Hi guys,
Generally, as a rule of thumb, a military unit is considered destroyed when 70% of it's force is hit.
(Dead/damaged/immobile).
For the greater good, I suggest to implement this rule in our games as well,
and stop a mission when around ~70% of players are dead,
while the rest are waiting in the lobby.
When we're in large numbers, it can be agonizing to see 9-10 players waiting,
while 2-3 players are left to end a mission which could last an unknown time,
even an hour, unless the end is near and obvious.
(usually the killed players quickly leave knowing it's sometimes a long wait till the next round).
Thus we might have more games played in a night, and less players leaving after getting killed,
knowing they could be playing again much faster than today.
Cheers!
What we have been following along the years is keeping the game running as long there is a reasonable chance for the remaining players to complete the mission. If only two guys are alive (and let's assume they are only ten percent of the team), I would like them to keep on playing if they just need to reach the extraction point to complete the mission.
Point is, that even if only half the team is dead and that makes the chances for completing the mission very low, the mission will be ended after discussing it on Teamspeak.
That's why we ask people to "go rambo" if only one or two guys remain.
Sticking to a fixed percentage is wrong. The decision to end the mission must take into account the status of the mission.
(03-21-2013, 09:23 PM)Variable link Wrote:What we have been following along the years is keeping the game running as long there is a reasonable chance for the remaining players to complete the mission. If only two guys are alive (and let's assume they are only ten percent of the team), I would like them to keep on playing if they just need to reach the extraction point to complete the mission.
Point is, that even if only half the team is dead and that makes the chances for completing the mission very low, the mission will be ended after discussing it on Teamspeak.
That's why we ask people to "go rambo" if only one or two guys remain.
Sticking to a fixed percentage is wrong. The decision to end the mission must take into account the status of the mission.
I agree with you, as I wrote - if the end is near and obvious (=reasonable chance) -Â let it end, even with 2 people.
but sometimes its not so near nor obvious, and there are way more players waiting than playing.
many times you play a few minutes, get killed and wait an hour to play a few minutes more - which kills your night. with total of 20 minutes play out of 2 hours for example...
That could happen less when the not obvious situation rises, and apply the rule for the majority of the players waiting.
The rule is not strict (rule of thumb...) and exceptions may apply and discussed of course.
We will then have more games with more players, who will wait now less time.
In some scenarios it would be realistic to fight to the last man. Let's say you defend yourself and you have nowhere to go or to retreat. On the other hand if we stick to strict realism we would quit some missions after 20% loses. It is very hard to find a rule because there are so many different scenarios and there can be many views what's acceptable or not when it comes to loses.
I hate waiting, especially when I'm late for the game which is almost always. But players themselves, i.e., survivors should be aware if lobby is full of players that wait and offer to quit if mission takes too long. Unfortunately, many of us lack time to wait for one and half hour for mission to be done while time is precious in our busy lives.Â
(03-22-2013, 01:34 AM)Miša link Wrote:I hate waiting, especially when I'm late for the game which is almost always. But players themselves, i.e., survivors should be aware if lobby is full of players that wait and offer to quit if mission takes too long. Unfortunately, many of us lack time to wait for one and half hour for mission to be done while time is precious in our busy lives.
Exactly where I'm pointing to.
Not a real strict rule, but more awareness to this issue.
I think a good example of this could be that say you have a 10 man squad with a mission to hit an enemy target. Now if you lose half your guys to random patrols before you are 2/3rds of the way to your target, it might not make sense to continue the rest of the way to the target and attempt the actual mission with just 5 people.
However if you start losing your guys in the actual attack, you are going to fight until you are all dead, or the mission is complete.
I guess it comes to the current platoon/squad/team leader to determine when it is sensible to continue the mission despite heavy losses and when to just try again or change the mission, in the benefit of everyone, dead or alive
Well, while 2-3 guys stay alive as I wait for the long wait... I simply just continue to work on some homework, a mission, roll out my muscles, or simply just some other tasks until I hear the next round over on teamspeak.
(03-21-2013, 09:55 PM)Setup link Wrote:but sometimes its not so near nor obvious, and there are way more players waiting than playing.
The end shouldn't be near or obvious for the mission to continue. It should be possible within a reasonable chance. Missions are ended if that is not the case. I don't recall even once that a hopeless mission wasn't ended immediately (or remaining players going rambo to end it in a "natural" way).
(03-21-2013, 09:55 PM)Setup link Wrote:many times you play a few minutes, get killed and wait an hour to play a few minutes more - which kills your night. with total of 20 minutes play out of 2 hours for example...
That sounds like a very rare occurrence but I acknowledge it is possible. This is the price we pay to keep it real, with no respawns and shit. I think this trade-off pays off.
I dont't think we need any hard rule on this.
Most times the "birds" can see well enough if they have a chance or not. And I've never seen a case where 2 or 3 out of 15 continue the mission for more than 10 min.
I somehow get shot very often early in the mission without firing a shot myself, and then just enjoy the spectating, or alt-tab en do something else in the mean time.
As a newcomer who has yet to play with you guys, I say that the prospect of playing a coop military FPS against the AI with _no respawning_ on player deaths sounds _very_ appealing.
I have never played an FPS coop, nor PVP, only EVE Online. But I've seen forum buddies post fraps of their FPS "PVP nights" and most of them look absolutely ludicrous. Scores or even hundreds of player characters running hither and thither at top speed and shooting at each other wantonly: complete focus on capping as many opponents as possible and with zero concern for harm <- doesn't do much to promote simulation of realworld squad level strategy and tactics, which is what I'm interested in personally.