Ludic play, replayability, and redesigning Wargame's metaplay premises

nande
Lieutenant
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue 30 Sep 2014 02:31
Contact:

Re: Ludic play, replayability, and redesigning Wargame's metaplay premises

Postby nande » Sun 13 Nov 2016 07:52

why would you equate competition to viewership? Any game can be competitive to different degrees without becoming an esport.

your changes lower player control, which is a bad thing for longevity

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Ludic play, replayability, and redesigning Wargame's metaplay premises

Postby Fade2Gray » Sun 13 Nov 2016 08:08

I wonder how much more of a role air will play if the maps are that big?
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

Fascist Pink
Sergeant Major
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed 19 Feb 2014 09:31
Contact:

Re: Ludic play, replayability, and redesigning Wargame's metaplay premises

Postby Fascist Pink » Sun 13 Nov 2016 08:09

throwaway wrote:
Fascist Pink wrote:The game is stale. You have lanes. You push. End of story. The emphasis on micro is dull to watch and makes for pathetic drama.


If you want to describe it in such general terms, everything is stale. Current game is sometimes you push, sometimes you defend. Your suggestion is sometimes push, sometimes defend. 20-point rework that magically improves everything? Eh, you buy units, you push, you defend. STALE!


You're being reductive. The difference should be self-evident. It actually means you have to think about something. Where to concentrate your forces, whether that push is a feint, do you want to commit, etc. The maps are too small and the game modes inspire too much of a static metaplay for any sort of critical thinking to go into this game.

I'm not even sure how we're at this discussion. Would you be unhappy with these changes? Or are you just wallowing in a heap of mud and moaning, "what's the point, existence is meaningless, Nietzsche was right."

why would you equate competition to viewership? Any game can be competitive to different degrees without becoming an esport.

your changes lower player control, which is a bad thing for longevity


Repetitive and boring gameplay is a bad thing for longevity. That's the thing that drives me fucking insane; "competitive" players always moan about symmetry and symmetry and SYMMETRY, but it doesn't seem to occur that we can have balanced asymmetry. Sticking two twins in the symmetrical octagon is dull. When one side uses its strengths to exploit the other's weaknesses, it is fun.

Aside from that, and back to the actual discussion, my changes increase player control! Increase! They give more opportunities for decisions to be made! Do you think my changes are more restrictive than current gameplay? Because right now, Wargame doesn't feel like a sandbox, it feels like a fucking cell.

Fascist Pink
Sergeant Major
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed 19 Feb 2014 09:31
Contact:

Re: Ludic play, replayability, and redesigning Wargame's metaplay premises

Postby Fascist Pink » Sun 13 Nov 2016 08:12

Fade2Gray wrote:I wonder how much more of a role air will play if the maps are that big?


Hopefully, maybe even combined with an air call-in delay, it helps resolve some of the issues revolving around panic button airstrikes, and redirect air-power to more of an offensive tool, rather than a defensive one. Bigger maps should also mean forces are less concentrated, and make it so that you can't blindly bomb a certain spot and just KNOW you will kill something.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Ludic play, replayability, and redesigning Wargame's metaplay premises

Postby Fade2Gray » Sun 13 Nov 2016 08:35

Fascist Pink wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:I wonder how much more of a role air will play if the maps are that big?


Hopefully, maybe even combined with an air call-in delay, it helps resolve some of the issues revolving around panic button airstrikes, and redirect air-power to more of an offensive tool, rather than a defensive one. Bigger maps should also mean forces are less concentrated, and make it so that you can't blindly bomb a certain spot and just KNOW you will kill something.


Yeah, kinda part of my fears. Less concentrated means more vulnerable to air. Probably would need to see a total rework in AA ranges, along with SEAD.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: Ludic play, replayability, and redesigning Wargame's metaplay premises

Postby throwaway » Sun 13 Nov 2016 08:38

Fascist Pink wrote:
throwaway wrote:
Fascist Pink wrote:The game is stale. You have lanes. You push. End of story. The emphasis on micro is dull to watch and makes for pathetic drama.


If you want to describe it in such general terms, everything is stale. Current game is sometimes you push, sometimes you defend. Your suggestion is sometimes push, sometimes defend. 20-point rework that magically improves everything? Eh, you buy units, you push, you defend. STALE!


You're being reductive. The difference should be self-evident. It actually means you have to think about something. Where to concentrate your forces, whether that push is a feint, do you want to commit, etc. The maps are too small and the game modes inspire too much of a static metaplay for any sort of critical thinking to go into this game.


No, I'm accusing you of being reductive. The current game does require thought as to where you deploy and reinforce and how you push, and these things vary between matches. You're sweeping it all away because "You have lanes. You push." Which is a gross oversimplification.

Fascist Pink wrote:I'm not even sure how we're at this discussion. Would you be unhappy with these changes? Or are you just wallowing in a heap of mud and moaning, "what's the point, existence is meaningless, Nietzsche was right."


I love the game (aka no wallowing) and find your proposal both pointless and too vague to judge.

R3d Sh4mbala
Sergeant Major
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu 12 May 2016 06:17
Contact:

Re: Ludic play, replayability, and redesigning Wargame's metaplay premises

Postby R3d Sh4mbala » Sun 13 Nov 2016 09:02

Fade2Gray wrote:
Fascist Pink wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:I wonder how much more of a role air will play if the maps are that big?


Hopefully, maybe even combined with an air call-in delay, it helps resolve some of the issues revolving around panic button airstrikes, and redirect air-power to more of an offensive tool, rather than a defensive one. Bigger maps should also mean forces are less concentrated, and make it so that you can't blindly bomb a certain spot and just KNOW you will kill something.


Yeah, kinda part of my fears. Less concentrated means more vulnerable to air. Probably would need to see a total rework in AA ranges, along with SEAD.

Not totally true, also would probably equal a longer reload/refuel times for air. So using airstrikes would have to be thought out vs. currently "Panic Button" or "I Win!" button.

Probably the concept of EW- Electronic Warfare units to suppress and jam would be important in this proposed game proposal.

I think the use of Logistics would be highly important in that game concept.

Fascist Pink
Sergeant Major
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed 19 Feb 2014 09:31
Contact:

Re: Ludic play, replayability, and redesigning Wargame's metaplay premises

Postby Fascist Pink » Sun 13 Nov 2016 09:32

Fade2Gray wrote:
Fascist Pink wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:I wonder how much more of a role air will play if the maps are that big?


Hopefully, maybe even combined with an air call-in delay, it helps resolve some of the issues revolving around panic button airstrikes, and redirect air-power to more of an offensive tool, rather than a defensive one. Bigger maps should also mean forces are less concentrated, and make it so that you can't blindly bomb a certain spot and just KNOW you will kill something.


Yeah, kinda part of my fears. Less concentrated means more vulnerable to air. Probably would need to see a total rework in AA ranges, along with SEAD.


Current AA ranges are vastly unrepresentative anyway. They could feasbily be buffed within this framework.

No, I'm accusing you of being reductive. The current game does require thought as to where you deploy and reinforce and how you push, and these things vary between matches. You're sweeping it all away because "You have lanes. You push." Which is a gross oversimplification.


Lane mentality is a common critique of this game. It's not just me saying it. And the predictability of the game lends itself to all sorts of cheese: cluster artillery timed PERFECTLY to hit motorized and wheeled columns ten seconds out of deploy, for example. And after that, you know exactly the places the enemy will have units because duh, that forest there offers the only concealment in that sector. Any strategic decisions that can be made are devalued intrinsically by that sort of nonsense.

Moreover, I'm not sure how we can argue that the chief skill difference between a very good player and an okay player isn't micro.

I love the game (aka no wallowing) and find your proposal both pointless and too vague to judge.


Take a current 10 v 10 map. Maybe double it in size. Model it on real-world terrain from hypothetical WW3 battlegrounds.

The map is split horizontally into four quarters. The bottom quarter is a deployment zone for whoever has drawn the card to have an offense-based objective. The top two quarters are deployment zones for the defending party. The objectives will lie within this area. The other quarter of the map is no man's land. When both teams are attacking at the same time, the top and bottom quarters only are deployment and the objectives could either be in the empty middle two zones or one of the starting zones.

Learn your objective in the deployment phase. Deploy accordingly. Go in with a plan.

Objectives can be judged by the presence of enemy forces within zones. For example, a zone might go all the way around the perimeter of an airfield, and there must be no enemies within that zone. You want to be able to clear your objective, secure it, and hold it.

That's generally what I was thinking.

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: Ludic play, replayability, and redesigning Wargame's metaplay premises

Postby Sleksa » Sun 13 Nov 2016 10:42

Fascist Pink wrote:The game is stale. You have lanes. You push. End of story. The emphasis on micro is dull to watch and makes for pathetic drama.


There are no lanes. Escape the prison of your own mind!
Image

Random
Captain
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: Ludic play, replayability, and redesigning Wargame's metaplay premises

Postby Random » Sun 13 Nov 2016 12:43

Sleksa wrote:
Fascist Pink wrote:The game is stale. You have lanes. You push. End of story. The emphasis on micro is dull to watch and makes for pathetic drama.


There are no lanes. Escape the prison of your own mind!



As ridiculous as his statement was, I would like bigger and more open maps, giving more and easier opportunities to flank/ forcing broader frontlines.

And hey why not make them symetrical if we are already at it.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests