Need Penalty for Death

[Solo4114]

Personally, I see two extremes in terms of behavior and both come from problems inherent in pub play.

1.) People rambo around, charging objectives alone.

2.) People hang back and snipe and NEVER charge.


Both lead to team losses. Both also sometimes lead to team victories. Finding the balance between the two and hoping the other team doesn't have that same balance is where maps are really decided in pub play.

It's all well and good to want people to play the game a certain way, moving in squads, providing covering fire, assaulting objectives as a team rather than as individuals going into the meat grinder one by one.

I got news for you. Pub play don't work like that. It never has, it never will. People go on a pub server just to have a nice fun game and not take it particularly seriously. If you want serious, tactically-oriented gameplay, join a clan or a gaming community where you have private matches. If you want as close to real-life as you can get, join a clan that doesn't use cheapass tactics or "game the system" in order to win, and that focuses on using realistic tactics.

For all the complaints about people acting like rambos in here, how do we then square that against maps where your team REFUSES to attack and is only interested in hanging back and plinking away while time ticks down? Clearly, not everyone is ramboing. I've played more rounds as the attacker that are lost simply because people only were concerned with long-range rifle combat and staying alive, and had zero regard for getting in the damn cap zone.

Now maybe part of the issue is that cap zones don't always equate to logical positions that you want to control. Take Odessa for example. Why do you want to capture the apartments or the square? The tower I get. It provides you with high ground and that's always an advantage. The HQ I get. It's the location of the enemy headquarters and undoubtedly has valuable information or whatever. But the square? It's an open, fully exposed area of no particular strategic value save what we have arbitrarily assigned it. The apartments? MAYBE you could say they're strategic, but they don't really look out onto anything worthwhile.

When you're faced with maps like that, people may not take the objective seriously because getting the objective doesn't get them anything aside from points. You want realistic combat? Start with map design. Have objectives be strategically valuable positions. Strongpoints that your side either needs to eliminate or control. Then maybe people will want to get their asses to those positions, because they give them a better location to attack the enemy.


As for the rest of it, leave it to mutators and mods. There's no need to force a particular style of gameplay on anyone when you're dealing with an engine as flexible as this engine is. That's the beauty of it. If you want the game to play in a subtle but profoundly different way, you make a mutator and run it. Maybe it gets popular, maybe not. But changing the fundamental gameplay is a mistake. For the game to be successful it needs to remain flexible and adaptable to different playstyles, from the rambos (who really DON'T do all that well unless they do so in a smart way at the right time), to the wannabe snipers (who may get decent scores but whose teams lose the map), to the hardcore crack commando units (who will kick major ass because they practice tactics on a regular basis and support each other well).

Personally, I'd love it if pickup games worked in a way that we all suddenly turned into that last category. But if you're talking about public play,
you might as well ask for a pony for christmas.

 

[lATENT_c]

Supporting less restrictive rules because you personally like the freedom is not really what this thread is about. It's fine to express your opinion, as we all are, but the focus should be on what makes RO a better game.

I bought RO because I want realism. To me, realism is fun. It would be super fun if I could totally immerse myself in the battle, suspending reality for a time.

Quote:
...forcing you into a little box of accepted actions isnt fun for very long... why screw with the long-term attraction of this title?

The suggestions are not to 'force' anyone to play a particular way. They are meant to shape how the game is played in general. Someone already pointed out that ALL rules are ways of 'forcing' players to act a certain way. I guess if you really want freedom, eliminate the anti-cheat stuff also, as those people who like to cheat are being 'forced' not to...

The long term appeal of the game, IMO, is that it strives for realism. It is not just another mindless, frantic, shoot-em-up FPS, but instead one that REQUIRES tactics and self-preservation for the player to be successful.

Quote:
How can anyone here who wasnt in WWII on the Eastern Front tell me what is realistic in regards to how soldiers acted in every little encounter?

Seriously, man, I don't need to be a 15 year vet to tell you that people don't like to be shot, and don't like to die. Yes, the Russians did - in dire straits - sometimes force waves of foot soldiers into battle. Germans never did this, so even if your point holds water, it only holds it 50%... Unless you want separate rules depending on which nationality you are playing.

Quote:
...guys like myself, and plenty others, DONT NEED control factors to 'shape' our game, know what I'm saying? So what if there are some people out there who dont have regard for their in-game life? They'll soon learn that those tactics get you nowhere!

This is what the discussion is about. Players who have no regard for their in-game life DON'T get 'nowhere' - they are rewarded by immediately respawning with full equipment (sometimes in a better position than the one where they died), and they have the satisfaction of having (maybe) got a couple of run-and-gun kills. So why does that bother me? Because, while they are running around, ignoring cap zones, TKing, refusing to resupply, failing to provide covering fire, etc, MY ability to have a realistic experience is ruined.

Quote:
How do you know someone didnt panic and lob all his grenades into the middle of a street to create a diversion while he ran across the street in an MG's view?

That's a fine tactic (as long as it doesn't kill friendlies), and nobody is suggesting anything like controlling when or where a player can use their weapons. What is your point?

Quote:
How can you tell me an officer didnt send soldiers out at gunpoint to their certain doom because he was given orders himself to do so? All that would be considered Rambo actions right? I'm positive these soldiers did everything in their power to stay alive but had to take risks at practically every moment!

"Rambo actions", as we've been using the expression here, indicate someone doing thigs that they would never do if they actually had respect for their own life. In real war, real people try real hard not to die. I'm sure you can talk all day about heroic events that really happened where one guy took out a whole division or whatever... Those things CAN still happen in a realistic game. In fact, realism makes being a hero even MORE heroic.

Quote:
In response to your idea of kicking a player from a certain class because he died too much... what if I'm in a clan match and I want so-n-so to have the sniper class.... but he's died 5 times, so now he cant play it anymore... what then?

I'm pretty sure that when you set up a server for a clan match, you can customize the game parameters... not much of an argument there. A real problem with this idea could be that TKing will become epidemic as people kill their teammates to get the gun they just lost by acting like an asshat. Of course, if the penalties for TK were a little stiffer, we might solve that too.

Quote:
It's all well and good to want people to play the game a certain way, moving in squads, providing covering fire, assaulting objectives as a team rather than as individuals going into the meat grinder one by one.
I got news for you. Pub play don't work like that. It never has, it never will.

This is just a flat-out untruth. I have played in pub servers where communication and tactics were much more realistic than any RO game I've ever witnessed. It all comes down to what motivates players. The ones who are motivated to play realistically, stay. The ones who want to play Halo, leave. It's better that way.

Quote:
So who would decide what a 'rambo move' is or how many deaths is considered acceptable? There are many times when dying more than 4 or 5 times is just part of the map, and is also a part of the learning experience. I don't see how punishing players who aren't as up to speed on proper fighting strategies makes the game better for everyone.

Who would decide? Us. The programmers of the game. The community. We all die in this game, for various reasons. I, myself, die sometimes because I am being impatient and foolish. When the death penalty is stiffer, I play more carefully.

You are saying, I think, that with tougher penalties for deaths, the learning curve would be too steep for your average, casual, FPS player.

Well, maybe that is the whole point of the thread. Not every game is Super Mario Bros., thankfully. Some games are hard. Some games balance a steeper learning curve with a more rewarding play experience. Managing this balance is, of course, what good game design is all about.

 

[REZ]

Then closed clan matches are the thing for you sir, where you can better control the participants, but I wouldnt expect pub matches to miraculously become CAL matches because people are 'punished' for dieing.

I dont need the game 'punishing' me for dieing, so I in turn 'play more carefully'... I already play carefully, plus there are tons of situations where being careful doesnt make a bit of difference. It seems to me that the more aggressive team would then consistently (not 100% of the time) dominate, because the other team would be doing nothing but suffering the 'punishment' for dieing... hmm that could throw gameplay all off.

No, I dont think a 'punishment' for dieing is needed.

 

[Amerikaner]

So what if there are some people out there who dont have regard for their in-game life? They'll soon learn that those tactics get you nowhere!

No no no see thats exactly the problem: Playing unrealistically is completely promoted in RO. The guys at the top of the scoreboard are the ones who rush up into the thick of things and take out enemies with quick reflexes, quick movements, snapshots etc. Most of the time it is not the player who sits back and picks off guys who is at the top, its rambo...which ties in with the next point you make about me being Rambo:

on a personal note... when you speak of Rambo, it makes me laugh, because you, and alot of others have made a career off of those types of tactics, no doubt. Man, you are one of the most notorious spawn/exit campers there are! No one can play this game without going solo at some point. So no more Rambo comments, please.

You hit the nail on the head while trying to disprove me. Not to toot my own horn, but yes Ive used those tactics time and time again, battle after battle. Why? Because I get massive amounts of kills and totally paralyze the enemy while I strafe back and forth and unload my smg into players attempting to exit into the battle. If not an smg I run headfirst into the front and hip my way to glory. Who was at the top of the scoreboard 99% of the time? Amerikaner with his Rambo, aggresive, in-your-face tactics. This isnt realistic at all but you know what? IT WORKS and this is the problem.

Why should I play realistically if Im going to be at a disadvantage? Sure it can be more rewarding but whats the point if youre going to be at a disadvantage during every clan or tournament match. After all winning is what its all about with those types of matches. Of course you know that with your nade-whoring...but thats another topic .

Now, I like your freedom argument with allowing the players to do what they want. However, adding a penalty for rambo tactics, like i said before, does not cripple player's freedom whatsoever. All it does is put emphasis on how real war was fought and how a realism game should be played.

 

[lATENT_c]

It seems to me that the more aggressive team would then consistently (not 100% of the time) dominate, because the other team would be doing nothing but suffering the 'punishment' for dieing...

I don't think I understand what you mean.

Are you confusing aggression with carelessness? War is about aggression - But controlled aggression. The problem we are addressing is that players are actually rewarded (or at the very least, suffer no ill effects) for being unrealistically over-aggressive.

The team that is over-aggressive, and places little value on thier individual lives, would be the ones suffering the additional punishments for death - as it should be. The punishment for death now - a small decrease in reinforcement numbers - is ineffective as a deterrent to death. In fact, many players don't even get the connection between dying and thier squad's reinforcements.

There are just way too many players who think the objective is to get as many kills as possible at whatever cost. This is not how wars are fought, and this is not how a realistic wargame should be played.

BTW, I am trying to find a realism clan where I fit in. If anyone would like to direct me to them, I would appreciate it.

 

[Rameusb5]

Rez, it's incredibly clear that I'm not going to sway your opinion on this issue, so I really feel like further discussion is pointless.

I feel that players having absolutely no fear of death is unrealistic, and this adversely affects my gameplay enjoyment. You obviously feel that this is not an issue, and would rather the game stay the way it is...

We have mutually exclusive points of view. All that can be said on the matter has been said.

See ya on the battlefield.


PS - I realize that I would probably be happier in a "realism" clan than on the Pub servers, but I don't really feel like I want to "commit" to a clan in order to achieve the type of gameplay that I enjoy, nor am I a constant player of this game (I play for a few days, then I stop and go play something else, and then come back in a few weeks or maybe even months).

RO is a fantastic game and IMHO the most "realistic" WWII FPS on the market today, which is why I enjoy it. The more realistic it becomes, the better I will enjoy it. I'm a groniard in that respect, I guess...

 

[meat_sim]

redoing the point system will not change gameplay.


people are going to play the game to win. points dont determine a win or a loss. capping or protecting objectives do. killing a crap ton of people trying to do one of the previous actions do. if you want to see "realism, no nade spam, no RnG, ect.", Red Orchestra's inherent gameplay properties will have to change. a fact of life is that if people can do it and it works they will continue doing it.


Rambo? you have an smg in a trench? guess what... you kill 5 people in a row and die. you lose points for dying. but so do those 5 chumps who got made into swiss cheese. everyone gets punished. but you still got those points for the 5 kills... so what do you realism people want? punish only smg hipping folk? punish all hip shots? no no... the real problem is that people aren't being careful with their lives and you're trying to make them appreciate their lives more by rewarding longer lives. PROBLEM. the average player does not get more then 1 kill per life. simple math. so in the end the run and gunner still is the king because he got that run of kills whereas ROPlayer with his rifle got one. you have to spill some blood to make progress in this game. if anything this new point system will make high kill:death players just look better and worse players look worse.


i agree with the idea that if you want "total realism immersion" then people need to value their lives. but i dont think a new point system will change that.


To kaner:
you want to punish people for dying quickly? well since you're so great at run and gun and killing off people exiting the spawn who are you punishing? people who die as they get RamBONED at the exit have the highest death rate. i understand your reasoning but the problem isnt a high death rate. its being rambo.


a lack of players exercising realism is a problem with the community not the game. RO is a game coded to carry out realistic environmental functions. if you think hopping and shooting is unrealistic the way to get rid of it is to GET RID OF IT. in RO you cant shoot while jumping and your avatar jumps like a cabbage (it doesnt jump... well). you dont want run and gun? hey, the only way to toss it is to actually make it impossible to shoot from the hip. and IMO that would make RO suck cow testicle. you want people to value their lives then make the life VALUABLE. create a mutator with a 5 lives kind of thing and host a server with it on it. im sure there is a coder out there somewhere who can and will do this.


for the time being my suggestion to people who crave realism... join a realism server that enforces realism. i believe 9.ss ?? was setting up a server for just this purpose. personally i like RO how it is.

 

[Solo4114]

Supporting less restrictive rules because you personally like the freedom is not really what this thread is about. It's fine to express your opinion, as we all are, but the focus should be on what makes RO a better game.

But what makes the game better in your eyes is just your opinion, which is no more or less valid than any other player's.

I bought RO because I want realism. To me, realism is fun. It would be super fun if I could totally immerse myself in the battle, suspending reality for a time.

That's great! I wholeheartedly agree. I actually prefer to play in matches where people team up, use the VOIP and voice commands, work as a well organized team, and get exactly the same in return from the other team. I MUCH prefer a battle like that. But at the same time, I also recognize that there needs to be SOME flexibility in game styles.

I admin on a BF1942 Forgotten Hope server, and I've played a fair amount of BF2. Years ago, I played a lot of Return to Castle Wolfenstein (before it was Enemy Territory). I've played all manner of team games, from Quake 1 and 2 CTF, Weapons Factory, Team Fortress, etc.

RO is the most realistic multiplayer game out there, and it is so primarily because of the way the weapons work, and how the player moves. People play this game a LOT more cautiously than they do ANY other title I've ever seen. Honestly, I have NEVER seen games like RO when you have at least 60% of your team diving down, hiding around corners, all trying to shoot their way up a street (or not even advancing).

In short, there is more realism in this title than in any other I've ever seen and I've seen quite a few. Players also rambo around FAR less in this title than in any other I've seen, and when they do, usually they die. Is it possible to charge an objective alone and capture it? Is it possible to round a corner and hose down an enemy with your SMG? Sure. That's what SMGs are supposed to do, though.

The suggestions are not to 'force' anyone to play a particular way. They are meant to shape how the game is played in general. Someone already pointed out that ALL rules are ways of 'forcing' players to act a certain way. I guess if you really want freedom, eliminate the anti-cheat stuff also, as those people who like to cheat are being 'forced' not to...

The long term appeal of the game, IMO, is that it strives for realism. It is not just another mindless, frantic, shoot-em-up FPS, but instead one that REQUIRES tactics and self-preservation for the player to be successful.

The long term appeal of the game IS the pursuit of realism. But bear in mind that (a) this is a game and (b) it's not real life. There will always be, by virtue of the fact that it IS a game and one that doesn't involve real human beings fighting in the flesh, a bit of unrealism involved. You'll get that even in a paintball or airsoft game, which short of participating in a military exercise using MILES gear, is probably about as close as any of us will ever get to the real thing.

And the game ALREADY requires tactics and self preservation to be successful. But it also requires aggressiveness and the willingness to put yourself in harm's way. I see both, and at both extremes I might add, in RO gameplay on public servers. I see the psychotic (and stupid) rambos go charging up a completely open street, running in a straight line, with zero cover. SOMETIMES they make it to the objective. Usually they don't. I also see a LOT of players hanging back, hitting the dirt, and plinking away at the enemy, basically refusing to advance more than two steps. That's pretty damn cautious if you ask me. The trick is finding the balance and that's not something you can force on people any more than the game already does.

And yes, adding in wholly new code to the base game itself IS forcing things on people. Sometimes that's not a bad thing, but with something like this, I'd say it is. We have a pretty good balance in this game of realism and gameyness. We lean HEAVILY towards realism, certainly by comparison with every other game out there. But if we go too far, it'll just piss people off. Now maybe you're cool with saying "Fine! Let 'em go!" But personally, I'd rather have a userbase of more than, oh, 200 people grand total.

This is what the discussion is about. Players who have no regard for their in-game life DON'T get 'nowhere' - they are rewarded by immediately respawning with full equipment (sometimes in a better position than the one where they died), and they have the satisfaction of having (maybe) got a couple of run-and-gun kills. So why does that bother me? Because, while they are running around, ignoring cap zones, TKing, refusing to resupply, failing to provide covering fire, etc, MY ability to have a realistic experience is ruined.

The players who aren't going into cap zones and are basically playing the game like team deathmatch would get that regardless of how the scoring or death penalty system worked. Make the respawn time 60 seconds. Make them lose points. It won't matter. And at a certain point, you're negatively affecting the whole team AND the players who ARE trying to really help the team and are not throwing their lives away without regard -- like the player with the SMG who actually is trying to storm a position while his buddies (perhaps not fully intentionally) are hanging back and laying down covering fire with rifles. What happens to THAT player when he actually tries to take the objective and do his job, takes out three enemies at close quarters, and then dies? Why should HE be penalized? He was doing his job after all.

Much of what you guys are complaining about is stuff that is due to the nature of the "capture the territory" aspect of this game -- which is something that really should NOT change. If that did change, it'd just become team deathmatch and we'd be playing a slightly more realistic version of CS -- which personally I think would suck.

That said, if something like that is more your cup of tea, why not get some folks together and make a mutator for it? There's nothing stopping you.

It's all well and good to want people to play the game a certain way, moving in squads, providing covering fire, assaulting objectives as a team rather than as individuals going into the meat grinder one by one.
I got news for you. Pub play don't work like that. It never has, it never will.

This is just a flat-out untruth. I have played in pub servers where communication and tactics were much more realistic than any RO game I've ever witnessed. It all comes down to what motivates players. The ones who are motivated to play realistically, stay. The ones who want to play Halo, leave. It's better that way.

No, it really isn't an untruth. What you see on public servers is a whole variety of gameplay, ranging from the truly idiotic to the sublimely brilliant and coordinated. Most of my experience, however, tends towards the uncoordinated, or at least the LESS coordinated. And that is the fundamental nature of public play.

Humans are social creatures, but they don't instantly form social groups with established hierarchies and group dynamics. The kind of tactics your looking for only really happen when THAT happens. When everyone knows their place, there's a clear chain of command, there's trust in each other's abilities enough to NOT say "Screw this. I'll do it on my own", etc. In pub games or pickup matches, it's nowhere near as likely that this will occur. Soemtimes it happens. Sometimes you get on a team with two or three guys from the same clan and they form a core unit, around which the rest of the team begins to work. But even then, it's not serious coordination with everyone knowing exactly what to do and doing it.

But again, if that's what you're looking for, there ARE avenues to get that out there. Join a clan. A good one, I mean, not some group of jackasses who just wanna be "leet". Good clans are out there. They play well, they practice at least semi-regularly, they work well as a team, back each other up, etc. But don't expect clan-like behavior from public players in pickup games. It just won't happen.

So who would decide what a 'rambo move' is or how many deaths is considered acceptable? There are many times when dying more than 4 or 5 times is just part of the map, and is also a part of the learning experience. I don't see how punishing players who aren't as up to speed on proper fighting strategies makes the game better for everyone.

Who would decide? Us. The programmers of the game. The community. We all die in this game, for various reasons. I, myself, die sometimes because I am being impatient and foolish. When the death penalty is stiffer, I play more carefully.

You are saying, I think, that with tougher penalties for deaths, the learning curve would be too steep for your average, casual, FPS player.

Well, maybe that is the whole point of the thread. Not every game is Super Mario Bros., thankfully. Some games are hard. Some games balance a steeper learning curve with a more rewarding play experience. Managing this balance is, of course, what good game design is all about.

I'd say the devs have already found their balance point. The game hasn't changed much in terms of HOW it's played from the mod until now. I came in around 3.0 and it's been pretty much the same approach to gameplay since then. Some subtle changes happen here and there, but I think at this point, what we have is what we have. For better or worse, the devs seem to have made the decision that THIS is the balance point they want to create for realism and gameplay. The game's already got a plenty-steep learning curve. It's already the most realistic team FPS I've seen. Hell, even in an online game of Rainbow Six, people still just did the same kind of run'n'gun tactics to the extent the engine let 'em. Sometimes it'd even work. And that's WITH a stiffer death penalty (that being that you sit out the rest of the round when you die).

But see, this is the truly great thing about developing RO:Ost on the Unreal engine. If you don't like something, you can change it! Seriously, I'm not saying this in a "STFU, n00b!" way. Unreal's engine allows for incredible modification. Hell, it brought us this game itself! The devs played the original UT2K3 and said "You know what? I could do this better" and they DID! So, if you think you've got a better idea for how to tweak gameplay, by all means, make a mutator. Put it out there for the community.

Personally, I'd LOVE it if there was a greater variety of mutators and if the community relied less on the devs to customize their gameplay experience. I'd love to see a whole range of servers from hardcore "One life to live" servers, to the standard mode we have here. I'd love to see a whole variety of different death penalties tried. I'd love to see other aspects of the game changed. Maybe tweak how grenades are thrown to include more "free aim" and randomness; maybe reduce recoil on the MGs and SMGs; maybe change from a "capture the small zone to a "capture a LARGE zone" style of map.

But I don't think the devs should make too many changes (aside from adding new weapons and tweaking in-game mechanics slightly) to the core game. I'd like to see them "fix" melee fighting, and I can't wait for the revised tank code. I'm hoping for tank combat to become more realistic by adding more vulnerable locations like crew quarters, optics, and turret turning mechanisms. Those are things I think the devs can add (or not even! We can always tweak 'em ourselves). But for the kind of stuff you're advocating, I think we should leave CORE gameplay as is, but develop a whole host of mods to try to address the issue and give people options.

That way no one's forcing anyone to play one way or another, and the community will gravitate towards the type of gameplay it wants.

 

[breadtruck]

Some people will seemingly stop at nothing to bend the game to get people to play how they want them to play.

So very true.

There is no "penalty" needed. When you die: you drop the reinforcements, you risk allowing the enemy to advance and win the map, and you wait the time required before you can spawn again. Thats more than enough incentive to stay alive.

There are threads about how people are far to cautious in the game already... and never advance to take capzones. Now you want to make it harder to get these players to actively participate????

 

[Amerikaner]

To kaner:
you want to punish people for dying quickly? well since you're so great at run and gun and killing off people exiting the spawn who are you punishing? people who die as they get RamBONED at the exit have the highest death rate. i understand your reasoning but the problem isnt a high death rate. its being rambo.

...uh...yeah that was my whole point. I was saying how easily I can rush up into the enemy and spam everything and get a shitload of points, die, and repeat only to be praised by the scoring system. Meanwhile people who are crawling around and playing somewhat realistically have average scores.

As for the people I slaughter at the exit, the vast majority get killed, spawn, then mosey on out again hoping that Ill be gone only to get slaughtered again. Why should they waste their time being cautions on their way out of spawn if theyre just going to respawn in another of seconds? Its just not worth it. I do it as well. I want to get to the battle as soon as possible and end up passing cover because it will slow my advance. I dont give a **** about getting shot because I know Im only a few seconds from respawning and going right back to where I was with no penalty.

And as for you guys who think RO players play cautiously and theres no problem youve obviously never played paintball or even America's Army. Realistic firefights arent "I see you I shoot you" as it is in RO. Sometimes fights take hours of just firing back and forth at enemies you can only barely see or at enemies you think are there. It takes time to advance your way up the battlefield, using obstacles, covering the flanks, using suppresive fire, etc. This is virtually nonexistant in RO. I dont know where you get the idea that soldiers just bumrushed until they saw an enemy, fought until they lived or died and then moved onto the next one.

The average lifespan in RO is probably no more than a couple minutes and even that is pushing it. Havent you ever read a memoir? If war were like RO the only survivors would have been green recruits who were forced into service at the last couple minutes of the last day of the war. Either that or someone who crawled into a hole away from the battle and hid during every fight. Not realistic in the least.

 

[Lionel-RIchie]

If anything, they should increase the reinforcements drop on the maps you rarely or never see depletion (barashka, for example), but leave others like Odessa alone.

End of story.

 

[Solo4114]

...uh...yeah that was my whole point. I was saying how easily I can rush up into the enemy and spam everything and get a shitload of points, die, and repeat only to be praised by the scoring system. Meanwhile people who are crawling around and playing somewhat realistically have average scores.

As for the people I slaughter at the exit, the vast majority get killed, spawn, then mosey on out again hoping that Ill be gone only to get slaughtered again. Why should they waste their time being cautions on their way out of spawn if theyre just going to respawn in another of seconds? Its just not worth it. I do it as well. I want to get to the battle as soon as possible and end up passing cover because it will slow my advance. I dont give a **** about getting shot because I know Im only a few seconds from respawning and going right back to where I was with no penalty.

And as for you guys who think RO players play cautiously and theres no problem youve obviously never played paintball or even America's Army. Realistic firefights arent "I see you I shoot you" as it is in RO. Sometimes fights take hours of just firing back and forth at enemies you can only barely see or at enemies you think are there. It takes time to advance your way up the battlefield, using obstacles, covering the flanks, using suppresive fire, etc. This is virtually nonexistant in RO. I dont know where you get the idea that soldiers just bumrushed until they saw an enemy, fought until they lived or died and then moved onto the next one.

The average lifespan in RO is probably no more than a couple minutes and even that is pushing it. Havent you ever read a memoir? If war were like RO the only survivors would have been green recruits who were forced into service at the last couple minutes of the last day of the war. Either that or someone who crawled into a hole away from the battle and hid during every fight. Not realistic in the least.

Ok, a few points.

1.) Punishing people for deaths without taking context into account will be an overbroad means of "solving" this problem. It will hurt the rambo player, yes. But it will also hurt everyone else, even those who do not rambo around. That's not cool. What's more, this will hurt newbies and actually discourage them from playing the game instead of sticking with it and getting better. This game is tough enough for people coming here from the "run 'n' gun" approach to gameplay. There's no good that'll come of it from making it tougher.

2.) RO players don't just play cautiously. They play timidly. Look, the only thing that gets an attacking team a victory is getting men into the capture zone. For all the realism fanatics out there who want absolute hardcore realism, what about the fact that we have a 15 or 20 minute time limit on most maps? Or how about the simple fact that you can respawn? Or maybe the fact that I can't run in one direction and turn my head in another while shooting a weapon in a third direction all simultaneously? This is a game, not reality, and there are certain limitations we have to accept because of it. If you want to change the game to "one life" gameplay, make a mutator. If you want to add in a penalty for dying that subtracts 20 points, counts as a team kill, and makes you spawn with one of those novelty guns that shoots a flag saying "BANG!" on it, great. Make a mutator. But there's no reason to futz with core gameplay here to suit your desires.

3.) I don't have the idea that soldiers bumrushed positions willy nilly in real life. I also recognize that those soldiers were often operating as parts of a unit that was at least minimally trained, all had the ability to yell whatever they wanted to each other without having to stand still for a few seconds to compose their thoughts (IE: typing -- not everyone has a mic or uses VOIP), and respected the chain of command. They also wouldn't respawn, felt physical pain on being wounded, had peripheral vision, and could move their bodies in ways the game doesn't allow us to. Again, it's a game. Expecting -- no, DEMANDNG -- that players play the game as if they're in a war, part of a trained unit, etc. is simply unrealistic for public play. It's a lovely thought. Then again, so is communism and I don't see either of them working out as originally planned.



Look, I get it. I do, really. Ramboing players break the sense of immersion. Lots of other things do too, but ramboing players are annoying on several levels (especially when they actually succeed somehow). But the solution is not to somehow penalize ALL players when they die. Rather, adjusting game mechanics so that ramboing isn't as likely to succeed is probably the better way. Maybe increasing stamina drain or effects of stamina on aim. I dunno. But a penalty for dying without consideration of HOW you died, WHERE you died, and what you were doing immediately BEFORE you died is just gonna hurt gameplay across the board.

Plus, penalizing people for dying won't automatically lead them to band together, provide covering fire, probe enemy positions, advance cautiously, etc. The leap from "I should be personally cautious" to "I should work with my team using tactics, strategy, and squad-level communications" is a big one. It may seem short for some of our more experienced RO and realism gamers, but for a new player or a player coming from pretty much every other FPS game out there, that's a HUGE leap. It requires breaking down years of online conditioning, building trust not only in yourself but also in your teammates and in the totally random players on a team, and putting the team's goals ahead of your own.

All of those are things that take a LOT of time to develop and for some people will simply never develop in FPS gaming. In fact, I'd venture to say that most people who play FPS games just don't play 'em that way. They don't take them that seriously and what brings them joy in playing is more often a very self-oriented victory (perhaps something as simple as "YEAH! I killed that dude! Pwned!"), rather than the team winning while they have a low score.


Finally, again, as I've said repeatedly, the solution is not to change the CORE gameplay, but rather to create mutators that people can run on their own servers. This allows the servers to decide how they want to play the game, instead of forcing ALL servers to adopt a specific approach.

 

[Amerikaner]

Finally, again, as I've said repeatedly, the solution is not to change the CORE gameplay, but rather to create mutators that people can run on their own servers. This allows the servers to decide how they want to play the game, instead of forcing ALL servers to adopt a specific approach.

Yeah well that would be great if there were more than 4 servers that pinged lower than 100. RO barely has 15 populated servers at a time. Your points make sense but its not the way I would do it. Just wait til I make the greatest game ever and dont have to deal with all the bull****. In time.

 

[Solo4114]

Well, keep me posted on that game's development. I may check it out. In the meantime, though, if mutators were popular enough, those 15 servers would run them and that'd be that. Plus, we'd be sparing the devs the time spent on developing them, and they could focus instead on new cool features like destructible tank optics and turret rings.

 

[Heinz]

penalty for death will hurt game play tremendously. as it is, no one gets in the cap zones.

 

[Lionel-RIchie]

Yeah well that would be great if there were more than 4 servers that pinged lower than 100. RO barely has 15 populated servers at a time. Your points make sense but its not the way I would do it. Just wait til I make the greatest game ever and dont have to deal with all the bull****. In time.

Exactly, there isn't a big enough community for such radical mutators or mods, that's why I don't like mods for this game...if one gets successful enough it'll just make my server choices go down : /

 

[lATENT_c]

Very good points have been made on both sides of this argument.

Maybe a mutator that tweaks the game mechanics is more of what I desire than an overhaul of the game entirely.

RO has done a good job (compared to most games) of cutting down 'Rambo'-style play. The method so far has been to make the game physics disfavorable to the run-and-gun play style. Because of this, RO is much more realistic than many other games, and I honestly love that this has been done, but I see a huge hole in the realism right where consequences for death should be.

 

[Solo4114]

Oh, I agree, but I just don't see a game-friendly means of changing this without turning this game into even more of a niche product than it already is. I mean, as has been pointed out, people still have problems with the concept of "GET IN THE CAP ZONE".

Actually, I think the problem of ramboing and the cap zone issue are connected to the exact same root cause -- people don't work together as a true squad. They don't use real tactics in game, just sort of general approaches to maps. You never see a consciously coordinated effort in pub games to have X number of guys lay down suppressive/covering fire while a group of SMGers advance on a position. Why? Because people are mostly operating on their own. It's the difference between cooperative play and parallel play. In cooperative play you're working WITH other people. In parallel play, you're just playing along side them, but still doing your own thing.

I think that the hanging back and charging forward are simply two sides of that same coin. You charge forward because "Screw this. I'll do it my damn self." You hang back because "I don't want to die and someone else can go cap the position. To hell with the rest of you."

Hell, there's probably some psychological basis for all of this stemming from the fact that we're all just playing in our own rooms, disconnected from real visual interaction with each other -- it's just a bunch of computer characters that we're dealing with. You know, that whole internet anonymity thing. I really only see good coordination when real communities start to form like clans or server regulars who see each other all the time and such.

 

[stebbs]

...uh...yeah that was my whole point. I was saying how easily I can rush up into the enemy and spam everything and get a shitload of points, die, and repeat only to be praised by the scoring system. Meanwhile people who are crawling around and playing somewhat realistically have average scores.

As for the people I slaughter at the exit, the vast majority get killed, spawn, then mosey on out again hoping that Ill be gone only to get slaughtered again. Why should they waste their time being cautions on their way out of spawn if theyre just going to respawn in another of seconds? Its just not worth it. I do it as well. I want to get to the battle as soon as possible and end up passing cover because it will slow my advance. I dont give a **** about getting shot because I know Im only a few seconds from respawning and going right back to where I was with no penalty.

A better question is why should you bother to kill them right at their spawn?

So let me get this straight, you want to punish people for dying too much but it is the actions like you just described that would cause the most deaths. Sooooo, the people trying to get out of spawn and being gunned down by your lame tactics would be the ones punished? Tell me how this makes ANY sense at all.

If you are against the rambo style run and gun / spawn camping that you say you employ, why are you here trying to change the game? it would be easier to change your style, right?

Personally i think spawncamping is totally rude and has no place in this game and any campers should be booted from the server immediately. You give the game a bad name by doing that crap.

You are saying, I think, that with tougher penalties for deaths, the learning curve would be too steep for your average, casual, FPS player

Not really, because the learning curve is VERY high for this game, already. I'm just speaking from my experience of getting used to it. For the first 10 - 15 maps or so I would die A LOT, and usually without even seeing where the shot was fired from. This wasn't because of rambo tactics, or not valuing my life, just inexperience. If I was being punished for learning the hard way I would've just stopped playing the game. I don't think it would be fair to do that to all the other noobs. I've since gotten much better, from practice and from tips from teammates and LOVE the game, which would not have happened if i was constantly being punished for dying too much.

BTW i have also learned that solid team tactics are far more effective to winning a map then a single rambo player. Running around trying to boost your score with no consideration of death does not win maps, a team pressing the cap zone wins maps.

 

[Amerikaner]

A better question is why should you bother to kill them right at their spawn?

So let me get this straight, you want to punish people for dying too much but it is the actions like you just described that would cause the most deaths. Sooooo, the people trying to get out of spawn and being gunned down by your lame tactics would be the ones punished? Tell me how this makes ANY sense at all.

If you are against the rambo style run and gun / spawn camping that you say you employ, why are you here trying to change the game? it would be easier to change your style, right?

Personally i think spawncamping is totally rude and has no place in this game and any campers should be booted from the server immediately. You give the game a bad name by doing that crap.

Why is it everytime I make a post in this forum I have to guide everybody by the hand to my point?

First of all, spawncamping and exit camping are two entirely different things. The former you have no chance, the latter you have time to avoid death. One is not fair, the other is.

Second, armies didnt allow their enemies to get into position so that they had made sure they had the most difficult time possible. This isnt Napoleonic warfare where everything is "fair". Its the 20th century. Ambushes happen, reinforcements get attacked. Exit camping is attacking reinforcements. They have just as much a chance to kill me as I kill them. The only difference is that they are usually unaware that they are about to get slaughtered. Is that my fault? I think not.

Third, why would I change my style if it works. I get a ridiculous amount of kills. I play to win. If I played the safe realistic way I probably would not be at the top of the scoreboard or have as many kills. So change my style? Why would I ever change my style to a less effective one? So yes, I want the game changed so people who can dominate rambo style like me arent as effective. If you dont have to play realistic, there is not point to it. RO should promote realistic play. I want to have to play realistic to dominate.

Fourth, I still know you, or someone else like you, is not going to get it and is just going to come back on and say you're a hypocrite Amerikaner. Why not just play realistic and not worry about anything?...totally disregarding any sense Ive made. Basically, all my posts are just a huge waste of time because no one ever agrees so please post again and continue on this complete waste, its fun. I am right 100% of the time. Dont even listen to your head, just accept what Amerikaner has to say. These arguments are stupid, you just have to accept Im always right.