Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

    Sci-Fi MilSim

    Here I will bring up some issues that I have seen in the TG planetside2 dealing with the TG primer. While I have no problem with the primer, it doesn’t pertain to Planetside2 as easy as with other games. Let us read and observe what it does say.

    “3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real- world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine, regardless of the level of advantage, if any, it gives over the opposing team.”

    So lest look at this closely. “Support game play in a Near-Simulation Environment.” This is by no means even close to PS2. Some may say that “PS2 simulates war”, but I beg to differ. In war, there is death. In war, there is cost. In war, there is an end. PS2 is so opposite of these three points that it couldn’t even be considered a Near-Simulation. So PS2 is a game that Does not fit the third principle of the TG primer.

    Now before you get all mad. I’m not trying to say that we should forget the primer, or that we should stop playing the game. I’m just trying to point out that there are going to be some issues when it comes to PS2 and the TG primer. Most of these have been sorted out and worked on by the Admins, and they have done a great job of setting up clear rules with supported facts. But now that we are all on the same page, I would like to talk about an idea that I have.

    So we have all been told that, “Redeploying is not suicide. It's Scotty beaming you up and then down somewhere else.” Cool story and all, but I would call that a limitation of the “Game Engine” as expressed in the primer. So what do I mean by the “Game Engine” and more importantly, what does the primer mean by the words “Game Engine”.

    By definition a “game Engine” is: the basic software of a computer game or video game. That part is simple, but when the primer talked about the “Game Engine” it talked about things that have more to do with the “Game Design” and “Game World” then with the “Game Engine”. Here is why I think that when the primer says “Game Engine” it’s talking about Design, World and Engine all in one.

    In the footnotes explaining the primer it says; “All game engines have limitations due to the simple nature that they are games and produced largely for their entertainment” The Game Engine has to do with Software, Not the fact that it is created for Entertainment. The Design of the game is what is changed by it being created for entertainment.

    It also says: “Most all of our games have specific rules about attacking the primary spawn points where players enter the game” The game engine doesn’t affect the spawns. Most game engines have no trouble running with soft kill boundary’s around the spawn area. The game design is what controls if there will be soft kill boundary’s or not.

    Now that we have those things sorted out, I will continue with my point. In Planetside 1, there was no Redeploy. You also had to grab you gear and wait for the HART ship to carry you out. Now even though the game lore changed to say that Now redeploying is a thing, Planetside is Not based off the lore. The Lore is based off the game. So why did they add this function that was not in the first game. Because the game was created to for entertainment and the gaming industry had changed.

    With all that to say, I think that Redeploy is a limitation of the “Game Engine” and should not be used as much as we do normally. I'm not say that if you are on a different continent that you should run to the warp gate but that if on the same continent, we should treat everyone as if they are Max. I can see some really cool uses of transport vehicles instead of the normal spawn bomb that they are used for. Others may disagree and I would love to hear your comments.
    Last edited by MatthewDaManiac; 11-19-2014, 03:56 PM.
    "When attacking a stronger opponent, Attack swiftly and with full force at their weakest point— take them out before the can react, or Fall back and engage in guerrilla actions,” Spartan 117.

  • #2
    Re: Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

    I think you will find that a lot of people here agree that the instant redeploy takes a lot away from the game in terms of immersion and strategy.

    Personally I dislike redeploy as a regular thing but I realize why it is relied on. There are tactical reasons, such as the ability to quickly get to a base and save it, or to set up a defense in a hurry. I think the real reason we use it though is because it's easy and can keep the momentum going. People play to have fun and shoot stuff, not to sit around, and most regular people will get antsy doing that.

    That said, I like sitting around sometimes in a squad and it can be a huge immersion factor. Additionally the very best fights I remember have been outside and have many times Gotten involved in epic fights in the process of driving to another base. Problem is there has been a lot of boring driving too.

    As always it is up to the sl and pl to call the shots as to where to go and how, but more often than not I like to do actual in-game travel, unless certain circumstances call for something else.
    Communications, Cohesion, Confidence.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

      In ps1 there was a subscription required to play the game. This made alot of people play the game in a more tactical manner so redeploying was not needed. In ps2 since its more sandbox(y) and f2p and the whole "bigger is better" thing made redeploying a means to have big fights happen. Also I feel like it was created to please all the players who care about their k/d and stats. instead of having to kill yourself you can just redeploy.

      When it comes to in-game travel nine times out of ten I tend to drive my tank from the warpgate even if the battles are no where near. Unless I or the squad is needed urgently.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

        This isn't the first time that this issue has come up in TG; while the third point of the primer is easily applied to mil-sim games like ARMA or even relatively arcadey but real-world rooted games like Battlefield, it's a poor fit for games further from that mold. In TG's Natural Selection community there's actually an alternate primer in which two additional elements are added to replace the third point which I think do an excellent job of exemplifying the spirit of the third point while allowing it to apply outside of its original mil-sim environment. When the nature of the game is far from mil-sim, I've always interpreted the 3rd part of the primer in the same spirit: it's about the teamwork, communication, fair play, and refusal to use exploits far more than it is about being slavishly adherent to real world doctrines and limitations.

        That said, Planetside 2 is not NEARLY as far from the mil-sim realm as Natural Selection, and comfortably fits at the same degree of "realism" as the battlefield series, minus the sci-fi aesthetic. It's a relatively easy thing to apply the primer to most of the time; our list of specific banned tactics is generally pretty small and obvious.

        Redeployment isn't a good case for application of the third part of the primer, IMO. It's not nearly enough of a grey area, and it's such a central part of the design right now that it pervades a huge part of the game. There are way too many "obviously okay" cases to consider a ban on it, and the problematic cases aren't easy to pin down and specify, let alone communicate and enforce.

        At the same time, I feel like the "redeployside" meta is a case of organized outfits gaming a system meant for casual players to get to fights or to grow fights organically, and it's not something I'm usually comfortable in engaging with. I'm an outspoken critic of the current state of affairs... I think it's poor design, both in gameplay and aesthetics, and yet at the same time only a few minor tweaks away from being not a problem at all.

        I feel that it's best left to SL/PL discretion. Loading up in transport vehicles certainly jives more with the TG way of doing things, but the design of the game is almost aggressively counter to that at times.



        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

          -Quick thought on the Star Strikers last point on this post. The "Countering the redeploy meta" tactic that we used a while back can be a viable tactic and can be a useful way of using standard modes of transport and still being able to agressiveley assault the enemy, only problem with the tactic is that you sorta need alot of people. Dont know how much We use this tactic any more but I think it might be a good idea to train SL's on. I remember it being fairly effective. Anyways just my two cents.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

            It'd be nice to bring that back. Tried it out several times and it proved pretty effective when the situation allowed it. The main limitation was, as you said, having the numbers for it. The core idea behind the tactic was to control how the numbers escalate in the fight for as long as possible, and you can only do that if you've got enough numbers to send in your attack force in several pieces (it worked well with two squads, and started feeling really effective at three). It also proved less effective in multi-point bases and was a little vulnerable to the reinforcement galaxies getting hunted down by Liberators. All those limitations aside, though, it definitely worked in practise.



            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

              Perhaps we should look at bringing back the dedicated transportation squads which we used about a year ago. One squad that is setup with either Sunderers, Galaxies or Valkyries can always be on standby to pick up the rest of the platoon and move them to where they are needed quickly.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

                I'd certainly be interested in trying Valkyrie transport squads. 3-6 people could transport a full squad around. I strongly suspect it'll be a far weaker way of moving around than just pulling a Galaxy, though.



                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

                  Just reviewed what I said in the first part and Man, I came across way to strong. I can see why starstriker1 thought I was trying to ban redeploying and I apologize for that. As you might have noticed, this was part one because I had to leave and didn't have time to finish where I was going with this. I was more thinking in the line of what Assault9 and Zombiesnack99 said. That it would be fun to sometimes have a realistic transportation as I for one really love that aspect of any game. I don’t think that have shown any of my piloting skills and in fact I’m fine with saying that I’m not really a good pilot on the PC. I come from years of playing on the Xbox 360 in BF3 and Halo Reach. I considered flying/driving to be one of my favorite things to do. Now that I’m on the PC I have had some hard times adjusting. But now that I have corrected what I meant to say (I hope) I want to talk about some fun/different Ideas that I had.

                  In PS2 I have seen that armor does really well at bringing the fight away from the bases and on to the battlefield. I really like this kind of fight which is one reason that I really like rolling in armor. I would really like to see as infantry, if we could somehow bring the fight out of the bases. One way that I have seen this done is when there are Sunderers set up outside a base where Air and Armor can’t effectively get to them. Then there is the fights that happen when I squad is rolling around from base to base. So the main idea of this thread was to talk about how to bring the fight to our terms and what realist tactics could be used to fight in this Sci-Fi world. Sorry that I took me a day before I was able to correct things but some stuff came up yesterday that took precedent.

                  I have two interesting ideas that I’m working on writing down now. One is about Role-playing missions like getting shot down behind enemy lines. The other one is about a Sunderer blockade which should be able to take about 6 MBT worth of fire without breaking the reps. I will put those up as soon as I can.
                  "When attacking a stronger opponent, Attack swiftly and with full force at their weakest point— take them out before the can react, or Fall back and engage in guerrilla actions,” Spartan 117.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

                    This has led me to think about what I like about playing PS2, and I've come to the conclusion that it's not capturing bases. Ostensibly capturing bases is how you "win", and certainly how you win alerts, but to me winning is not as much fun as raining destruction down on an enemy, or holding off frantic attacks until they give up and leave, or just surviving an epic fight.

                    I think this is why I delight in asset interdiction in enemy territory, outdoor fights, lane blocking, and I am not so keen on point defense. My enjoyment of the game is in line with very few redeployments too.
                    Communications, Cohesion, Confidence.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

                      Originally posted by Zombiesnack99 View Post
                      I think this is why I delight in asset interdiction in enemy territory, outdoor fights, lane blocking, and I am not so keen on point defense. My enjoyment of the game is in line with very few redeployments too.
                      This.

                      What I enjoy most is saving a friendly base against a large enemy presence with tanks. Taking out their spawns and armor with flanking maneuvers. I hate frontal assaults which is why im always telling the squad to pull back, not because I'm scared but because we can be more effective and can survive longer somewhere else.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

                        Originally posted by ghostshooter101 View Post
                        In ps2 since its more sandbox(y) and f2p and the whole "bigger is better" thing made redeploying a means to have big fights happen. Also I feel like it was created to please all the players who care about their k/d and stats. instead of having to kill yourself you can just redeploy.
                        This far into the game this is all the game is now, it's a cheese fest. VCO, NC10, SG, etc... are barely seen anymore now. Command chat is riddled with role-playing bums who have no idea how to play and win and PHX is a NCs AOD outfit.

                        Why capture flags when it doesn't reflect yours stats except for a small boost to SPM? Kills Kills Kills blah blah....

                        “Big Brother is Watching You.”
                        ― George Orwell, "1984"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

                          Originally posted by starstriker1 View Post
                          I'd certainly be interested in trying Valkyrie transport squads. 3-6 people could transport a full squad around. I strongly suspect it'll be a far weaker way of moving around than just pulling a Galaxy, though.
                          Valkyrie is such a monumental waste of time, don't even try :p

                          “Big Brother is Watching You.”
                          ― George Orwell, "1984"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

                            Last Friday, we tried a Valkyrie Transport squad. There where 5 of us first then the squad filled up to like 9 people later on. Over all I don't think that I have had so much fun doing anything else in PS2. starstriker1 and I where alpha one and two and we rode together for most of the hour or so that we tried it. We switched off between gunning and piloting. Star was an amazing pilot and pulled some crazy flying off. Over all, I think that we concluded that it was a waste of time and didn't fit well with what we were trying to do. In other words, It was a huge failure. I even said so myself and I'm ashamed that I made such a statement before giving myself some time to really think about what we had done. I still think that for platoon movement, the Galaxy is just way better overall. With that being said, Now I will point out some "problems" with how we were running the Valkyrie transport squad.

                            First of all, What is the point of a Valkyrie transport squad. I would say that it is to transport troops with as much speed and safety from one point to another point. In real world the Valkyrie would be like the Hummingbird or the Venom. So it is safe to say that these helos make a good real-world equivalent to what the Valkyrie is in game. If you look at what the Hummingbird has to offer compared to say the Osprey, it would be size and agility. Ospreys like Galaxys are cumbersome and need more space to move around. So just like in real life, the smaller vehicle should be able to more directly move troops into close spaces where the bigger birds just can land. Right? No of course not. The game was designed for the causal player and Galaxys have this magic ability to drop troops from low altitude with pinpoint accuracy. (Yes I know that they added spread to the fall pattern but it is so small it makes no difference) If it was from high altitude, I would say that it worked like a parachute. Or if you were forced to deploy like a Sunderer for troops to drop out safely than I would say it is like fast ropes. But No, it is just magic that happens and if they insist on that kind of logic, they should make some troop cannon and get rid of air completely. But I digress. So with that in mind while this is not an exploit, it is however OP and will only balance air transport if it is nerfed in some way.

                            On to the second point. I think that I have raged to much and now will turn on classical music. If you examine the last point, one could come up with the discussion that it is not really a "problem" with what we did, as much as it is a "problem" with the game. I would agree with them and offer them tea as a way of saying that I think that they have been well applied in their thoughts to this topic. Wait what? This classical music is not helping. On to a "problem" with something that we do all the time with air. Let me quote dslyecxi when I say the pilot "Flys the helo and is responsible for the safety of all embarked on it" and "Has the final say on LZ selection and is authorized to change the LZ en route due to evolving threat assessments, to include threats at the LZ itself". If you don't know who he is there is a link to one of his "Art of Flight" videos, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtB...885awY&index=1
                            All of the time I have been with TG, I don't think that I have ever heard a Galaxy pilot say: Sorry can't go to Squad way-point because it is too much of a risk. If there has been a risk it was always run and if a aircraft was lost, it was not a big deal. Now while this is a person to person preference, it affects all of us. Say I didn't think I could drop a squad over a tech plant and then keep the aircraft alive I'm stuck. I might say that I can't drop them there but am willing to do a drop a little farther out from the AA. But then SL would think that, 1 I'm a bad pilot and 2 he should ask someone else to fly because they are more willing to take the risk. Even if you can land a full squad safely, you have to think of what if you can keep the aircraft up. So I guess that I'm just asking if we could use more caution.

                            And the last point. While the first two might be argued from different viewpoints this last point is something that I feel we should have and need to be doing. We need to work on communication between the aircraft and We should assign a copilot. When there is going to be two transport aircraft they should be able to talk to each-other, even if in different squads. I have seen many accidents happen because the pilots didn't communicate where they were landing and where they are going when they liftoff. Now this will not happen as much between Galaxys because they and just Drop their troops without even landing. The other thing is having a copilot. The copilot's primary tasks involve observing, navigating, and communicating to help share the workload with the pilot. The copilot is in a perfect position to navigate for the pilot. Due to not being tied up with actually flying the aircraft, the copilot is able to spend time communicating with other aircraft, ground forces, etc. This is something that Airforce (To my understanding) Always, always, always used and will use in transport aircraft. A gunner or Crew chief can work like a copilot in a attack helo so in that case, a copilot is not as necessary. Now maybe I'm stepping out of my place by saying that something that is done in real life needs to be done in a game. After all we don't do all the checks and test on a aircraft before to liftoff. But the only reason that I see that we don't do a copilot is simply out of laziness. But again, I digress.

                            "This far into the game this is all the game is now, it's a cheese fest. VCO, NC10, SG, etc... are barely seen anymore now. Command chat is riddled with role-playing bums who have no idea how to play and win and PHX is a NCs AOD outfit."penandpencilman.

                            Pen, I would say that I feel the same way but that is the reason that I started this thread. I feel like the game is broken and I want to find a better way to play the game. While stating the truth can be helpful, I don't see how you where intending or bringing any new ideas on how to help fix the game.

                            So as my final thoughts, I'm not done with the Valkyrie and while it is not as good as the Galaxy, I feel that it takes more skill, teamwork, and real-world tactics.

                            "Tactical Gamer is here to support a particular style of game play." Apophis
                            "Some people seem to be more interested in highly-competitive play where winning is the most important objective. Others value teamwork, strategy, and tactics but view exploiting weaknesses in a game engine as acceptable because it helps them achieve their goal in winning." Apophis

                            I'm downright calling us to a higher standard for our pilots and copilots. If in any way I have violated the Primer in what I have said I am sorry and will take back anything that is against it.
                            Last edited by MatthewDaManiac; 11-26-2014, 08:43 PM.
                            "When attacking a stronger opponent, Attack swiftly and with full force at their weakest point— take them out before the can react, or Fall back and engage in guerrilla actions,” Spartan 117.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Sci-Fi MilSim Part one

                              Originally posted by penandpencilman View Post
                              This far into the game this is all the game is now, it's a cheese fest. VCO, NC10, SG, etc... are barely seen anymore now.
                              They are just waiting for me to make my return. :p

                              Originally posted by MatthewDaManiac View Post
                              Last Friday, we tried a Valkyrie Transport squad. There where 5 of us first then the squad filled up to like 9 people later on. Over all I don't think that I have had so much fun doing anything else in PS2. (...) Over all, I think that we concluded that it was a waste of time and didn't fit well with what we were trying to do. In other words, It was a huge failure.
                              I wouldn't say it was a huge failure at all. Maybe not an "effective tactic" but if you experimented with an idea/tactic you had, and had fun in the process, then I would say it was a success.

                              Some of the best times I ever had in PS2 were in BigGaayAl's squads, "doing nothing." Well, by that I mean, not pursuing in game objectives (base caps, etc.). We would do unconventional tactics, like laying minefields deep behind enemy lines, or doing AA/AV nests, or experimenting with MAX AEGIS shield phalanx maneuvers.


                              Originally posted by MatthewDaManiac View Post
                              On to a "problem" with something that we do all the time with air. Let me quote dslyecxi when I say the pilot "Flys the helo and is responsible for the safety of all embarked on it" and "Has the final say on LZ selection and is authorized to change the LZ en route due to evolving threat assessments, to include threats at the LZ itself". If you don't know who he is there is a link to one of his "Art of Flight" videos, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtB...885awY&index=1
                              All of the time I have been with TG, I don't think that I have ever heard a Galaxy pilot say: Sorry can't go to Squad way-point because it is too much of a risk. If there has been a risk it was always run and if a aircraft was lost, it was not a big deal.

                              Now while this is a person to person preference, it affects all of us. Say I didn't think I could drop a squad over a tech plant and then keep the aircraft alive I'm stuck. I might say that I can't drop them there but am willing to do a drop a little farther out from the AA. But then SL would think that, 1 I'm a bad pilot and 2 he should ask someone else to fly because they are more willing to take the risk. Even if you can land a full squad safely, you have to think of what if you can keep the aircraft up. So I guess that I'm just asking if we could use more caution.

                              And the last point. While the first two might be argued from different viewpoints this last point is something that I feel we should have and need to be doing. We need to work on communication between the aircraft and We should assign a copilot. When there is going to be two transport aircraft they should be able to talk to each-other, even if in different squads. I have seen many accidents happen because the pilots didn't communicate where they were landing and where they are going when they liftoff. Now this will not happen as much between Galaxys because they and just Drop their troops without even landing. The other thing is having a copilot. The copilot's primary tasks involve observing, navigating, and communicating to help share the workload with the pilot. The copilot is in a perfect position to navigate for the pilot. Due to not being tied up with actually flying the aircraft, the copilot is able to spend time communicating with other aircraft, ground forces, etc. This is something that Airforce (To my understanding) Always, always, always used and will use in transport aircraft. A gunner or Crew chief can work like a copilot in a attack helo so in that case, a copilot is not as necessary. Now maybe I'm stepping out of my place by saying that something that is done in real life needs to be done in a game. After all we don't do all the checks and test on a aircraft before to liftoff. But the only reason that I see that we don't do a copilot is simply out of laziness. But again, I digress.
                              Well, that's because you haven't played in one of my squads/platoons yet, where the Auraxian Skywhale is not something just to be pulled, drop troops and ditched, but rather a lovely bird to behold, a centerpiece of the squad, to persist and provide fire support on station after the drop, and even (gasp!) to load troops in to take them to the next stop...

                              Now admittedly, it has been a while since I have been in game, but just you wait... ;)


                              Originally posted by MatthewDaManiac View Post
                              Now this will not happen as much between Galaxys because they and just Drop their troops without even landing.
                              Without even landing. Who does this!? Plebes! :p


                              Originally posted by MatthewDaManiac View Post
                              So as my final thoughts, I'm not done with the Valkyrie and while it is not as good as the Galaxy, I feel that it takes more skill, teamwork, and real-world tactics.

                              "Tactical Gamer is here to support a particular style of game play." Apophis
                              "Some people seem to be more interested in highly-competitive play where winning is the most important objective. Others value teamwork, strategy, and tactics but view exploiting weaknesses in a game engine as acceptable because it helps them achieve their goal in winning." Apophis

                              I'm downright calling us to a higher standard for our pilots and copilots. If in any way I have violated the Primer in what I have said I am sorry and will take back anything that is against it.
                              Oh no, you continue doing what you are doing. You are going to fit in just fine around here, young man. :)
                              "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw



                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X