2.86, too realistic?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

0.02 cents

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.