Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fear


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 Father Ted

Father Ted

    Veteran

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 11:20 AM

There are some things the engine can sense. Then (from what I know) you'd end up writing code that would convert certain reported data into effects that let's call the "Fear Calculation" although it is better thought of as stress induced fatigue.
Let's say the engine can detect:
the volume of fire arriving in your immediate area
Distance from the enemy
Being injured
Losing the battle
rate of friendly casualties taken

These are the things I believe are detected/reported (in some form)by the engine. There are probably a lot more. This creates two questions:

What should these calculations translate to? About all I can think of is a physical representation of stress in the form of fatigue. For example: Loss of fine muscle movement control is a indicator of fatigue. So, accuracy would suffer as an example and speed of reloading..you get the idea.

What NON-physical effects could be generated to represent fear/stress.

The second question is Game Play or player satisfaction related. A lot of players want their in game "soldier" to be one Hell of a guy! Brave, courageous and bold!
Able to shrug off the pains that would slow down LESSER MEN.They want their soldier to IGNORE the very things that Dix listed. Be full of resolve and determined to win. The worse things are going...the harder they fight!!!! [/COLOR]:mad:

Look at the most popular games out there. The player strength and stamina is ridiculously high and doesn't fade easily. When it does, seems like there is always some sort of "Health Pack" to bring the player back to jumping over six foot walls. So....how do you expect the player base to respond to "playing hurt"? To me it is realistic and adds suspense and immersion but, am I the small minority? We do want to have a large player base and lots of full servers.

So there is a tension here. Great games solve it in some way. Stupid games blow it.

MANY Players would dislike Playing Hurt. I'm pretty sure of this.
So, in a way this would induce fear. Not of death but, of reduction in "super-soldierness". You would IMHO have to enforce a strict penalty for suicide. RO seemed to allow this with little cost. If suicide cost your side dearly in reinforcements (as an example) then...the player would either have to bear his injuries and "shakes" or QUIT the map and go to another. I'm sure a certain amount of players would do this.


This is pretty much what I'm thinking in terms of prospective players' take on this. Also interesting to have some insight on things from a coding point of view.

I'd just like to expand on the fact that, in order to see "realistic" behaviour, we don't need to induce actual fear in the players. The important part of this, as I see it, is that players keep their heads down when under fire. We want to be able to say, "Hit those windows while the rest of the squad sneak round behind the wall", or, "Set up the MG to cover the approach up the road". IRL if an MG42 was covering an open section of road, it would be almost like a physical barrier - you would hunker down and call up smoke, mortars or armour to sort out the problem, unless there was absolutely no alternative to dashing across. In DH we dash across as the first solution, maybe with smoke. It's not so much about the actual modelling or inducement of fear in players or avatars, but that they should appear to be in that state from the point of view of the opposition. I'm not after something as gamey as the suppression indicator of BiA, but it is from that point of view that fear needs to work in terms of gameplay.

So I'm with you on the saddling players with an irritating time if they get hurt or are deemed "scared". They don't have to be actually scared, there just has to be something which dissuades them from getting into situations where one would reasonably expect a soldier to take more interest in life-preservation than shooting the enemy. Again, this isn't for the immersion of the player under fire, but rather so that those doing the firing get some tactical value for doing so.

#22 Schneller

Schneller

    Elite Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,675 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:21 PM

How much "Playing Hurt" players are willing to accept will initially be determined by large scale testing before the release. Then, you can be sure we will be monitoring player chat in game and forum posts AFTER THE RELEASE to see if we need to do a quick "re-tuning" to make the player base happy. There are other things related to what can be done that I can't go into at this time but, I will say that we may be able to please a variety or player preferences in regard to this sort of thing.
Posted Image

Wilsonam wrote: But, as someone said - perhaps just a touch too anal for a game

WUK: What! Thats impossible! Blasphemie!

#23 Serathis

Serathis

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:46 AM

Oh god. Are you going to have action mode and realism and total realism settings?
Bloody screen! So real.

#24 FuriousBystander

FuriousBystander

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:17 PM

Oh god. Are you going to have action mode and realism and total realism settings?


Ugh, I hope not....there can be only one.

4AoOa-Fz2kw


Posted Image


#25 Dreek

Dreek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:56 PM

I downloaded HOS again last night but was reminded why I never cared for the game. For instance I spawned behind a wall and on the other side 4 or 5 guys were mowed down by a mg and my character went haywire with "FEAR SUPPRESSION". I can argue that I never would have known what was happening on the other side of the wall or that I wouldn't feel that way in that instance but that's not the point. The point is that it was annoying at best and rather or not the system has some merit it was instrumental in my quitting along with the fact that to die in an unoccupied cap for the 4th time from pubbers tking was a bit to much to endure as well.

Maybe consider stiffer penalties for tks like waiting out a spawn wave for a first offense then 2 waves for a second and so on.
Posted Image

#26 Lowes

Lowes

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:53 PM

I'm...not sure how I feel on this subject yet.

I suppose I'm closer to Ted's view that fear should be more subjective an experience - the avatar you play and die as after all, is supposed to be you. I do think everyone needs triggers, pushes in the right direction so to speak. I know I shit myself when my gun hops all over and the suppression blur currently in game is activated. That's a slightly intrusive example of how to potentially induce fear, for example.

I feel alot of sympathy for the devs on this subject, no matter what they do on this subject, someone, somewhere, is not going to be satisfied with it.
Posted Image

#27 Shurek

Shurek

    Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:32 PM

@Serathis / FB: You needn't worry. There will not be different levels or modes of "realism".

3ka2.png


#28 Dreek

Dreek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 02:27 PM

@Serathis / FB: You needn't worry. There will not be different levels or modes of "realism".


Would it be possible to consider something like switches to disable some of these aspects that everyone feels needed to make public play more viable to the average player base.

Personally I know of no gimmicks that are going to make me "Fear" or worry about my character's existence. After so many hours of play there is going to be a dulling of any immersion in public play because you will return to the action in a moments passing as opposed to a realism scenario that continually places your character in danger with the prospect of no return to the conflict.

I don't want to debate the merits of either public or realism play just an acknowledgement that the two exist and are antithetical to one another in the aspect of what each bring to the player. If realism had the opportunity to disable things like vehicle respawns (which are necessary in public play but very debilitating in realism), artificial emotion emitters, role restrictions regarding accessories (like being able to pass binocs or a radio to another person). player respawns and various other things it would make it much easier on the units out there who provide the most stable if not the most popular form of gaming in the FPS genre. Another thing is in realism you could leave the dead and weapons on the field since no more would be added via respawn to max out the engine. All these things would provide much more immersion for me and I'm sure at least some would help others as well.

After all it's mostly clans and units who provide the pubic with servers to play on and a good portion of these are realism units who use these servers as a fishing ground for recruits to bolster their ranks.

A good adage in most instances is K-I-S-S (keep it simple stupid) as not to become convoluted or mired in a bunch of confusing details design to improve the game but ends up only making it good for some but arduous for others.
Posted Image

#29 tomppelix

tomppelix

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 02:33 PM

GOOD IDEA!!!
also looking if they would do a realistic damage in tanks... like... if you shoot to tracks... they will cut off... and you shoot to tank`s turret it will stop working...(depends how good armor on it and depends on what gun used to it)
also if you shoot to driver, he dies... or get injured... you should be able to flame tank by shooting to motor and fueltank...

all this is in ww2online and i love it so much...


simo häyhä = white death
705 kills in 101 days
sniper, sithout scopes, usually 250 - 500 meters killed...
:high 5:

#30 FuriousBystander

FuriousBystander

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 03:24 PM


all this is in ww2online and i love it so much...


All of the stuff you mentioned is in DH. Have you bothered to play?


Posted Image


#31 Schneller

Schneller

    Elite Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,675 posts

Posted 02 December 2012 - 11:48 PM

If a game can't induce fear for oneself, due to quick and painless re-spawn, then perhaps one can induce fear for the success of your side in the battle.

This is simply created by "limited reinforcements". Death may be quick and painless for you but, it may be er, death for your side. If your side runs out of tank crewmen, then it doesn't matter how many pretty tanks are in the spawn. Out of Infantry? Game over. You lose. And, maybe not quickly but, slowly and painfully as the other side grinds you sadistically to an inevitable defeat.

So, a game that does this, in combination with the challenge of playing hurt, just may induce more tension in the game play that you commonly see.
Posted Image

Wilsonam wrote: But, as someone said - perhaps just a touch too anal for a game

WUK: What! Thats impossible! Blasphemie!

#32 Father Ted

Father Ted

    Veteran

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 03 December 2012 - 08:34 PM

Whilst I think this is a great idea, I would go for limited personal reinforcements so that each player has responsibility for their own rate of reaching final "death". With limited team resources there is a larger potential for griefing.

#33 Schneller

Schneller

    Elite Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,675 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:43 AM

OK, so what would this do....kick that player from the server? Or, just downgrade them to only holding Rifleman role----excluding them from all else? Rage Quit???
Posted Image

Wilsonam wrote: But, as someone said - perhaps just a touch too anal for a game

WUK: What! Thats impossible! Blasphemie!

#34 Rico

Rico

    Member

  • Festung Europa Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 02:29 AM

Father Ted
Whilst I think this is a great idea, I would go for limited personal reinforcements so that each player has responsibility for their own rate of reaching final "death". With limited team resources there is a larger potential for griefing.

I'd like that! Lots of possibilities to play arround with....


Or, just downgrade them to only holding Rifleman role----excluding them from all else?


Why not this? We could have a whole lot of things with such a system,
for example:
- We could define that every player gets X base personal life/respawn tickets at the begining of a round, these are considered "premium tickets" in the sense that during the life you get with those you may choose advanced and sophisticated roles and equipment. Once you've used them all up for good, you're done with being a Zugführer, Marksman, LMG and Schreck Operator and can only respawn for the remainder of the round as a rifleman.
- In another thread (CBA to find it atm) we discussed if and how tickets could be "earned" on a personal level. IIRC it went something like this, people could earn through team oriented ingame actions (like the ones we already know as assisted reloading, ressuply, capping, etc...) additional tickets.
Overall team tickets are not affected by this, meaning someone earning a personal "premium ticket" does not increase his teams overall tickets by +1.
So, by being a good lad and playing with and for the team, one could earn additional "premium tickets".

No ragequitting, no 10 minutes limbo, good incentive to get back into the thick and earn that Schreck back!

And you know what else this would simulate?
A good team with lots of team-oriented players will be able to field a force with lots of specialised equipment, representing the quality of troops used, while a poor team would quickly deteriorate into mostly riflemen, representing the scratch, alarm and rear units an assaulting force would encounter just before the breakthrough.
And its not like a team couldn't recover from that - its all down to personal skill to earn specialisation back!

#35 Kashash

Kashash

    Senior Member

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 04:17 AM

That what Schneller described sounds about right and most authentic to me. Personal reinforcements might create selfishness and team isolating. Too many counter suggestion seem like out of fear that the game will be too extreme, trying to pander to some of those easily-achievable FPS where everyone is a skilled lone shooter.

Imho players that reach reinforcement limit would simply spawn further back to the previous spawn where then they'd be reassigned with their leader for a new approach to the objective and different tasks. That way the team can try different routes and tactics to avoid further loss of troops out of their entire reinforcement's pool.
Just my two cents.

#36 Father Ted

Father Ted

    Veteran

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 03:18 PM

OK, so what would this do....kick that player from the server? Or, just downgrade them to only holding Rifleman role----excluding them from all else? Rage Quit???


To be fair, anything which annoys a player, including this:

Game over. You lose. And maybe not quickly but, slowly and painfully as the other side grinds you sadistically to an inevitable defeat.


could lead to rage-qutting.

My initial thought was indeed to put the player into a non-spawn limbo for the remainder of the round. Of course I can't tell how well this would play, but it would definitely encourage players to take care of their lives. I'd also forgotten the idea that SchabeOink re-raised - that players could earn extra lives for performing "good deeds". In effect this would probably mean that good team-players would never run out of lives - as long as they kept up their team-based activities.

I was just trying to avoid that (quite common) situation you get in DH when people whinge about someone wasting a role. If, through inexperience or bloody-mindedness, someone loses all the tanker slots early in a map, it's unfair on the rest of the team. However, if only that person then has to sit out, but someone else can take the role, the team isn't as disadvantaged by one person's actions.

#37 Schneller

Schneller

    Elite Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,675 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:36 AM

Somewhere, mixed in amongst these various ideas may be one that turns out to not only improve the game but be widely accepted if not unanimously popular. The only way I think we would find out would be to conduct testing with a large group of players and test it thoroughly for possible incorporation. However, if testing these ideas took up a lot of Pre-Release mass testing time....we might have to re-visit them after the release for possible inclusion in a DLC.

In other words, we may release a more "vanilla" system to start with but, I hope these ideas will be brought up again....after all, we don't want to delay the release of the game 6 months to keep trying experiments that can be done after the release occurs and we are all having fun playing FE.

But, if we can improve the game once it is being widely played and we can get the Testers and a friendly Server Boss to help, we will be interested in testing a lot of improvements for many months after the release. One thing that won't change from the DH days....we will be committed to improvements for a LONG time after the initial release.
Posted Image

Wilsonam wrote: But, as someone said - perhaps just a touch too anal for a game

WUK: What! Thats impossible! Blasphemie!

#38 Father Ted

Father Ted

    Veteran

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 03:12 PM

I absolutely understand that. Form a gamelpay-design standpoint I would imagine that something as chaotic as multiplayer must be a bit of a nightmare. I can certainly see that you'd have to have a strong feeling yourselves that a new(ish) concept would work and bring something to the game before investing any time in play-testing, which would of course be an essential and time-consuming part of the process.

Those of us on the outside are just chucking ideas over the wall, really. If you guys pick any of them up then great, but personally I'm not expecting to see any of my thoughts implemented in FE. I just like to say "What if..?" and then have a bit of a discussion.

#39 exocet

exocet

    Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 736 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 05:39 PM

Keep throwing those suggestions over that wall.
You will see as we release Info on what wil be implemented into the game, just HOW much we really do value these suggestions.
Posted Image

Day Z, which is essentially a walking-forever-to-find-a-can-of-beans simulator.

#40 wew

wew

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 17 May 2015 - 08:15 AM

Kinda related, introducing two concepts: Adrenaline and morale

The first one, if the soldier is facing a heavy danger (see fear) but he's also encouraged (team charging for example) he feels the adrenaline and literally goes Über, similar to RS' banzai hability but with with less bullet resistance (maybe one bullet in the butt muscle or another non lethal zone, but the japs can take over 5 bullets doing that on Rising Storm) and runs faster with longer endurance. Video related.

QLtxQWOvz_k

And morale, based on how many bases the team got captured or lost and their death-kill ratio in combat and team killings (yeah team killing could affect the team's morale), their morale could grow or decrease affecting the entire team's emotional status. Facing a great morale they are less prompt to get fear, even when facing artillery fire, but with low morale their facial expresions look lost, deppresed and fearful. Too low morale can cost the battle round, since they can't stand a great enemy overwhelming their positions. A morale bar visible for both teams could be optionally added on the upper screen, showing how both start away from the middle and they grow and fill the bar when capturing zones and killing, then both bars clash and push back the other. If the battle goes long, harsh and both enemies are wasting life tickets away with no prolific advances and lack of progress ingame, both teams can decrease their morale and the bars shall separate and get back from the middle, affecting everyone's emotional status (activating unhappy faces or pessimistic shouts). The officers (ie: SL or commanders) can execute an important role here adding the capability to increase morale with their presence and command. Another action that commanders could take would be ordering retreats if necessary or if the squad leaders request it. This action could save life tickets for the next round in a campagin but also cost a fraction of morale to the team but in the result it could be better than surrendering if facing a total defeat.

Going deeper into this concept you could also add on the map valuable war trophies like standards or items that can provide extra morale to the team if they find and capture these from the enemy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users