Teamplay features | Forums

[Big_Ghost_Daddy]

Be a bit more optimistic Klaue_

Advantages:

• Language barrier broken
• Faster and clear (understandable) communication
• Can be accurate (depends on messages)
• Will improve team-play and coordination

Disadvantages:

• Wrong information (always possible, even with VoIP)
• People ignore it
• People don't know how to use it (but that's simple to solve)

Is it more noobish? I would say not completely. It makes the game maybe even harder since both teams have them and stealth/flank attacks will be more difficult.

A good thing is that new players will have it easier to learn the game and will most likely play it longer/more often.


Big_Ghost_Daddy

[Klaue_]

Be a bit more optimistic Klaue_

No, no, no i want my lolly. :P

Advantages:

• Language barrier broken
• Faster and clear (understandable) communication
• Can be accurate (depends on messages)
• Will improve team-play and coordination

Disadvantages:

• Wrong information (always possible, even with VoIP)
• People ignore it
• People don't know how to use it (but that's simple to solve)

That are some of the theoretical facts yes.

When implemented corectly and used in a reasonable way, it will be basicly a good thing.
But that is already where the trouble starts:
1 - implementation often fails by "economic-design" i will call it
2 - players dont know, dont want or cant use it properly

Many games shown that these features do no good for team play. Most of the time they even no good for personal/ego gameplay becaus of missleading or missunderstood "information"(actually its only data).
You mentioned that, but the sad true fact is that, what you call it "disadvantages" are way more overwelming then the effective bonus that could be made off.

Why?
Many years(far more then 10...) of online gaming just tells me.
And i notices that with time, when games eveloped with such features, people tend to act in a follisher way.
Maybe they think "the game cant be wrong" or "the game will handle this for me". Maybe its because the number of player have grown and more fools around nowadays.
My guess is, that its not good to help someone too much in taking his responsibilities. Even for doing basic things, like communication in teamwork. There must be a fine adjustment not to "over-assist" the player.

We dont only have this in games, we also have this in real life, for example in smart homes or relationsships we face this fact.
Not only to "over-assist" someone but also by doing things for someone else and asking afterwards who carry the burden when something went realy wrong and a lawyer get involved.
Yes its an extrem example but basicly the same thing, we shouldnt do things for other people what can get us or the other in more trouble as he would it do on its own, even if he fails.

Is it more noobish? I would say not completely. It makes the game maybe even harder since both teams have them and stealth/flank attacks will be more difficult.

A good thing is that new players will have it easier to learn the game and will most likely play it longer/more often.


Big_Ghost_Daddy

The claim in the second sentence is double-edged.
Easy learning = good, yep.
"Easy" gameplay = good?
Naahh here we come to a fact thats called in my branch "over-assistance".

Game will be easy, but want player like to play a easy or even too easy game for long?
And will they have fun or doing they so only for farming reasons? Reward from spendet time.
Ok for the publisher point of view thats good, but from the players point of view?
I dont have to remind you of farming behaviour?





The essence is, with features like this, we making bad things even worse and in the same place thinking we are doing good only because we are helping someone.
Helping is not good everytime. Its like with little childs, "over-assisting" them and see what little bastard you will get.(true fact, maybe already scientifically prooven)
Help you baby to walk, for 6 years, guess how many progress it will have made?
Children have to learn walking, and children even have to learn how to play games. (not only computer games)

How do we learn?
Do we learn from examples? Yes, mostly.
Do we learn by watching others doing it? Yes, mostly.
Do we learn something on our own AND in detail only by observing or getting help? NO, not at all. We have to do it on our own.

Its that easy, do something for someone or help him in critical tasks every time and he will never learn how to do it AND he will never learn to improve it.
Its realy that simple.




Optimistic enough? Sorry the world and life is great, but most of the people just suck.

[Big_Ghost_Daddy]

So how do we learn in the radio communication:
We see other players using them (= examples) and we learn to use it ourselves.

Besides, I do not expect very detailed communication. Just simple "Blitz Assault left", "Aegis specialist middle in cover" or "Cloaked recon right behind"

Optimistic enough? Sorry the world and life is great, but most of the people just suck.

The people make the world the way it is. There are no good people if there are no bad ones (I know, it's a bit out of balance).

Big_Ghost_Daddy

[Klaue_]

So how do we learn in the radio communication:
We see other players using them (= examples) and we learn to use it ourselves.

Besides, I do not expect very detailed communication. Just simple "Blitz Assault left", "Aegis specialist middle in cover" or "Cloaked recon right behind"

Thats basicly right.
But what you do here is learning how to use a tool, that replaces a tool we already have.
Dont tell me most of the active gaming people nowadays got no microphone nor dont now basic enlish.

It could possibly usefull yes, but see alot of problems there that are based on the realisation and the ergonomy.

Too abstract -> nobody will rely on that commands.
Too detailed -> you have to pick the right one -> takes alot of time.
OR the application(game) will do this for you -> problems of context aggregation/awareness and behaviour recognition/prediction (sry iam working in this branch, i know its not simple) to have at least some usefull guess the game could make.

Another way could be, to use some abstract commands frequently and people have to learn what they could mean with a very high chance to guess the right awnser to that, thats also an option yes, but you need people that do this and you need people that adapt this. And we are heading towards social problems and gaming behaviour again. People (most of them) just dont care.
Never the less i like to do it this way with my friends, on PUG this most of the time dont work.

I experienced that very abstract(for human language, not for picking commands out of a list) people react on things like. "Alfa, Top, Sniper" or "AEGIS at B".
For a human this is an easy and quick task to spell this. To do so with commands out of a List, this will take you some time if the game dont have any usefully context preordered commands at hand.

Also you got another problem with that, if you want to personal assistance, its easy to identify the person wo called for it because you have to know the name and the position of the player and find him.
With a voice based solution you learn to know your buddys voices, there could be even an implementation to simulate distance and make it more easier to the human brain to associate the voice to the person and his position.
Arma 2 and some modification like ACRE shown that this is a good solution and not that hard to implement.

Thats are some points why i dont think things like this would be usefull as game features. Articifial tools that replace natural tools are most of the time not as fast because they are not coupeled directly with the brain.


Another example:
But what about other thingsl ike showing HP to teammates? Why is this wrong?
Well i wrote down a scenario and at the third alternative i stoped. Because it gets too long to cover most of common behaviour.
I think showing HP to teammates often leads to two extrem behaviours of people, running away from teammates to save his own ***, or rushing forward to burst the enemy and try to keep every teammate alive(that what i do most of the time anyway..).

Its a factor that could lead to "panicking" and thats almost always bad.
Same thing why i hate a scoreboard, people tend to play more agressive to get more points but everyone knows that this most of the time leads to many and fast deaths instead of getting points.


In my opinion, as long as a player dont know basic things about teamwork and how game combats are done, there is no need at all for such features.
The basic player has alot to learn and assisting him in a way he could missunderstood things will lead to more failures as he would made anyway. I dont have to remind you that you also could learn "wrong" things and take them as good, like the suicidal behaviour when behind?

[Klaue_]

The people make the world the way it is. There are no good people if there are no bad ones (I know, it's a bit out of balance).

I dont want to discuss politics and economys here, but the way the people get exploitet by some few individuals, companys and countrys is also partly their own fault.
Just look at the EU project, how it turns into a modern dictatorship and nobody (expect of some few like UKIP) have the guts to raise theire fists against this bull**** because they fear to lose their jobs.

By the way thats also a "teamplay" problem wherwe people get wrong information and trust it.
Narrow mind and narrow view with no sence for the future leads to demise, we will see.

Operation disinformation? Iam against.

[Klaue_]

Ah and to support my opinion here are another two examples:

We also know that visual information could be used to share information, from battlefield for example, marking enemys.
But you watched players on PUG handling this information? They rush for the kill and some times it happens they dont get all information they need, some enemys are not reported and people run straight into ambushes, frequently, not learning at all.

Same thing with GRO and Oracle device, you recognizd people rushing into enemys as soon as the enemy is spotted?
I do very often, and people tend to run into non-detected enemys because they rush for the kill.
Very good example why this kind of "support" leads on PUG not to improved gameplay but to brainless non-focused actions.

Dont get me wrong, visual information is good, such as oracle, but people dont getting better by using it. Its not the basic problem of the oracle, its a very mighty tool and able to change the game, but people are not clever enough to use the information gained by this device in the right way most of the time.

And that show basic problems with players that game features make even worse on PUG.

[Noviwan]

Interesting discussion and ideas. I can't comment on future features but I can share our philosophy on squad communication.

Yes, you should use voice comms. Teams that do not are at an enormous disadvantage, because there is no more efficient way of sharing tactical information. It's like when one team brings an Oracle and the other doesn't. Sucks right? Voice comms may be even more powerful than Oracle; leave it off at your peril. (FWIW, I normally hate voice chat in games, and never turn it on ... but in GRO I do. It's so useful in GRO that it doesn't bother me.)

On the other hand, this is Ghost Recon. We use technology to give ghosts an edge. This is why you have the laser pointer, and automatic transmission of Oracle intel to your augmented reality HUD. When useful teamplay information can be displayed directly, with a higher level of precision than is possible with voice, it's a valid candidate for automation to improve communication. Display of a squad mate's Aegis field is a good example. The Aegis is not a "shield" per-se, it's a technology that can redirect the path incoming rounds, up to a certain distance from the user. We display that information in an intuitive display on the squad's HUD to facilitate teamwork.