Jump to content

Team leader dies


Recommended Posts

I see where most of us are coming from....if the TEAM LEADER dies...we all get to start over.....Not fair to the guys using cover....while the leader gets killed stupidly.

If the special forces guys were one room away from the president...and the leader gets killed....would they get orders to abandon or to get the president at all costs.

But I also like where GRIN was headed with this....team leader is now important....you must protect him.... I kind of like the idea of trying at all costs to keep my leader standing.

But....I also think this could lead to times where the TEAM LEADER doesnt get to play as much.

I know I will be telling him...You stay back...let us clear this courtyard....you stay hidden...and watch while we do the heavy lifting......find a hole, and watch my 6.

I would like it more if the TEAM LEADER just had benefits that the other characters did not have......Like maybe he is the only one who can run the drone.....or once he goes down....MAP updates are cut off.

Dont know...just throwing things out there

WHat do you think

HACK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the way you manage to look at some things from both sides :rocky:

Team leader dying and squad members dying if they stray too far; I can see the reasoning, but have to ask if gameplay is enhance or inhibited or frustrated by it.

Yes, protecting the leader can be fun - it's almost a game type in itself, in fact, that's what it should have been, a seperate game type. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Special Forces, or any infantry unit for that matter, casualites are expected and planned for. The next man in the chain of command is trained to take over in case his superior goes down. The Ranger Creed states:

"Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission though I be the lone survivor."

This "one guy goes down and we go home" is nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see where most of us are coming from....if the TEAM LEADER dies...we all get to start over.....Not fair to the guys using cover....while the leader gets killed stupidly.

If the special forces guys were one room away from the president...and the leader gets killed....would they get orders to abandon or to get the president at all costs.

But I also like where GRIN was headed with this....team leader is now important....you must protect him.... I kind of like the idea of trying at all costs to keep my leader standing.

But....I also think this could lead to times where the TEAM LEADER doesnt get to play as much.

I know I will be telling him...You stay back...let us clear this courtyard....you stay hidden...and watch while we do the heavy lifting......find a hole, and watch my 6.

I would like it more if the TEAM LEADER just had benefits that the other characters did not have......Like maybe he is the only one who can run the drone.....or once he goes down....MAP updates are cut off.

Dont know...just throwing things out there

WHat do you think

HACK

I gotta agree with this too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the way you manage to look at some things from both sides  :rocky:

Team leader dying and squad members dying if they stray too far; I can see the reasoning, but have to ask if gameplay is enhance or inhibited or frustrated by it.

Yes, protecting the leader can be fun - it's almost a game type in itself, in fact, that's what it should have been, a seperate game type.  :P

Didn't I tell you? That's why the Team Lead has the SCAR. Everyone else gets M8s to remind them to provide ADEQUATE COVER FIRE for him...or sacrifice their AI-body-robbing lives if need be :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see where this would be frustrating...especially nearing the end, and the leader dies. At the same time, I can see where their thought process was.

A simple fix would be to add a flag to pass on leadership should the leader die. Maybe to a random team member?

However, isn't it the same thing in SP? And are you not playing the SP campaign in Co-op?

I don't know...I can see where it could ruin some of the fun should it happen at the wrong time. Just make sure you pick a good leader. The leader should be someone who doesn’t mind staying back and using the map to coordinate the troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its an obvious fix really.  Take the GR1 online "commander" system, and duplicate it.

I agree with NYR and Rocky..... Keep the Team Leader alive should be a gametype, and duplicate the PL system that's implemented in GR1 where you can vote who you want to be the leader in the briefing menu (if GR:AW has one, i don't know cause I'm on a mac).

My main concern about the host being the leader is the host has alot more data flowing to all the players on their server, not to mention all the data just from playing the game. Why force the player that is using all his computer resources to be the most important member on the team?

Edited by Vir2L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also would like to see some "customization" there. GR1 was perfect in the sense that I felt it pleased everyone. No respawns for those who don't want any. 1, 2, 3 or what ever for those that needed a few, and even infinite respawns for teh n()()bs! Now that was a nice selection, no?

Also, I dunno if it's like this for the retail version, but after playing a few coop rounds with Battle.LAN yesterday we found out we couldn't change "slot". I was hosting and I was team leader. No way I could let someone else be the Leader. Of course I didn't really bother since I was BY FAR THE BEST PLAYER ( :rofl: ) not!

Bah! let's see what the retail version provides us with :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also would like to see some "customization" there. GR1 was perfect in the sense that I felt it pleased everyone. No respawns for those who don't want any. 1, 2, 3 or what ever for those that needed a few, and even infinite respawns for teh n()()bs! Now that was a nice selection, no?

Also, I dunno if it's like this for the retail version, but after playing a few coop rounds with Battle.LAN yesterday we found out we couldn't change "slot". I was hosting and I was team leader. No way I could let someone else be the Leader. Of course I didn't really bother since I was BY FAR THE BEST PLAYER ( :rofl:  ) not!

Bah! let's see what the retail version provides us with  :ph34r:

Yep...it really seems to be tied to the host, period. And there are those that have the full version and are saying it is THE SAME as the demo. People shouldn't get their hopes up that the full version is going to be any different as to settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love GRIN, but...

I HATE the "Game over man!... The Captain is dead!..." (Aliens) mentality. This is only the demo and I'm playing in SP mode. Everytime I "take one" for the team, some panicing General orders everyone out of the area. That is absolute BULL!!!! From what I'm hearing this is carried out in the co-op (LAN?!!?) as well.

I know this is a demo and believe me I'm very happy to be playing the GR:AW demo. I'll do a list of my Pros and Cons about the demo later. I'll add my list to the pinned post above, so GRIN can look through it.

Please Bo, change this "the Captain is dead...game over" GR:AW game play (especially in co-op). While you guys are busy going through your lists of things to add and fix, please don't forget the modding tool and the much needed huge increase in co-op player numbers.

The same UBI guy who came up with 4 Player CO-OP ("It's what all the kids are into these days") and "Game over man!... The Captain is dead!...", must be so proud of himself. :wall:

Lucky for him GRIN is on the job, fixing his mess.

silent_op

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love GRIN, but...

I HATE the "Game over man!... The Captain is dead!..." (Aliens) mentality. This is only the demo and I'm playing in SP mode. Everytime I "take one" for the team, some panicing General orders everyone out of the area. That is absolute BULL!!!! From what I'm hearing this is carried out in the co-op (LAN?!!?) as well.

I know this is a demo and believe me I'm very happy to be playing the GR:AW demo. I'll do a list of my Pros and Cons about the demo later. I'll add my list to the pinned post above, so GRIN can look through it.

Please Bo, change this "the Captain is dead...game over" GR:AW game play (especially in co-op). While you guys are busy going through your lists of things to add and fix, please don't forget the modding tool and the much needed huge increase in co-op player numbers.

The same UBI guy who came up with 4 Player CO-OP ("It's what all the kids are into these days") and "Game over man!... The Captain is dead!...", must be so proud of himself.  :wall:

Lucky for him GRIN is on the job, fixing his mess.

silent_op

you are playing the character of cpt. mitchell, not the whole team. your job is to lead your team and not get killed. if you die, then it is game over for you. there have been times that mitchell died and i did not hear a retreat order given.

GRAW is basically putting you in the shoes of a SF officer (prefered if they allowed you to create your character) leading your men on missions. in real life, when you get killed by a ied or sniper, you don't all of sudden take over the body of a fellow squadmate and finish the mission. GRAW is a "tactical leadership shooter" and when you die, it's really over, just like real life.

also, when all you have is a four man team on a covert operation and you get compromised or is engaged in a large firefight with very little support, you will haul ass out of there and call for help! there are political implications and other problems that could arise when doing a special operations mission and you lose half of your team on a op. do i need to remind everyone of the SEAL team in afghanistan that got compromised and they lost a QRF force and a recon team (one survivor made it out alive)?

so, all this talk about completing the mission is pretty ridiculous, when the team leader is killed and a three man team is fighting for their lives in enemy territory. you guys should be happy that the dev's did'nt make the game where if you lost one member on the team, it was game over.

Edited by bugkill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For SP I can accept no character switching.  But for COOP, the death of your team leader resulting in "game over", is not acceptable in a GR sequel.  COOP is the point of this thread, not SP.

ok, i will agree with that. in COOP MP, that should have been an option. silent op was talking about SP.

Edited by bugkill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For SP I can accept no character switching.  But for COOP, the death of your team leader resulting in "game over", is not acceptable in a GR sequel.  COOP is the point of this thread, not SP.

ok, i will agree with that. in COOP MP, that should have been an option. silent op was talking about SP.

Actually I was talking about both SP and CO-OP (just more SP). I don't care about not switching characters, I just don't think the Captain's death should end the game, SP and especially CO-OP.

All of your points are good in real life maybe, but there is still some balance of realism and fun that is a part of GR:AW. Ending the game in SP, well ok it fits the SP story line (tough on any SP player). Ending the game in CO-OP is just crazy talk. Imagine if you're playing CO-OP with 8+ players, the leader dies and so does the mission (game)? If the Captain goes down, one of the other able players should pick up the mission. The mission could become pulling back to an extract point. Doing so would allow the team to be redeployed. That would fit in line with what you stated about real world SF situations. That would also be a lot of fun (within the context of GR:AW).

silent_op

Edited by silent_op
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I stretch my imagination, I can see how Hack might be onto something here. Then I think about all he times we restarted cause the knucklehead ( team leader ) just happens to have the best connection.

This is a "PLEASE FIX NOW" thing IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For SP I can accept no character switching.  But for COOP, the death of your team leader resulting in "game over", is not acceptable in a GR sequel.  COOP is the point of this thread, not SP.

ok, i will agree with that. in COOP MP, that should have been an option. silent op was talking about SP.

Actually I was talking about both SP and CO-OP (just more SP). I don't care about not switching characters, I just don't think the Captain's death should end the game, SP and especially CO-OP.

All of your points are good in real life maybe, but there is still some balance of realism and fun that is a part of GR:AW. Ending the game in SP, well ok it fits the SP story line (tough on any SP player). Ending the game in CO-OP is just crazy talk. Imagine if you're playing CO-OP with 8+ players, the leader dies and so does the mission (game)? If the Captain goes down, one of the other able players should pick up the mission. The mission could become pulling back to an extract point. Doing so would allow the team to be redeployed. That would fit in line with what you stated about real world SF situations. That would also be a lot of fun (within the context of GR:AW).

silent_op

hey, i can understand the frustration when it concerns COOP, but maybe it is put in there for that very reason. the team leader is not to be the one that goes in first and start blazin' his guns. he issues out orders and hopefully his teammates will follow them. the team would be forced to play it safe and watch the team leader's back, and the team leader will understand that he is a leader first, shooter second.

the COOP in the 360 version was a big frag fest with everyone going out for themselves, only out to get the most kills. in this one, you HAVE to work as a team and you are really the COMMANDER, you actually have to lead these guys. you send them into a s^@t storm, your fault! you send them directly into a sniper's zone with little or no cover, your fault! you go running off firing a bunch of rounds trying to be rambo, but you don't watch your six, "game over!" and by the way "it's your fault!"

the more i think about it, the more i might like this idea in COOP. it is something different and it sure beats having to die and wait in the lobby or in spectator mode for close to an hour.

Edited by bugkill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Team leader dying and squad members dying if they stray too far; I can see the reasoning, but have to ask if gameplay is enhance or inhibited or frustrated by it.

Yes, protecting the leader can be fun - it's almost a game type in itself, in fact, that's what it should have been, a seperate game type.  :P

Unfortunately, changing this will be difficult, and I would imagine it was incorporated specifically because certain mission functions, most notably the airstrike, have to be done by the squad leader. If the squad leader dies, the mission cannot be completed if something like that is required. I suspect that's the main reasoning behind making the mission fail if the squad leader dies in all cases, not just on missions where the objectives can no longer be completed by the remaining members. Making it so someone else can become squad leader would entail adding, at the very least, animation for removing the cross-com gear from the dead player and putting on the new squad leader and recording additional cross-com audio/video for all three other team members (or 7 if we get 4 more unique players with the xml hack) for much of Mitchell's unique dialog. Not an easy thing to change at all.

I think the "fix" we will be looking for will be a Tango Hunt style game mode, just seek and destroy without the mission objectives. That was always my favorite game mode in the original GR, so I'm not overly upset by the team leader importance in Co-op. Is it frustrating when the team leader dies and everyone has to restart? Yes. Is it a game-breaker? For some people, probably. Is it a bad design? No, not really. It's logical and applied consistantly. We will never have an issue where, in one level, the rest of the team can keep going because the squad leader doesn't have to do anything unique to complete the mission objectives and in another level where the team cannot complete it's objectives but keeps playing to a dead end anyway because they didn't know. It's a rule of the gametype we know going in, seems fair to me (not fun...but fair).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. After leading a few games, I kind of like sitting back, using the satelite, and directing my men where to go and who to hit.

The levels are of course set up nicely for flanking, but there are still quite a bit of tactical options. After playing the demo so much, I can pretty much roll through it with a good team, prolly in about 10 minutes at most.

Then again if I go down or if my internet goes down and we're about to beat a mission, that will be incredibly frustarating. Something has to be fixed. I like the you die, game over in Single player but not in Co-op.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Captain dies and then the game ends is just simply bad design. This is one of those initial design ideas that should have never made it out of the marker board stage at the UBI offices.

It is especially bad in CO-OP. This needs to be fixed. Maybe this is only for SP created missions (due to someone's love for their story line). Maybe with the modding tool, custom missions can be scripted to continue with the Captain dead...

I trust GRIN and I will wait and see.

silent_op

Edited by silent_op
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...