+- Comrades in Arms Discussion Board (http://forum.ciahome.net)
+-- Forum: Comrades in Arms Life (http://forum.ciahome.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: CiA Coop Nights (http://forum.ciahome.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions (/showthread.php?tid=1946)
Pages:
1
2
Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Osku - 12-21-2010
I opened here a topic, where we could write any improvement suggestions concerning the ArmA2 multiplayer gameplay.
My first idea is: You know in ArmA2 multiplayer the player slots are assigned automatically after selecting a mission - this is different from OFP. Usually we stay on these slots, or change if other slots are available. Sometimes late joiners get the last available slots. Why we bend on this lottery system, shouldn't we give players/leaders freedom to pick their slots? We don't want to force people to take any special roles for no reason, do we? Instead, what we could do here is this:
1. everyone leaves their slots or admin writes #reassign.
2. discuss who is going to be leading for this mission, and the volunteer takes his squad leader slot.
3. then the leader calls other players, e.g. "Osku take autom.rifleman, Zandhaas medic",
or he could ask who would like to have each slot, if he doesn't have any plans/preferencies.
This would make it clear who is leading right from the very start, and also everyone would remember better who is who; who has that spare AT ammo, who'll be second in command if leader gets killed/incapacitated, etc. etc. At the same time this would be a small, almost effortless (on this low player numbers) but effective step towards more planned and tactical gameplay, as discussed on the other thread.
What do you think?
EDIT: please could some moderator move this thread to section "ArmA2 Multiplayer"?
Re: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Osku - 01-23-2011
I'll answer for Misha here, since I don't want to take that ACE2 thread off-topic:
(01-23-2011, 04:20 AM)Misha link Wrote: [quote author=Osku link=topic=1975.msg13567#msg13567 date=1295619499]
If ACE would make us miraculously more cohesive and improve our teamwork I would recommend it, but I'm afraid it doesn't help on that.
Well, I played on couple on servers and CIA style is most cohesive of them all. But what we can do to improve it further?[/quote]
Just a note, there's lots of more formal and organized clans/groups out there. But I wouldn't want to see CiA go that way.
Nevertheless I still think some small-scale trainings/practised drills would benefit us hugely, but those supposedly didn't get earlier much support from CiA members.
What is a little concerning, is that we can complete some missions with just by 2-3 players, that we fail with 10 players. Besides having lot more fun with a small team. It really should be the opposite, having more players -> better. Reason why this happens, must be that because with more players the coordination between them all gets slower and less effective. And of course there is no need for leader to issue so much commands and keep track of his troops.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that CiA gaming style is bad, not at all - I absolutely love it over any others. I'm just a little concerned of this effect above, and feel that there's a small room for improvement. Would be nice to hear comments and thoughts from CiA members too...
Re: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Anguis - 01-23-2011
It sounds a bit like what you have in mind is gameplay such as what we had in those WGL games organized by Marto (which I thought were a lot of fun). Is that true? I think those games tended to have good organization and coordination, while not being too overly formal.
The other area where you'd find yourself facing challenging opponents is in AAS-style PvP. It'd be nice to see more of that with CiA - Zwobot would have a bit to add in this regard.
Re: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Osku - 01-23-2011
(01-23-2011, 06:10 PM)Anguis Viridis link Wrote:It sounds a bit like what you have in mind is gameplay such as what we had in those WGL games organized by Marto (which I thought were a lot of fun). Is that true?
No, not organization on platoon level, more like inside a squad, fireteams, and of course between individual players - in form of battle drills and communication standards. Maybe that would afterall get undesirably formal for the CiA style... dunno.
Re: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Zwobot - 01-23-2011
Compared to Osku I've only spent a very limited time on the server lately. When I've been online the missions were well coordinated (check the youtube videos for examples).
Can you give examples of missions that were not played well as a team and what specific shortcomings you have observed Osku?
How do you think practice sessions would have to be set up to improve the weak points and who would be the instructor?
Just as a sidenote: Personally I won't have much time to spare for practice sessions, I'm glad if I can attend the official coop nights on sundays for one or two hours...
Re: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Osku - 01-24-2011
I can't name any particular missions that we have done badly. On those videos we were doing fine indeed. It's more like small glitches here and there that add to the bowl. For instance, one thing to improve might be the formations. I'm sure many of you have noticed how the formations get scatter-fucked easily, especially with a larger squad. There is few simple things that a squad leader and as well squad members can do to prevent this, perhaps also by adding some general rules for player's positions in addition to the known-good Even/Odd numbers.
That was just a quick example. I don't have any clear overall vision how things should be done, but might have some ideas to throw into the air.
If we'd ever do some sort of training, that could be pre-planned here on the forums, with the thread explaining what we're going to attempt (yes, attempt). And after the session, reporting back what really worked and which didn't, and what things we would benefit using in the future. This way all players would get a hang of what's going on, even if they cannot attend to the session(s).
I might not be the best person to inspire others, put new stuff into action and explain why we'd do that then and why this there, you know.
But since I'm at the moment probably the one with most spare time, I could try to arrange and plan something. Unless someone else more competent will step forward.And this all would be possible only if at least few players would be able and motivated to participate.
Re: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Zwobot - 01-24-2011
I hear you on the formations Osku. There is definitely room for improvement on both leaders and "followers" sides.
In general the EROL (even numbers to the right side of the leader and odd number son the left) should be obeyed more carefully in my opinion. Therefore every player has to know his/her number and the leader should map the numbers to player names that means write it down!
I think it might also be helpful to agree on a standard cover arc each number should concentrate on relative to the leader and travel direction. It shouldn't bee too complex, even numbers watch right side (2 to 5 o clock relative to travel direction) while odd numbers watch left side (11 to 7 o clock relative to travel direction). Leader observes 12 o clock (maybe backed up by number 2 or 3 so there are at least two players watching 12 o clock).
Cover arcs and formations during (observation) pauses would need special attention as well, I could see the use of not having to babysit my "followers" during a halt to have them cover 360 degrees around the squad (unless ordered otherwise).
Maintaining a march order inside the formation (who is on point, tail etc.) is something I have doubts about its usefulness. If the leader wants the squad to maintain a certain march order he should announce it in the briefing or when the situation arises but then still special training would be required to fulfill the requirements I think.
I remember ShackTactical (or how it's called) strategy guide for Arma2 has a comprehensive chapter on formations. In- and output from a "formation dos and don'ts" validation session could be this information. I would expect the output to be only a small part of the strategy guide information adopted to CiA sessions' needs. (I only order column and line formations when leading anyway because everything else is too complicated to maintain - even wedge).
That's what came straight in my mind regarding formations.
Re: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Overlord - 01-24-2011
I agree with both of you (in a way).
I've noticed with fewer players we tends to/are able to keep formation tighter than we do with more players on server. That's due to players, I guess, who choose to keep themself a bit "off-track". The downside with it is we can be easier spotted and it take longer time to get in fire position. One advantage can be he/she will survive a minute longer..
I've also noticed, in special, Grip almost newer take point himself when leading. He "point out" a point-man and keep a bit back himself. That's, in my opinion, a better way to lead than going point himself (even if I tend to to that). It's also a good way to keep track of players/formations and the leader is rarely killed first.
Medic e.g. should keep a bit back in formation (along with sniper during movement in forest), but never tail if it's possible according to amount of players. I'm sure you all have noticed how AIs target players according to rank/role these days.
Re: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Osku - 01-25-2011
Yes. And when not using point man/woman, players should assume numerical order. In a Column, next from leader (1) would be number 2, then 3..4, and so on. In a Wedge, on the right hand side are 2,4,6,.. and left 3,5,7,.. exactly in this order.
In Staggered Column (which is two Columns/Files side by side, with the leftside column slightly leading ahead), leader is the first man/woman in the left column - odd numbers on his back. And number 2 is front of the rightside column with even numbers behind him/her.
Also, the leader should announce when he/she is moving out and when halting. As well when changing direction of movement. This leaves less need for the followers trying to locate their leader, which in turn gives them more time to scan for enemy contacts in the surroundings.
About the 360 security: We used to yell directions e.g. "watching North" for instance, when formation was halted or at insertion/extraction points... thanks to Zandhaas' contribution. This was usually done without squad leader's initiative. We should take that into active use again - it's very effective. And even without any communications, players can just quickly check which direction others are observing and pick another direction for themselves. Of course this is not even nearly as effective as the first method, but it's a good start for not bunching up and staring at each other, as we used to do often in OFP games
The Shack Tactical Dslyecxi's guide is quite good and include interesting stuff, but I feel it's too brief in some parts, while often making too much text out of irrelevant stuff and repeating itself.
Re: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Osku - 03-09-2011
Now that we've disabled the "player killed" messages (which is absolutely great thing), let's also stop saying in TS when you die? It's much more fun to find it out by other means, than hearing dead people talk.
Don't forget you can do some death growls as Tony suggested while ago. That's much better than saying "I'm dead".
Or if you prefer, you can sing like an angel as you go through your reincarnation process into a crow..
Re: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Overlord - 03-09-2011
(03-09-2011, 06:10 PM)Osku link Wrote:Now that we've disabled the "player killed" messages (which is absolutely great thing), let's also stop saying in TS when you die? It's much more fun to find it out by other means, than hearing dead people talk.Just admit it Osku, you're afraid of hearing dead people talk. Speaking for myself I hear voices all the time, so one dead more or less don't bother me ;D
Re: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Variable - 03-29-2011
(01-24-2011, 07:02 PM)Zwobot link Wrote:(I only order column and line formations when leading anyway because everything else is too complicated to maintain - even wedge).Line formation is the hardest to follow since squad mates, that are actually the only reference to one's position in the formation, are outside everybody's field of view, and thus everybody need to constantly check their rights and left to keep their orientation. Wedge is the easiest to follow in my opinion, because all you have to do is figure out which side you need to be on (according to EROL) and who needs to be next and in-front of you, and keep him on the edge of your field of view.
I order line formation only when closing in on an un-aware enemy, and never use it while travelling long distances. I use wedge as default formation and column when the enemy is close at the flanks and in forests (due to many obstructions in forests, it's hard to keep any formation that involves more than just following the one in-front of you).
Re: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Osku - 05-23-2011
Few notes from last coop sunday's (23.5.2011) "From tusk till doom"-mission, where we were splitted in two teams and had confusion about the mission plan and command order.
Our big mistake was not to decide who will be leading and deciding plan of the whole operation. Now there was three of us having slightly different approach to the situation and confusing more and more each other during the briefing.
So, the next time we split teams, we'll assign a commander who create a plan and decide whether he wants to decide movement of all other teams or give them "free hands". The commander doesn't necessarily have to be a team leader, it can be e.g. 2 IC in one of the teams as well. Just make sure it's clear for everyone. Commander makes all final decisions, others can make suggestions. This is how we've done it before and it has worked well. Guys, let's not forget about this ever again.Â
I think it's important to discuss afterwards of this kind of little mishaps. We can and will learn from them and have better chances not making the same mistakes again and maintain the fluid gameplay in coop nights.
And hopefully we get TS3 channel commander working soon and split teams on Teamspeak for clearer comms.
Re: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Overlord - 05-23-2011
I agree the biggest mistake in that was not to choose a commander (or nobody took it before game started). But I also have to remind people to read briefing to familiar themself with the mission, regardless if you are leader or not. I suppose the compass issue was once-in-a-lifetime experience (even if I doubt it, concerning upcomming CiA videos)
This is, as Osku said, very importaint with split teams in different "brances", not only infantery groups. Here we had one wheeled and one "footed", and in this particular mission, my vote goes for infantery leader command the whole lot.
I don't support Oskus view of commander, the commander should ALWAYS be the leader. Not only does he have the command bar (how little that helps from time to time), but it would prevent others (the guy with it) to issue confusing orders just for fun. From start it looks OK, but the leader would all the time need to keep track of who got it, as long as people tends to get killed in some missions.
We had an example of that last night too, where I asked repeatedly to remove my WP and nothing happend. In addition to that, I could never determin where the actual leader was, since I got the HUD location of TL. Running around looking for who has which weapon to determin who's the leader ain't my style...
Re: Gameplay Improvement Suggestions - Osku - 05-23-2011
(05-23-2011, 03:59 PM)Overlord link Wrote:I don't support Oskus view of commander, the commander should ALWAYS be the leader. Not only does he have the command bar (how little that helps from time to time), but it would prevent others (the guy with it) to issue confusing orders just for fun.
I meant that the commander would be attached to one of the Alpha/Bravo/Charlie/Delta squads, and move with them. All leaders would have command bar normally and able to issue orders for their subordinates. Commander would give just rough orders, decide overall tactics, while the squad leaders handle the micromanagement; formations, ROE, etc.
In other words, it's almost like having Alpha/Bravo/Charlie/Delta as fireteams, and a commander would be more exactly a squad leader here.
On TS3: Commander + Alpha/Bravo/Charlie/Delta leaders would be able to talk on "command channel"
That is my vision... I hope my explanation wasn't too messy. In reality this concept is not complicated at all.