krise madsen

MP: Assymetric Warfare

141 posts in this topic

I'm not entirely sure if this has been suggested already or if it really belong in an existing thread, but here it goes: (Note to mods: If this fits better in an existing thread feel free to move it)

 

I've been thinking about how to bring something new to MP gaming and came up with an idea. However:

 

A) It is not fully thought through.

 

B) I'm not into MP gaming so I'm not the best at figuring out how/if it would work.

 

Anyhew, here it goes.

 

Team A has a mission. Team B has no mission except to to prevent team A from completing its mission. Team B does not know what Team A's mission is. If team A accomplishes its mission, then Team A wins. If team A does not accomplish its mission, then Team B wins.

 

Different missions are generated for the same map at random.

 

An example:

 

Team A is tasked with blowing up a bridge somewhere on the map. It doesn't matter how they do it: Sneak a single guy in with a C4 pack and blow the bridge. An all-out assault on the bridge or kill off every enemy player on the map and then blow up the bridge (requires no respawns).

 

Team B has no idea what Team A is up to, nor where on the map their objective is. All they know is that Team A is up to something. So they have to act accordingly: Send out patrols/sentries to spot Team A and be ready to react to what these sentries/patrols report.

 

Other game types could be to capture a particular location on the map (within X minutes). Hold a particular location on the map (for X minutes), kill a certain number of Team B, attain a certain kill ratio or maybe keep X number of team members alive for X number of minutes. I'm sure you can come up with others. Or the mission could be to kill a certain member of Team B (like a team leader).

 

Both the mission and any locations are selected at random: Blowing up something could be the bridge, a bunker, a building, an aeroplane or whatever.

 

Since Team B is forced to react to what happens during the game (while Team A, knowing the mission, can devise a more elaborate plan), Team balance will probably favor Team B in terms of quantity (number of team mates) and/or quality (weapons/equipment availible).

 

I can foresee a couple of issues: Properly balancing the maps can be difficult, especially since missions are selected at random. Also, rounds can deteriorate into slug fests as both sides simply try to wipe out the opposition rather than carry out more elaborate mission plans.

 

Again, I play very little MP so I need the input of experienced MP players to tell me if this will work or not.

 

Discuss.

 

Respectfully

 

krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, rounds can deteriorate into slug fests as both sides simply try to wipe out the opposition rather than carry out more elaborate mission plans.
Rewards for completing the mission. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some interesting things you've stated. Some games that I played via clan or alone failed in my eyes just because it was all about run and gun. You could play as a team, moving together, covering each other and all that, but in the end, it is all about your k/d ration, not about the objective or the way it is accomplished. If GB is to be a realistic tactical FPS, then an objective in MP would be a good way to go.

 

I'll add to krises idea. BLUE team attacks, RED team defends.

 

After the objective is completed, BLUE team must extract to the chopper/boat/any transport vehicle in order for mission to be completed. Also, to prevent the RED team from simply camping at the BLUE team extraction point, having random extraction points all over the map would be good to.

 

Let's use a blackhawk for extraction. It can come and land at any part of the map which allows it to land and pick up the BLUE team. RED team can delay the extraction by shooting rpg-s at the blackhawk, forcing it to find another spot to approach and land to pick the team up. That makes the extraction that more difficult cause the BLUE team now has to move to another extraction point.

 

You can play with this idea. Example, limiting respawns for both teams after BLUE team finishes the objective, this making the extraction much more interesting. If the chopper is forced away from the extraction point, it can come back but after certain amount of time, making the survival until the bird arrives more interesting.

 

I will add more later on. Good post Krise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Blackhawk idea, I like it alot. The simplest way to stop people from going for K/D or individual points would be to only calculate team points, and perhaps only show individual scores out of game. Reward for completing an objective could be a team vote for the next objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, rounds can deteriorate into slug fests as both sides simply try to wipe out the opposition rather than carry out more elaborate mission plans.

Yep, that's the biggest problem. I haven't seen any game that managed to eliminate this problem (maybe there are games out there that fixed this, I don't play a lot of games). Any game type will deteriorate into team death match as long as a team can win by killing the other team. People just ignore the objectives and kill the other team to win. This always happens (on regular public servers that is)... I haven't thought about solutions yet, but I think it's the biggest problem which needs to be addressed before any objective based adversarial game type can be a success....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the Blackhawk idea, I like it alot. The simplest way to stop people from going for K/D or individual points would be to only calculate team points, and perhaps only show individual scores out of game. Reward for completing an objective could be a team vote for the next objective.

 

You have something there. Although I don't mind knowing how many peps did I kill, for most of the players that's all that matters, thus their efforts toward the teamwork and the objective go down the toiltet.

 

There might be a statistic option for each player but outside the game. Over there you can take a look at your scores on maps or what ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the problem with objective based player versus player game types. In case of 5 versus 5 players the game is minimized to team deathmatch even unintentionally, when players simply defeat their opponents in a firefight.

And since I find it absurd if the single remaining player has to go for a military target/objective alone, which means that if about half of the team is dead or only one survives the game must end, that would create an even more absurd team deathmatch situation.

 

So far I have only seen respawns or reinforcements (a more elegant respawn system) solving this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams bound to a radius?

 

Blue team can see a faded 75M Blue circle on the map, which moves when team leader moves. All know they must stay inside that radius.

 

Red Team same.

 

If Red team spotted a target, they now would be able to assume other areas of the map that could not have enemy in, due to radius, and allowing flanking tactics.

 

Just a idea.

 

Penalties for being outside radius, death, swap weapon to a flag, warning message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you end up with people abusing the team leader "class" by not moving or going AFK.

Edited by Copperhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To keep it from becoming a traditional TDM game is to give both teams an objective. Blue wins if it reaches it's objective and Red wins if it keeps Blue from reaching it (defend situation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone played Combat Mission: Shock Force? It's an RTS/combat simulator. If you look at the objective system in that game, it was pretty much built for asymmetrical warfare. It was still great playing very one sided games (objectives/available forces/equipment wise), since you could still win even if you were very soundly defeated in a more traditional sense.

 

The objectives were also pretty much completely secret to the other team. You would have to wait for the other player to make their move before you really knew what it was they were going after (and even then, it could just be a feint). Each objective had a point value associated with it, and you received points based on percent completion (ie, % for kill or prevent losses objectives, bulk points for goto, destroy, survive, etc objectives), and the winner at the end is determined by who has the most points. You almost always had multiple objectives, sometimes conflicting with your own, sometimes conflicting with the enemy, and very often, having nothing to do with the enemy at all. This made sure that a lot of the time, contact with the enemy was the last thing you wanted (and will help with firefight degeneration here). Note that this was a true tactical game and very much focused on initial shock/suppression, then attrition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Restricting players movement throughout the map is not really NORG. Look at it this way.

 

BLUE team has an objective and RED team does not know what the objective is, only that they need to stop BLUE team from accomplishing it. Let's say that the objective is to blow up enemy fuel depo, NW of the map. I divide my team of let's say 8 players into two teams. In one team, I send 6 players and send them on a bogus attack toward a bridge or what ever object that could potentially be the objective of my team. RED team, not knowing what my objective really is engages my 6 man squad. While they fight around a bridge that serves no purpose to me, I walk to the fuel depo with one man covering me, and blow it up. Restricting players into radius would not allow me to do this.

 

Map sizes and possible objectives have a great impact on this game type. If there are only 3 possible objectives (as seen in GRAW 2 RvS game type), RED team can simply divide into 3 groups and babysit those objectives. When they see me attacking one of those 3 objectives, they simply regroup the rest of the gang to that objective and you get your usual "prevent them from destroying the objective" kind of game type.

 

To balance the game type even more, certain spawn restrictions need to be implemented. For example, reinforcements are available every 5-10-15 minutes (depends on the duration of the game). Meaning, if you get killed you can't spawn until the reinforcement time window comes.

 

Add to all this my earlier post about extraction and they way it can be handeled, and you got yourself a fairly fun gamy type.

 

Like always, there is more to add in this, and I will do so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One Team in mission mode other Team in Recon mode, recon team should have brief explaining they do need to cover certain areas, then its up to recon team how they proceed.

 

Mission team would start second once recon team has key ares locked down.

 

You could if you really needed to try this is do it in gr orig, have 2 teams in the lobby have one team recon and the other mission give them a small brief, I would say though it would have to be done a newish map one that not many players are familiar with, or a map with plenty of options on it.

 

I like the idea Krise its good could be a lot of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But still, why not just kill the other team instead of going after the objective?? Because that's what will happen. (most) People in pub servers don't give a damn about an objective if they just as easily can kill the entire other team to win the round/match. Take RvS for example, none of the "objective" based modes (hostage, bomb etc.) will ever be played using the true objectives because everyone just kills each other and green or red wins. We need a system so that it is not only more profitable to complete the objectives but also the only way to win...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But still, why not just kill the other team instead of going after the objective?? Because that's what will happen. (most) People in pub servers don't give a damn about an objective if they just as easily can kill the entire other team to win the round/match. Take RvS for example, none of the "objective" based modes (hostage, bomb etc.) will ever be played using the true objectives because everyone just kills each other and green or red wins. We need a system so that it is not only more profitable to complete the objectives but also the only way to win...

 

The question is, why do people play like that?

 

My answer, or at least what I think is the reason, is the kill and death ration and it's display. When there is a k/d ratio display, people only care about being on top of the list after every round. If the list is about objectives and players actions that led to the objective (without number of enemies he killed) would (with normal people) should give them a reason to go for the objective instead on a killing spree.

 

If my buddy is setting up a bomb on a bridge and someone tries to kill him, if I succesfully give him cover by killing that guy, I get "points" for helping him complete his assignment. --> Things like that are what I have in mind. I do realize that would be a pain in the %$& to program, but if it's possible and takes away that "run and gun so I can be the top dog on the list" kind of players, it's a success with those that want to play squad based, tactical shooter.

 

The goal is to remove what makes people go only for the kills and put in place something that makes them want to complete the objectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Know Krise well enough to say he would like this idea to be aimed at the tatical player on dedicated servers that would host such a game type.

 

It would be a team based game type, reason we as team members would appreciate such a mod and very much enjoy it.

This is definatley not based at the kill ratio player.

 

Yes agreed,

 

"The goal is to remove what makes people go only for the kills and put in place something that makes them want to complete the objectives." Grimm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or make the defending team larger than the attacking team so that the attacking team has to rely on stealth and coordinated attacks because they are in minority, and so discouraging it from turning it into a deathmatch round. Also the defending team could have some respawns and the attacking team not (to simulate reinforcements).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
..."The goal is to remove what makes people go only for the kills and put in place something that makes them want to complete the objectives." Grimm

get rid of the score/leader board. Only award points to the TEAM that completes the OBJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or make the defending team larger than the attacking team so that the attacking team has to rely on stealth and coordinated attacks because they are in minority, and so discouraging it from turning it into a deathmatch round. Also the defending team could have some respawns and the attacking team not (to simulate reinforcements).

 

How about this. Both teams have reinforcements, in certain time windows (as explained in one of the earlier posts). BUT, defending team spawns in their base camp, some village or something similair, while the attacking team gets their reinforcements via blackhawk.

 

In order for attacking teams to receive reinforcements, they need to be in a safe zone so the chopper can fly above them and reinforcements can rope in. Why should this be done in this way? Same as extraction (also explained in the post above). Defending team could rpg the chopper thus making in unable for deploying troops unless the team is in the safe zone. The chopper can also give away teams position.

 

It's 1 am over here and I'm dead tired. I'll edit this post tomorrow, when I get all of it straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be better if the attaching team didn't get respawns. IMO this would keep the feel of a small SF team up against a large enemy force. How about giving the defending team some time to set up? That way they will be able to get patrols out and set up positions like an actual group defending an objective would. They still wouldn't be able to camp on all of the objectives because of how many there are. The attacking team could then pick there starting point and come in by blackhawk or whatever other option might be around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not opposed to Objective based game play but jesus you guy's seem to think that they wont be off playing in the TDM servers, which means they will not be bothering you.

 

If they do venture into the realm of OBG (object based games) you're going to need a little patience with them as you can't tell them exactly how to play or dictate how they should play.

 

another flaw that I see in you're plan is a big emphasis on the score with a kill/death ratio, with or with out it, it wont effect how they play during the match... the only thing that really matters is if the team wins by only detonating the explosives or killing the opposing team.... both of which usually determine success in todays games, if you remove the win by team elimination then you're facing games with respawns enabled, which brings back the stupid gamer who fears nothing for himself... so either way you're going to need to tough it out as theres only so much you can do...

 

 

In the end I think you guys are still no matter what going to face the stupid PUBBERS... let me remind you what PUB means, public server with random guys that could have played 1 map before joining or spending 5 months dedicated to the game, with a great range of skill difference...

 

 

take for example R vs A where on the recon side we had 1 remaining sniper, who spent the whole entire time just picking people off as they re-re-re-re-re-respawned.... until he got killed

 

Stupidity is a disease that has no cure, no matter what you do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone played Combat Mission: Shock Force? It's an RTS/combat simulator. If you look at the objective system in that game, it was pretty much built for asymmetrical warfare. It was still great playing very one sided games (objectives/available forces/equipment wise), since you could still win even if you were very soundly defeated in a more traditional sense.

 

The objectives were also pretty much completely secret to the other team. You would have to wait for the other player to make their move before you really knew what it was they were going after (and even then, it could just be a feint). Each objective had a point value associated with it, and you received points based on percent completion (ie, % for kill or prevent losses objectives, bulk points for goto, destroy, survive, etc objectives), and the winner at the end is determined by who has the most points. You almost always had multiple objectives, sometimes conflicting with your own, sometimes conflicting with the enemy, and very often, having nothing to do with the enemy at all. This made sure that a lot of the time, contact with the enemy was the last thing you wanted (and will help with firefight degeneration here). Note that this was a true tactical game and very much focused on initial shock/suppression, then attrition.

 

i think Tunabreath is on the right track here - pity most ppl missed it it seems...so let's get it back at the top.

 

this concept is sound, and in fact, if we scrap the point system all together for number of kills achieved or by being last man standing then we are on the way to creating great MP.

 

if you're scoring points for %age of objectives achieved then at the end of the game regardless of kills, the team who has completed most of their objectives is the winning team.

 

obviously, there is a benefit to engaging the enemy to slow down their progress but it is no longer the key focus...there is a lot more at stake now, a lot more to consider.

 

add multiple onjectives to the mission and suddenly teams have to plan their mission as well as coordinate it successfully.

 

im sure this is the path it should be heading....

 

not to say that some missions wouldnt be solely firefight last man standing.

 

the main thing is just to eliminate the idea that regardless of mission objectives - if you kill everyone you win anyway.

just build it around the %age of mission objectives achieved successfully when game ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of my motivation for this idea is to introduce some fog of war, at least for one of the teams:

 

You don't know what the enemy is up to, only that he's trying to complete some sort of mission and that you have to stop him. The team that has the mission has the benefit that they know what they have to do to win so they can lay a more elaborate plan, gain a serious advantage from using stealth and employ such nefarious tricks as diversionary attacks. More than anything, I was hoping that it could eliminate the tactic of everyone running for the same choke points once they've learned the map as well as camping at the objective(s).

 

The missions aren't necessarily limited to geographical locations either. A mission could be to play for X minutes with a certain kill/death ratio. Or killing at least half the enemy team (or some other percentage). Or keeping at least half (or some other percentage) of the team alive until the end of the round.

 

Random selection of missions/objectives is of course vital for this to work. And as Lightspeed noted multiple objectives would certainly spice things up and promote proper planning, coordination and teamplay. Imagine your mission is to capture a base, but at the same time keep at least half your team alive. It could make for some interesting gameplay IMO.

 

It could also be interesting if both sides had a mission, unknown to the opposition. Which could lead to the situation that both sides won. Though I do believe that both game types would be interesting in their own right.

 

I really don't have any solution for the problem of the teams simply trying to wipe out the enemy to win. Respawns would do the trick but that's obviously not going to satisfy everyone. Time limits could help as well. And just to make it especially nasty, the time limits could be known only to the team with a mission, or unknown to both.

 

And as Colin said, I specifically have tactical team players in mind with this :thumbsup: If everyone is running around doing their own thing then they are almost guaranteed to loose every time. Or at least I suspect so, not being an MP gamer myself.

 

Respectfully

 

krise madsen

Edited by krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose giving the defending team knowledge of Viable assets they own that could be potential targets which can be used...

 

for example whats the point of guarding a ammo cache if theres nothing to gain physically from it, aka being able to restock ammo, grenades, replace broken ceramic plates...

 

on another note I could see "them" being done in AA where they have to keep the opposing team from freeing a hostage, and stopping them from detonating the electronics in a black hawk that might unlock some benefit like the equipment stored onboard, enemy radio's, ammo on board, etc...

 

 

while I know that most defenders shouldn't have rank as a standard grunt to go into an armory and load up on whatever he wants.... but to not use the assets given or arround to you to stop the other team from destroying those assets seems a bit retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think Tunabreath is on the right track here - pity most ppl missed it it seems...so let's get it back at the top.

 

this concept is sound, and in fact, if we scrap the point system all together for number of kills achieved or by being last man standing then we are on the way to creating great MP.

 

if you're scoring points for %age of objectives achieved then at the end of the game regardless of kills, the team who has completed most of their objectives is the winning team.

 

obviously, there is a benefit to engaging the enemy to slow down their progress but it is no longer the key focus...there is a lot more at stake now, a lot more to consider.

 

add multiple onjectives to the mission and suddenly teams have to plan their mission as well as coordinate it successfully.

 

im sure this is the path it should be heading....

 

not to say that some missions wouldnt be solely firefight last man standing.

 

the main thing is just to eliminate the idea that regardless of mission objectives - if you kill everyone you win anyway.

just build it around the %age of mission objectives achieved successfully when game ends.

 

I seem to recall Germ Warfare being somewhat like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now