TEAM WORK TOOLS
Team work: At its core traditional battlefield game play is centered on team play. Its apogee was reached in bf2/2142, with DICE offering such innovative and remarkably thought out tools as two Commo Rose (one for regular players, and one for the squad leader), the Commander position and squad leaders being able to mark waypoints/attack/defend spots on the map. These should all return to the series,
in one form or another.
There is no need for DICE to spend costly resources in developing new tools. A simple “polish” and/or improvement of previous designed tools would suffice. The added benefit of choosing this route is twofold:
1. They are established working concepts.
2. They are familiar to the existing player base.
A. Commo Rose: The existing bf3 one has the following deficiencies which would need to be addressed:
1. The volume is barely audible.
2. There is no separate text feed with the name of the player that requires assistance. A suggested improvement would be to have the name above the soldier requesting help flash, when viewed by his team mates.
B. Squad leader functionality:
1. The ability of the squad leader to place markers on the map, with basic attack/defend and waypoints should return.
2. If commander is to return, then the implementation of the second commo rose would be needed.
3. Separate key (caps lock in bf2) should be provided to access the squad page.
4. The ability to rename squads should also return. This may sound trivial, but in actuality it is not. Right now when you join a team there is absolutely no indication of what the intent of each squad is. If squads could be named “teamwork”, “flanking”, “air support”, “armor”, etc – the player could make an informed choice regarding what squad to choose.
5. Squad leaders’ position should be shown on the mini-map. Mini-map, in addition to showing the state of the flags (existing feature), should also indicate to the squad members, when the squad leader orders to attack/defend a flag.
6. A full map showing all the objective and squad leaders’ orders/waypoints should be re-introduced.
7. Deploy menu should show the squads.
C. Six man squads: At first look this may seem like another frivolous request, but again, it is not. Many players assume that the current number is 4, simply because there are 4 playable kits in battlefield 3, and so a squad is designed to have one of each kit into it. In reality, the size of the squad only determines the amount of concentrated firepower available to defend/attack an objective, or to hold a position on the map.
First, DICE switched from 7 classes (bf2) to 4 classes in 2006, with battlefield 2142, yet 6 man squads were retained.
Second: Having one player of each class in a squad is not a viable engagement tactic. Depending on the map and mode, having multiple squad members using the same kit is preferred, such as 2 engineers on a vehicle heavy map, or 2 medics in a urban environment. That leaves the squad without the benefits of the missing class(es).
Two people make all the difference. It is more powerful than a 4 man squad, but it does not have the capability of being twice as powerful. Right now, if one squad is not enough firepower for a particular
situation, you would need the assistance of a second one, which means 8 players. That is overkill.
Besides allowing for a healthier mix of classes in the squad itself, increasing the size to 6 members should also help with the diversity of kits seen on the main battle field (around objectives). Most
vehicle maps for example are currently engineer kit egocentric. There are some support players, the odd assault class player, and then you have the Recon class, mainly found in static elevated positions, far from the objectives themselves, and not integrated into the main push for a flag.
D. Command structure: One of the most commonly found critique to battlefield 3 game play is that squads do their own thing individually, leading to redundant tasks and empty back flags. This is
attributed to the fact that there's no tool to coordinate the efforts of the team. The current efforts are described as “headless chickens running around in circles, from flag to flag”.
Let’s dissect and analyze a bit the pro’s and con’s of the two different systems offered so far:
For Bf2/2142 the commander position was introduced. The player had to volunteer for this position, and if he was the highest ranked player to apply, he would be accepted. Besides tools to coordinate squads, his main assets were intelligence (scan and uav), logistics (supplies and vehicle drop) and direct support (artillery). The commander position is viewed by the veteran community as the ultimate team work tool, by providing a chain of command, and structure on the battlefield. Further, in their eyes – it made battlefield more than a generic shooter, but a tactical game.
This position was such brilliantly designed, that there are only a few suggested improvements:
1. Mutiny: Due to the large amount of votes needed to vote kick an ineffective commander out, this function almost never worked in practice. On the better administrated servers, this was solved by
administrators manually applying a kick to the player in question. A simpler solution would be to have vote kick restricted to squad leaders, with three such votes vacating the position.
2. Commander spam: Audio and text feed: This is the number one source of negative feelings towards this position. Every time the commander
would manually spot after using the scan function, a text feed “enemy X spotted” would needlessly clog the chat box. Additionally, a voice over was broadcasted to every player. While the game provided a slider to lower the commanders’ output, the slider did not function. A simple suggestion would be to remove both. Players would consult their mini-map/map for enemy positions.
Every time commander is discussed in public forums, there are attempts to provide arguments against its reintroduction. “Attempted” because the arguments provided, have little to do with the tool itself.
Most of them center around the fact that some commanders would be “fighting, not helping”, “only helping his friends”, “only taking the position for the points, he would do nothing to actually help the team”, etc. All of these arguments are a matter of player skill and dedication, not of game design. Further, this cannot be controlled from a development standpoint. Following these arguments would mean that jets should be removed from the game, because some players use them to “taxi”, choppers because some crash them upon takeoff, or the support class because some players do not provide ammo.
For battlefield 3, DICE attempted to integrate the bf2 commander structure into bf3, by transferring some of its abilities at squad level, rather than relying on a designated player. This was done in the
name of squads being completely
self-reliant. Further, Mats Dal also
publicly declared : “I think we’ve kept that line of thought by expanding on squad order functionality”.
As such, the “intelligence” assets were transferred to the Recon class (MAV and tugs), the “logistics” to the Assault (health packs) and Support (ammo packs) classes, and the “direct support” again to the
Support class (mortar). The general sentiment is that this has not translated well into practice. A simple comparison of the two systems answers why:
1. Generally speaking, the more people are relied upon for a task, the more inefficient the system is.
2. Even with the increased number of players, the current system is still less effective. For example even with multiple mortar users, their combined output is not a real substitute for the artillery strike,
as mortars do less damage then a grenade. Or, multiple classes, such as engineers/assault/support are needed to provide the basic functionality of the “supply drop”, which healed and supplied nearby soldiers, and repaired close proximity vehicles.
3. Team work cannot be forced upon players. The first system relies on a volunteer mechanism, in which a players’ sole desire is to coordinate and support the team, while the second one relies on the chance that some of the classes with team support capabilities, would actually use them beneficially. Even at its best, this system cannot provide comprehensive support, due to the sheer amount
of players required.
4. The currents system does not provide structure.
Whether DICE decides to improve upon the commander position from bf2/2142 for re-introduction, or decides to implement a whole new system, a chain of command and basic team support features are needed, preferably dependent on a single voluntary position.
Conclusion: Finding teamwork is not an issue per se. Playing the game with limited teamwork assets is.Team play is an essential part of game design. It is a core consideration and a requirement for this preset. However you define it, regardless of how you achieve it, you must have it.