Thoughts on improving gameplay

Loved the weekend and wish I was playing it right now, but I saw a bunch of posts talking about things they want to change and I disagreed a fair amount. Wardogs is hella exciting for me, fps games are so stale right now and I’m losing interest in my favourite genre. I’ve been disappointed by the trajectory some games have gone after community feedback so thought I’d share some of my ideas, I believe these changes would be positive in instilling dynamic communicative gameplay from the player-base.

FOB’s get a quick kit function where players can get class based tools to fit a role, these are paid for by munitions/other supplies based on what it is, gun is ammo, hammer is building supplies. FOB has a direct respawn function but its on a considerably long timer and gets longer the more you use it, say 5 minute cycle that’s persistent on the server but everytime you use it a minute gets added to that players timer so they end up staggered. FOB’s are capped at 2 per team, I find the current building mechanics of Wardogs especially exciting due to how dynamic and rewarding it is. I believe that the way the circle is laid out with spawns etc an interesting dynamic of the game is how to cover the territory and lock it down, does a team rush and assault constantly or does a team commit to a creeping turtle maneuver. Due to limited FOB’s the Tier 3 Hammer now comes with a relay tower which is capped per team, building one extends the build radius of the FOB allowing teams to stretch and take a bit more ground, building it up as quickly as supply demands get met. This would make it harder for artillery to completely wipe efforts or lock down an area so hard, while they’ll still be greatly effective it’s harder to pin down crucial targets like enemy mortars, mobile respawn and the fob itself. Meaning that it influences infantry on both sides to actually infiltrate enemy fobs, get reconnaissance and try to sabotage areas especially the fuel pump which is 10/10 mechanic. I understand there’s limitations with how many player placed assets the server can handle but balancing supplies so teams can either build big forts in a smaller area or go less built up and fan out wider.

This concept works in games like squad where supply channels are trusted in the player base to instill and make happen which I believe is a good thing in harbouring a long lasting community especially when the clans start getting servers going. Additionally I’d argue to the grave that implementing more of a focus on squads would be beneficial too, squad leader can place fobs and allocate volunteers in their squad who can build relays, those lucky folk get a bit of xp/cash for things built/happening in those areas. Commander and squad command would be a welcome addition, the best large scale games I’ve played were in battlefield 2 and project reality, where someone brave enough is channeling commands to individual squads and communicating intel. Instead of recurring swarms to the hot zone while 3 guys attack a fob in the distance. Commander can direct squads to put mortars in areas, call in hot drops from pilots, supplies etc and every command answered is a cash bonus. Gives incentive to players to follow but allowing the game to be fully player driven, no carpet bombs from off map artillery, that’s 5 guys in the prediscussed FOB in the mortar squad following coordinates the commander has put on the map.

The towers are great, and aren’t too tall imo, it’s a sick mechanic giving the cause for coordinated team strikes in enemy territory, the codes + fuel pump should be enough incentive. The snipers on the towers I keep seeing people talking about I haven’t really had an issue with too much. The sniping problem is an easy fix by adapting your gameplay. Sniping has a problem in every video game though, it’s never realistic. Rarely is a sniper ever going to fire multiple times from the same position and linger, you shoot, move to a new uncompromised location and carry on. An idea I had was that snipers who are spotted with bino’s are permanently marked if they stay still, if they move to a new location the mark, when the sniper moves the distance away needed he gets a little +$25 or something, he didn’t know he was marked and if he’s paying attention he’ll have a lil dopamine kick because he moved. This in my opinion is a far better fix than sniper glints etc, making snipers more mobile and fingers crossed more likely to switch between bino’s and sniping and getting marks up on the map frequently.

The artillery in my opinion is fine, most of the arti tanks I flew over over the weekend would’ve been seriously easy pickings for any squad who bothered getting the 3 seater off-road buggy and a few RPGS. They’d walk away with 3 tank kills maybe 4. Also stall supply chains. Something which I think is a problem with how short the games are but I’ll get to that. The biggest problem with artillery is the camera, the info shouldn’t be that easy to get, and probably need slower reload times too, possibly make it so that when you shoot in a commander designated strike area there’s a reload speed boost, or maybe through some further class based leveling system. The problem with the artillery will already kind of be curbed by fobs and mobile respawn being able to be extended further across the map and harder to aim for.

But my biggest problem imo, is the time. I’ve seen people the games need to be shorter while I’m of the total opposite belief. The games should be drastically longer with prices being a bit more expensive in the shops for higher end gear, tanks, late unlock guns etc. it should follow RTS rules imo for the best long term plan. Slowly build up your fortifications and lock down areas of the map, skirmish and stop the enemy team from doing the same while having a couple squads fighting for the main objective, the hot zone. By making the games far longer it allows for the different team play styles to show up, a commander might want to turtle for a bit and build up mortars and anti air while another may want his team to push up and take as much ground as possible from the get go, make decisions and plays based around the tower more coordinated and structured as right now it seems like it’s just a case of going there while there’s only 3 people there, hopping a fence and capping it. Longer games would mean more players buying the crowbar and getting a few people to go and try to sneak in. A downside to this but also a perk for the defenders could be that a kill on someone who’s inside the tower radius that’s claimed by a fob or relay circle guarantees far more cash/XP, so if people are just solo hopping or going in with a duo trying to be Jason Bourne’s end up just feeding the enemy team and they end up getting taxed if they do it repeatedly without a squad of like 4-5 with them. In terms of end game XP bonuses, if you need to leave the game early it could be based on how much time you spent in the server, with a minimum of say 15-20 minutes, it’d always been an understood thing for me that not playing a game through no matter the length of time it took forfeited my right to extra XP gain but doing a small multiplier for people for every ten minutes spent ingame so they can have a quicker session and still feel like they’re progressing as the leveling and unlock system is one of the best features and I really hope what we’ve seen is just the tip of the iceberg!

This was kind of just the tip of the iceberg for the ideas I’ve had for Wardogs’ development but wanted to share my thoughts and see if anyone else thought similar.