Large scale tactical shooter VS small scale choke point focused drivel

#1
Hello,

I am Truly surprised that something is finally being released to the public and I am glad to say I was proven wrong.

However, I am a bit worried as I watch the gameplay reveal trailer. I would like to unpack the statements made about new 'updated game design'.

The words 'focused' and 'defined' were used to describe the new game play, as opposed to 'large scale, open sandbox-style maps' of the former design. The implications behind these words are pretty steep. I'm sure I speak for the rest of the oldschool TW community when I inquiry, just how small and tight are these maps going to be ? Are we looking at an updated version of Day of Defeat Source ? What are the approximate map sizes ? I am still hoping for some semblance of Darkest Hour gameplay...

Any insight at all on this yet ?
 
#4
hello, sincerely disappointed, I am very happy that you advance with the project, but if you are thinking that you have to pay to play a game call of duty or counter strike. I prefer to spend my money on some tactical game with large maps and vehicles. I was hungry for some night of this game, but I do not see with good eyes the decision that it's just an infantry game. I'm sorry but if they do not change I would not spend my money to play it
 

nickii

New member
#5
I think you are misunderstanding what "tactical" is. In this genre of realistic/tactical FPS games, there has been the association of tactical gameplay with large sandbox maps, because developers tend to think making their maps as large as possible will make the game more realistic. But they do not fully consider how much this impacts gameplay, or even how realistic it really is.

Consider this: the map in HLL is based off of the actual battle near Brecourt Manor. In real life this battle consisted of about 80 men and took place in an area that is a TENTH of the size of the HLL map. Did that prevent the attacking troops from advancing tactically? Not at all. They had an idea of the enemy position, had room to maneuver, but still had to be careful. And they had clear objectives. The map in DH plays out much like real life, with a good Allied team easily destroying all four guns. Compare this to how HLL plays. There are 100 players sprawling across a huge map, with every square of the map being its own area objective. There is little sense of a frontline, it is common for players to slip past the enemy team completely unnoticed. You either spawn right next to the enemy or have to walk across the whole map to find him. It does not feel like a battle at all. And it is not just the map, but also the flawed rally point spawn system that contributes to this. Post Scriptum and the large advance maps in DH have the exact same problems.

I think unlike the devs of HLL and PS, the (formerly) TW team has thought this out more, and have realized that large maps with not enough players tends to hinder tactical gameplay more than anything, especially in public matches. This doesn't mean the maps will be nothing but chokepoints, the sweet spot is a map large enough that there are several attack routes, but small enough that engagements happen easily. Hopefully this is what they'e aiming for. It also seems they have thought of a spawn system that encourages tactical play by limiting respawns and ensuring players spawn together. I think they are making the right move, we'll just have to wait and see if this recreates the classic RO/DH experience. Unfortunately I missed the kickstarter so I'll have to wait even longer.

TLDR: "large scale" "sandbox" maps are overrated.
 
#6
I think it is perfectly fine and suits the game better in it's regard. I don't think the map is as minimized as people tend to think, I think they are just referring to the raid system and the objective capturing moving from one part of the map to another to put people into the action quicker.

The problem big maps tend to have especially in the games I played is the tendency of being a walking simulator and this problem has been acknowledged by the Traction Wars dev team years ago and this is the current solution they made. Also, considering the fact that the maps are historically accurate and have a lot of work into them to feel real in a sense, it would also benefit to have a game mode that makes you go through each part of the map more thoroughly and observing the surroundings more rather than running amok getting pinged off by snipers after walking a mile to the objective point.

As for Fegelein saying the game is a disappointment and wasted time, I would say they are just happy to be releasing the game for the community to play and try out as we have been waiting for, for years and nothing is set in stone yet. I am sure they will be looking for community feedback just as they have been asking for feedback during all those years and if enough people think the game mode is not a good fit I am hopeful they will address it considering their good history.

On a side note don't take infantry only games for granted, you'd be surprised how vehicles can ruin matches in other games.
 
#7
Day of Defeat game style suites me fine, not having vehicles is not the end of the world.......boots on the ground, tactical, team based game play is what most of us here paid for. ;)
 
#8
Post Scriptum lost a large amount of its playerbase less than a week after release because most people realized that having to spend 5-10 minutes (not exaggerating, actual time) to run from the nearest spawn just to get into the vague area of operations and then very easily be sniped or blown up without having fired a shot is not fun.
 
#9
Squad is a good example of a successful large scale tactical shooter, the trick is to keep the Squad working together, having Rally points and Forward Operation Bases (FOB) has been successful and works well. Post Scriptum is not using Rally points and that is why players seem to be separated from their Squad Leader for most of the game. The spawn vehicle sounded like a good idea, but placement of said spawn vehicle is not always usable by all Squads.

If Vanguard is boots on the ground only (no vehicles) I think mid size maps, 32 slot servers (16v16) would be legit, with less lag with smoother game play and would be cheaper for gaming communities to rent 32 slot servers.

The trick here is to create a Tactical Team Based Shooter that will appeal to all FPS gamer, most will agree that game play is most important if you want to keep people playing the game, it has to be smooth, optimized and BUG free.

Another great idea is to introduce Workshop Tools for the Creative side of the Community so they can Create maps etc. Day of Defeat Source is a team-based online shooter developed by Valve, Set in WW2 the game was released for Microsoft Windows on September 26, 2005 and allowed people to create mods, maps etc; 13 years later people still play DODS ;)
 
#10
5-10 minute travel time in PS is a gross exaggeration. I have over 400hrs of game play, not counting alpha or beta time. Also, the devs for PS couldn't care any less about not appeasing to the teenager based zero-patience mindset that infests the FPS genre currently. They had a vision for their game and they are sticking to it. The point of their project was not designed to make the absolute most money possible and appeal to the masses.

Also, that is not the reason that game lost traction in its most earliest stages, but that discussion is for another time.

Also, PS has now revamped their spawning system, utilizing 'Regroup calls'. Their own unique take on the Rally point system. So what ShotgunRCAF has stated here is null and void at this point.
 
#11
5-10 minute travel time in PS is a gross exaggeration. I have over 400hrs of game play, not counting alpha or beta time. Also, the devs for PS couldn't care any less about not appeasing to the teenager based zero-patience mindset that infests the FPS genre currently. They had a vision for their game and they are sticking to it. The point of their project was not designed to make the absolute most money possible and appeal to the masses.

Also, that is not the reason that game lost traction in its most earliest stages, but that discussion is for another time.

Also, PS has now revamped their spawning system, utilizing 'Regroup calls'. Their own unique take on the Rally point system. So what ShotgunRCAF has stated here is null and void at this point.
5-10 minutes is a bit of an exaggeration, but 2-4 isn't, it still isn't fun, or intuitive. As for the comment about the "teenager based zero-patience mindset" this game isn't appealing to that either, just because it's focusing on a smaller more tactical and streamlined experience does not mean their doing a full on sellout.

The devs realized that there was a better direction for the project and I wholeheartedly agree with that.
 
#12
On the topic of travel time, I'd say a sweet spot for it would be preferably 10 seconds and 20 seconds at most. Any longer than that to get to actual gameplay, and you got a failing system with possibly a failing game. It may be me, but I have zero patience for games that stall actually playing the game instead of walking. I am a grown man, I have to wait on too much bullcrap irl everyday.

As far as spawntime goes, we will have to see. The system they have might be a good motivator to work together and not be too much of a punishment to those who play the game as a team like intended. I can also see it as being too reliant on a single person. For example, the squad leader refusing to call a reinforce just to be that guy or someone camping to prevent death and stalling the next wave. We will have to see how it works out and if it needs adjusting.

Also, the last game I played that "had it's own vision" and didn't appeal to the masses ended up getting worse with each update (Heroes & Generals). That game was literally far better in 2013 than it is currently. It is fine to have a select appeal you are going for, but take into account the feedback of people who devote time and appreciate the appeal. Noone who cares about a fps game tries to morph it into a generic CoD.
 
#13
For large scale I'll be playing Hell Let Loose and maybe some PS but that does sucks bawls. This could never be a large based open world style game just hasn't got the following or interest the test will come once launched and how it develops as long as it has a longer life span and play better than the crap that was Battalion44 should be good.
 
Top