FH2 Teamwork theory

[djinn]

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....

[Natty]

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 

[djinn]

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.

[Natty]

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 

[djinn]

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.

[Natty]

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.

[djinn]

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.

[Natty]

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

[djinn]

Well, it DOES answer the heading 'FH2 teamwork theory', no?

[Smiles]

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.

[djinn]

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.