Suggestion: Teamwork Overhaul - Threats And Rewards

[MXXVI]

"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."

 

Er, except if you're way ahead...and there are people, plural, behind you, they're not the ones in trouble. You are. If you're alone, and you run into a "Plaguebearer" or whatever, nobody is there to save you.

 

Pretty standard gameplay mechanic. Just a slightly more hardcore version of you bumping into a disruptor at the wrong moment. If you're alone, at some point...your luck will run out. And to be clear, I'm not saying these things would have a 100% chance to own you. No more so than the chargers or smokers or hunters did in Left 4 Dead.

 

I mean seriously, if you've played Left 4 Dead, I don't see the issue here; it was entirely possible to "rush" in L4D1 and 2. It was just...ill-advised, if you weren't good at the game. And that fear, that anticipation of being ambushed, gave people an almost instinctive urge to group up and watch each others' backs.

 

 

"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."

 

Well if your point of contention is that the system works as is, then fair enough. I happen to disagree, and so do others. But...that's the way things go.

 

My suggestion is simply here for consideration; an idea for new enemies, an idea for reinforcing teamwork. There is nothing in my suggestion that alienates anyone, except those who, strangely, go into a multiplayer session...and play solo.

 

 

"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."

 

Er, I was taking the &!$$ out of someone *else* in this thread...I mean, I'm sorry to pull the "he started it" card, but yeah. Totally did.

Edited May 13, 2013 by MXXVI

[Enot83]

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 upset him with my explanation that individuals and their ways of playing are not the problem, and then breaking it out into pieces to simplify it for what most people fail to realize is the problem.

 

Until people like the OP recognize what causes the problem, most if not all of these solutions will exaggerate the problem in most cases and at best leave us exactly were we are now.  Unless they are implemented so rigorously that we are left with a single method of play.

 

Even the double doors that some think solved problems, the only real thing its done with alot of people is created a situation in which an incredibly fast rusher will sit at the door and wait.  Soon as its open, off they go again, so in quite a few cases its not solving anything.  Furthermore, players who are fed up with people getting to these doors too slow or too fast and then doing nothing, have done exactly what they should.  Gone into solo/private games to avoid the chance of being stuck with players who don't play like they do.  Currently other than building a friend list or finding a clan, online play is a crap shoot.

 

Which is why so many of us have asked for some game type indicators to pull people back out of private/solo sessions to have more online games even if we have subsets of these.

 

 

Well if your point of contention is that the system works as is, then fair enough. I happen to disagree, and so do others. But...that's the way things go.

 

My suggestion is simply here for consideration; an idea for new enemies, an idea for reinforcing teamwork. There is nothing in my suggestion that alienates anyone, except those who, strangely, go into a multiplayer session...and play solo.

 

You hold a narrow minded perspective of what teamwork is, that is plain enough to see.  Your version of teamwork is attachment at the hip, nothing more.

 

I mean, I'm sorry to pull the "he started it" card, but yeah. Totally did.

Ownership.  I totally did.  I came into your thread and threw logic into the mix to identify the premise that was flawed in order to give you some direction to take the thread, either to address the problem of people having different mindset and giving like minded people a way to play together.  Or going with your other suggestion in regards to implementation of unique enemies that posed challenges that were not arbitrary methods of slowing gameplay but instead would offer something engaging. 

 

Instead you have repeated to us throughout your thread, you want us to play in a single method, your method, that you want to fashion based off L4D.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Enot83

[Heartsatyr]

Bleh this thread is going nowhere.

 

/sage

[MXXVI]

"Until people like the OP recognize what causes the problem"

 

I already have. Must I repeat myself? I thought I was being quite clear here. You believe the core problem is the different way in which people want to play this game.

 

This isn't the problem. That's something that will be present in ALL GAMES ALL THE TIME. The problem is that the game does not yet acknowledge these differences, but tries (and fails) to accomodate both at the same time.

 

I mean, am I going mad here, or is this not the problem? Have I not already specified, multiple times, that this is the real problem? Are you debating *this*?

 

 

"You hold a narrow minded perspective of what teamwork is, that is plain enough to see.  Your version of teamwork is attachment at the hip, nothing more."

 

Attached at the hip? My view of teamwork is that you're there, to work as a team. If you're not there, or anywhere near, your team...then you can't work as a team. This is basic logic.

 

If you are not there to revive a teammate, and it is simply because you wanted to move a bit faster...not because there was an objective that was a higher priority than your teammate, then you are not working as a team. You are not working towards the "team effort".

 

What part of this is eluding you?

 

 

"Even the double doors that some think solved problems, the only real thing its done with alot of people is created a situation in which an incredibly fast rusher will sit at the door and wait.  Soon as its open, off they go again, so in quite a few cases its not solving anything."

 

Arguably, any sane person will observe that the specific problem here is not the ineffective nature of the door and its constraints, but the stubborn nature of the person who sees the big sign saying "WAIT KTHX", and strides past it as soon as possible.

Edited May 13, 2013 by MXXVI

[Enot83]

If you are not there to revive a teammate, and it is simply because you wanted to move a bit faster...not because there was an objective that was a higher priority than your teammate, then you are not working as a team. You are not working towards the "team effort".

 

Working as a team does not require proximity.

 

This game fails to hold a singular way you need to play.  It does not fail to encourage teamwork.

 

Your answer, restrict it, to how you like it.  Mine, let you play it how you like it, let me play it like that when I want, or any other way I or others desire to play.  Give us a method to indicate how we would like to play, so we are not relegated to private/solo.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Enot83

[MXXVI]

Okay, so let's just take a look at your logic for a moment:

 

 

In this game, if you go "down", a teammate can revive you. Being revived by a teammate is preferable.

 

Reviving a teammate requires that you are close enough to them that you may reach them before they bleed out.

 

At regular intervals, there are doors that require more than one person to open.

 

Completion of the mission in total, requires 50% of the team to have reached the extraction point.

 

 

Every single one of these aspects requires team proximity. Now, if this game featured...I dunno, sniper missions, where one player had to play overwatch while another player ran around below, sure.

 

If the game featured...doors that had to be held open by one player, while another moved on to the next area, sure.

 

 

But so far? Nope.

 

"This game fails to hold a singular way you need to play"

 

Sure. It fails to "hold" a singular way. But it's quite visibly leaning in one direction, not the other. I'm not going to argue about your right to play the game how you like, but I'm just looking at what is right here, right now.

 

After all, in what way can you be said to be "working as a team", in *this* game, with *these* conditions...if you're not close enough to utilise any of these teamwork mechanics? You're not there to revive them. You're not there to add your firepower to theirs. You're not there to open doors. You're not there to contribute your Warframe's special abilities to the mix. You're not there to spot mod drops. You're not there to escort hostages, or carry data masses. You're not there, when their ammo runs dry.

You. Are. Not. There. How are you contributing to the team?

 

 

 

And to bring this whole thing back to the most relevant point:

 

My suggested new enemies would add a significant risk to any player isolated from the group, and a new challenge to the group itself. They offer no impossible odds. In what way does this command people to play in a certain way?

 

I would have been open to criticism of the details of my suggested enemies...but for the entirety of this thread, you have done nothing but dismiss the idea of them as a whole, without offering any valid argument beyond "people will play the game differently", which I have never contested...beyond the basic folly of someone trying to play differently to everyone else in the group.

Edited May 13, 2013 by MXXVI

[Slayblaze]

OP ideas and explanation is brilliant. And exactly right on target.

 

Enot you're totally wrong.

[Excitonex]

When you design something to target a specific play style you are eliminating other play styles, that is the heart of your enemies. No one is opposed to more difficult enemies or more teamwork. What people oppose is being forced into a specific style that detracts from their experience. I can understand your issue with people who run through the level. I feel exactly the same when RaNdOmPUG decides to check every single container and side room. I don't think we should punish either party and I feel the current system works as a good compromise. Rushers can't finish the level without half the party and 1 slow guy can't hold everyone back. Introducing enemies that target isolated players is going to cause even more headaches as you're going to get some games with 3 guys who can move fast and 1 guy who gets dead fast making it even more frustrating for the slow player.

[Un1ted]

Maybe take MXXVI's idea and make those new enemies slightly less capable with less CC (movement imparing) abilities and have them be more of a mild hindrance to the maddest of rushers and the slowest of turtles. Everyone else would be pretty much unaffected. That way it's not "eliminating play styles" it's just providing some gentle reminders that this IS a game with designers who want to grant players freedom, but also have a set principle in mind when they designed the game for co-op play.

 

Remember, what does the term "co-op" mean after all?

 

[MXXVI]

All valid points, but I do question the idea that making isolated players more at risk is somehow eliminating play styles.

 

Personally, I'd take the merciless approach; if someone lags behind the rest of the team simply because they're going the wrong way, or going afk or whatever...let them die.

 

I mean, I've played a lot of coop games...and that has always been part of the...fun? Sounds kinda twisted to say it that way, but there's always that fantastic action-movie type moment where you gotta leave someone behind.

 

Everyone has their preference in such matters of course, but personally...I always loved that threat. Like how, when teamwork fails, it starts to feel like Aliens. I'm always looking for an excuse to say "GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER!"

 

But yeah, @Un1ted, the initial level of CC I listed is a bit...hardcore.

 

How about this:

 

You can escape from these new enemies, but it requires some button mashing. Like those melee duels you get in some games, where you have to hammer the attack button to force the enemy back etc.

 

Basically, when the (for example) Plaguebearer forms a Cyst on you, you can break free of it. But it's just way easier if a teammate is around to shoot the crap out of it. Similar principle, I guess, to the Leech Ospreys, and those damn shield-draining leeches they hurl at you.

 

EDIT: lol actually, a more obvious comparison is Dead Space - necromorph grabs hold of you, you can struggle against it and rip out its spine >.<

Edited May 13, 2013 by MXXVI