Suggestion: Teamwork Overhaul - Threats And Rewards

[MXXVI]

There is an unfortunate trend in Warframe. We've all seen it.

It manifests in defence missions, where teammates will fight the enemy so far from the objective...they could not respond to cryopod damage even if they wanted to.

It manifests in Corpus missions, where teammates will fail to destroy security cameras and doom their allies to repeated laser-fence face-plants.

It manifests in ANY MISSION WITH AN ELEVATOR.


That trend is selfish asshattery. And it is fed by end of mission statistics.

But there are solutions, and here's mine:



THREATS

Taking inspiration from the Left 4 Dead franchise, and using a bit of common sense, it's easy to see that one way to force teamwork...is to present the player with a threat that only teamwork can counter.

Warframe already utilises this concept, to a very limited degree, with its approach to death: none of us want to spend a revive point, so we rush to the aid of our teammates, knowing that we would want them to return the favour.

The problem is, in Warframe..."death" is not a certainty. And much of the time, to an experienced player, it's not even likely.

As such, I propose the introduction of 3 new enemies. Only 3. That's all it would take.

 

EDIT: Adjustment to the idea - ability to break free of CC effects with some button mashing? Hammer X to break free of the Headhunter's stun etc?


1: The Infested "Plaguebearer"

Appearance

Choking in a cloud of technocyte spores, this lurching, staggering, slow-moving mound of corrupted flesh and technology seems to feature warped remnants of both Corpus and Grineer victims. Standing precariously on three legs (one of which is an arm), the Plaguebearer has no upper limbs, and no visible means of attack.

And yet its bulbous body writhes in anticipation; it pulses and grows as it nears its target...

Sound

Whenever a Plaguebearer spawns, players will hear a low, rumbling call; like a great horn. When a Plaguebearer is near, all sounds will begin to dim, until fully muffled (like during a hull breach) while caught inside the spore cloud.

Design

The Plaguebearer has no direct attacks. At the same time, however, its grotesque, afflicted nature affords it certain strengths. Namely, that it cannot be killed. Attacks made against the Plaguebearer may topple it, slow it, but its advance cannot be halted.

 

[EDIT: For the sake people getting annoyed, the Plaguebearer's invulnerability could be reduced to just having a really high health count]

 

Meanwhile, any Tenno caught within its cloud of spores will have their movement speed slowed to a crawl. And that's when it strikes.

Using the same AI as the Infested Runners, the Plaguebearer will move towards its target, and explode. At which point the spore cloud will shrink around the victim, and a "Plague Cyst" will form.

While inside the Cyst, the victim is considered "down", but their bleed-out time will be greatly extended. Before they can be revived, the Cyst must be destroyed by teammates. However, as long as the Cyst persists, it will emit a large spore cloud of its own, this time draining shields (rate and scale similar to that of a hull breach - could even trigger a lockdown, due to atmospheric pollution).

If the victim dies, the Cyst will deflate and the cloud will dissipate.
(possible alternative for higher levels: when the cyst deflates, an infested Tenno is spawned - stats and behaviour equivelant to a weaker version of the "Stalker")



2: The Corpus "Buzzard" drone

Appearance

Designed as a direct response to technologically gifted subjects unwilling to undergo mandatory examination and dissection, the Buzzard Drone is based on standard Osprey designs, with the addition of a larger, more heavily armoured body and an array of claw-like manipulators hanging down from its undercarriage.

While otherwise unremarkable in appearance, when the Buzzard locates a target, it will open its claws wide and unleash a steady stream of tiny spider-like machines (basically 2d particle sprites) with the intent of overwhelming and subduing its target, ready for collection by Corpus personnel.


Sound

More stealthy than the Infested Plaguebearer, the Buzzard would make no "arrival" sound, but would emit a constant low-pitch beeping sound, akin to Sonar pings (lower pitch would differentiate it from security camera noises). On locating its target and beginning its attack, it would emit a loud "bleep BLOOOOOP" acknowledgement.


Design

The Buzzard utilises a simple stun-locking approach. Essentially, its spider-bot swarm would actually be a beam weapon, the same as the Fusion Moa, with a different particle effect. When hit by the beam, the victim takes no damage, but is held in place (and unable to attack).

 

[Possible alternative: Instead of a swarm, the Buzzard could use a simple "cold ray" to freeze the target.]

During this time, the victim may take damage from any other source, and the stun will not be broken.

If the Buzzard takes damage, the swarm is interrupted and its victim is released...but if not destroyed, the Buzzard will quickly re-acquire its target.

The Buzzard has no shields, but can be shielded by Shield Ospreys.

 
3: The Grineer "Headhunter"

Apperance

The result of severe genetic deterioration, and even more severe mechanical augmentation, Headhunters are an attempt by the Grineer to make the best of a bad situation. And they are monsters.

At a distance, a Headhunter feigns injury or death, sometimes lying still as a corpse for days on end in anticipation of its target. When ambush isn't viable, it will masquerade as regular Grineer infantry, waiting for an opportunity to "play dead" and begin its true attack.

Essentially, the Headhunter resembles a wounded Grineer lancer covered in blood, but on closer inspection the blood is painted camouflage, and its wounds are a deliberate armour design (featuring jagged, blackened edges, compared to the usual rounded Grineer aesthetic).

Sound

In its "wounded/dead" state, the Headhunter makes no sound whatsoever. When attacking, however, the Headhunter unleashes a blood-curdling scream, and continues to scream in a demented fashion until killed. The scream would be distorted, in a similar fashion to the Corpus voices, to give it that mechanical "edge".

Design

The Headhunter can spawn in one of two possible ways - as a "corpse", or as active infantry.

As a corpse, it will spawn somewhere ahead of the team, and simply wait there, favouring small rooms where it cannot be so easily avoided.

As active infantry, it will begin its life acting, and fighting, exactly like a Grineer Lancer.

When the corpse is approached, or when the fake Lancer is "killed" by a player, the Headhunter begins its true attack.

Screaming and charging towards the nearest player, the Headhunter will shoot the player with a stun gun (electrified cables connecting player to Headhunter), and then move steadily into melee range.

If no teammate can intervene and stagger, knockdown, or kill the Headhunter before he reaches his victim, he will draw two knives, and butcher the victim.

If the Headhunter succeeds, the victim will be "downed", and the Headhunter will feign death beside them, waiting for another victim to arrive.

For the sake of balance, the Headhunter's stun gun would only have enough power to incapacitate 1 target. After downing 1 victim, and "resetting", the Headhunter would use conventional (albeit frenzied) melee attacks.



SPAWNING RULES

To make it clear, these enemies would only appear in multiplayer games. And by this I mean; games with more than one player.

They would spawn at random intervals, alongside other mobs, but there would be an increased spawn probability the further a player travelled from their teammates.

Essentially, if someone ran off on their own, or lagged behind, they would almost certainly be targeted by one of these 3 enemies.

Each enemy would have its limitations, but each would serve as a significant threat to isolated players. The Buzzard's movement speed and swarm range, for example, would counter the fact that it would be easier to destroy than the Plaguebearer or Headhunter, while the Headhunter would thrive on the chaos and confusion of large firefights and unobservant (rushing) players.



REWARDS

To further reinforce teamwork, I propose that the game tracks (as other games have done) "defensive" kills. That is to say, if a player kills an enemy while it was damaging a teammate, this act should be noted, and counted on the scoreboard at the end of a mission.

Similarly, for rescuing a teammate from one of the 3 new enemies, there should be a small bonus of some sort (50 Affinity maybe?), or an increased chance of a mod drop.



And that's all I have to say about that.

Edited May 13, 2013 by MXXVI

[liavalenth]

I am not sure I agree on the reason behind these actions, but I do see the problem. I like your suggestion, but I do not think it would fix the cause of much of this. Even if it would not fix the cause it is a good idea that the devs should think about. I believe the problem comes from losing all items if you do not complete the mission. Let me explain;

 

I have noticed that, of late, I am trying to get to the exit faster and faster, and leaving team mates behind in some cases. This has nothing to do with the score at the end, this is because if I wait there is a larger chance of something happening - rather it is a bug that causes me to be unable to finish, disconnecting from the game, host migration, etc. If any of that happens and the mission becomes unable to be finished, or I get kicked from it, I do not get what I have earned from the mission. So the moment I get a rare mod or the resources I need I rush like a mad man to get to the exit to stop myself from losing it.

 

This is not to intentionally be a jerk, but I could see it being seen that way. It is merely me trying to keep what I earned.

 

EDIT: However, I do see a problem with this design: solo play. You cannot design an enemy that cannot be taken down solo unless it does not spawn when playing solo.

Edited May 13, 2013 by liavalenth

[MXXVI]

Er, I already said: these enemies would not spawn in solo play, or in an online game that nobody has joined yet.

[liavalenth]

Er, I already said: these enemies would not spawn in solo play, or in an online game that nobody has joined yet.

Sorry I did not see that.

 

The idea of enemies that can capture people while they are alone seems like a good idea. I suspect it would be extremely difficult to implement though. mostly due to how spawning currently works.

Edited May 13, 2013 by liavalenth

[MXXVI]

I mean, you make a valid point about the basic risk:reward ratio, concerning mods...it is very easy to lose everything because of a glitch.

 

But then, personally...I'd rather risk annoyance, and the loss of a mod, than just abandon teamwork in a game that's supposed to be *all about* teamwork.

 

After all, if the mods became more important to me than the actual multiplayer experience, I'd play solo.

 

 

EDIT: Maybe the answer is to have a new "salvage" system, whereby if you withdraw from a mission before it's over (due to a failed host migration or disconnection) you can "salvage" 1 item.

Edited May 13, 2013 by MXXVI

[Enot83]

Let me begin with, I'm all for new and powerful units.

 

That said, there are so many problems with this I'm not even sure where to begin.

 

To begin with I guess lets look at the basic reason behind it, your premis is flawed.  The requirement that teammates must stay together to succeed is not mandatory, only that they work together.

 

This may mean splitting up to gather/kill objectives faster, having 1 person move ahead while the others continue to clear out behind.  Have players like Frost anchored to the pod, while other members may be further out so that they can fall back as needed, or control spawns.

 

All of this requires team play, and your suggestions all negate this, turning this into a 4 player handholding walk-a-thon.

 

Even worse so is, due to the nature by which things spawn this also means slow players can be caught by these new creatures, either forcing members to backtrack or as happens a number of times where someone falls so far behind, simply leave them for dead.

 

In the case of someone running ahead, teammates will likely have the mentality as they do now, "good he deserves to die".

 

In either case you're likely to find people disconnecting from games more frequently, and have fewer online play games and more private games.

 

I've stated this in other threads but this is the reality of things:

 

The problem isn't slow people.

The problem isn't normal paced people.

The problem isn't rushers.

The problem is when a group of slow people gets a rusher.

The problem is when a group of normal paced people get a rusher or a slow person.

The problem is when a group of rushers gets a slow person.

 

Edit:

 

What is being proposed doesn't solve any of the above, or promote team play.  This is as arbitrary as the double doors mechanic, its just an arbitrary measure to prevent movement.  It limits tactics, and it forces a particular style of gameplay.

 

If I want left for dead, I will play that, because if you play L4D like you're playing warframe, its not gonna end well, if you force warframe to play like L4D, you've just reskinned the whole game of L4D.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Enot83

[liavalenth]

Enot83 you  make some very good points. I still think a capture mechanic would be really cool, but your right, as presented it would make a lot of options for a team difficult.

 

A middle ground is needed. Slowing/capture mechanics that are annoying solo but do not instantly kill you. Give you more of a reason to have a team mate near you, while not requiring one.

 

The problems noted, especially elevators and laser grids, do need some sort of solution. One I was thinking would be a good idea for the laser grids is to have cameras only block the doors toward your objectives, so they do not stop people who are behind from catching up. Elevators are more of an issue, as I do not understand why they exist.

[MXXVI]

@Enot83

 

Er no, that's not the problem at all, nor is it the "reality" of things. It's your take on it.

 

From where I'm sitting, the problem is the mentality behind the rushers.

 

Do you really think "rushers" would be perfectly happy if everybody rushed?

 

No, they'd just rush more. They'd turn the whole game into a race.

 

 

While one or two people may "rush" for a valid reason (what few there are), the vast majority do it for the e-peen value.

 

I've seen people ninja-forward-flip-slide-attack their way across an entire room...just to attack a mob that I had almost killed anyway.

 

I've seen people burn through half their energy to charge their way to a locker...that I've just opened, in an attempt to intercept what pops out of it.

 

I've seen people activate an elevator, having seen that the rest of their team is only a few steps away.

 

 

The problem here, in truth, is a matter of perception.

 

You perceive this game's approach to teamwork to be a matter of "ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ONE!"

 

The game is already designed to punish isolation. If you go down, alone, it will cost you. If you do it too often, you will have no choice but to forfeit the mission. If you reach a door that requires two users to open, you cannot open it alone. This basic principle sets the precedent.

 

EDIT: Hell, one could even argue that the "data mass" items are there to reinforce this. If you are a carrying a data mass, you cannot use your primary weapon. The idea being; you should have someone to back up your lacking firepower.

 

Now, I will concede that any new enemies of this sort would have to undergo a whole lot of balancing and adjustment, but the concept is sound.

 

This is a coop game. You are supposed to cooperate. There are no objectives that currently *require* you to split up. Splitting up, to save time, is simply a risk you choose to take. A risk that, at the moment, isn't much of a risk at all...and this is a flaw.

Edited May 13, 2013 by MXXVI

[Symbiont71]

I like the overall idea and i support new units addition, but i'm not sure about how people will react in said situations..

 

As liavalenth said, if i get what i'm looking for, i do whatever it takes to get to extraction as quick as possible. I don't rush, leaving enemies behind, i just run and kill everything in front of me, most of the time i just use bladestorm, leaving the rest for my teammates. I have a bad connection and due to not being able to host, i pray for the mercy of the host's connection in order not to lose my loot.

 

I'm not sure about the spawning either. I think it is the most complicated part to implement, the way you described it. 

[liavalenth]

From where I'm sitting, the problem is the mentality behind the rushers.

Do you really think "rushers" would be perfectly happy if everybody rushed?

No, they'd just rush more. They'd turn the whole game into a race.

The game is already designed to punish isolation. If you go down, alone, it will cost you. If you do it too often, you will have no choice but to forfeit the mission. If you reach a door that requires two users to open, you cannot open it alone. This basic principle sets the precedent.

 

EDIT: Hell, one could even argue that the "data mass" items are there to reinforce this. If you are a carrying a data mass, you cannot use your primary weapon. The idea being; you should have someone to back up your lacking firepower.

You seem to assume malice that I do not see. I do not think many people who ‘rush’ are doing it to spite you, or anyone else. They do it because that is how they like to play, or in cases like myself to get out before something breaks.

 

If there is any malice of people who do things to spite the other side it seems to be coming from the people who are not 'rushers' because of the continuous threads on these boards attempting to get mechanics to ruin that style of play. I do not see many rushers start 'Stop Having Fun Guys' threads.

 

I may be wrong, there may be another reason behind this, but that is just how it seems to me.

[Enot83]

The problem here, in truth, is a matter of perception.

 

This is precisely what I explained.  The perception of 3 fast people getting a slow person, the perception of 3 slow people getting someone faster than them etc.

 

You missed it completely, then tried to rebuke it by regurgitating it with little to no comprehension of what you just read.  /facepalm.

 

 

 

"ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ONE!"

This is not a singular mentality owned by one group of players or another, it is owned by all, a slow person with 3 fast people is that exact person.  An average speed person with slow people is that person, a fast person with 3 slow people is that person.

 

This comes full circle back to exactly what I described.

 

The only reason there is any punishment for going solo is because of the initial reaction to players of various mentalities and speeds being in games. 

 

The 2 person doors have solved absolutely nothing.

 

In the case of a rusher, who doesn't care about his slow teammates, he will arrive at said door, and wait, when the others catch up to him, he will simply blaze on ahead leaving them behind yet again.  The door has done nothing to encourage team play.  Your mooks, similarly will be handled the same or by more intelligent players simply avoided through the various and numerous invulnerability and avoidance skills available to them and left for others.

 

Arbitrary forced hand holding with teammates does not make the game more fluid and interesting.  It also narrows the spectrum for methods of play for those who would like to play in similar fashions, be it slow or fast, together, in small teams among the 4 etc.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Enot83

[Excitonex]

@Enot83

 

Er no, that's not the problem at all, nor is it the "reality" of things. It's your take on it.

 

From where I'm sitting, the problem is the mentality behind the rushers.

 

Do you really think "rushers" would be perfectly happy if everybody rushed?

 

No, they'd just rush more. They'd turn the whole game into a race.

 

 

While one or two people may "rush" for a valid reason (what few there are), the vast majority do it for the e-peen value.

 

I've seen people ninja-forward-flip-slide-attack their way across an entire room...just to attack a mob that I had almost killed anyway.

 

I've seen people burn through half their energy to charge their way to a locker...that I've just opened, in an attempt to intercept what pops out of it.

 

I've seen people activate an elevator, having seen that the rest of their team is only a few steps away.

 

 

The problem here, in truth, is a matter of perception.

 

You perceive this game's approach to teamwork to be a matter of "ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ONE!"

 

The game is already designed to punish isolation. If you go down, alone, it will cost you. If you do it too often, you will have no choice but to forfeit the mission. If you reach a door that requires two users to open, you cannot open it alone. This basic principle sets the precedent.

 

EDIT: Hell, one could even argue that the "data mass" items are there to reinforce this. If you are a carrying a data mass, you cannot use your primary weapon. The idea being; you should have someone to back up your lacking firepower.

 

Now, I will concede that any new enemies of this sort would have to undergo a whole lot of balancing and adjustment, but the concept is sound.

 

This is a coop game. You are supposed to cooperate. There are no objectives that currently *require* you to split up. Splitting up, to save time, is simply a risk you choose to take. A risk that, at the moment, isn't much of a risk at all...and this is a flaw.

 

Your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that the way you play the game is better than the way others play. I think you'd be better off finding some like-minded players and forming a clan. If you don't like how PUGs are playing then don't play with PUGs. Some people don't want to go for a leisurely stroll through a Corpus spacecraft shooting the INFINITE number of enemies that will spawn, some people do. I don't want to force these people to move faster because it's not fun being forced to do things at another's speed.

 

Think about it from the rusher's view. That guy who's slowly wandering around opening every single container and looking in every nook and cranny is just as frustrating to the rusher as the rusher is to you.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Excitonex

[Enot83]

Your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that the way you play the game is better than the way others play.

 

Everyone's perception of how the game should be played seems to be superior.  Not many understand what you're (myself also) are describing that none of these players are problems, only that when combined in situations then problems are created.

 

You hit the nail on the head with finding a clan/friends who play similar to how you want to.  This is the actual solution.

 

Now if the OP is wanting to suggest additional enemies with unique qualities that makes encountering them more interesting, that are implementable in solo play and bring some more fun dynamics to the game, I'm generally on board for that.  Trying to suggest it and beguile people into it in order to sell a singular play style is... imho wrong and limiting to the future development of the game.

[MXXVI]

@liavalenth

 

"You seem to assume malice that I do not see."

 

I never said anything about malice, nor did I imply it. My words were "selfish asshattery". There is nothing innately "malicious" about being a selfish asshat. It's simply that you're behaving with disregard to those who are playing with you, which is ultimately counterproductive in a multiplayer environment.

 

Assuming malice on the part of those complaining about the selfish behaviour of others is...something of an overreaction.

 

"I do not see many rushers start 'Stop Having Fun Guys' threads."

 

This is a broad generalisation and a guess, but I'd say...that's because the kind of mentality behind "rushers" is not conducive to a careful analysis of gameplay mechanics? I dunno. From what I've seen, the evidence leans in this direction.

 

 

@enot83

 

"This is precisely what I explained.  The perception of 3 fast people getting a slow person, the perception of 3 slow people getting someone faster than them etc."

 

Nooo...I rather think you're missing my point. My point was that you're stating your position in this matter as "reality". Fact. Truth, with a big T. I was observing that this is a matter of perspective, and I am presenting mine. While I have endeavoured to consider this situation from both sides, even going so far as to accept that perhaps some people rush for valid reasons...you have persisted in the belief that (when we simplify this equation) your approach to playing this game is the Correct Way, and that daring to say otherwise is Incorrect.

 

You may facepalm all you wish, but you may wish to reconsider your own response there. This is a matter of perspective. I do not claim to know the intent of the developers in this matter; all I know is what I've experienced in other PVE games, and what precedents have been set by this game. And you have offered nothing by way of gameplay examples to counter what I have said so far.

 

Can you offer any examples?

 

You mention the door. You describe it's ineffectiveness as a "speed bump". I was not discussing its effectiveness; in this regard, you are right. It is not effective. It is a minor annoyance to those who wish to rush.

 

But its presence implies intent, on the part of the developer, to try and keep teammates together. Level design 101: like the safe rooms in Left 4 Dead, which require all living survivors to be inside before the next area will load, such features are there (effective or not) to force players to gather. If the intention was merely to encourage, as you say, "working together" rather than "staying together", then there would be level features in which two buttons, in different rooms, needed to be pressed simultaneously.

 

"Arbitrary forced hand holding with teammates does not make the game more fluid and interesting."

 

Oh, I quite agree. Arbitrary hand holding with teammates never works. Which is why the door thing does not work. But introducing new enemies that pose a valid threat to an isolated player, without drastically changing the nature of the gameplay, is hardly "arbitrary hand holding".

 

Indeed, even by your definitions, working together rather than staying together surely means that one must remain within a certain distance of the team, in order to actually revive downed teammates.

 

Or is reviving no longer part of that "working together" package?

 

Is anyone here perhaps seeing my point? That the attitude of the "rusher", almost by definition, includes a willingness to simply let teammates die, due to lack of proximity. And that, due to the precedents established by the manner in which the game handles death, this is actually somewhat at odds to the basics of the game's design?

 

 

 

@Excitonex (which, by the way, sounds like a drug for...certain things. If so, that's an awesome name)

 

"Your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that the way you play the game is better than the way others play."

 

No, arguably my whole argument has been based on constructive suggestions for new gameplay content, examples of existing gameplay and the flaws found therein, and examples of precedents set by existing content regarding interraction between teammates.

 

The counter-arguments have consisted of: You're being malicious. You are wrong.

 

 

Would you like to reassess?

 

 

EDIT: @enot83

"You hit the nail on the head with finding a clan/friends who play similar to how you want to.  This is the actual solution."

 

The actual solution is to divide the playerbase?

 

Really?

 

Oh, I'm well aware of the curse of the PUG. But good game design allows fluid, flowing gameplay in spite of PUG stupidity and/or playstyle differences.

 

Simply saying "Tough luck, play with people you know" isn't a solution at all. It is, arguably, denial of the problem.

Edited May 13, 2013 by MXXVI

[Enot83]

The problem isn't slow people.

The problem isn't normal paced people.

The problem isn't rushers.

The problem is when a group of slow people gets a rusher. - These people percieve the fast person as the problem.

The problem is when a group of normal paced people get a rusher or a slow person. - These people percieve the fast/slow person as the problem.

The problem is when a group of rushers gets a slow person. - These people percieve the slow person as the problem.

 

This is reality.  Not one single way of playing is the problem, it is only when you mix different mindsets that a problem can be created.

 

Your incessant arguments show that you are simply married to your way of play and you would disregard an amount of reason or logic that states otherwise.

 

You continue to argue with me that I believe in one method of playing this game when not once have I stated you must play in a singular method, you on the other hand continue to suggest one method of play.

 

You are exactly what exacerbates the problem, your rigid demand that all play like you want.

 

Simply saying "Tough luck, play with people you know" isn't a solution at all. It is, arguably, denial of the problem.

Incorrect, and exactly as I stated above. It is your abhorent disregard that people might want to play differently, I on the other hand would like to give people the option to play the way they desire, without limiting the ways others must play.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Enot83

[MXXVI]

I have not once demanded that others play as I want.

 

I am not the one stating absolutes.

 

Except for this.

 

And this. This is an absolute.

 

But prior to this,

 

I am the one offering examples.

 

You are the one failing to offer examples.

 

Your bold, italicised mantra is not an answer.

 

You are stating the obvious as if it is a solution. You are merely stating the problem, and failing to correctly classify it.

 

You think the problem is the differing perceptions of how the game should be played?

 

This is not the problem.

 

The problem is that the game is currently allowing conflicting approaches, and is not compensating for this clash in any meaningful way.

 

The problem is that players are not working together.

 

When rushers outnumber the slower players, the slower players do not speed up (or can't).

 

When slower players outnumber rushers, the rushers just...keep on rushing.

 

There is no democracy.

 

Nobody is willing to compromise.

 

And as such, the game requires adjustment.

 

If I write things like this, does it make them seem more profound and/or relevant?

 

Poop monkey cheesemonger oranges.

 

 

 

"You are exactly what exacerbates the problem, your rigid demand that all play like you want."

 

You acknowledge that there is a problem in this game. That there is a clash.

 

You offer no solutions. No suggestions. No ideas.

 

You simply say "people are different, live with it".

 

Yet I am exacerbating the problem?

[MXXVI]

Incidentally, my proposed new enemies, as I explained, would target *isolated players*.

 

 

So where is the issue?

 

If ONE player out of FOUR rushes, and gets killed, it's his fault. He was outvoted on pace, by the group.

 

If ONE player out of FOUR is too slow, and gets killed...well, it's his fault for going afk without warning, or the group's fault for leaving him behind when he was the only Rhino/whatever.

 

 

How the hell did this turn into "how dare you tell me what to do!"

 

By definition, if you're the only one rushing, you shouldn't be rushing. You were outvoted.

 

Now, if we're talking about some strange hypothetical group that has, as a group, decided to somehow split up as much as possible so that ALL FOUR PLAYERS are isolated...

 

Well, why the hell would you even go with that tactic? It's risky, even now.

Edited May 13, 2013 by MXXVI

[Heartsatyr]

I definitely like the idea of new enemies, but if enemies like this were implemented it would completely change the flow of the game. Either that one slow person is going to lag behind and die and rushers will completely stop caring about slow players, rushers will have to adapt to a slower style of play to make sure people stay alive, or the rusher amongst the slow people will be caught out or forced to play in a slower fashion.

[Heartsatyr]

If ONE player out of FOUR rushes, and gets killed, it's his fault. He was outvoted on pace, by the group.

 

If ONE player out of FOUR is too slow, and gets killed...well, it's his fault for going afk without warning, or the group's fault for leaving him behind when he was the only Rhino/whatever.

With those lines, I take it you're one of those slow players that gets left behind a lot.

Edited May 13, 2013 by TyoneChickenBucket

[MXXVI]

Well, I'm not sure you can say that it would *completely* change the flow of the game. As we've covered (in between the thinly-veiled venom), there are already methods in place that punish you for being isolated.

 

But yes, those are the resulting issues; that people will be forced to compromise. But...that's multiplayer, is it not? Majority rules.

 

That's where we drift into real "human nature" territory, and things that cannot be fixed.

 

And I suppose that's where we have to ask the question: would you prefer things to remain exactly as they are, regarding teamwork and gameplay pacing?

 

Should we just leave these things unattended?

 

More importantly: If we decide not to reinforce teamwork with such punishing enemies...what does that mean for future content? It means that certain things will be "off limits" to the developers.

 

It means that they can never implement an enemy that does anything that cannot be countered solo. Which, when you really think about it, is going to make the game far more...beige.

 

 

"With those lines, I take it you're one of those slow players that gets left behind a lot."

 

Actually, I alternate. Because I happen to believe that one *should* go with the group vote.

 

Whether I'm in my sprint-buffed Excalibur, or my tankytanktank Rhino, I can keep up, or slow down. I just like killing things.

 

Your assumption made me chuckle though, so +1 to you.

 

EDIT: Incidentally, I'm also the kind of person who will go back and save the idiot who took the scenic route. But then, I'm a sucker for the sad puppy eyes.

Edited May 13, 2013 by MXXVI

[dukarriope]

Reading these ideas... I dunno. I just feel they'd encourage those fast moving rushers who are way ahead to abandon their team mates to an extremely difficult enemy that appears to be just as difficult to fight as a team as it would alone.

 

Example: your Cyst. If I'm way ahead as a Loki and I don't give two flips about the people behind me and one of them's trapped in a Cyst, why would I want to risk myself in its poison cloud when I can just let him die? It'd be less effort on my part, and the same end benefit to me. Apart from the drops that a Cyst might give.

Edited May 13, 2013 by dukarriope

[Heartsatyr]

And I suppose that's where we have to ask the question: would you prefer things to remain exactly as they are, regarding teamwork and gameplay pacing?

 

Should we just leave these things unattended?

You do know there's the simple solution of creating different ques for people that like to rush and those that like to walk? That fixes the problem of the different playstyles.

[Excitonex]

When you suggest implementing mechanics that punish players for playing a certain way, that is trying to force them to play to your liking. The yellow doors and not being able to finish a level without 50% of players are the best ways to ensure that everyone gets a little of what they want. It is a compromise for both sides that alienates neither side completely. If you can come up with a better system I would like to see it. So far your only argument is this is how I think the game should be played and I want to punish those who aren't doing so.

 

Also, I don't want to make this seem like an attack post but the formatting of your posts has taken a drastic turn for the worse. It's like you're trying to sing us a song with your hipster vibes and spaced out sentences.

[Heartsatyr]

Also, I don't want to make this seem like an attack post but the formatting of your posts has taken a drastic turn for the worse. It's like you're trying to sing us a song with your hipster vibes and spaced out sentences.

I'm liking these metaphors.

[MXXVI]

NEW IDEA!

 

For the sake of compromise, in the spirit of what I've been preaching...have any of you played the otherwise horribly average "FEAR 3" (or "F3AR" as I refuse to call it)?

 

The wall of death coop mode in that was hilarious: if you don't move fast enough, everyone dies.

 

 

There are some missions in this game which feature a self-destruct timer. Why not expand on that? New timed missions. Or perhaps, a "hard mode" for old missions, with a timer?

 

That way, people who want to rush...can play actual speedrun-type missions!

 

Hell, I'd play them.