Solo play and Team play.

nomotog · 2011-09-27, 10:09 AM

This isn't about solo play Vs team play. Far as I care, team play is the way this game is meant to be played. But. Did anyone notice the change in outlook for PS2.

When I was following the development of PS1, it looked like the devs hated solo players. Not saying they personally hated the concept, but the systems they where implementing where all about forcing team play. It was like they wanted team play to be Required. That's required with a capital R.

Now PS2 comes around and I am noticing a different idea. They don't seem to be requiring team play as much. It's not that they don't want team play. It's more like they are making the game so that team play is easy rather then required. You can be a solo player and still help and work with other people.

Small changes seem to suggest this. Gal transports are empire based which means you don't gave to get in a squad to use one or to perform an air drop onto the battle field. You could be a solo gal pilot and still give a massive benefit to your empire.

What do you think? Do you think there is a change in thinking? Is this change a good thing?

TheRagingGerbil · 2011-09-27, 10:25 AM

If anything they are forcing us to be more team orientated. With the restrictions of the classes you are no longer going to be a one man army.

I suspect the gal spawning will work just as the AMS's did in PS1. Give the ability to lock to platoon or squad.

moosepoop · 2011-09-27, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by TheRagingGerbil

If anything they are forcing us to be more team orientated. With the restrictions of the classes you are no longer going to be a one man army.

I suspect the gal spawning will work just as the AMS's did in PS1. Give the ability to lock to platoon or squad.

the class system is one step forward. the solo tank concept is two steps back.

i suspect the intention of class system is not really to promote teamwork, but blindly imitating bad company 2.

TheRagingGerbil · 2011-09-27, 10:56 AM

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Am I upset that I won't be able to carry my sniper rifle and my jackhammer as well as a med gun and armor gun? Sure. But that is the one man kill whore in me. When playing with my outfit I would always specialize more because I knew there was someone there to support me. This system is going to make people seek out others to back them up. If they don't they will have a substantially short life expectancy.

moosepoop · 2011-09-27, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by TheRagingGerbil

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Am I upset that I won't be able to carry my sniper rifle and my jackhammer as well as a med gun and armor gun? Sure. But that is the one man kill whore in me.

and if tanks can be soloed, the killwhore in ME would wreak havoc. but for fairness and integrity i am firmly opposed to the idea.

NapalmEnima · 2011-09-27, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by moosepoop

the class system is one step forward. the solo tank concept is two steps back.

i suspect the intention of class system is not really to promote teamwork, but blindly imitating bad company 2.

You clearly don't think much of people who make their living at designing games, while a lot of yourself who clearly doesn't.

There have been MANY FPS games with classes. Tribes (class = pack), TF1-2, Sunday Night Firefight, All the CoDs (3, 4, MW2) I've played, ditto for the Battlefields (2 and 2142).

Picking one recent example out of the heard and saying they're blindly copying it seems to show your ignorance or your dislike of the devs. At least ignorance is curable.

I wholeheartedly agree that classes do a lot to promote team play. Your squad will NEED someone of class X if you're going to be able to handle situation Y... whatever X and Y happen to be.

I've vigorously flogged the 1-seat MBT > 2-seat in other threads, no need to rehash it here. Suffice it to say that I disagree.

Raymac · 2011-09-27, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by moosepoop

i suspect the intention of class system is not really to promote teamwork, but blindly imitating bad company 2.

Considering how they are making a brand new genre-defining game unlike any other, I don't think they are "blindly imitating" anything. Frankly, they'd be extremely foolish to not implement ideas that are successful in other games out there. All game developers do that because if they don't, you end up with some "wtf japan" type game like Catherine.

The devs have repeatedly said that PS2 will be team based, but it seems there will be varying degrees of that teamwork. We'll have highly organized outfits on 1 end of the spectrum and casual players following missions that just point their guns in the right direction on the other end of the spectrum.

Personally, I think that's a nice balance because sometimes you want to just jump into a game for 15-30 mins, but sometimes you want to have day-long marathon sessions with one organized raid after the other.

Legion · 2011-09-27, 03:58 PM

I second what Raymac says. Allows you to play whetever way you want. Play solo when there are no outfit members on and as a team when you have friends. Makes sense.

Redshift · 2011-09-27, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by moosepoop

the class system is one step forward. the solo tank concept is two steps back.

i suspect the intention of class system is not really to promote teamwork, but blindly imitating bad company 2.

seconded, the class system will force teamwork (although i'm still not convinced it's a good thing atm)

But the solo tank thing, well that completly annihilates teamwork, unless the secondary weapon is enough to outweigh the extra gun and double armour rolling two solo tanks would give you

Legion · 2011-09-27, 05:21 PM

Maybe we are looking at this all the wrong way with the single tank pilot/gunner situation. This way you and your friend can work as a team in two tanks. You will most definitely need to work as a team to tank down all the one manned tanks on the battlefield. In that respect, I think it promotes teamwork.

Sirisian · 2011-09-27, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Legion

Maybe we are looking at this all the wrong way with the single tank pilot/gunner situation. This way you and your friend can work as a team in two tanks. You will most definitely need to work as a team to tank down all the one manned tanks on the battlefield. In that respect, I think it promotes teamwork.

Nah the people against the new design understand that. They prefer forced teamwork where one player relies on another.

I personally don't need that to enjoy the game and much prefer seeing vehicles working together in groups using combined fire so everyone is taking part in the combat. Much like when I pull a liberator teamwork to me isn't having someone bombing for me. It's having a mossy flying next to me to protect me. Different viewpoints.

Raka Maru · 2011-09-27, 11:57 PM

When I'm in something heavy like tank, bfr, etc... I tend to seek out teamwork. It just works better. But when I'm a cloaker and determined to do something, I don't need a team for most missions. Sometimes they come near to me and give away my position or I get hit by shells meant for the uncloaked.

There shouldn't need to be forced teamwork. Just let it happen by giving tools to promote it. Just like SEP came along one year and rewarded those who already loved doing that stuff.

Captain B · 2011-09-28, 12:42 AM

The problem is if people wanted teamwork you'd see more community in MMOs, and the sad fact is you don't. Teamwork has to be a necessity for many (dare I say most) for it to be used. We can discuss factoids until we're blue in the face, but there's a reason you see people running around solo in games like BF, racking up kills, and mass groups organizing armored columns in PS. Sure, the game is different, but one of those differences is a reliance on other people to do something specific; in this case, drive or even fly.

People aren't going to wait around or squad up if they can spawn a tank and drive off. Sure it isn't "as good" as having a second person (potentially), but getting some super duper uber noober as your gunner isn't much better, and many (dare I say again most) are going to think that very thing and speed off into battle.

Whether that's right or wrong is its own argument, but the second argument is, should that be the "norm" (solo MBTs, not Lightnings or anything), then tanks will be severely disappointing and paper-thin to account for it. This makes true treadheads very sad pandas.

Sirisian · 2011-09-28, 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by Captain B

The problem is if people wanted teamwork you'd see more community in MMOs, and the sad fact is you don't. Teamwork has to be a necessity for many (dare I say most) for it to be used. We can discuss factoids until we're blue in the face, but there's a reason you see people running around solo in games like BF, racking up kills, and mass groups organizing armored columns in PS. Sure, the game is different, but one of those differences is a reliance on other people to do something specific; in this case, drive or even fly.

You think that's the reason why BF plays the way it is? Why people go running off and jump into a plane in a 32 player game or take the tank and don't wait for people? The TTK has nothing to do with that? The fact that people just join a random game and play a few matches then leave has nothing to do with it?

Let's take PS and compare it. In PS2 let's assume 4 people grab 2 tanks and work as a team using voice comms in a squad. Now imagine instead you grab a tank and go rushing off with no one else. How can the game not reward that? I mean obviously that player has AV only. He'd either need to go for easy kills assuming AV is balanced to kill AI easily (I've explained numerous times that the shell needs to travel slowly so players can sprint out of the way of an AV round and see it coming). Or he needs to stick around people with AA and AI. Would that be teamwork? He's just using them to survive while he uses his AV cannon to kill things.

Meanwhile the 2 tanks that have gunners (one AA and one AI) are able to merrily kill things themselves. TTK is important in all of this. If a single tank can kill a buggy in 2 shots then it's a lot more likely to be used solo. If a buggy can just run away after getting hit 3 times then it's a lot less likely that tank would be used as a solo weapon. Especially if infantry can dodge the round and aren't an easy kill.

Captain B · 2011-09-28, 01:27 AM

I've read the arguments already.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of "math" being thrown about but no real common sense. If common sense among gamers was a little more apparent, games like WoW would have failed by Year Two if they had been developed at all. That is not the case, and so we have instances of 6 players in a genre called "massively multiplayer". Hell, I got more people playing Guardian Heroes on my Sega Saturn back in '95 than I roll with on "traditional MMOs" today!

I'm not saying you can't have teamwork with a mass of single-manned tanks (one argument in all of this), but if you do, tanks would have to be severely weakened to account for all the ass rolling around the continent (second argument of this revelation). If not they would be too powerful and severely limit the affect of infantry when everyone can drive around with extra armor and a big cannon to quickly and (relatively) safely get to where they need to go. In this case, they become little more than power ups or, on the other hand, nothing more than tracked BFRs.

I hated being a driver when I didn't know anyone. Sat around waiting a lot for a gunner. Same running up and jumping in a vehicle, waiting for the driver to go towards the explosions on the map interface. I get why people would like to do more as a driver, and with that, I agree (for the most part) with the direction of this premise. But giving a Vanguard driver the ability to fire his main cannon? Sorry, but you're throwing around some pretty small numbers with all these "take 2" and "compare 4".

Take forty and compare eighty. Throw in about two hundred and another four hundred for good measure. The difference in effect between fifty "two man tanks" and one hundred "solo tanks" is a staggering difference when it comes to force multiplication. Those fifty are screwed.

(There's an actual principle applied here, developed in WW2 I think, about this very thing. I forget what it's called, but it's basically that you aren't just fighting two enemies on your own, thus dividing fire [disadvantage], but that the enemy is able to focus fire without immediate regard for additional threats [advantage]. Somehow they are related issues, but separate, and so "stackable" when it comes to determining enemy strength and ability. Maybe I murdered the principle or completely misunderstood it, but that's what I got from it [not a real soldier!].)

Also, save the "what about air" arguments and secondary AA weapons. With entire outfits that can focus on air benefits, the skies could be favoring either side on that fact alone, or neither of them (be they empty or filled with dog-fighting aircraft) for that matter. Leave that factor out as it is far too much of a wild variable to even begin to consider, much like saying "there could be infantry with AA alongside the armor". Yes, there could be - on both sides.

Or even Vanu stepping in and mucking things up!