Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

The Big Capture Zones System Thread


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 16 July 2015 - 10:51 AM

Mini-map is usually considered something constantly on the hud.  RO/DH has a map that  you have to bring up that makes you combat ineffective while viewing.

 

My bad english apologizes for the misunderstanding :)



#22 Hans Ludwig

Hans Ludwig

    Elite Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,844 posts

Posted 16 July 2015 - 11:18 AM

Map-wise I always liked what Resistance and Liberation did where you physically see them pull out the map and unfold it. (I tried to find a video but I couldn't :'( )

 

It's always been our intention of creating something very similar to that.


  • Razorneck likes this

#23 Kashash

Kashash

    Senior Member

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 16 July 2015 - 11:24 AM

It's always been our intention of creating something very similar to that.

 

If there is going to be a map, then maybe it can be made so only the Squadleaders have it ? This gives the SL more authority and incentive for teammates to follow and stick together as a team and besides wasn't in real life like that? However if everyone has got a map then nobody will follow and will just go lonewolfing.

 

Just a suggestion :)



#24 Hans Ludwig

Hans Ludwig

    Elite Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,844 posts

Posted 16 July 2015 - 02:07 PM

If there is going to be a map, then maybe it can be made so only the Squadleaders have it ? This gives the SL more authority and incentive for teammates to follow and stick together as a team and besides wasn't in real life like that? However if everyone has got a map then nobody will follow and will just go lonewolfing.

 

Just a suggestion :)

 

This would be a good topic to create so we can all further discuss this. I believe _Nambu was intending to use this topic to do some fact finding on implementing objective system in FE.



#25 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 16 July 2015 - 02:25 PM

This would be a good topic to create so we can all further discuss this. I believe _Nambu was intending to use this topic to do some fact finding on implementing objective system in FE.

 

Yea, exactly.



#26 Theel

Theel

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts

Posted 16 July 2015 - 04:09 PM

It is a bit related.  Who can see the objectives and where they are located...

 

Personally I always found RO/DH to not really have a clear "goal" for the player.  A player needs to figure out basically 2 things, the objective can be any size or shape, but is always indicated by a common symbol on the map, and capturing that objective can either win the game or unlock more objectives.  So I was thinking, what about an order system.  Basically the player would hit an orders button, this would initially be auto-activated for new players after spawning (once per objective).  But basically the player would have something come up that shows a screenshot of the objective, explanation of orders to capture/defend the objective, etc.  This might be a good area to give tips, historical info, what happens if captured (advantages/rewards it has), and anything else that you dream up.  It could even be a bit more interactive, having a video of the objective, but personally I think trying to make it seem like actual pre-mission planning with WWII technology would be best.  If multiple objectives are active at once, then the player would get the one they are closest to, but can switch (or has a collaborative page that explains the entire situation). 


  • Razorneck and 'DeadlyDad' Olson like this
Posted Image
Current Project: Darkest Hour 6.0

#27 Bones1x2

Bones1x2

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 16 July 2015 - 08:02 PM

If Festung Europa has radar, minimap, whatever you wanna call it, consider the entire community here alienated. No one wants radar in a WWII realism game and pretty sure the line isn't very grey with this one. "Not nobody not no how."

I am pretty confused... Doesn't ro1 and DH have one? Press o when playing if you don't believe me... Anyway, the one of ro/DH is what mean for something that can show the situation, by displaying where capzones are and by wich faction they are owned. Nothing similar to radar or other battlefieldish stuff.

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • Map RO1.png


#28 Snuffeldjuret

Snuffeldjuret

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 31 July 2015 - 09:30 AM

Don't have much to say other than that I enjoyed the capturing of objectives a lot more in RnL alpha, where you had to clear the entire objective and have more than one player in the objective to capture. I find clearing an entire objective more enjoyable than just getting the majority of the players in it as it is then about actually controlling the area and its surroundings rather than controlling a part of the area at the expense of controlling the area outside the obejctive. It also creates more dynamic gameplay, both for attackers and defenders. The game turns out to be about more than just killing enemies basically. I enjoy not being able to capture objectives alone as that forces me to work with teammates.


Posted Image

#29 Kashash

Kashash

    Senior Member

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 31 July 2015 - 11:16 AM

Don't have much to say other than that I enjoyed the capturing of objectives a lot more in RnL alpha, where you had to clear the entire objective and have more than one player in the objective to capture. I find clearing an entire objective more enjoyable than just getting the majority of the players in it as it is then about actually controlling the area and its surroundings rather than controlling a part of the area at the expense of controlling the area outside the obejctive. It also creates more dynamic gameplay, both for attackers and defenders. The game turns out to be about more than just killing enemies basically. I enjoy not being able to capture objectives alone as that forces me to work with teammates.

 

Yes I don't like when capping an objective is defined by piling up a majority of players on the edge of the capzone. At least it should be done so that the players have to be in the center of it in order to cap it, not just on one of the edge of the cap.
 
But the worst thing is that either of the team reinforcements never run out when they fight for an objective (well at least temporarily so it gives time to clear out and cap an objective).
 
I have a strong inkling that the solution to having the depleting effect of a team (so that the other team can clear out an objective and then capture it before anymore of the defending team come with reinforcements) is to impose a bigger penalty on the traveling time from the spawn when more men die or an automatically changeable spawn time so that it increases with more deaths caused on the team per minute. That way proportionally the team that loses most of men will have their spawn back time slowed down. the whole flow/stream of new troops coming back to the area will be more dynamic giving enough time for the attacking team to clear out an objective before the defending team arrive from the spawn.
 
And not like before where the reinforcements always relentlessly flow back in to the objective at the same rate. 
 
Perhaps also could be an idea to have individual portions of reinforcements assigned in the zone so that the attacking team has to get rid of it in order to clear out an objective.


#30 seienchin

seienchin

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 05 August 2015 - 03:21 PM

 

Yes I don't like when capping an objective is defined by piling up a majority of players on the edge of the capzone. At least it should be done so that the players have to be in the center of it in order to cap it, not just on one of the edge of the cap.
 
But the worst thing is that either of the team reinforcements never run out when they fight for an objective (well at least temporarily so it gives time to clear out and cap an objective).
 
I have a strong inkling that the solution to having the depleting effect of a team (so that the other team can clear out an objective and then capture it before anymore of the defending team come with reinforcements) is to impose a bigger penalty on the traveling time from the spawn when more men die or an automatically changeable spawn time so that it increases with more deaths caused on the team per minute. That way proportionally the team that loses most of men will have their spawn back time slowed down. the whole flow/stream of new troops coming back to the area will be more dynamic giving enough time for the attacking team to clear out an objective before the defending team arrive from the spawn.
 
And not like before where the reinforcements always relentlessly flow back in to the objective at the same rate. 
 
Perhaps also could be an idea to have individual portions of reinforcements assigned in the zone so that the attacking team has to get rid of it in order to clear out an objective.

 

Having smaller objectives should already solve the Problems of People only staying in the Corners of a cap and taking it. If the object is pretty small (like one or two rooms) there will be no capping without Clearing it.

Making the reinforcements slower when losing could create brutal vicious steamrolls where a good Team just rushes the enemy to death. It doesnt have to be that way but the danger is there



#31 Theel

Theel

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts

Posted 09 August 2015 - 08:46 PM

Yea having a huge objective, encompassing multiple buildings will not work very well when you have to clear it.  Simply put, the attacking team will have to clear too many corners and it becomes a game of hide and seek each time. 

 

That means if you plan to have large capture areas, you need to have both clear required objectives and not.  Which means you then must support both, which means effectively portraying to players which objectives they must clear and which not.  Things will only get more complicated from here :P

 

I decided against super small capture areas.  Mortars and tank HE rounds are mainly the reason behind this.  Objectives should be sufficient size, but reasonable and believable to fit what the objective represents.  In a push scenario you basically will end up with this formula for each objective. 

 

*can't seem to upload picture*

 

Attacker Spawn ---- Boundary ---- >          Objective           < ---- Boundary ---- Defender Spawn

 

This would be a standard, no control point objective for push.  Spawn advancement is where it gets tricky with this formula.  If the attackers need to spawn advance to inside the objective, then the objective should be a cleared objective.  Boundary protection advance is the issue I don't have a solution for.  I feel there really isn't a good one.  One idea I have is to have a retreat boundary set in for those that are in the boundary as it changes, telling players to retreat.  After a min or so the boundary will hard set in for those still in it and begin to somehow remove them or make them combat ineffective in the area (both maybe).  After which point the spawn advances.  This makes it so spawn advancement is not instant-synced with the capture.  Something that might be confusing to players and would need to be "understood" by everyone. 

 

Some rules of thumb:

1) Do not randomize people's spawning locations.  Very annoying, should always be a choice.  Not saying to not have spawn locations be random, but once the spawns are active, to allow players to choose.  Also I'm not saying that you can't have maximum players for a spawn point, meaning if you want people to equally use the spawn points.  I'm just saying that if you have 2 spawn points to not have players randomly spawn between the two.  Also if the scenario makes sense to have completely random spawns, that would also be acceptable.  For instance scattered paratroops.

 

2) Never slay a player without significant warning

 

3) Don't expect people to retreat (especially when only told to do so), this doesn't mean to not have retreat boundaries, abilities, or goals

 

4) I think it'd be perfectly acceptable to teleport a player in a boundary (to remove them), as long as it doesn't do so from the POV of players around the one that teleported (they could look like they got shot or blown up).  This is different from actually slaying them because it is instant and doesn't count as a death.

 

5) Always avoid setting up a situation in which the player desires to suicide


Posted Image
Current Project: Darkest Hour 6.0

#32 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 September 2015 - 12:23 PM

Hey guys sorry If I didn't jump into this thread for a while or I didn't show any progress to stimulate your ideas,

Actually I am working on something else, but I'll be working on the capture system pretty soon.

 

The FE project is alive anyway, remember that  dev's silence = devs working.

 

 

So.. let's sum up everything till now on this thread.

 

My intention was to extract some ideas from here to help building a good design for the capzone system.

 

I threw a bit of ideas and others did the same. We talked about different design goals, mechanics needed to achieve these goals, we made examples ecc.. ecc...

However, to obtain something closer to the form of a valid design document, I think It'd be far more useful to separate these things, putting the goals on the beginning of the thinking process and, only once there's a good agreement on what they are and how much importance they deserve,  talk about how to achieve them and with wich game mechanics.

 

 

Just to have something to start from, I have made a brief list of all the goals everyone did talk about in this thread:

 

-Encouraging teamplay ( especially between strangers )                                                                                               @everyone afaik

-Disencouraging lone wolfing                                                                                                                                          @RubberSlug                                                

-Keeping squads together                                                                                                                                               @RubberSlug

-Don't make anyone (newbies especially) feel like the game is punishing with them                                                      @_Nambu

-Prevent steamrolling & prolonged imbalance situations                                                                                                 @Seienchin

-Make the players clear objectives entirely                                                                                                                      @Snuffeldjuret

-Make the players retreat and not get slaughtered to defend a lost objective                                                                 @Kashash

-Give the ability of easily telling what's the battle situation basing on the ownership of the capture zones                     @_Nambu

-Support a good gameplay variation                                                                                                                                @FuriousBystander

-Prevent extreme flanking                                                                                                                                                @_Nambu

-Dynamic objective setup (one map, more cap layouts, right?)                                                                                       @Theel

-Prevent ridiculously big losses for a bunch of terrain                                                                                                     @Kashash

-Game unpredictability obtained by letting TLs/SLs decide what to capture                                                                   @Kashash

-Encouraging and rewarding Team & Squad coordination                                                                                              @everyone afaik

-Safe spawns                                                                                                                                                                   @everyone afaik

 

 

Let me know If I have forget anything, what points would you like to add or remove, ecc...

When I will be working on this task, I could have a dev-stream to show some progress and discuss about this.

However, I'd really  like to be able to first get to a full design document for this topic and then getting my hands on this.

 

See you all!



#33 Twrecks

Twrecks

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 05 September 2015 - 12:17 AM

Perhaps, having rings of influence on cap zones? Being just inside the cap has only marginal gains, while closer to a key point strengthens your cap value.

 

Advantage for defenders because a low influence will let them know an attacker is not centered on the objective, however is threatning the cap yet not knowing from what direction. These "hot spots" would reduce ten men in a tub rub-a-dub.

 

Advantage attacker. Hot spots could be called by the SL, so their squad would know where to attack the objective. Several for each cap would be needed to direct the squads to attack from either flank or direct assult routes. Thus coordinating an attack.

 

OT sorta, on SLs, being able to access a map (full sceen, non-cobat) should only be available if you are next to your SL or are the SL, since that's info he would have. The SL then set markers for players to go to, players getting individual/teampoints for doing so. Call them mini objectives, or way points. Obviously something would need to be put in place so the mechanics couldn't be abused by setting short irellevant way points to garner extra team points.



#34 Theel

Theel

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts

Posted 05 September 2015 - 07:13 AM

Perhaps you could code in multiple radii for an objective, so the leveler can have one radius be the capture zone and another do something else... and another do another thing :P

 

Example:

 

Radii #1:

Type: Capture Zone

Radius: 24 meters

Capture Strength: 12

 

Radii #2:

Type: Capture Zone

Radius: 48 meters

Capture Strength: 6

 

Radii #3:

Type: Attacker Presence

Radius: 100 meters

Action: Disable Defender Spawn

 

RO/DH lacks a good manager for objectives and spawnpoints.  There are too many complex and intricate ideas behind game flow and what should an objective do or rather how it should change the game/battlefield.  In DH we've "improved" the objectives, rather just made them more powerful than before.  A complete redesign would be in store, but we have to worry about backwards compatibility.

 

As I said in my first post, it is a clash between flexibility (complexity) and standardization (1 expectation).  If you have every objective do the same exact thing in every level, then you have a standard outcome.  If you have the objectives doing many different things and changing game flow in different ways, then you have a complex system.  The problem with the complex system is it is harder to design, takes more effort to implement, because you then have to let the player know how said objective will behave.  There are benefits and issues with both approaches. 

 

As a leveler, I'm all about being able to make adjustments and the ability to easily fix issues.  When I have to add a new objective between 2 objectives, it's a nightmare in DH/RO because their system is so ridiculous.

 

I think the first step you'll want to do with the design of objectives is to try to categorize types of objectives.  Create a behavior pattern for what one objective might do vs another.  As you categorize them you can then label them and make it easy for the player to identify and understand said behavior.  For example:

 

Destroy Objective: Destroy a gun or bridge

Behaviors & Functions:

Is not a zone capture

Is not a progress capture

Capture will always...

Capture does not affect...

 

Town Objective: Capture a small village area

Behaviors & Functions:

Is a zone capture and progress capture

Is large and does not require clearing

Capture controls spawns

Has enemy presence radii

Capture rewards...

 

Fighting Position Objective: Capture a fixed fighting position

Behaviors & Functions:

Is always a reinforced fighting position (visually)

Is a small capture zone with no progress and requires clearing

Capture is ...

Capture always...

 

Hope this helps.


Posted Image
Current Project: Darkest Hour 6.0

#35 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 30 September 2015 - 05:31 PM

"Hope this helps."

 

 

Yeah, It does, indeed. ;)

 

I do really appreciate the idea of a "spawn and capzone manager" built in order to make the mappers need only to lay down the "physical" map without caring about objectives, while the "cap manager" would be doing the rest of the work.

 

Being able to configure the "cap manager" in different ways (example: commonwealth troops coming from a place instead of another) would open up a few other cool possibilities, such as a very high and cheap variation of  "strategical layouts" for maps, or other things that I haven't figured out yet.).

 

Being able to change its configuration dynamically could open up other possibilities aswell ,like adapting to the evolution of the situation (example: a building was heavily damaged by german engineers and is about to turn into ruins, it is not anymore an high-value objective, its strategical importance changed. Other example: the brits are about to split the german team in two groups, the objectives between these forming two groups would become much more important than before).

 

 

I hope I have been able to stimulate some other ideas. :)

 

By the way, I am currently evaluating the idea of having a dev-stream because in this moment fe seems to have the need of attracting the attention of some more people.



#36 'DeadlyDad' Olson

'DeadlyDad' Olson

    Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 08 October 2015 - 12:31 AM

Great discussion!  Here are my notes:

 

  1. Capping a building (for example) shouldn't be a matter of simply getting more people into it; it should be that, while all entrances are visually covered, all possible hiding places within the building are visually checked to make sure that there are no enemies in it.  Once that has happened, the building is instantly declared 'clear', and capped.  This would both take time and help force players to work together, as it would need 1 player per entrance + 1 to search.  Capping areas would work the same way, just on a larger scale; some players would be tasked with keeping enemies out while the rest made sure that the area was clear.  The larger the area, the more time needed.
  2. One interesting idea that was kicked around for DH1 was the idea of a cap zone having directional defenses.  For example, mounted MG's on sandbags on the East side of the zone to defend against Allies, who, once they cap it, can unmount the MG's and take them over to the sandbags on the West side to defend against the Axis counterattack.  Another idea was engineers who, along with soldiers, can build sandbag walls wherever they are needed and permitted.  The MG's wouldn't have bipods, so would have to be placed on a tripod to be used.
  3. I like the idea of a 'front line', where there is an exchange of fire.  All MDV's (driven by AI's) would remain a set distance behind it, based on how 'hot' the line is at that location, behind hard/soft cover and actively avoiding enemy fire.  A dozen (or even two) MDV's wouldn't be too many, as they can't be driven by players into stupid positions.  (There should also be some that can be player driven, of course.)  At spawn time, you would pick which one to exit.  That would make sure that players can quickly and easily get to wherever they are most needed without static spawn points that can be targeted by mortars/etc., as well as making it easier to have fluid battles, as everyone exiting spawn would be able to sprint all of the way to the front and still have some stamina left.
  4. Personally I HATED the 'countdown minefields' in DH1.  Please use real ones in FE, along with things like distant artillery, MG's, and snipers targeting those who wander too far afield.  (Steadily increasing accuracy from 15-100% over time would act as 'warning shots' to prompt players to quickly get back to the main battle without forcing them to.  I can imagine more than a few scenarios where temporarily heading out through where the shells are landing would be a logical decision.
  5. Here's an interesting idea, based on Mike Booth's L4D presention: mappers create a number of potential objectives and swappable/placeable objects, along with multiple scenarios that use some or all of them.  For example, an 88 that in some scenarios is of minimal use in suppressing the Allies traveling along a road suddenly is one of the main side objectives, as taking it out allows them to call in air support.  One option is have scenarios where each side has different things to do to win, and neither knows what the other's is.  For example, the Axis might have to collect hidden explosives in a town, then destroy a particular bridge before their timer runs out, while the Allies have to secure the town, which is on the other side of the bridge from them.  If the Allies secure the road leading to the town, they will automatically keep the Axis away from the bridge, keeping them from completing their objective, even thought they don't know that.  One cool feature of this system is that, if standardized properly, other people can create scripted scenarios for a given map that can simply be added to the server's list without having to edit the map itself at all.  Another feature is that each scenario can have suggested player min/max, and the server would only pick scenarios to choose from that fit how many players are connected.
  6. Speaking of L4D, it would be fantastic if that level of bot AI could be implemented, as that would allow NPC squads that would actually play like humans.  A spawning option would be to let players take over any bot in their squad when they die, so they can instantly continue the battle.  Once an entire squad is killed, it respawns as a whole behind the lines.  (If, for example, a lone survivor connects with another squad, he has the option to permanently join that squad, or change back to the previous one when he dies.)
  7. Along those same lines, if, for example, a team has become bogged down trying to take an objective, the 'AI Director' would notify them that they will be getting air support in five minutes.  OTOH, a team that is absolutely rampaging across the map might be told that the next reinforcements were needed elsewhere, so there would be an additional sixty second delay before respawning for the next five minutes.  (This system could either be game, map, or scenario specific)
  8. I like the idea of hand-held maps, but, as there are a lot of communication systems that won't be able to be realistically implemented, I am also a fan of officers/squad leaders using freeform pencil/pen drawings on the map to show players in a squad/platoon/company where they show be going, what they should be doing, and what the enemy is doing.  (...and PLEASE make all maps use the 'Charlie 7 Keypad 9' overlay system that worked so well in DH1.)

 

Hope this helps!


"Keep calm, and tell me all about it."

Need help? Friend me:
Posted Image

#37 Skringly

Skringly

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 08 October 2015 - 03:11 AM

On the topic of lone-wolfing that was mentioned a lot earlier on the thread, I just wanted to add my own opinion.

 

I think we can all agree that we don't want teams of Rambos running around which at times RO1/DH often felt like was the case. Encouraging/rewarding players to stick with their squads and support each other should definitely be the way to go rather than forcing players to do so, or punishing players who don’t. As a player I don’t want to feel like I’m chained to my squad leader and unable to capitalise on openings or opportunities that can briefly present themselves in flowing combat.

 

I think everyone here who has played the previous games would be able to recall a point where the team as a whole suffered from tunnel vision as they tried to unsuccessfully brute force their way through a heavy defence only for one, two or three players to show some initiative, sneak around the fighting and crippling the line of defence with some fire from a new unexpected angle. Thus allowing the rest of the team to actually advance and drive the enemy out of the cap zone. I don’t want to be punished if I show some of that initiative when my squad leader isn’t in FE.  

 

Cheers.


  • Razorneck likes this

#38 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 08 October 2015 - 02:52 PM

 

Encouraging/rewarding players to stick with their squads and support each other should definitely be the way to go rather than forcing players to do so, or punishing players who don’t.

 

Hey there skringly  :).

 

The type of "punishment" I am talking about is more of a "being put at disadvantage" than a direct punishment (like as example the minefields in RO1).

The players are supposed to still be free of lone-wolfing. So they are not forced to do it. 

 

Combining this type of "punishing" (It'd be great if you could use quotes too to distinguish it from the normal punishment) with suggestions, It is going to be perceived by the player more than as a punishment, as his/her mistake trying to play the game the wrong way.

 

 

 

As a player I don’t want to feel like I’m chained to my squad leader and unable to capitalise on openings or opportunities that can briefly present themselves in flowing combat.

 

 I don’t want to be punished if I show some of that initiative when my squad leader isn’t in FE.  

 

Cheers.

 

What kind of opportunities are you talking about? the ones that can be capitalized by a single man (like, let's say a pair of cheap kills), or the ones that need some more people to do it (let's say, a little breach)? I need to know this in orderto reply to you appropriately.

 

 

In any case, the intention is to make players capitalize small opportunities together, but obviously not to the point of being stuck with the sl. Here, as example, I was talking about a minimum of bringing in just one another buddy (of course, if we're not talking about a very large zone or a big building, when It'd still be something pretty suicidal).

 

--Minimum amount of players to attack

 
Capping would not start if there are not enough players to cap. Imho 2 for little capzones, and more for more important zones such as big buildings. The mean of this is to not make the players advance on that zone if there are not enough players, even if there are no enemies on the capzone. And have them group (and maybe organise) attacks, favouring squad cohesion.

 

The goal of this point is to make people communicate and collaborate more strictly with the other guys around. By getting used to this, involving other players should come natural. This last thing is a (if not THE) vital point where I think it's necessary to arrive to create an amazing multiplayer experience  B) .

With this point achieved, other larger opportunities that require the help of other buddies (a breach, a temporary defensive success...) will result to be capitalised a lot of times more. And the capitalization of smaller opportunities would result straightforwardly (does this word even exist ?  :D ) doable.

 

As far as I have understood, the ideal target of the design is to make people have fun the way children have fun while "playing the war" (No, I am not joking, that way of having fun proved to work greatly and with everyone around the globe).

 

To make these mechanics work properly, there's however the need of a good way of attracting near-by players attention. A good and intuitive UI system would be particularly helpful for this (however if you guys want to discuss about this, please open another topic to avoid the forums get messy).

 

 

 

So I think I've made the possible to clear as many points as possible. Thanks for bringing the attention to this aspect of the design, skringly, see you!

PS: @DeadlyDad: Sorry if I didn't talk about what you posted aswell, I'm gonna do it soon, now I have to work on FE.



#39 'DeadlyDad' Olson

'DeadlyDad' Olson

    Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 08 October 2015 - 06:02 PM

  1. From what I'm hearing, communication will make or break FE.  There needs to be constant, informative communication both to and between players for teamwork to function.  For example, squad leaders need orders from officers as to their particular mission (e.g. 'P1S2, clear the houses on the SW side of the village'), and squad members need to let each other know what they are doing and request support.  (e.g. 'Pvt. Wilkins, watch the door while Cpl. Jones and I clear the building.')  This should be given a high priority by the devs.
  2. While in 99% of shooters, a 32v32 game functionally seems to be 64 'armies of one' on two different sides, FE needs to balance freedom to lone wolf with working with teammates.  (Also known as Don't say 'No'; say 'Yes, but...'.)  One option is to have a leveling system, and make it so you don't earn any points for anything outside of your orders.  Note that this doesn't mean that you can't lone wolf; you just won't earn any points for anything that you do while you are doing it.  (...and certain actions should cause you to lose points, like if your orders are to hold fire while an ambush is being set up, and to take that easy kill that alerts the enemy to their danger.  Something like that, which jeopardizes the entire mission should lose you BIG!)  OTOH, you can request that your squad leader order you to 'recon' under whatever parameters are appropriate, so you can wander off and do your own thing, your own way.  That way, almost any play style can be accommodated, and any penalties are completely fair.
  3. One frustrating thing about DH1 was that, unless you were looking directly at another player, you had no idea who they were.  I would suggest that, when holding down a certain key, the squad list pops up at the edge of the HUD, and names appear below everyone on the screen, with a letter (from the left side of the keyboard) beside each player's name.  Tapping those letters adds those names to an 'inclusion list', which you can then use for actions.  For example, if you select three players, then pick 'cover' from the 'orders' menu, then select your AT guy, you would create the order "Pvt. Acton, Pvt. Jacks, Cpl. Toller: Cover Sgt. Theel as he moves up the alley".  (Sgt. Theel's order to move up the alley would have been given previously.)

"Keep calm, and tell me all about it."

Need help? Friend me:
Posted Image

#40 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 01:42 PM

Hey there guys, I want to give you a small update since I've let this thread die, by focusing only my work on FE :-(

 

here's in a few lines what you missed:

 

- The priority became setting up the way online matches are handled (joining, map voting, steam, administrators, map switching, configuring match options for the server...). I need to get finished with this before I can then build the gameplay (and the in-game text&voice communication) upon this stuff.

- I've however prototyped a little bit of gameplay stuff (including capzones) to get a minimum idea of what I'll have to do after. With that, I had the occasion to do my observations on how to get these things done.

These observations regard more the technical aspect of things, than the design ones, though.

 

That's it, guys!


  • 'DeadlyDad' Olson and kuopassa like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users