coroner wrote:
One thing is the naming and I agree that g_realism is more appropriate. Otherwise the answer to this question pretty much depends on the definition of functional tactical realism.
Well, that's encouraging, however it would probably be good to arrive at some explicit definitions of functional and aesthetic realism and what
g_realism 1 will and won't do in these regards, so that no one feels mislead by the var and what's offered.
coroner wrote:
My own perception of CQBs game style (g_realism 0), with the changes implemented in CQB with regard to TCE, wouldn't either be that of an arcade game..
I see in your blog posts that you've given a lot of thought and attention to depth and sophistication of the default
g_realism 0 design, and that vanilla CQB will probably play much better then TC:E -- and is what will appeal to most TC:E Fans -- even many posting in this thread *cough*.
However there can be an enormous disparity between design sophistication and game-play; by way of example the player and weapon metric vars in any COD game after and including COD2 offer enormous depth of features/capability, but a very arcade game ended up on top of it.
There's also often an enormous disparity between design intentions, and how a game actually ends up being played in the wild; everyone thought Rogue Spear was absurdly slow when it was first released, but once mastered, the unrealisticly fast but weapon accuracy ameliorated sprint movement speed allowed for very arcade MP game-play tactics using a slightly modified approach.
RSE noticed and responded by slowing down Ghost Recon and Raven Shield, but the end result was much the same -- once mastered in a few weeks of play; arcade tactics consistently prevailed over realistic fire-maneuver tactics.
The point here is you have little or nothing to loose by '
going overboard' in pushing the envelope with
g_realism 1, the TC:E audience should be well satisfied or even challenged by the new level of realism in
g_realism 0 -- and any kicking and screaming will imho be little different then the epic histrionic when Q3A: True Combat rolled out ironsights as the default and all the tantrums and threats to '
leave and never play the game' ensued.
g_realism 1 doesn't even go that far as it's not the game's default, or even intended for CQB's initial or main-stream audience. So I'd encourage you to workk outside the box, and explore the limits of what you can do within your constraints of time and means, toward really raising the bar of what can be offered a prospective CQC TR Audience -- they haven't had a new game or mod in five years, and SWAT 4 and First To Fight: CQC were the last games to take any new design risks, and both were successful budget games.
coroner wrote:
The current movement system settles somewhere between AmArmy3 and Arma2 and is more restrictive than that of TCE, including:
*Stance dependent angle movement limitations
*Hip firing replaced by shoulder position and slong with
*Running speed reduced by 15%
*Physical correct gravity along with halfed jump height and mantling
*More falling damage
*Sprint acceleration (todo)
*Much slower realistic prone turning (todo)
I also agree with nyc_paramedic and earlier posts that the maps have to be reworked to remove movements on fences, railings, and small ledges. I also want to eliminate all wild jump-move actions. Hate them.
All very compelling! Your last two sentences convey the most; and while I personally understand and can even enjoy '
action moves' and the liberating sense of fun they offer in games designed to offer them; I dislike them too in TR games where they were not part and parcel of the design intentions.
What's more '
trick moves' (any play tactic that exploits a game's design in ways the Author didn't intend) offer just one illustration of the '
tip of the iceberg' of the kind of exploit that has ultimately broken many TR games and frustrated the genre's audience -- which are probably less visible to someone that hasn't played TR games enthusiastically...
Where TR game design constraints are too liberal, literal, or even attempts at scale sim metrics they often fail because games aren't '
to scale' to begin with, and the boat load of limitations we encounter playing on a flat 2d anamorphic projection -- ergo Designers get too '
geeky' with the numbers and features and the '
functional' tactical realism of how the game is played (whether realistic tactics will prevail over unrealistic tactics) goes out the window in the wild once the game's metrics are explored, mastered, and exploited.
coroner wrote:
When it comes to a g_realism 1 setting, I agree with the majority of changes that were suggested here, if they are doable in a reasonable amount of time.
That was my intention; to focus on cheapest, fastest, biggest bang for the '
minutes of your time & effort' in being an advocate for the TR CQC venue in the broadest sense possible. I hark to SWAT 4 as an example, even though it's far from my favorite game because it's an excellent benchmark, a lot of CQC Clancy Fans have migrated there, and it's successful (realistic tactics prevail) against enormous limitations.
coroner wrote:
The critical point is the adjustment of speeds. I can clearly see that g_realism 1 would have jump completely disabled, no hud, etc.. Whether a further change or even dramatic change to all movement speeds would be a good idea, I don't know. I also think that functional tactical realism does not solely depent on slower movement speeds, at least, I am still missing the convincing argument. Probably only play testing can tell.
Well, not everyone, even in the TR Audience is going to agree with me, but I was an early advocate of ironsights and am used to that. Nor do I think constrained speed is the grail or '
only' means to CQC Tactical Realism. I'm trying my best to be the Advocate of the broadest expectation of the CQC TR Audience on the basis of historical design canon, and what has
proven to work in practice.
I'm not the Author of the idea of speed constraints and how they positively impact TR game design '
in the wild', but I am convinced it's an inexpensive way to superlative and compelling results that amaze and impress any TR Fan once it's given a chance. Some summery points for constrained speed:
· game scale anomalies have less effect on game realism & tactics
· keeps players moving together and improves team-work
· makes realistic '
bonding' cover fire maneuver necessary
· makes realistic '
bonding' easier and more practical to execute
· makes fire-fights more realistic, intense, and sustained
Speed constraints also have some nice aesthetic benefits; it make maps '
feel' larger, and more their representative size; it adds a lot of suspense, pressure and tension -- as you can't magically spirit away, cork through doors, hide, or be where you're needed instantly; so it adds a lot of anticipation where you have to think ahead where you need to be in the next minute relative to what's happening now...
This last point: making thinking and planing your moves realistically practical, is anohter element sorely missing in all but a small handful of TR games, and game speed plays a significant role in obviating it.
But the FTW seller is that slow movement speed totally eliminates entire constellations of '
trick moves' and exploits (present & future) from ever prevailing over more realistic tactics. In the real world of CQC, your weapon is an
long extension of your hands and eyes, it's almost always tactically smater to to engage an enemy from the furthest distance practical, and move carefully weapon-up in the ready-aim fire positon.
TR Fans prefer both aesthetic and functional realism where ever as much of both can be offered, but will take functional realism over aesthetic realism -- there are a myriad of compromises in this regard from HUD elements, no FPWV, to radial leaning, to slower then '
what is possible' movement speed, and Ghost Perspectives -- all were compromises made for more functional realism in how the game actually played vs how it looked or superficial first impressions of '
how it feels'.
Just as you hate and want to eliminate conspicuous arcade '
trick moves', TR design aspires to take it one step further and eliminate all '
unrealistic' tactical opportunity from a game, so that if you did it in the real world and it would get you killed so it will in game.
My experience has show the design choices to play well the '
Wider the window's open, the more craps flies through' analogy -- where cutting things close to
any unrealistic opportunity and someone with enough time and initiative will use it to exploit all tactical realism from the game...
