Need Penalty for Death

[Amerikaner]

LOL, kaner you're so damn funny... you've posted plenty of useless comments here and elsewhere.. you should take your own advice with the CS bull, because it sounds like thats the game you want with the changes you are asking for.

I've said everything I need to say about this topic, and Solo has done a magnificent job in explaining why a punishment for death wont work.

Complaining is something I havent done, because I grasp the fact that no matter how many control factors you put on people, they are gonna play however they damn please, and when they cant play how they want, they wont play at all! I would recommend that you become a more positive member and spend time trying to 'coach' new people on how to play tactically, but that's beyond your frame of mind, so I wont. Stick to BFE sweetie pie, it's the closest you're gonna get to what you are looking for.

Im just gonna quote it so you cant edit out how ridiculous you sound.

#1. How is wanting the player to have a "fear of death" option in line with CS? Its not, no need to answer this.

#2. Control factors dont make people play the way they should? Here you go buddy: www.americasarmy.com Load that up and the first thing you do is run straight at the enemy firing as fast you can. Dont use cover, just bob and weave, fire, and throw all your nades at the enemy. GUARANTEED YOU DIE INSTANTLY.

#3. Great idea about coaching. Ill start my own server: "Amerikaner's School of Tactics" devoting all my free time showing how people should play the game. You know, because making the game play different doesnt work, Ill just go teach several thousand to do it my way and everyone will listen.

#4. "Sweetie pie"?

 

[Rameusb5]

I wish we could get off this 'Rambo' thing. That whole sidebar was brought up as an auxilliary problem that may be solved by tweaking the system, not the main problem. The main problem - and I continue to stand by this - is that players do not value their in-game lives. It is an obvioulsly huge discrepancy that in a realistic war simulation - not game, but simulation, the soldiers act as if their lives have no consequience.

It sounds to me like those posters who are against the suggested changes must believe that the game plays perfectly right now, and there is NO better way to encourage people to play. For as hard as some people are lobbying against the suggested changes, you'd think they were going to have to personally do the re-coding... for no pay... in a hot room... that smells.

If your RO experience is so fantastic you believe the system is above reproach, then congratulations, and I'm jealous.

I believe that you can shape the way people play - fairly - by rewarding the type of play you want to see, and punishing the type you don't. If you really believe otherwise, then we will have to agree to disagree.

The fact that the engine doesn't recognize the context of an action is a valid point, but it's not a good reason believe that no improvements can be made at all. Try to make this leap with me, guys. If the system changed, people's behavior would change too. Most of the counter arguments I've seen are based on the premise that the only thing that is different is the penalty for death, and everything else (including the way your team and the opposing team act) stays exactly the same.

It's really simple when you come down to it:

A) Real soldiers in a real war are afraid for their lives.
and-
B) People playing RO are (for the most part) not afraid for their lives, since the negative consequences are negligible.
therefore-
C) People playing RO are (for the most part) not playing realistically.

This is supposed to be a war/combat simulation. That's what I thought I was shelling out my $25 for, anyway...

I think Latent C has hit the nail on the head here. The argument seems to be between people who think the game is fun as it is and those who think that it could be made even MORE fun if it were made even more realistic.

Personally, I think the game should evolve, and every step of that evolution should be towards making the game experience as close to actual WWII combat as possible. For me, and those on my side of the argument, realism EQUALS fun. To make the statement "don't add this game mechanic that increases the realism of the game because it would be detrimental to my enjoyment of the game" is ludicrous for us, because what makes RO the best game to play IS the realism.

And yes, I won't be totally satisfied with a FPS until I can smell the cordite and feel the hot kiss of lead and the coldness of my blood draining away.

 

[Mr._Kong]

Allow me to explain something, WWWII was not fun... It was hell, nobody wanted to be there. So if you want to make it as real as possible you should make it a horrible experience to play, you should dread playing and hate every seconod of the game. Then it would be real.

 

[Rameusb5]

Allow me to explain something, WWWII was not fun... It was hell, nobody wanted to be there. So if you want to make it as real as possible you should make it a horrible experience to play, you should dread playing and hate every seconod of the game. Then it would be real.

So you're saying that the game shouldn't be like WWII at all?

 

[akd]

But this is a realistic GAME and not a realism SIM : /

AkA it must retain some general fun qualities

The distinction between game and sim is irrelevant. Flight sims can be games, realistic FPS war games can be sims.

"Fun qualities" is entirely subjective. For me, more realistic tactics and behavior would be more fun, and furthermore adding suspense and tension is generally a good thing, as it intensifies immersion and game experience. Argueing to the counter is like saying that best horror movies are the ones with the scary parts cut out because not everyone enjoys being scared during a movie.

Go watch a different movie.

Allow me to explain something, WWWII was not fun... It was hell, nobody wanted to be there. So if you want to make it as real as possible you should make it a horrible experience to play, you should dread playing and hate every seconod of the game. Then it would be real.

Also irrelevant, not to mention condescending and repeated ad nauseum as some sort of untouchable last word in arguments around these issues. Come up with something new please.

 

[Mr._Kong]

Excuse me I must apologise, my first post is something other than what I ment to post. Not sure why it did that, I wrote what you see than realised it was stupid and wrote something else instead, guess it did not work. Sry for same thign twice.

 

[REZ]

Well kaner, what I had done was to go back and look at all of your posts in this thread to see if I could find any actual input from you... but there was nothing.. all I see is 'I want' 'I want' ...not a single idea from you other than 'I want a death penalty for dieing'. So I took an idea that was presented by someone which was 'one life only' (CS) or even '5 lives only' ... but that could never work, first and foremost because you would need to be able to support hundreds of players all at once to create the game I believe Tripwire is shooting for, secondly because this isnt freakin AA or CS! You send me to AA's site, but that game is so far from realistic as well, as all computer games are, and always will be.

Someone said 'I want to know your definition of Rambo'... well I want to know what your definition of 'realistic tactics' are in a WWII sense. I dont think you have any idea of what you are talking about..

Rather I think your idea of 'realistic tactics' is some kind of small squad SWAT team tactic style... honestly, I dont know what your idea of realistic WWII tactics are, but this is the early 40's man.. tactics, and weaponry, were ancient to what they use now, and since you werent actually there, anything you do that you consider a 'realistic tactic' anyone else can argue that it isnt... cause you simply dont know how men acted in every little encounter. You guys act like no one took risks (or werent forced to) when in fact the frontline fighters took risks every day. In one of your posts you say that battles were sitting there for hours firing at people you cant see or might not even know are there... sounds hella fun to me mang! lmao. If thats what you want, then you can have that game.

We all enjoy realism, but it can get to a point where the damn game comes to a grinding halt and everyone just hides, cause they're 'scared to die' and there isnt a realistic commander there to urge you/force you on. If you want it that real go join the damn Army! Oh, but wait, you dont want to actually die in real life... so thats why you play games right? So you dont have to worry about actually dieing!! Brill.

So tell me, what is your suggestion for a death penalty.. what change that you have come up with would miraculously make this game 'realistic', by your meaning of the word? Lets hear this revelation that apparently is soo forward thinking that it passed right by the dev's, because I havent yet heard a suggestion for a death penalty that couldnt be shot full of holes.

 

[stebbs]

Ill start my own server: "Amerikaner's School of Tactics" devoting all my free time showing how people should play the game. You know, because making the game play different doesnt work, Ill just go teach several thousand to do it my way and everyone will listen.

Oh yeah, everyone will listen to the jaggoff who spawncamps.

Please, go try the teaching thing, at least it'll keep you away from the rest of us.

 

[[TW]Hattori]

Hey guys I was looking at these posts and I wanted to voice my opinoin. First off I think you guys need to take a step back and stop attacking each other personally and just focus on the topic at hand. I've read both sides of the argument and both have valid points. This is What I think should be changed/added to the current gameplay.

First off firefights do not seem like firefights for the most part. Mainly for 2 big reasons. No one is actually fearing for their lives and weapons are shooting to accurate. (I know my weapons here people so do not think im just some random kid who watched a few movies. I have shot a huge assorment of weapons. Here is my list and some names might be a little off for people with more knowledge then me : Mosin Nagant, K98, M-16, SKS, 50. Sniper rifle w/silencer, .308 remington sniper, H&K 94(civilian mp5), H&K 45 pistol w/silencer, M9, PPK .22 w/silencer, Springfield M1903 Sniper, Kimber .40 pistol, M14, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, Bennilli Semi auto 12 guage.) I believe that is the full list. Anyways I have shot my fair share of weapons and It is way to easy to shoot and hit what you want. Also I have never been shot at so I can only imagine it would be hard as hell to shoot while taking fire. So I agree with those who want to add some kind of aiming penailty to people who are taking fire. At the very least for people who are getting shot at with an mg. I can't even begin to remember how many times I've been shooting at a riflemen supported or not who just snipes me. I mean if this were the case ever man would be armed with a rifle right? Whats the need for an MG?? think about that and I believe you will have to agree. Anyways I wanted to post more but I must leave so I will have to finish this up later.


Hattori

 

[lATENT_c]

*Now with fancier formatting for those who felt like they were reading too much...


1) There IS a difference between a simulation and a game. A simulation is supposed to reflect REALITY. A game is just a system of arbitrary rules set up for people to have fun with.

Examples:
Poker = game. (Fun, but not meant to represent anything realistic.)
American Airlines cockpit flight simulator = simulation. (Might be fun, but more importantly, is realistic.)

Some games can be kind of realistic, of course, just as some simulators can be fun. Can we try to make this a fun simulation, or will the masses of asses demand it be just another less-realistic-than-it-could-be game?


2) You CAN make people play a certain way based on how the game is set up. Anyone who thinks people will play however they want regardless of the game's control factors is, well, foolish. Sorry. If this were true, there would be a total of ONE video game in the world, with all modifications to it rejected as useless and unneccessary. More to the point: If changing a game's system didn't change people's behavior at all, then why have RO at all? I mean, it's just Unreal with a WW2 graphic skin, right?

Also, saying that video games can't and never will be realistic is silly. If you went back to an arcade in 1984 and showed those people RO, they would call it the most realistic simulation they had ever seen. In fact, they would think you were some kind of wizard. Simulated reality can and does improve.

We don't have the holodeck yet. But you can't say that if it can't be perfectly realistic in one easy step it's not worth striving for!


3) Seriously, if you guys wanna argue about who's grammar is worse or who is the bigger spawn camper, could you please start a new thread? Thx.


4) Dismissing this idea just because it would mean a change to a game that is "good already" or whatever, is silly. Things change or else they never get better. Try it, you might like it.

4a)

"Fun qualities" is entirely subjective. For me, more realistic tactics and behavior would be more fun, and furthermore adding suspense and tension is generally a good thing, as it intensifies immersion and game experience. Argueing to the counter is like saying that best horror movies are the ones with the scary parts cut out because not everyone enjoys being scared during a movie.

Go watch a different movie."

akd said it, but it deserved repeating.

-------------------------------------------------------

REZ posted:

"So tell me, what is your suggestion for a death penalty.. what change that you have come up with would miraculously make this game 'realistic', by your meaning of the word? Lets hear this revelation that apparently is soo forward thinking that it passed right by the dev's, because I havent yet heard a suggestion for a death penalty that couldnt be shot full of holes."



Rez, there is no perfectly realistic, perfectly fun, perfectly easy answer or solution. All changes involve gain and loss. If the game changes, some people will dislike that. If it doesn't change, some people will dislike that.

We can all shoot holes in ideas. This whole game could easily be shot full of holes by any one of us. There have been a lot of good ideas posted here.

We are trying to have a discussion about making something better. If your only contribution is "It's perfect and doesn't need any changes at all", then you can consider your point noted.

 

[Oldih]

Rez, there is no perfectly realistic, perfectly fun, perfectly easy answer or solution. All changes involve gain and loss. If the game changes, some people will dislike that. If it doesn't change, some people will dislike that.

We can all shoot holes in ideas. This whole game could easily be shot full of holes by any one of us. There have been a lot of good ideas posted here.

We are trying to have a discussion about making something better. If your only contribution is "It's perfect and doesn't need any changes at all", then you can consider your point noted.

Amen and agreed.

After all, games were meant to be entertaining. I recommend you really join into army and start working there if you really want that simulation.


Yes, this game is somewhat simulation style in FPS scale, but that does not outrule the fact that this is game after all. I doubt that anyone (expect some addicted fanboys) would play RO anymore if it would be exact copy of real life but in screen.

 

[The_Countess]

besides the fact that we allready have punshement for death in the spawn timer and lost travel time, let me tell you why you dont even want more punshment for death.

any system that increase the time away from the battle field will only mean the battlefield is more empty.
that not only kills the fun is definatly kills immersion.
your suppose to be in a intence and brutal battle with your sworn enemy but instead all you'll have as a few battles around the cap zones with 2 to 4 pop up riflemen trying to kill eachother just out of nade range.

and even then people will not change the way they play the game.
new players will still do stupid stuff, and the more experianced players allready know what works best and what dusnt, having more penelty for death dusnt effect that.

and really i dont even see the problem!
some people hold back and try to pick of targets longer range and prevent the enamy from recapturing, while some people rush forward to get your militarie objective secured.
besides being completely NESSASARY it's also what a SMG was invented for for gods sake!

what is unrealistic in that?
sure we have a few fool that do stupid stuff, but they'll do that no matter what you do, so why fight it, just let them try again and again and they'll learn eventualy.

realistic play styles are a good thing but increased penelty's for death are not the way to achive them.

even if you only give people one life they'll still play the same way, trust me i know i've played a game that give you one life per round (and later 5)
all that did in fact was make every end of the round a game of hide and seek... verry realistic that was.

 

[Troels]

I haven't played long, but where is the penalty for getting killed? Everyone just re-spawns after a 15-second delay, so effectively everyone does whatever they want. There is no incentive to be cautious and stay alive. There is no teamwork or realistic tactics. Players just jump into tanks and kill one, then get killed themselves. No one cares a whit about their scores -- I know I don't -- so RO is just like every other game of its ilk: do your own thing, die, do it again. Sorry, but this is not fun.

 

[lATENT_c]

even if you only give people one life they'll still play the same way, trust me i know i've played a game that give you one life per round (and later 5)
all that did in fact was make every end of the round a game of hide and seek... verry realistic that was.

I'm not going to 'trust you' just because you've played a game where there were severe punishments for death and you didn't like the outcome. I have also played this style, and my experience was very different from yours.

Hide and seek IS very realistic. Firefights are fought from cover and concealment by people who are afraid to be seen because they will DIE if they are. In RO, firefights are fought in the open by waves of players who throw themselves into fire because they have no fear of death. 'Verry realistic' that is.

 

[Oldih]

Hide and seek IS very realistic.

Yes it is realistic, but it becomes frushtrating very soon.

Imagine, only one guy left on both sides, both are sniping in some bushes and are not moving anywhere, other people are just ranting "OMG KILL THOSE MUTHA*****S SO WE CAN CONTINUE TEH PLAY PZLPZPLPZPLZLPZLPZPL! ADMIN RESTART ROUND PLZ!"

Also, even it is realistic, as I mentioned it becomes frushtrating and second, as Countess mentioned, it would barely change anything else expect when you

 

[akd]

Camping is eliminated by rewards. If camping leads to failure, then there will be a motivation to not camp (people like to succeed when they play games). Furthermore, no one is suggesting a system where the only goal is to stay alive. Many would simply like to see that be a factor at all.

 

[lATENT_c]

Thanks for being on the ball, akd.

People who want to post here should really read the whole thread. I'm kinda tired of answering the same "everything is fine and it can't possibly be any better" post over and over again.

I really don't think the point of the game should be (or was intended by the dev's to be) for players to keep throwing themselves at each other until they have done it enough times to develop the gamey tactic that works best.

As it stands, wave after wave of reinforcements come out of the same spawns, are camped in the same places, have to deal with the same bottlenecks, etc. Nearly every game on any given map is played the same way each time, because people rush to the same cover/firing spots every time - the ones that work time and time again. They work time and time again, because when people spawn, they have 2 choices:

1: Play carefully, preserve their life, be tactical, in other words, be realistic... and be left behind as the kamikaze players cover all the distance and rack up all the points.

or

2. Run and gun to the objectives, try to stay alive long enough to cap it. Probably die, and then respawn just to do the same thing again.

There is no teamwork and no tactics to speak of being used in this game. It's every man for himself, because that's the way that maximizes points and maximizes 'action'. The most effective tactic in this game is simply to rush the objectives as quickly as possible with as many bodies as possible. While a few battles were fought this way, it's hardly a realistic enough tactic to base a whole game on.

This leads me to reiterate an earlier point, which is: if you are against this idea because it will make the game more difficult or slower paced, then I think you should go play Halo. RO is about realism.

 

[meat_sim]

Death Penalty:

i am completely against a simple death penalty without other changes in RO gameplay.

in RO mod i had an efficiency of 70% and about 70 kills per hour. in RO Ostfront i am probably somewhere near that number but not quite. having both those statistics put me in the top 20 players in the mod. and you want a death penalty to "promote realism." guess what. if my RO mod stats have any bearing i have a higher K: D ratio then probably most of those who play "realistically." so who gets punished by a death penalty?


im pretty much posting the same thing as i did earlier but you boneheads just dont get it. a death penalty wont make players value their life. it will just make run and gunners who are effective at running and gunning more effective. think about it. that evil RnG smg whore who gets the 5 kills in a row. so long as his efficiency is over 50% he's giving out more "death penalties" then he is receiving. as it stands right now, simply adding a blanket death penalty is not the way to promote realism. if you want to stop run and gunners, you have to change the gameplay to make running and gunning ineffective.


think about it. on krasnyi... russians managed to repel the first attack. you want the axis teamed to be punished for being nade spammed and smg'd to death? because thats what an effective defense does on krasnyi. Smg right up in your faces lobbing nades from your dead bodies into the exit, rifles firing the second a player gets to the top of the exit, and mg spam covering petrol. is that what you want to reward? the death penalties suggested will not help realism.

This leads me to reiterate an earlier point, which is: if you are against this idea because it will make the game more difficult or slower paced, then I think you should go play Halo. RO is about realism.

oh im sorry. i forgot. RO was made with you in mind. people who dont play RO how you envisioned it to be played shouldnt play. get off your highchair.

you want realism? i see two ways to achieve it.

1. Change RO gameplay. literally change the nature of the game. limit to realistic actions. ask yourself what a soldier realistically capable of. i shot 50+% with a rifle in the mod. thats unrealistic. people are too accurate in RO Ostfront. bring back cone of fire. respawns? thats unrealistic. make it 1 life per round. capzones? thats unrealistic. make objectives able to be physically completed. like turning a valve or reaching a exit. sound familiar? yeah America's Army. Go to far in striving for realism and realism will limit what you can and cannot do. instead of a war game simulating two armies battling for a city it becomes a half speed CS game with unscoped AWPs and no Xhair.

2. Actually exercise and promote realism ingame. you can moan and groan all you want but why dont you stop and try to change things from the bottom up. get on VOIP. see a rookie just running into enemy fire? tell him a better way. Communicate instead of silently grinding your teeth behind your monitors. see people camping useless spots? tell them over VOIP to move up. give them a better location. You dont think realistic tactics are appreciated in RO? try playing with a clan or organized unit and you'll see what the wonders of communication can accomplish. teamwork is something that is developed. a strict set of ingame limits and easter eggs wont change that. look at an AA pub game. teamwork still rarely exists. even when people "value their lives." its all about getting theirs and thats it. you want teamwork then it starts with you.

Realism starts with the community. The game only provides a matrix where people have the ability to exercise realism.

 

[Oldih]

Realism starts with the community. The game only provides a matrix where people have the ability to exercise realism.

Indeed.

After all, this is a game. Games are meant to be entertaining. Even if the game says it is realistic or aims bit deeper realism, still that does not mean it should be IRL-to-PC-screen crap.

This leads me to reiterate an earlier point, which is: if you are against this idea because it will make the game more difficult or slower paced, then I think you should go play Halo. RO is about realism.

Who talks about becoming slow-paced or difficult? It is the same RO:O with only that it goes one-life mode. As meat_sim said, it would only do things worse in many points, F.E. making run

 

[KingOfPain]

I agree that there needs to be some kind of increased penalty for death, but I see how many of the ways of doing this will mostly just promote selfish gameplay.

I like it when servers set a high respawn time for the reinforcements. IMO this provides a nice little disincentive to getting yourself killed, both personally because waiting to respawn is boring, and team-wise because it leaves you shorthanded for the next X number of seconds.