It says RPG

[crowbaby]

"Tour of Duty will bring to life a new online world that combines combat simulation and military role-playing in a historical World War II setting."

Having played a fair number of online roleplaying games, i was thinking about this press release.

What most MMORPG's do really badly is combat. Evolving out of turn based, chart and dice games like D&D, they tend to have a very 'hands-off' attitude to combat. Sure, players can pick their weapons/ spells/ psychic-powers/ whatever beforehand, but there's precious little skill involved as we simmers would perceive it. Gameplay in MMORPG's still tend towards an endless round of open door/kill monster/loot chest.
Obviously, AH2 would not have this problem. The ACM elements of the game are in place and excellent. Even the most basic missions randomed up by the AI could present a challenge.

Secondly, MMORPG's struggle to make themselves credible. O.K. so they're not as bad as the old 'soup cans' puzzle, but the make-believe nature of their worlds leaves you with logic and interactions which are arbitrary and confusing.
Again, AH2 is to be set in real history, with real objects/ physics/ military/ etc. It is easier to get excited about flying a P-51 over occupied europe than playing Grimli the dyslexic dwarf battling the legendary Xzarq. Plus, what's going on around you in AH makes sense in its tactics/physics/etc.

"In this structured environment, players create a persistent character who will follow a career path with either the Axis or Allies through the course of the war. These characters will be expressed through custom avatars and will receive promotions and medals, or demotions and even court-martials based upon their performance at completing assigned missions. Tour of Duty will reward both cooperative and competitive play. "

A lot of the addiction factor in MMORPG's comes from developing an avatar. First, choose from a range of professions, then start in a relatively safe area; weak, with lousy weapons. Initial missions familiarise you with your avatar's skills and surroundings, then you start the treadmill of levelling that gets you better weapons, wealth and power (Which also equate to more individuality).

"The big thing to rember this is NOT a free for all."

If AH2 is to have RPG elements as the market currently understands them, it will mean huge changes, and gameplay will be completely different to the current MA and CT. Perhaps we should think of:

---MA as Quake (no criticism intended - but the grab favourite weapon and wreak havoc style of gameplay is there)------

--CT as Counterstrike (more realistic environment and range of weapons)----
---AH2 as Ultima Online/ Asheron's Call/ Anarchy Online (a lot of missions, gradually increasing in difficulty and complexity as your avatar develops, all set in a persistent, immersive world - in fact even these games are more free-form than any realistic military career would be)-----

AH and MMORPG's at the moment are chalk and cheese, and likely to stay that way, but i think it's an interesting way to view AH2. We could be looking at a whole new genre, combining avatars' realistic careers with the players own ACM skills. (Please don't mention WWIIOL - AH2 will be finished before they're even in Beta.)

[mason22]

i think you may have taken "role-playing" a little to literal when you make your case of AH2 being an RPG.

I think "role-playing" in AH2 is more of a concept, rather than what you have described above.

just my thoughts.

[Saurdaukar]

I agree - I dont think "role playing" should be taken in the UO, D&D sence, but rather a blanket statement regarding the proposed "pilot" you would "be."

[Preon1]

to be honest, the major facet of "role-playing" that I see is the emphasis towards pilots wanting to stay alive.

perhaps other stresses will be applied for people to want to keep their wingman alive and commanders wanting to keep their flights/squadrons/wings alive...   Other than that, there is no roleplaying in the D&D sense

[crowbaby]

"i think you may have taken "role-playing" a little to literal when you make your case of AH2 being an RPG."

I never said I was making a case for AH being an RPG. I just find interesting the idea of an air combat game with all of the many roleplaying elements which HTC have said may be in AH2.

If pilots earn ranks, are assigned to missions and then rewarded or punished depending upon their performance in those missions: if higher ranking pilots get better planes: If players have persistent avatars in a persistent world : then we're talking about a lot of gameplay elements which are used in different ways by RPGs but are new to AH.

I thought a discussion would be interesting. I was interested to know what other people thought, rather than simple BBS smackdowns.

I think "role-playing" in AH2 is more of a concept, rather than what you have described above.
-mason22

what 'concept' do you have of it?


I dont think "role playing" should be taken in the UO, D&D sence,

the proposed "pilot" you would "be."
-Saurdaukar

what sense should it be taken in then?

in what way and to what extent will we 'be' a pilot?

[Saurdaukar]

Well, in the sense that right now in AH, you dont "play" a pilot.  You log on, shoot and get shot, and then log off.  Your actions in the game have no effect whatsoever on anything other than how happy you are when you go to bed.  

The RPG aspect of AHII would mean (I think) that if you decided it was a good idea to dive into a flight of 4 P-51's with your lone 109 - and succeeded in shooting down 3 of them before the 4th got you, your "pilot" might not think it so hot, and you might be reduced in rank or something.  In other words, there is incentive beyond being able to think youre the best virtual stick to ever terrorize the skies.  

The RPG aspect might force us to think in terms of survival - where shooting down no aircraft during a sortie, but landing would warrent perks (not in the literal sense) - and shooting down 5, but dying might result in a demotion of some sort.

Am I making sense?

[hitech]

crowbaby,I think your the first to post who is starting to see what we invision.

HiTech

[crowbaby]

Wow. Umm, doubt i can follow up on it though...

The RPG aspect might force us to think in terms of survival - where shooting down no aircraft during a sortie, but landing would warrent perks (not in the literal sense) - and shooting down 5, but dying might result in a demotion of some sort.
-Saurdaukar

This makes sense. Conversely other people have brought up the issue of incentive. Some interesting questions have been asked about how to get pilots to risk their lives in missions, etc. if there are real penalties for dying. Roleplaying ways around this could be tricky. Perhaps the much discussed idea of pilot rescue could be implemented when over neutral territory. Also, when over home territory, bailing could be a simple way to survive an encounter that goes wrong. I seem to recall stories of BoB aces who repeatedly had to bail but were flying again in no time.

Then there's the issue of a realistic pilot career. In some RPG's careers are highly specific, and if you want to try out a different tactic/weapon/playing-style, you create a new avatar. Applied to WW2, this would suggest the possibility of having several pilots on the go at once. So if you wanted to go and do some jaboing in your Stuka as opposed to bomber escort in your 109, you'd use a different pilot/avatar. I think that this might have a few advantages:

- planes: we all love to try out different planes, and to hit different targets. If there is any kind of linear war going on, this choice will have to be restricted (relative to what we're used to in the MA). One way to alleviate this restriction would be to allow different avatars, e.g. fighter pilot in 109/110 depending on mission, jabo pilot in stuka and then 190.

- playing style. If avatars specialise it allows people to play to their strengths. Thus someone who isn't much cop at ACM could still have an enjoyable,  successful and decorated career in ground attack.

I've got a lot of other curiosities, but at the moment i think the question of how the players career could be developed is a fascinating one.

[Kweassa]

That, is certainly an interesting point of view crow.. and with HT's positive remark, it makes you wonder just how broad this concept can evolve ..

 Maybe even the "AI sector" can interact with how the human players carry their tasks out.. evolving into something better and  more skilled - along the lines of historic 'continuity'.

 For instance.. if an ETO starts.. maybe there will be something like the USAAF 8th bomber group, which starts off as unexperienced, 'low level' of AI.. as the players escort and lead them into more and more successful missions.. and as the phase of the war passes by, they will gain more 'experience' and 'level up' - high chance of precise bomb runs... maybe a little bit more skilled gunners on board.. who knows?

 I am also very fond of the 'literal' RPGs, and just thinking about some of the 'goodies' one may experience in the RPG fashion, seems very delightful. Walking around the field you are stationed at, with your avatar... meeting other Non-Player Characters like the mechanics.... checking out on high what they are doing to your aircraft... etc etc.. Some might find that tedious, but to others, it can be very fun and immersive

[gofaster]

I better get my dice ready so I can roll a new character after every mission.  I tend to die fairly often, doing brave things that carry high risks.

[crowbaby]

For instance.. if an ETO starts.. maybe there will be something like the USAAF 8th bomber group, which starts off as unexperienced
-Kweassa

Interestingly, this works well for the whole war. If you look at the tactics most airforces were using in 1939, they're basically first world war stuff (except Germany, who got a lot out of the Spanish civil war). Generally you can see this learning curve develop right through to 1945. This would quite suit a new online game, (tactics, aircraft, defences and AI develop as the game itself and the player base do) but it makes me wonder how flexible the whole advancement system will be. Will existing, skilled AH players find themselves moving up the ranks nice and quickly?

This also raises the question of how to deal with high ranking players? In standard RPG's they used to just give them more dangerous areas to explore, bigger monsters and more loot. That got stale, and one of the things a lot of the better RPG's are doing now is encouraging high level characters to group together, create 'guilds', invest in new players, influence the storyline.

Of course, the 'peter principle' is a danger here. A great fighter pilot may not make a good general - but if the option is there he might make a squadron leader, a trainer, or just an elite pilot for difficult missions.

None of this matters too much for the first six months, but the problem of 'high level' characters, what to do with them and how to keep them has plagued many an RPG. Again, AH2 has the advantage that it can just look at what the real air forces did with their better pilots.

just thinking about some of the 'goodies' one may experience in the RPG fashion, seems very delightful.

Just another thought about the advantages of the real world aspect here. There are masses of manuals, lectures, memoirs, etc. online. We all know this already, but for the newbie, it's fantastic. Online RPG's would kill for this kind of boost to immersion which also develops the skills and knowledge of the player base.

(again, i don't want to look like i'm thinking of AH2 as a roleplaying game rather than an air combat game, this is just one slant on the whole thing - but there are already lots of people discussing engine management, DM, etc.)

[Octavius]

Originally posted by Kweassa
I am also very fond of the 'literal' RPGs, and just thinking about some of the 'goodies' one may experience in the RPG fashion, seems very delightful. Walking around the field you are stationed at, with your avatar... meeting other Non-Player Characters like the mechanics.... checking out on high what they are doing to your aircraft... etc etc.. Some might find that tedious, but to others, it can be very fun and immersive

Excellent idea Kweasa!  Of course, they'll have to include Sheep Pens to explore and the local burlesque house for the fly boys to visit while not in a mission

Maybe that Ninja PT Boat squadron can make an appearance in AH2.

[LLv34_Camouflage]

Originally posted by Kweassa

Walking around the field you are stationed at, with your avatar... meeting other Non-Player Characters like the mechanics.... checking out on high what they are doing to your aircraft... etc etc.. Some might find that tedious, but to others, it can be very fun and immersive

Sims: Tour of Duty?

Camo

[Mini D]

The thing that separates AH2 from the RPGs you initially refer to is:

Everyone is afforded the exact same tools needed to advance as far as the game is concerned.  The game does not introduce strengths and weaknesses.  The only variation afforded is the player's abilities and decisions.

You are playing a fighter pilot.  Your strengths and weaknesses are defined solely by your decisions and abilities.

At least... that's how it starts out.  I'm curious how the "give better things to better players" part will work out.

MiniD

[crowbaby]

Everyone is afforded the exact same tools needed to advance as far as the game is concerned. The game does not introduce strengths and weaknesses. The only variation afforded is the player's abilities and decisions.
-Mini D

This is true, obviously it's the players own ACM skills, rather than the avatars, which will determine their success. However, once that success is rewarded, the differences between good and bad pilots will become even wider. In the MA we'd be horrified by this, but in TOD it makes sense. The better pilots could be sent on more difficult missions, and be approximately matched against their peers on the opposing side. the whole idea of a rank system suggests keeping the challenge balanced for each player.

I'm curious how the "give better things to better players" part will work out.
- Mini D

Fariz raised the possibility of pilots having their 'own' plane. This is interesting because such a plane could degrade over its lifetime, particularly if the groundcrew have to patch holes in it! Then it would be replaced with a new model after you've successfully completed a certain number of missions. If you trash it or lose it, however, you could be stuck with the squadron's 'hanger queen' until you've made up the points.

If you request a transfer to another outfit (for a change of aircraft and mission type) you could be given a dog of a plane until you've proven yourself.

I don't think plane differences need to be huge. Flying with one gun out or some instruments malfunctioning, or the engine producing 96% power, or overheating quicker, isn't going to prevent you from completing a mission, though it might make you head for home rather than chasing that last bandit. Despite this, you'll still love your plane, because it'll have your name and your kill markings on it.

Also, rewarding success doesn't necessarily have to mean better planes, or better functioning planes. It could also include degrees of authority and autonomy within the ongoing war. Similarly, pilots who excel at certain roles could be given the opportunity to get 'special training' and special missions. Kweassa has a post which touches on some of this with regard to flying rare or new planes.
I think the key here would be to develop a range of things that experienced pilots could do. Having said that, even just giving them tougher missions, against more human pilots, would be a pretty good reward/challenge.