Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

    Having a discussion in another forum, I got to thinking, and thought it a good community feedback topic for us Tactical Gamer's...


    What is the biggest problem with tactical shooters, either SP or MP, co-op...whatever?


    I'll go first since I started the thread,

    Suppression fire, thats the biggest problem I see in tactical shooters, no matter which ones...

    The AI is never programmed right to react randomly to suppressive fire, and playing online, force on force, a M249 SAW throwing rounds down range doesn't instill that fear that real suppressive fire would...


    How could it be fixed maybe?

    Maybe whenever an automatic weapon is fired near an area that the enemy is in,theres a 80% chance the enemy can't move or return fire (for a set time, if you go over that suppression time, then the enemy can come up with a counter plan)... with a 20% allowing it to represent the hero's that overcome the suppressive fire and save the squad or perform some miracle counter action.

    JMO, whats yours?
    Magnum |TG-18th|


    We stand between chaos and order, evil and good, despair and hope - we are the Thin Blue Line, and we will never be broken.


  • #2
    Re: Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

    I think you have touched on a poignant problem mag.

    Regarding AI and reaction to suppressive fire, like you, I find it sorely lacking of good logic.

    Regarding multi-player, a lot of it depends on the game and how it handles player death. Especially in regards to games that allow you to respawn. If their is no significant penalty for dying, their is little incentive to being cautious with your life especially while being suppresed. I haven't played as many games where when you die you are out for the remainder of the round so I can't speak for experience.

    As far as solutions go, I'm sure there is enough collective tactical knowledge here at TG to put out sound AI logic for reacting to suppressive fire as long as you properly define suppressive fire for the AI (volume, frequency, proximity, availability of cover, etc.). I guess then the problem would be how to code it. I'd be willing to pitch in if there is interest. We could use it to code cutom mods for existing games or even reach out to known game developers for future release consideration (I know this would be a rather ambitious endeavor)

    For multi-player the solution is to find an incentive to make a player properly respond to suppressive fire and still keep the game enjoyable.
    LoyalGuard

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

      I think one of the reasons we don't get afraid of suppresive fire in a realistic manner is this: there is little risk of dying to these suppresive rounds and still littler fear of death. In real life, we'd be terrified to find ourselves in a situation where, were we to stick our head into the suppresive fire, we have a 1 in 100 chance of death. In video games, however, you expect to die often. A 1:100 chance of death is small, by comparison. Which means that suppresive fire really accomplishes telling everyone around you, friend and foe alike, "Hey, I'm firin' my gun! Pop up and put two well aimed shots in my dome for an easy kill!"

      The reactive fix to this is to make death easier; i.e., make the guns more lethal, and to increase the penalty for death. Obviously these kinds of changes won't make everyone happy, but it seems like they would work. After all, in AA, which has quite severe death penalties, I believe I've seen suppresive fire used before. Same for GRAW; albeit only a few "death limited" servers actually carry significant death penalties.

      Finally, there seems to be another problem; when would you actually use suppresive fire? You have to know where the enemy is and not have a more effective means of engaging. Well, if I use suppresive fire - and assuming the enemy is not in a closed location such as a dead end alley or small cave, won't he simply turn around and go somewhere else? That means that the crucial and deadly information I had - his location - is lost.

      And now I feel like adding another point: objectives. Let's go back to the bad guy whose location I know. If I can suppress him, keep him from returning fire, and buy enough time for my teammates to bypass his position, gaining access to their crucial objective, then "I've done good." But if we have to engage that person later in the round anyways, we're much better off going for the kill while we've got the chance.

      All of that said, I think that we use suppresive fire all of the time in BF2; namely when one is in a tank or APC, spots an AT soldier and misses him, and fires at his last known location to keep the person from popping out and firing another shot at him. I also see it used in GRAW, but not in a true "suppresive" role; lethal engagement always follows the suppression.
      A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

      "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

        right - it's just not lethal enough... In BF2 anyway - If I have to cover 10m of open alley to move cover to cover, I'll do it even if there's a SAW hosing down the alley. Why? Because I probably will only get hit once or maybe twice leaving me with > 50% health. Then I can just summon my trusty medic and be up to 100% in about 5 seconds.

        For suppression to work, I think you either need to A) make the rounds more lethal, or B) remove the possiblity of instant, 100% health restoration.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

          Red Orchestra tries to incorporate suppresive fire into the gameplay. When bullets fly past you within a certain radius, your screen goes blurry and it is more difficult to aim your weapon.

          I think there is always going to be room for improvement with the AI because it's impossible to clone human intelligence into a game.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

            Originally posted by 0b1one
            Red Orchestra tries to incorporate suppresive fire into the gameplay. When bullets fly past you within a certain radius, your screen goes blurry and it is more difficult to aim your weapon.
            Hmmm, that's interesting...it's kind of like flight or fright kicking in...extra adrenaline and all. I like it...

            That should be possible in any game where there are environmental triggers.
            LoyalGuard

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

              Originally posted by Magnum50[B
              How could it be fixed maybe?[/B]

              Maybe whenever an automatic weapon is fired near an area that the enemy is in,theres a 80% chance the enemy can't move or return fire (for a set time, if you go over that suppression time, then the enemy can come up with a counter plan)... with a 20% allowing it to represent the hero's that overcome the suppressive fire and save the squad or perform some miracle counter action.

              JMO, whats yours?
              One of the golden rules of gaming is to not remove control of the avatar from the user. I don't think this would fly at all. Since there really isn't a fear of virtual supressive fire, maybe make splash 'damage' for some guns such as the saw. The 'damage' would be similar to a tear gas grenade, maybe drowning out other battlefield sounds, shaking/bluring the vision and slightly erratic movement. Similar to shell shock, but less drastic. The effect could be lessened by getting behind solid cover for a short time, or by getting away from the surpresive fire.

              I just don't recommend freezing a player in place.
              ~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
              No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

              <---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

                The problem people have with the blurring effect is that not everyone would react the same to bullets flying around them. Veterans/natural soldiers would be able to focus under intense pressure while unconditioned recruits will certainly buckle. This doesnt translate to the virtual battlefield where fear does not exist.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

                  Originally posted by aculle01
                  The problem people have with the blurring effect is that not everyone would react the same to bullets flying around them. Veterans/natural soldiers would be able to focus under intense pressure while unconditioned recruits will certainly buckle. This doesnt translate to the virtual battlefield where fear does not exist.
                  Maybe that could introduce and RPG element to the game. Guys who have been playing longer will react differently to incoming fire.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

                    Originally posted by 0b1one
                    Maybe that could introduce and RPG element to the game. Guys who have been playing longer will react differently to incoming fire.
                    Wouldn't that be redundant? New players already react differently than veteran players.
                    A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

                    "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

                      For suppressive fire, we don't care if we get hit with a few bullets, there's a medic in our squad and we get healed to full health in no time at all.

                      One thing that sets some games apart from others is the immersion of all the senses (excluding touch, cause that would hurt ;)). The run meter bar is the biggest problem I see in all games that implement it. Great, now I run and then I walk, then I run again, then I walk. There is no sense of real exaustion that would happen in real battles, and that would really change the game.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

                        EDIT: hah, what I get for not reading more :)


                        Originally posted by aculle01
                        The problem people have with the blurring effect is that not everyone would react the same to bullets flying around them. Veterans/natural soldiers would be able to focus under intense pressure while unconditioned recruits will certainly buckle. This doesnt translate to the virtual battlefield where fear does not exist.
                        This translates even better. Especially for games that want to offer some depth. As you [the avatar] become more experienced in the game, you are have more resistance to such effects.
                        ~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
                        No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

                        <---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

                          I'd like to see (hear) the supersonic crack of a bullet modelled accurately in games. When bullets passed closely by you, their cracks could drown out almost all other sounds, making it hard to hear what others were saying. For games not based on discrete rounds, I think this crack, combined with the slight blurring effect that Red Orchestra uses, would make a workable suppressive effect.

                          For games that are based on discrete rounds, I'd still like to hear the supersonic cracks of bullets. But, I think the already-mentioned idea of making bullets lethal, combined with having only one life per round, would help make your "life" (avatar) more valuable to you, and thus make suppressive fire more useful. Games like America's Army and Call of Duty 2 already do this fairly effectively.

                          As a somewhat relevant example, I was playing Call of Duty 2 last week on our server. I got pinned down by an MG42 while I was inside a house. Bullets were hitting objects all around me, making it very hard for me to hear what others on my team were saying over VOIP. I knew that if I popped my head up, I'd be "dead." I was very effectively suppressed by this fire, and I'd like to see this used more in other games.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

                            Oh, that's also something that bugs me up a wall Strag, the bullet sounds. If you can be able to hear very soft footsteps, then they turn the corner and fire a shotgun, the 2 sounds should be at opposite ends of the sound spectrum, not close in sound volume. The CS:S AWP should make you loose your hearing after a few shots.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Community Discussion: Whats the one problem...

                              Originally posted by Acid
                              The CS:S AWP should make you loose your hearing after a few shots.
                              Now that would be grounds for a lawsuit!
                              A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

                              "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X