Please donate to keep this site alive!

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 75  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2010 5:30 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:19 am
Posts: 274
Location: Louisiana, USA
If Coroner didn't want a public response, then he shouldn't have posted. Get off the soapbox hoak, no one cares.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2010 7:21 pm 
Offline
Team Terminator
Team Terminator

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 16
Respawning health boxes, recharging health dispensers(Half Life) make the places they're in strategic locations.

When you have a recharging health meter on the character itself, it's a matter of time, and not so much location on how to attack.

This is how it works in Team Fortress 2 with the medic character who is kinda of a portable health dispenser,while here the player itself is just that and it's all automatic.

There's a third mechanic, and that's the Bad Company 1 method, in which the player has an item that dispenses health that needs to recharged. This is more of an almost instant fallback device that has players attempting to find cover to heal themselves back up before reengaging. This was abandoned for BC2.

So the question is which do you think is more fun for this game. Strategic locations of respawning/recharging health dispensation, or automatic recharging of health on the player itself.

There are further parameters to consider for the automatic health recharging on the player.

Initial delay. How long until recharging takes place.

Speed. How quickly does the health recharge.

Charge cap. Can recharging only go so far or not ?

Base line. Does recharging begin more slowly the lower it starts out at for example ? This would put the losing team at a bigger disadvantage more quickly and necessitate different tactics.

_________________
You Have The Right To Respawn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2010 7:41 pm 
Offline
Expert
Expert

Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 4:39 pm
Posts: 200
I have a feeling the american cod4 community used a modded version of the health system, where 2/3rds of the health lost from a gunfight would be regenerated instead of the whole thing (therefore surviving two near-death firefights would put you on very low health)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2010 9:38 pm 
Offline
Master
Master

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:03 pm
Posts: 398
Location: Croatia/Germany
i wouldnt even go as far as 2/3... imo 1/2 of the dmg done should be max (especially if a lot of dmg was given, on low damage its not such an issue). in bc (which is more in coroner's focus from what i've read so far), regeneration would benefit the campers and winning team more and thus creating a bigger imbalance (similar for obj). i cant wait for the huge killing sprees.. :roll:

_________________
=MaveXII=|WL Admin |IRC:#mave-clan
Image
*Clan Movie #2*|xfire: snakes3k


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2010 10:48 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:01 pm
Posts: 466
hoak wrote:
Apparently it needs to be pointed out, again, that in a realistic shooter there's no such thing as 'camping', that ambushing is a valid tactic -- and the tools and means to counter are readily available just like the real thing (in a realistic game)...
Camping and ambushing are two very different things. Not to mention that the latter is impossible in most online shooters.

Also, about the health regen = more camping theory, I disagree. A camper isn't motivated by health regeneration just like a rusher isn't motivated by painkillers. It's a matter of a playstyle preference. Sure, a rusher might take a few seconds for his health to regenerate or a camper might come out of his spot to grab a painkiller but that's nothing major.

However, single-life objectives are a different story... also, clan wars.

SnaKeS3K wrote:
i wouldnt even go as far as 2/3... imo 1/2 of the dmg done should be max (especially if a lot of dmg was given, on low damage its not such an issue).
I agree, health recharge cap only makes sense to a certain point. Regeneration under one half of max health isn't really needed.

Quote:
in bc (which is more in coroner's focus from what i've read so far)
It might lean more towards the old ROBJ mode

Quote:
regeneration would benefit the campers
Let's say you lean 'round the corner and see the enemy, he shoots you but you manage to run away. Who has the upper hand, the enemy or you with restored full health + the knowledge of his position?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2010 11:17 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:38 am
Posts: 357
Damien wrote:
Camping and ambushing are two very different things.
Things? Different? Can you qualify how you regard them to be different things?

Damien wrote:
Not to mention that the latter is impossible in most online shooters.

Impossible? Most online shooters? I might agree that it's difficult in many fantasy online shooters but that's quite a ways from 'impossivle in most'.

:?:

Baal wrote:
If Coroner didn't want a public response, then he shouldn't have posted. Get off the soapbox hoak, no one cares.

Is English your first language, or are you just generally an ignorant and obnoxious person?

:roll:


Last edited by hoak on Sat May 22, 2010 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2010 11:19 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:38 am
Posts: 357
Opps.

:D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 23, 2010 2:07 am 
Offline
Expert
Expert
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:28 pm
Posts: 204
Location: Canada
Hey hoak, how's that research on the sternum hold coming? Or are you still trying to find the invisible book you saw it in?

I personally dislike health regen but I guess Coroner has his eyes set on it so whatever. The ideas set forth by the above psoters that the regen has to be capped in order to still keep the advantage with the more injured player. To avoid allowing the player who was severely injured to be able to return on an equal footing as the attacking player.

_________________
Image
"Statistics is the study of how Greek letters can over-complicate graphs."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 23, 2010 3:44 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:38 am
Posts: 357
Alpha Red wrote:
Hey hoak, how's that research on the sternum hold coming? Or are you still trying to find the invisible book you saw it in?

Yes, it's clear reading, writing, and thinking completely escape you -- so trolling is what you do. Please continue to embarass yourself.

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 23, 2010 1:02 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:01 pm
Posts: 466
hoak wrote:
Things? Different? Can you qualify how you regard them to be different things?

"In military usage, a military tactic is used by a military unit of no larger than a division to implement a specific mission and achieve a specific objective, or to advance toward a specific goal." (Source)

Camping for the sake of camping is just a playstyle. If a team proceeds towards the objective but some players stay behind camping disregarding it, how is that a tactic?

Quote:
Impossible? Most online shooters? I might agree that it's difficult in many fantasy online shooters but that's quite a ways from 'impossivle in most'.
The thing is, you have 2 scenarios in any gamemode which deals with mission objectives:

1)Team A attacks the objective(s) while team B defends
2)Both teams attack the same objective(s)

There is no element of surprise in both cases, teams simply do what they are expected to.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 23, 2010 4:45 pm 
Offline
Expert
Expert

Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 175
Funny I didnt read that Trolls can blame others for trolling.....

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 23, 2010 4:53 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:38 am
Posts: 357
Damien wrote:
"In military usage, a military tactic is used by a military unit of no larger than a division to implement a specific mission and achieve a specific objective, or to advance toward a specific goal." (Source)

Camping for the sake of camping is just a playstyle. If a team proceeds towards the objective but some players stay behind camping disregarding it, how is that a tactic?

'Some some players stay behind camping disregarding it' does not even begin to approximate the range of tactics in games that get called 'camping'; even Wikipedia (your preferred reference here not mine, but lets use it) explicitly defines camping as a 'tactic'

Code:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camping_(video_gaming)
(URL breaks BBCode due to parentheses...)

Damien wrote:
The thing is, you have 2 scenarios in any gamemode which deals with mission objectives:

1)Team A attacks the objective(s) while team B defends
2)Both teams attack the same objective(s)

There is no element of surprise in both cases, teams simply do what they are expected to.

Many realism shooters have much more complex tactical maneuver warfare objectives then the two you offer, and it could be argued that all real military mission objectives can be reduced to these two what you call 'things' or situations -- where in most cases both sides know an attack is likely, know where it will come from, and often even when it is likely to happen.

However, the tactic of ambush need not rely on surprise per se or even exclusively -- an ambush can operate successfully merely from concealed known positions (by both ambusher and ambushed) that must be passed. (Wikipeida again)

In 'most' games there is in fact very little difference between the tactic of ambush and camping, other then perhaps in the minds of those that are ambushed and fail to anticipate, react and counter appropriately...

:?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 23, 2010 5:42 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:01 pm
Posts: 466
Some players call camping anything that isn't rushing in front of their gunpoint, I am not one of them. But you already know that.

I was not talking about camping in general but about the form of it that kills the gameplay (not supportive to the team in any way), in fact this debate about health regeneration vs painkillers is about that. But you already know that.

Quote:
Many realism shooters have much more complex tactical maneuver warfare objectives then the two you offer, and it could be argued that all real military mission objectives can be reduced to these two what you call 'things' or situations -- where in most cases both sides know an attack is likely, know where it will come from, and often even when it is likely to happen.

However, the tactic of ambush need not rely on surprise per se or even exclusively -- an ambush can operate successfully merely from concealed known positions (by both ambusher and ambushed) that must be passed. (Wikipeida again)

Yeah, if you put it on a small enough scale, every situation where the victim doesn't notice his shooter right away becomes an ambush.

One scenario where I could see an ambush really work is when a single player or a part of the team manage to get behind the enemy but that won't be due to camping.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 23, 2010 6:58 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:36 pm
Posts: 477
SnaKeS3K wrote:
... i cant wait for the huge killing sprees.. :roll:

Didnt think that way but true ! we wont even need to leave the uber spots anymore !
Noobs you are DOOMED hahaha !

Damien we consider a guy not moving at all for few minutes on some spot aiming at a static target (a doorframe for exemple) as a camper.

_________________
Image
xFire : wootheyetti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 23, 2010 7:07 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:01 pm
Posts: 466
]Wo0[ wrote:
Damien we consider a guy not moving at all for few minutes on some spot aiming at a static target (a doorframe for exemple) as a camper.
That's the point I was making.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 75  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Style created by © Matti, gry komputerowe, reklama sem reklama seo

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group