Things that SHOULD be added and things that should NOT be added

[friendlyfire]

I guess there are enough games on the marked for noob-vets (become more health, better weapons, etc. for playing bad but a lot of time). Is very unrealistic in an FPS when one player need one headshoot to die and the other need 2.

 

[Platybelodon {TP}]

I'm in two minds. I can see the, let's call it the 'purist' approach (game the same for everyone, skills the responsibility of the player) and the 'game' approach (time invested results in little rewards that facilitate further playing) and really think the second is better. If we want grinding away with our own skills increasing, we have real life for that. I want to play an instrument, I have to stick at it for hours over years.

In a computer game I can do the same, but really my reflexes and ability to talk to people constructively aren't going to change massively. However, the opportunity to receive a reward or an unlockable item will increase my enjoyment as I have a tangible (well, virtual) accoutrement to show my dedication.

As [MENTION=421]LuckyOne[/MENTION] says, there are ways people learn to deal with danger that translate in game to a veteran's resistance to certain levels of fear (suppression effects, aiming speed etc.) I can't say I notice the difference in RO2, but looking at my profile and seeing that I have '12% extra melee power' or whatever gives me a sense of satisfaction!

Why not indulge the players with possible modifications? I think that's the best bit of Heroes and Generals in an otherwise lacklustre game. The ability to change bolts and springs is great fun, even if it improves my ability as a player not one jot. Do not films use individual soldier's/actor's uniforms and weapons as personalised aspects of their characters? From cigarettes in helmet bands in Vietnam to painting faces on WWI aeroplanes. War is death and horror, but for the time spent waiting it's strong bonds of friendship and enjoyment whiling away the hours making sure one's weapon and equipment are in the best condition.

 

[LuckyOne]

^ Yeah I don't know I wouldn't mess with the damage or maintenance of weapons (it's not an armory simulator, soldiers are expected too keep their gear in top shape before a combat operation, and the non-standard parts do not strike me as something truly historically accurate - cosmetics yes, extra sidearm from "looting" - yes, but modifying your gun's workings? Not really, those are usually done by professional armorers, not soldiers in the field, I think). On the other hand, things that affect the character, that is those that simulate the process of "maturing" as a soldier should be in. Nothing major, just some perks that can give you a "slight" advantage vs an equally skilled player (twitch-skills-wise), if you know how to use them.

EDIT: Some "unlock" ideas might involve extra ammo pouches, extra bandage, bigger mag versions (where available, for the Thompson for example - but it must come with a disadvantage too, for example reload takes a little longer, and you run slightly slower because of extra weight), maybe worn out barrels for the Bren? (improves spread, but it also makes the weapon less accurate) and other indirect historical "boosters". Nothing that gives clear advantage in a gunfight, in terms of damage dealt.

 

[friendlyfire]

I respect your point but imagine:
You´re a new player on an TW server.
The old rabbits have already the advantage to know exactly the game control, to handle the scattering of the weapons and the map terrain.
Do you really think an additional advantage of more bullets, more bandage etc will be fair and keep the new player in game.
The new player will think damned cheaters and cheater support game. Same thing with unlocks, new players like to test every weapon in action specially the heavy ones. Old rabbits have more fun to be successful in difficult roles (e.g. PIAT vs Tiger, pistol fight, AA).
I recommend to have only depots in the maps where you can pick up special variations of weapons and that you can pick up the weapons of dead enemies (Only the weapon not the whole or parts of the uniform, helmet etc).

greetings

ff

 

[Platybelodon {TP}]

I'm not convinced. Over a few years, because of lack of time I have not even a couple of hundred hours in RO2 and am something like level 78. Some chaps with extra special hats and guns may kill me, but in the heat of battle I'll also kill them. Personally I find the 'perks' unnoticeable as they are small in the grand scheme of things.

Perhaps I have less sway in my sight, but I was always a good shot with the bolt-action rifles. Some kind of reward is needed otherwise people won't stick around as there's nothing to get in the sense of progressions, except relationships with other (perhaps transient) players, which is also something I prefer to gain in real-life.

Call me a nihilist (or more closely a political anarchist) but while these intangible things are entirely valid and valuable, for people inculcated in a consumerist system, computer games are where they escape into tangible and achievable rewards, for a concrete amount of effort. I think that's what is meant by the neologism 'gameify'.

 

[friendlyfire]

This awards can be in an online rankingsystem parallel to the game: for every weapon / vehicle (class), collected 1st, 2nd and 3rd place, medals and batches for outstanding archived performance in support, taking flags, repairs, heals,... .

 

[Colonel__Klink]

My suggestion of what you shouldn't do

No retarded suppression mechanic.

To compare, in RO 2 they have this mechanic where if a guy with a SMG fires wildly in the air everyone in a five mile radius cannot see at all suddenly like they somehow dropped their glasses saying "my god..." What makes this mechanic even more retarded is that for each bullet fired the other players muzzle jumps. So the SMG fires and the entire screen just rattles as your completely unable to even fire back.

Why is this system retarded? Well, in the real world the enemy tends to catch on if you are an inaccurate piece of ****. Then they just calmly shoot you back. When they do consider you a threat enough to take cover its not like they cannot see, nor is it like they couldn't physically shoot. Its simply that they realize its best to take cover, just as players in video games often decide its best to duck behind cover. If real life were like RO 2 with its suppression mechanic then the idjits firing their AK full auto at the enemy without even sighting in would be the most effective troops in the world, yet in reality they are absolutely without a doubt the worst.

As former USMC I'll tell you that the suppression mechanics kill all plausible realism in the game for me.

I'm not convinced. Over a few years, because of lack of time I have not even a couple of hundred hours in RO2 and am something like level 78. Some chaps with extra special hats and guns may kill me, but in the heat of battle I'll also kill them. Personally I find the 'perks' unnoticeable as they are small in the grand scheme of things.

Perhaps I have less sway in my sight, but I was always a good shot with the bolt-action rifles. Some kind of reward is needed otherwise people won't stick around as there's nothing to get in the sense of progressions, except relationships with other (perhaps transient) players, which is also something I prefer to gain in real-life.

Call me a nihilist (or more closely a political anarchist) but while these intangible things are entirely valid and valuable, for people inculcated in a consumerist system, computer games are where they escape into tangible and achievable rewards, for a concrete amount of effort. I think that's what is meant by the neologism 'gameify'.

One would have a point that people wouldn't stick around without said rewards if RO Rising storm still had players, but it does not. And RO 2 is near dead as well. If a game gets old it gets old and people leave. How long do you think people played games like Day Of Defeat, Team Fortress, Counterstrike ect without any reward for sticking with the game forever? The answer is that they stuck with those games year after year after year....

No, the level up system is the entire reason why I got turned off RO 2. It felt so shallow compared to RO 1 all because of all that stupid ****. Yeah, I have to grind to get what was standard issue in what actually is SUPPOSED to be a historically accurate game! Totally makes sense! Or once everyone grinds their way to the top EVERYONE on the field has stuff that was never standard issue! Totally makes sense as well!

 

[LuckyOne]

Yeah I would agree about the suppression and accuracy, but the thing is, there is no other mechanic available to simulate fear of dying in a computer game. The only other way would be to make extremely long respawn times or one life per round game mode, to make players value it more, and yet it would still be very annoying.


And just before anyone misunderstands me about the "level up" system I don't want nothing like that in TW. A player should not become more powerful in terms of being able to stand more bullets or his guns dealing more damage or whatever. However what I would like to see is the ability to learn new "tricks" regarding slight field modifications to his standard equipment, to simulate combat experience.

For example, maybe the guy reached the "rank" of "veteran", and thus has seen/heard/come up with a way to sew on a few more pouches/pockets on his combat jacket so he can carry a few more spare mags (pretty sure this happened IRL). Maybe he salvaged a few extra mags for his Gewehr (pretty sure Mudra or someone else mentioned that they were only issued 2, but they often salvaged more). Maybe he got a nice Luger from a fallen German officer, or managed to buy one on the "black market" or win it in a card game... Things like that happened, and it's all part of the immersion. The "new" guys wouldn't necessary be aware of those tricks but after being through enough ****, and talking with more experienced people they would pick them up fast.

And I'll mention this again, no "boost" should come without an equivalent drawback (something that for example TF2 does kinda well). It should always be picking whatever suits a player's particular playstyle the best.

Another interesting idea would be to have a penalty for excessive dying. For example a player could lose some of his "perks" if he kept dying too much (simulating losing equipment because his friends were in a hurry to get him out of there), so it isn't always the same old linear "You played X hours, congratz, have a level up" every time.

I'd also mention that having "a character that a player can connect to" instead of a generic avatar that represents a random man that participated in that battle is much more addicting, and could lead to greater success of the game. It's basically what all the RPGs have that makes people stick around, and why every new FPS gets forgotten pretty fast once a newer one with shinier graphics and the same mechanics comes out. I do appreciate the hardcore crowd that sticks around but after a few years it's usually not more than a dozen half full servers.
(Note that I am one of those players, often playing old games - but it's almost always because of mods, the core gameplay is often too simple and it's quality so poor that the only thing that keeps me playing is the sheer amount of content the mods and their hard working devs added.)

 

[Alex]

I think there should just simply be cosmetic changes for veterancy.

 

[LuckyOne]

I think there should just simply be cosmetic changes for veterancy.

Alright, that could work, but people will eventually get bored by cosmetics, especially as you can't really put many variations (well maybe you could for the Germans since they used whatever they had). I suppose for the first iteration of the game it would be alright, but eventually you will need some kind of persistent reward based system to keep the game interesting for the new players and prevent mass desertion each time a new Battlefield X or Call Of Duty Y, or WarWhatever comes out.

 

[Aniallator]

No, no, no... please, no bonuses for seasoned players. IRL, whether you're a recruit or a veteran, you'll still be scared shitless if bullets are whipping past your head. A green player should be able to perform as well as a seasoned player; how they aim and how they react to suppression depends on the person, and shouldn't be simulated in the game, as it's both unfair and unrealistic. As for extra ammo for seasoned players to simulate veterans being able to "carry a few more spare mags", why don't we give everyone extra ammo while we're at it, to simulate veterans advising recruits to sew a few more pouches on their jacket? No. Please, no bonuses, or levelling up, or ranking, or any of that whatsoever. And absolutely no to the getting a "nice Luger from a fallen German officer" idea, that's awful, if you don't mind me saying. This isn't the 1860s, this is the 1940s.

 

[Tankmad990]

like for on map arty would I get a message from other player and after I have set up
would get the grid number or a marker and would be a birds eye view of the map.

 

[Aniallator]

It all depends on whether or not NCOs call in artillery that's off-map and AI-controlled, or on-map and controlled by players. I'm fine with either.