Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gameplay Style Conflict

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

  • Gameplay Style Conflict

    This is a rumination on a problem I see as inherent in ArmA. What follows is not meant as an attack on any one style, but a contemplation on the possibility of a built-in contradiction in gameplay styles that may or may not develop into a larger problem.

    We appear to have three basic modes or styles of play on ArmA (ignoring for the moment the lone wolves).
    • A. Slow tactical infantry advance: often taking 1 to 2 hours to clear a city. Here the main concern is no deaths among squadmates, full on realism.
    • B. Fast tactical infantry advance: a faster version of the above, with less concern for death of teammates as respawn and heli reinsertion are an option.
    • C. Air attack: clear as many land targets as fast as possible. Sometimes limit targets to armor.


    Keep in mind that in what follows I am not suggesting that any one mode of play is the correct way. My point thus far is that there are three main modes at work on the server at anyone time. Now the other obvious issue, for discussion here, is the conflict that arises between A. Slow tactical (ST) and B. and C. Those playing ST MAY come to find that as server population grows, any slow tactical style of play is defeated, or denied the opportunity to fully engage the enemy, as the fast attack modes (FA) quickly remove objectives and enemy forces.

    Thus stated, this is not a problem of freindly fire or lack of communication on any level, it is a conflict between the pace of the game.

    My point in raising this issue now is that it is an implicit issue that stands behind some of the expressed concerns about access to high-kill weaponry.

    How are we going to ensure that slow tactical advance remains a viable strategy? My assumption, valid I believe, is that an expanding server population and gameplay styles that dominate FPS games will increasingly render slow tactical gameplay a pointless exercise.
    sigpic

  • #2
    Re: Gameplay Style Conflict

    in my personal opinion, the slow tactical gameplay can only be perserved through people wanting it to be perserved. although i haven't played on the server in a while. my observation was that TG is moving with Armed Assault in the style of "B" or "C" style gameplay. something I do not enjoy.

    possible Solutions;

    1.Sessions where Type "A" playing is Forced through a basic Structure of command. Don't listen to the commander? Don't Play. as can be seen in PR for BF2. I'm sure there are other ways to do it, I think the requirement to listen to a Commander during "events" is a very good way to do it however.

    2. The Removal of Evolution. Some would find this option more Glorious and as a Great thing then others would. the thoughts on this are 100% Skewed across the board so it probably isnt ethical.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Gameplay Style Conflict

      Yep. Indeed this is an issue.

      I too have been fustrated by spending and hour or more with my squad, systematically and carefully approaching an objective only to hve that objective "carpet bombed" righ before our eyes.

      The issue is that we, as slow movers, do not own the server. Nor are we the cops. We have no more right to take 2 hours than the fast movers have the right to carpet bomb.

      I was just discussin this with alike minded person this morning. We came to 2conclusions.

      Leadership is not persent enough to see what is going on.

      The SOPs do not directly address it.

      I cannot be a cop. I won't be. I like the very gyus who choose the opposite form of play and do not feel I have teh right to impose my style on the,m or correct them for theirs.

      the net result is that many people have already moved over to Shack. Presumably for their greter presence of leadership, greater enforcement of play style and more clearly defined SOPs. Of course, there are downsides too. I love the flow of new guys, when those new guys are interested in my style of play and want to be lead into battle wiht an eye for learning the slow and cautious style.

      My style isnt "right" or "Wrong". just different. and as E-Mail put it, ruins the fun for those of us involved in such ops. The other issue is that I do not believe the reverse is true. Slow DOES NOT ruinthe fun for the fast movers. So the SLOW and GO guys are the ones getting frustrated. And if I am any indication, we are also the ones thinking about leaving for a more controlled combat server like Shack.

      I want to see TG get more leadership presence and more control. and I respect that asking the leadership to commit their presence more fully may not be fair to them or even possible. People have tehir families, work etc. But the reality is that if something doesnt happen soon, the slow and go, methodical types who love the more lengthy, suspenseful approach to mission objectives will likely be moving on.
      Sleepdoc

      My typos are legendary. I choose not to correct them as a form of unique signature

      (and because forum spell checkers are a hassle) : )

      I actually spell just fine. But my typing skills are the pits.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Gameplay Style Conflict

        Originally posted by stickyjeans69 View Post
        in my personal opinion, the slow tactical gameplay can only be perserved through people wanting it to be perserved. although i haven't played on the server in a while. my observation was that TG is moving with Armed Assault in the style of "B" or "C" style gameplay. something I do not enjoy.

        possible Solutions;

        1.Sessions where Type "A" playing is Forced through a basic Structure of command. Don't listen to the commander? Don't Play. as can be seen in PR for BF2. I'm sure there are other ways to do it, I think the requirement to listen to a Commander during "events" is a very good way to do it however.

        2. The Removal of Evolution. Some would find this option more Glorious and as a Great thing then others would. the thoughts on this are 100% Skewed across the board so it probably isnt ethical.
        Sticky. Evolution is not the issue. Command and control, via strong leadership, is all that is required to bring it back to slow and methodical.

        In the abcense of leadership whose mandate allows them to enforce, EVO will disintegrate into exactly what you said. A world of "B"s and "C"s. dare I say it is already moving in that direction.

        In the presence of a strong and present leadership, EVO will be just fine for the purpose it is intended to meet (an intro , multi mission game with respawns permitted)

        So i'm willing ot meet you half way on this one. I apprecaite your pesonal discontent with EVO. but many of us still enjoy it just fine in mid week games when we need a bot more freedom to come in and out wit out a schedule. But wihtout strict SOPs and leadership to enforce them, you are exactly right.

        and BTW. I am not leadership. It is not my place to enforce. It would be my preference to see the people who have the mandate do the enforcement. without their presence, TG EVO server will deteriorate.
        Sleepdoc

        My typos are legendary. I choose not to correct them as a form of unique signature

        (and because forum spell checkers are a hassle) : )

        I actually spell just fine. But my typing skills are the pits.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Gameplay Style Conflict

          To reiterate points made above by both myself and SleepDoc, this is not about a right way to play verses two wrong ways to play. It is about the growing conflict between the fast movers and slow movers.

          If the conflict between modes of play is not resolved, we will see defections, as continuation of the status quo will render the server a pointless and frustrating environment for the slow movers.

          I do not know what technical or cost issues such a solution might involve, but would it be possible to have a version of ArmA running on a server that has all air attack vehicles removed?

          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Gameplay Style Conflict

            Originally posted by Sleepdoc View Post
            the net result is that many people have already moved over to Shack. Presumably for their greter presence of leadership, greater enforcement of play style and more clearly defined SOPs.
            Bingo

            Originally posted by Sleepdoc View Post
            So the SLOW and GO guys are the ones getting frustrated. And if I am any indication, we are also the ones thinking about leaving for a more controlled combat server like Shack.
            Bingo

            Originally posted by Sleepdoc View Post
            I want to see TG get more leadership presence and more control
            I NEED WATER!~ and..........and...............CHEEEETOOOSSSS!~

            Originally posted by Sleepdoc View Post
            But the reality is that if something doesnt happen soon, the slow and go, methodical types who love the more lengthy, suspenseful approach to mission objectives will likely be moving on.
            After an extensive lack of Water and Cheesy poofs of goodness smoothered in Cats, I packed my boat and started rowing to another island in hopes that I could find what i was looking for.

            On another note... Linux is better then windows :icon40:

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Gameplay Style Conflict

              Originally posted by Sleepdoc View Post
              Sticky. Evolution is not the issue. Command and control, via strong leadership, is all that is required to bring it back to slow and methodical.

              In the abcense of leadership whose mandate allows them to enforce, EVO will disintegrate into exactly what you said. A world of "B"s and "C"s. dare I say it is already moving in that direction.

              In the presence of a strong and present leadership, EVO will be just fine for the purpose it is intended to meet (an intro , multi mission game with respawns permitted)

              So i'm willing ot meet you half way on this one. I apprecaite your pesonal discontent with EVO. but many of us still enjoy it just fine in mid week games when we need a bot more freedom to come in and out wit out a schedule. But wihtout strict SOPs and leadership to enforce them, you are exactly right.

              and BTW. I am not leadership. It is not my place to enforce. It would be my preference to see the people who have the mandate do the enforcement. without their presence, TG EVO server will deteriorate.

              I think what you just said was entirely in line with what i was thinking...... Evolution you're right is not THE issue. it COULD be very organized. but the way it was designed etc etc etc. will always be in line with a game where people can just do whatever they want. if everyone was on the same page, commander was required blah blah blah blah blah. sure Evolution could work. the point is it just really doesn't. its removal creates an entire new world of Armed assault(assuming you have good missions) that is more forcefull of people working together. that's what Removing Evo does, however seeing as most people do like Evo as well as the "B" and "C" style of play. its not very Ethical.



              "I do not know what technical or cost issues such a solution might involve, but would it be possible to have a version of ArmA running on a server that has all air attack vehicles removed?"

              The public server has alot of these missions... they all have are focused around a smaller "goal" but if the person who makes the missions is good The amount of enjoyable Armed assault "co-op" is endles. You dont HAVE to stay dead in a mission, but most mission makers like to make it that way so that Teamwork is stressed. and with everyone working together in a co-op. the AI is stupid enough that your chances of living are very, very, high.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Gameplay Style Conflict

                This is an important discussion you've started here Emale!

                I genuinely enjoy both A and B approaches when they're executed properly. That being said, I also think it's important to recognize that both styles can give an absolutely horrid gameplay experience!

                Without proper leadership/squad-control, type B can lead to people operating on their own and making decisions for the squad. (e.g. the SL doesn't give fire-condition orders, a squad member open's fire when they shouldn't, and all hell rains down on the rest of the squad)

                On the other hand, I find that type-A can be over-the-top cautious. While the SL's and tacticians may be having an immersive experience, the grunts are lying prone on a wooded hill top for 20 minutes straight. (which isn't ideal for those with limited game time per night)


                I think the key is to use the right tactics in the right situations. I'd like to see both camps acknowledge the other as valid - that both the "slow" and "slower" leading styles (I wouldn't characterize either as "fast") have a time and place.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Gameplay Style Conflict

                  Originally posted by stickyjeans69 View Post
                  I think what you just said was entirely in line with what i was thinking...... Evolution you're right is not THE issue. it COULD be very organized. but the way it was designed etc etc etc. will always be in line with a game where people can just do whatever they want. if everyone was on the same page, commander was required blah blah blah blah blah. sure Evolution could work. the point is it just really doesn't. its removal creates an entire new world of Armed assault(assuming you have good missions) that is more forcefull of people working together. that's what Removing Evo does, however seeing as most people do like Evo. its not very Ethical.
                  hi Sticky.

                  You should check out the thread on how Shiner is thinking about 'modding" EVO to give control of all large combat assets to the squadleaders. the more I think about his approach, his mod may prove to be simple,elegant, and provide a major leap forward.

                  I would be interested in seeing your opinion on it, in terms of using it to bring order back to EVO. Becuase that is its purpose.....

                  In short, the mod would be as follows.

                  Only squad Leaders with 4 or more members can "release" air combat and ground combat assets.

                  In my example below, let's assume a player by the name of SmackTard-AssHat (ST-AH for short) comes onto the server

                  In other words, if ST-AH comes on the server and no one else is there, it is impossible for ST-AH to get a destructive, non respawnable asset.

                  If ST-AH comes on the server, and there is only one squad on the ground in the server, and that squad has 3 people in it, it is impossible for ST-AH to get a destructive, non respawnable asset.

                  If ST-AH comes on the server, and there is a squad of 4 or more, ST-AH must "Ask permission" to the SL for him to release a destructible, non respawnable asset.

                  the rule (SOP) would be that if the SL needs the support, like air support on a known position of troops that need to be taken out, then he would release the asset to ST-AH with the understanding that ST-AH would be providing specific support to his troops and ST-AH would attempt to return the asset back to base for safe keeping after ST-AH was done.

                  If ST-AH went on a rampage with the asset after he got it, then his name and his refusal to follow SOP would be remembered by that SL. The SL might even discuss ST-AH's behavior with other SLs so no SL would be likely to honor a request from that individual again.

                  If ST-AH supports the Squad he promised too and in the way he promised to, and if ST-AH maintains good comms with the squad during his operations, then ST-AH's name would be changed to "GTP" (Great Team Player) and his reputation would precede him every time he came on the server. SL's would come to know GTP ad pray for his arrival each night.

                  I like the idea. It may have flaws i cannot see just yet. But I like it enough to vote for it and put it to test on the server.......
                  Sleepdoc

                  My typos are legendary. I choose not to correct them as a form of unique signature

                  (and because forum spell checkers are a hassle) : )

                  I actually spell just fine. But my typing skills are the pits.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Gameplay Style Conflict

                    Well, the first problem I foresee is, what about those guys that just want to fly dedicated air? Razer and I paired up and flew in Harriers for close to an hour engaging only air targets until Viper placed down laser targets for me to bullseye. If I want to fly dedicated air I don't want to hear the ground chatter. I just wanna hear what is important to me when I need to hear it.

                    However, to argue and counter myself Harriers are best suited for air to air combat and bombing LASER TARGETS, and no ST-AH would have the intelligence to team up with someone and laser targets! That means no kills for him! :(

                    Perhaps for the ATG (Air to ground) vehicles like the A-10 and Cobras would be have to require four or more squad mates. Hell even the Strykers, M113s, and Abrams should have a minimum squad requirement. Same thing for the AH-6s (so people don't use them as personal taxis), and why not the Blackhawks as well. So when ST-AH comes to the server, if he isn't squadded he can have fun with his unarmed civilian vehicles, jeeps, and MH-6s. Then he can get booted for Jihad Jeeping! :)

                    I like this idea as well, here's a rough idea on how it would work. Numbers are in terms of squad mates required not squad total.

                    Harriers - At least 1 (what kinda moron flies without a wingman!)
                    A-10 - Either 2 or 4 (4 for working with a ground squad or 2 for the two wing mates)
                    Cobra - 4 (Heavy hitting CAS gunship)
                    Blackhawk 3 or 4 (take an MH-6 if you need 1 or 2 guys transported)
                    AH-6 1-2 (co-pilot?)
                    Abrams - 4 (it's a tank)
                    Stryker - 3 (gunner and then maybe some guys as dismounts in the backseat)
                    M113 - 1 or 2 (gunner)
                    Armed Humvee - 1 or 2 (gunner)
                    Unarmed Vehicles - 0 or 1

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Gameplay Style Conflict

                      Originally posted by Sleepdoc View Post
                      hi Sticky.

                      You should check out the thread on how Shiner is thinking about 'modding" EVO to give control of all large combat assets to the squadleaders. the more I think about his approach, his mod may prove to be simple,elegant, and provide a major leap forward.

                      I would be interested in seeing your opinion on it, in terms of using it to bring order back to EVO. Becuase that is its purpose.....

                      In short, the mod would be as follows.

                      Only squad Leaders with 4 or more members can "release" air combat and ground combat assets.

                      In my example below, let's assume a player by the name of SmackTard-AssHat (ST-AH for short) comes onto the server

                      In other words, if ST-AH comes on the server and no one else is there, it is impossible for ST-AH to get a destructive, non respawnable asset.

                      If ST-AH comes on the server, and there is only one squad on the ground in the server, and that squad has 3 people in it, it is impossible for ST-AH to get a destructive, non respawnable asset.

                      If ST-AH comes on the server, and there is a squad of 4 or more, ST-AH must "Ask permission" to the SL for him to release a destructible, non respawnable asset.

                      the rule (SOP) would be that if the SL needs the support, like air support on a known position of troops that need to be taken out, then he would release the asset to ST-AH with the understanding that ST-AH would be providing specific support to his troops and ST-AH would attempt to return the asset back to base for safe keeping after ST-AH was done.

                      If ST-AH went on a rampage with the asset after he got it, then his name and his refusal to follow SOP would be remembered by that SL. The SL might even discuss ST-AH's behavior with other SLs so no SL would be likely to honor a request from that individual again.

                      If ST-AH supports the Squad he promised too and in the way he promised to, and if ST-AH maintains good comms with the squad during his operations, then ST-AH's name would be changed to "GTP" (Great Team Player) and his reputation would precede him every time he came on the server. SL's would come to know GTP ad pray for his arrival each night.

                      I like the idea. It may have flaws i cannot see just yet. But I like it enough to vote for it and put it to test on the server.......
                      Hi. agian ;)

                      I have seen the thread, and have read it and thought about it. however although this prevents the everyday ST-AH from doing his thing with the assets. the current issue being discussed is "C" and "B" Ruining things for "A" players. during a full house on a good night. that doesnt fix the issues because type "C" and "B" will still be "C" and "B", they give their guy air assets and the "A" players are now in the same distrought because the city is being carpet bombed by harriers from a type "C"/"B" squad leader putting a laser on every living thing in the city.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Gameplay Style Conflict

                        We have guidelines and SOP's in place to address this issue. However they are difficult to enforce. We want to give people the benefit of the doubt when they say "I didn't hear any orders.." or "I couldn't see the mark on the map...", but we need players who identify the individuals who defy the guideline of respect we have laid out. Our server guideline includes room for all types, the problem is when individuals knowingly ruin the experience for others.

                        In E-male's layout, Type C players eliminate Type A and B's ability to assist in city clearing in evolution. Type A and B at best are left with a few sporadic engagements if they waited patiently outside the zone of destruction from Type C. There are lots of friendly fire or near friendly fire incidents from Type C play. In a small setting 4 or less, Type C is perfectly acceptable style of play. As the server grows in numbers the respect for the other types of players must exist. Type A is the desired way to play here. Whenever, we hold a session it fills up quick with players eager to play. The trouble with A is it takes strong leadership. A can easily coexist with B on a mission like Evolution. There is often enough targets to make both experiences enjoyable. However, there still needs to be respect and it only takes simple communication to avoid conflict. When the server gets near capacity, more than likely there is some form of strong leadership in atleast 2 squads. Which means Type A gameplay is going to be practiced. B usually absorbs right into A in these situations. Type C at this point either gets absorbed or more often than not attempts to stay seperate. This is where most conflicts of play on the server occur. Between large groups of Type A and a very small group of Type C. The Type C in this instance would be wrong(if following the guidelines) for continuing Type C style of gameplay. It would interfere too greatly with Type A which is the majority of players. Remember we have another server that has missions to accommodate all types of gameplay. Use it when the Evo server seems to be favoring a style you don't like.

                        Read the Guidelines, rules, and SOP's. Read the TG primer and what TG is about. Then get on the server. There are always going to be those that insist that they are somehow within all the documentation above, but still ruin the majority of players' experience. These players need to be identified quietly to an admin with some detail as to what the player is doing.
                        |TG-12th| tHa_KhAn

                        XBL GT: Khan58

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Gameplay Style Conflict

                          ST will happen by default if you choose a coop mission set for a squad sized force instead of repeating the enormous evo environment.

                          Playing evo and expecting others to fall in line with one particular way of play is a bit unfair. The biggest feature of the map is the freedom it provides in play style. There's nothing wrong with going solo, all out air or on the ground, as long as you do make sure not to hit friendlies and coordinate when requested to do so. On other maps with better defined objectives this would be unacceptable, but its the nature of evo.

                          The squad incursions that take 3 hours to get into a city can be considered rather boring by some, given the predictable nature of evo. It's one thing to move slowly into uncharted territory, its another to crawl through what you already know.

                          SleepDoc, for example, runs a very tight squad that keeps its sectors covered and moves very deliberately. On a fresh mission that I've never seen before, that's definitely the way to go and provides a great deal of suspense waiting to discover the enemy. On evo its just kind of slow paced when you know whats going on with the map.

                          I'd like to see more ST missions start to finish on the coop server. As has been stated by many people, evo is the intro/training sand box. Its probably best for PRACTICE of ST, but really not a challenge by any standard.
                          |TG|Switch

                          Better known as:
                          That noob who crashed the chopper.
                          That noob who ran over the mine.
                          That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
                          That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Gameplay Style Conflict

                            Originally posted by WhiskeySix View Post
                            I think the key is to use the right tactics in the right situations. I'd like to see both camps acknowledge the other as valid - that both the "slow" and "slower" leading styles (I wouldn't characterize either as "fast") have a time and place.
                            I thought E-Males post (and mine) did exactly this. They recognized that both styles are valid.

                            And actually, "A" rarely if ever ruins "B's" expereince. in fact, if A and B are in communications across channel commander, A often makes B's job easier to accomplish and visa versa. Cooperation between a slow moving, silent moving force that takes out lots of enemy infantry from a fixed (or generally alternating) position of concealment provides easier entry for B to do their job.

                            20 minutes on a hill is nothing compared to real warfare. its a drop in the bucket. Some sneaky forces spend their whole afternoon/night or more on hill tops picking off ei and generally disrupting and cuasing diversions without ever putting themselves too close to harm. it can be very effective.

                            but I respect that no one has to play on either squad type. Those who do not like the slow style need only bow out and request transfer to the faster team and visa versa. That is just personal choice and I'm all for it. If I'm bored or irritated with my SL's method of approach, i just try to respsetfully bow out. And I have done so on more than one occasion. I don't tel them im irritated. i just let em know i gotta go.

                            It is when forces in the same area are not coordinating and one simply ruins the experience of the other by moving faster without coordination that the slower force feels frustrated. Especially when that faster force is using massive air or ground power. Tanks, Harriers and such.

                            As a strong proponent of the "20 minutes on a hill when it is working" group, I am happy to provide the diversion and enemy force reduction that force "B" uses and needs to have a successful and swift movement into the area from an off-angle approach. I guess its just nice when both groups are in radio coordination and B is actively using A's efforts to get tho their objective...... both groups need to partake in the resposability to remain coordinated. I am in no way shifting blame. I make this mistake at times as we all do.

                            I know I have failed to coordinate well in the past. But I am commited to getting better at it. That's all i want from others. So I'm certainly not shifting blame for this hypothetical example. I'm looking forward to SOPs and mods that assist in greater coordination.

                            I like Shiners mod idea on asset requisitioning (some wont like it ... im sure), and I like the idea of any mods that make inter squad awareness more automatic, as long as realism is not to trashed in the process.
                            Sleepdoc

                            My typos are legendary. I choose not to correct them as a form of unique signature

                            (and because forum spell checkers are a hassle) : )

                            I actually spell just fine. But my typing skills are the pits.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Gameplay Style Conflict

                              Originally posted by stickyjeans69 View Post
                              Hi. agian ;)

                              I have seen the thread, and have read it and thought about it. however although this prevents the everyday ST-AH from doing his thing with the assets. the current issue being discussed is "C" and "B" Ruining things for "A" players. during a full house on a good night. that doesnt fix the issues because type "C" and "B" will still be "C" and "B", they give their guy air assets and the "A" players are now in the same distrought because the city is being carpet bombed by harriers from a type "C"/"B" squad leader putting a laser on every living thing in the city.
                              If there was enough coordination in these players to have a ground team lasing everything and pilots bombing I would be amazed. The Type C that is the problem is not Type C itself. The problem exists when a small number 1-3 refuse to respect the other play types when there are large numbers on the server. Most B players will join a large group of A. Most C players will too, there are however those Type C players who refuse to accept that carpet bombing and heavy armor are not necessary for this mission. These Type C players also for whatever reason like to have an audience, as you will never convince them that a coop mission with just them, their aircraft/armor is just as good.
                              |TG-12th| tHa_KhAn

                              XBL GT: Khan58

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X