It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
hedwards: If you're forcing a playstyle, you're doing it wrong. One of the more obnoxious things that developers do is force people to play in a certain way. It's one thing to fix broken mechanics and quite another to force people to do things they don't want to do.
avatar
Qwertyman: Well that's why there should be different games for different playstyles. For example, with a game that's heavily team-based, if you had a player who was constantly killing his own teamates on purpose, and continually doing this after respawning over and over, you can't argue that player should be allowed to continue to play like that and not participate in the team objectives simply because it would be forcing him/her to play a certain way. Most games are designed with a specific playstyle in mind, not to be played open-endedly, and in some cases certain player actions can cause everyone elses' game experience to deteriorate, which is a problem.

That's why we're talking about team based gamplay, which absolutely should force players to play a certain way within a certain set of defined limits. There would be other gaming options for someone who didn't want to participate in a team-based gameplay style. Otherwise, why not just make every single multiplayer game a free for all, as to avoid forcing people to play a certain way? Options are good.
Isn't that what the friendly fire toggle is for?
avatar
mondo84: There's room for one or two more.

;)
avatar
Rohan15: I've heard of this. A squadjob right?
Now you're talking!

LOL I feel dirty. Time to shower. Sorry for the thread hijack, everyone!
avatar
hedwards: Isn't that what the friendly fire toggle is for?
But I thought you were against forcing players to play a certain way?
avatar
hedwards: Isn't that what the friendly fire toggle is for?
avatar
Qwertyman: But I thought you were against forcing players to play a certain way?
I am, and that comment is hardly inconsistent with my previous statement. You have a choice, you can opt to play with friendly fire and risk the consequences of people shooting you in the back, or you can play without and not have to worry about that aspect.

I don't see anybody being forced to do anything.
avatar
Qwertyman: But I thought you were against forcing players to play a certain way?
avatar
hedwards: I am, and that comment is hardly inconsistent with my previous statement. You have a choice, you can opt to play with friendly fire and risk the consequences of people shooting you in the back, or you can play without and not have to worry about that aspect.

I don't see anybody being forced to do anything.
I'm sort of confused as to why you are posting in this thread. We're discussing ways of encouraging players to participate in teamwork, and you say that players shouldn't be forced into a playstyle. You referenced the option of playing on servers either with or without friendly fire on as an example to one of my previous statements. I don't disagree with you, which is why some of us have mentioned that different mods are better off for team play than others, mods being comparable to gameplay options such as friendly fire in this case.

So then, why are you even bringing up forced playstyles when you clearly understand that there would be alternative options for people who did not want to participate in a team based playstyle?

Perhaps I just missed what your original post about forced playstyles was in reference to in the first place. What exactly would constitute a 'forced playstyle' for you in a team-based gaming experience?
Post edited November 13, 2012 by Qwertyman
avatar
Qwertyman: You're #2 is a tough one when playing with strangers. The latest Tribes has those button preset commands, and people usually just spam them over and over for no reason. I actually had to disable seeing/hearing them for the short time I played that game. Of course, this probably could be fixed by having a server-side delay time in commands to prevent spamming, but I guess the Tribes programmers felt that unnecessary...
People usually don't want to take orders from some random person on the internet. That's to be expected and it's why I think the in-game chain of command is needed. If the game itself says that you need to listen to a certain player, and that player has the ability to kick people (at least those assigned to his/her squad) for being dickheads, it should make things a little more coherent. If not by bringing the twatmuffins in line, then at least driving them off and attracting the kind of player who's interested in a teamwork-based shooter but can't be arsed to join a guild/clan/whatever.
avatar
Crassmaster: It still isn't going to do anything to 'make' people play as a team. It IS going to piss off a vast majority of the player base. And the fact that you're talking one hit kills still encourages snipers above anything else, regardless of how difficult you make them to use.

Think about this...you have a tactical shooter going with 32 players and everyone taking their time. You get shot first through a good shot by the other team, and you now get to sit there waiting for a new stage to start for 20 minutes while everyone else takes it slow and easy. Why in the Hell would ANYONE stick around for that?
avatar
Elmofongo: Very well than I thought of 2 things, one we will bring the Medic class to revive players and 2 you say the 2 things will promote sniper spamming well I got a solution.

The class system done this way you can only have a limited total number of people playing a certain class for example A team of 37 will consist of:

20 infantrymen

10 engineers (rocket launchers)

5 support (revive and ammo)

2 snipers

and when you take that class you stick with it until the end of round to chose another.
Okay, I agree that works to kill sniper spam. You still haven't really given anything to 'make' people play as a team. And you can't. not just you, anyone...you can't force it to happen.

I agree with sveral other posters that objective based missions help to push the focus to playing as a team. So does focusing on small teams. You will never get 30 people to all play as a cohesive force. You CAN perhaps get several small groups within that 30 to work together. Anytime I've played on a good BF3 or TF2 server, that's what happens. One squad heads off to focus on one mission, several groups roll out in vehicles to reach a far objective, a few set up as a defensive picket line, etc.
avatar
Crassmaster: Okay, I agree that works to kill sniper spam. You still haven't really given anything to 'make' people play as a team. And you can't. not just you, anyone...you can't force it to happen.

I agree with sveral other posters that objective based missions help to push the focus to playing as a team. So does focusing on small teams. You will never get 30 people to all play as a cohesive force. You CAN perhaps get several small groups within that 30 to work together. Anytime I've played on a good BF3 or TF2 server, that's what happens. One squad heads off to focus on one mission, several groups roll out in vehicles to reach a far objective, a few set up as a defensive picket line, etc.
The several small groups thing works perfectly fine and does tend to occur in larger team-based games. As long as the overall objective is achieved (i.e. your team winning) then there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

I'm not really sure much has to be done to force the gameplay, other than making a game or game mod that has an objective based team focus to it. To use Tribes as an example again, during a CTF match, you can choose to play on your own to an extent and ignore the flags all together. You can instead try to infiltrate the opponents base and destroy their generator (it powers all of their base assets), or you can defend your own generator. Pretty much no matter what you do in CTF in Tribes, you're helping your team win in one way or another.

That's why the primary focus on team play should be in designing the right kind of a gametype, especially one where there are multiple ways for players to contribute in order to help the team achieve victory. If there's only one one thing for every player to do than it probably starts to make people feel like they're just playing team DM and they'll just focus on killing other players instead of the objective.
Guild Wars 2 does a really good job at rewarding teamwork. Perhaps those mechanics could be exported to FPS?
Depends how you define "teamwork"
Take TF2 for instance, are the medivacs and heavy casses really doing "teamwork"? they tend NOT to work together.
You see, the heavy class tends to just walk in, leading the way shooting up whatever depending on the medic, the medic will follow the heavy class, but there is absolutely NO coordination between the 2 still, no corner spotting for each.
In cs 1.6 there is teamwork within high class teams, whereas you will circle opponents, force them bunched up and try to flash up then run in from several sides.
THIS requires coordination, coomunication (in essence TRUE teamwork)


Now let's look at another example battlefield bad company 2.
Here they have added "spotter" function, "barrage" function etc, which makes you help your team automaticly, giving the illusion of "teamwork".
But let's face it, when you're doing this stuff you aren't actually coordinating and communicating with team8s, your just following the basic guidelines of the pointsystem of the game.
OFC you can play bf bc2 with true teamwork, but it's not what you will see in a pub.

To enforce true teamwork in a game there's 2 things needed:
1: high skill ceiling, which will encourage people to team up with people of their skill level

2: Reduction of what I'd call "solo effects", such as chopper gunner in cod mw2, whereas if you die while using it it STILL doesn't matter, it would be so much better if that guy using it was forced to posistion, and be defended, and could even put it down and help shoot when his team8s told him to. (easy way to do this would be a "cancel upon death" effect

3: Long-distance survivability, this actually really matters for teamwork, making it hard to successfully shoot som1 long-distance will help teamwork effort immensely.
Ofc its important to keep it quik on close combat quaters, therefor this adds to point #1, shooting MUST be difficult in order for teamwork to arise.
(long distance shooting, means you can pin someone down etc, at least lock a corridor/slow it down, while still staying alive)

4: Aoe effects MUST never be to strong! I think both BF and COD games does this mistake a lot, if you have to strong/easy to use aoe effects, any grouping up wil be a mistake.
I will say this only once, AOE effects encourage one-man-army-play.

5: offense/defense play, some sort of offense/defense play is important for teamplay, deathmatches have a tendency of encouraging what i like to call random-camping, where-as you camp in a comletely random insignificant spot, mainly because you not participating does NO damage, and if you can get that 1 kill you will have made up for your life that round anyway.
Capture points/bomb-play/rescue/reach point etc are all good solutions in my eyes, but personally my favourite would be in a 6v6 situation for instance to have a "at least 2 out of 6 must reach spot X" which opens for most strategies (sacrifical decoys etc)


Il end it with this: strategies is what encourages teamplay, open up for strategizing and teamplay will soon follow, one of the shooter games i experience most teamplay in in random pubs must be Natural selection 2.
avatar
tsgnurk: Depends how you define "teamwork"
Take TF2 for instance, are the medivacs and heavy casses really doing "teamwork"? they tend NOT to work together.
You see, the heavy class tends to just walk in, leading the way shooting up whatever depending on the medic, the medic will follow the heavy class, but there is absolutely NO coordination between the 2 still, no corner spotting for each.
In cs 1.6 there is teamwork within high class teams, whereas you will circle opponents, force them bunched up and try to flash up then run in from several sides.
THIS requires coordination, coomunication (in essence TRUE teamwork)


Now let's look at another example battlefield bad company 2.
Here they have added "spotter" function, "barrage" function etc, which makes you help your team automaticly, giving the illusion of "teamwork".
But let's face it, when you're doing this stuff you aren't actually coordinating and communicating with team8s, your just following the basic guidelines of the pointsystem of the game.
OFC you can play bf bc2 with true teamwork, but it's not what you will see in a pub.

To enforce true teamwork in a game there's 2 things needed:
1: high skill ceiling, which will encourage people to team up with people of their skill level

2: Reduction of what I'd call "solo effects", such as chopper gunner in cod mw2, whereas if you die while using it it STILL doesn't matter, it would be so much better if that guy using it was forced to posistion, and be defended, and could even put it down and help shoot when his team8s told him to. (easy way to do this would be a "cancel upon death" effect

3: Long-distance survivability, this actually really matters for teamwork, making it hard to successfully shoot som1 long-distance will help teamwork effort immensely.
Ofc its important to keep it quik on close combat quaters, therefor this adds to point #1, shooting MUST be difficult in order for teamwork to arise.
(long distance shooting, means you can pin someone down etc, at least lock a corridor/slow it down, while still staying alive)

4: Aoe effects MUST never be to strong! I think both BF and COD games does this mistake a lot, if you have to strong/easy to use aoe effects, any grouping up wil be a mistake.
I will say this only once, AOE effects encourage one-man-army-play.

5: offense/defense play, some sort of offense/defense play is important for teamplay, deathmatches have a tendency of encouraging what i like to call random-camping, where-as you camp in a comletely random insignificant spot, mainly because you not participating does NO damage, and if you can get that 1 kill you will have made up for your life that round anyway.
Capture points/bomb-play/rescue/reach point etc are all good solutions in my eyes, but personally my favourite would be in a 6v6 situation for instance to have a "at least 2 out of 6 must reach spot X" which opens for most strategies (sacrifical decoys etc)


Il end it with this: strategies is what encourages teamplay, open up for strategizing and teamplay will soon follow, one of the shooter games i experience most teamplay in in random pubs must be Natural selection 2.
Can I ask you an Off topic question:

Batlefield 1943 or Bad Company 2 Vietnam, which one is more better to you?
I think if you give a common goal that cannot be achieved alone, that helps team-based play. Left4Dead is pretty good about this, particularly with the special infected that can't be escaped without the help of a friend. I've had people give me their healthpacks, both because I was screwing up in the game, and in spite of that.

I think it would be nice to make it so that a player with a real low win/loss ratio would be able to earn extra points for their team if they got kills. This would encourage the good players to teach them and set them up to get the last shot if their kill was worth substantially more. There could also be bonuses for protecting your weakest link players and maybe a noob nannying achievement or something.

It would also be smart to find some way for the game to recognize coordinated actions and award bonuses based on multiple players teaming up against an opponent.
Couldn't answere that as i have yet to play bf 1943 (tho i doubt i ever will :P)
First of all, you need to make asymmetrical teams. The first team has an ability "if 3 players are close to each other, they're practically invincible". Then convince the other team that they're supposed to be scary and deadly, but don't actually make it so. Now the team with the 3 player invincibility groups sticks together in those small groups, and keeps doing it because it feels good to own the other team, and the other team can't do a thing about it because they all think they're supposed to be able to beat the groups of 3 on their own so they rush in one at a time.
The only downside is that the other team doesn't have any teamwork, but the group one will have infinity of it.

/edit: right, "other - other" doesn't work in English. always forget.
Post edited November 14, 2012 by Adzeth
play with your friends and make sure none of them are high on anything even sugar, and last mostly play co op games against AI, ex l4d, or swat4 or world in conflict this kinda games forces people to work together they like it or not,