Team play

Teamplay is overrated...*waits to be pummled by other players*
But seriously folks, with newbies coming in everyday and used to the run and gun style of gameplay- we'll always have rambos. I try to enact some teamplay but not everyone is willing to put out the effort. Huh, I said put out. Anyway, until that EAS thing comes out......I'm your worst nightmare.....Adrian!!!!

I suck and can't aim so they should reduce the running speed.

Because i suck and can't aim the guy running kills me before i kill him so they should make it so you can't use a scope while running.

That is the whole argument right there in a nutshel.

Don't make running slower cuz you suck. I can hit a running target just fine. And it don't matter if he using a scope or not.

I run with a scope, wanna know why? I get +10 fps if i'm scoped. You would think that the "tunneled" vision thing woudl be enough. But nope, since you suck you gotta pick out more ways to modify the game so you maybe won't suck so much.

It takes a good player to run with a scope and still be effective. You have to always be looking around because you can't see ****.

You poeple make it sound like using a scope gives you some huge bonus while running. Give me a break. If you used a scope you would see teh drawbacks. Or if you even played the game for that matter.

making moving slower only gives you poeple the idea that someone can't be solo, you are a dumb**** if you think this. It makes absoulty no differance what the running speed is. A good player can go solo no matter what. Espically since the game is the same for everyone, not like only the solo player is gunna be slow.

Originally posted by JasonBook
Teamplay is overrated...*waits to be pummled by other players*

Click to expand...

Teamplay is WAY overrated. Run and gun is how video games are, you will never change that. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

R-Force, speak you of the many games we've played? Almost every time i join a game, i try to organize. BC, i've covered your ass more than once, agree that teamplay is good if you know what you're doing. Sometimes, no matter how hard i try, i just can't get people to co-operate. Oh well, you win some you lose some. You win alot more if you listen to me

LordPerrin

Today I was trying to play as a team, but it seemed I was the only one who wanted too, arg, oh well, if ever you're on the same team as me, I will play as a team, as long as you do too.

wanna see teamplay? go get a 64 player server going.

Browncow...

I disagree about your point with the scopes. Truth be told, I sometimes use scopes in CQB as well, but not for the fps... it's to see. I own a RAVE card, and my computer is nex to a window, I get about 14 fps, I am suffering from the same smypotms as you do. The only reason I use a scope is to see on some maps like Kosovo or MWH and the like. If all the guns in the game had flashlights, you wouldn't catch me dead using a scope.

BECAUSE ITS UNREALISTIC.

You would lose a damn eye if you RAN with your eye to a scope. Watch it hit the ground, than you bash your eye to pieces when it smacks into the scope.
Come to think of it, that might be a *fun* solution

Not everyone sucks and they can't aim... I am willing to bet alot of playeres on these forums are kick ass players. Not to brag, but I "usually" place 1st-3rd place, averaging about 2 kills per round (makes me feel bad if I can only kill one or no guys a round... it, like you brough up, means I am not doing my part for the team).

For examaple, I could go to my LAN place and play CS, and totally dominate the opposition... even though it is "hollywood" realstic. Not that it isn't fun; I think it is, but I don't like it nearly as much as INF.

And hitting targets with the scope is a hell of alot easier than aiming with iron sights in the dark (or light for that matter). You can never go wrong with an ACOG. Use one, and your score will rise exponentially.

It does NOT take that much skill to use an ACOG. Actually, it takes very little skill compared to iron sights. And it gives you a HUGE bonus. Ever wonder why ALMOST every player on the publics bring with them either a shotgun, M16/ACOG/M203 or Sig551/ACOG/LAM? Because they are unbalanced currently... people will use the unbalanced weapon.

And moving slower DOES ecnourage more teamwork. Just try Strike-Force. THere is literally tons of teamwork now that players alone are not nearly as effective (though there are occurences... one man killing five men is enough cause for a salute).

Browncow, if you are really good at the game without teammates, than why worry about these changes? You can *still* kick ass like you said, it makes no damn difference. So why not let people who want teamwork have these changes?

yurch: Can UT support up to 64 players? And if it can, I can't imagine the framerates

Elite Soldier, I don't know if UT can handle 64 players...I kinda doubt it. But I can imagine the frame rate..... 0.

teamwork isn't just groups of people running around in a big mob, or just two people covering each other - it can be one person running ahead so as to draw the attention of a sniper, or it is a guy acting as bait to lure the enemy into a deadly crossfire from a few well-defended positions. This is the type of teamwork that wins rounds and yes, it does need cooperation between players.

.

Best solution just pick up some players that want to play together. You can usually pickup 2 or 3 on a team and that can make your team win.

However I believe it to be bad policy to exercise power in order to impose one's will upon another person. That in itself is BS.

You can curve the game towards a certain play style but to force a player into a style only limits your audience. If this is taken to far you only drive people away from the game. Some people may be happy with it but what fun is that when there is no one else to play with. AGAIN

elieve it to be bad policy to exercise power in order to impose one's will upon another person. That in itself is BS.

That has nothing to do with the way I like to play, I'm only looking at this in a subjective manner. Encouraging people to play one way works, forcing people only brings about negative impacts. That has to do with everything, why do children rebel? not because they had the proper encouragement to do good but because they were forced to do good. Its a basic fundamental in life and I hope they apply this rational to their changes in the game.

In other words: DONT TAKE IT TOO FAR.

Most maps have more then 1 route to the enemy so my best thought yet is to take 2 peeps walking close (not 2 close! those damn nades can kill ya both!), this way, u get some back up and you wont walk past ur enemies any more!

hmm..

Well i was just reading the first post that started this all:

I was thinking, actually the tunnel you describe in chasm is one of the places i think a rambo COULD do well...

There are far better maps that DO have a lot to do with team play though....i just don't think Chasm is it.

There are some problems that prevent teamplay at the moment (the not-so obvious ones)

[#] At some point you'll be familiar with the map. You know the map inside out, but the newbie who just entered the match doesnt. In that case most people will not help the newbie but run on. If all players start in a new map, they will propably be more careful. Usually, you have an idea as of where the enemy will be coming from and which routes are usually safe. With new maps; you dont know that.

Now, this problem is propably impossible to prevent. You need some sort of a randomizer that changes the map or something. Kind of hard....i know.

[#] You know who you're fighting. Press 'F1' and you're there; you've got a list of all opposing players and you may even recognize names and remember the skill-level at which these players play. Although not automatically unrealistic, i do no think that's fair that you know that up-front. In most RL combat you won't know who's fighting you. At best; you'll have an estimated size, not the exact size of the opposing force.

My point is that, because you know who you're playing against, you'll have some idea of what you can expect. Players might be more careful if they're fighting against a force of unknown size and skill. Just a thought. Maybe you should only be able to see the team-size or maybe even only an estimate (like 'total team size' +/- random seed).

[#] Most players have different means of communicating. Sometimes a friendly will simply try to make eye-contact to 'tell' you that can move ahead. Other players (which happened to me once) try to show you what they want you to do, for example clearing the next area, by making a gesture to move.

Most players use the built-in voices and that is the best way to figure out what to do. Still, it's sometimes quite difficult to see who said what. You can see the name of the player who said it, and usually a rough indication of the location, but if you're teamplaying with a bunch of players who're walking together, it's not an easy task to see who said what (or you have to point your gun at each and every one of them). In real life you'd have different voices, different faces and....in short: different models.

----

These are just some thoughts. The first two i havent seen before on this board, but the last one has been discussed several times.

In general; i'm 100% pro-teamplay. It makes INF a lot more fun. The problem is that it's a game, and there are limits to the realism. Sometimes the problems as described by me and others can be solved only with un-realistic solutions.

any1 ever played swat3? the cool thing about that game is the com system, u can order a friendly to move and clear, to cover ur ass, to get the hell away, to trow a f-bang etc... maybe an idea 4 INF!
The problem, I see an enemy, i run 4 cover, I hear some1 tell me "Ive got u covered! move in!" i move, and the dude was talking to some1 else.... Me dead.... The solution, spreading the messages only to players who would be able to hear it! like all friendlies (maybe even enemies...) in 25 meters...
what do u think? dumb - smart - smart but i wont use it anyhow! - Dont give a damn!

Originally posted by GroundShock
[#] You know who you're fighting. Press 'F1' and you're there; you've got a list of all opposing players and you may even recognize names and remember the skill-level at which these players play. Although not automatically unrealistic, i do no think that's fair that you know that up-front. In most RL combat you won't know who's fighting you. At best; you'll have an estimated size, not the exact size of the opposing force.

My point is that, because you know who you're playing against, you'll have some idea of what you can expect. Players might be more careful if they're fighting against a force of unknown size and skill. Just a thought. Maybe you should only be able to see the team-size or maybe even only an estimate (like 'total team size' +/- random seed).

Click to expand...

Ok, i'm no genius, as many many poeple know. ANd i've actually sat and watched some of the Patriot. I'm not concerned with the "real" aspect of that movie. Just one scene which i think is very accurat. When Mel Gibson's character tells his army friend poeple that his infantry will stand and fight. Because their infantry has been known to break lines. Now, the army they fought knew exacty what to expect. They knew the "skill level" of their opponents.

So i disagree with the above quote. There are plenty of examples you could use. SOme armys are just known for some things. You have a good idea of what you are fighting before you fight it. If you don't, fire your army intelligance staff.

Not knowing who and who many players you are fighting won't make me more careful. I'm careful now. It will just make the game more impersonal.


You gotta consider. A new inf player comes in a server, just got done with his game of quake or cs. He is going to have to get used to all this new stuff. I, personally wouldn't give it 10 minutes, if it has too much right off the bat it isn't worth my time. It maybe better once i know how to do everything, but you gotta make it in steps...

Right now a newbie has to get used to the loadout system, a new aiming sytem. stamina, all the new buttons, leaning, prone, weapon mode switch, ect ect.. THen you want to make him have to learn how to communicate with teammates well. Move in a group, use teamwork!? That is some complicated **** right there. And on top of that, he doesn't get to know who he is playing against or anything... poor guy. That is why he will go back to cs and quake and not stay and explore inf.

Originally posted by Rostam
any1 ever played swat3? the cool thing about that game is the com system, u can order a friendly to move and clear, to cover ur ass, to get the hell away, to trow a f-bang etc... maybe an idea 4 INF!
The problem, I see an enemy, i run 4 cover, I hear some1 tell me "Ive got u covered! move in!" i move, and the dude was talking to some1 else.... Me dead.... The solution, spreading the messages only to players who would be able to hear it! like all friendlies (maybe even enemies...) in 25 meters...
what do u think? dumb - smart - smart but i wont use it anyhow! - Dont give a damn!

Click to expand...

I agree with the distance thing. If you say something only close players should hear it... I'd say that for typing and the voice commands. And again, i wouldn't use it, but oh well. Err actually, i treat "talking" as using a wakie takie.. So in that case i think everyone should hear because everyone would be listening.. I guess it would depend on weather or not this is a "swat" thing or a big "army" thing. Every solider in an army doesn't carry a communication device, but if you were a swat team they would all have ear pieces i assume...

I dunno how many small force operations use a freak'n hk69 over a m16/m203 combo, so i guess i believe inf is a larger scale army simulator. Unless they are mixing.. spit swapers!!

SWAT has LASH (Los Angelas SWAT Headset) to talk, but a SWAT team always moves very close to each other... my example wouldnt count 4 SWAT cuz they move around very thight...

oops.. when i said swat i ment more like small group stuff.. Not exactly swat.. small number warfare as opposed to large scale warfare.. that is what i ment!!

i win i win i win i win!!!

what did i win!?

nothing.... dur..

now you did it...

yes, i have seen a 64(or was it 32?) player server, in plain jane ut. Telefrags everywhere.

What is a rambo? it first meant someone who rushed things with no regard for his own life. But it seems you ppl have attached this this term to everything...
Everything based on attacking.
Now most of the time, people defending are called this:
A camper.
So either be called one or another.
Team deathmatch, as it is, is probly the WORST example of a team game i have seen in ANY game.
All it is, is a Seek and Destroy mission.
while others are seeking to destroy you. A deathmatch where you aren't supposed to shoot half of the characters in it(teamates). It may even DISCOURAGE teamwork - spliting up is a better way to find the enemy, and to avoid detection.
"a sniper's worst enemy is attention"
I have seen browncow play - he is not a rambo (according to the original definition) He is an attacker, and he uses a perfectly valid divide and conquer strategy - you will never see him running into the open arms of the enemy. Instead, he will (quickly) pick you off, one by one.
If you want teamplay, go play ctf, assault, or even domination. There are no objectives, no goals, no positions of advantage(barring a few maps) that even promote teamplay, in "team"deathmatch. If you want teamplay, you have to require it. Put m2hbs all over a building, and make it a friggin fortress. Then everyone will want to be there - and need teamwork to man the guns/take them back.
Look at an overhead view of a sicily battle - BOTH teams are ramboing it.
There has to be an attack/defend cycle for teamplay. Right now, theres nothing to defend.
A teamdeathmatch would be better with unlimited lives - at least then you have to defend your spawn point so you dont get shot in the back.

Ok, i'm no genius, as many many poeple know. ANd i've actually sat and watched some of the Patriot. I'm not concerned with the "real" aspect of that movie. Just one scene which i think is very accurat. When Mel Gibson's character tells his army friend poeple that his infantry will stand and fight. Because their infantry has been known to break lines. Now, the army they fought knew exacty what to expect. They knew the "skill level" of their opponents.

Click to expand...

(by 'BrownCow')

.... why dont i use 'quote in post when i can...????'. nm...on with it.

That's not really a very realistic comparison now is it? We're talking about an almost open-field battle here. I've seen the movie too (nice movie btw) and it's just a whole different ball-game. I play warhammer, some people might be familiar with the game, it's a table-top wargame with large miniature armies. I know what i'm fighting only when the other players chooses to unload the boxes of miniatures and sets up his units and positions them across the field. This is a different thing than the urban, street-to-street, fighting that takes place in INF. Sure, you don't always play in urban areas, but you certainly dont play on open-field maps (or you have to count Chita64 as one). The point is that, right now, the information you have is TOO accurate. In RL you just wouldn't know the names of the enemies, the related skill-level and other such things (like their ping....lol). You cant simply discard my thought as 'well. you usually know something about the enemy'. that's too easy browncow. Sure, you know, to some extent, how many enemies you can expect, you may know what weapons they're carrying and you'll usually know where they're coming from. Right now you know their name, you can (but not always do) know their skill-level and most of all; you know the map. Most players are familiar with most of the maps that are cycled on the public servers. This means that, after playing the maps a bit, you become TOO familiar with the maps. You start using a specific pattern. You learn which routes the opponents are most likely to take and you know which routes are usually safe.

This is not a realistic thing. Most often you have no clue what the 'map' looks like. You may some satellite data, or other recon-data, but you dont know it in complete detail. Secondly, you usually dont fight a battle in the same area again. In INF, that's exactly what happens. My point here is that experienced players know the maps so well that they usually feel that they dont need backup.

If you'd be dumped in a completely new map (i do that sometimes when i see a server with a beta-map or something) you play VERY differently. You don't rust, you don't rambo (i do that too sometimes.... ): you follow others! People basically follow each other with one of them leading the rest. The leader doesnt know the map any better than the rest, so he's just as careful. Everyone is looking around and behind them. They dont know where the sniper positions are, they dont know if the enemy can encircle them and they dont know where the enemy is coming from. This is reality! And that's my point.

Dont start with examples of where this doesnt apply. We're talking INF here, not battles between infantry, archers and cannons on a large field. I think that my point is just. I know that it's practically undoable to change this 'problem' so you could say 'why bother'. But the fact remains that a lot of people feel that teamplay should be enforced to a much larger extend. In response i give some ideas as to why teamplay isn't working. Please comment that!

Right now teamplay doesnt work. And it will not work if, at least, the 'problems' described in this and my earlier post are solved. that's my 5 pence.