Target markers and nighttime. - Page 2

Rumour · 2012-03-20, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Algo

Make them static. You spot, the marker is there, with a little tank/plane/man/max icon. That's it. Doesn't follow the mark around.

This is probably the best compromise. Allows squad communication w/o being overly specific.

Also, a UI option to disable these completely for myself would be nice. Even if the other guys still have them, sometimes I'd like a little less information overload. Having to rely on my own eyes and ears is a challenge I'm sort of fond of, and is becoming more obsolete with each passing year

.

Erendil · 2012-03-20, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Algo

Like they are in the demo they're pretty fugly.

There's a lot of ways to make spotting less cheesy tho
Bind it to a cooldown, a tree in leadership or something to reduce cooldown and amount of active pips simultaneously, still to reasonable amounts.

Require line of sight and/or some tool to spot. And not just looking in the general direction of the enemy.

Make them static. You spot, the marker is there, with a little tank/plane/man/max icon. That's it. Doesn't follow the mark around.

Want to push it further? Don't allow infantry to be marked.

Want to make it more fun? Give squad leaders a tac map so they can play master and commander, placing and removing tags manually. it translates to the 3d map through armor hud. Still, cooldowns and reasonable numbers of crap/spam to be taken into account.

Just writing it off the top of my head.

Interesting ideas there. I especially like the ones in bold. There definitely should be severe limitations on both the number of enemies that can be marked and the ease of which the marker gets placed, and those are a good place to start.

Generally I despise the presence any sort of markers above actual enemy avatars that aren't in your own LoS (not just LoS of someone in your empire/outfit/squad) unless some real effort/sacrifice was made on your team's part to get said target marked.

I've seen too many instances in other games that show a sea of enemy markers on your screen through trees, buildings, even hillsides and ppl just blindly firing at the markers on their screen through several layers of concealment and getting unseen kills that way. It makes me cringe whenever I see a game implement it that generously and yeah, it would kill a lot of tactical gameplay in PS2 if it were like that.

That said, I have no problem with a target getting marked for yourself if you look at them a la PS1. It's also okay to show red dots on the minimap for enemies seen by your teammates since you can't use it to aim with and you have to take your eyes off your reticle to track the target.

Anything above and beyond that should require some sort of tool or cert for infils or commanders to use, and placed markers should probably be limited to 1-2 per spotter and/or be on some sort of timer/ cooldown.

Lonehunter · 2012-03-20, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by FastAndFree

If an Infiltrator gets spotted he deserves to die anyway...

Well for that I was referring to night vision. I thought it was supposed to be a benefit for everyone's vision at night. But now there's two things making me think it'll just be like DarkLight, where you only turn it on to hunt for cloakers.

Because 1, night time doesn't seem very dark at all in this current build, so night vision wouldn't have much of a benefit. 2, if everyone has a giant red ice cream cone above their head the only reason you'd need this barely vision enhancing technology is to bring up the initial spotting marker, then everyone else can just aim below the ice cream cone

Knocky · 2012-03-20, 07:25 PM

Hunter's Mark for the lose.

Come on, they did us a favor by eliminating enemy names, why replace them with this thing?

You might as well have left the name up so we could at least stalk our real enemies.

bullet · 2012-03-20, 07:34 PM

I'm with the OP. More specifically, I don't like the concept of markers in games that track you for too long and also track you behind walls.

An example, if you run into a group of enemies, they mark you, and then you try to go a different route. Well theres no point in that because they can see which way you're going, thats what I dont want happening. You should have to maintain a line of sight or like someones already stated, just a static marker.

Eyeklops · 2012-03-20, 07:35 PM

I am not really a fan of 3D spotting at all, and my preference is that the mini map only show friendlies and enemies "making noise." e.g. A vehicle moving over a certain speed or infantry/vehicles firing weapons.

fod · 2012-03-20, 07:41 PM

as it is now i can imagine getting spotted and all of a sudden 40 reavers come out of the sky to rape your butt
or 20 vanguard shells
not fun at all

if it was very limited like spot for your own squad only and static non moving markers it wouldnt be so bad imo

Kipper · 2012-03-20, 07:49 PM

I'd go for a realistic approach. If I see someone, I can 'spot' them to my squad or maybe even the local area.

The target is then marked for anyone who has a line of sight to them (not through solid things) with appropriate audio, so if for whatever reason you didn't see the chap, he's now lit up for target practice.

If you don't have a line of sight to him from where you're standing, you should just get a directional blip on your hud and appropriate audio such as "sniper, 2 o'clock" - assuming they know the clock system on Auraxis... so you get to know that someone is there, and the direction, but its down to you to actually get a line of sight (either you pop up and break your own cover if thats the problem, or you have to flank to get a direct LOS to the target if they're in cover).

Skitrel · 2012-03-20, 07:55 PM

Limitation to this isn't really necessary. As long as spot markers are only relevant to the immediate surrounding area, 50-150m, there shouldn't be a problem. There is absolutely no issue with having spot markers to facilitate the communication that you WOULD see in a tense combat situation. Guy on the right side that noob not using voip couldn't tell everyone about shouldn't be able to sneak behind and annihilate 50 people just because of a limitation in gaming systems and the way so many people play a game differently.

People claim to dislike 3d spotting, yet it only helps battlefield. The game becomes a giant clusterfuck without them, Hardcore mode is great but it's great failing is that teamwork completely and utterly falls apart without the 3d spotting, even on special teamsync servers where absolutely everyone has a voip. It just doesn't play quite as well as it could do.

The biggest flaw with 3d spotting that's been seen so far is the act of shooting at little arrows instead of people. This basically comes down to displaying spot markers at far too great a range. I think 125m is a suitable range, if we're using BF3 scales here. It's really the average maximum assault rifle range without scopes. Anything further than that range shouldn't display a marker, and if it didn't those people wouldn't be shooting at little arrows anymore, if they were shooting at people further away they'd have to be very carefully seeing those people.

On the other hand, magnification that would bring up the scale should of course increase the range of this, 2x scope? Everything is twice as big, twice the spot range. And so on. Obviously snipers would be able to see spot markers at extreme ranges, but it wouldn't help them at all when scanning the horizon outside of their scope, they wouldn't see the markers until scoping in.

Mixed with the standard system of spot markers disappearing and the like, this is more than adequate. It facilitates teamplay and simulates a well oiled military machine but without the "herp derp, umm, he's over by the blue, I mean red crate, no the other crate, in the corner. Shit you're dead sorry." And cuts out the problem of people that don't use voip - F2P remember? There's going to be a LOT of casuals. As much as we'd like everyone to communicate and use the tools we're given to play the game without such a thing, it's wishful thinking to believe everyone would.

And even so, spotting isn't something everyone uses 100% of the time anyway, far from it in fact. It facilitates and helps those that do do it and do team play while hurting those that don't and don't team play. All win win, in my opinion.

The range of spotting however, that is the main issue in making something like this work. Followed closely by how sensitive it is, and what kind of cooldowns you place on it in order to stop people randomly spamming it all over the place just to try and spot someone that they might not have noticed.

I'm not against it, I just think it needs to be done well, and it can certainly be done better than BF3's implementation.

fod · 2012-03-20, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Limitation to this isn't really necessary. As long as spot markers are only relevant to the immediate surrounding area, 50-150m, there shouldn't be a problem. There is absolutely no issue with having spot markers to facilitate the communication that you WOULD see in a tense combat situation. Guy on the right side that noob not using voip couldn't tell everyone about shouldn't be able to sneak behind and annihilate 50 people just because of a limitation in gaming systems and the way so many people play a game differently.

People claim to dislike 3d spotting, yet it only helps battlefield. The game becomes a giant clusterfuck without them, Hardcore mode is great but it's great failing is that teamwork completely and utterly falls apart without the 3d spotting, even on special teamsync servers where absolutely everyone has a voip. It just doesn't play quite as well as it could do.

The biggest flaw with 3d spotting that's been seen so far is the act of shooting at little arrows instead of people. This basically comes down to displaying spot markers at far too great a range. I think 125m is a suitable range, if we're using BF3 scales here. It's really the average maximum assault rifle range without scopes. Anything further than that range shouldn't display a marker, and if it didn't those people wouldn't be shooting at little arrows anymore, if they were shooting at people further away they'd have to be very carefully seeing those people.

On the other hand, magnification that would bring up the scale should of course increase the range of this, 2x scope? Everything is twice as big, twice the spot range. And so on. Obviously snipers would be able to see spot markers at extreme ranges, but it wouldn't help them at all when scanning the horizon outside of their scope, they wouldn't see the markers until scoping in.

Mixed with the standard system of spot markers disappearing and the like, this is more than adequate. It facilitates teamplay and simulates a well oiled military machine but without the "herp derp, umm, he's over by the blue, I mean red crate, no the other crate, in the corner. Shit you're dead sorry." And cuts out the problem of people that don't use voip - F2P remember? There's going to be a LOT of casuals. As much as we'd like everyone to communicate and use the tools we're given to play the game without such a thing, it's wishful thinking to believe everyone would.

And even so, spotting isn't something everyone uses 100% of the time anyway, far from it in fact. It facilitates and helps those that do do it and do team play while hurting those that don't and don't team play. All win win, in my opinion.

The range of spotting however, that is the main issue in making something like this work. Followed closely by how sensitive it is, and what kind of cooldowns you place on it in order to stop people randomly spamming it all over the place just to try and spot someone that they might not have noticed.

I'm not against it, I just think it needs to be done well, and it can certainly be done better than BF3's implementation.

"Limitation to this isn't really necessary. As long as spot markers are only relevant to the immediate surrounding area, 50-150m, there shouldn't be a problem."
isnt that a limitation? (and one i agree with)

"People claim to dislike 3d spotting, yet it only helps battlefield. The game becomes a giant clusterfuck without them"
i disagree - before battlefield 3 and bc2 there wasnt any 3d spotting and we did just fine, it was a much better game and teamwork and tactics became more useful

Eyeklops · 2012-03-20, 08:35 PM

3D spotting nearly nullfies "fog of war" for me. I like "fog of war", it ups my adrenaline and forces me to concentrate. Things seem more frantic to me in close firefights when you have to quickly IFF before you shoot.

Skitrel · 2012-03-20, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by fod

"Limitation to this isn't really necessary. As long as spot markers are only relevant to the immediate surrounding area, 50-150m, there shouldn't be a problem."
isnt that a limitation? (and one i agree with)

"People claim to dislike 3d spotting, yet it only helps battlefield. The game becomes a giant clusterfuck without them"
i disagree - before battlefield 3 and bc2 there wasnt any 3d spotting and we did just fine, it was a much better game and teamwork and tactics became more useful

That's an opinion, not a fact. What basically happened before was that those that heavily knew the patterns of gameplay, or those that were heavily stacked and voiping would utterly annihilate the enemy with zero chance whatsoever. Essentially what spotting does is give those that aren't communicating, communication. It levels that unfortunate playing field of people not using all the gameplay elements that are available, unfortunately. Some people, while shocking to many, are in fact socially awkward penguins that find voip intimidating.

dsi · 2012-03-20, 08:45 PM

The BF3 imports need to go. Surely EA has some sort of interest in making an MMO of their latest cash-cow, maybe Higby could contact them instead of trying to turn Planetside into something it isn't.

Originally Posted by Skitrel

That's an opinion, not a fact. What basically happened before was that those that heavily knew the patterns of gameplay, or those that were heavily stacked and voiping would utterly annihilate the enemy with zero chance whatsoever. Essentially what spotting does is give those that aren't communicating, communication. It levels that unfortunate playing field of people not using all the gameplay elements that are available, unfortunately. Some people, while shocking to many, are in fact socially awkward penguins that find voip intimidating.

VOIP isn't required for comms, being a good typist is a basic requirement for being a good computer user, and besides that games designed with teamwork in mind should already have a keyboard-voice system planned.

Giving those who refuse to communicate a terrible crutch (that they only use because it GIB POINTZZZZ) does nothing to advance anything.

Skitrel · 2012-03-20, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by dsi

The BF3 imports need to go. Surely EA has some sort of interest in making an MMO of their latest cash-cow, maybe Higby could contact them instead of trying to turn Planetside into something it isn't.

VOIP isn't required for comms, being a good typist is a basic requirement for being a good computer user, and besides that games designed with teamwork in mind should already have a keyboard-voice system planned.

Giving those who refuse to communicate a terrible crutch (that they only use because it GIB POINTZZZZ) does nothing to advance anything.

Typing in the middle of combat to communicate with others the location of an enemy about the blow their head off half a second from now is not a possibility.

It's a gameplay feature added because voip is often overlooked as part of a game, even by outfits/clans/guilds, who all prefer to segregate themselves than participate publicly, it is the forward attempt to provide something to fill the gap of people not using the old game features that were intended to do otherwise.

If this were a PR mumble server where voip is mandatory and teamwork and communication is the highest of any game out there, I'd agree that 3D spotting should be out. I'd utterly hate it there. It isn't though, unfortunately. And we can never expect that level of communication to occur with the pubbers we'll see due to F2P.

dsi · 2012-03-20, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Typing in the middle of combat to communicate with others the location of an enemy about the blow their head off half a second from now is not a possibility.

It's a gameplay feature added because voip is often overlooked as part of a game, even by outfits/clans/guilds, who all prefer to segregate themselves than participate publicly, it is the forward attempt to provide something to fill the gap of people not using the old game features that were intended to do otherwise.

If this were a PR mumble server where voip is mandatory and teamwork and communication is the highest of any game out there, I'd agree that 3D spotting should be out. I'd utterly hate it there. It isn't though, unfortunately. And we can never expect that level of communication to occur with the pubbers we'll see due to F2P.

Mics in PR aren't mandatory, I'd know because I'm a micless teamwork player myself

PR's pace of gameplay may be more receptive to stopping and typing, but a good keyboard-voice system will let a player get across information with ease, without putting cheesy marks right on top of the heads of enemy players.

Typing is for out of combat (or, realistically, in cover and out of combat), keyboard-voice is for combat (or, realistically, whenever its options are useful). Of course, if PS2's gameplay is too fast paced for a good typist to type in general there's probably something terribly wrong already.