Author Topic: FH2 Teamwork theory  (Read 15190 times)

Offline Malsa

  • A very static artist.
  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #60 on: 27-07-2011, 15:07:29 »
An improved communication system is definitely something that could be looked into.

Offline hitm4k3r

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.123
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #61 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.

Offline AfterDune

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • PR Developer
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #62 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.
« Last Edit: 27-07-2011, 19:07:06 by AfterDune »

Offline KAIZER SOSA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Comrade Kaizer - For Greater Glory!
    • View Profile
    • Community Moderator at Heroes & Generals
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #63 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...

Offline Natty

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3.170
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #64 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?

Offline AfterDune

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • PR Developer
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #65 on: 27-07-2011, 23:07:52 »
What is your definition of teamwork?

Offline nvrsummer2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #66 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.

Offline LHeureux

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.350
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #67 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) :


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 :


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


Hey, huge ass .gif signatures are totally unnecessary and obnoxious. Not these anymore, thankyouverymany kkbyethx love you, all the homo. -Flippy

Offline AfterDune

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • PR Developer
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #68 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.

Offline RAnDOOm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.519
  • Portugal - Surfs Paradise in Europe
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #69 on: 28-07-2011, 11:07:07 »
Reminds me of this:


Offline Raziel

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 859
  • Bullet Magnet
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #70 on: 28-07-2011, 11:07:21 »
Lol That's Doom Level 1 ^ Those were the days!

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #71 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/

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.


« Last Edit: 28-07-2011, 11:07:08 by djinn »

Offline NTH

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 3.146
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #72 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.


Milton Gault roared, "Roffey, I know bloody well that Jerry knows we are here but you don't need to advertise the fact!"
(From: First in the Field, Gault of the Patricias by Jeffery Williams, page 72.)

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #73 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?

Offline DLFReporter

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 4.727
  • Betatesting FH2 makes me edgy...
    • View Profile
Re: FH2 Teamwork theory
« Reply #74 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.
Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off