First of, the INF player cannot jump 2-3 meters high. Cmon.
But I'm really sick of this kind of argumentation. You have to understand what jumping in a game like infiltration is. You cannot just see jumping as jumping in the air, you have to look at what it really is.
In real life, you can hop over small obstacles. you can jump over taller ones, you can push yourself over even larger ones, climb over very large ones and even climb on trees. All that, even with 50 kg of gear.
Now. How is all that done in game might i risk to ask? By jumping. This is a major flaw in most realistic-oriented game... movement. The fact that these game the same movement scheme developed with Doom, Wolfenstein 3D and cie. is a problem. But until you find alternatives to the current movement basis used you cannot start chopping it down.
Currently, in INF, the *only* way yo go over an obstacle, what ever the type it is and the size it has, is by jumping over it. This leads to 3 major problems:
- You need to jump over obstacles that you could easily step on/over without jumping in real life.
- You need cannot go over obstacles that you could pretty easily go over in real life by climbing on it.
- Bunny hopping.
Until you totally rework the movement system, by implementing things like climbing, you cannot start chaning the player jumping hight. There are many reasons for that, but to name only one, mapers design their maps taking jumping hight in consideration. Some mappers are idiots and do not take anything and consideration and make map easy to exploit. These maps are usually bad and deserve to be left out of the rotation. Same goes for map not initially designed for Infiltration.
Good maps cannot be exploited easily because mappers took this into consideration. You can only jump up on areas where you are supposed to be.
Now, if bunny hopping is the problem, you now as well as me that changing the jump hight won't fix that. One way proposed by sentry studios and other game maker is reduced stamina/accuracy. As we noticed, it doesn't work well. One good way I've see is to put a minimum delay betwen jump. With a maximum jump period of 1.5 second, no more bunny hopping. It would more likely be an hold frog hopping or a dead old frog hopping.
Similar problems are in cause with strafing. Should strafing be reduced? Of course not. Strafing is the only way you have to look sideways when moving in a direction. Until you totally rethink the view/movement interaction, this is something you cannot remove. You can modify it's behavior for more natural and realistic reaction, but removing or changing something without giving an alternative to perform the same act doesn't help realism.
You know, we've had this discussion over and over on the forums and in this community. I can't believe I'm writing this and I can't belive you brought up this retarded argumentation.
When I saw Yurch and Mute were working on rethinking the movement system on Source, I was really happy. This is the next step in realism. The whole movement system must be first rethinked and then implemented. We must move away from the old Doom/quake-like movement system. But it's not by creating artificial handicaps in that movement system that you will solve anything if not creating more problems.
EDIT: In short, if you want to fix something, do it right. Don't do some stupid easy solution without thinking about what it implies. You have all the tools there to fix it correctly, yet the easy solution was used; a solution that creates more problem then it solves. That's why I'm against mutators like IBT. Infiltration was well layed down and thought. It's not perfect, but they did what they could with the current engine. Could it have been better? Of course. Now i look at IBT and I do not feel the same level of planing and thought has been put into. All I see is a huge mutators that try to solve all problems infiltration ever had, all of them at the same time, but only uses half solutions poorly implemented. It's a noble cause, but impossible to achieve the way IBT wants to do it. Some coders in this community worked hundred if not thousands of hours try to improve one aspect of the game. Those who had the best result were not those who offered half solutions to all problems, but those who really solved one problem, but solved it well. Those that when they solved one problem thought about the concequences of changing something and brought the right alternatives and did not change something to change it relying on poor arguments like the one I've just read.
![Corporal_Lib [BR]](/data/avatars/s/45/45790.jpg?1424422878){kind=avatar}
