From a tactical gamer, jaded by 'trendy' modern shooters - Page 12

**Malorn** · 2012-07-24, 03:58 PM

I agree with the OP.

I'm not sure whether PS2 is about maximizing the money-making gimmicks, but I do fear that in an attempt to "modernize" PlanetSide they will replicate them without giving careful thought as to why they are important and the role they play in the game dynamic.

The mentality of such-and-such game had this, such-and-such game was successful, therefore we must have this because players from that game expect it. It's absolutely the wrong way to go about it, and I don't think we've been given enough insight into their thinking to know whether this is the case. Though it's certainly a serious issue of which we are rightfully concerned.

OnexBigxHebrew · 2012-07-24, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by brighthand

My assumption that the popular thing is of lesser quality runs parallel with my referrence to COD, since it is the game that most modern shooters are based off of, and which actually IS of lesser quality from various standpoints (according to alot of people here who are trying to ESCAPE CODized games, hence why we are looking forward to Planetside 2).

As I wrote in the previous post, if other people like it, that is fine 'they have their thing and [I would have mine]" But that isn't the case, as their high demand for 'their thing' makes the producers furnish ONLY their thing and thus cause a stagnating Market.

As for the graham crumbles being the new rage: that is fine too, but COD for example hardly has any grham crumbles. I am not advocating older mechanisms over new ones, because some developements over the years ARE superior to older mechanics. The problem is that, while their have been advancements made in the genre, there has also been an unrelated development of new-gen player prefferences that don't include deeper gameplay and strategy/tactics.

This is why it is a complicated issue: Since you may think I am talking about more fluid animations, bullet drop, recoil, and the like, when I'm referring to the meta game: objectives, tactical pacing, planning, skill-based shooting, the emphasis on ones individual performance in a game that should be about objectives (depending on the game).

I know that what works for one game shouldn't automatically work for another, and some games SHOULDN't be about tactics and all of that tralala, but the original game in a certain series, whose foundations were built in deeper mechanics and tactical gameplay have lost their chocolate fudge and whipped cream- and Graham cracker crumbs- in order to be the stripped down single-scoop cone that the majority of the market seems to prefer.

Again, I'll refer to KZ2: That game had very difficult, but very satisfying learning curve and gunplay (although it isn't for many people), the pacing was just enough so that if you chose a direction to go in, you had to commit to it, as rerouting would cost you some positioning. The class balance was great, and the tactician could lay down spawn points according to his tactical creativity. There are alot of other features that I won't mention because this is already a wall of text.

Killzone 3: Most of the things that made killzone 2 great and unique were taken away- and on top of that, were not even replaced by anything better; as a matter of fact, somethings weren't replaced by anything at all! In KZ3 there was no spawn on squad leader, there was no server browser, decent clan system. Some things did get replaced however- with inferior solutions. Not inferior according to my opinion, but literally inferior solutions. example: instead of spawn grenades, there were fixed spawn positions that killed the dynamism and strategy in the map. In battlefield, fixed capture points were fine because the map sizes allowed for greater flexability, but in KZ3's narrow passages and clustered rooms, people could then memorize the map and know where each post was and simply camp it to farm kills; it didn't help that you could not spawn on squad leader to flank a position to get to an objective. On top of that, they inputed a god-class sniper that one-hit-kills you with a shot to your big toe and can cloak indefinitely- in maps as small as KZ maps, that is pure death for anyone who is not a sniper; all so that COD players can feel at home racking up kills- instead of playing the objective.

Killzone lost its features in an attempt to be COD and that is what I refer to in my posts. Just because something is newer doesn't mean it is better and has more features; I look at what it has in comparison to what it could have had, and what its predecessor had/has, and I see a devolution, not progress.

Here is hoping PS2 doesn't follow suit

Now I just want ice cream, this discussion has gotten tasty.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-24, 04:03 PM

Killzone is an extreme example. I don't think anyone will argue that they severely altered the basic mechanics of that game, and mostly in an arbitrary fashion. To be honest, I rate KZ3 as LESS than CoD. At least the CoD games I've played if everybody was on one side of the map, the enemies automatically started spawning on the other, so camping was somewhat controlled. They didn't even do THAT!

It's all subjective, and preference.

But the base of the argument many around here make that so many consider "hardass" and "stuck up", is really just summed up like this:

Many of the features that make CoD, BF, Quake, Unreal, whatever popular, are integrated in MANY games, namely the dozens of versions of each other. The things that drew people to the original Planetside, or to Arma, or whatever THEIR flavor of shooter was, are much more limited in quantity. There aren't as many games like them in the first place. It's not a case of better/worse, it's just quantity.

The people who have been playing Planetside, liked the things that made it Planetside. They have been unable, for nine years now, to go "somewhere" else. They've been stuck with dated, crappy old graphics, and have been waiting patiently for a "modern" equivalent to take it's place, and yes, to incorporate some of the improvements in technology and gameplay since then.

The problem they have, is that if they want to play something along the style of CoD, BattleField, or whatever, those games already exist. They're very popular, and many of the people here play them, too. Nobody has a problem with someone making a fast paced MMO out of CoD or BF, or Doom, or whatever given game may be. But they worry that the uniqueness of what they liked HERE is being melded into "just like all these other games".

If there were multiple games in this genre, it probably wouldn't be such a bone of contention, because there would be some "choice" and people who like one playstyle could easily move someplace that suits them. As it is, they're all lumping in together because this is the ONLY game (basically) that exists that's even remotely like this, and people come into conflict because of their preferences and that there is not any viable alternative if they don't like it (this applies equally to both sides of any argument).

Hopefully, the MMOFPS genre will take off because of PlanetSide 2 being hugely, wildly successful! If it does, then other developers will follow suit, and pretty soon there will be a little variety and people can gravitate toward their preferences without all the rigamorole and fighting. In the meantime, people who played this and liked it before, tend to jealously guard it, because they have nowhere else to go for what they liked here.

To refer back to the sundae reference: It was the ONLY sundae shop in the country. Now you're just fucked if they change their menu. Down the road, maybe a few more sundae shops will open, then it won't matter so much

In the meantime... I would like a sundae with nuts, whipped cream, and a cherry please, and god help whoever tries to cut in line!

brighthand · 2012-07-24, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

(funny and sensable things)

lol thank you for understanding, and sorry to have made you hungry

Novice bot · 2012-07-24, 04:13 PM

Love this thread.

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a sniper lying in a corner, oneshotting people who have no way of defending themselves or even knowing he's there is a legitimate, non-cheese tactic?

If I recall correctly, the primary role of a sniper in war is to create chokepoints, areas where enemies have hard time, or be unable to advance. In my mind, what you just described is a choke point, run, and get shot. Its legimate, its not cheesy, the guy is doing his job. No matter how much people hate camping like that, he's doing his role for the battle.

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-24, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Novice bot

If I recall correctly, the primary role of a sniper in war is to create chokepoints, areas where enemies have hard time, or be unable to advance. In my mind, what you just described is a choke point, run, and get shot. Its legimate, its not cheesy, the guy is doing his job. No matter how much people hate camping like that, he's doing his role for the battle.

I really, really don't understand the mentality of people who drag real wars into multiplayer FPS's. It's completely alien to me.

ThermalReaper · 2012-07-24, 04:19 PM

I think the best way to make planetside 2(I'm not claiming this as my own idea by the way, many others have suggested it) more complex is to gradually add more complex mechanics every now and then as the game grows. It'll be enough doses for the current people who have not experianced such things and can easily accomodate instead of having a limited inventory system and free loadouts shoved in their face from the get go and quitting too quickly because they don't have a clue what to do.

Flaropri · 2012-07-24, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

I really, really don't understand the mentality of people who drag real wars into multiplayer FPS's. It's completely alien to me.

It's still their role in any game that has 'em. TF2 Snipers are all about controlling choke points (via murder at long range), even though the ranges are generally much shorter than they will be in PS2 or are in BF3 (I assume).

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-24, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

I really, really don't understand the mentality of people who drag real wars into multiplayer FPS's. It's completely alien to me.

It's not a case of "dragging it into"... They go hand in hand.

By definition, a sniper is someone who from a place of concealment, usually alone, or in support of a group not in his immediate vicinity, aims precise, targeted fire onto the enemy, achieving through precision what others achieve through volume.

It is irrelevant whether an individual is playing a "sniper class", using a "sniper rifle" or using a "pistol". The role IS.

Real world tactics and concepts apply even in a game of chess. That we are using guns AT ALL in this game is an influence of "real wars". That we have grenades AT ALL in this game is an influence of "real wars". That we have tanks, or aircraft, or machine guns, or RPGs, or combat medics... These are all concepts that come DIRECTLY FROM "real wars".

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-24, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

It's not a case of "dragging it into"... They go hand in hand.

By definition, a sniper is someone who from a place of concealment, usually alone, or in support of a group not in his immediate vicinity, aims precise, targeted fire onto the enemy, achieving through precision what others achieve through volume.

It is irrelevant whether an individual is playing a "sniper class", using a "sniper rifle" or using a "pistol". The role IS.

Real world tactics and concepts apply even in a game of chess. That we are using guns AT ALL in this game is an influence of "real wars". That we have grenades AT ALL in this game is an influence of "real wars". That we have tanks, or aircraft, or machine guns, or RPGs, or combat medics... These are all concepts that come DIRECTLY FROM "real wars".

But it's all in a game context. Everything, from balancing (ever heard of balancing issues in real wars?) to basic game mechanics like spawning, victory conditions and the basic rules of the games are just that: Games.

There is no Capture the Flag in real wars. There are no respawns, no points, no rules like we know them from games.

Everything that happens in a game happens within a game context. Sniper classes confer a different set of abilities to a player than a melee class or an anti-vehicle class, or a medic or engineer.
All these classes are balanced against each other to provide fairness and promote teamplay (in the case of Planetside 2 atleast).

You cannot begin arguing about what the role of a real life sniper is, because that only factors in to the equation at the most rudimentary level. It's not a question of "how does a sniper function in a real combat situation," but instead "how does sniper gameplay affect the game as a whole?"

That said, things like cornercamping and spawn camping are metagame issues that arise as players explore the rules of the game and figure out optimal tactics. Cornercamping is an "evolutionary dead end" in this context, a sort of appendix of gameplay. It cannot evolve, it cannot be rendered obsolete, and exists as a viable tactic in it's own little bubble of the games rules.

Some players choose to exploit this, others recognise that it is a cheese tactic that cheapens the experience, and as gentlemen silently agree to not stoop to that level.

BattsTR · 2012-07-24, 05:22 PM

I'm extremely pessimistic. Its my opinion that the game will be dumbed down. Zerging will be alot more important than any strategy, and attempts to use tactics seem to be hampered by the hex system. I got the feeling that this game will be alot of fun to play, but wont have much of that sense of community and achievement that the first game did. We shall see though, who really knows how it will play out.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-07-24, 05:32 PM

@Eisenkreutzer

I agree with you, to a large extent. As I've said before, I'm generally against "artificial balancing", I believe "balance" takes care of itself, provided nothing excessive. I'm also not necessarily a huge fan of game modes, like CTF or whatever, but people need some sort of "objective" to fight over (besides kills) if you want them to visit particular areas of a map or achieve an "attack defend" feeling. Part of that is a consequence of the smallish size of most game worlds. The larger the world, the less necessary this sort of thing becomes, to an extent.

Regarding the "sniper classes" comment, yes they confer special abilities on a player in most games. I do not like that sort of thing, as I've said before, it is artificial balancing. At it's most basic level, people take on a role by nature of the way they play, not what button they clicked. How "snipers fit into the gameplay" is largely irrelevant. You cannot "eliminate" the class even if you wanted to, because it is a manner of behavior. Just like "rocket suicides". Whether he has a rocket or a machine gun, when he rushes you in a suicidal fashion, it is the same behavior.

Regarding corner campers, I don't see the difference between the both of you charging hell-bells down the hallway and rounding a corner at the same time, or him patiently standing just around the corner. If anything, the guy "patiently waiting" is easier prey, because he doesn't know PRECISELY when you'll jump around the corner. You do. If you assume there is someone around the corner (especially if you saw someone else die there a moment ago), that gives YOU the advantage, not him. Whether you choose to throw a grenade around the corner to flush him out, or just go around "slicing the pie", you are ready, he is not. Also, camping is boring, the likelihood of him losing focus and gawking off a second is higher than you, since you are active and he is... staring at the wall hoping somebody comes around.

I'm not arguing for or against it, just saying that it really doesn't matter. It's really only effective against people who are being particularly careless. If you are running around corners without thought, you are far more at risk of this kind of simplistic behavior than if you actively watch for it. Doesn't Sun-Tzu have a saying about initiative being the key to success in battle? A camper is voluntarily surrendering his initiative to the enemy.

I'm not meaning to argue old arguments. I'm just talking. To me, it's silly what sort of things people want to label "cheap" or "unfair" or "ungentlemanly"... and even sillier what people want to label "unfun". Unfun to who? To you, because you lost? Well, duh.

As long as people are hacking/cheating, I don't care what they do. As I've said in another thread "balance" means "not weighted in favor of one or another" and that "everyone has the same opportunity". When people hack/cheat, they are doing things that no one else can, unless they ALSO hack/cheat.

@BattTR

Let 'em zerg. I'll be waiting with the rest of TRG. We love zergers

Even in a "mob" game, say Starcraft, where all things equal the objective is to "outproduce" the other guy, there is room for "tactics". For example, many times I've seen people lasso up a large group of units and send them half way across the map. Over the course of travel, they become a strung out line. If they run into an opponent who took a moment to arrange (or who on contact begins arranging) his troops, they will fail, even if they greatly outnumber their enemy. Why?

If you have thirty marines, and I have ten, but my ten are in a horizontal line where all ten can fire at roughly any given area in this direction, and your thirty marines charge them in a bunch that starts firing as soon as they come in range (and stop, you know how they are) and the others bunch up behind them, and have to walk around the edges to get in range to fire... By the time the clump in the back starts sorting itself out, all the guys at the front are dead, the clump moves forward and process begins repeating. Now, your thirty may kill all ten of mine before it's over, but you will NOT have thirty anymore. And this in a stat based, "roll the dice" kind of environment.

And this an EXTREMELY simple example. No tactics here, really. Just positioning in a straight line in relation to expected enemy arrival. Take a more coordinated, thought out tactic and apply it to a "zerg rush". See what happens. Thoughtful people will ALWAYS tromp zerg. Period. No arguments.

Gunnarr · 2012-07-24, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I read some stuff on body armor on wikipedia. Durin the american civil war death to injury ratio was nearly 1-1. In vietnam that had climbed to 2.5 injuries per death. In Afghanistan our modern american army has 7 injuries per death. So all I can conclude from that is modern gameplay does not realistically potray body armor and the ttk in modern games would be more similar to civil war casualities when everyone only had a dyed wool jacket to stop bullets.

There are some major differences in all of those wars.

Civil War was still fought in the 'Gentleman's manner' where everyone lined up. That worked well enough for Muskets as they were hugely inaccurate. When rifling became easier to aquire, along with the conical and more areodynamic mini ball round you see a higher death:wound ratio. Not to mention the fact that the bullets weren't moving as fast as modern day ones. So, they didn't get hot enough to kill germs when traveling, and would carry particles of clothing into the wound to cause infection which led to amputations and deaths.

In 'Nam you had the introduction of flack vests and K-Pod helmets. These were mostly for anti-shrapnel, and didn't do much to stop the standard 7.62mm that the AK-47 they were going against were firing. The Death:Wound ratio here is due to the fact that they were using modern guns that weren't likely to carry infection into the wound, and that it was a mostly a guerrilla war. Not many big engagements between two armies.

Modern day you're still seeing the same thing. As having been in the Army the current 'GI Issue' is a ceramic plate that will stop a 7.62mm. After the first round is stopped, the plate breaks, and degrades. With every round afterwards the plate further degrades and may or may not stop rounds coming in. Your Kevlar helmet, or ACH, is built for stopping shrapnel. It will not stop much of anything larger then a standard pistol round.

One also needs to add in the fact of advanced medicine. We have things like blood coagulators to stop major bleeding, stints that are easy to use in case of lung shot, training for every soldier so that they can get them or their buddies stable for medivac. The bullets and wounds tend to be much cleaner. Dying from a gun shot in modern day is more about bleeding out then instant death like the movies would have you believe. You die from shock, and then blood loss unless you're just plain unlucky.

Klockan · 2012-07-24, 05:35 PM

If we speak about sniper as a concept and not sniper as a class. A sniper is then what fps players usually call a "camper". FPS players don't like campers since they will kill these unwary FPS players before they have a time to react. Though usually the FPS player was killed not because the other guy was camping but because the FPS player were ignorant of his surroundings so that the camper got an easy target. Camping is a strategy that takes more skill to counter than to execute, but when you learn how to counter it then classical camping is underpowered as a strategy.

Originally Posted by EisenKreutzer

Some players choose to exploit this, others recognise that it is a cheese tactic that cheapens the experience, and as gentlemen silently agree to not stoop to that level.

Even the best Starcraft players use cheese now and then. Bad players shackle themselves with rules such as yours where they think that certain strategies are cheesy. Real players understands that every strategic move has its time and place and that there is no shame in resorting to cheesy tactics. If you can't counter cheesy things then you are a bad player or the game is unbalanced. Camping is in no way uncounterable so stop bitching about it.

Spawn camping isn't a part of this ofc, it should be patched out before long. Corner camping is a product of really bad game mechanics and doesn't exist in any real game and wont exist in PS2 either since there is no advantage given to the guy standing behind a corner.

Originally Posted by BattsTR

I'm extremely pessimistic. Its my opinion that the game will be dumbed down. Zerging will be alot more important than any strategy, and attempts to use tactics seem to be hampered by the hex system. I got the feeling that this game will be alot of fun to play, but wont have much of that sense of community and achievement that the first game did. We shall see though, who really knows how it will play out.

How is the hex system worse than the old system? In the old system you couldn't even assault bases not adjacent to you except for starving them, now you can but with a penalty. How is this system more limiting? So when you want to take a large base you can either try to take it directly or you can first focus on taking a few more adjacent hexes to make it easier.

EisenKreutzer · 2012-07-24, 05:35 PM

@RedOctober: I'm really curious, do you think you could elaborate some on what you call "artificial balancing?"

Do you mean altering the stats of weapons (for example) post launch?

Originally Posted by Klockan

Even the best Starcraft players use cheese now and then. Bad players shackle themselves with rules such as yours where they think that certain strategies are cheesy. Real players understands that every strategic move has its time and place and that there is no shame in resorting to cheesy tactics. If you can't counter cheesy things then you are a bad player or the game is unbalanced. Camping is in no way uncounterable so stop bitching about it.

Did you just call me a bad player? Whats with the attitude? I have to say I do not appreciate your tone one bit.

I am not saying that all examples of sitting and waiting for an enemy player to move into your crosshair is a wrong thing to do. I am saying that a player who relies on cornercamping to the exclusion of all else are bad players, or atleast players who do not care about playing the game the way it is intended to be played.

I have camped in multiple shooters, and it is a viable tactic that serves a purpose, especially when defending a choke or capture point.

Am I bitching? Really?