. Seeing people leaving the mod because of "not enough VOIP" is sad. Just learn to use the other ways to get teamwork to work.
Please discuss.
Aye this reflects well the experiences you and I had in a squad yesterday, if you remember ;)

Teamwork in FH2 is actually quite easy if you are proactive and actually TRY to make it work. I think people don't realize this because the game doesn't utterly FORCE teamwork on players like PR does. In FH2, there is always demand in the server for teamplay -- it just takes a bit of proactive leadership to do it.

That said, once you make a squad (and please name it with a custom name -- people are more likely to join), teamwork in FH2 doesn't have to be hardcore or require VOIP to be effective. Just yesterday, I was in a squad called "FH Forum" on Cobra, with Lightning and a few other familiar faces. None of us were truly using our mics, and yet we were one of the most effective squads in the game simply because we spotted targets and communicated in simple terms where we were defending and where the enemy was.

When a game doesn't utterly FORCE you to work together with others, it's easy to assume that it doesn't promote teamwork. In reality, the opposite is true -- it just takes a tiny bit of effort.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: therenas on 18-07-2011, 19:07:02
In fact I find PR quite complicated and strict with its teamplay rules.
Mumble and VOIPis an inofficial requirement... I, not owning a headset or not being able to use it (PC stands in the living room which would annoy anybody who is there with my speaking and vice versa), have real difficulties to play in a proper group... most people kick you from their group if you do not reply via VOIP they kick you... even if you told them that you can hear them, but not answer them... sad... and kills my fun.
FH 2 on the other side is more intuitive regarding teamplay. You can spawn near your Squadleader, making him very valuable and makes sticking together much easier. Furthermore mapdesign and gamemodes encourage teamplay by setting main focus areas, where you will most likely meet and, because of the obvious advantages, stick to other teammates. Furthermore the main thing that requires communication in PR is the difficult logistic with supply crates, forward bases and other structures... in fact personally I think that the whole logistics and building thing has a part much too big for my liking... furthermore players tend to scatter in the maps... you run around for ages (especially if the vehicles, which are few in number and slow to respawn are currently in use or destroyed) and then are most likely ambushed by other players... you and your squad are killed, you wait half a minute to respawn and start running again.
Alltogether I find FH 2 much more fun... I like the setting of PR and the weapons and vehicles, but the gameplay is too complicated, too slow and just too boring except for the mostly short firefights.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: AfterDune on 18-07-2011, 20:07:43
adorable thought.
Thanks for taking things so seriously. It's comments like that that make people not like you a lot, Natty. No offense, but was it really needed to belittle my post?

Fact is; players do pretty much the same thing in every round of FH2. The margins are very thin. And the things they do, are things that the mapper have designed them able to do.
Why do the exact same thing every round? I don't get what's to like about that. Why would anyone design a map so it's played the same way every time?

voIP helps you and 5 guys chat easier to eachother, it is nothing compared to a well designed level
It's apples and oranges really. VOIP is a way to communicate, level design is trying to control what's happening and how. And "good level design" the way you describe it almost forces players to do the same thing time after time.

take hurtgen as example. Remove VOIP and you have pretty much the same experience as with it, because the power of the design dicates what the players can and cant do, not their communication.
Removing VOIP gives you the same results, because VOIP is hardly used right now. Can't really tell what things would be like if almost everybody would use VOIP. Maybe there is not much of a difference and the battle may go the same way as without it. But the players will most probably experience it differently. I know I will - I enjoy a round where a squad has good voice comms, whether we win or not. And no, you don't need VOIP to enjoy a game, but for me and a lot of other players out there (not necessarily FH2) it adds to the experience.

In 4x4km open map with no design, boundaries or clear target, and with dynamic random controlpoints, Id say VoIP is much more needed, maybe even a requirement to be able to finish the map. (sorry for the pun, couldnt resist it...)
So again, it all falls back on the core design which type of communication can be helpful, if needed at all. In most FH2 maps, the objectives are so obvious, you don't really need to chat. That is why most VOiPs I've been in in FH2, are silent.
I don't think I will ever agree with you on this. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just different opinions. But the only thing you're saying all the time is when you have proper level design, you don't need VOIP. One doesn't exclude the other. If anything, those two combined are absolutely ace! - but that's just my humble opinion.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: sn00x on 18-07-2011, 20:07:48
People do whatever the F*ck they want, dosnt matter if they are in a squad or team or whatever, or getting commands from voip/commorose, i have tried countless times to tell my squad what to do, or to tell a squad where to go (being commander ofc) because i have the command map up all the time and can MONITOR the battle, people dont play around with their minmap open all the time, tuhs CANT monitor the battle (respons to Natty saying that commander can see exactly the same as a normal player and are useless), No they do whatever the F THEY want, nothing else.. mindless zombies who wants stats.. if a server EVER HAD THE BALLS!!!! to have a rule like a PR server telling people to be in squads and do the teamwork or GTFO the server. then it might actually happen.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Dago Red on 18-07-2011, 20:07:32
@Dago Red, I dont see any trolls here.

Not here, on the servers.


I wonder what you think of vBF2, Dago Red. If you like that gameplay, I understand why FH2 or PR isn't your cup of tea.

You missed my point entirely, but I forgive you since we don't know each other.  ;)
I have been playing FH since it's inception (well, since .5).  I have never played BF2 in my life.   I only bought it once FH2 was released, to play the latest incarnation of FH.

I have been staff on the WOLF community for a lifetime now.  We used to run a PR server along with our multiple FH servers and once FH2 was released, that too.  There are good things about PR, they just shouldn't all be implemented into Forgotten Hope.

There is a curious thing about this PR-FH rivalry.  We don't get guys in FH2 servers from Battlefield Pirates or First Strike, attacking the mod. We don't get players mentioning any other mod in chat when they launch tirades about it.... they are always from PR.  It got so bad an admin created a special watch list thread about it, and repeat offenders, whether they changed their nick or not, were eventually banned by hash and IP. I guess that says something about the similarity of the mods in some ways. They are close enough to be able to make comparisons and contrasts.

Did you ever play FH1?  It was one of the most successful mods in modding history ... because it was fun as hell.  FH2 has removed the punishing supression effects that on release drove away FH1 players in hordes. They also added back in jeeps and kubels and fun, fast ways of getting around a map.  Things have moved back to center in many ways, although removing crosshairs is an example of another step away from the easy fun of FH1.

I have not played enough to decide if it's good or not, but as a rifleman, I suspect it will greatly handicap me even further in close quarters than I already was against other small arms. It's this kind of change that may seem popular among the hardcore modding community, but it is NOT popular among new and potential players.   All of my friends used to play FH1. None of them now play FH2, for these reasons. Maybe it's because we are all old men in our 30's now, but some people want to have a nice, fun escape in their realism mods, not steep, punishing learning curves at every turn.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LHeureux on 18-07-2011, 21:07:39
@Dago Red, I dont see any trolls here.

Not here, on the servers.


I wonder what you think of vBF2, Dago Red. If you like that gameplay, I understand why FH2 or PR isn't your cup of tea.

You missed my point entirely, but I forgive you since we don't know each other.  ;)
I have been playing FH since it's inception (well, since .5).  I have never played BF2 in my life.   I only bought it once FH2 was released, to play the latest incarnation of FH.

I have been staff on the WOLF community for a lifetime now.  We used to run a PR server along with our multiple FH servers and once FH2 was released, that too.  There are good things about PR, they just shouldn't all be implemented into Forgotten Hope.

There is a curious thing about this PR-FH rivalry.  We don't get guys in FH2 servers from Battlefield Pirates or First Strike, attacking the mod. We don't get players mentioning any other mod in chat when they launch tirades about it.... they are always from PR.  It got so bad an admin created a special watch list thread about it, and repeat offenders, whether they changed their nick or not, were eventually banned by hash and IP. I guess that says something about the similarity of the mods in some ways. They are close enough to be able to make comparisons and contrasts.

Did you ever play FH1?  It was one of the most successful mods in modding history ... because it was fun as hell.  FH2 has removed the punishing supression effects that on release drove away FH1 players in hordes. They also added back in jeeps and kubels and fun, fast ways of getting around a map.  Things have moved back to center in many ways, although removing crosshairs is an example of another step away from the easy fun of FH1.

I have not played enough to decide if it's good or not, but as a rifleman, I suspect it will greatly handicap me even further in close quarters than I already was against other small arms. It's this kind of change that may seem popular among the hardcore modding community, but it is NOT popular among new and potential players.   All of my friends used to play FH1. None of them now play FH2, for these reasons. Maybe it's because we are all old men in our 30's now, but some people want to have a nice, fun escape in their realism mods, not steep, punishing learning curves at every turn.
You should know that today, people when playing war games, like realism. The only non-realism war games that are not thumbed down are games like Gears of War or Unreal Tournament, etc, because they are not set for realism as those things/universe does not exist. Todays players when playing a WW2 game or modern warfare game wants realism. MW1 and MW2 are not realistic of course, that's why so many people say sh*t about it, "Haha it's so stupid, in MW2 you can run around with a Javelin and shoot infantry".

Guess why BF3 gets so popular, go in the comments section of one of it's trailer, everybody talk about how it's more realistic than this "MW3 crap". When playing a war game, more and more people want a nice ambience, like if they were fighting the war and seeing kubels driving around like some random Unreal Tournament game isn't realist and does not makes you feel like if you were in a real WW2 battle. Old games were not realistic and people played them, you say you are in the 30s, so you must have played those games. But TODAY's players enjoy more realistic and real ambience than those Medal of Honor : Allied Assault's ambient sounds.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 18-07-2011, 22:07:29
Thanks for taking things so seriously. It's comments like that that make people not like you a lot, Natty. No offense, but was it really needed to belittle my post?
It was intended to the general notion that players create the experience themselves, not your post. And it is indeed, an adorable notion,  but not how it actually works.
Players like a certain amount of freedom, as which rock to take cover behind and which opening to use. But mostly the map design is deciding for them, many times without them knowing about it.
As an example; if you looked at player movement heatmaps over huge open maps like El Alamein bf42, you'd see that even with this almost 100%ish "freedom" they still stick to the same routes and use the same ways of getting the flags.
It's patterned behaviour, and it happens in all games after a few years of game play.
Why do the exact same thing every round? I don't get what's to like about that. Why would anyone design a map so it's played the same way every time?
The answer is in the question, kind of, design is about deciding. You create a map and you decide what the experience should be. Take maps like Pointe du hoc, Hurtgen, Falaise pocket, Ramelle, PeB, Tunis etc.. We have many of these maps. They don't allow you to just run wherever you want a create a "dynamic" gameplay. It's meatgrinding action, the core of this mod. The mapper has taken ballsy decision and given you a limited area on which you are allowed to move. The same things (more or less) happen each round because that is the intended design. And I dont mean players run the exact same path every time, but more or less, and splitted out on 1,000 rounds, you wouldnt be able to see any difference in what happens in those maps. That's clear design, as opposed to letting players freely decide the experience, as they can't do that, they aren't designers.
Funnily, if you would take a map like El Alamein bf42 or perhaps Totalize in Fh2 and apply a heatmap pathing overlay to it, then re-design the maps so players cant move except on the "beaten tracks", most of them wouldn't care in-game. Freedom is there to assure players that "you know, you can go there instead if you really want to" but they don't do that, they stick to the best routes that gives them most fun. BC2 is a great example of where designers looked at this and decided "heck, just create the map so those unused freedom "open" areas are blocked off (by water or mountains mostly) and concentrate the action towards the objectives". And it worked perfectly. Also, players like that, because it means they have a clear challenge ahead of them that they can look at and go "yea I can do this!" whereas in maps with no clear objectives and too much freedom, they have no clear challenge to look at, and therefor also no predictable reward.

Personally, I like a bit of both, but fact is, every time Im bored or get disconnected from the game in FH2 (where I lose immersion) is when I have no clear goal or objective, when the map isn't telling me what to do, or why. Example is Cobra. What do you do on that map as American once the farm and watermill is taken? And why? the experience just ends before your eyes. Same thing happens on other maps as well. Freedom as game play killer.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Musti on 18-07-2011, 22:07:58
Teamwork in FH 2 eh?
Ok let me put it like this.
VOIP.
Teamplaying means working together, helping each other right?
So we can have a squad that is teamplaying even without VOIP. Of course communication will make that squad a lot better fighting force, they can coordinate better, faster, etc. but that doesn't mean squad not using VOIP is not teamplaying.

Teamplay on Team-level
Its Impossible to achieve on public servers (I mean to achieve 100% teamplay on team-level) you can only get that in tournaments and such, with chain of commands etc. (thats probably what PR players would want.Strict team-play not to say "forced"). Just because bunch of people is attacking the same flag doesn't mean they are working together (they won't cover each other, lay down smoke, or generally speaking "work together" etc.), you don't need communication to think "ok he's checking the room on the right, so I'll better check the room on the left!". Sometimes you get that, sometimes you won't.
Sometimes people are just selfish like if you ask in team chat "can anyone spot me that tank please" or "guys wait i'll lay down some smoke" they just won't bother with answering. No server rule will force them to do that, they just have to want to do that.Its all with the people really, not map desing, not using VOIP, not sitting in squads.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: AfterDune on 18-07-2011, 22:07:07
You missed my point entirely, but I forgive you since we don't know each other.  ;)
I have been playing FH since it's inception (well, since .5).  I have never played BF2 in my life.   I only bought it once FH2 was released, to play the latest incarnation of FH.

etc.
Sorry I misunderstood.

I'm afraid dealing with a large playerbase also means dealing with more people that are very much in love with a specific mod, and can sometimes overreact to things. I'm putting it somewhat safe perhaps, because FH2 in fact has the same sort of playerbase. I don't mean that in a bad way at all, most of us have a great love for the mod we follow, support and have been doing so for a couple of years. And nobody "from the outside" will try to destroy that. All is fine, but what I don't understand is why people would slag off the other mod. Luckily the majority of players embrace the other mod, or simply don't bother with it if it's not their cup of tea. Most of the times it's only a handful of players that... don't know when to say nothing at all ;).
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: AfterDune on 18-07-2011, 23:07:31
...
I understand where the idea is coming from, but if you ask me, that's where many games these days go wrong - in my opinion. But I'm afraid this will be and endless discussion. I've said what I wanted to say, so I'll step out of that one :).
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: [F|H]Uffeh_SWE on 19-07-2011, 15:07:48
There is little teamwork because the maps are so restricted (or "designed"). The maps are so restricted because there is no teamwork. '\r'
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: 4Edge on 19-07-2011, 16:07:29
I just want to add that it could be a lot of the time that people don't use VOIP in FH2 (at least in the game) is because their mics don't work in FH2. I know mine doesn't because for some reason BF2 doesn't see my usb mic at all. Otherwise I would be using it.

+1
I have just this very problem also and I've tried to fix it many times..

I prefer teamwork over rambo style any day.  But with mic problems I can only hear squad chat, but cant be heard.  I just live with it.  I'm sure quite a lot of people have the same problem.

Having said that, I'm happy to follow orders and the best times have been when the team is working together using whatever communication as appropriate (comm rose/speech/squad and object map).

One point that PR is quite clear in is that it expects ALL players to use VOIP of some kind and that's fair enough,  but I shy away from PR because of this requirement (add to the fact I dont really like playing with head phones on anyway).   

In FH2 we have a more laid back approach to voip which to me is a good at retaining the casual gamer.

One thing that I find detracts from the fun of the game is a SL who gets all heated up (verbally or VOIP) when the team aren't repsonding immediately to his requests.  To be honest if I want to be shouted at or berated for not doing what I'm told I'll stay at work! ;) - this is supposed to be fun.  Thankfully it's quite rare when that happens and most of the chat is fun and lighthearted.

I think with the FH2 mod, they've struck the right balance,  and if the designers keep churning out maps that favour team play, by a process of evolution we will see more team play orinetated players and rounds.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: General_Henry on 19-07-2011, 17:07:37
VOIP is important, but I am reluctant to speak up because there are many people in my home and I don't want to disturb them.

I can't remember how many times I want to report enemy sighting to my squad mates but got killed when typing. I am often the first to spot an enemy flanking attack (the desert fox has a strong sense...) but not only I myself failed to fend them off I can't warn my squad members effectively.

but that is just how you execute a teamwork effectively, it has nothing to do with whether you try to execute a teamwork or not, teamwork is not motivated by simply being able to speak with the other guys...

personally I observe a great amount of teamwork on the 128 server, we have squads that never communicate with each other, yet teamwork could be achieved.



1. the secret is that, to have teamwork, you need to blob players together - that means maps could not be too big (so everyone scatters) or having like 20 trucks at main.

important: Squad leaders help blobbing players by providing a spawn point.
(note: however I am against the limitless squad leader system, it change the game in a bad manner)

solution: 128 players solve this because maps get crowded.


2. another thing is that, there needs to be a clear objective of game play flow, in many maps there is no clear objectives and they are obviously much more chaotic and no teamwork. While in push maps generally people know what to do where to go. This way tanks would move along with infantry and support them, not to hide behind that rock sniping enemy tanks. I observe many games in public failed because the tanks just fight their own battle ignoring the infantryman on their team.

example: There is a reason why Mount Olympus is such a fail in public as infantry tends to move for castle while tanks tends to move for monastery. I really want to shout to those tankers, "GO PLAY WOT".

example: In Operation Luttich people run from this flag to that flag, from that flag to this flag, endlessly. Cap one, lose one, cap one, lose one, people just love to move to next flag and cap it instead of sitting and wait for enemy to come.
If you have read my "FH2 chaotic theory thread" (search for it) I think you'll agree on my formula to calculate whether a map would have more teamplay or less teamplay.

example: Alam Halfa is a great map because the flow is perfectly reasonable to even a new player. The frontlines is clearly there, and without some coordination you could not push to the next flag or farm kills.

solution: push! but unfortunately not every map could afford the kind of push we are having now. Btw, I quite liked the Hurtgen Forest style of push that could be extended to some maps I'd imagine.

theoretical solution: maybe there could be maps where flags could be neutralized by a flanking attack but not capped, to simulate the cutting off enemy effect. This also minimize the impact of a first-minute jeep rush ignoring all those defensive perimeters that the mapper placed.

theoretical example: on Gazala you cannot cap beyond knightsbridge as germans if you don't hold knightsbridge. Or Mosque of Mersa Matruh if you don't capture the perimeter flags.

(I want to make a new thread about this btw)

solution: 128 players solve this because maps get crowded.


If a map contains this two, it should play very fine even in the public.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Slayer on 19-07-2011, 18:07:31
It is nice that you offer 128 players as a solution, but it won't see the light of day until:

1) the code which is used now gets released publicly
2) someone else stumbles upon the code and releases it
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: General_Henry on 19-07-2011, 18:07:16
It is nice that you offer 128 players as a solution, but it won't see the light of day until:

1) the code which is used now gets released publicly
2) someone else stumbles upon the code and releases it

128 is kind of a "patch" thing, it is not a developer-side solution.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Dago Red on 19-07-2011, 20:07:59

You should know that today, people when playing war games, like realism.
You and I like realism.  And others too, but the average joe and jill prefer fun gameplay over stark realism. Realism may factor with them but it's not the number 1 priority, it's not even number 2.

Exhibit A: Forgotten Hope had more players than you could possibly count. WOLF alone, had  5,000 members, most of which played FH1 at least on occasion.  Now we have more like 200 playing FH2, total.

People's wives and girlfriends played FH1.  Rarely was there a week without female voices on our TS.  FH1 was a realism mod, but it was sill easy to pick up and play by the casual gamer. 

FH2 is not like that.

I like more realism, because I am part of this hardcore subculture of gamers that play mods for aging game engines. The vast, vast, vast majority of people are not with us.  This is why FH2's player base is so much smaller than FH1's.

FH2 may make it's current, hardcore base, happier than FH1 did.  But everyone would be wise to remember that the rest of the world likes a little easier time in their games.  Let me emphasize the word game. IN fact, we still have a number of dedicated FH1 players -- they would rather play a game that's older than their kids (and looks like it!) than play the newer FH2, because they have more fun there.


Understand, as a super administrator for WOLF, for all these long years, I have a different perspective on the game that is more than my own personal desires.... setting aside my own interests for longer, more punishing firefights and greater realism, because I see our community dwindling, and fewer people returning to play FH2.  I'd rather have all those friend back and a slightly less realistic game.  Then indulge in all my realism whims and have only a few people to play it with.


But TODAY's players enjoy more realistic and real ambience than those Medal of Honor : Allied Assault's ambient sounds.

Ambience is one thing, no one would argue with greater ambience.  Hurtgn Forest is awesome for that, and currently my favorite map. Just as Totdenbruch was before it.

But difficulty and limitations on what you can do to have fun are different. In FH1 you could get in the cargo hold of a plane toward the front, bail out over a destroyer, help bombard the beach with it, then take an LCV to the shore, commandeer an enemy vehicle and run over Yossarian on the other team while your buddy dropped explosives out of the passenger side door blowing up everything in your wake.  Was that realistic?  No.  Was it fun and made for people to come back night after night for more, including everyone aged 16 to 60, guys and girls, all laughing and having the best time of their lives?  YES.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Slayer on 19-07-2011, 20:07:35
Dago Red, although it is really nice to read how much fun you had in FH1 (and believe me, I had great fun in FH1 too), but I think you are overlooking two things when stating that less fun means less players for FH2:

1) A lot of gamers who are in their 30s now, have quit gaming totally or have lowered their activity dramatically (usually due to having kids).
2) While FH1 was the "realistic" version of BF1942, FH2 is a total conversion mod, of which the "mothergame" has nothing to do with WWII. And together with the long time it took for FH2 to release 2.0, this made a lot of people disappear too.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Rustysteel on 19-07-2011, 22:07:40
I played FH1 a lot too but I guess I just see things differently to dago red. For me FH2 is an evolution of FH1 I can see things in it from the original mod and it always seemed logical to me that FH2 would play the way it does and I love it.

Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Malsa on 19-07-2011, 23:07:44
FH2 is an evolution of FH1

Yes! There are many things we couldn't do in FH1 because of engine limitations, that have become possible when working on BF2. There are many FH2-features that could have been in FH1 if we only would have had the possibility to add them.
My view on this is that there is an "FH concept" that us devs try to realise as best as possible on the engine we are working with.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: HappyFunBall on 19-07-2011, 23:07:01
I just want to throw this out there:

I do not use VOIP because I can not get BF2 to recognize my microphone. My mike works fine with every other program and application, but not BF2. I have spent hours on this with no result.

I may not be the only one out there with this problem.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Rustysteel on 19-07-2011, 23:07:46
You're not HappyFunball, spent several hours myself trying to get BF2 to recoginse my damn mic, there's a couple of reasons it might not be working for you. Is it a usb mic? If it is I think you're pretty much buggered I've seen a alot of threads about usb mics not working with BF2 not sure if there is a solution for that.

My problem was my OS, I have vista and the mic was muted in the speaker properties section by default(dont know if it's vista or BF2 doing this). Once I found it and unmuted it BF2 worked fine with no problems hope that helps.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Excavus on 19-07-2011, 23:07:15
My USB Mic works fine with BF2. Make sure you turn the VOIP recognition volume to 0.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Rustysteel on 19-07-2011, 23:07:12
I stand corrected  :) That's good to know if I need a new headset in the future.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Malsa on 19-07-2011, 23:07:51
Is there no one who thinks that a voice command system that is easier to use but also has more depth could be very beneficial for teamplay and ingame communication?
Let's face it, everyone doesn't and everyone can't use VOIP even though it's a great tool. I also think that VOIP interferes with general immersion because people just don't sound like "real" soldiers.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Rustysteel on 19-07-2011, 23:07:19
I think it would be better if the voice command system would be laid out in a radial pattern rather than blocks in rows. It would make finding particular commands a lot easier and faster, also I think 'I need back up' and 'requesting a pickup' should be in the main commo menu and not the squad one.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Kelmola on 20-07-2011, 00:07:36
Make sure you turn the VOIP recognition volume to 0.
Ah-ha! This might be the reason why my mic technically works but my voice is "breaking up" and Irish and Flippy tell me to shut up, because previously the threshold was set to 10.

As for teamwork, IRISHFORCE > everything, as was again proved tonight on Bastogne, where our overlord led our squad to storm both of the city flags single-handedly, winning the map for us.

But seriously, VOIP improves teamplay immensely, but lacking that, SL that actually gives commands motivates people to follow them. Expecting people to spontaneously follow is a bit too much even on hslan or FHGN's. Also, if you "know" (ie. recognize the nick, remember them from the forum or have played previously with) the people of your fireteam the motivation goes up, at least for me.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 20-07-2011, 00:07:28
 With this latest release, I have not had any concerns with teamwork at all. My squads fill up almost instantaneously and if someone is too much of a lone wolf'er, I just kick them out and make room for someone new.

 My only issue has been the constant defence/ explanation of why this game plays out the way it does. Mind you, ths happens with every release, so it does become second nature after a while.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 20-07-2011, 01:07:24
All ya gotta do is make a VOIP ONLY squad, and kick anybody without a microphone, or anybody whos a smack tard out, and enjoy the real squad members that join up.

Ultimately though, stressing the need for teamwork in trailers, manuals, and other publications about the mod would also be a start to getting people into the "work together" mind set, it should be plastered over every inch of the website, forum, and in-game on walls as posters and other stuff, all emphasizing teamwork.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Schneider on 27-07-2011, 02:07:04
I really prefer playing in squads with VOIP, though I usually join german ones. But I don't have the feeling that the lack of VOIP really leads to problems, teamplay-wise.
And honestly, I don't really get the point of the discussion, as there is no way to make those who ignore VOIP use it. People either will or won't, I doubt a lot of people will be convinced to do so by this discussion who haven't done it before.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 27-07-2011, 07:07:23
You guys might wanna structure up your discussions. There are two totally separate aspected here, which you seem to mix up

1. Player behaviour
2. Game behaviour

1. is VoIP, it's what players do with the game, it's server rules and what is generally consider "OK" or not. We (devs) don't control this. We can never make you think TK:ing is OK even if we try, and we can never design maps or the mod hoping that you will chat with each other via voIP or TS or Ventrilo.

2. Is what we can do, how we design maps, how we design vehicles, how you spawn and how you can help eachother ingame. If a mapper is amateurish, he can make teamplay fail the second the round starts, by placing spawnpoints and vehicles wrong, so players run to the transports and drive them away alone. This is just one of hundreds of examples how you can design-in teamplay.

What I tried to explain to Afterdune some page back, is that this is what will really create natural and fluid game play (2.) not chatting in Voip or texting eachother. Why is it better for teamplay? Because it is designed, not just randomly occuring because players happened to have a headset or Teamspeak. Archi's naive dream about "enlightening" people to join the glorius "teamplayism" will not work. Players do what they can do, which gives them easy fun. If we design that to be teamplay behaviour, they will do it.

Sure the two together can work nicely, but good design should make you teamplay without any 3rd party communication
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: AfterDune on 27-07-2011, 08:07:30
What I tried to explain to Afterdune some page back, is that this is what will really create natural and fluid game play (2.) not chatting in Voip or texting eachother. Why is it better for teamplay? Because it is designed, not just randomly occuring because players happened to have a headset or Teamspeak. Archi's naive dream about "enlightening" people to join the glorius "teamplayism" will not work. Players do what they can do, which gives them easy fun. If we design that to be teamplay behaviour, they will do it.

Sure the two together can work nicely, but good design should make you teamplay without any 3rd party communication
Sigh. I wasn't going to comment on this, but the way you put things makes it sound as if I'm wrong and don't get what you're saying. I stated that VOIP can improve communication which can result in better teamwork. Also that VOIP (for a lot of players) gives you another experience, on a different level, which text-chat or whatever level design you have could never provide.

FH2's map design forces players to take certain routes. This design gives you "accidental teamwork", since you're all moving the same way and fire when you see enemies, therefor providing suppressive fire and cover for other players. It's accidental teamwork, as you just happen to be on the same spot by accident, not because you worked together.

We're talking about different things here. The accidental teamwork built in by the level designer, and people actually working together, having a certain plan and communicate with each other what they're going to do, what kits they're going to take and how they move up - or stay put. VOIP can help with voluntary teamwork, since it's so easy and fast to communicate with each other. Of course VOIP is limited to your squad, so for the rest you can use text-chat and/or a commander. Or better yet, use Mumble and be able to talk to everyone within x meters from you. But that's a third party tool.

And the in-game VOIP is NOT a third party tool, it's all part of the game, just like the map, just like textchat.

To close it off, some final words: level design can help teamwork to a certain level, but the accidental "being together" should not be confused with real teamwork. VOIP can help improve communication. It does not automatically provide teamwork, but can certainly be a great help to get some on-purpose teamwork going on.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 27-07-2011, 12:07:09
This makes me wonder if you know what the purpose of design is.
It is to create the experience. Not create the possibility for it to happen.

It isn't "accidental" at all, it is designed. We create those "restricted" areas because we know how players behave. It is because we make those passages, that teamwork arises. So take Hurtgen forest as example, do you think it is an "accident" that those lanes are designed as they are? No it isn't, it's a well planned and more importantly, well executed design.

It's when the mapper have no clear design and just drops some controlpoints where he thinks it is fun to build one, that the teamwork - the whole game play - is "accidental".
We have this too in the mod, dont get me wrong here, Fh2 lacks in design on a monumental level, alot of the game play is purely accidental, or coincidental to be more exact, and many maps are knock-knock-on-wood-hope-it-works every time they come up on a server. Sometimes they work, sometimes not.
My point from a designer-point-of-view, is that it is our job to design Fun, Excitement and Teamwork, not the players. If we dont work hard to make sure those things happen on the maps, it's pure amateurish to hope that some players will gang up and go "hey guys, this kinda sucks, but it will be more fun if we run together and talk to eachother all the time, that way we can block out the fact that this game doesnt provide any experience itself"

So sure, chatting and VoIP:ing surely can save some boring game rounds, or make fun game rounds even more fun, but it's a "post-experience" function - an add-on - not part of the core experience. Because we cant guarantee players will use, we need to build in teamplay moments by design. (And yes; we have a long way to go there as well in FH2)

I would welcome suggestions on how to create more teamwork by design, not by rules (i.e. join squad or kick, use Voip or kick etc)

PS; this is a teamwork theory thread, I havent stated exactly how to improve teamwork, Im just stating my opinion on how to relate to it.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: hitm4k3r on 27-07-2011, 14:07:29

I would welcome suggestions on how to create more teamwork by design, not by rules (i.e. join squad or kick, use Voip or kick etc)

PS; this is a teamwork theory thread, I havent stated exactly how to improve teamwork, Im just stating my opinion on how to relate to it.

A simple solition would be to make the commrose more useful. It has been suggested many times before, I think, but it is really the only thing, that is missing in the mod, to my mind.


Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Malsa on 27-07-2011, 15:07:29
An improved communication system is definitely something that could be looked into.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: hitm4k3r on 27-07-2011, 15:07:54
Yes. And it would be nice, when it would be more situational sensitive. In v.BF2 or in PR you can see it directly in the interface, where to go, what to destroy or to attack/defend not only on the map. Sometimes I have my eyes more on the map, than on the battlefield. Or maybe to make it possible to call for smoke support, since this new function is very useful, but isn't used that much at the moment (mortar support). Or give the order to your squadmates to use smoke a certain area with smoke grenades or use normal frag grenades. And very important is the possibility to inform drivers, whether there is someone near, who is requesting transport. This are only a few ideas, but it would help a lot.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: AfterDune on 27-07-2011, 19:07:26
Teamwork by level design does not exist, Natty. The only thing you can do is force players to be in certain areas. That does not imply that players will work together at all.

Teamwork can only exist if players _choose_ to actively work together, to communicate and together work towards the same goals. Going for team objectives, which sometimes means putting aside individual needs. Not by accident, but by means.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: KAIZER SOSA on 27-07-2011, 19:07:53
You know, as a WWII enthusiast/history buff and gamer I think this mod is great but quite honestly after reading this thread I have to say I have lost a great amount of respect for some of it's community.

Shame really...
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 27-07-2011, 21:07:00
Teamwork by level design does not exist, Natty
Yes it does. You fail to realise that the thing you call "force" is just the leveldesign. And it (can) create the incentive to teamwork.
You're still at that point where you hope that players will "choose" to teamwork  ;) you dont know that good design makes them teamwork, thinking that they "chose to" but infact did so because the design told them to.
Have more faith in what a clever map layout can do, and you will see wonders. You of all people who attempt to make an Omaha beach map need to read up abit on this. There are some good presentations and writings about basic leveldesign and how to guide players through levels without making them feel "forced". That is, unless you plan to make a 4x4km open map and hope players will design the experience themselves?
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: AfterDune on 27-07-2011, 23:07:52
What is your definition of teamwork?
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: nvrsummer2 on 28-07-2011, 01:07:40
I try to look for players ive teamed up with before, I think they remember me and things go along nicely. Hard to keep track of, and ive remembered some for wrong reasons.

I try to communicate as much as possible through VOIP, typing and spotting things with Q. It really helps tanks if they know where opossing armor is. Ive been able to flank alot when people call em out. even more important when your anti-tank inf and you need to get on backside of armor...

How to get others to do this though? People gotta want to. It takes more effort to go along with a plan than to just spawn and go off running. I think there could be more articles from the Dev team. Either through site updates or threads in this here forum.

People gotta see that there is an AWESOME benefit to having a couple inf stay with a tank as it goes down a street. The tank will stay alive alot longer! Or also to have reg inf and anti-tank stick together.

My favorite was on 126 player server where we had 12 in squad. Half went up middle and 2+sherman flanked around and caught a jagdpanther. we moved in, took out their inf easily now that we had no opposition to our tank.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LHeureux on 28-07-2011, 09:07:14
Teamwork by level design does not exist, Natty. The only thing you can do is force players to be in certain areas. That does not imply that players will work together at all.

Teamwork can only exist if players _choose_ to actively work together, to communicate and together work towards the same goals. Going for team objectives, which sometimes means putting aside individual needs. Not by accident, but by means.
It does. Here's a comparaison between Hurtgen Forest level design gameplay and Kashan desert average game gameplay. One is a big open map, the other is a map wich was level designed to push the players to go the same way.

On Kashan, the players do what they want, they decide where to build a FOB, where to go, etc, they're free. (US side) :
(http://www.hapoelshack.com/img/maxi/kashandesertplayers.jpg) (http://www.hapoelshack.com/i/kashandesertplayers.jpg/)

Note : They can do anything else, just an exemple. It's what happens in an average round in Kashan while on US side.

Now on Hurtgen Forest, a gameplay designed map, the players have to follow a path, so they are sticking together without "wanting" it :
(http://www.hapoelshack.com/img/maxi/minimapplayers.jpg) (http://www.hapoelshack.com/i/minimapplayers.jpg/)

I hope that explains clearier what Natty means by level designed teamwork.


Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: AfterDune on 28-07-2011, 10:07:47
In that case, they're "sticking together" because they're heading the same way, not because they're working together. If that's the teamwork where Natty is talking about, I can see where he's coming from.

But to me, that's not teamwork at all. To me that's nothing more than a bunch of lonewolves that happen to go in the same direction and fight the same enemy. You can all do that as a lonewolf. Unless of course the players -decide- to really work together, -communicate- about their objectives, tactics and techniques (through text or voip), what kits they're going to use, etc.

Teamwork requires communication. Level design does not provide that. Teamwork is a choice and cannot be forced. But if it can, please enlighten me with examples of teamwork as I describe it, all caused by level design.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: RAnDOOm on 28-07-2011, 11:07:07
Reminds me of this:

(http://gamovr.mx981.com/data/images/2010/11/bitmx.jpg)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Raziel on 28-07-2011, 11:07:21
Lol That's Doom Level 1 ^ Those were the days!
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 28-07-2011, 11:07:55
Here's my 2-cents

A. The commo-rose.
It needs to be an intuitive design i.e. you should have a sense of what the buttons do based on their positions a la, the principle of Recognition over recall. The buttons, essentially need to be mapped correctly with opposite ideas across from each other and directional orders positioned accordingly etc.

I suggest using the combination left-right click buttons, and controls like those suggested earlier in my commo-rose design
(http://s996.photobucket.com/albums/af85/djinn424/?action-view&current=commo_roses.jpg)
http://s996.photobucket.com/albums/af85/djinn424/

Part of the thought that went into that design, btw, but not limited to the NEED for the design itself are:
1. Players need as much covered by the commo-rose without getting overwhelmed - Its delicate balancing work.
2. Options need to be positioned based on regular use and intuition.
3. Commo-rose needs to be case-dependent i.e switched based on what you have in your hand, i.e. a grenade, AND if you are in a vehicle, and WHAT TYPE of vehicle.
4. Voice recording needs to be done, or voice-overs taken to cover the scope it proposes
5. The commo-rose idea needs revision after successes from the more recent changes to the current commo-whatchyoumacallit became inherent.
6. The commo-rose needs to be a rose as it is a more intuitive design that reduces the level of drilling down the player needs to do.
7. It can be implemented in phases, with other options requiring voice-recordings coming online later.

B. Implementing clear distinctions between voice over and Radio over.
This can be done using a field radio static that can be  used by proximity of 10feet and ONLY by scouts, Squad leaders and Commanders. The static sits there, and can be destroyed and needs to respawn (It cannot be repaired). The existence of these is of High-level tactical importance as it allows other aspects of a team to get situational awareness from one squad, as well as the commander get a picture from various squads using this system.

A mobile version could exist as a pickup rifleman kit that is used by anyone, but can ONLY be used by the afore-mentioned groups in said close proximity. This kit...yes... comes with the radio on the back of the person.

Alternatively, SLs could make use of the 'Radio head' by switching to it in their kit loadout. In the same way, you get only the grenade call when grenade is active, you get the Radio-over ONLY when this 'weapon' is selected in your kit.

Everyone else uses voice over, including these units, except under the already mentioned situations. So a SL doesn't cough for it to be heard on the radio. He uses the radio for specific top-level tatical commands ONLY.


With communication done, people of all levels of understanding will be immersed in the existing system and do not need to call tactics that are beyond their individual understanding. To go with this, Mumble can be set up for FH2 using the proximity ONLY schema, so that EVERYONE without exception is only voiced-out by proximity. TO get your voice going team level or squad level, you need to 'USE' the radio kits littered around the battlefield i.e those in your kit, the walkie-talkie in the SL/ Commander kit or tell the guy with the backpack radio to select it and be close to him. For all but the back-pack radio, you then switch between 'Squad' and 'Team', to get your voice being transmitted to the said groups.

These philosophies are based on the fact that, good and correctly scaled immersion provides a platform and incentive for people to coordinate better. Throw cool taunts in, and you get icing on that cake - Immersion.


C. SUPPRESSION implemented for all guns in varying degrees.
Add camera shake in subtle levels based on the calibre of a gun in addition to varying degrees of blurr. we already have that for artillery and tank shells, so apply that downwards for bullets. And you get 'proper' suppressive effect that WILL stop an enemy firing back at you. Combine that with the commo-rose options of flanking tactics... Maybe add first and third person hand signals to boot and you get Brothers in Arms-Style suppression and flanking tactics, except this time, its really suppression, not just a game mechanic for bots, and inaccurate guns.

Also, you get squads of riflemen working  together to suppress enemies, rather than expecting to each get the fatal shot.

D. Commander assets.
The commander can currently drop ammo boxes and call in arty and illumination. Add varying types of artillery dependent on the map and you get more reason to call in commander assets and more reason to be a commander. The commander can have close air support a la Ramelle or the FH1 airplane kit. You have various types of artillery with their varying degrees of accuracy and shell sizes, and you get awesome commander support. Add smoke cover, more illumination for various maps that are dark, add scout planes using the Fh1 system or the Ramelle with radar equivalent, and you get yourself an interesting reason to be a commander or call the commander. Remove MOST of the ammo boxes in maps, and make sure most maps have an ammo truck somewhere, and you get reason to be an ammo truck driver and reason to appreciate the few bazooka men around - AND, tanks become a real threat until you can get ammo or put the few shots you DO have on target.


You CANNOT force team-play or EVEN create it, contrary to what certain games/ mods may believe. But you CAN give the players the tools that make it an easy-to-do and well-rewarded alternative. Death is pointless and quick in FH2 to solo-players. But there is still NOT enough benefit in playing as a team for those lone-wolfs to give up their current MO. Just heap on the benefits and tools that make it easier to do, and Lone-wolfing will be a thing of the past, unless for snipers and downed-airmen.


Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: NTH on 28-07-2011, 11:07:57
In that case, they're "sticking together" because they're heading the same way, not because they're working together. If that's the teamwork where Natty is talking about, I can see where he's coming from.

But to me, that's not teamwork at all. To me that's nothing more than a bunch of lonewolves that happen to go in the same direction and fight the same enemy. You can all do that as a lonewolf. Unless of course the players -decide- to really work together, -communicate- about their objectives, tactics and techniques (through text or voip), what kits they're going to use, etc.

Teamwork requires communication. Level design does not provide that. Teamwork is a choice and cannot be forced. But if it can, please enlighten me with examples of teamwork as I describe it, all caused by level design.

To stick with the Hurtgen example. And perhaps to Clarify what Natty means with the incentive to teamwork.
On Hurtgen you will see squads call out to each which flags they are going to take or defend. There will be lots of request for artillery to harass the enemy.  You could easily replace this with Purple Heart Lane. There is always a squad saying I take or defend left/right flank. Just check the layout of the map and you will see it forces you to choose between go left, middle or right. Both map have a (semi)push mode.

The means to do this is communication, be it with VIOP or Chat. But the incentive to do this is the map layout. It forces you do this otherwise you don't stand a chance in hell. On a map like Tunis or Safakia I just go all rambo and forget about the teamwork, because it's almost not needed to communicate.

I hope this clarifies something about teamplay enforced map design.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 28-07-2011, 12:07:03
Natty is on point with that. Moving the same way DOES bring about some teamwork. It brings more guns to bear, and it overwhelms the enemy. Also, the guy who is about to shoot you gets shot by one of the many people alongside you. What do you think a bayonet charge is all about?
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: DLFReporter on 28-07-2011, 12:07:31
Lol That's Doom Level 1 ^ Those were the days!

The second I glanced at it, I recognized it as well. Awesome map.   ;D

@Topic:
I believe NTH has summarized Natty's idea quite well.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: SiCaRiO on 28-07-2011, 13:07:29
thats not level 1 from doom, i think is one of the last levels from the first chapter, dont remember the name trough

EDIT: its E1m6, "central processing" :]
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 28-07-2011, 13:07:38
They don't "happen" to run in the same direction. They do so because the map is designed that way, and that, leads to them working together to achieve the objective.

Definition of teamwork = players cooperating in efforts to reach the objective (to solve the map).

Now, if you want to head deeper in to this discussion, we could switch to what actually is a much much more important issue with FH2; the objectives. The goal with the map. Now on maps where there aren't any clear goals, no clear objectives, you won't see the same type (or any) of teamwork, simply because there is no point in really teamworking, since there is no clear objective to clear. Players just kind of aimlessly cruise around killing eachother until one teams timer (tickets) is up.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LuckyOne on 28-07-2011, 14:07:18
They don't "happen" to run in the same direction. They do so because the map is designed that way, and that, leads to them working together to achieve the objective.

Definition of teamwork = players cooperating in efforts to reach the objective (to solve the map).

Now, if you want to head deeper in to this discussion, we could switch to what actually is a much much more important issue with FH2; the objectives. The goal with the map. Now on maps where there aren't any clear goals, no clear objectives, you won't see the same type (or any) of teamwork, simply because there is no point in really teamworking, since there is no clear objective to clear. Players just kind of aimlessly cruise around killing eachother until one teams timer (tickets) is up.

Exactly, and that's why we need the changes djinn proposed (well at least some of them). If you could get the commander to coordinate the battle and "create" those objectives you would not need to make levels that feel like playing a corridor shooter... But the players need to change their mindsets too, and stop going for k/d ratio, focus on taking the objectives and winning the round instead... Sadly the new awards system is not helping this...
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 28-07-2011, 14:07:35
They don't "happen" to run in the same direction. They do so because the map is designed that way, and that, leads to them working together to achieve the objective.

Definition of teamwork = players cooperating in efforts to reach the objective (to solve the map).

Now, if you want to head deeper in to this discussion, we could switch to what actually is a much much more important issue with FH2; the objectives. The goal with the map. Now on maps where there aren't any clear goals, no clear objectives, you won't see the same type (or any) of teamwork, simply because there is no point in really teamworking, since there is no clear objective to clear. Players just kind of aimlessly cruise around killing eachother until one teams timer (tickets) is up.

Exactly, and that's why we need the changes djinn proposed (well at least some of them). If you could get the commander to coordinate the battle and "create" those objectives you would not need to make levels that feel like playing a corridor shooter... But the players need to change their mindsets too, and stop going for k/d ratio, focus on taking the objectives and winning the round instead... Sadly the new awards system is not helping this...

FH2 has only one or two maps I can think of that come across as 'corridor'.. i. e Brest, Hurtgen and Tunis. Otherwise... I don't see that aspect generally. And the scarcity of this type of map makes each a welcome addition imo.

Anyone figure out how to make a perfectly CQB map anything more than this, I am all ears.

@TheLuckyOne
Which of my ideas don't 'work' for you, and which do

OT, You don't happen to be formerly called Leagion, do you, LuckyOne?
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 28-07-2011, 14:07:53
wait a minute.. would removing ammoboxes just to force some dude to take a truck and drive it somewhere be classified as "teamwork"?To me that's just creating arbitrary chores as some layer on top of what the game actually is about.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 28-07-2011, 15:07:25
wait a minute.. would removing ammoboxes just to force some dude to take a truck and drive it somewhere be classified as "teamwork"?To me that's just creating arbitrary chores as some layer on top of what the game actually is about.

You don't remove ALL ammo boxes. But you do make them more scarce, so that they matter. Currently, people don't suffer ammo loss at all. You can spam grenades because the box is at every single base. the truck guy will simply be a relief to people who no longer have AT devices, grenades, medical equipment and stuff... I'd add, put a medical kit at more bases to make the bandages matter too.

 And the ammo-truck driver will be playing for the benefit of others. Its not like he will just be driving the whole round, but his having moved the truck to an area at all will require one of three things,
1. Luck
2. He knows they lack
3. It was called for.

Besides no. 1, that all screams of teamplay imo. Being more conscientious of the team's need. Now imagine, he knows there is an active tank there somewhere, and needs to drive it round back to avoid detection, and has to call for sit rep on the tank to avoid it, that's a new level altogether.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LuckyOne on 28-07-2011, 15:07:14

@TheLuckyOne
Which of my ideas don't 'work' for you, and which do

OT, You don't happen to be formerly called Leagion, do you, LuckyOne?

Basically I like all of them, but I don't think the devs have the time or resources to implement  them all...  And yes corridor maps are scarce now, but will the devs make more of them looking for "teamwork" instead going the other way... ?

OT, No you got me confused with someone else there...
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Gezoes on 28-07-2011, 17:07:47
Making it harder to play a certain role or channelling a route in a level is not the same as encouraging teamplay. It only looks like that. Some people will always play like they want, not giving a crap about the team. If the stupidity becomes too much, I lone wolf too. But always helping the team, and I look a lot at the tactical map. Push mode and objectives are the best ways to encourage teamplay imho.

More medic kits? They are never used as it is. I like being a medic, but with only a handgun, realistic or not, I will never use it. Besides, before you can lay down a bandage, players will have used their own.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 28-07-2011, 17:07:41
You don't remove ALL ammo boxes. But you do make them more scarce, so that they matter. Currently, people don't suffer ammo loss at all. You can spam grenades because the box is at every single base. the truck guy will simply be a relief to people who no longer have AT devices, grenades, medical equipment and stuff... I'd add, put a medical kit at more bases to make the bandages matter too.

 And the ammo-truck driver will be playing for the benefit of others. Its not like he will just be driving the whole round, but his having moved the truck to an area at all will require one of three things,
1. Luck
2. He knows they lack
3. It was called for.

Besides no. 1, that all screams of teamplay imo. Being more conscientious of the team's need. Now imagine, he knows there is an active tank there somewhere, and needs to drive it round back to avoid detection, and has to call for sit rep on the tank to avoid it, that's a new level altogether.
But if you're out of ammo, it's much quicker to suicide and get new ammo from the new kit than to wait for some dude with a truck who might or might not appear sometime in the near future, maybe or maybe not where you need him, or where you will be at that time.
No, there isnt ammoboxes at every single flag. Far far from it.
The scenario where the truck driver "calls for a sit-rep" from his team mate to be able to "drive the truck round back", on what map could you ever expect this to happen? because Im having problems seeing this occur more than on a very extreme occasion... it's just not how people play this mod.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 28-07-2011, 18:07:31
You don't remove ALL ammo boxes. But you do make them more scarce, so that they matter. Currently, people don't suffer ammo loss at all. You can spam grenades because the box is at every single base. the truck guy will simply be a relief to people who no longer have AT devices, grenades, medical equipment and stuff... I'd add, put a medical kit at more bases to make the bandages matter too.

 And the ammo-truck driver will be playing for the benefit of others. Its not like he will just be driving the whole round, but his having moved the truck to an area at all will require one of three things,
1. Luck
2. He knows they lack
3. It was called for.

Besides no. 1, that all screams of teamplay imo. Being more conscientious of the team's need. Now imagine, he knows there is an active tank there somewhere, and needs to drive it round back to avoid detection, and has to call for sit rep on the tank to avoid it, that's a new level altogether.
But if you're out of ammo, it's much quicker to suicide and get new ammo from the new kit than to wait for some dude with a truck who might or might not appear sometime in the near future, maybe or maybe not where you need him, or where you will be at that time.
No, there isnt ammoboxes at every single flag. Far far from it.
The scenario where the truck driver "calls for a sit-rep" from his team mate to be able to "drive the truck round back", on what map could you ever expect this to happen? because Im having problems seeing this occur more than on a very extreme occasion... it's just not how people play this mod.

Well, with the current architecture, it isn't.

We don't have those radios that allow the Squad leader to speak to the driver (team). We don't have the degree of limited kits I envisage. And we don't have hefty enough a penalty for suicide to deter that kind of tactic/ exploit.

Currently, if you sit in a tank, by the time you can  type out to your tank commander or team tanks that there are enemy to their flank, the would be burning piles of scrap metal... With the commo-rose I suggest, this will be a simple 'enemy infront', 'enemy right of us' etc...

Its the effect of the entire system in place. Tanks aren't feared, because they are going up against enemy with zooks that have 3 rounds, each of which can 1-shot kill them if aimed right, and reload about 5 times faster than they can with maingun, and can be concealed in a 6foot by 2 foot area anywhere, maneouvers alot faster than the tank can...

The odds are still stacked against the tanker.

I do beg to differ about the teamplay you say doesn't exist often. Every time I play FH2, it takes simple use of the text-chat to get people in line. I have called mass charges of alll tanks on 128 server, and infantry charges on many serves from HSLAN to that server that wont go official-ranking on us, and EACH time I get people to follow orders. I have had a complex attack occur each time I called for it. I got smoke barrage to fire across the enemy line, with creeping barrage on their position, and got infantry and armor to move in enmasse. people WANT to play as a team - Especially on maps like El Alamein where it drags on because of the lack thereof.
Why have I been so succesful? Because, players aren't stupid. They JUST need the tools to allow them to play for tactically than they currently do. Without these, only a small percentage like myself will go out of our way to.

With it, WWII tactics will become an everyday occurrence.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Zoologic on 28-07-2011, 20:07:08
Well, it is still pretty much what it is right now, because one guy still believe that he can grand-scheme it all.

"Ha! That noob is trying to go to the open field through the barn, stupid idea! I put a dead cow in the opening so he can't pass through!"

"Now look at that one, he think he can enter that building somewhere, now he is trapped hahahaha!"

"Right there, people are predictable, he exactly drove on the paths that lead to the flag despite the clear area!"

"Finally, a guy fords through the shallow waters I placed just there!"

When this kind of guy enters the game, players expect more from him, like knowing every exploit (or vantage points) of the map he designed and claims to know so well. Give them some freedom, but let's direct them, to where they can be free.

The worst thing is:

"Now you teamwork here, but you don't teamwork there!"


PR approach however, is more like, let's create a map from the real one, then place some flags on several vantage points. Perhaps Muttrah is the example. This is more like true freedom, chaotic, unpredictable, yet can be fun most of the times.

"Hey I don't know that we can enter this building! But what for?"

"Gosh that house over there, if only we can enter it, this firefight would have been more interesting!"

"Can we access the roof of this building?"

Despite the freedoms, they also put some enforcement to restrict/direct player behavior. PR used game mechanics to force the teamwork, while FH claims that it came from the map design. Well, mostly.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: NTH on 28-07-2011, 22:07:19
Which game mechanics Zoo?
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LHeureux on 29-07-2011, 09:07:11
Which game mechanics Zoo?
"YOU MUST JOIN A SQUAD"

"You must have at least 4 players in the squad to request that kit" (so join another squad and wait 2 minutes to have it or ask people to join your squad)

"You must have a driver to operate the main gun"

Many other exemples.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Lydecker on 29-07-2011, 10:07:15
FH2 has tons of teamwork and it's forced to players in a way that is FUN. It is designed and players these days do have the idea of working together. 6 years of BF2 and other games empathizing teamplay more and more have changed a lot of people from "me,me,me" to "we,we,we." Sure, we're all individuals and we all still go full out lonewolf with a kit, tank or even a jeep, but the basics of working together are, IMO, well inserted in everyone's playstyle.

I don't need VOIP, teamchat nor other comms to know exactly whats going on with the team. Maybe that's just me, but it's pretty clear on the map how things are going, where people are going to attack next and what troubles may lay ahead. Maybe it's formed in my head clearly like this because I've played the role of pilot for so long and reading players intentions from the map is a second nature to me.

In tactical situations, clearing a town with house-to-house fighting, VOIP can be a valuable asset. Other than that, I usually just find it annoying, hindering the experience of WW2 battlefield. A Mumble support with voice alternating technique could make it much more interesting for me. Sorry, but your voices are not sexy :D

//Lyd
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: NTH on 29-07-2011, 10:07:42
Which game mechanics Zoo?
"YOU MUST JOIN A SQUAD" --> Server rule.

"You must have at least 4 players in the squad to request that kit" (so join another squad and wait 2 minutes to have it or ask people to join your squad) --> Is this really teamwork or just 6 people that need to join a squad

"You must have a driver to operate the main gun" -> Yeah here you could have some teamwork between the driver and the gunner. A bit like between a spotter and Artillery, the Willy calliope and the Stuka Zu Fuss.

Many other exemples.

See comments in red. I think PR has it's merits in the way you play the game and I think FH2 has found a very nice balance between player freedom, historical accuracy, teamwork and fun.
The way FH2 does it is in the map design and the assets you get in the map. Mind you need all maps were made like that. Some of them are good old conquest maps.
I wouldn't mind seeing old maps changed with clear objectives (semi-push, full assault)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 29-07-2011, 11:07:34
I think the last comments pretty much resonate with my feeling.

And I totally disagree with you, Zoo. PR forces people to team-play in even less subtle ways. You get in a tank with the wrong kit, YOU DIE! You need to come from all the way back, if your SL doesn't request to have a forward spawn point. You get into a tank, you basically have a super expensive truck unless you find someone else IN YOUR SQUAD to shoot - And he does so, relying completely on you to drive correctly. Need I say more?

Putting dead cows in the barn at Eppeldorf, etc is quaint at best, but not intrusive imo. Its subtle.


I think FH2 is genius in its attempt to balance total free-way and fun with realism and teamplay. That's a juggling act. I can even understand why Natty will be skeptical about any extra work to tweak teamplay - Its tough making a well-done system even better without breaking the whole damn thing.

That to me, is what makes 2.4 very special, and I take my hat especially off to Kev and Natty for that... But to the whole dev team as a whole.

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/M/A/arnold_shutup.jpg)
Teamplay DOES exists in FH2!!

Now, what I WOULD like to say is it being developed into the game mechanics. In Monopoly, a player knows he needs to pass GO to get $200 or pounds. Its just the way it is.
In the same way, video games need to have rules, or affordances that are geared towards specific goals.

A more robust commo-rose, properly enforces voice vs radio overs with tools to allow it (and an effect of WWII strategy, like being cut off/ able to communicate with the rest of your force), a more interesting reason to play commander and have a real effect on strategy, suppressive effect coupled with a commo-rose that allows real WWII suppression-flanking tactics. THESE ARE WHAT WILL MOVE IT from THIS STABLE State to, what I am sure, WILL be the next stable state.

In the distant past of 2007, many game mechanics were introduced... many didn't get traction and were either abondoned, left to rot or simply left dormant.

.The medic.
.Bleeding.
.The ammo-truck
.Voice-radio over dichotomy...
.The Tanker kit
.the commander asset
.Attempts to improve the commo-rose
.Suppression effect
.The single animation on call for a spot (when binocs are equipped)

And others that could be implemented
.Internal repairs of vehicles - to go with the tanker kit
.Reduced number of ammo-boxes, and readily available medic kits.
.Life cycle of the destroyed vehicle
.Hand gestures (to go with key communication and to allow immersion and non-verbal communication)
.Use of mumble (To enforce voice overs range)
.The static, pickup radio pack and the commander/ squad leader walkie-talkie.



I think its time these came to maturity. Its the next logical step in teamplay





Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 29-07-2011, 11:07:32
I didnt understand anything frpm ZPs post... dead cows, what?
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 29-07-2011, 12:07:20
I didnt understand anything frpm ZPs post... dead cows, what?

His argument, and Zoo, please jump right in if I misrepresent it, is that FH2 uses little tricks to enforce the tunnel shooter i.e dead cows in doorways (I know of Eppeldorf), etc to make sure you are doing one of the many things the designers planned for, and so gameplay is restricted to that.

In PR, according to zM, the map is more true to sandbox. You can enter most buildings, even if it isn't directly overlooking the flag etc i.e obviously tactically important etc - So, it allows more freeway in determining teamplay - And yet, can STILL boast of being team-play driven.

Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Zoologic on 29-07-2011, 15:07:23
Yes djinn, that is very correct.

For themed-maps like Alam Halfa and Fall of Tobruk, this thing can be either briliant or sucked in many cases.

For example, in Alam Halfa, you have a very small gap between the minefields for the panzer to pass through from their mainbase to first line of British defenses.

In many towns, like Brest, or Goodwood's Cagny you have a lot of houses which can entraps you. The building might be entered, but that's all. It is beautiful (the static models, the textures), but it is annoying at the same time. PR has a lot of random enterable buildings, which makes it resource-hogging, sometimes it is too random to the point of being pointless



NTH:

PR has several game mechanics that enforce us to do realistic things and teamwork. I am very okay if they are for real or not implemented in game like a rushed job.

An example of cool way to enforce it:
This is rare, GTLD is included in a few kits, most of which are requested kits. You need this device to use smart bombs and missiles. No planes in PR carry its own targeting/lasing pod. But for teamwork purposes, this is awesome, especially if you are the target designator on the ground.

An example of poor way to enforce it:
Special kits for special vehicles, lest you blacked out and die. Are we going to die if we didn't switch our AK-47 to some SMG when driving a BRDM-2? I know it is funny if someone in a gheelie suit drive an armoured scout car, but they don't just die and surely have some skill to drive at least. Now, we have this feature, which forces us to enter the vehicle from the correct position (hatch door), why stop there?
Available solution from FH2:
How about some extra animation that FH2 did to prevent dolphin diving? I mean like animation of soldiers getting out from the car (opening doors/hatch, turning off engines, hey even Far Cry 2 has this!). Think that "Oh man, I don't have the key... engine cannot be turned on, and he dies from...whatever reason"
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: NTH on 29-07-2011, 16:07:13
You know Zoo it sure it's cool to point a laser designator and the seconds after that have jets come blow shit up. It really is.
In the end, now I'm going to sound like Natty and the creeps me out  ;), it's all meta data. Replace laser designator with binoculars and jets with artillery and you have the same kind of teamwork in FH2 we are discussing right now.

The thing that makes PR's teamwork good is the strict adherence to the rules with regard to using VIOP, stick to the squadleaders and listen to the chain of command. All the other stuff is cool but not essential to teamwork.

FH2 teamwork derives mostly from the map design and the fact that most of the players can dream by now what needs to be done on any given map.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 29-07-2011, 17:07:14
I would NEVER want strict adherence to teamplay to EVER be introduced. NEVER, never... NEIN!

FH2 is NOT that kind of game, Even if PR is. So that's as far as comparisons between both games should go. Same engine, that's it.

Fh2 has come a long way from the lone-wolf snipers in the bush it used to be, to squads being far apart doing their own thing and becoming squads of snipers in the bush, to entire teams moving in the open, fanning out....

I think we need to give credit for this. the changes have been subtle, but the difference between FH2 in 2007 an FH2 in 2011 is vast.

And tbh, the flexibility of play actually affords more tactical play than restrictive system ever could. I personally, and please don't argue this, its an opionion, but i don't think PR's teamplay system actually makes it play like modern warfare... But Fh2's lack of one DOES make it play a tad like WWII, imo.

The improvements I SEE, are optional... Simply things that allow people to do what they currently do better - NOT to restrict them to 'do it right'
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LHeureux on 30-07-2011, 06:07:03
Not enough things blow up in PR, that's the major downside. In a war with 2 big faction like Russia and U.S.A there would be WAY more explosions and stuff happening, if you played WiC you know what I'm talking about. I think PR needs more commander abilities, like "Arty" some normal barrage and other things like "A-10 strafe", etc. If PR goes this way I would simply love it. Make the vehicles spawn faster, more tickets, make the infantry spawn faster and closer to the battle. That would make it awesome and more modern warfare-ish.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: KAIZER SOSA on 30-07-2011, 07:07:47
Wow... so this has become an underlying PR versus FH2 thread? Amazing... and pointless now.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LHeureux on 30-07-2011, 09:07:12
Of course, my first message on the thread (OP) was about a reply on a FH2 thread in the PR forums.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: KAIZER SOSA on 30-07-2011, 09:07:00
Of course, my first message on the thread (OP) was about a reply on a FH2 thread in the PR forums.

Uh... yeah, about the theory of teamwork not which mod is better than the other.

Like I said, a good portion of this thread is pointless ad hominem with strong underlying themes about mod y being better than mod x.

But hey, whatever... continue at your leisure.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 30-07-2011, 09:07:53
OK, can we move back to FH2 only... Say what CAN be done... Not how some other mod does it...

Just talk about the game mechanics employed, DON'T mention where you got em...


Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LHeureux on 30-07-2011, 09:07:26
It was not a "versus", we were comparing between the both mod's teamplay style. We never said "x is better than x".
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 30-07-2011, 11:07:05
It was not a "versus", we were comparing between the both mod's teamplay style. We never said "x is better than x".

Ya... But it ends up being just that - Otherwise Kaizer Sosa and myself wouldn't have said so.

So like I said, if we ARE going to state gameplay... things that help teamplay, just say what, don't include where from. Describe it. it should be clear enough to stand by itself, and allows people to judge it unbiased.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 30-07-2011, 14:07:18
I think if your trying to pinpoint how PR has an advantage in team-play it comes first and foremost from its server rules, than from its design. Sure there are plenty of things about Project Reality that constitute the need for team-play, such as vehicles crewed by two or more men, however the vast majority of teamwork is created by strict server rules which enforce the idea.

It is a rule on almost every server that players must join a squad. It is a rule on almost every server that squad names must be made in cooperation with the role of the squad. It is a rule on almost every server that the wasting of assets (such as bombing a flag) is unacceptable, and there are many other examples.

The golden thing about these rules, coupled with Project Reality's very carefully designed system is that it has weeded out those people who would rather not play in a team based fashion. It is to the point now, where if a BF2 player who has no particular interest in working together with his squad, joins one, that the veteran community of PR will shun him, and force him from the game.

While I'm not for this level of extremism, server enforcement is a big deal when it comes to facilitating the need for teamwork, just as important as map or core design.

I will still stand here and advocate that players need to have the teamwork mindset drilled into their head by a constant flood of graphics, trailers, and news posts that emphasize the roles of teamwork. That make the links between multiple pieces of equipment, and give the examples of how they should be used together. Website posters, in-game posters (That break the immersion but reinforce the game), videos that emphasize it, there needs to be a mass "propaganda" movement to inspire the teamwork legion. It needs to be seen inside the news updates, on the website, in the forums, in-game, on the loading screens, in the menu background, in trailers, on signatures, avatars, and many other places. Many players suffer from one great moral crutch: ignorance. If players can be educated about the need for teamwork, if it is drilled into their mind, there is all the more reason for them to go into the game with that mindset.

Some Examples might be:

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j242/Archimonde0_0/WeSink.jpg?t=1312028087)


(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j242/Archimonde0_0/SpotForArillery.jpg?t=1312028087)


(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j242/Archimonde0_0/MoreThanScore.jpg?t=1312028088)


(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j242/Archimonde0_0/FlagsRiseFaster.jpg?t=1312028090)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LuckyOne on 30-07-2011, 15:07:12
^ I like those! Now we just need to put them on some walls in game to make people remember them... I know it's not historically accurate, but then again neither Ramelle or Meuse is...
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 30-07-2011, 19:07:06
Same idea, unfinished.

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j242/Archimonde0_0/squads.jpg?t=1312048651)

(http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j242/Archimonde0_0/joinasquad.jpg?t=1312051023)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 30-07-2011, 20:07:33
These are great, Archi.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: hitm4k3r on 30-07-2011, 21:07:58
I have to say, these banners are very nice. They remind me of a discussion in another forum, that games are loosing their value by killing the teamplay by ranking systems. Don't get me wrong, I support the ranking system of FH2 , but it is one of the minor values IMO.

We have to spread the word about this. :D
 
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 30-07-2011, 21:07:04
I already proposed to add these kinds of posters ingame, I made one as well, and planned to put it on PHL and never got around to it

I also like them :) except the ones telling people to ignore our awards, that would never be added. We want people to like our awards, it would be nice if the poster told players that with teamwork, your awards will "matter more" or something ("feel that you deserve these" instead of "ignore these")  ;)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Malsa on 30-07-2011, 22:07:48
I think these are cool too, but what would they look like for the germans, italians, or brits?  :)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Ciupita on 04-08-2011, 17:08:06
(http://i1022.photobucket.com/albums/af343/Ciupita/stalin.jpg)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 04-08-2011, 19:08:23
*hilarious Stalin picture*
LMAO! Great!
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: kettcar on 04-08-2011, 19:08:58
nice posters to place in the bases on the blackboards  ;D
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Zoologic on 05-08-2011, 07:08:44
I am all for that idea. Nice posters, Archi!

NTH:
Yeah, to finally think of it, it is hard to find any game mechanism that is present to "enforce" teamwork. I got to agree with Archi, it is the strict server-side rules.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Raziel on 05-08-2011, 09:08:12
Really like the posters! Goodjob Archi!
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 05-08-2011, 09:08:34
I am all for that idea. Nice posters, Archi!

NTH:
Yeah, to finally think of it, it is hard to find any game mechanism that is present to "enforce" teamwork. I got to agree with Archi, it is the strict server-side rules.

Strict server side rules for me, are mostly arbitrary. Now I totally get the Kick-vote, and I get an admin kicking someone who is reported and notes for themselves the same thing, but basecamping for instance, swearing, etc... accidentally TKing alot of people...


I'd rather let these be part of the risk of play. And personally, I think they wont have as much of an impact in gameplay. If anything, it will open the door for more flexible strategy.

I mean, if a map doesn't have ABC lines, I dont think there is much that stops an enemy tank marching into friendly zone. That's why they have all those AT, AA guns and pickup kits no... Otherwise, that's a waste of vehicles.

And swearing... A strong order doesn't carry well unless it goes with a good 'god-dammit!' or 'f**in...' or another such explitif.


For me, I said it, there is NOTHING that you SHOULD do to ENFORCE teamplay. That concept is flawed. ENFORCING teamplay is almost as bad as saying enforcing enjoyment or enforcing free-will. TEAMPLAY can ONLY be made easier, provision made to make it the most sound choice...

That's why I stand by my pillars.. Try them and see:
1. Gun-to-gun suppressive effect and suppressed-effect for those under large volumes of fire... Just look at what happens when a shell hits close, concussion, shake... now scale that for each bullet, round or shell.

2. The Arnold Schwartznegger of Commo-rose with voice recorded for each option + hand motion for some + taunt.. Will work on this this weekend - at least the updated design.

3. 2-speeds on tanks

4. eye-level spotter cam.

5. commander extended assets, air, different types of arty ... basically, World in Conflict shit.

But I totally agree... those posters around the town, in their appropriote locations will definitely be a subliminal way to help things too - brand the game as sheer genius in its use of current propaganda to give better immersion than the current posters that players aren't influenced by, historic as they may be.

Will also work on my Tactical manual this weekend. I think when its done - and done right, patrons will realize that, they can become much more efficient teamplayers, speak the part and act the part...
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 05-08-2011, 11:08:49
dear Djinn :) your suppression-commrose-2speedTanks-spottercam-commander teamplay agenda is starting to become like a Mantra :)

how would suppression make people teamplay more?
how would an eye-level artycam make people teamplay more?
how is 2-speed tanks making people teamplay more? (plz dont say "slow-moving tanks with infantry marching beside it" I was in a round of Vossenack where I was a Panther, supporting infantry, we did an awesome job without me having to roll slowly, tapping the forward key works just as fine)

CommRose is obviously a teamwork/communication tool, nothing to add there, ours is not great and bf42 voice commands is not working with BF2 very well + isnt the most important things you want to communicate in FH2

Commander: well, as long as the arguments circulate around wish-list features for the commander, it isnt so useful. I agree he could - maybe - help teamplay, but I think it is more important to make him useful, I.E, give him tools that can make him help his team win the battle, not just tools that will make them hug eachother more.


Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 05-08-2011, 12:08:13

how would suppression make people teamplay more?
how would an eye-level artycam make people teamplay more?


Suppression brings to light the fact that in warfare, the side which puts more rounds down range wins the firefight. No matter what war you look at, thousands of rounds of ammunition are expended just to kill a single man. Suppression, helps reenact that mortal fear of being killed, it does not make players scared do not take my words literally, but it does give them a visual hindrance which would make them get to cover to avoid it. You ask how this would make people work together more. Suppression would give people reasons to stick together, because it would give people reason to utilize the power of having groups instead of single soldiers to suppress targets. As long as people are educated about the usefulness of suppression, and the various tactics they can employ to use it properly, they will work in larger groups to use it more effectively.

I'm not too sure about the eye level artillery camera, but it is much closer to the old Battlefield 1942 artillery spotting, which in my opinion was far superior than these satellite spots. In a way the eye-level camera would give need for the spotter and gunner to communicate more readily, maybe even forcing the need for people to purchase headsets, as the spotter and gunner attempt to adjust the fall of the rounds onto the target.

On his last point, I'm not going to say that tanks should have multiple speeds, in-fact the new tank system works quite well. I however am still an advocate of multiple team members to drive the vehicle, primarily a Gunner/Commander, and a Driver. Not only does the inclusion of a second man in the tank increase that tanks situational awareness, because you have two sets of intelligent eyes scanning for enemies, but the need for the Driver and Commander to communicate instantly creates teamwork. It would also stop those who are less capable with vehicles from driving off alone, because they would therefore render that vehicle useless and the team would scorn them for it in an instant. I know that the retort to this paragraph will be along the lines of "we want to reenact the large scale tank battles of World War 2" and while I don't disagree with that idea, I think that those large scale tank battles should be reserved for custom designed maps, where tanking is near required. In all other cases, the number of tanks should be directly proportional to however many are needed to properly support the infantry, which are doing the hard work of taking flags and fighting the hard fight. Tanks should be a support weapon, not an all out offensive game changer.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LuckyOne on 05-08-2011, 13:08:52

Suppression brings to light the fact that in warfare, the side which puts more rounds down range wins the firefight. No matter what war you look at, thousands of rounds of ammunition are expended just to kill a single man. Suppression, helps reenact that mortal fear of being killed, it does not make players scared do not take my words literally, but it does give them a visual hindrance which would make them get to cover to avoid it. You ask how this would make people work together more. Suppression would give people reasons to stick together, because it would give people reason to utilize the power of having groups instead of single soldiers to suppress targets. As long as people are educated about the usefulness of suppression, and the various tactics they can employ to use it properly, they will work in larger groups to use it more effectively.

This I can totally agree with.

I'm not too sure about the eye level artillery camera, but it is much closer to the old Battlefield 1942 artillery spotting, which in my opinion was far superior than these satellite spots. In a way the eye-level camera would give need for the spotter and gunner to communicate more readily, maybe even forcing the need for people to purchase headsets, as the spotter and gunner attempt to adjust the fall of the rounds onto the target.

This could be nicer but I'm afraid that it will just make arty less useful and lead to "elitists" sitting on the arty with no chance for an average Joe to get to try it. (Like that's not already happening)

On his last point, I'm not going to say that tanks should have multiple speeds, in-fact the new tank system works quite well.

Yes tanks should have multiple speeds to make people able to support infantry EASIER. They got that right even in Men of War...

I however am still an advocate of multiple team members to drive the vehicle, primarily a Gunner/Commander, and a Driver. Not only does the inclusion of a second man in the tank increase that tanks situational awareness, because you have two sets of intelligent eyes scanning for enemies, but the need for the Driver and Commander to communicate instantly creates teamwork. It would also stop those who are less capable with vehicles from driving off alone, because they would therefore render that vehicle useless and the team would scorn them for it in an instant. I know that the retort to this paragraph will be along the lines of "we want to reenact the large scale tank battles of World War 2" and while I don't disagree with that idea, I think that those large scale tank battles should be reserved for custom designed maps, where tanking is near required. In all other cases, the number of tanks should be directly proportional to however many are needed to properly support the infantry, which are doing the hard work of taking flags and fighting the hard fight. Tanks should be a support weapon, not an all out offensive game changer.

No matter how much interesting this sounds I can't agree with driver + gunner tanks... If we had an AI crew (like in RO 2) for those who just don't feel like talking and/or a decent comm-rose I might consider supporting it.  And I'm afraid this would have to go with the development of 128 player servers because some maps will feel really empty if this is introduced. (Cobra, for example already feels quite empty sometimes.) We must not forget that IRL tank crews are well trained and coordinated and I believe 1 person tanks simulate that really nice.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: RAnDOOm on 05-08-2011, 13:08:22

how would suppression make people teamplay more?
how would an eye-level artycam make people teamplay more?


Suppression brings to light the fact that in warfare, the side which puts more rounds down range wins the firefight. No matter what war you look at, thousands of rounds of ammunition are expended just to kill a single man. Suppression, helps reenact that mortal fear of being killed, it does not make players scared do not take my words literally, but it does give them a visual hindrance which would make them get to cover to avoid it. You ask how this would make people work together more. Suppression would give people reasons to stick together, because it would give people reason to utilize the power of having groups instead of single soldiers to suppress targets. As long as people are educated about the usefulness of suppression, and the various tactics they can employ to use it properly, they will work in larger groups to use it more effectively.


Very good explanation on the suppression. I tottaly agree with you.

Its one of the main things that i dislike about FH2. The lack of a higher suppression effect.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 05-08-2011, 13:08:11
Suppression makes people team-play more because... well, frankly, its a bit disturbing that I even HAVE to explain this to you, Natty... as a dev and all. Its quite obvious.

A group stumble across another group and start firing. the more coordinated manage to put enough fire on the other, and the OTHER, gets suppressed i.e, blurry vision with each passing round, camera shake etc. they fire back blindly or take cover and can't return fire - Too scared and disoriented to flee or fire back. The ones firing, then get a section to flank them and finish them off. if that group was made solely out of riflemen, then that's teamplay right there, since a few riflemen will NOT be able to suppress an enemy sufficiently, but at least 3 of them will - and that needs a coordinated goal ie. all three firing close to the enemy.

For 2-speeds, it causes teamplay, because, while you can doube-tap now, it is not ideal. Its like saying that the old way of coordinating in tanks in rl worked, so why change it. Or saying, we could coordinate with flags and flame, so why invent radio communication in rl..... It makes it easier to do and therefore increases the number of people doing it. It doesn't FORCE anyone to Teamplay, but it does give more reason to. And it gives the player the flexibility of tactics to use. Tanks can coordinate with tanks better moving at the same speed, without each and everyone having to double-tap... what are the odds of that happening. Or tanks coordinating with infantry, same thing.

If people have learned to double-tap when that was not initially planned for, then imagine what new tactics they'd employ if they had 2-speeds. People WANT to teamplay. just give them the tools, and they would... and more.



For the commo-rose, well, currently, the most commonly used options are 'take cover', 'charge!', 'arty ready for barrage', and 'cover me', besides the various vehicle-spotted calls. If the commo-rose was designed to be more intuitive with comm-options otherwise performed by VOIP or text i.e. things like 'enemy left/ righ/ infront/ behind', 'Sorry', 'thank you', 'grenade!', 'smoke! smoke' etc... if becomes ALOT easier to communicate all around without having to use the... currently, less convenient VOIP or text options. And for those who wouldn't, it at least gives them the variety.

How does the horizontal spotter view help team-play? Also a bit obvious if given a bit of thought. You see the target as the spotter does. Not live or anything, but you get a sense of where it is, and exactly the perspective the spotter has. Statistically, it allows for moving targets to remain in view longer, especially if they are coming at the spotter or moving away, while remaining realistically hard to hit, so that the arty gunner doesn't benefit unfairly from the perpetuity of the spot.

For teamplay, the spotter can now understand the situation and judge accordingly, given spotters a sense that spotters GET their call for arty better. They are less likely to hit friendlies, since friendlies running into view from the side will give the gunner just as much time as the current view, while friendlies running in from the 3rd wall, or from far away will let the arty gunner advise himself before firing. The Big key word here is, it gives the gunner PERSPECTIVE.

On another note, this view also makes arty firing as accurate as it should be. guaging distance with your eye and seeing no more than the spotter means you get a realistic perspective and chance of hit, and coupled with deviation, you would rely on splash damage more than direct hits, so phenomenons like hitting a tank head-on will be just that, a phenomenon, and not SKILL as it is currently.


I don't get your argument against the commander assets. Did you even read my initial post on it, or are you just trying to muddy my argument? I asked for specific things. If the commander can call in various types of ordinance, then it makes his role more tactical and with spotters and SL calling it in, it works for teamplay, since they can decide, as can he, what is best for the situation. Smoke, scattered arty, creeping barrage, single massive shells, etc. How does THIS make them 'hug themselves' as you put it?

dear Djinn :) your suppression-commrose-2speedTanks-spottercam-commander teamplay agenda is starting to become like a Mantra :)

how would suppression make people teamplay more?
how would an eye-level artycam make people teamplay more?
how is 2-speed tanks making people teamplay more? (plz dont say "slow-moving tanks with infantry marching beside it" I was in a round of Vossenack where I was a Panther, supporting infantry, we did an awesome job without me having to roll slowly, tapping the forward key works just as fine)

CommRose is obviously a teamwork/communication tool, nothing to add there, ours is not great and bf42 voice commands is not working with BF2 very well + isnt the most important things you want to communicate in FH2

Commander: well, as long as the arguments circulate around wish-list features for the commander, it isnt so useful. I agree he could - maybe - help teamplay, but I think it is more important to make him useful, I.E, give him tools that can make him help his team win the battle, not just tools that will make them hug eachother more.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 05-08-2011, 13:08:31
No matter how much interesting this sounds I can't agree with driver + gunner tanks... If we had an AI crew (like in RO 2) for those who just don't feel like talking and/or a decent comm-rose I might consider supporting it.  And I'm afraid this would have to go with the development of 128 player servers because some maps will feel really empty if this is introduced. (Cobra, for example already feels quite empty sometimes.) We must not forget that IRL tank crews are well trained and coordinated and I believe 1 person tanks simulate that really nice.

In that sense though, there are people who take tanks that have absolutely no idea how to use them. Players who say "ou a tank!" and hop in, drive it into the middle of a heavily contested area, and get it killed rather quickly. In my opinion, placing multiple crew members for tanks, would reward those players who are willing to take the time to learn how to properly work together inside of a vehicle, and would give rise for the need to acquire a headset for easier communication. Tank crews in real life were well trained and coordinated, that is a given, but that does not mean that the current system makes tanks effective, that is entirely the fault of the crew. The two-man system creates a learning curve, that would force new players wishing to use tanks to learn quickly from their mistakes, and make the necessary adjustments to be able to work together easily with any number of random crew members and still be effective on the battlefield. It would give rise to the need for specially purposed squads too, where tankers join a squad to utilize the in-game VOIP channels.

I like to command tank squads, especially on maps like supercharge, and while it is nice to have 4 to 5 tanks to influence the battle, it does not necessarily mean that the men driving those tanks are capable of comprehending the battlefield. Some rounds on maps like Supercharge many tankers don't even bother joining squads, they simply drive off into the abyss by themselves while the rest of us try to communicate to survive. If I had three tanks instead of six, all of my squad members would be inside a vehicle, because each of them would have a role, and if each of them was properly coordinated to where each tank could help watch the view of the others, we now have six people communicating in a much tighter sphere of influence. Its like trimming the fat off of a steak.

P.S. And on the topic of AI, there are ways to code the AI so that the vehicle is used properly.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Beaufort on 05-08-2011, 13:08:26
Suppression makes people team-play more because... well, frankly, its a bit disturbing that I even HAVE to explain this to you, Natty... as a dev and all. Its quite obvious.

 ::) lol ... No it is not. Suppression is about hearing gun shots and whizzes around your head and not risking to take a bullet, not about some phoney blurr effect...
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 05-08-2011, 13:08:02
No matter how much interesting this sounds I can't agree with driver + gunner tanks... If we had an AI crew (like in RO 2) for those who just don't feel like talking and/or a decent comm-rose I might consider supporting it.  And I'm afraid this would have to go with the development of 128 player servers because some maps will feel really empty if this is introduced. (Cobra, for example already feels quite empty sometimes.) We must not forget that IRL tank crews are well trained and coordinated and I believe 1 person tanks simulate that really nice.

In that sense though, there are people who take tanks that have absolutely no idea how to use them. Players who say "ou a tank!" and hop in, drive it into the middle of a heavily contested area, and get it killed rather quickly. In my opinion, placing multiple crew members for tanks, would reward those players who are willing to take the time to learn how to properly work together inside of a vehicle, and would give rise for the need to acquire a headset for easier communication. Tank crews in real life were well trained and coordinated, that is a given, but that does not mean that the current system makes tanks effective, that is entirely the fault of the crew. The two-man system creates a learning curve, that would force new players wishing to use tanks to learn quickly from their mistakes, and make the necessary adjustments to be able to work together easily with any number of random crew members and still be effective on the battlefield. It would give rise to the need for specially purposed squads too, where tankers join a squad to utilize the in-game VOIP channels.

I like to command tank squads, especially on maps like supercharge, and while it is nice to have 4 to 5 tanks to influence the battle, it does not necessarily mean that the men driving those tanks are capable of comprehending the battlefield. Some rounds on maps like Supercharge many tankers don't even bother joining squads, they simply drive off into the abyss by themselves while the rest of us try to communicate to survive. If I had three tanks instead of six, all of my squad members would be inside a vehicle, because each of them would have a role, and if each of them was properly coordinated to where each tank could help watch the view of the others, we now have six people communicating in a much tighter sphere of influence. Its like trimming the fat off of a steak.

Except, again, this FORCES people to teamplay. Now I dont want to bash any other mod, but I dont consider forcing teamplay fun at all. You will always have sessions where teamplay was wonderful and times it wasn't, so with this kind of thing implemented, you will then get frustratingly unplayable rounds versus rounds where poeple simply did what they game allows them to do... You therefore get scarce cases of individual initiative to do things not exactly planned by the system, but things which work for teamplay.

I think FH2s current philosophy of NOT forcing teamplay but providing the tools to do so is perfect, as far as the philosophy goes, because then it creates an ingenious system of free-will that still ends up in good teamwork (I may dare say, better than in competing mods), WWII-style gameplay rather than being saddled on precedural crap that WWII fans really don't care for - and that are immersion-killers.

What I do think the solution is, is MORE team-play ideas that reward teamplayers, without punishing non-teamplayers.

Even BF2 vanilla got this right. You can still play Fh1/BF42 style without a squad, and you'd get similar results. You can still coordinate etc, but with the team-architecture on top, its like layered design, that makes the game robust, layered.

2-positions on tank etc isn't layered. It strips away one form and gives you only ONE option that may or may not fly well with the current system.

God-forbid the devs take this up, since I realize after the removal of crosshair that they can u-turn on aspects that were once noted as written in stone. That may have flown... This, imo, wont. If I want PR, I'd play PR. I want FH2, not PRFH2.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 05-08-2011, 13:08:55
Suppression makes people team-play more because... well, frankly, its a bit disturbing that I even HAVE to explain this to you, Natty... as a dev and all. Its quite obvious.

 ::) lol ... No it is not. Suppression is about hearing gun shots and whizzes around your head and not risking to take a bullet, not about some phoney blurr effect...


Ermmm... Ok, where do I start. Its a VIDEO GAME?

You can't simulate real life perfectly, that's why there is a Hud, crosshairs etc...?

The blurr effect is to represent disorientation from near-hits and the effect it has on the mind of a person under such conditions. Some people in a suppressed ground ingame MAY be unblurred, or not blurred enough and can fire back. But with the volume of shots coming their way, they WONT. So they qualify as suppressed also. Some will face the total effect and will be simply too disoriented to fire back anyway... Its called a GAME MECHANIC. Its arbitrary, except when in context to create a certain desired effect, in this case, that of a RL suppression, which would otherwise not be possible.


If you read between the lines, I'm not asking for MORE suppression, I'm asking for suppression by MORE things. In fact, suppression will probably reduce since it wll be bullet per bullet. So even for the mg, the shots that miss the suppression zone will mean you wont get this level of suppression anymore. For rifles, you'd never get this level of suppression.

But couple THAT blurr with the twitches (small camera shakes), and you'd be more suppressed than now.

A NOTE TO EVERYONE BEFORE POSTING - ESPECIALLY WHEN TRYING COUNTER ANOTHER POST:
DONT selectively read it - That's cheap tactics and muddies people's argument. Take the argument AS IT EXISTS, and dissect it that way.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LuckyOne on 05-08-2011, 13:08:14

In that sense though, there are people who take tanks that have absolutely no idea how to use them. Players who say "ou a tank!" and hop in, drive it into the middle of a heavily contested area, and get it killed rather quickly. In my opinion, placing multiple crew members for tanks, would reward those players who are willing to take the time to learn how to properly work together inside of a vehicle, and would give rise for the need to acquire a headset for easier communication.
Tank crews in real life were well trained and coordinated, that is a given, but that does not mean that the current system makes tanks effective, that is entirely the fault of the crew. The two-man system creates a learning curve, that would force new players wishing to use tanks to learn quickly from their mistakes, and make the necessary adjustments to be able to work together easily with any number of random crew members and still be effective on the battlefield. It would give rise to the need for specially purposed squads too, where tankers join a squad to utilize the in-game VOIP channels.

Of course there are such people, there will always be... Even if we had 2 person tanks there would still be tools that would simply drive away alone and get themselves killed or park on a hill and start shelling spawn points from a distance. The fact that tanks would be harder to master would do almost nothing to help teamplay, except make certain people use VOIP more.

I like to command tank squads, especially on maps like supercharge, and while it is nice to have 4 to 5 tanks to influence the battle, it does not necessarily mean that the men driving those tanks are capable of comprehending the battlefield. Some rounds on maps like Supercharge many tankers don't even bother joining squads, they simply drive off into the abyss by themselves while the rest of us try to communicate to survive. If I had three tanks instead of six, all of my squad members would be inside a vehicle, because each of them would have a role, and if each of them was properly coordinated to where each tank could help watch the view of the others, we now have six people communicating in a much tighter sphere of influence. Its like trimming the fat off of a steak.

They can still all be inside the vehicle as tanks can take more than 1 person. They can be your MG gunners/spotters: the only thing I dislike is that it's hard to spot when sitting in the commanders cupola as your view is quite limited and you can't duck for cover except if the hull MG is empty (presuming that the tank even has it).

P.S. And on the topic of AI, there are ways to code the AI so that the vehicle is used properly.
Yes but can you add it into a multiplayer game with all the proper commands and it being bug-free? That's certainly a lot of work...


 ::) lol ... No it is not. Suppression is about hearing gun shots and whizzes around your head and not risking to take a bullet, not about some phoney blurr effect...

Yes but the fact that this is a video game nullifies that risk... What do you care if you don't manage to shoot that MGer... You'll respawn in 15 seconds anyway. The "phoney blurr effect" would make those shots considerably more impossible thus simulating a real life situation where you would stay down if an MG is firing 1200 rounds per minute in your general direction. I remember watching a documentary last week where some US guys were on patrol in North Africa when an MG nest opened up on them. Some of them were shot and the whole squad had to wait until nightfall, they were too scared to even try to retreat...
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Beaufort on 05-08-2011, 14:08:19
Suppression makes people team-play more because... well, frankly, its a bit disturbing that I even HAVE to explain this to you, Natty... as a dev and all. Its quite obvious.

 ::) lol ... No it is not. Suppression is about hearing gun shots and whizzes around your head and not risking to take a bullet, not about some phoney blurr effect...


Ermmm... Ok, where do I start. Its a VIDEO GAME?

You can't simulate real life perfectly, that's why there is a Hud, crosshairs etc...?

And we all LOVE the HUD, crosshairs etc. don't we ?... (sarcasm  ::))

The blurr effect is to represent disorientation from near-hits and the effect it has on the mind of a person under such conditions. Some people in a suppressed ground ingame MAY be unblurred, or not blurred enough and can fire back. But with the volume of shots coming their way, they WONT. So they qualify as suppressed also. Some will face the total effect and will be simply too disoriented to fire back anyway... Its called a GAME MECHANIC. Its arbitrary, except when in context to create a certain desired effect, in this case, that of a RL suppression, which would otherwise not be possible.

And LIKE I SAID we don't need this effect  because other effects such are whizzes and gun shots are there for it ! You are dumb enough to get up against three shooters or more ? Well, that's one easy frag for them ...

A NOTE TO EVERYONE BEFORE POSTING - ESPECIALLY WHEN TRYING COUNTER ANOTHER POST:
DONT selectively read it - That's cheap tactics and muddies people's argument. Take the argument AS IT EXISTS, and dissect it that way.

Why you arrogant son of a  :-X  ...

Yes but the fact that this is a video game nullifies that risk... What do you care if you don't manage to shoot that MGer... You'll respawn in 15 seconds anyway. The "phoney blurr effect" would make those shots considerably more impossible thus simulating a real life situation where you would stay down if an MG is firing 1200 rounds per minute in your general direction. I remember watching a documentary last week where some US guys were on patrol in North Africa when an MG nest opened up on them. Some of them were shot and the whole squad had to wait until nightfall, they were too scared to even try to retreat...

Yeah, on the squad leader if you are lucky, but also perhaps in a very distant flag ... I say it isn't such a big deal that we should have more blurr, especially with more players it would be awful.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LuckyOne on 05-08-2011, 14:08:24
Yeah, on the squad leader if you are lucky, but also perhaps in a very distant flag ... I say it isn't such a big deal that we should have more blurr, especially with more players it would be awful.

Okay maybe we don't need "more blur" but certainly more things that could blur your vision would be appreciated. And some camera shake... So that the guy who I am shooting with an MG can't hit me with pinpoint accuracy (in fact he can if he just ignores the shake).
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 05-08-2011, 16:08:15
@Beufort.
See how that theory works - Go ahead, remove blurr completely, make the whizzes LOUD and see if that makes people keep their head down. Have you NEVER seen an smg go up against 3 or evne 4 riflemen and kill all of them?

I mention not dissecting partial arguments because my argument had more to do with creating an effect that will make suppressed enemy's keep their heads down than just saying blurr, blurr and more blurr.

If you must counter an argument, is all I am saying, then use the argument total, not a word out of context.
Suppression =/ blurr.
Suppression, according to what I suggest = blurr (As it already exists) scaled DOWN to EACH gun + camera-twitch... Not the same thing
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Beaufort on 05-08-2011, 16:08:37
@Beufort.
See how that theory works - Go ahead, remove blurr completely, make the whizzes LOUD and see if that makes people keep their head down. Have you NEVER seen an smg go up against 3 or evne 4 riflemen and kill all of them?

Well smgs were made to pawn rifles, so yes I have and it's okay.

I mention not dissecting partial arguments because my argument had more to do with creating an effect that will make suppressed enemy's keep their heads down than just saying blurr, blurr and more blurr.

If you must counter an argument, is all I am saying, then use the argument total, not a word out of context.

Suppression =/ blurr.
Suppression, according to what I suggest = blurr (As it already exists) scaled DOWN to EACH gun + camera-twitch... Not the same thing

I'm not using arguments out of context, I'm saying like natty that suppression (i.e. blurr effect) DON'T increase teamwork and I wonder who the f* do you think you are to reply to us with such a condescending attitude ...  >:(
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 05-08-2011, 17:08:42
LOL! Yer sure, an SMger at any distance takes out a squad of riflemen firing at him alone... I should stop arguing with you really!

I doubt Natty will admit being a 100% right every time.

Natty asked me to explain myself regarding suppression aiding teamplay. Well, if a number of people firing at an enemy and hence suppressing them for another group to flank them and finish them off isn't a good enough example of teamplay, then I really don't know what clearer example of teamplay works for you.

I'm sorry if I came across condescending, but I doubt I give off negative energy except when visited by it myself. We have egos, Beu. You push, I push, ok?

Now that you know I can keep my tone measured,

Rather than simply determing who's right or wrong because of who you THINK or don't think a person is,

READ THE FUCKING ARGUMENTS!

Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Beaufort on 05-08-2011, 17:08:18
LOL! Yer sure, an SMger at any distance takes out a squad of riflemen firing at him alone... I should stop arguing with you really!

Yeah you should, because you never said "at any distance", and no I've never seen that happen.

Natty asked me to explain myself regarding suppression aiding teamplay. Well, if a number of people firing at an enemy and hence suppressing them for another group to flank them and finish them off isn't a good enough example of teamplay, then I really don't know what clearer example of teamplay works for you.

Still, we don't need the suppression blurr for that to happen (and if you can't answer respectfully to someone who disagrees with you, you might as well shut up ! >:().

BOT and ignoring Djinn :

I don't like the suppression effect, but I think two speeds for vehicles would avoid a lot of teamkills and so make armors and infantry work a lot better together...
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 05-08-2011, 17:08:57
Dude, I said 4 or 5 riflemen going up against an SMGer... that should have been enough. Listen, stop talking to me, this is becoming ridiculously illogical. Clearly, we aren't arguing constructively at this point, so I'm going to say 'Ok,  Beufort, YOU ARE SO-O right', take my hat off to you, and stop right here...

LOL! Yer sure, an SMger at any distance takes out a squad of riflemen firing at him alone... I should stop arguing with you really!

Yeah you should, because you never said "at any distance", and no I've never seen that happen.

Natty asked me to explain myself regarding suppression aiding teamplay. Well, if a number of people firing at an enemy and hence suppressing them for another group to flank them and finish them off isn't a good enough example of teamplay, then I really don't know what clearer example of teamplay works for you.

Still, we don't need the suppression blurr for that to happen (and if you can't answer respectfully to someone who disagrees with you, you might as well shut up ! >:().

BOT and ignoring Djinn :

I don't like the suppression effect, but I think two speeds for vehicles would avoid a lot of teamkills and so make armors and infantry work a lot better together...

But wait...

This last comment is just so childish... What are you? 12?! If you don't see me online, that's your problem. I'll continue this thread as though you don't exist.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 05-08-2011, 18:08:29
so this suppression thing is based on the assumption that players who get suppressed will be scared and take cover (like in the BF3 singleplayer trailer on the rooftop with the sniper) so the suppressors can flank them?

That.... is simply not the reality of this game, or our maps designs... If someone hoses me with blur in FH2 I just run and away from there and pop up behind another rock/wall somewhere else, and shoots the MG guy. Or I just take my chances and pop up where I am and shoot him, I get a new guy in 15seconds anyway, and he will be unsuppressed and know exactly where that MG guy is.

I dont believe this would make peope "teamplay" more. I only think it would add a lot of blur and crap on peoples screens.

If we made a mod for ex; BF3 it would be different, where the game has a suppression system designed in it. With the parameters we can tweak in this BF2 mod, it wont have the wished effect.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LuckyOne on 05-08-2011, 19:08:30

If someone hoses me with blur in FH2 I just run and away from there and pop up behind another rock/wall somewhere else, and shoots the MG guy. Or I just take my chances and pop up where I am and shoot him, I get a new guy in 15seconds anyway, and he will be unsuppressed and know exactly where that MG guy is.

That's the whole point... You CAN'T run away if you can't see where are you going... And you CAN'T take your chances if you can't see where are you shooting... I know this sounds extreme but it's the only way to make suppression work in this mod... Although I can usually quite easily get suppressed (well not atm as the suppression shader is broken on my installation) when I get shot at, and if somebody is firing at me with an MG I'll stay down or try to crawl out of there. It works, just not for all people (as it should be, actually).

Look all we are asking here is to add (improved) suppression for all weapons to PROMOTE teamwork. It doesn't mean it will work every time but at the times it works it WILL be useful.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 05-08-2011, 20:08:54
so this suppression thing is based on the assumption that players who get suppressed will be scared and take cover (like in the BF3 singleplayer trailer on the rooftop with the sniper) so the suppressors can flank them?

That.... is simply not the reality of this game, or our maps designs... If someone hoses me with blur in FH2 I just run and away from there and pop up behind another rock/wall somewhere else, and shoots the MG guy. Or I just take my chances and pop up where I am and shoot him, I get a new guy in 15seconds anyway, and he will be unsuppressed and know exactly where that MG guy is.

I dont believe this would make peope "teamplay" more. I only think it would add a lot of blur and crap on peoples screens.

If we made a mod for ex; BF3 it would be different, where the game has a suppression system designed in it. With the parameters we can tweak in this BF2 mod, it wont have the wished effect.

You've defeated your own argument, by stating that when someone does cause the suppression effect upon you, that you flee and find a new position, which is exactly what suppression is meant to do. The idea of "flanking" a target was just used in an example to demonstrate a scenario where suppression could be used.

Suppression causes many effects, not just the ability of people to flank, it literally creates a visual aid to the reality of warfare. Why if Bf2 had a suppression system implemented in it at release would it be any different than creating it in a mod? If BF3 were modifiable you say that you would gladly implement suppression in it, creating the same "blurr" which you stand against here? That's a double-standard.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Ts4EVER on 05-08-2011, 20:08:04
His point is that BF3 suppression actually does things other than blurring your screen, like increasing deviation or whatever, all of which is not posible in BF2.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 05-08-2011, 20:08:53
Well, I see the point in that, but it shouldn't make any difference. Suppression in bf2 as demonstrated PR can be just as effective at making aiming difficult.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Ts4EVER on 05-08-2011, 20:08:37
Yeah but in a very intrusive and ham-fisted way. And it only works together with other features like long spawn times and long combat distances.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 05-08-2011, 20:08:49
No, I didnt contradict myself. If suppression is supposed to scare you, it fails. What it does is annoy you, and my running-away example was just, an example of what players will do to avoid this annoyance. This will not lead to the goal your pushing: teamplay. It will only lead to players learning how to avoid it, or if not, ignore it.

a game, which is designed by real designers and created for real, can develop a real suppression ofcourse. Then they can look at exactly what they want to achieve, and make it so.
a mod, is merely tweaking on existing design, and therefor cant achieve anything it wants just because it wants it.
Suppression is just an example of where a mod remains a mod. We can add blur and sound, but really.. this isnt suppression. A real suppression would have an impact on your aim, deviation, movement and more. With our suppression, you can pretend to be scared sure, crouch down and fake to be suppressed as you hear the bullets impact on the wall. But you can just also ignore it and pop up and fire away.

Adding more of our fake suppression, only results in an uglier and more annoying game for everyone, it will not put any fear or mechanical fear (aim loss, sway shakiness etc) in to anyone, and it is not a strong enough component to have an impact on team play.

In PR, people role-play the fear. Something which works well when everyone does it. And is a mod where players role-play the team play as well. I still believe most people just ignore that, and play as normally.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 05-08-2011, 20:08:33
Yeah but in a very intrusive and ham-fisted way. And it only works together with other features like long spawn times and long combat distances.

"Intrusive, ham-fisted way"?

I don't see how suppression effect only works when you implement longer spawn times and increased distances to engage. There are plenty of times playing Forgotten Hope 2 Public that suppression would be highly appreciated, especially on maps where the overall flow of the map is directed into areas of intensity. One such example would be Purple Heart Lane, where often the only hope for teams to advance is to luckily get a squad leader behind the enemy lines and slowly, through the process of spawning on him, overwhelm the defensive line. It would be far more beneficial for squads to be able to lay down fire that could visually distract the players returning fire at them, and then use the cover of the visual hindrance to advance on their position by some means and take the defended position. This is not a matter of whether we are engaging at one-hundred yards or a-thousand yards, in-fact there are times where room to room fighting is decided by the lack of reaction to such events, events that suppression helps change.

This has nothing to do with intruding on players, the overall effects of the suppression seem to me, to be highly over-stated on these forums, as if players are having the effects of the feature for minutes on end. Certainly in Singleplayer where the AI has been coded poorly enough to constantly shoot with pinpoint accuracy and from long distances this is true, but in a dynamic game of Multiplayer such a reality does not exist. In-fact if it was so intrusive on a players abilities, why then do light machine guns still retain the ability? The light-machine-guns are certainly effective enough without the suppression, why should they be given an additional aid to their effectiveness?

The fact still remains, that suppression effect helps create the truism, that fire superiority, wins battles.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 05-08-2011, 20:08:42
No, I didnt contradict myself. If suppression is supposed to scare you, it fails. What it does is annoy you, and my running-away example was just, an example of what players will do to avoid this annoyance. This will not lead to the goal your pushing: teamplay. It will only lead to players learning how to avoid it, or if not, ignore it.

a game, which is designed by real designers and created for real, can develop a real suppression ofcourse. Then they can look at exactly what they want to achieve, and make it so.
a mod, is merely tweaking on existing design, and therefor cant achieve anything it wants just because it wants it.
Suppression is just an example of where a mod remains a mod. We can add blur and sound, but really.. this isnt suppression. A real suppression would have an impact on your aim, deviation, movement and more. With our suppression, you can pretend to be scared sure, crouch down and fake to be suppressed as you hear the bullets impact on the wall. But you can just also ignore it and pop up and fire away.

Adding more of our fake suppression, only results in an uglier and more annoying game for everyone, it will not put any fear or mechanical fear (aim loss, sway shakiness etc) in to anyone, and it is not a strong enough component to have an impact on team play.

In PR, people role-play the fear. Something which works well when everyone does it. And is a mod where players role-play the team play as well. I still believe most people just ignore that, and play as normally.

Your again talking about peoples reactions to the "suppression" (I'll put this in quotes from now on, since obviously that word is hated). Whether the man being "suppressed" chooses to get down, or to try and return fire in the direction he is being "suppressed" from, sure that is his decision. The simple fact is though, that the visual hindrance helps modify the game-play. If a single man now goes up against a squad of men, he is going to find himself incapable of dealing with that threat, because not only will he be outnumbered, but he will also have an overwhelming amount of visual hindrance, which he cannot possibly hope to match. It literally creates the same situation that would happen in real life, where a man, faced with an attack of overwhelming numbers, and under direct fire, would find himself incapable of standing up to that threat, and would either:

A.) Run away
B.) Hide
C.) Foolishly shoot back
D.) Die
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 05-08-2011, 20:08:49
Its not just blur, Natty. Firstly, the blur will actually reduce. Look at it this way.

Pistol = x1 blur, lasts 5ms, cam-twitch of 2o
Rifle ?7.67mm = x2 blur, last 10ms, cam-twitch of 5o
SMG = x1 blur, lasts 5ms for EACH round, with a speed of firing of 7ms, cam-twitch of 2o for each round
As rounds overlap, it gets worse, but with 5ms of blur and a slower ROF than 5ms, it is lower than a 4 of 5 riflemen with semi-automatic rifles
MG = x2 blur, lasts 10ms, for EACH round, with a speed of firing dependent on which MG, from 8ms for Bren, 3ms for MG42 for example..., , cam-twitch of 5o for EACH
AT rifle = x4 blur, lasts 25ms, with a ROF at best like a bolt-action rifle, cam-twitch of 10o


With this as a very rough example, as I don't really know the ROF for each and the kind of effect of each round should be tested to get the best fit, you can imagine that a single shot from an MG will do no better than a single rifleman, IF it even hits close. ALOT LESS blur for most people.

Its under suppressive fire, that it gets bad - And even the, the balance between how long the blur lasts for each round with the ROF of the fastest gun will ensure that blur NEVER even gets unreasonably bad. It is NOT about blur alone after all.

What STOPS the person firing back is actually YOUR idea, Natty. Adding a slight camera twitch will mean that although the person's accuracy is not actually thrown off, they can't see straight to aim and fire. The blur is more immersive and to simulate disorientation.

The combined effect is a person who would rather flee before the blur and shakes gets too bad for him to know which direction he should be running (Sometimes causing them to run right into a hail of bullets), or sit tight until it dies away and hope that he can see those flanking as they get close and fight THEM instead. But it will be blind suicide to fire back when properly suppressed. Again NOT because of the blur alone, but because of the shaky camera.

Now if you think of this as as the design, then a squad will know the power they have when they put their fire power together. An LMG gunner will know that he can suppress an enemy for his men to move up, or flank etc...
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Beaufort on 05-08-2011, 21:08:27
@ Archimonday

You sound as if now any single man can easily beat up a whole squad, which is simply not true. We don't need an ugly effect on top of six ennemies, give us a break ... :P
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 05-08-2011, 21:08:08
@ Archimonday

You sound as if now any single man can easily beat up a whole squad, which is simply not true.

I certainly believe it is, considering there are times when I am that man. One man with a chest high cover, can spam his control key, and using the relative powerful accuracy of a rifle, engage a squad by himself and easily come out on top, despite the fact he is being shot at.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Beaufort on 05-08-2011, 21:08:22
Well against a very lousy squad and with some luck perhaps ...  :P
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LHeureux on 05-08-2011, 21:08:03
@Beaufort, blur is to simulate the fact that you close your eyes when there's a bullet that land near you, like when somebody claps his hands infront of your face. And also to simulate the fact that dust, branches, rocks and other things bounce around making you close your eyes to avoid those things to hit your eyes.

Quote
You sound as if now any single man can easily beat up a whole squad, which is simply not true. We don't need an ugly effect on top of six ennemies, give us a break ... :P
It's so easy to take out a whole squad with a G43 or a Garand, even if under 3 grease gun fire, sounds like you don't play enough.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Beaufort on 05-08-2011, 22:08:32
@Beaufort, blur is to simulate the fact that you close your eyes when there's a bullet that land near you, like when somebody claps his hands infront of your face. And also to simulate the fact that dust, branches, rocks and other things bounce around making you close your eyes to avoid those things to hit your eyes.

Yes I know what suppression is for but the blur is just too much, so I'd rather have nothing. Increasing deviation or the sway with suppression would be nice but it's simply not possible with bf2 ... :\

Quote
You sound as if now any single man can easily beat up a whole squad, which is simply not true. We don't need an ugly effect on top of six ennemies, give us a break ... :P
It's so easy to take out a whole squad with a G43 or a Garand, even if under 3 grease gun fire, sounds like you don't play enough.

Okay then, screenshots ? ;)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 05-08-2011, 23:08:06
To visualize exactly how much more than general forum chat it takes to design a proper feedback like this, Ill keep up the questions.
- Why would players teamplay more, just because they get suppressed by weapons more? It sounds like the goal (for you) is that players hug each other (meaning, they all stand 6 in line like the outlaws in a western movie, firing against the alone sheriff) but on the receiving end, it makes no difference if you are in a squad or not.

I think you actually want less suppression for players who are in a squad, or hugging nearby players. (which again would be possible for a game to design.) That would maybe make them stick together more (I doubt it) but just because the enemy is getting supressed by my teammates MG fire, why would I (as rifle man) care about that?

General game play - the second to second decisions the average players is doing - is mostly, if not all, depending on what he can do himself. Not what his teammates might or might not do.
As MG42 gunman, if my enemies are getting surpressed, I don't gain anything by that, because they won't be supressed long enough for me to storm in with my pistol and finish them off, and Im less likely to get some kills if they just squat behind a wall.
As rifle-man, I cant rely on the constant fire by my teammate, he can stop firing at any second, and if Im advancing over an empty field in for ex; vossenack or St.Lo, Ill be totally exposed and just lol-fragged. So I will still use the map and the designated (designed) cover to get to my goal.

Sure: I can imagine in my head how you want this to play out; MG42 guy shoots at a flag, and all the enemies there are scared and suppressed, so the other guys in the MG42 squad can kind of "circle around them" and take the flag... That sounds cool in a singleplayer game like CoD or BiA, but you forget that those players that are getting suppressed, are humans, and will refuse to let the game take away their controls or pretend to be scared. The idea is based on an ideal of player behaviour, not actual player behaviour. (since we lack proper means to make real suppression)


Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 06-08-2011, 00:08:12
To visualize exactly how much more than general forum chat it takes to design a proper feedback like this, Ill keep up the questions.
- Why would players teamplay more, just because they get suppressed by weapons more? It sounds like the goal (for you) is that players hug each other (meaning, they all stand 6 in line like the outlaws in a western movie, firing against the alone sheriff) but on the receiving end, it makes no difference if you are in a squad or not.


If I'm alone, and suppressed by anything that may be fired at me, I will quickly realize that I am useless by myself, especially against a larger group of enemies, because I cannot possibly, by myself, match the amount of fire power that they are putting on to my position. Think of it as a dodge ball game, if I'm the last player on my dodge ball team, I cannot possibly just charge forward and start throwing dodge balls in a blind hope of winning the game, if I charge forward, the combined strength of the other team throwing dodge balls at me, will overwhelm me and eventually I will get hit and lose. However, if in that same dodge ball game the whistle has just sounded to start, and I have six men with me against six men of theirs, I now have a higher percentage of survivability in the dodge ball game because there are more targets, and we can match the amount of dodge balls coming at us, with our own dodge balls of equal number. People are not stupid, they will realize this.

I think you actually want less suppression for players who are in a squad, or hugging nearby players. (which again would be possible for a game to design.) That would maybe make them stick together more (I doubt it) but just because the enemy is getting supressed by my teammates MG fire, why would I (as rifle man) care about that?

You are misunderstanding the idea of the "suppression." This has nothing to do with some advanced idea like, people who are in squads should be suppressed less than those that are not. What this has to do with is the numbers of people and the type of the weapon being able to compete with each other for superiority. So say my five man rifleman squad comes up on a three man squad that consists of a Mg42 gunner and two Kar98 rifleman, well they have an advantage in the MG42 which as a high rate of fire and can be used to cover an area, plus two K98 rifles to all help suppress us, and keep our squad at a disadvantage by the means of the visual hindrance. To respond to that threat, my five man rifleman squad is complete with five men all carrying Garands. Our Garands are semi-automatic and against their two rifleman prove superior, but against the MG42 we may have a hard time matching the level of suppression coming at us. Say that all the men in the group were firing for a predetermined amount of time, lets say One Minute.

The MG42 in-game fires at nine hundred rounds a minute, and has a two hundred and fifty round ammunition belt. At that rate of fire the ammunition runs out (lets say that there is no overheating) in 16.6  seconds, (900/60 = 15. 250/15 = 16.6) and then a reload takes 5.2 seconds. So in that time period, if the Mg42 started firing at the very first second to the last, the Mg42 would have put down a total of 675 rounds straight at us.

Lets say the K98 Rifleman are firing unzoomed, the K98 gets off a shot every 1.15 seconds in game, and has a five round magazine, reloading takes 4.625 seconds. So the K98 firing away, gets off a total of about 29 rounds in that sixty second time span. The German three man squad has now put down a total of 733 rounds of ammunition in our direction. If each and everyone of those is suppressing us, and lets say that the suppression time was very low (like I think it should be btw), lets say for this example its as quick as one tenth of one second, then we spent a total of 1.2 minutes suppressed.

The Five man Garand squad is firing as quick as they can, the Garand fires at a rate of 450 rounds per minute in-game, with a reload time of 4 seconds. This means that each of the garand rifleman is getting of 94 rounds during that time. So altogether the American squad put down 470 rounds in the one minute time period, suppressing the Germans for a total of forty-seven seconds.

These examples were not to prove who won the firefight, since that is determined by random factors such as who gets hit, where their positions were, and other factors, but this is to demonstrate how the idea of fire superiority works with the suppression effect. The Germans in this case put down a far greater volume of fire with three men than the Americans did with five, despite the Americans best efforts to suppress the Germans. This means that the Germans in this particular case would've had an upper hand in the firefight despite being out numbered because they could keep the Americans blind longer than they could keep them blind. The MG42 alone could compete with the entire American squad and the K98 riflemen would've been free to maneuver around and possibly place enfilade fire on the flanks of the Americans drastically increasing their chances of being killed.

The Suppression effect is all about who has more firepower coming down. In-fact the need for it was demonstrated well on Lebisey as I was just playing with a few friends from WaW. There was only five of us in the server, but with a Bren gun (which is capable of suppression) I was able to sit prone on a stair case for much longer than I should have been allowed to and shoot these poor chaps because they couldn't see as I shot at them, where as their bullets were snapping in-front of me without any effects. This gave me the upper hand because I could see them and they couldn't see me. Now if it had been that their rifles and Mp40s could have suppressed me, they were actually putting down a greater amount of fire than I was with my bren, firing in short bursts. Between the three of them in the enemy squad, there was one sub machine gunner, and two rifleman who could have easily blinded me and prevented me from getting accurate shots off if they worked together. But as it is now, their only hope was to try and go far around me on either side, or zig-zag up the field until they were close enough to hit me, or pray that I didn't notice them long enough for them to get a shot off. If I could've been suppressed, alone I would've been useless.

General game play - the second to second decisions the average players is doing - is mostly, if not all, depending on what he can do himself. Not what his teammates might or might not do.
As MG42 gunman, if my enemies are getting surpressed, I don't gain anything by that, because they won't be supressed long enough for me to storm in with my pistol and finish them off, and Im less likely to get some kills if they just squat behind a wall.
As rifle-man, I cant rely on the constant fire by my teammate, he can stop firing at any second, and if Im advancing over an empty field in for ex; vossenack or St.Lo, Ill be totally exposed and just lol-fragged. So I will still use the map and the designated (designed) cover to get to my goal.

Lets use your MG42 Gunner as an example though. Your saying that they are not suppressed long enough for you to charge in and use your pistol to finish them off, and that is true, they shouldn't be, because if you stop firing your MG42 you are no longer suppressing them. If however your team a mix of rifleman and sub machine gunners could suppress as well, then you could in theory while under the cover of their suppressing fire advance forward and finish him off. The idea is that people work together to keep the rate of fire constant, even if your team mates do stop firing, say to reload or because they get distracted by some other means, any amount of time they can use covering your advance is valuable time to cover distance on foot, or to engage targets that need to be taken out, especially machine guns and other static defenders.

Suppression also allows players to be able to advance across those areas of open ground that may otherwise be impassable due to well entrenched defenders. Because now, if players coordinate well enough within their squads, they will be able to successfully keep the enemy blind, or his head down, long enough for somebody, even if its not their squad, to advance and take out the threat, or for the threat to move on somewhere else.


Sure: I can imagine in my head how you want this to play out; MG42 guy shoots at a flag, and all the enemies there are scared and suppressed, so the other guys in the MG42 squad can kind of "circle around them" and take the flag... That sounds cool in a singleplayer game like CoD or BiA, but you forget that those players that are getting suppressed, are humans, and will refuse to let the game take away their controls or pretend to be scared. The idea is based on an ideal of player behaviour, not actual player behaviour. (since we lack proper means to make real suppression)

Nobody is pretending to be scared. Again, I said not to take my words literally, Suppression of this type will never scare anybody, and certainly nobody is "role-playing" here. The simple fact is though, that the visual hindrance that the effect creates, can be used as a valuable tool to get across open ground, assault fortified positions, to keep squads in place, and even to decrease the accuracy of fire that is destroying teammates else where. It is useful, it has been proven to work in other games, and it needs to be included in FH2.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Ts4EVER on 06-08-2011, 00:08:27
Actually the MG42 fires 900rpm as of 2.4.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 06-08-2011, 00:08:38
Math Fixed :P
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 06-08-2011, 01:08:02
combat in FH2 doesnt happen so you "realize you are outnumbered" and decide to "get help"... you shoot and try to kill some guys, if you fail, you spawn in 15sec.

besides, if you need all that text to prove your point, it's likely to be a very weak feature / bad design.

In one sentence; how would increased suppression blur make players teamplay (aka stick together) more?
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 06-08-2011, 02:08:42
combat in FH2 doesnt happen so you "realize you are outnumbered" and decide to "get help"... you shoot and try to kill some guys, if you fail, you spawn in 15sec.

If this summarizes your design philosophy for FH2. Then I am speechless.

And one sentence?

Suppression increases team-play by giving players reason enough to work together to achieve fire superiority on the battlefield.

Last note:

Nobody is talking about increasing it, but making it universal to all weapons.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 06-08-2011, 03:08:07
combat in FH2 doesnt happen so you "realize you are outnumbered" and decide to "get help"... you shoot and try to kill some guys, if you fail, you spawn in 15sec.

besides, if you need all that text to prove your point, it's likely to be a very weak feature / bad design.

In one sentence; how would increased suppression blur make players teamplay (aka stick together) more?

I give up
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LHeureux on 06-08-2011, 03:08:13
The problem with you Natty is that you don't understand teamplay, you think that, like you, EVERYBODY cares about their K/D ratio. You think that what the MG gunner wants is all the kills, ALWAYS. But supressing the enemy to allow your friends to move in and get the kills is really awesome too.

Now I understand why you don't want this implemented, because if for exemple you are shooting an enemy squad with your MG, you will just suppress them, you won't get any kills, but your friends will, if they manage to flank the enemy squad, thus making you "useless" because you don't go up in the scoreboard. In FH2 there's no other way for getting points than killing or doing basic teamplay like repairs and spotting, while for exemple in PR you get points for sticking together or stuff like this. So now I see why you think that it's useless because the random guy supressing won't get a higher place on the scoreboard.

But what you need to understand is that YOU can be the rifleman flanking the enemy while your MG suppress them, then you get the kills in a much more enjoyable state of power. As well as you can be the random guy on the .50 of the halftrack firing across the river on Meuse on an epic charge, supressing the enemies while your friends cap the flags.

Have you never randomly shot at some enemies, even behind cover, just for the sake of coolness? I did and I do, but the problem is that THERE I'm really useless because they can just pop-out and kill me, cause there's no factors avoiding it such as suppression..(blur)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: SiCaRiO on 06-08-2011, 03:08:06

That.... is simply not the reality of this game, or our maps designs... If someone hoses me with blur in FH2 I just run and away from there and pop up behind another rock/wall somewhere else, and shoots the MG guy. Or I just take my chances and pop up where I am and shoot him, I get a new guy in 15seconds anyway, and he will be unsuppressed and know exactly where that MG guy is.
and when you fail at pointing at him repetatly you will stop and start taking cover untill you have a better chance/ find some one unsupressed to fire at the mg ;).

map desing has nothing to do with it.

edit:


In PR, people role-play the fear. Something which works well when everyone does it. And is a mod where players role-play the team play as well. I still believe most people just ignore that, and play as normally.

and you have the expierence and how many hours of playing PR  to fundament that claim, right?  ;)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Beaufort on 06-08-2011, 07:08:06
Suppression increases team-play by giving players reason enough to work together to achieve fire superiority on the battlefield.

Last note:

Nobody is talking about increasing it, but making it universal to all weapons.

If all weapons have it, there will be more ... And fire superiority can be achieved without it. I repeat I've never seen "an smg gunner winning against 3 or 4 riflemen at any distances" nor eliminated "a whole squad with my garand or G43 with 3 greasegun shooting at me".
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 06-08-2011, 09:08:11
Suppression increases team-play by giving players reason enough to work together to achieve fire superiority on the battlefield.
"fire superiority"? what is that? Sounds like an arbitrary term you just throw out. it's not needed in this mod. You can cap the flags and kill enemies without any "superiority"... more blurry screens will not change this, only making it less enjoyable and more ugly.
You have a theory here - "Suppression increases team-play" - but Im yet to hear one concrete example on how this would be achieved. Actual game-result please. Not just loose military terms that you see fit the discussion.
I only care about this, because I first all of want to see if there is substantial material behind all these suggestions, and also because more teamplay in FH2 wouldnt hurt.

@LHeureux: I dont know what level of matureness you want to hold this theory discussion at. If you think I care about kills, or want things in a certain way because how I play in the mod Im developing, then we have nothing more to say. Im looking at how players actually play, and how I can change things to make them play more like I want to.

I can give you an example btw: I had a round of Vossenack where I was in a Panther. I played exactly as I like the mod to be played, I was careful, took it easy, and provided cover for my infantry teammates as they rushed the flags. My Panther was positioned right between the two back allied flags, so I could keep an eye on both the "frontline" (where allies vehicles come from their mainbase) and also both flags. Now this was classical teamplay, I even had a guy repairing me when I got damaged.
Suppression, had no effect here at all. No one of my enemies there would give a rats ass if their screen would be blurry - dying doesnt matter in this game - they would happily sacrifice a bunch of "tickets" to kill me there. What made it possible for me to hold out so long there was tactical play by me and my teammates. When I was hosing the control points with the MG while the tank was reloading, destroying the vision for the guys in that CP would have turned that experience from something cool and stressful, in to something ugly and annoying. - it isn't needed.
K/D ratio has nothing to do with this discussion, we're talking about the design of this one feature and how/if it can increase teamplay with the limited means we have, modding battlefield 2.

To add: what we are actually talking about here, is player motivation. My point is that trying to "force" teamplay by destroying the looks of the game without actually changing mechanics, is not motivating enough. Players don't have a clear choice they can take to not get suppressed.
As I said earlier: if staying near your squad, would make you less suppressed, perhaps that would motivate me to do that. Like in L4D, you are motivated to stay near your friends, because not doing so will mostly result in you getting dragged away by a Smoker (as I know very well...)

If in Fh2, the furhter away from the squad you die, the longer spawn time you get. or the closer to the squad you are, the more chance you get of being able to spawn with a (limited) kit. Or if you get points for suppressing enemies (+1 points per second of every suppressed enemy, i.e. when the shader is activated due to your firing) or if you get flag capture assist points for suppressing 100m away with an MG. Or if you could disable SL spawn by suppressing him, or if getting killed while under suppression would give you longer spawntime, or if while under suppression, it took longer time for the sight to "close" (get your aim)...

I can go on.... these are all more or less motivating features that a player could look on the screen and see actual effect of his behaviour. Lying in an MG and shoot at a farm, without any feedback if anyone is actually getting suppressed, is kind of crap, isnt it? In Brothers in Arms, they added a "clock" above enemy heads, telling you how long they were suppressed for. They added this feedback because if you didn't know that, it would be unrewarding to suppress, and more fun to just "run for it".
If you leave your squad in FH2 and go "soloing" and you die, and your spawntime would suddenly be 45seconds, but when you die near your squad, you get 15seconds, that would be a clear choice for the player (a bit like leaving the group in L4D) with a clear effect. Anyone would be able to look at the screen and rethink his playstyle, especially if the HUD told you "+30seconds penalty for leaving the group"
 (when I was trapped by the Smoker so many times in L4D, I always looked at my guy in 3P and thought "damn it, next time Im not going away alone" and I did stop that after playing the game more)

If we can't give proper motivation and real feedback, it's pointless - moddy - to just add blur and hope players will care.
- No feedback for guy suppressing that his enemies are suppressed (just shoot and "hope")
- No feedback for teammates of suppressing firing guy, that his enemies are suppressed (just charge and "hope")
- No clear choice how to not get suppressed (like being near your squad would make you less suppressed for ex)
- No actual mechanic changed while being suppressed (only "smoke and mirrors")

Something positive: I believe that with proper feedback and reward, we would actually see more people using suppressive fire, even without a real suppression mechanic, just lying in the grass and shoot for example a Bren gun down at the AT positions in Lebisey, if you got a feedback icon of suppressed enemies, and also points for doing so.. heey... I would do that!
Players arent more complicated than that. It would be like a little mini-game for him (keep enough bullets in the air to make the clock not reach zero. plus you get points for doing so!) and at the same time be of help for your friends :) VoIP could be used to communicate when the suppression was about to run out.

The Brothers in Arms suppression feedback
(http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/56/180592-brothersinarms_1_super.jpg)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 06-08-2011, 11:08:25
Relying on VOIP for coordination is like praying for it to be so.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: dutch on 06-08-2011, 11:08:35
Lol @Natty for telling me that I roleplay every night when I play PR, I did not know that, so next time I am supressed by a saw gunner I will just stand up and shoot him in the face.

Endless discussion and you will get 0 results. Devs in any mod are not known for listening what veteran players want, they have a view and stick to it, even if it means lesser players for their mod, the doctrine is everything. They look purely on how many people play today, not if they lost 10 players that where playing the mod for 4-5 years and why. Look at BG, they let their mod die cause of doctrine and so many others.

Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LuckyOne on 06-08-2011, 11:08:30

I can give you an example btw: I had a round of Vossenack where I was in a Panther. I played exactly as I like the mod to be played, I was careful, took it easy, and provided cover for my infantry teammates as they rushed the flags. My Panther was positioned right between the two back allied flags, so I could keep an eye on both the "frontline" (where allies vehicles come from their mainbase) and also both flags. Now this was classical teamplay, I even had a guy repairing me when I got damaged.

Wait I though MGs on tanks have suppression.

Suppression, had no effect here at all. No one of my enemies there would give a rats ass if their screen would be blurry - dying doesnt matter in this game - they would happily sacrifice a bunch of "tickets" to kill me there. What made it possible for me to hold out so long there was tactical play by me and my teammates. When I was hosing the control points with the MG while the tank was reloading, destroying the vision for the guys in that CP would have turned that experience from something cool and stressful, in to something ugly and annoying. - it isn't needed.

Like you said dying doesn't matter, but if you disable the player from shooting back accurately (via blur or simulated "blinking", head shaking, whatever) it becomes pointless to try and kill the guy suppressing you directly, as it will only get you killed... most of the times... you're better off calling your teammates to try and kill him.

To add: what we are actually talking about here, is player motivation. My point is that trying to "force" teamplay by destroying the looks of the game without actually changing mechanics, is not motivating enough.

We're not trying to "force" anything here... We're just trying to make it so that staying in a group gives you more chances of survival and teamwork to happen. (it does even now, but if you knew you could do something as a squad of riflemen, besides just capping flags faster this would be an improvement). And I don't think simple blur or "blinking" or "head shaking" destroys the looks of the game", I believe it adds to the immersion because if you were in a war you would probably not be perfectly calm under fire.

Players don't have a clear choice they can take to not get suppressed.
As I said earlier: if staying near your squad, would make you less suppressed, perhaps that would motivate me to do that. Like in L4D, you are motivated to stay near your friends, because not doing so will mostly result in you getting dragged away by a Smoker (as I know very well...)

I don't think people had a clear choice in the war either... But they can try to get a smokescreen out so they can fall back or throw some grenades in the hope of killing guys suppressing them. Or they can call for backup and get some counter-suppression.

If in Fh2, the furhter away from the squad you die, the longer spawn time you get. or the closer to the squad you are, the more chance you get of being able to spawn with a (limited) kit. Or if you get points for suppressing enemies (+1 points per second of every suppressed enemy, i.e. when the shader is activated due to your firing) or if you get flag capture assist points for suppressing 100m away with an MG. Or if you could disable SL spawn by suppressing him, or if getting killed while under suppression would give you longer spawntime, or if while under suppression, it took longer time for the sight to "close" (get your aim)...

Here you are, thinking about points again... But you are forgetting that not all people play for the points... They play to experience teamwork and to experience the tension of "being part of something bigger" and sense of accomplishment (this has nothing to do with points, for example if I just took out a tank which was preventing my teammates from crossing a street or capping a flag, or posed a general threat I would still get a sense of accomplishment, even if I didn't get points for it... Although you have some nice ideas there but these have nothing to do with suppression/and/or are impossible on this engine).


If you leave your squad in FH2 and go "soloing" and you die, and your spawntime would suddenly be 45seconds, but when you die near your squad, you get 15seconds, that would be a clear choice for the player (a bit like leaving the group in L4D) with a clear effect. Anyone would be able to look at the screen and rethink his playstyle, especially if the HUD told you "+30seconds penalty for leaving the group"
 (when I was trapped by the Smoker so many times in L4D, I always looked at my guy in 3P and thought "damn it, next time Im not going away alone" and I did stop that after playing the game more)

If we can't give proper motivation and real feedback, it's pointless - moddy - to just add blur and hope players will care.
- No feedback for guy suppressing that his enemies are suppressed (just shoot and "hope")
- No feedback for teammates of suppressing firing guy, that his enemies are suppressed (just charge and "hope")
- No clear choice how to not get suppressed (like being near your squad would make you less suppressed for ex)
- No actual mechanic changed while being suppressed (only "smoke and mirrors")

You get feedback... You see a guy taking cover, and while you keep firing at him he will be suppressed, simple as that... You stop firing, he's not suppressed anymore and he'll pop out and kill you.


Something positive: I believe that with proper feedback and reward, we would actually see more people using suppressive fire, even without a real suppression mechanic, just lying in the grass and shoot for example a Bren gun down at the AT positions in Lebisey, if you got a feedback icon of suppressed enemies, and also points for doing so.. heey... I would do that!
Players arent more complicated than that. It would be like a little mini-game for him (keep enough bullets in the air to make the clock not reach zero. plus you get points for doing so!) and at the same time be of help for your friends :) VoIP could be used to communicate when the suppression was about to run out.

I believe that with the ability to suppress enemies with every weapon we would actually see more people using suppressive fire, because right now if you fire at someone and miss you're probably dead. There's no point in shooting enemies behind cover as you risk getting killed if you miss. Instead you need to wait patiently when he will pop out to "snipe" him. I liked the suppression clock in BiA but I think it's to "gamey" to be in FH2.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: ViperAnton on 06-08-2011, 12:08:11
- instead of blur, make screen a little bit shaky
- or get a short black blur in the middle of the screen, like your eyes close reflexively
- or if it works, the supressed guy could not aim the weapon

So if we talk about teamplay, then lets get finnaly rid of the point for killing someone, we have already no crosshair.
And for the artillery strikes, where are the artillery batteries we already had in fh1?

And rather than discuss it, let us try and we'll see how it plays in public.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 06-08-2011, 12:08:54
@dutch: I dont have any doctrines :) I would change my mind in a heartbeat if there was an actual mechanic that would affect the player. Like the suppression in BF3. My only doctrine is to make things for real, not half-ass some tweaks to simulate something and "pretend" the rest. Ive played PR, and I dont feel suppressed by MG fire, I feel annoyed, I can physically feel the devs looking down from the sky and trying to tell me to act scared, when in fact, Im not.
- You make a good point about PR, there you can't just pop up and shoot the SAW gunner, because PR weapons take longer time to aim with, something we could discuss instead. I believe this is a real mechanic that works, and FH2 could gain with a longer time as well. That way, you can't really pop up behind the wall and insta-gib the MG42 guy. (same result by using another mechanic)

I would love a working, real suppression. I wanted this in FH1, in FHT and in FH2. Proper area-denial MGs and MG nests that actually works, it would make designing maps and playing the mod more fun, and feel more like WW2. Now, MGs are almost like "ambience" on the Battlefield.

Camera shake is actually doable, but I think also that will just annoy people, and you can easily learn how to "look through it" just like you can look through ugly blurr.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Eat Uranium on 06-08-2011, 12:08:53
In my opinion, the suppression shader (while it still worked for me) was a rather effective way of informing me that someone knew where I was and was desperately trying to pop a cap in me.

I can still remember an incident in the church tower on Brest where I stood next to the window, and it was the blurry screen more than any other thing (bullet impact decals and sounds) that told me standing in front of the window would be detrimental to my health.  It was also really really cool - enough that I can remember it after nearly a year.

So in my view, the suppression shader is the visual feedback to bullets landing near you.  How you choose to act upon this feedback is up to you.

Also, the whole thing about the disposability of life with 15s spawntimes.  I also like to think that the further you are from a spawnpoint (or in a difficult to get to area or with a rare pickupkit), the longer your effective spawntime becomes if you want to return there.  This in turn leads to less bravado in the way you move about.  So where I'm going with this is this: if you are attacking somewhere, you are going to take cover much more if you have to spawn right back at the last flag; while if you have your SL up there too, you can spawn on him each time right into the action and can thus afford to be a little more gung-ho.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 06-08-2011, 12:08:48
@Eat Uranium: Yes, the feedback when getting suppressed is obvious, and works.

Feedback when supressing is non existant (LuckyOne is wrong, as you always wont see people "taing cover" it is not feedback that works every time)
Feedback when your teammate is suppressing (you have rifle) is non existant as well

If those two are fixed, it would be a different discussion.

EDIT:: I need to add that there is a huge difference between what makes players teamwork, and what they think will make them teamwork. Players need motivation, and "helping your fellow man" isn't enough. It might be true for a handful of hardcore players on a server, who all joined together and are playing in squads and know eachother. But head out alone on a server - some no-name server, not HSLAN or your own tournament pubby server - and join a squad where you don't know anyone... These guys make up 80% of our playerbase, they dont visit this forum, they dont know eachother, and they dont care about your virtual life. They need another motivation than "together we will win the war!"

Do it. Join a server with an anonymous nickname and hop in to a squad with unknown players. I bet you 1/10 squads wont communicate, wont care if you say "cover me" and certinaly won't care if you lay there with an MG trying to cover their advance.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 06-08-2011, 12:08:43
@Eat Uranium: Yes, the feedback when getting suppressed is obvious, and works.

Feedback when supressing is non existant (LuckyOne is wrong, as you always wont see people "taing cover" it is not feedback that works every time)
Feedback when your teammate is suppressing (you have rifle) is non existant as well

If those two are fixed, it would be a different discussion.

Your still using player decisions as an excuse to deny it.

Yes, do people take cover every time? No.

Yes, do people keep firing every time? No.

But the fact of the matter is, the simple feedback, the idea that you KNOW you are being engaged, changes your mind set in an instant, and you change what your doing to counter that threat.

That feedback alone, in more cases than not, effects a players decisions, either negatively, or positively.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Eat Uranium on 06-08-2011, 13:08:08
Feedback when supressing is non existant (LuckyOne is wrong, as you always wont see people "taing cover" it is not feedback that works every time)
Feedback when your teammate is suppressing (you have rifle) is non existant as well

If those two are fixed, it would be a different discussion.
Can I ask why you feel that you need feedback that you have landed a bullet near someone?  It is not something that I can wrap my head around.  I mean, I can understand the need for the hit indicator (even though I'd prefer it removed).  But why would you need some sort of feedback telling you that you have slightly blurred someone else's screen, especially when their reaction to it cannot be predicted.  I can imagine it would be far more frustrating to know you had 'suppressed' someone for them to stand up and shoot you, than for you to not know if you had 'suppressed' someone at all.

If you actually think of the shader as the visual accompaniment to the crack sound of the bullet impact, then you see why the firer doesn't need feedback.  You might as well get a camera that follows every bullet you fire...
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: kummitus on 06-08-2011, 13:08:38
Guess the thing is that when you get a marker that you have supressed someone would mean that they simply can't shoot you then.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 06-08-2011, 13:08:33
Haha, but see this is where these really dumb ideas are not making any sense. The whole idea isn't to hindrance a player by physically decreasing their accuracy, or stopping their weapon from firing, or making them forcibly fall to the ground, the idea is simply to give them visual feedback that they are being engaged, visual feedback that is strong enough to effect their vision, a visual hindrance that is designed to make it hard for them to return fire, much like the death shader makes it difficult.

This then influences teamwork because players by themselves will find themselves overwhelmed by the effects of it, and force them to work together in larger groups.

If for no other reason for it to be implemented, then implement it to balance out the light machine guns which currently have the ability and have an unfair advantage.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Ts4EVER on 06-08-2011, 13:08:35
How are lmgs unfair? if anything they are underpowered.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 06-08-2011, 13:08:13
How are lmgs unfair? if anything they are underpowered.

Again, I'll post a paragraph from my post which obviously nobody bothered to read:

"The Suppression effect is all about who has more firepower coming down. In-fact the need for it was demonstrated well on Lebisey as I was just playing with a few friends from WaW. There was only five of us in the server, but with a Bren gun (which is capable of suppression) I was able to sit prone on a stair case for much longer than I should have been allowed to and shoot these poor chaps because they couldn't see as I shot at them, where as their bullets were snapping in-front of me without any effects. This gave me the upper hand because I could see them and they couldn't see me. Now if it had been that their rifles and Mp40s could have suppressed me, they were actually putting down a greater amount of fire than I was with my bren, firing in short bursts. Between the three of them in the enemy squad, there was one sub machine gunner, and two rifleman who could have easily blinded me and prevented me from getting accurate shots off if they worked together. But as it is now, their only hope was to try and go far around me on either side, or zig-zag up the field until they were close enough to hit me, or pray that I didn't notice them long enough for them to get a shot off. If I could've been suppressed, alone I would've been useless. "
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 06-08-2011, 14:08:16
Natty, you recall being the one predicting how the whole game scheme would fall flat on its face when 128 players research was completed - It DID not. Teamplay is actually more intuitive with those numbers albeit people may not use the structures as much and the armies simply overwhelm targets.

Why are you so headstrong on your position and wont even consider the possibility you might be wrong if it were tried.

I have said again and again, first to that idiot, and then to you, that suppression as I describe it does not literally mean 'blur', blur is simply a part of the game mechanic that is suppression. The actual reason for the person being suppressed is because his camera is shaking and so he can't aim straight. The blur first acts as feedback to let him appreciate the calibre of bullets flying at him AND the voulme of it. Most FPSs have feedback for shot, either through fake tracers, or a very quick blur.

That's what I am proposing. It will be nothing like it is now. For a Rifle buller flying close, it will be that split second blur. It only becomes suppressive blur when enough bullets are hitting close around you. If tjhis explanation is somehow strippped down to simply... "How does increasing blur improve teamplay", I am not going to humor that response with another outline of the system - I would know for a fact that a conscious effort is being made to simplify the idea to something it isnt...

Suppression is only ONE thing that I think will help teamplay - ONE. A big thing which will totally transform how squads operate, sure, since it means working for fire superiority, not just skilled-shot squadmates, but it is ONE thing for teamplay.

There are others.... Lets not drive this discussion into a quagmire if no one wants to get out of their trench to meet at a middle ground. Let's just call this an impasse and move on. Framing the counter-argument as a question may appear to be looking for reason, but if it isn't, lets NOT indulge it, but see it for what it is, and just MOVE ON.

The data is all spelled out clearly. I've been marginalized, patronized and insulted, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so much so, some even in PM, over and over again for them. There is only so much level-toned logical argument I will present to explain my ideas in the face such hostility, especially if I'm aware its falling on deaf ears.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 06-08-2011, 14:08:47
This then influences teamwork because players by themselves will find themselves overwhelmed by the effects of it, and force them to work together in larger groups.
How? How does it force them to work together in larger groups?
Natty, you recall being the one predicting how the whole game scheme would fall flat on its face when 128 players research was completed - It DID not.
Yea it did. It's a gimmick.. a lulz-factor. It is nothing we stand behind as designers of this mod. If codes are released, we will provide the 128player experience, and it will not fall flat on its face.

Please define what we're talking about here... Im about to lose interest... Are we talking about the actual FH2 supression, or a hypothetical suppression which haven't been tested yet?
With "more suppression" what do you mean?
- Area of impact of bullets is made larger, suppressing more players near it
- Blur is made to last longer
- Blur is made more blurry (harder to see)
- Other mechanics... (plz specify)

And please try to answer my question "How does it force them to work together in larger groups?" as so far I haven't seen a single solid respons in to how this will happen. I get that you believe people will kind of follow the MG guy around, as he possesses the holy supressor-cane of doom, but how does the receivers counter suppression? Will buddying up with a MG42 gunner make you less suppressed if a 30CAL gunner fires at you? Why is a "larger group" even needed just because some weapons make other players screen blurry?
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 06-08-2011, 14:08:17
Like I said earlier, ALL the data is CLEARLY outlined in this thread already if one will but LOOK, and in threads before. I have completely lost interest in this particular argument and will not respond any more to it. Next idea for Teamwork, PLEASE.

Its not just blur, Natty. Firstly, the blur will actually reduce. Look at it this way.

Pistol = x1 blur, lasts 5ms, cam-twitch of 2o
Rifle ?7.67mm = x2 blur, last 10ms, cam-twitch of 5o
SMG = x1 blur, lasts 5ms for EACH round, with a speed of firing of 7ms, cam-twitch of 2o for each round
As rounds overlap, it gets worse, but with 5ms of blur and a slower ROF than 5ms, it is lower than a 4 of 5 riflemen with semi-automatic rifles
MG = x2 blur, lasts 10ms, for EACH round, with a speed of firing dependent on which MG, from 8ms for Bren, 3ms for MG42 for example..., , cam-twitch of 5o for EACH
AT rifle = x4 blur, lasts 25ms, with a ROF at best like a bolt-action rifle, cam-twitch of 10o


With this as a very rough example, as I don't really know the ROF for each and the kind of effect of each round should be tested to get the best fit, you can imagine that a single shot from an MG will do no better than a single rifleman, IF it even hits close. ALOT LESS blur for most people.

Its under suppressive fire, that it gets bad - And even the, the balance between how long the blur lasts for each round with the ROF of the fastest gun will ensure that blur NEVER even gets unreasonably bad. It is NOT about blur alone after all.

What STOPS the person firing back is actually YOUR idea, Natty. Adding a slight camera twitch will mean that although the person's accuracy is not actually thrown off, they can't see straight to aim and fire. The blur is more immersive and to simulate disorientation.

The combined effect is a person who would rather flee before the blur and shakes gets too bad for him to know which direction he should be running (Sometimes causing them to run right into a hail of bullets), or sit tight until it dies away and hope that he can see those flanking as they get close and fight THEM instead. But it will be blind suicide to fire back when properly suppressed. Again NOT because of the blur alone, but because of the shaky camera.

Now if you think of this as as the design, then a squad will know the power they have when they put their fire power together. An LMG gunner will know that he can suppress an enemy for his men to move up, or flank etc...
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 06-08-2011, 14:08:56
Camera shake when people shoot at you?  :-\
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 06-08-2011, 14:08:42
I have boldened and highlighted certain key aspects to make it clearer.  ;)

The rest is a good old Fh2 Search-button is your friend type deal
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 06-08-2011, 14:08:23
The camera would be shaking constantly, causing sea-sickness for people and make them leave the server.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 06-08-2011, 14:08:53
This then influences teamwork because players by themselves will find themselves overwhelmed by the effects of it, and force them to work together in larger groups.
How? How does it force them to work together in larger groups?
Natty, you recall being the one predicting how the whole game scheme would fall flat on its face when 128 players research was completed - It DID not.
Yea it did. It's a gimmick.. a lulz-factor. It is nothing we stand behind as designers of this mod. If codes are released, we will provide the 128player experience, and it will not fall flat on its face.

Please define what we're talking about here... Im about to lose interest... Are we talking about the actual FH2 supression, or a hypothetical suppression which haven't been tested yet?
With "more suppression" what do you mean?
- Area of impact of bullets is made larger, suppressing more players near it
- Blur is made to last longer
- Blur is made more blurry (harder to see)
- Other mechanics... (plz specify)

And please try to answer my question "How does it force them to work together in larger groups?" as so far I haven't seen a single solid respons in to how this will happen. I get that you believe people will kind of follow the MG guy around, as he possesses the holy supressor-cane of doom, but how does the receivers counter suppression? Will buddying up with a MG42 gunner make you less suppressed if a 30CAL gunner fires at you? Why is a "larger group" even needed just because some weapons make other players screen blurry?

I'm not championing what Djinn wants, I simply want Suppression on every gun, pistol, rifle, sub machine gun, the lot.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Ts4EVER on 06-08-2011, 14:08:09
Ok... so you are saying that with suppression larger groups would be effective. However, aren't they effective even now? Mathematically speaking, every additional player shooting at a target makes it mroe likely that the target is hit. Every player in your squad is one more to be shot by a single enemy. A squad already has a firepower and effectiveness advantage against a single player. Yet people don't use enough teamwork according to you. So why would the suppression effect suddenly change that?
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 06-08-2011, 15:08:26
Your not understanding my point.

Say a squad of five guys goes against a Mg42, which btw can use suppression, (and this was proved by my experience with the bren gun) the Light Machine gun is able to put down enough rounds of ammunition to cover that entire squad on equal terms. Yes mathematically if there are five guys shooting at one target the chances of it being hit are high, but thats not what we are talking about, this has nothing to do with the probability of killing the target. This however has to deal with the fact, that those five guys are shooting at, lets say an entrenched Mg42 hiding behind cover or hidden behind a small embankment, the MG42 is not only putting down enough rounds of ammunition to match their firepower, BUT he also has the advantage that his fire, is able to make those rifleman blind because of the suppression effect.

If however that rifle squad also had suppression, and in turn could effect the MG42's vision, the MG42 suddenly is less effective, and the two sides fire at each others position until one moves, either side is annihilated, or something else comes along and changes the situation.

Im not asking for some magical suppression over hall like Djinn, I just want my squad to have the ability, when we are working together to fire our rifles and know that when our bullets impact down range that there is an effect which is giving that same visual hindrance which I'm receiving.

And I've told you people over and over and over again, that when one man would go up against a larger squad, not only are his chances of being hit greatly increased (like you stated) but with suppression on everything he would effectively be rendered combat ineffective due to the overall visual hindrance he is receiving, which he cannot possibly hope to return due to his lack in numbers, unless of course he has a weapon system which can match it.

Warfare is won by the side that puts down the greatest volume of rounds down range, Suppression helps reenact this, it needs to be put on EVERYTHING.

The two of you can continue to believe that it wont improve teamwork at all, but I can almost assuredly say it will. I won't bother making examples since any I make will instantly be dismissed.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 06-08-2011, 15:08:13
Blind?... Where did I miss when this turned to a blindness effect?

- Still no actual example of why they would need to work in larger groups... Your example of an MG42 guy (take Hurtgen forest as example) tells me that you want all the 6 players to be blind... Him, being fired upon by small arms fromt he squad of 5, and they being fired upon by him. Why on earth would this be a more enjoyable experience?

"Warfare is won by the side that puts down the greatest volume of rounds down range" is your mantra, might be quoted from some military site, I don't know. But game play, isn't won this way. The maps aren't "ranges" and players - who sit comfortably in their chairs at their PCs - are very clever, and adapts very well to game mechanics. They don't care if they die and they will ignore this effect as long as it has no real mechanical or punishing characteristics.
Just hop on to a FH2 server now... Expose yourself to suppressing fire.. do you care? No, you don't.. you think "ah ok, someone is shooting at me, I will just go around the house here and frag him"... you don't even see the effect! As it comes and goes constantly, it is almost the same as if it was never there.

And I would also like you to explain how when adding this to every "gun, pistol, rifle, sub machine gun", you would counter the "boy who cried wolf-effect" by which I mean: when the effect is constantly playing, all the time, everywhere. How will you know where the gunman is, and when you are in real danger, as opposed to no danger, if the effect is constantly there - aka crying "wolf"
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 06-08-2011, 15:08:51
Blind?... Where did I miss when this turned to a blindness effect?

- Still no actual example of why they would need to work in larger groups... Your example of an MG42 guy (take Hurtgen forest as example) tells me that you want all the 6 players to be blind... Him, being fired upon by small arms fromt he squad of 5, and they being fired upon by him. Why on earth would this be a more enjoyable experience?

"Warfare is won by the side that puts down the greatest volume of rounds down range" is your mantra, might be quoted from some military site, I don't know. But game play, isn't won this way. The maps aren't "ranges" and players - who sit comfortably in their chairs at their PCs - are very clever, and adapts very well to game mechanics. They don't care if they die and they will ignore this effect as long as it has no real mechanical or punishing characteristics.
Just hop on to a FH2 server now... Expose yourself to suppressing fire.. do you care? No, you don't.. you think "ah ok, someone is shooting at me, I will just go around the house here and frag him"... you don't even see the effect! As it comes and goes constantly, it is almost the same as if it was never there.

And I would also like you to explain how when adding this to every "gun, pistol, rifle, sub machine gun", you would counter the "boy who cried wold effect" by which I mean: when the effect is constantly playing, all the time, everywhere. How will you know where the gunman is, and when you are in real danger, as opposed to no danger, if the effect is constantly there - aka crying "wolf"


Hahaha, see this is why nobody can have a debate with you, because you take things WAY too literally. I'm not asking for the Suppression effect to make you "blind", hahaha.

Its not a Mantra, its not taken from some book, its a fact. However, I wouldn't expect you to deal in fact, I now know your stance on Forgotten Hope 2 and how it should be played, that is: spawn die, spawn die, spawn die.

The point is your reinforcing my argument when you talk about flanking a player to frag him. His fire was effective enough to make you change your tactics, that's what Suppression is about to begin with. It has nothing to do with making people "blind" or making some drastic physical change to the weapons accuracy or the avatars abilities, it simply has to do with the ability to make players more aware they are being engaged. It wouldn't be everywhere, every second, or every game, because that's simply not what happens in Forgotten Hope 2, if you played often you might know that.

On the contrary adding the current suppression effect to everything would give players just another tool to use to their advantage, currently one only reserved for light and heavy machine gunners which gives them an advantage.

By educating players about the uses of that tool, players would gladly work together to use it effectively to win the battle. Not everyone playing the game is a heartless bastard just looking to get a high Kill to Death Ratio, there are those of us who like to sacrifice our score for the victory, that includes doing support tasks. Suppressing targets is just another support task, a support task which is based heavily in reality.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LHeureux on 06-08-2011, 15:08:06
@Eat Uranium: Yes, the feedback when getting suppressed is obvious, and works.

Feedback when supressing is non existant (LuckyOne is wrong, as you always wont see people "taing cover" it is not feedback that works every time)
Feedback when your teammate is suppressing (you have rifle) is non existant as well

If those two are fixed, it would be a different discussion.
The feedback is there. Because when you shoot the enemy you know that he's being supressed, because when they shot you, you were supressed, it's the same for them, their game isn't different. And it's the same for your friend too, because he plays the same game, while he shoots the enemies the average joe knows that they are supressed because it already happened to him.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LuckyOne on 06-08-2011, 17:08:03
Why can't we get something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpCOROFmGek&feature=player_embedded#at=383

I know that "real" weapon sway isn't possible in BF2 but I believe that even fake weapon sway would really help in distracting the aiming of the person being suppressed...
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 06-08-2011, 17:08:30
Not possible in this engine.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LuckyOne on 06-08-2011, 17:08:12
Not possible in this engine.

Not even fake, visual only? Damn...

I guess then our best bet is some subtle camera shake as the bullets land near you: more bullets = more shake.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Beaufort on 06-08-2011, 20:08:44
@ Archimonday

You seem to be complaining about the suppression effect giving an advantage to the mg gunner because the other guns don't have it, but this advantage was wanted by the devs to make mgs more effective iirc, not so much for suppression...  :-\
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 06-08-2011, 22:08:26
@Archi, if you attempt to have a serious discussion, first of all you need to learn to talk literary. If you say blind, I hear blind.. I dont know what you mean. If you ever did any actual implementation of things or have needed to communicate this to others, you would know the importance of absolute clarity in how you word things.. If you just mod for yourself, then.... well, no one else need to know.
This is why Im asking you to basically give me a walkthrough in a typical scenario when more suppression will make players stick together more. you avoid this constantly.
And saying you know my stance and that it's spawn-die etc.. reallly.. this makes you look very childish in this discussion... I mean come on  ::) Im embarrassed...

In FH2 there is constant gunfire.. just hop on any full server... yes, the effect would be enabled pretty much all the time. Unless your idea is that the radius is so tiny, only bullets that is an inch from you trigger the effect... that wasnt really the picture you painted earlier, with that one MG guy who suppressed 5 guys... that would mean a radius per bullet of some meter or more.

whiiiiiiich would result in over half our maps being totally covered in this effect, as most maps are high density maps where we kill eachother on quite a small area.

and you contradict yourself again, saying now suppression is only to "alert" you you are being "engaged" (another arbitrary military term) Someone shoots at you in FH2, you know it. Without the suppression.

OK - 2.4 has the bullet crack too low, I give you THIS.. it will be back to 2.3 volume in the next patch.
I also have a to-do note on making bullet impacts louder and heard a bit longer. This way the bullet crack + the bullet hitting the wall, will tell you someone is "engaging" you.. No need for us to throw Boomer-puke in your face also.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 06-08-2011, 23:08:17
@Archi, if you attempt to have a serious discussion, first of all you need to learn to talk literary. If you say blind, I hear blind.. I dont know what you mean. If you ever did any actual implementation of things or have needed to communicate this to others, you would know the importance of absolute clarity in how you word things.. If you just mod for yourself, then.... well, no one else need to know.
This is why Im asking you to basically give me a walkthrough in a typical scenario when more suppression will make players stick together more. you avoid this constantly.
And saying you know my stance and that it's spawn-die etc.. reallly.. this makes you look very childish in this discussion... I mean come on  ::) Im embarrassed...

In FH2 there is constant gunfire.. just hop on any full server... yes, the effect would be enabled pretty much all the time. Unless your idea is that the radius is so tiny, only bullets that is an inch from you trigger the effect... that wasnt really the picture you painted earlier, with that one MG guy who suppressed 5 guys... that would mean a radius per bullet of some meter or more.

whiiiiiiich would result in over half our maps being totally covered in this effect, as most maps are high density maps where we kill eachother on quite a small area.

and you contradict yourself again, saying now suppression is only to "alert" you you are being "engaged" (another arbitrary military term) Someone shoots at you in FH2, you know it. Without the suppression.

OK - 2.4 has the bullet crack too low, I give you THIS.. it will be back to 2.3 volume in the next patch.
I also have a to-do note on making bullet impacts louder and heard a bit longer. This way the bullet crack + the bullet hitting the wall, will tell you someone is "engaging" you.. No need for us to throw Boomer-puke in your face also.

What?! Your making all sorts of assumptions based off of nothing! I don't just "mod for myself" in-fact I have been a part of Dev teams, the big difference in them, was that people were not so stubbornly resistant to try and change things, to the point where they would spend hours debating them rather than testing them and deciding what works and what doesn't. If an idea got brought up in BGF, we tested it first, debated afterwards.

There is no constant gunfire in Forgotten Hope, Hell I played three rounds of the mod today, and there was not a single time where I continuously spawned and found myself under continual gunfire. Where did you get the idea that the suppression effect is to be a meter wide or more? The suppression effect as IS, is fine, don't confuse my argument with Djinn's, I just want to see it put on all weapons. The idea of the MG42 suppressing five guys is that the gunner was traversing their position covering them with bullets to suppress multiple targets at once.

You also only know your being shot at in FH2, after the enemy has hit you, or if you hear the shot, there is no other feedback telling you your being shot at. The bullet impacts are too small, the crack is now bugged so even that is gone, despite the fact its being fixed.

I have given you scenarios where the suppression effect helps teamwork, specifically in the case of a lone man finding himself faced against a squad. Currently in Forgotten Hope 2, as I stated, a man with a chest high cover and a rifle can take on a squad by himself simply by spamming his control key and pixel shooting with his iron sights rapidly. This is unrealistic, and Suppression helps change this, because now that man has a visual hindrance placed upon him, which makes the rapid acquiring of targets THAT much more difficult, and as a result that one man is now rendered useless against the combine power of a squad, and is forced to find companions to help him fight. It is a team play oriented change, based around the placement of a visual hindrance which creates a visual representation of "fear".

To reiterate: Do not confuse my argument, with Djinns.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 06-08-2011, 23:08:42
Natty is a rock. You wont win by trying to barrel him down, Archi.

I think for all concerned, let's move this to another topic for teamwork. We're boring the rest of the community. The data is all there for the decision makers
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 07-08-2011, 00:08:44
Let's take this lone dude as example.. he is behind a wall, and is getting suppressed (by say, 2 guys with SMGs), how is this making him teamwork more? What is he supposed to do, run to his squad mates and get de-suppressed?

Im having serious problems converting these assumptions to real-game events. I have seen Band of brothers, and many other war movies where they shout "supressing fire!!" and 3-4 guys pop up and shoot, while some others advance..

Is this the goal with this change?

If so, I think first of all we would need a game where players do cover each other in the first place, or heck, even care what others are doing.... In FH2 pubby rounds, it's not like 3 guys would synchronological fire at a controlpoint, while I sprint over the field in glory knowing my enemies are "supressed"... it's simply not what happens.

It could happen, yes.. maybe once in a round... when your teammate happened to be shooting in that direction anyway, and you happened to be running there as well. Forget about synchronizing this so a bunch of guys are laying out cover fire while the rest advance. Maybe in tournament game play..... or in a hardcore VoIP squad, or in PR.. I just dont see this happening in FH2.
Relying (in this case "trusting fully") on player cooperation for a feature to work, is doomed to fail.

On another note: I would not fully object adding suppression to all weapons. In a completely different context. I dont think it would "increase teamplay" which we now instead can call "make players synchronize gunfire so his teammates can advance", but there are other effects that could be achieved (which I will not talk about here)

And about me being "stubborn"... I was debating heavily in this forum about the removal of crossairs, but after looking carefully (as in, for real, not chatting and arguing) at what we wanted to do with infantry play, and what the goals were, and discussing it seriously in the devteam, I was the one that removed it from the mod :) So you see... Im using these threads as a spring-board on which to grow new arguments, and so far this thread made me realize that weapon aim-time (deviation time) if made longer  + suppression on all weapons, would result in a side-goal we wanted earlier.
Nothing to do with teamplay at all.
But then it's the business of pursuading Kev4000 that this would be achieved as well  ;D
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: SiCaRiO on 07-08-2011, 00:08:48
Let's take this lone dude as example.. he is behind a wall, and is getting suppressed (by say, 2 guys with SMGs), how is this making him teamwork more? What is he supposed to do, run to his squad mates and get de-suppressed?


he is going  find counter attacking those 2 smgers by himself its impossible, dying in the try and learning next time to stick with more players to have a better chanse to survive. all the games/mods with supression have made that happened to a diferent degree, in PR by pind down the enemy, in DH by making them less able to fire accuaratly,ect.

teamwork is relaying in your teammates to bost your chanses of success. teamwork is not running in the same direction because the map is designed to make people run in the same direction.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 07-08-2011, 01:08:53
Let's take this lone dude as example.. he is behind a wall, and is getting suppressed (by say, 2 guys with SMGs), how is this making him teamwork more? What is he supposed to do, run to his squad mates and get de-suppressed?

Im having serious problems converting these assumptions to real-game events. I have seen Band of brothers, and many other war movies where they shout "supressing fire!!" and 3-4 guys pop up and shoot, while some others advance..

Is this the goal with this change?

If so, I think first of all we would need a game where players do cover each other in the first place, or heck, even care what others are doing.... In FH2 pubby rounds, it's not like 3 guys would synchronological fire at a controlpoint, while I sprint over the field in glory knowing my enemies are "supressed"... it's simply not what happens.

It could happen, yes.. maybe once in a round... when your teammate happened to be shooting in that direction anyway, and you happened to be running there as well. Forget about synchronizing this so a bunch of guys are laying out cover fire while the rest advance. Maybe in tournament game play..... or in a hardcore VoIP squad, or in PR.. I just dont see this happening in FH2.
Relying (in this case "trusting fully") on player cooperation for a feature to work, is doomed to fail.

On another note: I would not fully object adding suppression to all weapons. In a completely different context. I dont think it would "increase teamplay" which we now instead can call "make players synchronize gunfire so his teammates can advance", but there are other effects that could be achieved (which I will not talk about here)

And about me being "stubborn"... I was debating heavily in this forum about the removal of crossairs, but after looking carefully (as in, for real, not chatting and arguing) at what we wanted to do with infantry play, and what the goals were, and discussing it seriously in the devteam, I was the one that removed it from the mod :) So you see... Im using these threads as a spring-board on which to grow new arguments, and so far this thread made me realize that weapon aim-time (deviation time) if made longer  + suppression on all weapons, would result in a side-goal we wanted earlier.
Nothing to do with teamplay at all.
But then it's the business of pursuading Kev4000 that this would be achieved as well  ;D

Your still only focusing one part of the suggestion. This has nothing to do with reenacting movies like Band Of Brothers, Band of Brothers was reenacting real life. Covering Fire is a tactic, a tactic which cannot be utilized in games effectively because there is no actual fear being placed upon the players, if people were actually afraid to die like they were in real life, nobody would play a game. That fact I am not arguing. However, mods like PR, and Games like Red Orchestra have implemented this visual hindrance to help simulate the effect of bullets acting on, not the player, but the avatar, the characters self-image in-game. The Avatar, not the player is the one being "scared" by this effect, that is what its goal is to represent. I'm not asking for it to be longer, or shorter, or different for all guns, or have some magical camera shake, I just want it on all weapons so that it is universal.

THEN, and here's the original part of my suggestion that everyone ignored, and it went hand and hand with the posters, once Suppression is implemented on all weapons, you educate players about the effective uses of this new feature, and how to work together to implement it. The biggest hindrance to team work in any game is ignorance, ignorance not only to the actuality of the war that is being portrayed, but to the tactics that were used to win it.

As I stated so very long ago in this thread:

As long as people are educated about the usefulness of suppression, and the various tactics they can employ to use it properly, they will work in larger groups to use it more effectively.

The thread then digressed into a long discussion about Suppression, when originally my suggestion was that Suppression be added to every gun, and then be coupled with education for the players, by means of news updates, youtube, facebook, loading screens, posters, whatever it was. THAT, was why things like Suppression would have improved teamwork.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LuckyOne on 07-08-2011, 02:08:07
In FH2 pubby rounds, it's not like 3 guys would synchronological fire at a controlpoint, while I sprint over the field in glory knowing my enemies are "supressed"... it's simply not what happens.

I think they would, IF they knew it COULD work...Right now they know it's bloody useless, so what's the point...



It could happen, yes.. maybe once in a round... when your teammate happened to be shooting in that direction anyway, and you happened to be running there as well. Forget about synchronizing this so a bunch of guys are laying out cover fire while the rest advance. Maybe in tournament game play..... or in a hardcore VoIP squad, or in PR.. I just dont see this happening in FH2.
Relying (in this case "trusting fully") on player cooperation for a feature to work, is doomed to fail.

You don't see it happening because it's not in yet... ::)

On another note: I would not fully object adding suppression to all weapons. In a completely different context. I dont think it would "increase teamplay" which we now instead can call "make players synchronize gunfire so his teammates can advance", but there are other effects that could be achieved (which I will not talk about here)

Good to know.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 07-08-2011, 10:08:28
The biggest hindrance to team work in any game is ignorance, ignorance not only to the actuality of the war that is being portrayed, but to the tactics that were used to win it.

As long as people are educated about the usefulness of suppression, and the various tactics they can employ to use it properly, they will work in larger groups to use it more effectively.


Those are two statements which prove you have yet to learn a lot :)
Ignorance & "educated"?
Do you seriously believe players care about real-war tactics? I mean seriously...? Im sure a small percentage do, absolutely, but it simply does not work in a computer game.. What "tactics" are you even refering to? can you name some and how they work?... give an example on a FH2 map where it can be used, and then also explain; should those tactics be used every single time, by everyone? Isnt that going to be a bit predictable and boring?

Players can run, jump and shoot in this game, they can also dive down to prone, and duck. There, those are the "tactics" we allow. Nothing more, nothing less. Except you're in a vehicle. Then you can also drive. Real world, offers alot lot more than these. You are simply not talking about tactics, actually (it is yet another militart term you use to hide you real goal) you are talking about behaviour. For some reason, you dislike that players can run and jump as they wish, to left and right, without order,. "run and gun" as it is called. That they can stop at any second and change their mind, that they dont follow orders, that they instead of protecting their teammates are a bit like dogs who suddenly spot a duck and starts chasing it.
This "ignorance" you speak of, is simply just - actually - free will. The freedom to enjoy the game they payed for as-they-wish. That some of them just don't do what you want them to do.
If you ever played Brothers in Arms or Operation Flashpoint, Im sure you raged loudly when the bots didn't follow your orders, and instead took own initiatives and started shooting or moving as they wished.

With 64 players on a server, you have 64 free minds. Everyone has his own way of making his time at the PC fun. Some think that that shooting guys in the face with various guns is fun, others just want to drive around the map and look at the scenery, others care only about the flags, and chase them like obssessed, others dont really care about the fight, they just prefer to chat with everyone, having the game as nice ambience - as a virtual chatroom - others want hardcore military discipline, and creates a little minigame for themselves to see how far they can stick together and help eachother out, cheering wildly if they make it through a whole round without losing the squad.
These are all personal variations of fun, and what you seem to not understand, is that it is the job of designers to make sure the game caters towards everyone. What type of player you are, shouldn't matter, because if you create natural actions and choices for players, the game will sort of "play itself". This, is what is hard. Many of our maps do this well, they kind of run a long no matter what the players are doing (no matter what type they are, or how much of their free will they execute), while other maps completely stop working (or "fail") if players deviate too much from what the mapper hoped they would do (proof of weak design in a map)

Really.... calling players ignorant is a bit like calling them stupid.... Have you ever seen a designer look at the actions of his players and said "You are stupid! That is not how I meant"... no, you haven't. Because they change their design so the players do what he meant. It's the design that is stupid, if players aren't doing what he meant.
(You know what happens in a game like that? Players will feel stupid. This is the worst case scenario for a designer, because the player is not going to accept that it is he that is stupid. Instead he will blame the game for being stupid, and stop playing it.)
 A good design should overcome the "ignorance problem" How else do you think players fast learn complex systems like in certain strategy games, MMOs, or flight control simulators? because those players are so intelligent? Or because they are well designed, allowing any player to learn by trial while providing fun for him at the same time?

"Educate them" Well this bounces back to what I said about motivation. I agree with you, if we did create a strong enough motivation for players to teamplay, they would. and it would feel natural to them, as if they did that choice because they themselves figured out that it was what was best for them. Kind of like in real life, where you think that you figured out yourself that working and making more money is better for you, you are motivated to do extra shifts to get more money. When in fact it is the economic system which is designed to make you want to earn money, you still think "heey.. I can take these extra 3 shifts this month and make more money, Im clever!"

We, are creating the economic system. Those things that will make players think "heey, if I do this, I will do better in this game" that, is motivation. So far in this thread, I haven't seen a single suggestion or example why suppression would make players think "heey, I have to stick near these guys, otherwise I wont be able to enjoy this game as much. Hanging with these guys make it much more fun!" when in fact, you can just leave them at any second and run somewhere else and do something which is much more fun, for you.

Sporadic moments do happen in FH2, at many time you and your teammates are shooting in the same direction, but to think that this would happen all the time, that players should constantly stick together and "cover eachs others advances"... needs stronger motivation than the knowledge that behind the wall there, is some enemy with blurry vision.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LuckyOne on 07-08-2011, 11:08:28
I think you missed our point Natty... We're not trying to force them to stick together and act like they are in the army (although that would be kinda awesome  :P), because, as you said, everyone has free will and will do whatever they want. There's no game mechanic that can change this. (There is, however, a bunch of enforced rules that PR uses to make it happen - we don't want this).

What we're trying to achieve with this "improved" suppression system is to make it EASIER for people who want to stick together and make a coordinated assault on a flag or for people who want to stick together and defend a certain flag/point to do so. By adding a new ability for a group of players (to suppress an enemy by sending enough lead in his direction). Thus making loners realize that they benefit from "shooting in the same direction as their squadmates" as it will make it easier for them to get closer to the flag/prevent the enemy from reaching it.

However, I realized you were right about 1 thing which could prevent this from happening: player communication, and I will make a thread about it later.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 07-08-2011, 12:08:17
Communication, Motivation, Reward

Those three would in my opinion be discussed for "teamwork" instead, and for a whole lot of other things, which take priority over "teamwork"...  ::)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Archimonday on 07-08-2011, 13:08:17
The biggest hindrance to team work in any game is ignorance, ignorance not only to the actuality of the war that is being portrayed, but to the tactics that were used to win it.

As long as people are educated about the usefulness of suppression, and the various tactics they can employ to use it properly, they will work in larger groups to use it more effectively.


Those are two statements which prove you have yet to learn a lot :)
Ignorance & "educated"?
Do you seriously believe players care about real-war tactics? I mean seriously...? Im sure a small percentage do, absolutely, but it simply does not work in a computer game.. What "tactics" are you even refering to? can you name some and how they work?... give an example on a FH2 map where it can be used, and then also explain; should those tactics be used every single time, by everyone? Isnt that going to be a bit predictable and boring?

Players can run, jump and shoot in this game, they can also dive down to prone, and duck. There, those are the "tactics" we allow. Nothing more, nothing less. Except you're in a vehicle. Then you can also drive. Real world, offers alot lot more than these. You are simply not talking about tactics, actually (it is yet another militart term you use to hide you real goal) you are talking about behaviour. For some reason, you dislike that players can run and jump as they wish, to left and right, without order,. "run and gun" as it is called. That they can stop at any second and change their mind, that they dont follow orders, that they instead of protecting their teammates are a bit like dogs who suddenly spot a duck and starts chasing it.
This "ignorance" you speak of, is simply just - actually - free will. The freedom to enjoy the game they payed for as-they-wish. That some of them just don't do what you want them to do.
If you ever played Brothers in Arms or Operation Flashpoint, Im sure you raged loudly when the bots didn't follow your orders, and instead took own initiatives and started shooting or moving as they wished.

With 64 players on a server, you have 64 free minds. Everyone has his own way of making his time at the PC fun. Some think that that shooting guys in the face with various guns is fun, others just want to drive around the map and look at the scenery, others care only about the flags, and chase them like obssessed, others dont really care about the fight, they just prefer to chat with everyone, having the game as nice ambience - as a virtual chatroom - others want hardcore military discipline, and creates a little minigame for themselves to see how far they can stick together and help eachother out, cheering wildly if they make it through a whole round without losing the squad.
These are all personal variations of fun, and what you seem to not understand, is that it is the job of designers to make sure the game caters towards everyone. What type of player you are, shouldn't matter, because if you create natural actions and choices for players, the game will sort of "play itself". This, is what is hard. Many of our maps do this well, they kind of run a long no matter what the players are doing (no matter what type they are, or how much of their free will they execute), while other maps completely stop working (or "fail") if players deviate too much from what the mapper hoped they would do (proof of weak design in a map)

Really.... calling players ignorant is a bit like calling them stupid.... Have you ever seen a designer look at the actions of his players and said "You are stupid! That is not how I meant"... no, you haven't. Because they change their design so the players do what he meant. It's the design that is stupid, if players aren't doing what he meant.
(You know what happens in a game like that? Players will feel stupid. This is the worst case scenario for a designer, because the player is not going to accept that it is he that is stupid. Instead he will blame the game for being stupid, and stop playing it.)
 A good design should overcome the "ignorance problem" How else do you think players fast learn complex systems like in certain strategy games, MMOs, or flight control simulators? because those players are so intelligent? Or because they are well designed, allowing any player to learn by trial while providing fun for him at the same time?

"Educate them" Well this bounces back to what I said about motivation. I agree with you, if we did create a strong enough motivation for players to teamplay, they would. and it would feel natural to them, as if they did that choice because they themselves figured out that it was what was best for them. Kind of like in real life, where you think that you figured out yourself that working and making more money is better for you, you are motivated to do extra shifts to get more money. When in fact it is the economic system which is designed to make you want to earn money, you still think "heey.. I can take these extra 3 shifts this month and make more money, Im clever!"

We, are creating the economic system. Those things that will make players think "heey, if I do this, I will do better in this game" that, is motivation. So far in this thread, I haven't seen a single suggestion or example why suppression would make players think "heey, I have to stick near these guys, otherwise I wont be able to enjoy this game as much. Hanging with these guys make it much more fun!" when in fact, you can just leave them at any second and run somewhere else and do something which is much more fun, for you.

Sporadic moments do happen in FH2, at many time you and your teammates are shooting in the same direction, but to think that this would happen all the time, that players should constantly stick together and "cover eachs others advances"... needs stronger motivation than the knowledge that behind the wall there, is some enemy with blurry vision.


You talk to me as if I don't play games at all, or this mod, and that I have never worked with people to help and try to create an experience. I have done such things and done them successfully, so please stop being so condescending.

The idea of educating players is not to force them to work together like an actual army, its not to tell them that these are the only tactics they should use. It is however about the average public player not understanding even the basics! The average public player is so ignorant that it begs the question who exactly are playing these games? This has nothing to do with forcing players to use tactics, like you seemingly try to portray I'm trying to do, but this is about constantly flooding players minds with ideas, through the use of methods such as posters, so that when they join a game their mind has a broader sense of the things they can accomplish.

Its like the Elder Scrolls 4 Oblivion, if I had known sometime earlier that using Alchemy I could've created some useful potions, and then hot keyed them to be used in combat on the fly, I probably would've been far more successful, its just something that's useful. The same principal goes on in first person shooters. If you immediately damn the community to this low level scum of the earth that can never improve, then you've already given up on the idea that your mod can't be any better. Most squads in PR will quickly educate their members on the proper ways to use weapons and equipment, and how they are going to stick together properly, its just a necessity for the game to take shape. Why should FH2 just allow its players to be so ignorant?

If you educate people on some simple tactics that they can employ, and you show them the effect of the suppression effect, they WILL use it, and use it together.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: LHeureux on 07-08-2011, 15:08:24
I think that Natty is right on some points. Supression does not really force people to teamplay more, it's just another teamplay TOOL,

So basically what we want is : Supression for all guns, the same kind of supressions that MGs had in 2.3 (my shaders are broken in 2.4), no camerashake. Maybe less powerfull for pistols and small calibers. What it will do :

1.Being able to keep your enemies heads down while your friends charge them.
2.Avoid enemies to shoot back accurately at you. (You had the advantage, you fired first)
3.Make people realise that sticking with your squad and in groups will avoid you to die more often.
4.Being able to offer covering fire.
5.Automatic weapons such as SMGs will have a new advantage over semi-auto rifles. Rifles have the accuracy, SMGs are able to supress more.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 07-08-2011, 15:08:36
With 64 players on a server, you have 64 free minds. Everyone has his own way of making his time at the PC fun. Some think that that shooting guys in the face with various guns is fun, others just want to drive around the map and look at the scenery, others care only about the flags, and chase them like obssessed, others dont really care about the fight, they just prefer to chat with everyone, having the game as nice ambience - as a virtual chatroom - others want hardcore military discipline, and creates a little minigame for themselves to see how far they can stick together and help eachother out, cheering wildly if they make it through a whole round without losing the squad.
These are all personal variations of fun, and what you seem to not understand, is that it is the job of designers to make sure the game caters towards everyone.
That´s the current problem FH2 has at the moment.
FH2 tries to please every kind of gamer: Those who want "realism", the "run and gun"-crowd, the WW2 buffs who enjoy seeing vintage vehicles in their "natural environment" etc.
We have elements in-mod that appeal everyone, like 1s1k with rifles, a bleed system, insta-accurate iron sights, quick respawns, medals and awards, an artillery system that tries to aim for teamwork but at the same time is ridiculously easy to use and very "arcadey", maps that portray real battles, maps that were amde for the "insta-gib" crowd etc. but all of them together "don´t feel right". It´s odd when my machine gun has a small supression effect and takes time to set up, but at the same time a rifle man can pop up from behind cover and insta-shoot me because he has no penalty for standing up and sighting in in a split second.
IMO FH2 needs to clearly define which audience it wants to please, because at the moment it doesn´t fully please any. Removing the cross hairs was a step into the "realism" corner, but compared to other mods, such as Darkest Hour it´s still a mile away, yet at the same time it´s far away from the "run and gun"-corner, too. FH2 is split between two seats and needs to decide which one to take, otherwise noone will be happy and the "die hard" fans of each side will leave for games that offer them what they want.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 07-08-2011, 15:08:00
@Homer_jay... you are outlining various playertypes based on your own personal references. We aim towards players who like battlefield and forgotten hope, and people who like the WW2 theme. That's the players we want. "realism" or "run n gun" freaks is only your description of them.

The basics of FH2 is: Capture control points, kill enemies. Everyone understands these basics. for some, that is enough, they dont need more than that. For others, playing in a squad and protecting eachother, is more fun.

I think the posters were a great idea. We could even inform players of a lot lot more things via ingame "advertising"

In EoD mod for bf1942, they cleverly put up billboards (or briefing-posters) in mainbases, that displayed the minimap and where bases and gun positions were.. You ran pass them once, twice, without caring, but after a while, that image got hammered in to your brain, so when the action was raging, sometimes you remember it "ooh.. yes there was a path there also"

So yes :) I like that, and I smiled when I saw them, as I was did one of these prior to 2.2 I think, but never put in-game.

Not so fancy, but same idea.



(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e285/Natty_Wallo/CivilianDefense.jpg)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 07-08-2011, 15:08:38
With 64 players on a server, you have 64 free minds. Everyone has his own way of making his time at the PC fun. Some think that that shooting guys in the face with various guns is fun, others just want to drive around the map and look at the scenery, others care only about the flags, and chase them like obssessed, others dont really care about the fight, they just prefer to chat with everyone, having the game as nice ambience - as a virtual chatroom - others want hardcore military discipline, and creates a little minigame for themselves to see how far they can stick together and help eachother out, cheering wildly if they make it through a whole round without losing the squad.
These are all personal variations of fun, and what you seem to not understand, is that it is the job of designers to make sure the game caters towards everyone.
That´s the current problem FH2 has at the moment.
FH2 tries to please every kind of gamer: Those who want "realism", the "run and gun"-crowd, the WW2 buffs who enjoy seeing vintage vehicles in their "natural environment" etc.
We have elements in-mod that appeal everyone, like 1s1k with rifles, a bleed system, insta-accurate iron sights, quick respawns, medals and awards, an artillery system that tries to aim for teamwork but at the same time is ridiculously easy to use and very "arcadey", maps that portray real battles, maps that were amde for the "insta-gib" crowd etc. but all of them together "don´t feel right". It´s odd when my machine gun has a small supression effect and takes time to set up, but at the same time a rifle man can pop up from behind cover and insta-shoot me because he has no penalty for standing up and sighting in in a split second.
IMO FH2 needs to clearly define which audience it wants to please, because at the moment it doesn´t fully please any. Removing the cross hairs was a step into the "realism" corner, but compared to other mods, such as Darkest Hour it´s still a mile away, yet at the same time it´s far away from the "run and gun"-corner, too. FH2 is split between two seats and needs to decide which one to take, otherwise noone will be happy and the "die hard" fans of each side will leave for games that offer them what they want.

Fh2 was quite clear about the type of game it is... Now that MAY have changed, but this was what I understood.

FH2 is a blend between realism and 'fun' for its own sake, gameplay. Fh2 tries to give you the true experience of being in a raging WWII battle without dealing with the nuances of WWII realism. To put it in another way, FH2 tries to be realistic FIRST, then balances that with fun, tweaking its gameplay down and softening some of its realism edges for the sake of fun. I think that's a perfect system. I don't think the game has issues.

Its easy to play, it has a learning curve, but one gentle enough that it does not hinder your ability to play it, just one that limits what aspects of the game you can full experience until you get - veteran vs newby. And its control system is easy and intuitive. That for me, is an ingenious balance. Sure, FH2 might have gone slightly realism in 2.4

But that's not out of its way. If anything, 2.4 makes FH2 more true to FH1, since aircraft and tanks now handle closer to that than it did before the patch. Removing the crosshair is ALOT less impacting than you may think. Many people completely forget that it is missing when in the heat of battle. You just know that you wont do well with a rifle unless you aim down the sights, and you would do better with an smg at close range. It makes the roles clearer.

It can always adjust more towards 'fun', or more towards 'realism' while remaining true to its form of play. That has never been the issue. What it CANNOT do, is claim to want more teamplay and hence switch to a FHPR or more to BF42 vanilla. So those asking for PR-ish game architectures to make FH2 play better for teamplay should realize that you MAY be asking the devs to change the type of game they were making because that's what YOU want to see...

FH2 has its own flavor or teamplay. Get a sense of that, and propose ideas that remain true to it - Be they new or recycled.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 07-08-2011, 16:08:05
Fun and Realism are not two opposites
Realism and Arcade are not two opposites
Hardcore and Casual are not two opposites
Fun and Hardcore are not two opposites
Hardcore and Arcade are not two opposites

This you must get your head around first, and why they aren't eachothers opposites.

Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 07-08-2011, 16:08:46
Replace 'fun'/ 'fun for its own sake' with 'non-realsim shootemup', ok Natty. I think everyone gets it without us having to go into semantics.



Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 07-08-2011, 17:08:04
gets what?
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 07-08-2011, 18:08:03
What I was trying to put across when I contrasted Realism and 'fun' for its own sake. I don't think people are confused about what I meant by 'fun'. Sure I may have chosen the wrong word, but the point gets lost or weakened when one focuses on a minor bit that has little to do with the main point
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: flamedexter on 14-08-2011, 10:08:27
I think Squad VOIP plays an important role for teamwork.

I discovered that when i join a squad, no one really speaks to each other, everybody in the squad just minds their own business. Then one day I started speaking via VOIP to warn my squad leader about an armor and heck he started speaking and acknowledge my warning. Then the the other members eventually started speaking too and the "teamwork" starts to come out as we began to coordinate our movement.

But there are times when a squad just don't communicate because they dont have a mic or simply want to do their own thing with the advantage of having a SL spawn point

I guess its just a mater of right time,right map and the right people

So I figured if we want teamwork in FH2 without changing alot in the system of the mod, all " they" have to do is
1. Encourage people to join a squad
2. Encourage the use of VOIP

If these two things can be done then teamwork will spontaneously play out. I understand that Fh2 try to be realistic and fun so we just cant force people  something.Therefore just like Natty said, an in game advertisement would suffice. For example a system message saying something about the benefit of a teamwork and squad, like
 " You see an enemy tank, use your binoculars,spot it to let the team know so they can feed its own medicine"
" Hate spawning in a far  base away from the fight? Join a Squad and  get to the front faster"

I mean there are ranked servers already doing it for a long time, if Im right i think Hlans server encourage people to join a squad by the system message which pop up after joining their server.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Eglaerinion on 14-08-2011, 16:08:15
If you want to play with people using VoIP simply create a squad called VoIP and people will join and communicate. Seems to work pretty well sofar. Invite people that are not in squads to your squad if there is space. Especially newer players might be hesitant to join a squad. VoIP will increase teamplay in squad but not teamplay as a team, that is the mappers job.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: :| Hi on 14-08-2011, 17:08:15
I can guarantee, if you start a squad titled Twork, teamplay, VoIP, or anything around that area, yoursquad will fill up.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 15-08-2011, 09:08:18
Totally agree with both of the previous posts . These things WILL improve teamplay and HAS. But the issue is, they require initiative from individual players. In that respect it is like Omaha on dday. Requiring the initiative of the wrong people to make the event a success.

I feel the way to get teamplay in is a 3 pronged approach... I know, its so-o cliche  :)

But here they are:
1. Teamplay-centered Game mechanics. The game needs to be Experienced. You should be able to jump in and every aspect of the game ALLOWS you to play better as a teamplayer. I have seen many people using the commo-rose for roles it wasn't intended for, simply to... 'get the word out'. People WANT to play as a team. HELP them to. Commander assets beefed up will allow more proactive commanders who see fun in controlling and supporting the overall strategy, commo-rose functionality will allow the first point of call for communication to afford Most needed forms of communication before others are sought, little 'silly' things like 2-speeds on tanks allow for independent tactics by players to exist without having them 'coerce' the system by having to tap-tap to get it to happen.

2. Education. The reason I work feaverishly on crap like Voice-overs and the unofficial Tactical manual etc, is to allow players to have an understanding of standard tactics they can employ. I forsee a time where most people will at least know 5 of the good tactics for each kit, squad-level, team level and faction level, and play these off the enemy to win - One side against the other (Quintessentially German against quintessentially American as opposed to people simply throwing WWII toys at each other... Not saying that's all FH2 is currently, but this is the extreme left). Some people, with the base of these tactics existing, will go further and make new ones that give them edge... And the game will get to a new level of awesome. Newbies will join the ranks, understanding that, not only will they die uselessly if they play solo, but they will be out of their league until they learn the tricks being employed.

other forms of education include new improved Training videos starring Sarge... or whatever his name is.. I loved that character, someone remind me what he was called. Forgotten Hpoe NEEDS its mascot. Also, fake propaganda pictures educating players ingame to play in teams, use VOIP, etc, etc will not only work subtly to reinforce what players get from the tactical manuals and training videos, but brand the game as its own form of Cult classic.

3. Finally, Independent Initiative. The bright sparks in the firmament will ALWAYS push the bar and motivate others by leading from the front. Initiatives like picking up the mic and speaking, holding the line at all costs, even if your flag is cut off, making squads named 'Teamplay', 'VOIP', 'Artillery' etc, all these can not be acknowledged enough. A game is only a nifty mechanic funfair unless people are willing to play well... And we have these people. Give them the tools, give everyone else the education, and they willl GLOW even brighter....



Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 15-08-2011, 09:08:02
I don't want to like 'bum  you out' or anything... but you're exagerrating this quite a lot.... this isn't some World Cup Soccer finale...it's battlefield...DICE designed this game play 10 years ago, and we haven't changed it much.

You select a weapon, select a spawn point, head in to battle, kill enemies, cap flags.

Really... how you do these things - what "tactics" you use - isn't really relevant... you can run around houses, run through them, jump, duck, go prone, throw nades, lol, drive a tank whatever.. it's nothing special at all... there arent actually any real "tactics" or "teamplay" going on, it's dudes chatting to eachother (oh I see a tank, hey wait for me).... what's important is that from an omnipresent view, the gameplay works. i.e. dudes having fun, gameplay flows naturally, no boring stalemates, no annoying steamrolling, fair and balanced action, climactic endings... these things are created by the designer (mapper, developer, coders) not the players..
Players are bricks on the board, sure it's cool if they talk to eachother, you can often save someone by telling him -dont go there! or -I see a tank there! but really... this is not what makes the gameplay work. We make them work the months/years of testing the maps, evaluating them and developing them. Players fill them up and kill eachother on them.

If the map works, it means we made a good job. If the map fails, it means we did it wrong. It is never the playrs fault if the map doesnt work. They dont have that kind of influence over the overall game play.

Simply put  8)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 15-08-2011, 10:08:25
Not sure I can agree with you Natty. But I respect where you are coming from. But part of Game theory IS Mimcry, and FH2 has it in Oodles.

The game system will work EVEN if people just run around blasting each other in the face with pixel guns. But people DO try to play tactically. More so some than others, but they do. You will note over and over again, squads run up, one stop crouched and aiming, while the next moves up, stops, then the former... etc. You see people align themselves outside the church door, all up against the wall....

Mimicry.

And the most fun you can have is not from the fact that it is JUST ANOTHER shooter with WWII guns balanced and weighted differently from COD1, 2, 3 and 5. There is more to FH2 than you think. Give them the tools, Natty, and those that already do will find it easier to play tactically, and those that don't will have reason to.

But let's agree to disagree. This is just MY way of seeing it, that it yours.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 15-08-2011, 11:08:12
You are talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_Movement right?

That isn't mimiced by individual players, everyone is doing it, all the time, that is what game play more or less means (in shooter games) :) It just doesn't look the way it looks in movies  ;)

If you guys are talking about Fire+Movement "tactics" to be the equal of "teamplay" you are way off here  :)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 15-08-2011, 14:08:24
I'm talking more about the aspect of game theory that surrounds gamers immersion into the game world, and perceiving themselves s part of the system. This exists primarily in Role-player games. But courtesy of kit selection and being a specific part of the team, and maybe, just good gameplay in Fh2, FH2 has mimicry. Its not really a Shootem-up feature. All games with anthropometric playable characters and/ or background/ storyline HAVE mimicry (Fh2 has background and humanoid characters), but Shootemups don't have mimicry as big a theme as FH2, which I see as more Sandbox Role-player shooter-ish... (Personally, I don't see FH2 as a 'Shoot-em-up, nor BF2 for that matter. since that would be more about volumes of enemy that act as the challenge, with little other aspects like Fh2 has coming into play. But you are DICE, so you would know better than me on what was intended). Its more an RPG, Adventure game feature, and games like GTA and other sandbox games kind of blurr the line for games that have Mimicry as major theme in game-play.

I feel that with mimicry naturally existing in FH2, even just for immitation of fire-and-maneouver, its not a big step to translate that into a practical gameplay aspect, developed by various game-mechanics and testing resulting in tactical manuals that advice how best to put mimicry to practical use.

Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 15-08-2011, 15:08:57
but the mimicry comes from clicking which kit to use, and then controlling the 3d model that we made look like ww2 soldiers, and using the pre-fabricated comm system. It for sure isn't achieved by moving said 3d soldier in a certain way.... animations are already done. You just press forward to go where you want.. That, is the mimicry of the soldier. It is all taken care of by DICE and us.. We make you look and sound as a soldier, you need not to "act" like one, you are one already.

The players job isnt to "look" like a soldier in the eyes of other players, his job is to play the game mode and have fun.

This is what you seem to have misunderstood.. You seem to think that mimicry is how you steer the avatar through the world, as if there is a "real" and a "wrong" way to cap flags and kill.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 15-08-2011, 15:08:31
The AT rifleman who needs to make his way to a tank unseen to plant a sticky bomb, the sniper who needs to fire and displace, locate a birds nest not obvious to others, the rifleman who moves from corner to cornet, relying on his squadmates, knowing that he fires a slow, high-recoil weapon, the MG42 gunner who knows his ranged weapon requires he prones to use... That make up much of the mimicry. A the BAR gunner on PDH moving from crater to crater and putting as much fire down range versus the rifleman whois more reliant on his grenade.

each kit and what it comes with, its limitations and strengths MAKE up the perception of the player about who he is... Its more than simply walking and selecting an option.

But this is going offtopic. All I meant to say is, there is, imo, a 3-pronged approach to dealing with team-play. and I think, those 3 are what I states a few posts earlier.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Natty on 15-08-2011, 16:08:06
ok I think we mixed up designing teamplay with creating teamplay as a player. Creating those "voip only" squads belongs in the latter category, and is not really anything we can control, I mean Im sure it's fun for them, but it's a layer on top of the fundamental game (that game that works, even if no one makes a voip squad) which we cant control or guarantee will be there.
Personally Im not interested in things we (devs) cant control/design, but it's ofcourse fun if players use their own initiative :)
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 15-08-2011, 20:08:28
Well, it DOES answer the heading 'FH2 teamwork theory', no?
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: Smiles on 19-08-2011, 14:08:01
No because for players who dont use these "tactics" its barely noticable wich players/squads are using special tactics and wich players dont. Every encounter could be perfectly random, or well planned, and thats what makes FH2 atm i believe.
Title: Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
Post by: djinn on 19-08-2011, 20:08:40
Ah, but in that 'random', the AT rifleman holding his big gun gets shot in the face because he now has to prone, or has to switch to pistol and hope that his ranged shot kill the rifleman he run into...

I'm not saying it's orchestrated, I am simply saying, players knowing the kind of weapon they have make them move in different ways.

PDH is the perfect training ground in this case - The German defenders move up to recap their bunker. the mg gunners stop short, prone and take aim, a few still moving up with pistols, smg gunners move up also, riflemen too, but more cautiously seeing how an smg gunner will mow them down in CQB.

Its not because they are doing a purposeful Choreography, but because it is the BEST way to use their weapons. It can be helped along with a bit of education, and from the intesection of how these weapons work, it is POSSIBLE to come up with tactics, as I am doing with my tactical manual.

There is a reason why real soldiers used tactics dependent on the kind of equipment they went to war with, different from the enemy. With FH2 having a game version of this, SOME parallels can be drawn, and it optimizes player for player efficiently and survival, helps teamplay AND looks 'realistic'

If a guy with a pistol can run around the battlefield and kill 10 or 20 rifleman and smers in THEIR area of strength, he is either damn lucky or extremely good, they are noobs or totally unlucky, OR he has found an exploit caused by some lack of balancing work to make guns work the way they should... or ALL.

Random play, for the most part, should NOT succeed over good tactics.