Tactics, Realism and Fun

[sc1ence]

<edit for context> This post is a response to a playtest on the conquest server of lowering player count. It goes further to address what I see as a conflict within TG that I think needs to be addressed. </edit>


I am going to state my personal opinion here. This opinion does not necessarily reflect that of the admin team.



Stated succinctly:
Lowering the player count does not increase the tactics, realism or fun of 2142. It should be moved back up to 50 or higher.

Now for the long winded justification for the above statement:

Tacticalgamer started with very low speed tactical shooters. The tactics involved in those games were very much a cat and mouse game. ArmA, ghost recon, project reality and other similar games are clear tactical shooters. They emphasize realism and team tactics over action and one-player-one-unit. The BF series of games seems to fall between traditional tactical shooters and arcady games like quake deathmatch that do not seem to require tactics or much thought.

Project Reality is an example of a modification to the BF2 engine that forces people into playing a more realistic game. It is slower and the tactics it uses are a more accurate simulation of real world tactics.

Clearly TG gravitates towards PR given the reality modifications and the stated goal of the TG primer of playing the game in a near simulation environment. This reasoning can be applied to 2142 as well. Lowering the player count was an attempt to make the tactics in the game more realistic and thereby increase the amount of fun that our members were having. It seems to have done neither. It did however change the kind of tactics that are effective.

I worry that people are equating “slow” with “more tactical” or “more realistic.”

Think of war over the ages, the speed of conflict has increased significantly. In the future, the speed of armed conflict will likely continue to increase. That 2142 is a very fast paced game does not mean its tactics are less realistic.

Vanilla 2142 has the basic elements needed for a tactical shooter. Success depends on teamwork and a good tactical plan. From the Commander on down to the 2 man squad the entire team is working to realize a tactical goal. While it does not have to be played this way (go to any random pub and experience the lack of tactics) - TG chooses to play it right. The teamwork required to play 2142 the TG way goes way beyond kill, revive the dead and try not to TK your buddies. It IS fast paced, and it should be. The 64 person maps are small compared to the 64 person maps in a game like PR or even vanilla BF2. Putting all those people in one place guarantees the pace of the battle will be frantic. Frankly, I like it like that. I enjoy the fast paced dynamics that require split second tactical decisions. This franticly paced battle does not reduce tactical gameplay, I think it increases it if you meet the challenges of maintaining the high situational awareness it demands.

Game winning or losing tactical calls are made every minute or so by commanders, squad leaders and squad members. The amount of situational awareness that goes into playing such a fast pitched battle is immense. I have to practically live in my minimap as a squad leader in 2142. I don’t make decisions before getting sitreps from the CO And my squadmates. As a commander, the min or so between radar scans seems like an eternity. Half the other team could move clear across the map in that time. I am studying the map for troop movements and deaths to assist my squads in accomplishing their goals. As a squad member, I know relaying accurate and useful sitreps can mean the difference between us losing or winning the battle. 2142 does not lack realism other than the fact that it is taking place in the future with some unique technology.

The relationship between map size and playercount does have an effect on gameplay. But the point where it becomes less tactical and realistic is at the extreme ends of the distribution. Running the 2142 conquest server with 64 players would not decrease the realism or increase it, nor would running it at 16 players. The same argument could apply to our PR server which runs at 64 players. Within those two anchors the game seems to have roughly the same amount of realism and tactics. The tactics change with the number of players, but they are just different tactics. If anything, I think that higher playercounts increase the total number of things you can accomplish tactically. You start fighting for control over choke points with a higher player count, where with smaller player counts you just position a sentry and engage if you notice movement. You can only watch a choke point in so many ways. But you can control it and stop an opposing force from taking it in a large number of ways if you have the troops. This variety makes for a more enjoyable game to most people.

Behind this thread is some minor internal TG conflict. TG is all about Teamwork, Maturity and respect. We love our tactics here. Perhaps we love them a bit too much? What I mean is some guys seem to get really attached to a certain style of gameplay and the tactics that go along with it. If the effective tactics change that person may loose interest in the game or blame all the “rocket whores” or “voss pray and spray morons” for ruining the game by taking tactics out of it. The truth is, they replaced the tactics he liked with ones he did not like. The passion that is stirring this thread is most likely an issue of what kind of tactics are being used rather than IF they are being used.

For example, a die hard PR fan plays 2142 and posts in the 2142 forums how the game is a fragfest that lacks tactics or makes a similar comment on teamspeak. The 2142 player responds in kind, stating that sitting in the grass for 15 minutes waiting for the right time to strike is not tactical - it’s like watching paint dry. Snipes like that have been lobbed back and forth enough times I don’t need to find the most recent post with it.

Solution you ask? Set player count to whatever makes the most TGers happy. I suspect that number is about 50. Some like myself would like to see more people. Other would like to see fewer. If a reality mod for 2142 comes along we should check it. Otherwise we should move to an unranked server and adjust server settings such as respawn time and damage if we don’t think 2142 is realistic enough. IMO, that would be a mistake right now. While that may increase realism slightly, it would be at the expense of new supporting members and perhaps fun. I dont think we need to increase reality to the point where the game is becoming less fun. I don’t think we have a large enough permanent player base to take 2142 unranked permanently. We would become stagnant and the game would die within TG.

The second server could host a rotation of small infantry maps, ns, titan or whatever other variations we wanted. We can have more internal scrims with higher or lower player counts. We can have unranked nights. But, I think the conquest server should remain a large ranked server to attract new players to TG. I am not against changing it for a day or so like we did this weekend in an attempt to improve gameplay. But for the most part, it should be our flagship server. A beacon of hope to all pubbies. This game has brought in a large number of supporting members and will continue to do that if we we work at keeping the server enjoyable enough that people will want to support it.

[Zoraster]

I moved this to its own thread because I think it deserves it, and the discussion of it is beyond the scope of the 32p discussion.

This is perhaps one of the best and well thought out posts seen on the TG boards, and I think we should all take this to heart.

I approve this message.

[moxmax]

Originally Posted by sc1ence

This game has brought in a large number of supporting members and will continue to do that if we we work at keeping the server enjoyable enough that people will want to support it.

AMEN

[Bommando]

One of the greatest posts ever.

[Telorn]

Thanks for taking the time to post what many of us feel. I completely agree with Sc1ence. I've played on the Conquest server 2 nights now and I haven't enjoyed either. It's not what I bought 2142 for. I bought it for the fast-paced equally tactical action.

For people who want a slower more 'tactical' game, you're probably playing the wrong game. I feel BF2142 is all about fast-paced infantry action and that's what the devs intended. That's why there aren't a bunch of vehicles and airplanes in the game.

And maybe 40 or 42 is a good number. But 32 definitely is not.

[rage4order]

Originally Posted by Bommando

One of the greatest posts ever.

One of the greatest understatements ever.

By far the most well thought out post I have ever read here at TG, WELL DONE Sc1ence.

[draeh]

Originally Posted by sc1ence

The second server could host a rotation of small infantry maps, ns, titan or whatever other variations we wanted. We can have more internal scrims with higher or lower player counts. We can have unranked nights.

This seems to be the best solution, and I for one am sorry we ran this experiment on our premiere server. The second server's population does fluctuate enough that changing its makeup for "special" events does not impact it severely. I liked the idea of "password" night like TG used to host in the past.

Originally Posted by sc1ence

But, I think the conquest server should remain a large ranked server to attract new players to TG.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by sc1ence

I am not against changing it for a day or so like we did this weekend in an attempt to improve gameplay.

Nay. After this, I think we should keep large scale experiments on the second server.

Originally Posted by sc1ence

...it should be our flagship server. A beacon of hope to all pubbies.

Bingo. Lets not touch what works for so many ever again.

Originally Posted by sc1ence

This game has brought in a large number of supporting members and will continue to do that if we we work at keeping the server enjoyable enough that people will want to support it.

I started playing 2142 in February, found TG in April and have not looked back. At least 95% of all my 2142 game play is on a TG server.

[Eroak]

Thank you Sc1ence. You have said what I have wanted to say for months now, I could never find the words to express it.

Originally Posted by Bommando

One of the greatest posts ever.

That's a rare site. You know this must be good if your see this quoted post

[Zoraster]

Originally Posted by Telorn

Thanks for taking the time to post what many of us feel. I completely agree with Sc1ence. I've played on the Conquest server 2 nights now and I haven't enjoyed either. It's not what I bought 2142 for. I bought it for the fast-paced equally tactical action.

For people who want a slower more 'tactical' game, you're probably playing the wrong game. I feel BF2142 is all about fast-paced infantry action and that's what the devs intended. That's why there aren't a bunch of vehicles and airplanes in the game.

And maybe 40 or 42 is a good number. But 32 definitely is not.

no, no, no! you've missed the point. The point of the post isn't that 2142 isn't a tactical game; it's that it IS a tactical game. The tactics are simply different in many ways from other games.

[Damonte]

Originally Posted by sc1ence

Think of war over the ages, the speed of conflict has increased significantly. In the future, the speed of armed conflict will likely continue to increase. That 2142 is a very fast paced game does not mean its tactics are less realistic.

On a side note, no one ever thought that the Germans were not fighting 'tactically' when they launched their Blitzkrieg.

I'm Damonte and I approve this message.

[ThePenguineer]

'Tis a thing of beauty.

<Tear>

[Telorn]

Originally Posted by Zoraster

no, no, no! you've missed the point. The point of the post isn't that 2142 isn't a tactical game; it's that it IS a tactical game. The tactics are simply different in many ways from other games.

You must not have read my post carefully because that's exactly what it said. Especially the 'equally tactical' part.

[Icehawk217]

Originally Posted by Telorn

And maybe 40 or 42 is a good number. But 32 definitely is not.

I have to say, a full 40 person server (so in TG terms, 42) is the best server size i have ever played. Its a really good number to try, since it lowers the count some, and also has 20 people per side. While this doesnt make for an exact amount of people per squad, it is a very fun size since there is always action, but no meat grinders like those seen in 64 person servers.

[Superfast]

Beautiful man, this says the majority of things i feel about TG and 2142 too. Thanks.

[daithi1]

I agree 100% (but for slightly different reasons) with you sc1ence, thanks for taking the time to write your post.

In theory on a 32 person server you would get a higher proportion of TGers and I believe this is the reason they tried a 32 person server. It makes a lot of sense.

When I was playing this weekend on the 32 person server I think virtually every round I played was unbalanced, either a team was capped out or had only their main left.

The reason for this, in my opinion, is a good squad say 3 quality players and 3 pubs will own a 32 person server, only and if only, their is no corresponding 6 man squad to counter them.

Cap outs etc. happens occasionally on the 50 person server but not much. In a 50 person server one squad can't dominate too much (although maybe an all 3rd or 7th etc. 6 man squad might ).

Obviously no one plans these unbalances but there's no way to rectify them when it comes to it, well it would need a dedicated admin, one who was willing to break up good squads and have people complaining at them for doing so.

I think if you could get a balanced 32 person game then I would prefer it, I prefer cat and mouse type games. That's what a 32 person server mainly contains. I think maybe organising a night on the present 'titan' server where TG members set up a balance 32 person night, that would be good.

I think the main reason why people play games is because they're fun. Getting pummelled into the ground repeatedly, round after round, is not fun. Even when your on the winning side its not great.

This is why I have left the 32 person server after a couple of rounds each time I played, it just wasn't fun. Unlike many TGer I am not a Brig General. So getting good kd/r etc. is important to me which can't be done if your being pushed back to your uncap time and time again.

So I think this was the main reason I didn't like the TG 32 person server, along with sc1ence's reasons. Although I personally love other 32 person servers the TG can't really work long term IMO.

Well there's my 2 cents (to coin an American phrase) on the matter.