[FS Frankie V]

Fredrik, on 03 July 2015 - 09:47 PM, said:

Stationary campers are easy targets and not an issue.

This anti-camping feature needs to punish moving campers, but how? Their continuously strafing, so the game can't keep track on how long it was since they last moved.

If you have to move out of an area, it's just to camp at the edge of it or a quick jump and slide out, turn, jump and your back to your spot within 2 seconds.

There are some really interesting features in UE4 that would help put the problem of camping into the hands of the map designer as well as the server operator as a choice rather than hard coding a one sided option.

Volumes for example can be supplied as a map entity that can be triggered and they can be layered with enough of an AI to account for sneaky behavior.

[bubbleboy]

I don't think camping is a problem at all in most situations but sometimes in a public TS server you'll get one moron who camps every round by himself and will never be able to clutch when they're left as the last person on the team so they'll just make it really boring so I guess an anti-camp mechanic would be useful for that. Then again if kick votes are enabled they will always get kicked anyway.

I agree that bomb doesn't fit in too well with this game since one team is given the job of camping so they don't get a whole lot of options as to what tactic to use. I'd be interested in another gametype based on TS but I can't think of what the issues are with it. Any change to TS would make it more complicated but I suppose the charm of it is the simplicity; kill the other team in a few minutes using whatever method you please.

This post has been edited by bubbleboy: 05 July 2015 - 01:28 AM

[FS Zenity]

bubbleboy, on 05 July 2015 - 01:27 AM, said:

I agree that bomb doesn't fit in too well with this game since one team is given the job of camping so they don't get a whole lot of options as to what tactic to use. I'd be interested in another gametype based on TS but I can't think of what the issues are with it. Any change to TS would make it more complicated but I suppose the charm of it is the simplicity; kill the other team in a few minutes using whatever method you please.

IMO the issues with TS become apparent after about 60 seconds. If a round is over by then, then everything was great. If not, then it usually means that either both teams are refusing to make the first move (the "no incentive to take charge" problem) or somebody is hiding on a large map. This is an issue both for the remaining players who can get frustrated, and the dead players who want to get back into the game. I also believe that rounds should be designed to be fairly short, to keep the action going and reduce waiting times for dead players (thus encouraging early aggression).

What I would like to do is to experiment with lighter objectives, which do not severely affect the gameplay as long as both teams play reasonably aggressive, but provide a "tiebreaker" if both teams are unwilling to move and which ensure that you can't simply hide on a larger map. The general idea would be that you don't have to think about the objective for the biggest part of the round. But if it drags on, you need to at least be close to the objective to avoid losing which will quickly bring the round to a close as the remaining players kill each other (or the timer runs out).

I also think that those light objectives should never require the player to stand still (and ideally reward good movement), which is one thing I consider a minor flaw in the design of current bomb mode. Standing still is ok for a tactical shooter, but for Urban Terror it wasn't a good fit IMO.

Another important consideration is that the objectives don't focus the gameplay too much on one area of the map, because I believe that being able to utilise all of the map is part of the appeal in Team Survivor.

I have some ideas which I want to try out, and the great thing about Unreal Engine is that it makes it much easier to experiment and implement new game modes. In the end, the only way to tell if something really works is to try it out (BEFORE committing to it, to avoid needlessly fragmenting the playerbase).

[Ikslorin]

Just to be sure, that any reader of this discussion understands the elegant solution that bomb mode is (at least for CS) I'll just quickly run it down before my own 2 cents are thrown in:
Bomb mode solves the passivity issue of TS, by always having one team automatically be loosing. Red is loosing until they plant the bomb, at which point the blue team is loosing. So one team always has the incentive to attack and engage.

Be aware that the following are just my ramblings, and the only experience with game design I have is from listening to Day[9] and Sean Bouchard. The point of this post is not to bring a solution, but rather throw ideas back and forth like ping-pong. Hopefully something of this silly stuff being the seed for something with potential.
Please point out any wrong axioms, issues and propose changes to solve it.

1.1
I would like to first address the anti-camp feature suggestion. Like Zenity, this seems to me to be more of a bandaid solution, rather than actually fixing the fundamental problem. Punishing a player for using a viable strategy doesn't make sense. We have to try and minimize its viability/strength or make counterplay stronger.
I personally am in favour of the counter play option, as it makes for more variety.

1.2
Counterplay could be the following:
Day[9] talked about solving passivity in RTS by making the risk of loosing your army smaller. He also talked about issues sometimes not being in the manifesting problem itself, but being something completely different.
This is a far reach, but is it possible that changes/additions to other mechanics can make engaging a camper or turtling team less risky? For example changing the movement mechanics or adding flash nades?

2.1
Let's stay a bit with Bomb itself before moving on:
I'm not completely sure, if we have ever gotten the biggest potential out of bombmode. This sounds rather harsh, but except for France and one other country in XVII I don't think I have seen or played any good approach to the game mode. This may just be me lacking experience, but the first time I heard of 'rotation', 'fakes' and 'mapcontrol' was when I watched WarOwl to get ready for shoutcasting the NC XVIII. From a game design standpoint that may be of no importance, as the problem still very much exists, but I would like to hear if a lack of knowledge/strategy and communication could contribute to this?

2.2
Also a lot of CS strategy relies on the smoke and flash to control space and remove defenders advantage. Can we buff the smoke, yet make it last for a shorter time, to maybe open up for this kind of play, and are we even interested in such plays?

My underlying axiom/premise, which is up to argumentation is the following: While it's true that UrT is fast paced (which is why we love it) it doesn't have to only come down to outshooting your opponent, but it should still be able to support similar team focused strategies.

3.1
Based upon the premises stated by Zenity, which I agree with, let's move onto "new stuff":
DotA and the like forces players to engage by A) having objectives behind the other team and B) due to XP and Gold income. To win you have to go through the other team, and to do so you have to move around the map to obtain and deny as much strength as possible.

A parallel to the XP/Gold mechanic would be a point over time king of the hill, similar to the one we already have. But that begs the question, why don't we already play that gamemode? (Actual question - I'd love to hear some thoughts on this)
If we changed this to a round based mode like TS and Bomb, with the capture points as the tiebreaker, would we have a game mode, that like bomb forces engagements, but also promotes movement? With this you could try and win the later parts of a round by ninjaing capturepoints, but if you're passive on either side you're automatically going to loose the round?

3.2
Edit: I had another idea here, but frankly it's too stupid.

I'm pretty certain, that map designers already are doing all they can to make camping weaker, so I don't see any reason to talk about that. If that axiom/premise is wrong, we can discuss possible changes in map design philosophy, but I won't go deeper into that myself.

This post has been edited by Ikslorin: 06 July 2015 - 08:35 AM

[karnute]

To counteract the immobility there could be some kind of enemy radar. It could work by drawing a diffuse circle for the enemies positions in the map or by giving clues in the hud. The radius (and intensity of colour) and the error added to centre depends on the distance travelled by enemy in last seconds. An enemy not moving will be located more precisely as more time not moving.
This could be an option for admins depending on gametype, etc. to add incentive for moving. It could be decisive in TS when there are only one survivor in one team, to avoid be located by the enemies you must move a lot...

[Ikslorin]

Edit: I think I misread your proposal. If the dot should always be shown - no matter if the player is spotted or not - then you remove huge chunks from the gamesense aspect, meta game, surprise atrategies and stealth movement. This would also give a too strong attackers advantage against turtling/camping, as they would know where to shoot. Also how do you want to surprise someone?
If that reading is correct, but you believe my conclusion to be incorrect, I'd love you to elaborate on how you'd think this should work.

I could only barely accept such a thing if you only show this when someone has been standing still for a very long time (much more than say 20 seconds). But then how do you define a player standing still? And if it has such a high activation, then how is it of value?
________________________

Edit 2: Do you also want the movement also influence the transparency/visibility of the dot? If so, then still some points above should be further discussed.
________________________

Original post, based on the assumption, that the dot was only shown for spotted enemies:

The following should not be a dismissal, but merely pointing out issues and an investigation what part of gameplay karnutes suggestion solves.

1. A minor thing, that has not been accounted for.
My personal playstyle in UrT is to move fast from one spot to the other and stay there for a few seconds. The info given to the other team would be a camping player, even though I as a player am very much on the move. So having the location shown being vague due to speed of the player can be misleading in several cases. Having one consistent size of a dot, is not only easier to code, but also simpler and less misleading information. You can say that this particular playstyle is countering that mechanic, but that would mean that this playstyle could be stronger.
Question then is: Is that an issue?

If it is an issue, then we could do the following:

• Using a longer time frame for reference on the dot
  
• Also referencing movement after the spotting.

The last though would be giving the other team information, that they should not get, as it removes parts of the "gamesense" required.


2. My main issue with this idea.
It doesn't as such solve the camping issue, but solves a lack of communication. This information should be what is told over VoIP or in chat. You only fix the issue, that there's a lack of communication between teammembers, something that should only happen on pubs.

So the main question is: Is there a lack of teamcommunication, that results in an immobile playstyle being stronger?

• Yes? This should be explored
  
• No? I'm sceptical, that this idea would have the desired effect.

This post has been edited by Ikslorin: 05 July 2015 - 07:05 PM

[karnute]

My proposal about counter camp was a variable faint inexact circle, not always a precise dot, intended to penalize only the static players.
Both the size of the circle and the (on purpose, random) error of the centre would be larger if the the player moves, so that it gives very small real information about a moving player (parameters could limit how much, etc.). Very high circle sizes are accompanied by fainter colour, that could lead the circle to disappear in practice for a player moving a lot.
Only in case of a player stopping movement for some time (option or parameter), then the circle start to shrink, and the error of centre to be decreased. In the extreme case of a player moving only a few steps in a long time, the circle could be more precise and exact giving some useful information to enemies. Of course, if player start to move again, the circle size and error increases so the real information vanishes again.
Movement of a player must be calculated from the distance between the coordinates in time intervals, not from the speed of movement that could be fooled by fast steps from side to side, etc.

[FS Zenity]

Ikslorin, on 05 July 2015 - 11:17 AM, said:

Just to be sure, that any reader of this discussion understands the elegant solution that bomb mode is (at least for CS) I'll just quickly run it down before my own 2 cents are thrown in:
Bomb mode solves the passivity issue of TS, by always having one team automatically be loosing. Red is loosing until they plant the bomb, at which point the blue team is loosing. So one team always has the incentive to push, as they have no other choice.

That's an attribute of asymmetric objectives, not bomb mode in particular. I absolutely believe that asymmetric objectives are the way to go for TS, I just don't think that the specific implementation of bomb mode is ideally designed for Urban Terror's unique style of play. Though I could see it working with a few tweaks.

You point out yourself how CS is completely designed around the bomb mode. It's a more tactical style of play, where pausing to plant or defuse makes perfect sense. CS is all about holding the angles and using grenades for tactical advantages. You could try to shoehorn this style of play into Urban Terror, but I think it's far more interesting to explore what can be done within the framework of its unique personality.

I absolutely do want the game to have tactical depth on a high level of play, but ultimately it's not a tactical shooter. The game is brilliant fun when it lets you roam free and be a bold badass, and it's the addictive shooting mechanics that we should put into the spotlight IMO.

As for lack of communication, that is not an excuse for a gametype not to be fun. There is no communication on CS publics either, and yet it's fun because the gametype perfectly fits the playing style. I think one of the most important lessons we should take from the game's decade long history is that there is no point in blaming the players when something isn't working. It's our job to make it fun, period. :)

[itx]

I'm Sorry, but this discusion sounds to me like "i haven't enough skill to counter campers so please give me tools to be hitler in my server and make them play like i want"

This game is super fast compared to most FPS games, you have a lot of ways for punish a static player.

In competitions use this would be ridiculous. But for people that only plays in public sr8 only servers or TDM, sure they will applaud this.

This post has been edited by itx: 06 July 2015 - 01:38 AM

[Ikslorin]

Thanks for the thorough reply, Zenity, of which I agree on each and every point and argument. As I said I have no qualifications for talking on this subject, so sorry if it wasn't useful. I wrote it, because frankly... game design fascinates me.