PDA

View Full Version : 2.86, too realistic?


Patriarch
20th Aug 2001, 05:19 AM
Is there a chance 2.86 will be too realistic. Its hard to say since most of us havent tried it.... but we properbly all agree that there is a line for how realistic a game should be, and still playerble. Will 2.86 cross this... opinions? And if not...what IS too realistic?

NotBillMurray
20th Aug 2001, 05:31 AM
Thanks. I was just thinking that we need to have another thread dedicated to this topic, because this thread (http://forums.planetunreal.com/showthread.php?threadid=79245) hasn't been posted to in a couple of days. I thought at first that this thread (http://forums.planetunreal.com/showthread.php?threadid=79068) would take the torch, but it hasn't been posted to for like 12 hours so it must be dead too.

BTW, by all indications: no we don't all agree, no, and a whole lot more realistic. (my response)

Trak
20th Aug 2001, 05:33 AM
Personally I hope they slow movement down. Way down. If that is too realistic for some people I'm sorry, but the current movement speeds make the game too much like supersoldiers on crack. That plus the new inertia stuff should make the game more squad based, giving the glory hounds real problems.

Patriarch
20th Aug 2001, 05:51 AM
for the double thread

Trak
20th Aug 2001, 06:17 AM
At least you didn't come in claiming to be an ultra 1337 "real gamer" :rolleyes: or a sarcastic ass. You put up a reasonable topic for real debate and respectful expression of opinion unlike the other two threads mentioned. Maybe your topic isn't inflamatory enough for the community since it was stated respectfully, thoughtfully and with a header that stated the topic clearly.

/sarcasm on
Gee what were you thinking Patriarch?
\sarcasm off

NotBillMurray
20th Aug 2001, 06:21 AM
No prob. Just early in the morning.

Patriarch
20th Aug 2001, 06:31 AM
Actually what I was thinking was to see some opinions... Just cause I started the thread does not mean that I think its too realistic myself... Not at all... problem with the double threads that appear is that some people dont manage to post a clear header... I would never read threads with headers that you mentioned earlier (my loss? maybe)

But anyway... unless the topic gets discussed then could some moderator please delete it?

Lolo Konijn
20th Aug 2001, 06:41 AM
Maybe when the game is to realistic, they could change back for gameplay, but IMO they should first make it as realistic as possible.

But if the game becomes real, it wouldn't be fun. I mean have you ever heard a sane person say that war is fun?

DJSatane
20th Aug 2001, 06:45 AM
IF its too realistic for some, then why dont they go play Strike Force or Max Payne. Infiltration is great and 2.86 should really bring us closer to realism, if some don't like that there are plenty of fast minded unrealistic games out there for ya.

The_Fur
20th Aug 2001, 07:10 AM
I mean have you ever heard a sane person say that war is fun?
Sane people... no, soldiers... yes.


And like satane says. If you think it's too realistic then there ae plenty others that should suit your taste.
If you don't want those there are two options:

-you can go burn in hell
-you can STFU.

Patriarch
20th Aug 2001, 07:12 AM
Comming from The_Fur im sure its unpleasent :D... but what is:-you can STFU

RiotChild
20th Aug 2001, 07:21 AM
You would have to take into consideration on how playable or how attractive the game play of future INF versions would be and how it would affect its popularity.
The on-line gaming community has a very diverse taste ranging from those who admire the fast action paced games such as Quake or those that enjoy slowed down strategically realistic games such as Rouge Spear.
Of course thereís a loyal following of gamers that demand more realism but there is always a limit to where you have to balance realism with fun. Judging by the current popularity of INF compared to other realism shooters, it seems that the majority gamers still prefer other games that donít lean so much towards extreme realism more appealing.

Wikkan
20th Aug 2001, 07:53 AM
No, I don't think the next version is too realistic. I'm looking forward to how the new features change how the game is played. And, bits like inertia are actually welcome and useful here. They're really "in place". In Tribes 2 there was inertia, but it was just too frustrating as it was like playing quake... just with so many restrictions. And cone fire. God I hate cone fire...

Farouk
20th Aug 2001, 08:02 AM
Yeah, but that doesn't say there is need for another semi-realistic shooter. I think Inf (as well as any other game) should search its niche and stay there.
Three completely different shooter are better than three times pretty much the same, even if I'd like three of them in the second case and only one in the first.

As for realism, personally I don't care if I fight humans or aliens or if the weapons are all known from the real world as long as the setting and weapons are coherent and somewhat "believable". I know many others have a different view on that and it's nice for them that Infiltration has these features.
But what I like is that Inf is going to something I always wanted: realism in gameplay/movement/aiming. I want a game where it's more succesful to be cautious, to fire out of cover instead of circlestrafing an enemy.

And yes, I think too that the current running speed is too fast.

RAZZ
20th Aug 2001, 08:04 AM
I dont mind realism so long as it dosent interfere with my gameplay.
read: a jillion buttons to push and memorise, a gun that dosent work at least 80% of the time, my enemies having too great an advantage over me because of hardware and not skill.

thats not to say I wanna get stiffed either.
If I wanted quake, I could buy it and install for alot less trouble.
I want teh whole military experience as I can get it within a few parameters (playing time, my ability to understand it, my hardware limits)

realism is great
realism is good
just make sure its still fun and fair for everyone when your done tweaking :p

The_Fur
20th Aug 2001, 08:21 AM
my enemies having too great an advantage over me because of hardware and not skill.

The good thing about realism it makes it more fair for all involved since hardware and fast reactions matter less. A good example are flight sims. You can stuill kick some major ass with your $2 joystick 14" screen and semi-broken keyboard if you know the tactics.

The only thing limiting your effectiveness in a truely realistic game is the hardware up here *taps forehead*.

-=TBF=-KOFFEYKID
20th Aug 2001, 09:25 AM
No, Inf will not cross that boundry. It's really a matter of playing style for most first person shooters. When ppl get comfortale to playing a certain way, there style advances. Not in Inf though. Alot of it is luck, skill, strategy and teamwork. Wich can always be added too. That is why many ppl go from UT to CS or TO. They cant use their style in Inf.

Tiran Kenja
20th Aug 2001, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Farouk
As for realism, personally I don't care if I fight humans or aliens or if the weapons are all known from the real world as long as the setting and weapons are coherent and somewhat "believable". I know many others have a different view on that and it's nice for them that Infiltration has these features.
But what I like is that Inf is going to something I always wanted: realism in gameplay/movement/aiming. I want a game where it's more succesful to be cautious, to fire out of cover instead of circlestrafing an enemy.

And yes, I think too that the current running speed is too fast.

Uhmmm... How do you judge if the aiming of a laser-pulse-blaster-rifle with triple rocket launcher and build in auto aim is realistic? And how do you know if the just mentioned weapons damage is realistically applied to an 3-legged green blob of some alien race?

McMuffin
20th Aug 2001, 09:30 AM
Introducing a jogging speed. Your run key will toggle between a walk and jog, while holding it down will sprint, and thus reduce accuracy to a near worthless state

shooting from cover will be more effective, making for a more thoughtful game

The transition between prone and standing each has a unique animation, which doesn't occur immediately. (No more "prone hopping") Diving prone is still available, though at a cost to stamina

New collision detection for prone allows for taking realistic damage at the body, legs, and head

prone will now work as it was intended from the beginning

Introducing player inertia. This prevents instant changes of direction while sprinting, as well as a necessary distance to stop from a full sprint.

Again, shooting from cover will be more effective since it will be harder to dodge. And about hardware advantage, slower directional changes will make it easier for players with substantial lag to hit their targets.

All in all I think Infiltration will be much closer to it's goal of a truly realistic game that's still a lot of fun, even for people new to it. The only things still missing then will be mission oriented strategy, and some non-weapon equipment such as binoculars or night vision

Beagle_One
20th Aug 2001, 09:33 AM
I think that the way INF is going, more realistic elements put in, better the playing experience will become.
I'm all for more realism in this mod as long as they don't put that annoying "dripping your sweat in the eye" effect. :D

/\l!eN[RIP]
20th Aug 2001, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Beagle_One

I'm all for more realism in this mod as long as they don't put that annoying "dripping your sweat in the eye" effect. :D

Now THAT is a good suggestion..Process this one Bls!:p

Tiran Kenja
20th Aug 2001, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by /\l!eN[RIP]


Now THAT is a good suggestion..Process this one Bls!:p

How about the one-key-for-each-leg-you-have-to-press-for-each-step feature? With added realism if you don't press in a good rythm youwill fall over?

the vrrc
20th Aug 2001, 10:31 AM
I am for asrealistic as possible. Unless the INF team is allowed to modify/make their engine, they won't really get too realistic to hinder gameplay.

Remember people, it isn't a game, it's INF.

Beagle_One
20th Aug 2001, 10:50 AM
Please don't even think about implementing "mosquito flying by your ear" effect or "ticks biting your back and getting serious desease" effect. I hate those things in a game.

DarkBls
20th Aug 2001, 11:06 AM
Too ?

Humm...

The Mole
20th Aug 2001, 11:10 AM
INF is definitely realistic. You can't do EVERYTHING on a computer, though....

-The Mole

{GD}Ghost
20th Aug 2001, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Tiran Kenja


How about the one-key-for-each-leg-you-have-to-press-for-each-step feature? With added realism if you don't press in a good rythm youwill fall over?

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!! :D :D :D

I almost fell off my chair laughing. That is some funny sh*t!


BTW: for the couple of people who don't know, STFU is internet shorthand for: Shut The F*ck Up!

The Mole
20th Aug 2001, 11:39 AM
"How about the one-key-for-each-leg-you-have-to-press-for-each-step feature? With added realism if you don't press in a good rythm youwill fall over?"

ROFLMAO

Farouk
20th Aug 2001, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Tiran Kenja


Uhmmm... How do you judge if the aiming of a laser-pulse-blaster-rifle with triple rocket launcher and build in auto aim is realistic? And how do you know if the just mentioned weapons damage is realistically applied to an 3-legged green blob of some alien race?

I said it doesn't need to be realistic. It has to be somewhat believable as in you don't say "That'll NEVER work" because you can already prove it wrong at the first sight or just is against logic: Too cost-ineffective etc.

The stuff you mentionend is not believable. Intelligent 3-legged blobs of human like size don't have a place in any evolution on any planet (don't let me go into detail). Who carries all the rockets? Who pays for it's automatical guiding system, when grenades would do the same job?
I may believe the laser weapon, when there is a plausible explanation for a strong enough carryable energy source and cooling device.

Currently I am studying mechanical engineering and back in my school days my main subjects were physics and biology. You can design believeable sci-fi stuff and judge it if you have sufficent knowledge in such areas.

DJSatane
20th Aug 2001, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by the vrrc
I am for asrealistic as possible. Unless the INF team is allowed to modify/make their engine, they won't really get too realistic to hinder gameplay.

Remember people, it isn't a game, it's INF.

Hey! I think we need mosquito models flying around in Peru map! They dont have to bite, but we should be able to shot them down! Shot it down!!!!

The_Fur
20th Aug 2001, 01:52 PM
hey it is possible, UT allready has em left over from unreal. You can spawn em in swarms.

{PhD}Teutonic
20th Aug 2001, 02:21 PM
When will the INF Team add a bind key to "Breathe"?

Sweep
20th Aug 2001, 03:05 PM
Frankly I don't understand this too realistic thing.

If I could be playing in a near 100% real holodeck-type Inf simulation with a real M4 in my hands feeling real recoil, shooting what seem to be real bullets, and feeling real pain (slight pain, not true to life pain there hence the near 100% real part...) I would be doing it all day long. The only thing not fun about war is that real people are dying and you can die. Take that away and that's what I would love to play... That would have some badass suspense and adrenaline flowing going on...

And we're not even talking one-thousandth of that level of realism here currently. Anything more realistic is better to me at this point in the Inf stage. And like was already said there are plenty of other not-so-real "realism mods" to play, so switch to them if Inf starts to piss you off.

Cpt.Cypher
20th Aug 2001, 03:12 PM
I don't understand these "too-much realism" people either Sweep. They seem to want just another semi-realism clone. Frustrates me too see that. Theres two perfectly good semi-realism mods out there, SF and TO, and for those that want more CS like gameplay can play that.

The_Fur
20th Aug 2001, 03:19 PM
amen

Harpoon
20th Aug 2001, 03:26 PM
I completely agree with Trak, they need to slow the movement speeds way down. This will encourage teamwork, right now all you need to do is keep moving so they wont hit you and keep spamming with your M204/M16/ACOG combo.

And yes, INF should be as realistic as possible. I wanna have one game that will just be plain realism. Theres so many others (CS, SS, etc..) that are semi realistic crap games. This is one reason I'm not gonna try to hack in INF.

Trak
20th Aug 2001, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Tiran Kenja


Uhmmm... How do you judge if the aiming of a laser-pulse-blaster-rifle with triple rocket launcher and build in auto aim is realistic? And how do you know if the just mentioned weapons damage is realistically applied to an 3-legged green blob of some alien race?

Play System Shock 2 and then play Soldier of Fortune. This might demonstrate what Farouk was talking about.

c+k|nEVeRmOre
20th Aug 2001, 03:27 PM
The only way this or any other game could become too real to me is if bullets started flying through the glass of my monitor :D

Overon
20th Aug 2001, 04:44 PM
I can almost smell the fear of the run and gun type loners who are rewarded with lots of frags in 2.85.5 for their style of play. They see the writing on the wall and the time where their style ruled is coming to an end.

Trak
20th Aug 2001, 04:51 PM
Amen Overon.

Trak
20th Aug 2001, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by {PhD}Teutonic
When will the INF Team add a bind key to "Breathe"?

Uh, they already did that. Hold down the right mouse to stop breathing, release it to resume breathing... I hope you already knew that. :p

Kisen_K
20th Aug 2001, 04:55 PM
:stupid:

The_Fur
20th Aug 2001, 04:56 PM
SLOW BREATHING, SLOOOOOOOOOOW BREATHING.

Stopping breathing would make the problem worse since it induces involountary muscle movement.

Trak
20th Aug 2001, 04:59 PM
lol, Way to split that hair Fur. You are the master, hehe.

-GAT-Apoculos
20th Aug 2001, 05:00 PM
I don't understand these "too-much realism" people either Sweep. They seem to want just another semi-realism clone. Frustrates me too see that. Theres two perfectly good semi-realism mods out there, SF and TO, and for those that want more CS like gameplay can play that.


well cypher, heres the thing. You guys say go play TO or SF if u want a semi realistic mod! But I like INF how it is now(minus bugs). To me its nothing like those other mods it has its own feel. I'd love for inf to stay how it is now without the bugs and hust add new weapons and maps maybe a few other features, but that isnt gonna happen. All I hope is that even though the game is gonna be ultra realistic it stays fun for me(which I think it will)! I trust the inf team to keep the game fun and keep to much realism from ruining it.

RiotChild
20th Aug 2001, 05:02 PM
Like the variations of movement speed.
Different levels of breathing effected by the amount of bulk carried, the distance traveled without breaks, etc would have an effect on the stamina bar, aiming, etc. It would be an interesting feature to implement :D

Cpt.Cypher
20th Aug 2001, 05:08 PM
Its no knock at you Apoc or any other CQB people. I just think right now that the CQB needs a bit more strategy....SOME thinking. There is in clan games no doubt. But on pubs its too "deathmatchy". Yes I know its teamdeathmatch (this thread is not just at you Apoc btw!) but its supposed to be a team game. But as I always say, lets wait and see - I am sure quick reflexes will still be vital, how could it not be?

funkstylz
20th Aug 2001, 05:12 PM
This is funny. Tee hee heeee.

-GAT-Apoculos
20th Aug 2001, 05:15 PM
Running and gunning should be harder I will agree there. But it should not be made impossible or useless as all these people seem to say it will. Just My opinion though. And u people may have diff ones, but when it comes down to it it is the inf teams opinion that matters.

Alpha_9
20th Aug 2001, 05:42 PM
Personally I think the only way INF can get TOO realistic is if actual injury/death is implemented... :P

Otherwise IMO the more realistic it gets, the more immersive the experience will be. Once you get over the loss of customary first-person-shooter dynamics I think most of you will find the way it plays very compelling.

And for you run-'n-gun fans, I should point out that true realism does not necessarily mean that'll be gone. Especially in CQB, where aim isn't as important a factor as quick reflexes and perception. Even in longer-range combat, any soldier in the real world could get up & charge at the enemy w/ full auto fire. And every once in a while he could get lucky & survive...

The point is no play style is going to be made impossible by 2.86, only the odds will change. If you're feeling lucky, you can still run-'n-gun and do ok. You'd just better hope the players on the other side have bad aim. ;)

Rostam
20th Aug 2001, 06:11 PM
2 realistic is when peeps can really get hurt, INF will stay a game so no1 will get hurt..... BRING THE REALISM ON! :cool:

phatcat
20th Aug 2001, 07:39 PM
http://phatcat.animedominion.com/emoticon/nge-015.gif

WHAT? if anything! its not realistic enough!!!

RiotChild
20th Aug 2001, 07:44 PM
Strike Force already implemented the wounding system :D
Get shot in the leg and you move extremely slow :)

I enjoyed Rouge Spears wounding animations. The bad guys limped around ^^

Death by extreme shocks causing a cardiac arrest should also be implemented if you want extreme realism :D Perhaps a breathing system could be used to help relax the soldier :)

Trak
20th Aug 2001, 08:05 PM
I am currently working on a special shaped charge for the extreme realism fan that you can strap to the bottom of your chair and connect to your computer by USB. In the event of getting 'naded it will promptly paint the ceiling with your biomass. After I have completed testing ( I am having problems finding a suitable ammount of beta testers ), I will then start working on a multibarreled device that carries a few rounds of each of the ammo types found in-game. As you get hit by rounds, the appropriate round will be fired at the corresponding body part of your player model. I am also considering another peripheral for the extreme realism fan that will simulate ( in the most realistic way possible of course ) getting knifed. If there is appropriate response and demand for the Nade-o-Matic(tm) and the Ballist-o-Matic(tm) then I will organize some focus groups to see if the Blade-o-Matic(tm) has enough of a market to consider for full production.

phatcat
20th Aug 2001, 08:09 PM
I'm sure Mojo would be up to it :D

A_Mercenary
20th Aug 2001, 08:26 PM
My vote is in as realistic as possible. I would like to see more teamwork and less rambos also. Although I am unusually guilty most of the time of running off on a murdering spree...

Harpoon
20th Aug 2001, 08:34 PM
Yes. I dunno how you can take out running and gunning. You can slowly peek around a corner and the enemy will just strafe across your field of view while shooting you. (another strike against body armor)

RAZZ
20th Aug 2001, 11:12 PM
its not about body armor. Im sure we wouldent be able to hit them anyways.
you take away running and gunning by not allowing them to run and gun at the same time :p

either that, or make their aim totaly crap during straif.
after they see their bullets flying into the ground and ceiling a few times, Im sure it will stop ;)
if you give the players rambos body, they will rambo.

ThunderChunky
20th Aug 2001, 11:23 PM
Plenty of people play and enjoy super-realistic sims for air combat and racing.

What's the big deal if a first person shooter tries to do the same for ground based combat?

phatcat
20th Aug 2001, 11:26 PM
OMG, ThunderChunky I love your potrait file!!

hail to the primatives baby!!
from which all models and level orginate! :D

DEFkon
21st Aug 2001, 03:39 AM
as long as the interface doesn't become burdend down with over complexity, i'll welcome any added realism.

right now Infiltration i think does a pretty good job of simulating how a weapon looks, it's basic operation, and the general damage it does.

but as far as simulation goes... the pace of the game is way too fast to be realistic. In my opinion the speed of CQB is probably best illustratied in SWAT3, or Rainbow6/Rouge Spear, and out door combat would be OFP... (only because delta force is the only other outdoor combat game i've played)

In my experience fire and movement for CQB happens in two ways. (1) a slow and steady, stealthy, search phase, where things like stacking up and general methodical room clearing is done.-- which is currently missing from gameplay.

(2) the actuall combat: surpressive fire, utilizing cover, threat management, the good ol "double tap" ect ect.

so while although INF has done a very good job of making the weapons behaving realistically, its in the actual experience that i have doubts about.

but i'm sure as time and updates go by these issues will be addressed.

poaw
21st Aug 2001, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by Harpoon
Yes. I dunno how you can take out running and gunning. You can slowly peek around a corner and the enemy will just strafe across your field of view while shooting you. (another strike against body armor)

Where exactly does armor fit into that equation?

If you're wearing armor it would allow you possibly survive a shot or two and take him down. If he's wearing armor then he won't be moving very fast, allowing you to take him down. If you're not wearing armor and he is, well then you're a dumbass.

Back on topic:
------------------------------
I don't really believe INF can become too realistic (within the scope of reason).
It can only become too realistic for it's audience, in which case a new one comes in to fill the void. If what everyone is saying about 2.86 is true then the audience will shift. For some the realism we have right now is too much. If you look at some posts around here, you'll see people complaining that inertia is too much to handle. From my perspective that's ridiculous because even Q3 has inertia. The same with auto-reload, I can't imagine someone not knowing how and when to reload. But all that's just my opinion, INF isn't made just for me. It's made for it's community, and the community as a whole wants more realism.

sentinel418
21st Aug 2001, 11:23 AM
I just hope they do slow it down a lot... right now people run by me so fast i can barely see them. And i like the fact that u shouldnt be able to aim when ur sprinting. Maybe now it will be closer to real life. I think if the pace of the game is slowed down, it will be getting more and more real. Plus the inertia should help. Just slow it down and all will be better.

Everything is pretty real in this game so far except the speed. The weapons look real... The damage is real.... The players look real... and then the gameplay looks pretty quakeish. All because its too fast.

sentinel418
21st Aug 2001, 11:27 AM
And about armor fitting in.... all armor does is keep your from dying after the bullet knocks the wind out of u brakes a rib or two and makes u fall over backwards.

RiotChild
21st Aug 2001, 12:14 PM
I wouldn't exactly say the players look exactly like a perfect copy of human beings :D
The damage is unrealistic so far. You wound someone in the leg, he should be limping around...you shoot him in the arm he should have seriouse problems controling his gun, etc. Details such as those need to be implemented.

sentinel418
21st Aug 2001, 12:18 PM
well ur right the damage models and player models arent REAL real but they're close enough to hav fun.... the quake style running and gunning ruins the game.

Goat Fucker
21st Aug 2001, 12:31 PM
There really issent an argument here, The INF team is targetting more realism, and <i>will</i> add it regardless, and the majority of the INF community wants it, it was what attracted them to INF in the first place.

Then we have a few quakers left who, as Overon so briliantly pointed out, are now cramping around in the death spasms of their old Quake tactics, witch will from now on, be suicide, maybe not compleately with 2.86, but later releases will do away with it compleately im sure.
and they are scared, and lashing out at the new things to come, well i say boohoo, adapt or die, INF was ment to go down this road at some point regardless, prefably ASAP, you where playing on borrowed time in any event.

Now i cant figure out why they arent excited about INF lite, it does, afterall, promise to carry the current line of INF onwards, sure its just a buggy little mutator now, but it wont stay that way.
Or in any event, there are many other games that focus on the semi-real Quakish feel with realistic guns, INF <i>will</i> change, maybe its about time you realised it and found a game that is aming for what you crave, cus this one's moving in the opposite direction, 2.85-3 is not, and never was INF's final destination, just a weak step on the way twords it, and thats not by my say-so, but what the people making the game have openly stated, even if i wanted it to change direction (witch i dont), i couldent (just as you cant).

More realism for the people!

The_Fur
21st Aug 2001, 12:36 PM
hooray, let the truth be known. Quakers run and don't look back your time is up and the reaper is breathing down your necks.

c+k|nEVeRmOre
21st Aug 2001, 01:23 PM
I am a Quaker :p The fact is, though, that I have been toning my running and gunning down since the second week of playing (about a week after my registration for this board). Another thing is, I have always been a sneaky bastard, even in Quake 2. I like to sneak up on my enemy target and take them out with extreme prejudice.

Sure, I still run and gun from time to time. I also sneak about in a stealthy manner to take out the other team as well. Some of you Quake critics seem to believe that none of us Quake players have any kind of grasp of the concepts of strategy and tactics. I find that closed minded and borderline insulting. I forgive you though, because I know better. I use whatever tactics I think are best for a given situation. <i>Read: Strategy</i>. You cannot use the same tactics over and over and expect to come out with the same results each time. The other team will adapt and throw your ass in a chipper-shredder :)

Another misconception you Quake critics seem to have is that Quakers do not like realism. What the hell kind of thinking is that? Suddenly anyone who plays Quake is a mindless drooling speed freak who could never appreciate realism? BS! Up until this mod, I saw very few choices in the game market for realism, so, basically I have had to settle for Quake-style play. Sue me. I love the realism of this game and I look forward to the continued movement of the project in that direction. I want to be challenged by the level of knowledge necessary to become successful with this game.

Up with realism. Down with bad attitudes about people who play Quake games. There is enough room in this world for any and all to co-exist. When I want a mindless game of run and gun, I will fire up Quake 2 or 3. When I want a more realistic simulation experience, you can bet I will fire up Infiltration and play it according to whatever tactics work best for my given situation, objective, et cetera :p

The_Fur
21st Aug 2001, 01:38 PM
Suddenly anyone who plays Quake is a mindless drooling speed freak who could never appreciate realism?

YES!

Nah, just kidding. It's just that the vast majority of FPS players (note FPS not nescessarilly quake, just games like it like UT, SOF and CS) are in fact not too bright. Ofcourse there are some people who do not immediately run off saying "T|-|1$ $uX0rz" when a player cannot go 80km/h jump 6 meter high and have uber accuracy while firing rockets all over the place and those will hopefully be attracted by games like Infiltration and Hostile Intent (http://www.planethalflife.com/hostileintent).

sentinel418
21st Aug 2001, 01:43 PM
well that wouldnt bother me... except when i play infiltration i play it because i want realism... then when somebody strafes back and forth at incredible speeds while firing in full automatic in front of my face after coming up a stairway in hlaf a second and im dead b4 i even see them.... well that ruins everything. and yeah.... its "strategy" and yeah.... it works the best right now..... but so does camping in a corner of a map forever with a rifle, and u dont see everybody doing that do u... they dont do it because it ruins gameplay. So the realistic infiltration community looks upon quake style running and gunning at incredible speeds as they look at camping ..... just another way to ruin gameplay. Just because it lets u win the war doesnt mean its right.

Farouk
21st Aug 2001, 01:56 PM
Well in Quake, UT etc. the strategy and tactics mostly consists of item managment. I don't like that. I always prefered something like InstaGib-CTF in UT. Though the only bad thing about it was that a very good bunny-hopping fragger could take out a good working team of 3 not so good players pretty easily.
In Infiltration 2.86 he achieves this only with exteme luck (I hope).

c+k|nEVeRmOre
21st Aug 2001, 02:06 PM
Ummm...most of the community realism community does not look at camping as invalid, from what I have seen. The real military is all about camping, in case you did not notice :) As for the running and gunning thing, well, I only do that now because basically I have to or the other runner-gunners will shoot me d-e-a-d dead. Once the speeds are toned down, the aim is more effected by speed and we have inertia to effect how quickly we can come to a complete stop, I will not have to resort to that tactic anymore :)

BTW, I just posted a question about the Inertia System in the New Version Suggestions Forum. Please check it out by clicking <a href="http://forums.planetunreal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79819">here</a>. Thanks :)

shadowkil
21st Aug 2001, 02:24 PM
camping in a corner of a map forever with a rifle, and u dont see everybody doing that do u... they dont do it because it ruins gameplay. So the realistic infiltration community looks upon quake style running and gunning at incredible speeds as they look at camping ..... just another way to ruin gameplay. Just because it lets u win the war doesnt mean its right.


I hate to bring this often hot topic up again, and I sincerely hope it doesn't start a flame session. However, I felt the need to express my opinion here. Personally, I feel that "camping" or as I've seen it called (which is just too cute imho) "strategic location management" (i'd give credit here if i could remember who coined that) is a perfectly legitimate tactic for this game. For those who don't like it, that's what the last player count down is for. Another option is to get a couple of your team mates and do an organized sweep and clear. You do realize that the odds of finding somebody are much greater if they are not moving than if they are, right? Anybody who's taken a basic survival course (Boy Scouts even learn this) would know this - when you get lost, you park it, because that gives the search parties the best chance of finding you. If you don't move, and they cover 100% of the ground, odds are 100% that they will come across you. If you are also moving, there's a chance that you will miss each other. So, I humbly request, please stop whining about campers - if you don't like them, sweep and clear!

Goat Fucker
21st Aug 2001, 04:08 PM
c+k|nEVeRmOre, im not referring to anyone who plays Quake, hell, before i got into INF, i played AQ2, im refering to the people who never stoped playing Quake, IE they will play any game as if it was Quake, and f<b></b>uck you if you try to tell them that this is not how it was intended.

The people im talking about are the ones who really are reflex speed drones, the same people who as soon as lowering speed is metioned, get scared, because it, coupled with reflexes, is the only thing that makes them win, and that often results in much nasty name calling and various flame fests, they rely soely on on speed, strafing and bunny hopping etc etc, and will make idiots of themselves when someone mentions reducing any of it in favour of realism, and an enhanced team experiance.

Thouse are the people my beef lies with, the rambo's who could care less about their team, who's only hunting a higher frag count, and who still plays INF as if it was a Quake2 DM, and now that INF is finally making that harder, they start to whine and moan, for me its just obvious that INF issent their thing, and that they should move on, instead of bothering us with all their crap, INF is about realism, if you like that, have a seat and lets have some fun, if you dont like that, no problem, move along bubba, we dont need to hear about it, and no, it wont change just to fit youre needs.

Im really angtious for this release, as it promises to set the physical rules of the game in perspective (IE realism), and my hope is that the people who doesent want realism in INF, and will try to tell you even to this day that since INF issent all that real right now, it never should be, will finally understand that realism is indeed the name of the game.
I do allso have a little hope that it will rid us of some of the hardcore anti-realism people who hangs around, and do their best to destroy any good idea that would bring more realism and teamplay to the game, but it may just be too much to hope for :(

On the topic of camping witch has sprung up, i think far too many people look at the issue one-eyed, there are two forms of camping, one witch i think not only is acceptable, but should be encurraged, and one witch i feel is a crime punishable by death.

Bad camping:

Bad camping is when someone hides in a corner of the spawn area, in a small room with only one entrance, with the weapon aimed at the door at all times, and doesent leave this corner for the whole duration of a round, this kills any round based team game, rounds will drag on for ever looking for this player (thank god for last player time, but that doesent help if there are two of the bastards), and to put it mildly, they are only in it for themselves, they arent serving their team in any way, they are just covering their own a<b></b>rse, its chicken :mad:

Good camping:

Good camping is any for of sniping, or ambush, its holding a strong point for youre team, not letting the enemy trough so they can flank them, its finding a good sniping position, and apart from hopefully reducng the opposite team by a few men, its allso to make an area too risky to cross, forcing the enemy to head where you want them, its setting up an ambush, to opefully reduce their numbers enough to make wining easier on youre team.

Weather a camer is good or bad, can easilly be answered by "Is he doing it for himself only? or as a part of his team?", it should be that simple (and no, falling back behind cover issent just selfish, a live team member helps allot more than a dead one).

{PhD}Teutonic
21st Aug 2001, 04:36 PM
Goat, for once I have to agree with you on your camping breakdown :P

I began as an Action Quaker myself (I even remember you) and I ran one of the most popular AQ2 servers as well. I disagree with you in this regard, most ex-quake players who are any good adapt to the game/mod they are playing. I could strafe/bunny hop with the best of them in AQ2, but it is not a good strategy in INF so I don't employ it.

The new release sounds like it will initially hinder the rushing CQB'r, but to all of you who thinks this will discourage them or make them any less skilled are mistaken. Most of them are very talented players and they will adapt to the changes, and if you couldn't hit them before, it won't be any easier for you now, since the changes affect you as well.

Everyone may as well realize that some players are better, no matter what they do, or how they do it.

The_Fur
21st Aug 2001, 04:40 PM
The difference is that movement in 286 will ONLY make you vulnerable it has no other use then to get from place to place. Like IRL thinking and "strategic location management" will be the ONLY important thing.

That means that many of the "good" players will have to start thinking or they will suddenly find themselves allong the "crap" players.

Goat Fucker
21st Aug 2001, 05:01 PM
Im not talking about good Quake players in particullar {PhD}Teutonic, good or bad makes no difference, im only talking about the ones who refuse to adapt, and will do anything possible to make the game play as Quake DM.
And right now, INF lets them, UT's movement system is not much differend from what we remember in Quake, and ATM, INF just uses UT's movement system + stamina, nothings really stopping the reflex speed drones from just doing what they allways did, they can change direction or stop on a dime, and move at insane speeds that makes it near impossible for the player who is trying to play within the limits of reality to get a clean shot at them, right now you have to addapt to the same strafing refelx tactics if an atleast just good player is doing it, or you will die.

2.86 will change allot of that, inertia means that you can nolonger stop on that dime and change direction, anyone playing with realism in mind will have a chance to lead a strafing target, and take him down, and thouse speeds that usually gives the DM'er (its prolly a much better word than Quaker) the huge advantedge of just beeing all over the damn place in split seconds will nolonger do much to help him, as now he cant hit for s<b></b>hit while doing it, rendering it a defensive tactic only, not an offencive oppertunity.
And the Jog will just make more sence to use all of a sudden, and games wont degenerate into CS style rush'n spam the bottleneck fests (i hope).

I think allot of thease features will give us a much more mature gaming experiance, now people have to use their brains slightly more, and use the terrain to their advantedge, instead of just relying on blind reflex, i have seen what just limiting strafe speed can do to a game of DOD, and it is really cool :)

{PhD}Teutonic
21st Aug 2001, 05:02 PM
Fur, since you have admitted you don't have 2.85 loaded on your system, and that you don't play online, I doubt you know what you are talking about.

The main purpose of running is to get to a pre-determined point on the map before your opponent, so you can:

A)Stop an assault from that area

B)Start an assault from that area

C)Set up a Sniper to watch that area

D)Etc, Etc.

"Good" players adapt to different maps, they adapt their strategies depending on whom they play, If they are playing on a server with a bad connection, they adapt their style as best they can, etc.

"Crap" players are narrow-minded & they are unable to adapt to anything, hence being called "crap".

Farouk
21st Aug 2001, 05:17 PM
Sorry to bring this issue in here but the other threads concerning this have become utterly stupid:

Originally posted by {PhD}Teutonic
I could strafe/bunny hop with the best of them in AQ2, but it is not a good strategy in INF so I don't employ it.


I hope that's not the only reason to not bunny hop in Inf.
I think the differences in opinion on exactly this is the core of the whole teamwork/realism/inf is for everyone debate.
There are players like me and probably Goat_****er and The_Fur (if I interpret their postings coreectly) who think it is more important to play realistically than to play well ("well" as in "frag them all"). For example I have never sprinted with my weapon in aiming position since Inf 2.80 as I think it's stupid and not realistic (especially with scope)
Of course personally I'd like to see the Inf team to force this feature, I don't like the disadvantge. And I voiced my wish a few times. Though I am not going to change it no matter what, because "But the others do it too" has always been one of the lamest reasoning for everything.

Players like me are not into it because we want to win. We want the immersion of an simulator. But unfortunately people who abuse every **** in a game (that includes bunny hopping - at least in a game with realistic setting) ruin that experience. That's why I stopped playing online.
The other way round it doesn't work - you can't ruin a bug abuser's game by playing self-restrictive. That's the reason why such players are heavily dependant on voicing their opinion here in this forum.

The_Fur
21st Aug 2001, 05:34 PM
Teutonic, i don't play it >ANYMORE<.
Let me explain, ANYMORE means I DID play it but i decided to quit. The reason was because as goat so clearly explained it just degenerated into that which derove me off all the previous mods (CS, FA, Tac-Ops and Strike Force). That is simply the fact that it was too dm-ish.
And from what I recall from playing 285 it has nothing to do with "strategic points" I hardly ever saw anyboy not movbing exept the warehouse "campers" in dockside.
People were just doing the same old "run around and die" kind of crap. To suggest there is some deeper reasoning behind it is proposterous in my view.


To me that means when the novelty wears off it jsut becomes the same old crap which i didn't like so it get's deleted.
Now the difference with all those different mods is that INF is getting MORE realistic rather then LESS like most of the others. I realised the potential and decided to stay.



Now what you just described WILL apply in 286 that is why i'll play that.

c+k|nEVeRmOre
21st Aug 2001, 05:43 PM
LOL...Goat, those bunny-hoppers still make me laugh my ass off in Quake 2 (I still play OSP Tourney Instagib). They are my favorite targets because they always reach the same height at apex in Q2, which is where I pop them because they are basically sitting ducks in terms of movement at that position :D

I myself was never a bunny-hopper, and never will be. I do not even jump at all in Q2 unless it is to get on top of something. The same goes for INF. So, I guess I was never completely in the whole run-and-gun-bunny-hoppers club :D

I agree with your assessment of good versus bad camping tactics. Selfpreservation at the cost of team play sucks.

Farouk, I am glad you have got the "not aiming whilst running" thing down, but, I am still new and getting used to not doing. Playing with scoped weapons helps me curb that particular behavior because I do not run with scopes :) I am still working on it with other weapons. It is taking me some time to get used to it. I want to play the game in a realistic manner and I consider myself in the same boat as the people you mentioned from the realism camp. Which reminds me, I need to pimp <a href="http://forums.planetunreal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79819">my topic on New Version Suggestions</a> again because I do not have very much feedback from anyone.

{PhD}Teutonic
21st Aug 2001, 05:47 PM
My opinions are always based on the fact that I play in organized matches, meaning my team ALWAYS employs one strategy or another, never "run & gun".

Bunny hopping and strafing were encouraged by Hal9000 (the programmer of AQ2) so it was never an issue, some players were better than others at it.

Since the INF Team discourages this time of play they have made it difficult and costly(in stamina) to try it. Any old Quake people or others who keep trying to play that way will fail, and they should realize this and learn a different playing style.

{GD}Ghost
21st Aug 2001, 05:53 PM
I know that camping irritates the hell out of me as much as the next anti-camper, if only for the reason that they've either killed us w/o us seeing them or we are already dead and it takes forever for the last few people to find the camper.

However, for those realism Nazis out there, battles, in this day and age, are not usually one continuous firefight. There is ALOT of searching, waiting, setting up ambushes, and more waiting before you encounter the enemy and engage. Because even the largest of INF maps are so small, it does not allow for the type of extended squad movement, long range engagement and such that would be very cool on maps the size of Tribes or Delta Force maps. It takes a few rounds to learn a map and its limited routes. Therefore people rush there blasting away with the heaviest weapon they can carry and pour nades into the areas they know their opponents will use or camp w/o regard for their "lives" or the lives of their teammates. This will not really change until a new game type is introduced, and people have a reason to give a damn about whether they live or die in a round. Since people like to brag about stats and scores, maybe have each death in INF severly efffect your score or stats. (Slowing things down is a step in the right direction.)

Once INF moves to an engine that allows for massive sized maps, run and gun will not be effective. (Not to mention that DM will not be an feasible game type on maps this large.) Running off will either get you separated completely from your unit, lost, render you completely ineffective and make you an easy target for patrolling enemy units. I would play a game for days on end if survival meant using planning, teamwork and timing to accomplish goals. How about wwIIonline w/o all the vehicles/planes.

Well that's more than 0.02 cents and I'm not sure if I've expressed my point as clearly as I intended, but there it is.

{PhD}Teutonic
21st Aug 2001, 06:02 PM
Ghost, I agree with you. The best team-oriented maps are the EP's, Islands, Remagen's, etc. On these maps real teamplay can be used. I have these maps loaded on my server, but whenever they cycle, most of the players leave.

So if players want to use team-oriented strategies, they shouldn't bail-out on the larger maps which curb rushing. Everyone wants to play MWH or Siberia :P

Dr. Beer
21st Aug 2001, 06:24 PM
I am looking forward to the new patch, but let me ask you guys something...

Do you think reaction time should have absolutely nothing to do with the game? Several of you, including Fur there seem to think so. That the entire game should be based 100% on where you are and where your teammates are. Though I think there needs to definitely be more emphasis on both of those, reactions should still play a strong role. I've interviewed MANY Vietnam veterans (approximately 35) for various essays etc. and when you talk to them about combat, many said that it often came down to who pulled the trigger first. That's pure reaction there.

Overon
21st Aug 2001, 06:58 PM
Dr. Beer reaction time in INF is not how fast you can click the left mouse button. It's ping. It takes time for your computer to get the information that an enemy has turned the corner so that your game draws his player model. It takes time for aiming the mouse and pressing fire and it takes time for this information to be sent to the server to determine whether the place you are firing at does indeed have an enemy player. Low pingers compared to high pingers see the high pinger first (when both are coming around the corner) and when they press their mouse button the server gets the "player x fired in at this location" message first and that's how the server determines who dies and who lives. Because of server/client networking architecture the server determines who shot first and who is dead. That's why on my 56k I have the enemy in my sites, I press the fire button, I hear the gun sound effect but even though game tells me I fired, the server says "no he fired first and he killed you and when he killed you and if you are dead you cannot fire at anyone" and this is because as a high pinger my "I fired in this direction" message arrives after his.

Farouk
21st Aug 2001, 07:26 PM
In CQB the better reaction time and surprise element by speed will almost always win. Though even there one man shouldn't have any chance against three others at once. Unfortunately by dancing around with high running speed the odds are still on his side in Inf 2.85.5 if the others don't do such lame ****. That has to change and hopefully will in 2.86.

Though on larger open maps I want to see something different. Use cover, spot the enemy first before he spottes you so you have enough time for a clean well aimed shot out of a pretty safe position or tell your better placed teammates your contact.
And if the enemy spots you first and shoots you he will die by your teammate's fire who is strategially well placed while you are running straight for cover (instead of strafing and shooting yourself - if you survived the attack).
That's what my ideal of Infiltration is. Tell me if that is totally unrealistic.

NotBillMurray
21st Aug 2001, 07:27 PM
Hey, I agree with The_Fur. And Farouk. And Goat. And Ghost...

I love the direction this thread has taken. It's remarkably mature and covers a wide range of opinions. Congrats community.

{PhD}Teutonic
21st Aug 2001, 07:29 PM
UT is not nearly as ping-dependant as some engines.

Quake2 was entirely ping. It UT, players pinging in the 200's can compete equally with players pinging in the 60-100 range.

{PhD}Teutonic
21st Aug 2001, 07:48 PM
Though even there one man shouldn't have any chance against three others at once. Unfortunately by dancing around with high running speed the odds are still on his side in Inf 2.85.5 if the others don't do such lame ****. That has to change and hopefully will in 2.86.

I've never heard such whining over someone killing TOO MANY opponents... What did the three dead guys do? just stand there? I would be embarrassed to have 2 teammates and myself gunned down by one guy, but I wouldn't whine and blame it on him running or dancing around... You run at the same speed as he does, so if you choose not to use it, thats your problem. Did all of you fire and miss? that sounds like a lack of practice...

INF plays EXACTLY THE SAME for everyone, the only difference is the quality of the Computer & the speed of the connection, which can make a great deal of a difference in online-play.

If you choose not to run with your weapon on your shoulder, or never to rush, thats YOUR CHOICE. If it gets you killed, you have the ability to change.

Farouk
21st Aug 2001, 08:02 PM
Yes it's my choice not strafe around to dodge bullets like mad. As I said I have other goals than "winning" that situation at all costs.

I have often enough killed two enemies in Infiltration at once and got out of it unscratched without using too lame stuff. A third one is possible.
With CQB I don't mean you are already tipping on each others toes.

And that implied "you suck" is once again out of place. Don't ruin a constructive thread.

Dr. Beer
21st Aug 2001, 10:59 PM
I agree ping plays an important role. No doubt about that. There is a direct correlation between my score and my ping no matter which weapon I use.
2.86 is not going to do anything I don't want. I am just afraid that some of the people on the boards will push it to where reaction time and other CQB elements won't play any role whatsoever in the game.

The_Fur
22nd Aug 2001, 02:51 AM
well guess what, they hardly do IRL. only in true CQB as in room clearing. Overal strategic positioning is far FAR more important.
And that is what INF will be like simply because it will become more real.

Dr. Beer
22nd Aug 2001, 04:53 PM
Not necessarily true. Look at the ambushed platoons in Vietnam. Squad position was important, but their reaction to enemy fire was much more important than any positioning they had. So in real life reaction time IS important. Not "hardly" as you put it.
If I'm being shot at and I don't make a decision fast enough to react to the enemy then I and quite possibly my entire team might go down. Don't forget that reaction time encompasses everything that occurs from the instant a decision is required to the end of the fight.

The_Fur
23rd Aug 2001, 11:08 AM
If you claim that reaction time in an ambush is more important then positioning you need your head checked. It may be so if your oficer is in fact 1337-$n1p4 the run away fraghead, but in any event of a properly executed ambush whoever gets ambushed is allready dead before the 1st shot is fired. That is the entire point of an ambush.

It's really simple: I lie in wait with my gun pointed at the place i know you are going to come from. My sights are fixed on that location. You come running around the corner. I don't care how good your supposed reactions are but for the simple fact that my sights are allready lined up and trained at you while you are on the move and thus unable to hit anything but the sky and your own feet will result in your death.
No matter how you twist it.

Now in 285 you would have had the avantage because the factors stopping you from running at ridiculous speeds while shooting accurately IRL simply didn't exist. In 286 those days are over.

Dr. Beer
23rd Aug 2001, 11:57 AM
That's not what I am saying.

In interviews with Vietnam veterans, they said that as soon as a shot is fired they hit the ground immediately or more will die because they gave the enemy time for follow-up shots (reaction time). So, reaction time is extremely important. As in, get on the ground as fast as possible to avoid having anyone else killed. After that, movement is nil until they figure out exactly where the enemy is. Then, the fight often comes down to who pulls the trigger first, since once you know where someone is there generally isn't much left. That is also reaction time.

Look at the Mossad of Isreal. If they are doing any type of maneuvers they are trained to move very quickly and kill the enemy before he kills you. Their position is important because it gives each team member back up, but their reaction time is just as important. If they see an enemy but are slow to react the enemy shoots them first.

My post about the ambushed platoons had nothing to do with the mechanics of 2.85.5 or 2.86. I was just stating that in real life, reaction time is much more important than many people seem to think.

{MUF}Dakin
23rd Aug 2001, 12:02 PM
Hmmm reflexes and reaction timing is a great part of anything, I mean hell if you have SLOW reflexes and SLOW reactions how the hell is your position going to help you when someone shoots at you before you even decide to shoot back eh? *shrugs* I don't see how that can be "hardly" part of anything, imo its very important.

Cholo Grande
23rd Aug 2001, 12:35 PM
So what you're saying is that reaction time doesn't matter, as you can simply lie in wait pointing in the direction the enemy is coming from? Here are a few counter points to whether reaction time is important in combat and in INF:

1. As the game stands now, you can do just that. If your reaction times on the trigger and aiming are not up to scratch, it won't work. Just like real life.

2. You are assuming that you always know where an ambush will come from. Granted to you can position yourself to limit access, but the enemy is cunning. What if you're set up covering one access to your hole, and your buddy is covering a second access? An enemy sniper picks off your buddy and a two man CQB pops up to take you out. Your reactions will determin if you can acquire your targets from under you cover and take them out before they're on top of you. That applies RL and INF.

3. What if you are the attacker? Are you going to just lie in wait and hope the enemy gives up it's great positions to come get you? No you're squad must advance on positions. Here team movement and knowledge of your friendly positions is crucial, but not worth squat if you don't have the skill and reactions to quickly acquire targets and take them out. This also applied to RL and INF.

Fat to chew on, my friends. If physical ability is so unimportant, then why does the military take such extensive steps to improve the physical condition of new recruits? I'm not completely disagreeing with anyone on the importance of the tactics of position, but they are only part of the puzzle. If you want to engineer a game that negates the other pieces, then it is unrealistic.

c+k|nEVeRmOre
23rd Aug 2001, 12:44 PM
I also agree that reaction time is important, but, I can also understand why they want to balance it a bit.

The Internet, by its very jumbled and jury rigged design, is home to packet loss, bad routing, high latency and poor pipeline peering, all of which effect online reaction time. By trying to lessen <i>reaction time's</i> importance in the game mechanics of INF, they are trying to par the level of reaction time for the highest constituancy of players. If you make the reaction time of the utmost importance, players with high latency (FYI, that includes broadband users) have little or no chance to compete with players with low latency. If you make reaction time <i>too</i> unimportant, it will completely dull the game and no fun will be had by anyone.

There needs to be a balance, and as is the case with all forms of balancing, it will be a very tricky thing to pull off effectively so that the largest cross section of players is both content and able to compete.

The_Fur
23rd Aug 2001, 01:03 PM
Well Beer, here our definitions and applications therof differ.
In INF there is hardly any cover and on top of that people rarely miss. Now the last part is exeptionally important in this case:

Since people hardly miss the only defense is speed (speed which you won't have anymore) and the ability to fire back accurately (which is also gone).
From this follows whoever is not moving at the time of engagement will win. Unless ofcourse this other person is an increddibly poor shot or has 4 digit ping.


Hmmm reflexes and reaction timing is a great part of anything, I mean hell if you have SLOW reflexes and SLOW reactions how the hell is your position going to help you when someone shoots at you before you even decide to shoot back eh? *shrugs* I don't see how that can be "hardly" part of anything, imo its very important.
Quite simply put if somebody is shooting at you on the move you have nothing to fear really and you can pick him off at your leisure. There is a reason that firing on the move is only done with any effect in extreme CQB (IE 20m and less).


So what you're saying is that reaction time doesn't matter, as you can simply lie in wait pointing in the direction the enemy is coming from?
Yes, it only has any result if whoever is shooting either sucks or their connection sucks.


Here are a few counter points to whether reaction time is important in combat and in INF:

1. As the game stands now, you can do just that. If your reaction times on the trigger and aiming are not up to scratch, it won't work. Just like real life.
This is true for extreme CQB, for the rest however the more range you get the more important your location becomes.


2. You are assuming that you always know where an ambush will come from. Granted to you can position yourself to limit access, but the enemy is cunning. What if you're set up covering one access to your hole, and your buddy is covering a second access? An enemy sniper picks off your buddy and a two man CQB pops up to take you out. Your reactions will determin if you can acquire your targets from under you cover and take them out before they're on top of you. That applies RL and INF.
If the sniper pickwed off your buddy and you didn't notice you are most likely dead anyway since you'll probably be gunned down from behind. If they attack from the front you still have the advantage of being immobile and thus not suffering any accuracy penalties which means your reaction time becomes less important simply because they cannot hit you untill they have come to a halt.


3. What if you are the attacker? Are you going to just lie in wait and hope the enemy gives up it's great positions to come get you? No you're squad must advance on positions. Here team movement and knowledge of your friendly positions is crucial, but not worth squat if you don't have the skill and reactions to quickly acquire targets and take them out. This also applied to RL and INF.
For the attacker attacking head on will simply be suicide as before. IRL the most important thing is figuring out a way to either flank them or pop up from behind which once again renders reaction less important because the enemy will not expect it.


Fat to chew on, my friends. If physical ability is so unimportant, then why does the military take such extensive steps to improve the physical condition of new recruits?
I'm not completely disagreeing with anyone on the importance of the tactics of position, but they are only part of the puzzle. If you want to engineer a game that negates the other pieces, then it is unrealistic.
They are indeed not unimportant, but not nearly as important as planning and strategy. you can have uber soldiers but if you decide to take fortified positions head on you will suffer heavy casualties simply because that is where the firepower is pointed at.

c+k|nEVeRmOre
23rd Aug 2001, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by The_Fur
They are indeed not unimportant, but not nearly as important as planning and strategy. you can have uber soldiers but if you decide to take fortified positions head on you will suffer heavy casualties simply because that is where the firepower is pointed at. I agree. Presently if you have a group of skilled runners (<i>read: uber soldiers</i>) going up against a group of skilled campers (<i>read: people in fortified positions</i>), the campers are fill them full of lead and watch them sink to the ground :)

Cholo Grande
23rd Aug 2001, 02:20 PM
Bending the argument again, my friend. Did I say that positional tactics were not important? I said that position tactics are important, but with no skill they are useless.

Did I say that speed and skill will give you the ability to take on a fortified position head on? No I didn't. I said that tactical movement and skill/reactions were necessary, and that removing the skill/reactions from the game creates an unrealistic environment.

You are correct in saying that a team of the best players/soldiers ever born could be stimied by an adequate team with good positioning (and patience) is they charge every enemy position from the front. I didn't say that wasn't so, but quick movement and honed reactions are what get you to that flanking position and into the enemies nest.

As far as firing on the move, it can an is done. True no one has accuracy while SPRINTING sideways (or even fast jogging sideways). Not that they'll NEVER get a hit, but accuracy is definitely about 85% lower doing such. As far as a "double time" jog (slow jog or fast march, however you want to view it), if accuracy will stationary is called 99% then accuracy while jogging is 70-75%. Accuracy while walking, whether strafing or not is 85-90%.

The factor that GREATLY increases while moveing is your visibility. You stand a MUCH higher probability of being hit, and that is already in existance in the game. This is where the reaction time of the defender comes into play (it's also where the teamwork comes in). Quick thinking and quick/accurate triggers will nail that sucker bobbing his little head around.

I will say that I would like to see the end of stafing and running. These guys aren't acrobats and I'd like to see someone try to aim a gun and run full tilt sideways. It's impossible. You'd fall down and end up with that scope embedded in your eyesocket :)

The game mechanics can and will improve, I think, but engineering the "real" environment of the game to favor the one style you think is correct is a mistake. I understand that a large part of the INF community shares your view of "this is the way it's done in reality, and that's the way it should be done in INF". However, there is an equaly larg (if not larger) group that likes the realism of INF, but doesn't think that just because a certain style would probably not get you home from a war in real life, the game should be limited in unrealistic ways to make such play impossible.

c+k|nEVeRmOre
23rd Aug 2001, 02:27 PM
Cholo, who is that directed at?

Cholo Grande
23rd Aug 2001, 02:43 PM
I was replying to FUR, but it since we're discussing it can be taken by anyone who wants it.

c+k|nEVeRmOre
23rd Aug 2001, 02:53 PM
I was just wondering because he was responding to Dr. Beer, so, <b>"<i>Did I say</i> that speed and skill will give you the ability to take on a fortified position head on? No I didn't. I said that tactical movement and skill/reactions were necessary, and that removing the skill/reactions from the game creates an unrealistic environment,"</b> did not make me think you were replying to him. I just wanted to make sure you were not replying to me, because I was not responding to any of your posts, either :)

The_Fur
23rd Aug 2001, 03:01 PM
Bending the argument again, my friend. Did I say that positional tactics were not important? I said that position tactics are important, but with no skill they are useless.
Excuse me? where did this come from? I wasn't beending anything I was commenting on the points given. Please avoid such accusations in future.


As far as firing on the move, it can an is done. True no one has accuracy while SPRINTING sideways (or even fast jogging sideways). Not that they'll NEVER get a hit, but accuracy is definitely about 85% lower doing such. As far as a "double time" jog (slow jog or fast march, however you want to view it), if accuracy will stationary is called 99% then accuracy while jogging is 70-75%. Accuracy while walking, whether strafing or not is 85-90%.
In fact the accuracies are much lower, as stormcaller allready said moving is quite detrimental to aim. Don't expect to score any hits beyond 30 m or so when moving.


However, there is an equaly larg (if not larger) group that likes the realism of INF, but doesn't think that just because a certain style would probably not get you home from a war in real life, the game should be limited in unrealistic ways to make such play impossible.
Fortunately such thgings will simply not be needed due to the increasing realism. Realism makes it's own rules.

The factor that GREATLY increases while moveing is your visibility. You stand a MUCH higher probability of being hit, and that is already in existance in the game. This is where the reaction time of the defender comes into play (it's also where the teamwork comes in). Quick thinking and quick/accurate triggers will nail that sucker bobbing his little head around.
I agree here, one of the most important things in combat is most likely mimising your profile. The less visible the less of a target you are. The less of a target the bigger the chance of you emerging out of the battle victorious.

Cholo Grande
23rd Aug 2001, 05:40 PM
I will just have to disagree on the accuracy.

Also I didn't understand the reply to my statement about creating unrealistic limitations to balance play toward a manner that you think constitutes realistic game dynamics. I stated that a large group of players do NOT want unrealistic limitations to limit their options of play. You replied by saying that , "Fortunately such thgings will simply not be needed due to the increasing realism. Realism makes it's own rules."

As far as bending the argument, I made on statement and made a rebuttal that assumed alot more than I said. Disagree with what I say, not with what you assume I think.