All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:45 pm 
Offline
Groove Six Studios
Groove Six Studios

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 309
Quote:
I'd certainly appreciate a clarification from Coroner as to whether this will be a g_realism var as requested and discussed for many years now for more realism, or some Modern Warfare arcade deravitive g_hardcore var that has virtually nothing to do with functional tactical realism?

One thing is the naming and I agree that g_realism is more appropriate. Otherwise the answer to this question pretty much depends on the definition of functional tactical realism.

My own perception of CQBs game style (g_realism 0), with the changes implemented in CQB with regard to TCE, wouldn't either be that of an arcade game:
The current movement system settles somewhere between AmArmy3 and Arma2 and is more restrictive than that of TCE, including:
*Stance dependent angle movement limitations
*Hip firing replaced by shoulder position and slong with
*Running speed reduced by 15%
*Physical correct gravity along with halfed jump height and mantling
*More falling damage
*Sprint acceleration (todo)
*Much slower realistic prone turning (todo)

I also agree with nyc_paramedic and earlier posts that the maps have to be reworked to remove movements on fences, railings, and small ledges. I also want to eliminate all wild jump-move actions. Hate them.

When it comes to a g_realism 1 setting, I agree with the majority of changes that were suggested here, if they are doable in a reasonable amount of time. The critical point is the adjustment of speeds. I can clearly see that g_realism 1 would have jump completely disabled, no hud, etc. . Whether a further change or even dramatic change to all movement speeds would be a good idea, I don't know. I also think that functional tactical realism does not solely depent on slower movement speeds, at least, I am still missing the convincing argument. Probably only play testing can tell.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 9:31 pm 
Offline
Pwnzer
Pwnzer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:20 pm
Posts: 2531
coroner wrote:
I can clearly see that g_realism 1 would have jump completely disabled,


i agree...

_________________
Image
call me Dragon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 9:53 pm 
Offline
Master
Master

Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:19 pm
Posts: 411
coroner wrote:
*Running speed reduced by 15%
I can clearly see that g_realism 1 would have jump completely disabled, no hud, etc. . Whether a further change or even dramatic change to all movement speeds would be a good idea, I don't know. I also think that functional tactical realism does not solely depent on slower movement speeds, at least, I am still missing the convincing argument.


Please don't reduce the the speed more, having it unaltered would have been fine, because they aren't exactly you standard person nor the regular soldier.

They are some kind of special force especially trained for QCB meaning they would handle a faster pace or because when they sweep one room they do need to do it with haste.

I do also disagree about disabling jumping, we will play the same maps over and over again, and making jumping possibly, will create new and different ways of attacking certain points. This does not mean we should still have, the fantasy style jumping but that can be fixed trough other ways then disabling jumping.

NYC_PARAMEDIC (sorry if I misspelled) Showed us that the early RS shooters does in fact have a higher pace then TCE currently have and are by far a more accurate view of the soldier today!. Read why below

The new tactical shooters contains standard soldiers that wear clothes designed for warfare over a longer time. This included heavier armor, more ammo, water, a backpack with clothes and also a radio, that isn't the most lightweight version of all time. Reducing the speed to their levels would be an insult even to my physical standard.

_________________
"It's by doing whatever that you become whoever"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:31 pm 
Offline
Expert
Expert

Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 175
Quote:
Its not necessarily a turtle game. According to coroner he reduced the speed by only 15%. Currently its at 320 in tce so a 15% reduction would lead it to 272. I've already tested that speed on a private server along with heightened gravity to around 1000 ( currently at 800 ) and its actually alot more realistic than right now. The movements feel smoother and look real-er. I didnt understand coroner completely when he said,
Quote:
gravity was always twice as high as it should have been
but i figured that the gravity was too low instead of twice as high.

If you want to test this for yourself on your own private server simply do this: (Im hoping this is as close as possible to CQB physics according to coroners blog post even though he didnt give any specifics.)

Start game open console and type:

*/seta sv_official 0
*/devmap obj_northport ( or any map that u might want to test )
*join a team
*the warmup duration is probably at 60 so just /g_warmup 10
*in console again, type /developer 2
*now type /g_Gravity 1000
*now type /g_Speed 272

Now test it. Its not slow at all, looks alot better.

Also: Everytime the match resets you have to change g_gravity again to 1000. The speed will stay the same at 272.

Have Fun!


Ditto! Speed decrease was not my first positive outlook on cqb, but after testing it on tce its actually a great decrease. More realistic and helps with competition.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 5:32 am 
Offline
Expert
Expert
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:36 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Finland
I don't understand why to completely disable jumping? Just make it more realistic. Like you could turn only 90 degrees when "flying" and you couldnt jump so high etc.

_________________
In-game nick: vi$


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:50 am 
Offline
Groove Six Studios
Groove Six Studios

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 309
In the end everything is subject to play testing.
If it turns out that the speed reduction is horrible (BTW, I only reduced 'run' and neither 'sprint' nor 'walk' is reduced as would be as a consequence of g_speed reduction)
it will be changed.
I suggest to do wait for an alpha at least, before final judgements are down.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:21 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:38 am
Posts: 357
coroner wrote:
One thing is the naming and I agree that g_realism is more appropriate. Otherwise the answer to this question pretty much depends on the definition of functional tactical realism.

Well, that's encouraging, however it would probably be good to arrive at some explicit definitions of functional and aesthetic realism and what g_realism 1 will and won't do in these regards, so that no one feels mislead by the var and what's offered.

coroner wrote:
My own perception of CQBs game style (g_realism 0), with the changes implemented in CQB with regard to TCE, wouldn't either be that of an arcade game..

I see in your blog posts that you've given a lot of thought and attention to depth and sophistication of the default g_realism 0 design, and that vanilla CQB will probably play much better then TC:E -- and is what will appeal to most TC:E Fans -- even many posting in this thread *cough*.

However there can be an enormous disparity between design sophistication and game-play; by way of example the player and weapon metric vars in any COD game after and including COD2 offer enormous depth of features/capability, but a very arcade game ended up on top of it.

There's also often an enormous disparity between design intentions, and how a game actually ends up being played in the wild; everyone thought Rogue Spear was absurdly slow when it was first released, but once mastered, the unrealisticly fast but weapon accuracy ameliorated sprint movement speed allowed for very arcade MP game-play tactics using a slightly modified approach.

RSE noticed and responded by slowing down Ghost Recon and Raven Shield, but the end result was much the same -- once mastered in a few weeks of play; arcade tactics consistently prevailed over realistic fire-maneuver tactics.

The point here is you have little or nothing to loose by 'going overboard' in pushing the envelope with g_realism 1, the TC:E audience should be well satisfied or even challenged by the new level of realism in g_realism 0 -- and any kicking and screaming will imho be little different then the epic histrionic when Q3A: True Combat rolled out ironsights as the default and all the tantrums and threats to 'leave and never play the game' ensued.

g_realism 1 doesn't even go that far as it's not the game's default, or even intended for CQB's initial or main-stream audience. So I'd encourage you to workk outside the box, and explore the limits of what you can do within your constraints of time and means, toward really raising the bar of what can be offered a prospective CQC TR Audience -- they haven't had a new game or mod in five years, and SWAT 4 and First To Fight: CQC were the last games to take any new design risks, and both were successful budget games.

coroner wrote:
The current movement system settles somewhere between AmArmy3 and Arma2 and is more restrictive than that of TCE, including:

*Stance dependent angle movement limitations
*Hip firing replaced by shoulder position and slong with
*Running speed reduced by 15%
*Physical correct gravity along with halfed jump height and mantling
*More falling damage
*Sprint acceleration (todo)
*Much slower realistic prone turning (todo)

I also agree with nyc_paramedic and earlier posts that the maps have to be reworked to remove movements on fences, railings, and small ledges. I also want to eliminate all wild jump-move actions. Hate them.

All very compelling! Your last two sentences convey the most; and while I personally understand and can even enjoy 'action moves' and the liberating sense of fun they offer in games designed to offer them; I dislike them too in TR games where they were not part and parcel of the design intentions.

What's more 'trick moves' (any play tactic that exploits a game's design in ways the Author didn't intend) offer just one illustration of the 'tip of the iceberg' of the kind of exploit that has ultimately broken many TR games and frustrated the genre's audience -- which are probably less visible to someone that hasn't played TR games enthusiastically...

Where TR game design constraints are too liberal, literal, or even attempts at scale sim metrics they often fail because games aren't 'to scale' to begin with, and the boat load of limitations we encounter playing on a flat 2d anamorphic projection -- ergo Designers get too 'geeky' with the numbers and features and the 'functional' tactical realism of how the game is played (whether realistic tactics will prevail over unrealistic tactics) goes out the window in the wild once the game's metrics are explored, mastered, and exploited.

coroner wrote:
When it comes to a g_realism 1 setting, I agree with the majority of changes that were suggested here, if they are doable in a reasonable amount of time.

That was my intention; to focus on cheapest, fastest, biggest bang for the 'minutes of your time & effort' in being an advocate for the TR CQC venue in the broadest sense possible. I hark to SWAT 4 as an example, even though it's far from my favorite game because it's an excellent benchmark, a lot of CQC Clancy Fans have migrated there, and it's successful (realistic tactics prevail) against enormous limitations.

coroner wrote:
The critical point is the adjustment of speeds. I can clearly see that g_realism 1 would have jump completely disabled, no hud, etc.. Whether a further change or even dramatic change to all movement speeds would be a good idea, I don't know. I also think that functional tactical realism does not solely depent on slower movement speeds, at least, I am still missing the convincing argument. Probably only play testing can tell.

Well, not everyone, even in the TR Audience is going to agree with me, but I was an early advocate of ironsights and am used to that. Nor do I think constrained speed is the grail or 'only' means to CQC Tactical Realism. I'm trying my best to be the Advocate of the broadest expectation of the CQC TR Audience on the basis of historical design canon, and what has proven to work in practice.

I'm not the Author of the idea of speed constraints and how they positively impact TR game design 'in the wild', but I am convinced it's an inexpensive way to superlative and compelling results that amaze and impress any TR Fan once it's given a chance. Some summery points for constrained speed:

· game scale anomalies have less effect on game realism & tactics
· keeps players moving together and improves team-work
· makes realistic 'bonding' cover fire maneuver necessary
· makes realistic 'bonding' easier and more practical to execute
· makes fire-fights more realistic, intense, and sustained

Speed constraints also have some nice aesthetic benefits; it make maps 'feel' larger, and more their representative size; it adds a lot of suspense, pressure and tension -- as you can't magically spirit away, cork through doors, hide, or be where you're needed instantly; so it adds a lot of anticipation where you have to think ahead where you need to be in the next minute relative to what's happening now...

This last point: making thinking and planing your moves realistically practical, is anohter element sorely missing in all but a small handful of TR games, and game speed plays a significant role in obviating it.

But the FTW seller is that slow movement speed totally eliminates entire constellations of 'trick moves' and exploits (present & future) from ever prevailing over more realistic tactics. In the real world of CQC, your weapon is an long extension of your hands and eyes, it's almost always tactically smater to to engage an enemy from the furthest distance practical, and move carefully weapon-up in the ready-aim fire positon.

TR Fans prefer both aesthetic and functional realism where ever as much of both can be offered, but will take functional realism over aesthetic realism -- there are a myriad of compromises in this regard from HUD elements, no FPWV, to radial leaning, to slower then 'what is possible' movement speed, and Ghost Perspectives -- all were compromises made for more functional realism in how the game actually played vs how it looked or superficial first impressions of 'how it feels'.

Just as you hate and want to eliminate conspicuous arcade 'trick moves', TR design aspires to take it one step further and eliminate all 'unrealistic' tactical opportunity from a game, so that if you did it in the real world and it would get you killed so it will in game.

My experience has show the design choices to play well the 'Wider the window's open, the more craps flies through' analogy -- where cutting things close to any unrealistic opportunity and someone with enough time and initiative will use it to exploit all tactical realism from the game...

:?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:24 pm 
Offline
Master
Master

Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:19 pm
Posts: 411
Would you mind not to talking about TR fans as one single person, you are in none way a representative for the TR community. Your wishes are simply pet wishes put in another formulation.

The premises of getting new people attracted to QCB G_realism is trough the older TR gaming community.
That community is awaiting a new game that fits them but making the game into a "turtle game" would be very unfortunate, as that applies to every TR game that is released today. You will therefore not attract a new and big audience if you decide to go down to that road.
I'm really awaiting a first release of QCB that we will be able to try!

_________________
"It's by doing whatever that you become whoever"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:07 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:38 am
Posts: 357
Eqpe wrote:
Would you mind not to talking about TR fans as one single person, you are in none way a representative for the TR community. Your wishes are simply pet wishes put in another formulation.

Would you mind stopping the trolling of this thread, attacking me, and using straw man argument to carry out your attacks. You've already made it abundantly clear you don't want a g_realism 1 option in the game, don't like TR games, and didn't even previously acknowledge it as a valid genre of interest -- just stop, g_realism 0 is the game you want, and the thread you should be posting to is here.

You may not like or even have ever played SWAT 4, but it remains the most played commercial TR CQC shooter, even though it is old, lacks cheat protection and the ironsights its Fans and Developer wanted, was devloped with tiny budget and hardly any advertising or marketing compared to newer titles like the R6 Vegas games -- and it has very slow movement speed cherished by all the Fans that play it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with posting design suggestions based on an existing premise that works and is popular, in this thread I was told to create for that purpose -- stop the trolling and attacks Eqpe.

:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:45 pm 
Offline
Master
Master

Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:19 pm
Posts: 411
I am in neither way attacking you nor the trolling this thread. I am attacking your way of pursvaying the creator of the game into making faulty decisions, because you know hard to discuss when you are stating you are speaking for the whole TR community. You have never stated this out loud but it's obivius if you take the time to read your mile long posts.
Quote:
"TR Fans prefer both aesthetic and functional realism where ever as much of both can be offered, but will take functional realism over aesthetic realism -"


This pretty much sums it up and it's not taken out of context as you might feel about it.

What you are doing is on the other hand Straw_man tactics

Quote:
u've already made it abundantly clear you don't want a g_realism 1 option in the game, don't like TR games, and didn't even previously acknowledge it as a valid genre of interest -- just stop, g_realism 0 is the game you want, and the thread you should be posting to is here.


I played brief moments of Swat 4 and did not really fancy it.
Ofcourse not, but think of how you're doing it and portraying your believes

EDIT: Notice that I didn't attack your point of view but rather how you speak in behalf of the general TR gamer.

_________________
"It's by doing whatever that you become whoever"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:11 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:38 am
Posts: 357
Eqpe wrote:
I am attacking your way of pursvaying the creator of the game into making faulty decisions, because you know hard to discuss when you are stating you are speaking for the whole TR community.

Well at least you admit you're attacking me... I've made it abundantly clear, that I acknowledge CQB as Coroner's mod to deliver as meets his vision and satisfies his enthusiasm, he solicited our feedback and vets this thread -- what more do you want? Plese, it's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.

Eqpe wrote:
Hoak wrote:
TR Fans prefer both aesthetic and functional realism where ever as much of both can be offered, but will take functional realism over aesthetic realism

This pretty much sums it up and it's not taken out of context as you might feel about it.

Yup, and it's a statement of fact, that can easily be corroborated on any TR venue, like the Tactical Gamer Forums which are widely respected by the community and as anyone can see have substantial post volume and traffic...

Eqpe wrote:
Notice that I didn't attack your point of view but rather how you speak in behalf of the general TR gamer.

No where, on any occasion, in any venue do I say I speak on 'behalf' of anyone. Being an 'Advocate' for somehting, and speaking on 'behalf of someone have two very different meanings.

You, on the other hand, do attack me personally, and my posts without any evidence or rational argument, using loose interpretations intended to deride (or horrible English comprehension I can't discern which) and have made it repeatedly, abundantly clear that you do not like Tactical Realism games -- which is fine, but this is not the thread for you then, move along...

:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:19 am 
Offline
Expert
Expert

Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:27 pm
Posts: 175
Quote:
ad·vo·cate (dv-kt)
tr.v. ad·vo·cat·ed, ad·vo·cat·ing, ad·vo·cates
To speak, plead, or argue in favor of. See Synonyms at support.
n. (-kt, -kt)
1. One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender: an advocate of civil rights.
2. One that pleads in another's behalf; an intercessor: advocates for abused children and spouse
3. A lawyer.


OOPS! :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:07 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:38 am
Posts: 357
If you'd like to turn this into an off topic discussion/digression of English semantics, grammar, and lexicography -- I'll gladly indulge you in the off topic forum... Or, are you just trolling too?

:wink:

That's what I thought...

:D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:31 am 
Offline
Pwnzer
Pwnzer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:20 pm
Posts: 2531
jussi wrote:
I don't understand why to completely disable jumping? Just make it more realistic. Like you could turn only 90 degrees when "flying" and you couldnt jump so high etc.


because you actually dont need it,

_________________
Image
call me Dragon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:23 pm 
Offline
Master
Master

Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:19 pm
Posts: 411
Quote:
Well at least you admit you're attacking me... I've made it abundantly clear, that I acknowledge CQB as Coroner's mod to deliver as meets his vision and satisfies his enthusiasm, he solicited our feedback and vets this thread -- what more do you want? Plese, it's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.


Read it again since I quite clearly made it clear I'm attacking your way of "discussing". You actually don't do that cause if you did you would just let him make the game in his own way.

Eqpe wrote:
Hoak wrote:
TR Fans prefer both aesthetic and functional realism where ever as much of both can be offered, but will take functional realism over aesthetic realism

This pretty much sums it up and it's not taken out of context as you might feel about it.

Yup, and it's a statement of fact, that can easily be corroborated on any TR venue, like the Tactical Gamer Forums which are widely respected by the community and as anyone can see have substantial post volume and traffic...

would you mind giving me a link where I have to search trough several subforumparts?

Quote:
No where, on any occasion, in any venue do I say I speak on 'behalf' of anyone. Being an 'Advocate' for somehting, and speaking on 'behalf of someone have two very different meanings.

Ohhh snaaaaap. :oops: :lol:


You, on the other hand, do attack me personally, and my posts without any evidence or rational argument, using loose interpretations intended to deride (or horrible English comprehension I can't discern which) and have made it repeatedly, abundantly clear that you do not like Tactical Realism games -- which is fine, but this is not the thread for you then, move along...[/quote]



oh another strawman tactic as you said it yourself ;). I think I have made it quite clear that I do like the TR games but have other preferences for a TR game.
That we don't agree with your opinion or your way of presenting it doesn't make us trolls nor people that attack you.

you have on the other hand been saying this thread isn't for those that disagree with you.

_________________
"It's by doing whatever that you become whoever"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 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:  
cron
Style created by © Matti, gry komputerowe, reklama sem reklama seo

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