[Lightspeed]

I am an open minded person so I will never dismiss anything outright but consider it with an open mind. I ask ppl who reply in this thread to open your minds when you reply.

Having played COD for a few days a week ago or so I obviously got to experience the kill streaks which unlock particular perks like air support, turrets, sensors, drones etc.

While some and possibly all of them (I don't know for sure) are completely unrealistic it got me thinking that there must be cases in combat where a perk (support) can be called upon by a team who is completely and hopelessly pinned down and needs some outside help if available. My first thoughts are an arty strike, air strike, etc.

If GB wants to be realistic and it does, then should it be a consideration that in some cases and as realistically as possible outside support can be called upon to help a team out in an emergency situation. If so, what would the time delay be, what sort of support could be called upon. Would there be a safe range/distance required b4 support could deliver a striked, etc.

One of the reasons that I think about these things is bcoz obviously there is a large player base out there who find perks sexy. While GB wouldn't don't want to sell out to the other games, it is possible that some areas of the Perks have merit.

I think this is another area that deserves some consideration and healthy discussion.

Initial thoughts if a Perk (External Support) was considered:
*Could only be applied in exceptional circumstances.
*Not for a player but for a team - maybe within the hands of one member of the team.
*Not based on a kill streak.
*Not instantly available, i.e would have a time delay of 2 minutes or so, so team has to dig in and hold out for this last ditch lifeline.

I am prepared for the backlash...plz reply.

[Witzbold]

The problem with perks, is that it requires balancing. If not, you wind up with the same 2 out of 10 always being used for example.

Realistic "perks" so to speak, would be generally how said team communicates and picks their load out, depending on what they want to do. Granted this isnt a feature and just an example situation. You have a Combat Controller type of loadout for one guy, he gets taken out. There goes your CAS for the team.

Overall do not think that perks have any real place in this particular title. Now if this was doing something a bit less focused on having a more authentic experience, then sure. Or if John wanted to make a more "arcade" type of mode.

Once again you make your own perks once again, by being smart about your own kit and teams kit, depending on the task at hand and what you know about the current map in play.

[Psychomorph]

CoD has perks, because otherwise the game would be boring. GB will not be otherwise boring.

[Jonathan Conley]

There is absolutely no way we are going to be designing and supporting any sort of unlock or perk system.  Let me just, respectfully, put a big "Stamp of Disapproval" on that one, in the event that anyone ever doubted us on that.  Never, ever, never, forever.  Sorry, it's just not the game we want to design.

That said, some of the game modes we are designing for multiplayer will rely on some scripting (randomized vehicular insertions for an assaulting team to allow the defenders some time to organize and set up defenses).  If there's a way to have things like an air strike in there, where it makes sense, and fits within the design of the game, we will try to include it (something like that would be one of the "objectives" for a certain team to accomplish to meet the win conditions of the map).  It would likely also be map-specific (for example: if we have a CQB-focused city map, we're not going to allow you to call in any sort of air strikes).

[BOTA:49]

In most games I've been fond of the thought of "death streaks" (doing so bad that the game gives you a little competitive edge, and I believe they were added to the Call of Duty titles post Black Ops), but kill streaks (reward a winning side with another advantage) just doesn't work IMO.  While it would be nice to call in an A10 or Cobra for support, I really don't think the maps would be large enough to properly support these features in a realistic manner.  There is also the issue you mentioned with a time delay.  I don't think that would work well either as most rounds would most likely be over in the time frame needed to realistically portray said event.  Then, as Witz said, you run into balancing issues that just shouldn't exist.

[Witzbold]

Psychomorph, on 06 June 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

CoD has perks, because otherwise the game would be boring. GB will not be otherwise boring.

That really adds nothing to the conversation Psychomorph... Its the same thing as saying "IT SUCKS, THIS WONT SUCK!"

[Lightspeed]

Jonathan Conley, on 06 June 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

There is absolutely no way we are going to be designing and supporting any sort of unlock or perk system.  Let me just, respectfully, put a big "Stamp of Disapproval" on that one, in the event that anyone ever doubted us on that.  Never, ever, never, forever.  Sorry, it's just not the game we want to design.

That said, some of the game modes we are designing for multiplayer will rely on some scripting (randomized vehicular insertions for an assaulting team to allow the defenders some time to organize and set up defenses).  If there's a way to have things like an air strike in there, where it makes sense, and fits within the design of the game, we will try to include it (something like that would be one of the "objectives" for a certain team to accomplish to meet the win conditions of the map).  It would likely also be map-specific (for example: if we have a CQB-focused city map, we're not going to allow you to call in any sort of air strikes).

This sounds good so far.Note, I did not mention unlock.And by Perk I am really talking about a form of realistic external support not a novelty 'toy' per se.Again, I'm not saying we should just thought worthwhile to have a chat about it to see if external support in some form has any merit in a combat situation.

[Witzbold]

Try to give some more specific examples and ideas behind implementing them, if not only for conversation sake.

[Lightspeed]

Well as I said I'm far from being the expert but I'm sure there are enough serving military or ex who might be able to offer some input.

If, for example, allied forces were engaged in combat by a large number of Taliban forces and flanked on all sides. They radio in for support to CentCom or equivalent that they're heavily outnumbered and have no fallback position. We require air support on x position to clear a path for us to fallback to.

Thirty seconds later - copy that. Sixty seconds later airstrike on x position.

Squad moves out of hot zone.

Would happen? Could happen? Would never happen?

I'm just interested to know at this point. And if it would happen then should it be considered (assuming we are aiming for maximum realism).

[jwp1223]

This is the problem Lightspeed....this isn't allied or NATO forces. This is the CIA SAD Ground Branch division. They go behind enemy lines. They are under the plausible deniability of the United States government if they get caught. It's why they have Memorial Wall with Stars and there are still some stars that have no names by them.

The US isn't going to send in anyone to come save them. This isn't Delta, DevGru, SF, SEALs, MARSOC, Rangers or anything like that...this is a whole new ballgame, hence why in my opinion they won't work. (the perks for airstrikes etc).

[Lightspeed]

Very good point jwp1223 and nice of you not to attack.

So perhaps that's the final word on the discussion or are there other options. If at the end of the day it is the final word then you could still sell the above point to COD fans why you won't see perks, bcoz of the fact that you are on your own and need to grind out a victory with your team. Those COD/MOH gamers looking for a pure experience might get it and appreciate the fact that you don't bailed out of a tight situation.

But maybe there are still other options available to CIA SAD?

[Psychomorph]

Witzbold, on 06 June 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

That really adds nothing to the conversation Psychomorph... Its the same thing as saying "IT SUCKS, THIS WONT SUCK!"

Shhh! You just giving me away.


You know Lightspeed, I think it is like the question of what was there first, the chicken or the egg. Did the gamers ask for airstrikes, kill streaks and unlocks (I know you were refering only to the first, but I just mention all the stuff), or did the gamers just accepted that these things were there because at the end they just wanted to play the game and unwillingly set the trend? I think airstrikes or not, gamers play games because they want to own ass, you can own ass in Ground Branch, too.

I think the thing that makes CoD and BF3 gamers sceptical is the slow paced and "lame" game style of GB and Co. Afterall, CoD and BF gamers are the Quakers of our time. That is the problem in my opinion. Did you sell R6 to Quake and UT gamers 12 tyears ago?

[jwp1223]

Lightspeed, on 06 June 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

Very good point jwp1223 and nice of you not to attack.

So perhaps that's the final word on the discussion or are there other options. If at the end of the day it is the final word then you could still sell the above point to COD fans why you won't see perks, bcoz of the fact that you are on your own and need to grind out a victory with your team. Those COD/MOH gamers looking for a pure experience might get it and appreciate the fact that you don't bailed out of a tight situation.

But maybe there are still other options available to CIA SAD?

My limited knowledge I wouldn't know, but I doubt it, I just think of the Michael Spann situation when they first got to Afghanistan in that uprising at the prison. There was nothing to get him out. No one he could contact. He fought valiantly to his death. He stayed so others would live. I think this is what the game will be about. Say you're in a fire fight (with your team), and you guys get surrounded, who's willing to take the sacrifice so that the others may live?

[Bota:16]

Thought we were gonna have to get out the pitchforks and torches when I read the thread title. JK.

[TaskForceGreen]

jwp1223, on 06 June 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

This is the problem Lightspeed....this isn't allied or NATO forces. This is the CIA SAD Ground Branch division. They go behind enemy lines. They are under the plausible deniability of the United States government if they get caught. It's why they have Memorial Wall with Stars and there are still some stars that have no names by them.

The US isn't going to send in anyone to come save them. This isn't Delta, DevGru, SF, SEALs, MARSOC, Rangers or anything like that...this is a whole new ballgame, hence why in my opinion they won't work. (the perks for airstrikes etc).

This is absolutely right...enough of this total war type of gaming. There was a game BREACH (which had its many shortcomings) BUT HOWEVER was a great idea....It was more about making most of the weapons a 1-2 hit kill (center mass anyways) no matter if it was sidearm OR an M4.

Also, I really hope these guys get their senses together and make the necessary arrangements to make it available for console. I heard if you do it as a downloadable game on xbox dashboard etc, that its easier to push thru...just a rumor for the devs tho of course.

This game looks perfect BUT, if it doesn't get released to vets like myself (who work as a PSD private contractor for LE agencies in S.O.T.B Joint Task Forces (where we are bored everyday) for console, we won't be able to play it.


PLEASE get this game brought to the attention of console distributors. It will do well if marketed right online (hell, thats how i found it and thats how a lot of co-workers of mine at Ft Jackson US Army base have found it too). Just make a dumbed down version (i know, i hate the words too) if its a bit laggy graphics wise on 360, and that will be fine. I just hope we dont get stuck with a PC ONLY game and then those of us who serve cant enjoy it like everyone else....or at least, not until we get all the way back home and try to save up for some fancy pants gaming rig

[Colin]

My point of view. perks and such things neither turn me on or off.

Gimmicks is the correct word I think these things are meant to just encourage players to do certain things. Dying in a game means nothing.

A good game however does not need these things if a game  draws you in and keep you on your toes and throws surprises at you once in a while then you dont realise you have not had or used perks or what ever.