What is Infiltration...?
- Thread starter geogob
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Suprisingly, most of the greatest moments acheived in the game (that i've experienced) can easily be replicated in any game, specifically referring to jumping off a large cliff and strafing someone with an mp5 standing on a wooden bridge on the way down.
To me, INF is a simulator. Well, it was. Now its turning into **** because no one finds realism fun anymore. That really pisses me off, because no body gives it a chance. People hear the word "realism" and then spam "ZZzzZZ yawn" over chat. I love INF because its so original, and is trying to be realistic, but I see no one remembers the good old days. So far I've seen maybe 2 or 3 people that like realism. The rest of you simply want another Americas Army, it seems. Thanks for ruining my all time favorite game. :\
Well, Opfor, the poll shows that 16, not 3 want it to be a sim 
Anyway, it is a game, with many unrealistic aspects. Some engine induced, some
not. Ladders are one of the bigest flaws in the game, and I feel that SS probably
ould have made a proper ladder script.
Also the joging and circle strafing, etc. It can be far too easy for a skilled gamer
to aim a burst while joging.
Sniper rifles are one thing that I have a huge problem with. They are far too easy
to use, and they really don't have a place in INF. An assault rifle with a 4x scope
is generally plenty for the largest maps in INF.
The maps are generally very well done, but many of them just simply are not all
that realistic (silo sticks out in my mind). RTK is one of the best maps in the game,
but it is ruined by the sniper rifles.
Respawning. I hate this. It simply does not belong in a simulator, and I feel that
battles would become far more realistc by the removal of this feature. GD was
one of the best servers about this, when they had 3 lives per player, but even that
was too much, IMO.
Predictability. We all know tha maps by heart and know how to make 2 minute runs
in some of the smaller ones. We know where the attackers come from, and we know
where the defenders will camp out at. This level of intel is virtually unheard of IRL.
This is where DTAS and Mostar shine.
Interactive enviroments: We simply cannot get the level of interactivity required for an
infantry simulation. We can't push that desk to block the door, and we can't set up
temperary baricades with the couch. The engine just doesn't support it, and this is one
reason why I think SS should wait untill Novemember when HL2 releases with it's physics
engine.
Anyway, it is a game, with many unrealistic aspects. Some engine induced, some
not. Ladders are one of the bigest flaws in the game, and I feel that SS probably
ould have made a proper ladder script.
Also the joging and circle strafing, etc. It can be far too easy for a skilled gamer
to aim a burst while joging.
Sniper rifles are one thing that I have a huge problem with. They are far too easy
to use, and they really don't have a place in INF. An assault rifle with a 4x scope
is generally plenty for the largest maps in INF.
The maps are generally very well done, but many of them just simply are not all
that realistic (silo sticks out in my mind). RTK is one of the best maps in the game,
but it is ruined by the sniper rifles.
Respawning. I hate this. It simply does not belong in a simulator, and I feel that
battles would become far more realistc by the removal of this feature. GD was
one of the best servers about this, when they had 3 lives per player, but even that
was too much, IMO.
Predictability. We all know tha maps by heart and know how to make 2 minute runs
in some of the smaller ones. We know where the attackers come from, and we know
where the defenders will camp out at. This level of intel is virtually unheard of IRL.
This is where DTAS and Mostar shine.
Interactive enviroments: We simply cannot get the level of interactivity required for an
infantry simulation. We can't push that desk to block the door, and we can't set up
temperary baricades with the couch. The engine just doesn't support it, and this is one
reason why I think SS should wait untill Novemember when HL2 releases with it's physics
engine.
Last edited:
Or Far Cry, which is something they're looking into. Huge distances, lush terrain, and physics to boggle the mind. I once got a bridge swinging in that game, using nothing more than my body to move the bridge (like a swing) to jump a gap. Another time I pushed several server racks in front of a door to build a defensive position for myself. Mmm...that was fun.
In fact, you could move things before in 2.86. You could pick stuff up like crates and carry it to new places. There was a bug, but it was possible. That feature was disabled in 2.9, I believe.
In fact, you could move things before in 2.86. You could pick stuff up like crates and carry it to new places. There was a bug, but it was possible. That feature was disabled in 2.9, I believe.
Yep that's right... if you want to try it... in the kitchen in frozen you can carry boxes around. Some of them even contain kittens
Keganator said:Or Far Cry, which is something they're looking into. Huge distances, lush terrain, and physics to boggle the mind. I once got a bridge swinging in that game, using nothing more than my body to move the bridge (like a swing) to jump a gap. Another time I pushed several server racks in front of a door to build a defensive position for myself. Mmm...that was fun.
In fact, you could move things before in 2.86. You could pick stuff up like crates and carry it to new places. There was a bug, but it was possible. That feature was disabled in 2.9, I believe.
The physics need a bit more work though. Everything seems to light, ut I think
SS would be able to fix that. I remember being on a platform suspended by
chains. I shot ont of the chains, and the thing began to move and tipped me off
in to the pit below.
I can't really speak to what INF is but rather to what I would like it to be. I want the best combat simulator that can be produced in a given engine. There are definitely limits to what the UT9x engine can do but others have produced really quite remarkable results with it. There are several areas that I feel that INF could be significantly improved upon with the current engine.
I also believe that game balance really has no place in a simulator. A simulators job is to present a realistic challenge to the player. Realism is just a fact of life. In reality you wouldn't carry 6 different weapons because they would just be dead weight. The only reason INF players carry all those weapons is because it is so easy to change to them.
Now, like Tiffy, I am frustrated that there seems to be little incentive to remove unrealistic elements in INF. I'm going to list the ones that bother me.
Weapon change times. I've ranted about this before. Certainly this is not beyond the ability of the UT engine to simulate. Big clumsy weapons cannot be simply whipped out and fired at the drop of a hat. Even small weapons must be reholstered or dropped. This is one of the reasons that the sniper rifle is abused. It takes about 10 seconds to fully deploy a sniper rifle (I know because I tried it) and about and about the 5 seconds to stow it away. And where the hell are you going to put the SAW?
Breathing. Here is one of the most annoying things in INF. Why should it be necessary to take Dramamine before I play INF? After running, standing still looks like you are standing on a boat. Guess what, this is completely unrealistic. No matter how tired you are there is no way that your head is going to be bobbing up and down 3" and you will be swaying back and forth 6". In reality it's you arms and shoulders that will be moving. If you don't believe me just hold out your hands in front of you like you are aiming a rifle and breath as hard an deep as you would after doing a 100M dash.
On the same note encumbrance should not effect your ability to aim. Let's face it a sniper in a ghillie suit is one of the most encumbered guys around. Encumbrance should only affect your ability to run and retain stamina.
Weapon damage. Given the size of the hit box in UT there should be some randomness to how hurt you are when hit. I agree with Tiffy the three shots and your out scheme just doesn't work for me. Somewhere out there, there are statistics for how many gunshot wounds are incapacitating. Let's use them. 3 scratches won't kill you but one well placed shot will, let's do our best to simulate this.
Some less annoying things:
Strafing. It's really only possible to strafe to the off hand side i.e. a right handed shooter would only be able to shoot at 90 degrees to his body to the right. The only way a shooter could strafe in the other direction would be to switch hands. Strafing shots with pistols would probably be one handed. Strafing would also greatly reduce you ability to aim and control recoil.
Grenades. Grenades are not really useful in INF for the things that infantry soldiers use them for. The number one offensive use for grenades is for room clearing. The reason grenades can’t be used in this manner is that they can’t be aimed. IRL a soldier would be able to hit a relatively small target (like a window or doorway) at close range with few problems. In INF this is all but impossible because of the same thing that makes INF unique, The freeaim system. The problem is that it is impossible to tell where is the freeaim area you are aiming. If for instance you are standing at the corner of a building and the opfor is approaching your position, if you lean out and attempt to throw a grenade around the corner and the freeaim area is touching the building there is a good chance that the grenade will hit the building bounce back and kill you and everyone you are with. This could be corrected simple by reducing the freeaim area for the grenade and\or introducing a system that warns if and object is in the way of your throw by lighting it up.
Ok I’ll shut up now.
I also believe that game balance really has no place in a simulator. A simulators job is to present a realistic challenge to the player. Realism is just a fact of life. In reality you wouldn't carry 6 different weapons because they would just be dead weight. The only reason INF players carry all those weapons is because it is so easy to change to them.
Now, like Tiffy, I am frustrated that there seems to be little incentive to remove unrealistic elements in INF. I'm going to list the ones that bother me.
Weapon change times. I've ranted about this before. Certainly this is not beyond the ability of the UT engine to simulate. Big clumsy weapons cannot be simply whipped out and fired at the drop of a hat. Even small weapons must be reholstered or dropped. This is one of the reasons that the sniper rifle is abused. It takes about 10 seconds to fully deploy a sniper rifle (I know because I tried it) and about and about the 5 seconds to stow it away. And where the hell are you going to put the SAW?
Breathing. Here is one of the most annoying things in INF. Why should it be necessary to take Dramamine before I play INF? After running, standing still looks like you are standing on a boat. Guess what, this is completely unrealistic. No matter how tired you are there is no way that your head is going to be bobbing up and down 3" and you will be swaying back and forth 6". In reality it's you arms and shoulders that will be moving. If you don't believe me just hold out your hands in front of you like you are aiming a rifle and breath as hard an deep as you would after doing a 100M dash.
On the same note encumbrance should not effect your ability to aim. Let's face it a sniper in a ghillie suit is one of the most encumbered guys around. Encumbrance should only affect your ability to run and retain stamina.
Weapon damage. Given the size of the hit box in UT there should be some randomness to how hurt you are when hit. I agree with Tiffy the three shots and your out scheme just doesn't work for me. Somewhere out there, there are statistics for how many gunshot wounds are incapacitating. Let's use them. 3 scratches won't kill you but one well placed shot will, let's do our best to simulate this.
Some less annoying things:
Strafing. It's really only possible to strafe to the off hand side i.e. a right handed shooter would only be able to shoot at 90 degrees to his body to the right. The only way a shooter could strafe in the other direction would be to switch hands. Strafing shots with pistols would probably be one handed. Strafing would also greatly reduce you ability to aim and control recoil.
Grenades. Grenades are not really useful in INF for the things that infantry soldiers use them for. The number one offensive use for grenades is for room clearing. The reason grenades can’t be used in this manner is that they can’t be aimed. IRL a soldier would be able to hit a relatively small target (like a window or doorway) at close range with few problems. In INF this is all but impossible because of the same thing that makes INF unique, The freeaim system. The problem is that it is impossible to tell where is the freeaim area you are aiming. If for instance you are standing at the corner of a building and the opfor is approaching your position, if you lean out and attempt to throw a grenade around the corner and the freeaim area is touching the building there is a good chance that the grenade will hit the building bounce back and kill you and everyone you are with. This could be corrected simple by reducing the freeaim area for the grenade and\or introducing a system that warns if and object is in the way of your throw by lighting it up.
Ok I’ll shut up now.
Don't please... I find this thread and this poll very interesting. Even more then I thought it would be at first.
I hope everyone here takes a minute to vote in the poll and give out their thoughts. Should be a good read for anyone developping, either officially or non-officially, for Infiltration.
In the game America's Army in the third person view the soldier holds out his non-throwing arm, for what I'm guessing is a way to aim the grenade. This could be implemented in Infiltration as a way to aim the grenade, since your non-throwing hand would be pointing the direction you want to throw the grenade. This is can be seen on the following website:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/grenade2.htm
Here is a field manual about throwing grenades:
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-23.30/ch3.htm
A game designer friend of mine once told me that reality is a terrible thing to base a game on. This is because reality is generally frustrating and not fun. The entire point of a game is to have fun, so if you design a game to be frustrating you have done something wrong.
If Infiltration becomes a simulation then it may not become as fun for people to play. However I would still like Infiltration to become more of a simulator than a game. After all there are plenty of military realism games out there, but there a very few military simulations (at least available to the public).
http://science.howstuffworks.com/grenade2.htm
Here is a field manual about throwing grenades:
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-23.30/ch3.htm
A game designer friend of mine once told me that reality is a terrible thing to base a game on. This is because reality is generally frustrating and not fun. The entire point of a game is to have fun, so if you design a game to be frustrating you have done something wrong.
If Infiltration becomes a simulation then it may not become as fun for people to play. However I would still like Infiltration to become more of a simulator than a game. After all there are plenty of military realism games out there, but there a very few military simulations (at least available to the public).
On the topic of mapping:
It seems that in a lot of maps, both official and community, very little consideration is
put into why the battle is there, and how it falls into place in agreater conflict.
Another thing that often lacks thought is the way everything is layed out. There are
too many buildings that consist of only one hall and no rooms. A house has a few
things that are nearly universal: bedrooms, living room, and a kitchen. I don't think I
have ever seen that in game.
Then there are some things that you will find in the game that you will be hard pressed
to find IRL, such as vents that are conviniantly left open and large enough for a grown
man to run through. Sewer systems that consist of only a single line that goes to no
home.
I understand that it is hard to create a realistic map. I'm trying to create a town with
all of the nescisary eliments to support a population of ~100. Right now, I have no
clue how the buildings are going to get water and power, but at least I am thinking
about it. I have the General store with the owner's home built on the second floor. The
Gas station and the small resteraunt.
As to why it is being attacked: that is where a small section of soldiers are defending
the road that is needed by the attackers to open up a supply line to keep the front
line moving.
Randomness is a key aspect to making the game a sim. The defenders very rarely know
from which direction the attackers are coming, nor when. The second element is near
impossible to solve, but the first was taken care of in Mostar and in every single game
of DTAS. With fixed spawns, it is all too easy to fall into a routine on every map. We all
know where to throw our grenades, and where to plant our clays, because we've done
it a hundred times before.
The final aspect is how the attackers got there and how they are egressing. Frozen
takes care of this nicely by spawning the attackers next to snowmobiles and has them
walk the last 100meters or so, but on extract,a Blackhawk comes in to pick up the
team. Surely those arn't disposable snowmobiles to be discarded as junk. Skopje has
attackers and defenders set up with camps. What events transpired to allow such
camps to be made just down the street from eachother, and why are the attackers
leaving all of the equipment behind after they get the CD? Also, everymap requires
that the guy with the CD makes it back , and screw everyone else. Mostar at least
requires half the team to be there at extract, but in the US Army and USMC, everyone
is coming back, dead or alive, unless something goes terrably wrong.
It seems that in a lot of maps, both official and community, very little consideration is
put into why the battle is there, and how it falls into place in agreater conflict.
Another thing that often lacks thought is the way everything is layed out. There are
too many buildings that consist of only one hall and no rooms. A house has a few
things that are nearly universal: bedrooms, living room, and a kitchen. I don't think I
have ever seen that in game.
Then there are some things that you will find in the game that you will be hard pressed
to find IRL, such as vents that are conviniantly left open and large enough for a grown
man to run through. Sewer systems that consist of only a single line that goes to no
home.
I understand that it is hard to create a realistic map. I'm trying to create a town with
all of the nescisary eliments to support a population of ~100. Right now, I have no
clue how the buildings are going to get water and power, but at least I am thinking
about it. I have the General store with the owner's home built on the second floor. The
Gas station and the small resteraunt.
As to why it is being attacked: that is where a small section of soldiers are defending
the road that is needed by the attackers to open up a supply line to keep the front
line moving.
Randomness is a key aspect to making the game a sim. The defenders very rarely know
from which direction the attackers are coming, nor when. The second element is near
impossible to solve, but the first was taken care of in Mostar and in every single game
of DTAS. With fixed spawns, it is all too easy to fall into a routine on every map. We all
know where to throw our grenades, and where to plant our clays, because we've done
it a hundred times before.
The final aspect is how the attackers got there and how they are egressing. Frozen
takes care of this nicely by spawning the attackers next to snowmobiles and has them
walk the last 100meters or so, but on extract,a Blackhawk comes in to pick up the
team. Surely those arn't disposable snowmobiles to be discarded as junk. Skopje has
attackers and defenders set up with camps. What events transpired to allow such
camps to be made just down the street from eachother, and why are the attackers
leaving all of the equipment behind after they get the CD? Also, everymap requires
that the guy with the CD makes it back , and screw everyone else. Mostar at least
requires half the team to be there at extract, but in the US Army and USMC, everyone
is coming back, dead or alive, unless something goes terrably wrong.
the ladder script wasn't finished beacues the animations were bugged. though i agree that a working ladder script would be great, all old maps would need to be updated in order to use it...
i agree, thats why i preffer them to be disabled.
yes, but wouldn't it just turn team deathmatch unless you use extremely simple mission objectives?
i fully agree, and i think this could be done using an mutator quite easily
agreed, though you usually can't realy model every building full accessable, you should allways have the feeling that there is more. a few closed doors/blocked gates can do much. making everything accessable is most of the time just impossible because nobody wants to spend months on room that are absolutely not needed, add nothing to gameplay and have to look different to all other rooms, so you know where you are. in the addion to this you'd get a major performance dropdown with larger buildings, and you could neither use useable doors nor breaking windows.
thats not possible with every layout concept, and i don't consider random spawns to be the best solution out there eithe. in combat it is quite usuall to split the team an move into the target area on different routes. random spawns kinda take away this bit of planing, which is why i did that cheap teleporter spawning in kasbah. only this way the defending team won't know how many are comming and from where they come.
fist_mlrs said:
It was a bit "cheap", sure, but the gameplay can be 3x or 4x more realistic with that system, compared to a more avergae spawn system.
I would like to see your teleport system in more maps.
fist_mlrs said:
Again I don't like the idea of disabling things to create game balance. The fix for this is to make it so that the sniper weapon functions realisticly. Of course the first thing I would want to see fixed on the sniper weapon is to fix the deploy time so that it is realistic. This means that you would have to setup in a location and wait and if you had to switch weapons in a hurry you would have to simply drop the rifle, as sniper weapons are typicaly not on a sling while deployed. One of the other things I have noticed about sniper weapons is that the movement speed of the weapon is lowered to make it easier to aim through a scope.
To test this do this, create a loadout with 2 weapons both the same, one with a scope, one without. Take the unscoped weapon and point it at a landmark, then move the sight to another landmark. Note how much you have to move the mouse to do this. Now take the scoped model of the same gun and point it at the same location and move it between the same 2 landmarks you will notice that suddenly the same weapon takes much more mouse movement to move between the same 2 landmarks. This makes it quite a bit easier to make precise shots with a scoped rifle.
Last edited:
scopes can't work in a realistic way imo because the distances aren't big enough to justify them. an assault rifle is just perfect for ranges up to 300 meters, and in inf you'll hardly shot at distances of more then 200. the only game i've seen so far reproducing this right is operation flashpoint, and even there sniping is far to easy.
fist_mlrs said:
Yeah, I remember thinking aout how nice warpzones or teleporters would be
in maps that randomly split up your team. Too often our defense plan in ILCR
matches has, "Depending on where you spawn," somewhere in there.
I realise that not all rooms can be accisible. Part of it is because of BSP, part
of it is because of mover replication, but I don't think time plays a critical
factor. The rooms don't have to be completely unique, they just need to have
slight variations in the furniture, and what not. I can put together a full house
in about an hour, minus the furniture, and I am by no means a fast mapper.
I also think that broader objectives (secure the town, etc.) are more realistic
than CTCD in most cases, and also help even the field between the first time
you've played the map, and the 100th time, and I see nothing wrong with a
TDM style of play when it is centralized around objectives and both sides do
there part involving those objectives.
I think it is very important for mappers to follow the "As real as it gets" creed.
Demosthanese said:
I had a suggestion for a mutator some time back designed to address just this issue. It was not a popular subject for dicussion. Oh Oh I wanna see.
well, i had a hard time just adding all the doors to kasbah, and i am a fast mapper (at least until it comes to finishing my work). for some layouts it can be done quite well, but unce your layout isn't rectangular you encounter quite a few problems, not to mention that adding all that rooms is a verry, very boring job
i fully agree on not using standart ctf anymore. there is so much more that can be done, including for example a random placed goal that is not displayed in the hud, alternative mission setups, semirandom objective setups anddefender goals. ctcd is nice, but allready overdone.
one thing i don't agree with is that the maps are less realitic then the ones released two years ago, i think they made a huge step towards lifelike architecture and layout and background since then.
i fully agree on not using standart ctf anymore. there is so much more that can be done, including for example a random placed goal that is not displayed in the hud, alternative mission setups, semirandom objective setups anddefender goals. ctcd is nice, but allready overdone.
one thing i don't agree with is that the maps are less realitic then the ones released two years ago, i think they made a huge step towards lifelike architecture and layout and background since then.
You're right for the most part, but there are a couple of details that you are not considering. There are no objectives in TDM, so people can venture out to wherever they want. With one life, EAS will be similar to DTAS. You might say again that attackers will only concentrate on eliminating the entire defending team first, but isn't that the logical thing to do? I mean, in reality you would secure the zone around the objective, which prolly means taking everyone out in that area first. Defenders will have incentive not to camp out at obscure spots in order to defend the objective. In DTAS (as I remember playing it), people will seize the opportunity to capture the flag even before the other team is completely dead. But that's thing now isn't it? It boils down again to the right people... it will take patience and teamwork, and that is the general downfall for this idea given the immaturity of this populus.
fist_mlrs said:
Last edited: