Proposed gameplay changes to prevent bad player behaviour

Farbrorsson
Private First-Class
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri 4 Sep 2015 11:54
Contact:

Re: Proposed gameplay changes to prevent bad player behaviour

Postby Farbrorsson » Sun 6 Sep 2015 02:49

[/quote]
chainsaw wrote:I just want to say, play more conquest.


I'd like to, but as I said, we've tried conquest and havn't found it that attractive. I guess that since units dying doesn't matter as much allows people to be more reckless. In turn, that makes it feel more spammy.

Same thing sorta goes for 4v4 games and lower. Having more points and larger sectors to cover also means that micro management of every units becomes harder or even impossible, which is very stressfull. To me it's just shoving a bunch of units into strategic positions, hoping they can survive on their own while you focus on a push elsewhere (at least that's how it was when we did those types of games back in AirLand).

In my oppinition 10v10 tactical games have found that perfect micro management sweet spot. One can have full controll over each and every units and you really have to as well. One unit dying can mean a whole lot of difference and every unit is important. It's more of a thinkers game that way. One really have to outsmart the opponent.

Xeno426 wrote:Issue #6: The game is not at all balanced for 10v10 destruction. Destruction games in general heavily reward artillery spam, and 10v10 have a whole net of issues all their own.

While it won't fix all your problems, trying playing smaller games in Conquest mode. Incomes are fixed, and hiding the CV does nothing, because it just makes that person lose faster. Arty still exists, but putting too many points into arty will leave the person weak on the ground, letting the enemy push in.

It's quite a shift for Destruction players, because it really encourages aggressive gameplay. People have to push if they want to win.


10v10 tactical conquest games are rare unfortunately (or maybe it's my filter settings?).

Also, I do not find the game to be that imbalanced for 10v10 destruction tbh, sure you find players who wholly focus on heli/arty/jet spam, but countered right, that isn't a problem. It's just bad tactics which often leads to a (quick and boring) loss on their side if countered properly.

Aggressive gameplay is also both necessary and encouraged in destruction. Aggressiveness is a great counter against arty spam since spammers usually lack defence in depht (they are set on entrenched warfare). So a break in their lines often allows you to push through and forth into their main, or break the rest of their front.
However that's also one of the beauties of destruction, even if you are loosing terrain and can't push back you may very well be winning. You just have to make sure that the enemys push gets expensive enough. If you are loosing grounds and units in a conquest conquest game you have basically allready lost.

As I said, many of these issues and solutions don't apply to other game modes, but unless they carry undesireable side effects into those game modes it shouldn't be a problem. I know Wargame wasn't designed with 10v10 tactical destruction primarily in mind however it is still a valid and integral part of wargame with a large player base.
These are my subjective oppinions and reasons for playing the modes i play. There are other people who think different. This is perfectly fine. However I feel we're falling into a discussion on which game mode is better (which is highly subjective and in this thread, kind of irrelevant) and are loosing focus from the aforementioned issues.
I feel that

jhfts
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue 21 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: Proposed gameplay changes to prevent bad player behaviour

Postby jhfts » Sun 6 Sep 2015 05:33

In response to specific OP suggestions:

1) I would not support this approach. While the opening BM-27 / 30 / ATACMS barrage is definitely a 'cheese' strategy, it is generally only effective against inexperienced or negligent players. Veteran players, especially in 10 v 10, will detect the incoming fire and avoid it.

It is also unfair to say that it is a 'riskless' tactic. Bringing along a BM-30 / ATACMS at the start, and using it immediately is a gamble. Yes, if the opposition decides to operate in a predictable fashion, and does not pay attention, then it will pay off. On the other hand, if the opponent simply dodges it, or it misses due to incorrect assumptions (I.e slower / faster vehicles, use of helicopters), then the attacker is out 120-150 pts worth of units in the game open, and ~1000+ supply.

Additionally, this really isn't an issue in smaller matches - very seldom have I seen an opening barrage in anything smaller than a 10 v 10 match.


2) This is not an issue that requires a fix. It is very rare for a 'hidden' CV to stall a game for more than three minutes, as the unit density in 10 v 10, along with ample helicopter recon, is almost always sufficient to sniff the last CVs out.


3) This is very likely difficult to implement. Units could still be damaged by AoE attacks or fire/napalm, so I don't expect that this would be an effective means to prevent teamkilling.


4) Random arty is only a workable proposition with MRLs, not tube artillery. Even with MRLs, it is very often a losing tactic if applied to the exclusion of other approaches (I.e the proverbial support player who simply fiddles around with his BM-30 / ATACMS). It is symptomatic not of gameplay weakness, so much as it is of inexperience, or of unbalanced teams where players can get away with simplistic 'cheese' tactics.

In any event, a player's score would still tic up on the scoreboard when they make a kill in destruction mode. Removing the floating numbers would simply inconvenience arty spammers, without really deterring them, while needlessly penalizing responsible arty users / experienced support players.


5) This isn't a perfect solution, but it seems better than the current situation. It seems doubtful, however, that Eugen will engage in modifications to the basic game code at this late stage.

Lonfield
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 784
Joined: Thu 25 Oct 2012 18:54
Contact:

Re: Proposed gameplay changes to prevent bad player behaviour

Postby Lonfield » Sun 6 Sep 2015 14:53

Conquest is not spammy, conquest requires more skill, because you have to plan your strategy more, early cv rush to gather points and stay defensive, early ground rush to get more map control?, balanced one?, and as they said, it's more dynamic mode. BTW, in conquest a lost unit it's a lost unit too, and it's about running out of units, not about spamming units, keep units available to deploy is a challenge too
Bans Bans Bans and Lock Lock Lock!!
Screaming for a better game since 2012

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Proposed gameplay changes to prevent bad player behaviour

Postby Razzmann » Sun 6 Sep 2015 14:59

I guess that since units dying doesn't matter as much

One of the most stupid statements.. sorry.

Farbrorsson
Private First-Class
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri 4 Sep 2015 11:54
Contact:

Re: Proposed gameplay changes to prevent bad player behaviour

Postby Farbrorsson » Sun 6 Sep 2015 16:02

Again, that's how I experience conquest games, if you don't fine. This thread is not a discussion about which game mode is better, it's about the issues in op.

jhfts wrote:In response to specific OP suggestions:

1) I would not support this approach. While the opening BM-27 / 30 / ATACMS barrage is definitely a 'cheese' strategy, it is generally only effective against inexperienced or negligent players. Veteran players, especially in 10 v 10, will detect the incoming fire and avoid it.

It is also unfair to say that it is a 'riskless' tactic. Bringing along a BM-30 / ATACMS at the start, and using it immediately is a gamble. Yes, if the opposition decides to operate in a predictable fashion, and does not pay attention, then it will pay off. On the other hand, if the opponent simply dodges it, or it misses due to incorrect assumptions (I.e slower / faster vehicles, use of helicopters), then the attacker is out 120-150 pts worth of units in the game open, and ~1000+ supply.

Additionally, this really isn't an issue in smaller matches - very seldom have I seen an opening barrage in anything smaller than a 10 v 10 match.

Fine, it's not completely riskless, there are definately losses to the player when it doesn't work. But on certain maps (such as nuclear winter and another d-day) with serious choke points near the single main. Even if you are an experienced player and stop your units in time / wait the barrage out. The only somewhat valid counter is to go with airborne decks, and then you have the helo rush problem.
The cost of not getting your ground troops to the front line in time greatly overwhelms the cost of these units. Which btw, still is alive for further use.
What, in your meaning is so important in keeping this mechanic that warrants the negative effects it can have on a game?
jhfts wrote:2) This is not an issue that requires a fix. It is very rare for a 'hidden' CV to stall a game for more than three minutes, as the unit density in 10 v 10, along with ample helicopter recon, is almost always sufficient to sniff the last CVs out.

Sure, it's not in every game, but I'd say at least in 1 of 5 of the games where a push into the enemy main is happening (which unfortunately often is a result of stacking and/or mass dropping). This can also vary wildly depending on the map, but it's not unusual that 2 hidden cv's on forest heavy maps (such as tough jungle) hidden behind a cliff can take up to 20 minutes to find.
jhfts wrote:3) This is very likely difficult to implement. Units could still be damaged by AoE attacks or fire/napalm, so I don't expect that this would be an effective means to prevent teamkilling.

Might be, but possibly not. At some point during the damage calculation a lookup of the damage issuing player is done (since score is awarded to this player). A simple 'if (shooter.owner.team == target.owner.team && closestEnemy(target) < 5000)' statement should in theory be sufficient.
I've also considered the case with napalm, however since it doesn't seem to abide to the same rules as other weapons (fire seems to be owned by the environment) and some other solution would have to be done for that case. In the end it is cumbersome to tk units using napalm only and that alone would hopefully deter potential team killers.

jhfts wrote:4) Random arty is only a workable proposition with MRLs, not tube artillery. Even with MRLs, it is very often a losing tactic if applied to the exclusion of other approaches (I.e the proverbial support player who simply fiddles around with his BM-30 / ATACMS). It is symptomatic not of gameplay weakness, so much as it is of inexperience, or of unbalanced teams where players can get away with simplistic 'cheese' tactics.

In any event, a player's score would still tic up on the scoreboard when they make a kill in destruction mode. Removing the floating numbers would simply inconvenience arty spammers, without really deterring them, while needlessly penalizing responsible arty users / experienced support players.


MLRS/tube arty doesn't really matter. It's spammed randomly anyways. The fact that it is a loosing tactic is the problem. The point and theory of the suggestion is that this kind of arty spammers in general don't really care if they win, they just want to se points popping up from their barrages in unspotted territory. Removing the kill indication would seriously reduce the incentive for this, forcing this kind of player to actually play the game in a supportive manner.

Again, what is the incentive / realism / gameplay benefit in knowing that you've killed units you didn't know were there to begin with? A good support player would barrage a random city in preperance of an assault anyway. However not knowing whether it killed anything would just be beneficial and increase immersion.
In the end it's recon through random fire mission which is whole lotta odd if you ask me.

jhfts wrote:5) This isn't a perfect solution, but it seems better than the current situation. It seems doubtful, however, that Eugen will engage in modifications to the basic game code at this late stage.


I know, but my hopes is at least for the next installment.

User avatar
MILINTarctrooper
Major
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon 27 Jan 2014 04:19

Re: Proposed gameplay changes to prevent bad player behaviour

Postby MILINTarctrooper » Mon 7 Sep 2015 04:24

Let me be the devils advocate on #1.

What if your good intention restriction on artillery only makes it worse?

1a) Players who are support will just wait until the timer expires and then boom you have massive "push button to change the tide of battle barrages."

1b) You are also not factoring in that more artillery can be called in via the naval tabs as in marine delivered artillery units, and naval artillery [ship].

1c) You might advertently force players to adopt minimum range strategies using MLRS,mortars, and artillery which will increase the numbers of kills and choke point or defense zone artillery camping.

[Solutions...just have the artillery have a beginning of game "reload delay" much more simple and painless solution. Or just cut numbers down per card like in ALB...unless you want EE style barraging to then correct fire on targets...along with range corrections and lower dispersion circles which in EE affected all artillery units equally regardless.]

2) You might end up with players then focusing more on aircraft or helo based spamming to get the same results.

3) map design is the major problem that is causing such easy ways of spamming artillery and profiting. Just a tweak here or there and some more roads or better unit pathing UI...and voila, this issue becomes less one hit wonder.
Image
52.2% 1v1 Ranked 32.2% Multi since Open Beta.

Farbrorsson
Private First-Class
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri 4 Sep 2015 11:54
Contact:

Re: Proposed gameplay changes to prevent bad player behaviour

Postby Farbrorsson » Mon 7 Sep 2015 15:02

MILINTarctrooper wrote:Let me be the devils advocate on #1.

What if your good intention restriction on artillery only makes it worse?

1a) Players who are support will just wait until the timer expires and then boom you have massive "push button to change the tide of battle barrages."

1b) You are also not factoring in that more artillery can be called in via the naval tabs as in marine delivered artillery units, and naval artillery [ship].

Again, my proposal here is just to induce a minimum time until heavier long range artillery can be used to prevent it's use against very predictable choke points. The whole goal is to have the player wait's until the timer expires. By then the enemie's positions would be sufficiently unpredictable meaning there is no guaranteed pay out anymore. At that point arty spam is unreliable and counterable to a such a higher degree that it's acceptable.

Also, everything naval is per definition since, at least on ordinary mixed maps, afaik, naval zones have to be capped first. This + the deployment delay should be sufficient.

MILINTarctrooper wrote:1c) You might advertently force players to adopt minimum range strategies using MLRS,mortars, and artillery which will increase the numbers of kills and choke point or defense zone artillery camping.


I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. This sounds like more like the late game issues of #5. #1 deals with a specific issue within the initial 0-2 minutes of the game.

MILINTarctrooper wrote:[Solutions...just have the artillery have a beginning of game "reload delay" much more simple and painless solution. Or just cut numbers down per card like in ALB...unless you want EE style barraging to then correct fire on targets...along with range corrections and lower dispersion circles which in EE affected all artillery units equally regardless.]

2) You might end up with players then focusing more on aircraft or helo based spamming to get the same results.

3) map design is the major problem that is causing such easy ways of spamming artillery and profiting. Just a tweak here or there and some more roads or better unit pathing UI...and voila, this issue becomes less one hit wonder.


A reload delay at the beginning of the game could work as well, on the account that it isn't used later in the game (which is a bit inconsistent) since that would affect later game (unless this could be concidered acceptable). I don't know if it's common for people to order arty and immediately fire after spawn. I want my suggestions to have as few side effects as possible.

Cutting numbers per card down wouldn't help. One ATACMS in initial game on a choke point would be enough. Again, I think your touching on issue #5 (and the issue there isn't really the amount of arty as much as it is targeting unspotted targets at random and the benefits of this).

Since I've never played EE i cannot reflect over the arty system in there, but auto correction on spotted targets sounds interesting.

2. This I'm aware of (and it is already quite prominent, helo rushes tend to be more common that #1 arty barrages fortunately). However in contrast to the chokepoint arty both helo rushes and bomber rushes are fairly easy to counter (using interceptors and aa).

Bomber rushes are extremely voulnerable to interceptors and thus it's a somewhat valid albeit boring and too risky tactic in my oppinion.

Helo rushes are mostly a threat against unprotected airborne decks. Any other deck may very well (and, considering the current meta trend with helo rushes, should) bring ir based aa vehicles for this very reason. Thus this is also a somewhat valid tactic.

The problem with the initial arty spam tactic is that, once that missile / shell is in the air, on it's way towards that bridge that you must cross, you are more or less screwed. Either you notice it and stop your vehicles and let the enemy grab strategic positions in the center. Or you take chance / fail to notice it and end up having loads of units damaged / killed / suppressed and again the enemy will win the inital center fight.

3. Yep, that was one of my alternative solutions in op. This problem is most prominent on certain less well laid out maps. In the long run this would be a better solution. However, this would also require more work on the developers part: reworking maps / ai, implement a new deployment system, etc.

captaincarnage
Major
Posts: 1915
Joined: Sat 29 Mar 2014 23:50
Contact:

Re: Proposed gameplay changes to prevent bad player behaviour

Postby captaincarnage » Mon 7 Sep 2015 17:36

With the exception of point 5 all of these changes are basically trying to fix a game type which is inherently broken anyway and i say this as someone who has played these types of games enough times to know what I'm talking about, thats not to say you can't or shouldn't enjoy them but seriously just deal with the fact your not playing a game mode which this game was ever designed to support and whose requirements in terms of balancing and game mechanics far exceeds their relative popularity.

What you're proposing is going to require a substantial amount of coding as you're basically trying to add a raft of new game mechanics to cater for the issues you've mentioned, with the exception of team killing none of these problems bother me in the slightest and there is a simple solution to deal with team killers which is to run your own dedicated server and to ban or kick anyone who misbehaves in this way. Personally i think people who blatantly team kill should be made visible to other players, as an example World of Warships highlights player names in pink who team kill regularly which seems to me to be quite a good way of warning others about their past transgressions which would allow the community to decide whether or not they wished to play with them, i suspect getting permanently marked as a teamkiller would have a negative effect on that individuals ability to find a game which seems like pretty poetic justice to me.

As far as inheriting other players units it would be nice if there was a better way of handling this but it is really only a substantial issue in 10v10's or when playing with bad public players and the amount of work required to code a better solution would i suspect be excessive. People leaving a game early are probably ruining it for everyone else no matter how clever the handover of units is.
I hope your buratino's die screaming.

User avatar
Drang
Major-General
Posts: 3725
Joined: Sun 3 Feb 2013 04:20
Location: Fighting on the edge of the world
Contact:

Re: Proposed gameplay changes to prevent bad player behaviour

Postby Drang » Tue 8 Sep 2015 15:03

chainsaw wrote:I just want to say, play more conquest.


doesn't fix the issues. position is equally important in conquest

delor
Lieutenant
Posts: 1231
Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2014 23:39
Contact:

Re: Proposed gameplay changes to prevent bad player behaviour

Postby delor » Tue 8 Sep 2015 20:47

Mostly pretty well-tread ground on the forums. We're probably not going to see any of this, since it's been said a ton before and we're near the end of RD's support lifecycle, but happy to discuss it. Maybe some of it can show up in RD 4.

As a 2v2 conquest player 95% of the time I pretty much only care about #1, but I do get in the occasional 10v10 destruction for the lulz. IMHO:

1) Yes, absolutely. Anything that can reach the other side of the map- planes, howitzers, MLRS- should be spawn delayed to give people time to get past the obvious map bottlenecks. It's oft suggested and still a good idea.

2) Don't know, because I've never really seen this much. I've had a few annoying games around this in ALB, mostly smaller games and especially if I inattentively end up in a TD match, but I haven't had any problems with this and have no idea how big of an issue it is.

3) Sure, that seems fairly inoffensive, I guess. There's probably a couple of ways to exploit it, but some basic anti-intentional-FF support would be fine. Haven't had much of a problem with this, really.

4) IMHO, destruction is fundamentally a busted way to play Wargame and this won't change it, but at least it'll make people put a little more skin in the game to get those points. I'd be somewhere between fine and in favor of it.

5) Sounds great. It's a pain when you get a ton of units in the middle of nowhere because someone quit, and even more of a pain when it creates a quit cascade because people don't want to deal.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests