Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Daydreaming

Stamina system

Recommended Posts

On 11/23/2018 at 7:49 PM, TZoningHard said:

Armor is general needs to be reverted, the TTK is pretty much the same and heavy armor is just a hindrance to winning at this point.

Stamina doesn't fix a problem especially when that problem does not exist. Some people just want more LARP.

The weight system is ok but not perfect the best thing would to add more brackets and have a final bracket as over-encumbered not a weight limit. the speed difference is major and noticeable already and is how it should be balanced.

Stamina would just be another backwards step to this game and very frustrating. Stamina is a overall silly idea in this game.

Lots of reasons have been given for introducing stamina and none of them include 'larping'. In fact you haven't given any reasons why stamina wouldn't be a good idea, instead just dismissing it with this 'larp' nonsense whenever possible.

Edited by Cral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cral said:

Lots of reasons have been given for introducing stamina and none of them include 'larping'. In fact you haven't given any reasons why stamina wouldn't be a good idea, instead just dismissing it with this 'larp' nonsense whenever possible.

Because like I and many other said it annoying, the maps are huge, it add nothing to the game in terms of depth, there is no issue for it to solve, it adds unnecessary hindrance for the sake of ROLE PLAYING and not for mechanical reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TZoningHard said:

Because like I and many other said it annoying, the maps are huge, it add nothing to the game in terms of depth, there is no issue for it to solve, it adds unnecessary hindrance for the sake of ROLE PLAYING and not for mechanical reasons.

You just did it again! A bunch of points have been made why it could improve the game and you ignored them and just blamed it on role-playing again while calling it annoying and not explaining why. I can understand why people might not want it but just saying no to it over and over without saying anything constructive doesn't help.

Edited by Cral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wont improve the game and there is no issue to fix here.

It wont promote teamwork, its just like what squad did and that didn't work out well. You are just taking people out of the fight in order to try and have some one drive back and forth in a vic. People already use ATVs to get around faster.

Heavies are already weak AF as armor means nothing and are already very slow comparatively as they should be.

Hurting the possibility to flank which already takes a while with the maps long flank routes just stifles the ability to break though.

Slowing down the game by hindering people is never the right choice.

 

You have not provided any logical argument to really even debate. It mainly people wanting to get rid of a "arcade" element that is greatly needed in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TZoningHard said:

You have not provided any logical argument to really even debate. It mainly people wanting to get rid of a "arcade" element that is greatly needed in this game.

I actually provided a few, and none of them use the words 'arcade' or 'larp' despite you constantly insisting otherwise. I'll write them again since you seem to be struggling to find the original post.

 

- I like to flank teams, to get around behind them and start capturing points they aren't expecting. However in WW3 (and to a lesser extend Battlefield), as soon as I start capturing an enemy objective the entire enemy team is alerted, and since all of them can sprint indefinitely they reactively rush the objective and overwhelm it with numbers. This is especially an issue when you join a team that's already losing, you can spend a long time flanking to a distant objective and within 30 seconds half of the enemy team is swarming the point and clearing it out. Stamina would still allow you to flank the enemy (albeit slower) but it would limit how quickly the enemy can rush to defend, forcing them to use vehicles as transport more, use lighter kits to increase mobility or just think proactively about which objectives might need defending.

- Heavier armor is weaker now but that can be adjusted, and stamina would just be another variable that can be used to better balance it. For example heavier armor could be made significantly tougher, and still allow a relatively quick sprint speed, but have a severe impact on stamina which would make heavier players better suited to defensive roles, or again require vehicles to be used to move them around rather than allowing them to sprint all over the map. It would really help differentiate heavy/light players, instead of making the difference between them negligible.

- Spawning on your squad leader would be much more useful if mobility was limited for heavier players; suddenly there would be a good reason to hold off on spamming respawn and instead waiting 10-15 seconds for your leader to get into a good position to spawn on. The transport vehicle(s) planned would also make more sense if the mobility of heavier players was limited.

- A stamina system can be as severe or as light as the devs want. Running a light loadout with minimal armor and a single lightweight weapon could allow sprinting for 2-3 minutes before running out, essentially allowing players to run a flanking loadout and still play as they do now, at the expense of being easier to kill.

- Making heavier loadouts more punishing in terms of mobility might discourage the current sniper approach we have now of running a TOR, an AR and heavy armor, as snipers need that mobility to find distant corners to hide in.

- Stamina also just offers an extra variable to think about when playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 2:03 AM, Ryuzaki said:

That's exactly what our thoughts are at the moment. We could add something like increased sway after a long running period.

Kinda like insurgency does it? Like it’s not a lot, but it’s still gonna hurt a little for sniping, I think that’s a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cral - Well, your points seem to be valid but I think that most of the examples you have provided can be fixed with more team/squad play. There is very little space for Lone Wolfs in WW3, this game meant to be played in cooperation, you can be one if you really want though ;). Sure stamina could work, and it would add next layer of complexity to the game, but this mechanic is just not fun and we are not trying to make "mil-sim" game here. That's why we would rather add different, smaller balancing mechanics if needed instead of stamina.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ryuzaki said:

@Cral - Well, your points seem to be valid but I think that most of the examples you have provided can be fixed with more team/squad play. There is very little space for Lone Wolfs in WW3, this game meant to be played in cooperation, you can be one if you really want though ;). Sure stamina could work, and it would add next layer of complexity to the game, but this mechanic is just not fun and we are not trying to make "mil-sim" game here. That's why we would rather add different, smaller balancing mechanics if needed instead of stamina.

Yeah don't get me wrong, I'm not wedded to the stamina system idea and I get my milsim fix from Squad. The reason I'm discussing it is because I'm seeing a lot of lone players sprinting everywhere in WW3 just like the more recent Battlefield games, where the focus seems to be on always attacking a new objective rather than defending an existing one. In the absence of large scale maps where running point to point would be a chore, finding ways to slow players down so they have to think twice about where they're going and what the current situation is important I think. I get the impression you guys want to slow things down too, though I could be wrong.

 

Another option would be a reduced TTK so that running out into the open is much more of a death sentence, but in a game with few front lines that can be a frustrating change too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we are struggling a little bit in convincing people to stick to their squads. Warzone is everything about teamplay and that is what wins the game. We are constantly trying to improve in this field but we have other issues which have to be addressed before that. What people have to understand is that you get the most value out of playing with your squad, you get more battle points quicker, more survivability, you capture points faster - maybe this is not clear enough. There are short tutorial videos on their way to the menu, which will hopefully let people better understand WW3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ryuzaki said:

There are short tutorial videos on their way to the menu, which will hopefully let people better understand WW3.

It might work, it might not. Don't underestimate the laziness/retardation/selfishness of people. I have seen it in countless hours of playing countless shooters. People need to be drilled and forced.

15 minutes ago, Ryuzaki said:

Yes, we are struggling a little bit in convincing people to stick to their squads.

I suggested this already a while back, we have already squad leader demotions based on their (non-)performance. How about expanding on this mechanic and kicking non team-players out of the squad with a big fat notice lecturing the player on the importance of team play, potentially combined with a serious cut in earning rates.

Edited by Brady_The

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Brady_The Yeah, but it is rather hard to determine if a player is squad oriented or not. We could add a vote kick system, but then it could get abused to kick people "for fun" by griefers - Also it is rather easy to just exit squad and create a new one (especially for the group of friends that are using some external voice chat [In-game VOIP incoming in 0.4 as a roadmap states]). I think the issue of people not playing with heir squad is their lack of knowledge about what they can do, and how should they play more than just out of pure ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ryuzaki said:

Yes, we are struggling a little bit in convincing people to stick to their squads. Warzone is everything about teamplay and that is what wins the game. We are constantly trying to improve in this field but we have other issues which have to be addressed before that. What people have to understand is that you get the most value out of playing with your squad, you get more battle points quicker, more survivability, you capture points faster - maybe this is not clear enough. There are short tutorial videos on their way to the menu, which will hopefully let people better understand WW3.

Yeah it's a big challenge, the benefits of playing together are there to see but players very often ignore them in favour of seeking kills and just playing their own way. To some extent it's good that you can just hop into WW3 and run around having fun, but when too many players do it teamwork becomes very difficult. It also doesn't help that players who don't necessarily want to lead their team will take the squad leader role just because it gets them points faster, allowing them to use strikes sooner.

 

I think a key issue is that currently squad leaders just play like normal players, capping objectives and seeking kills, which can make it difficult to use them as a spawn point as they're often either on an objective or dead. As a result players often just don't even try to use the squad lead spawn option, so when a leader genuinely tries to provide one for their team it gets ignored as players don't know any better.

 

 What if squad leaders had certain parts of their loadout enforced? For example a squad leader had their ammo bag/med pack replaced by a deployable squad spawn point, of which they could only ever have one. Right away you'd be making it clear to the squad leader that they need to stick close to other players for support, and you'd be giving them an option to set up a spawn and then attack the objective rather than sitting back. It would give teams a more dynamic way of escaping spawn traps and would offer an advantage to keeping your squad leader alive. You could even push it further by only allowing squad leaders to carry a single weapon or only use smoke grenades, enforcing the idea that squad lead is a specialized role, while discouraging players from being squad lead just so they can get more points. Even if a squad leader continued to play selfishly, having a spawn point out in the world would be beneficial for them too so they would want to deploy one.

Edited by Cral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think allowing for easy communication is really key to improve squad play. Another thing that just came up to my mind: Probably marking enemies should work only in proximity? So if I see an enemy and press X only my team mates in lets say a 20m radius get the notification? Might be hard to implement and most likely there is a lot of arguments against that. But then you would only profit from your team mates' marks if you stay close to them. Or you can only mark enemies for your squad mates? But that might actually reduce the incentive to mark a target in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cral - Yes, we will take the fight and try to make players get used to the rules in Warzone mode. The things you are proposing for Squad leaders aren't doable with our current premise of that role. Squad Leader is a soft role, you can be one and benefit from it if you do it well, but if you don't want someone it else is taking your place. It would be troublesome to change role in the game if you had role-specific mechanics/equipment.

@HeiligeRobbe - Well I don't see a reason to do that. We are squad oriented, that is true but squads are part of a bigger team, and communication between them is also very important. A single squad cannot win an entire match alone. Maybe seeing a marked enemy from the other side of the map is not the most realistic thing in the world, but limiting this to the proximity has no real value either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ryuzaki said:

Yeah, but it is rather hard to determine if a player is squad oriented or not.

  • Proximity to Squad leader (not ideal)
  • Gaining rate of Battle Points (if you gain BP at a faster rate = following orders, probably team player - if you gain BP at a slower/normal rate = not following orders, most likely not team player)

Then again, I have no idea how feasible those two ideas are, they just popped up.

Tutorials are of course a great way of teaching players, but those players need to be willing. Unless of course you force people to watch these tutorial videos. Either way, one way of proactively raising "attendance rates" could be one-time rewards linked to going through tutorials (be it currency, skins, etc).

Well, that is awkward, I am usually anxious not to derail threads into off-topics. A moderator could probably move all squad posts into a separate thread.

Edited by Brady_The

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Brady_The - They are somewhat feasible, but not enough. If we ever add a system to recognize such players it would have to be based on really strong proofs so no one will feel unfairly treated. Also, some players may just play poorly because they are learning or they are new to the game. We don't want such people to have bad experiences right from the start.

Edited by Ryuzaki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ryuzaki said:

@Cral - Yes, we will take the fight and try to make players get used to the rules in Warzone mode. The things you are proposing for Squad leaders aren't doable with our current premise of that role. Squad Leader is a soft role, you can be one and benefit from it if you do it well, but if you don't want someone it else is taking your place. It would be troublesome to change role in the game if you had role-specific mechanics/equipment.
 

I can't speak from a technical standpoint of course, but allowing a player to be promoted to squad leader but remain with their current loadout until they die and respawn seems like it would be a workable compromise from a design perspective. Obviously it wouldn't be such a soft role any more, but currently you can be a very passive/reactive squad lead and still rack up points; for example by checking the map infrequently and ordering your squad to attack whatever objective they're already attacking, you can earn a lot of points while lone-wolf sniping elsewhere. You would still be able to do this somewhat with my suggestion, but you'd be limited by having a leader loadout that isn't as effective for other roles.

Edited by Cral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are monitoring the situation and will act accordingly. For now, we don't think it's an issue and there is no need for such drastic changes. Also, this topic was made to discuss a Stamina system :D so let's keep it that way. I invite you to make a separate topic for your Squad concerns.

Edited by Ryuzaki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ryuzaki said:

We are monitoring the situation and will act accordingly. For now, we don't think it's an issue and there is no need for such drastic changes. Also, this topic was made to discuss a Stamina system :D so let's keep it that way. I invite you to make a separate topic for your Squad concerns.

It's the internet, going off topic is standard!

 

Yeah no worries, cheers for the discussion. It'll be interesting to see if/how squads change when voip comes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, don't take it personally. I didn't want sound rude or something, I just like to have everything organised :D. Also, it will help people, which will come later to this topic, to be on the same page :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2018 at 7:01 PM, Potato_ said:

challange accepted, Now I just need to join the military XD

Yeah, I know the problem. First three month, I ran like hell. Then, the "normal" duty started... Maybe our soldiers should be the same - first three months of game sprinting like hell, then becoming slower and slower.... JUST KIDDING :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...