• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Caught with your arms down.

Santini said:
What if they had a shovel that pops out ONLY if you have no other weapons?

That's been suggested before, and I think it's a good idea, but only if the melee is made little more different. Like the idea for different type of attacks and stuff. otherwise a guy with longer bayonet will gut you every time.
 
Upvote 0
theniffrig said:
The incentive should be realism. RO is based on realism, and in war many soldiers surrender or get captured at the frontlines. Since RO is based at the frontlines, then the option to actually put your arms up and give up would only make sense to be put into the game.Also remember that no one is forcing you to surrender. You can just allow yourself to die and come back quicker. Or you can take the chance you might be spared, and "liberated" later by your team. What harm would the option to do that do to the realism of the game? Absoloutly nothing. It would only add to it. I'm sure you would agree.

It would sort of detract from gameplay a bit if a guy has to stand over you and watch you, I know I wouldn't want to get stuck with that job. Maybe if they added a holding area that you automatically couldn't get out of to maps and capping the holding area released every pow trapped inside (maybe added to the reinforcement queue too or something). Not to mention it'd be REALLY boring if your team was losing and could have used you as an extra gun backing them (but then again I guess that adds to the aspect of realism too, but with 16 people per team, when teams are balanced, it would hurt more than help I think)
 
Upvote 0
Archeoptrix said:
It would sort of detract from gameplay a bit if a guy has to stand over you and watch you, I know I wouldn't want to get stuck with that job. Maybe if they added a holding area that you automatically couldn't get out of to maps and capping the holding area released every pow trapped inside (maybe added to the reinforcement queue too or something). Not to mention it'd be REALLY boring if your team was losing and could have used you as an extra gun backing them (but then again I guess that adds to the aspect of realism too, but with 16 people per team, when teams are balanced, it would hurt more than help I think)

I can see your point. However, maybe a player "watching" the captive is a bit too much of a strain on the gameplay. A holding area sounds good, and making it a capture point on the map is also a good idea that adds to the concept of surrendering.

Another suggetion might be to allow the enemy to hit his "capture" key after you have surrendered, by walking up to you, similar to when you resupply a fellow mg on your own team. When the player is "captured" the player then respawns. The effect of this on the game is exactly the same as if the surrendered player had been killed, only that instead of being killed, he gets captured. This way, the current game play stays exactly the same, with the added "real" option of being able to surrender. Now how can you argue with that idea?!
 
Upvote 0
Mmm Guys... Regarding knife attacks:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8884586003342147853

First: in martial arts we learn that even if we are VERY skilled, fighting a non-skilled man with a knife is VERY dangerous.
Rather flee, or eliminate him before he manage to get his knife up...

SEcondly: being unarmed and at close quarters with an enemy armed with a boltaction rifle, one should be able to defend..
The realistic setting for a non-skilled fighter would be to grab the enemies rifle (to avoid being bashed by it, and not to get shot)...
Then they start to grapple and the strongest mentally or physically of the win....

As realism is to difficult to preserve in this game, one should be able to land punches atleast.
Or add some kind of distraction to the enemy.

Thirdly: If you are unarmed and the enemy rifle man is at long range
, you have to head for cover or flee. Throwing rocks,
I think, for a REgular soldier, I dont think would happen. He'd freeze or panic and flee towards friendlies, back toward he's teammates.. if any.
 
Upvote 0
Archeoptrix said:
But that's just the thing that I think could change with each map, with all the gunfire and explosions going on picking up a chunk of shattered brick or cinder block can't be impossible, they logically should be everywhere. Grabbing a clump of dirt in a field isn't a houdini task that you need green beret training for. It makes lot more sense to me that you do something under fire to prepare to defend yourself (Regardless of how dumb it seems, last resorts are last resorts) instead of leering into space. (Well maybe shellshock).

And the fact it you would only get one every 10-20 seconds or would sort of be a make up for looking for a rock (I know if you stand perfectly still one appearing is a little magical, but in 20 seconds I could go outside and find at least 3 hard things laying on the ground to hurl at someone)

It's why I'm saying the rock shouldn't do any real damage, you don't need to be a baseball pitcher to learn how to throw something in someone's general direction, and as hard as it is to get a grenade where you want it usually, I don't think everyone would be rock sniping and picking MG'ers off at 200 yards or anything. Especially if they know you are unarmed and are charging.

But yeah just how I see it, I do see your points though. But honestly those of us who tend to be at the forefront of a charge who find ourselves in this situation are really starting to wish you could at least flip the bird or something more than it turning into virtual jogging/scavenger hunt. (or is it just me who isn't happy with standing and wandering around like a dope praying that I find a corpse before the weapons shrink into oblivion for no reason, which I know why they do that, but still)


I agree it would be nice, but with the difference of size, weight, and material of the object you are picking up it may just come down to engine limitations because of all the variables. I hate not having anything but maybe my nades if my weapon gets shot out of my hand, but I also worry about new weapons like striking type weapons or objects that can be picked up and thrown because of the high risk of abuse by other players. Maybe we'll see something that keeps play realistic while letting us interract with the environment more in the new engine, without turning what could be a cool addition into 'rock spam'.
 
Upvote 0
I think in such cases as disarmament, left click should be a punch, right click should be a surrender feature.

The player respawns when he surrenders, and lets say 50% of the "surrendered" reinforcement percentage could be added back to the team if certain objectives have been met.

Say 10 players surrender on your team through the course of the game. With 3 minutes left, you team has the majority of the objectives held, thus 5 player respawns are granted back to the team.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
stebbs said:
TBH, I just shoot the person who is without a weapon. It's so much easier in the long run, since you don't need a weapon to hide and cap.

Thats entirely your decision. However, some players may actually like the option of capturing the unarmed opponent instead of killing them in cold blood, like those of us who like to play to some level of humanity.
 
Upvote 0
I don't see how surrendering would add anything to the game personally. Sure from a realism point of view it happened, but I don't think it could be put in the game in a way that would warrent it being put in. The extra reinforcements idea would be abused and would take the choice away from the attacker to kill the guy. Theres no incentive for the disarmer to not just kill you rather than take you captive and would lead to people trying to avoid disarming whenever possible because of the benefit it would give the disarmed guy, unless the attacker has the choice of taking the guy captive, which would never happen because there's no incentive to. The idea of having a holding area will just detract from the core gameplay IMO. Some form of surrendering could be put in for realism reasons, but I can't think of a way that would justify the devs spending time on it.

I think something needs to be done about the instant switch to nades after disarmament though, because 9 times out of 10 when you disarm someone (which 99.9% of the time is sheer luck rather than tactical) they simply chuck their nades at their feet in a kamikaze revenge attack.

I think the best solution is to have a temporary change for now, so that instead of holding your nades instantly you have to actually choose something to equip.

A realistic long term addition may be to be able to knock the gun out of the enemies hands with an accurate karate chop (or Judo if thats your preference). I think realistically though in a life or death situation you would do SOMETHING if you couldn't run away. You would go straight for the enemies gun and try to wrestle it off him or at least point it away from you while you knee him between the legs or bite his ear off and maybe poke him in the eye or head butt :D . If they can't put all that in I would settle for a way of disarming with melee attacks. Then it would be a race for who can pick up the gun fastest.

Should point out though, in most situations I think people would just select thier nades and do the kamikaze attack, but the option of disarming your foe with fists would be comical and probably be my choice most of the time.
 
Upvote 0
If i were a soldier at the front lines, and i had lost all my weapons, with an enemy soldier just a few feet from me, my options are 3.
1) I'd attack. (Punch, Kick, use helmet or whatever i could to continue to fight)
2) I'd leg it. (run back to friendly lines and pick up some weapons before returning to the front)
3) I'd surrender. (put my arms up and get taken prisoner)

As you can see, there arn't any other options (at least from what i can think of as being logical). The game at the minute only allows for option 2. I think, and this is just my opinion, that the devs should cater for both option 1 & 3 which are currently not an option in the game.
 
Upvote 0
Harry S. Truman said:
From a realism point of view, surrender wasn't an option on the Eastern front, especially after Stalingrad. Prisoners were rarely taken....:(

Oh, i agree. I know the eastern front was one of the more "it's them or us" fronts in the war, considering the Nazi view of the Russians as 2nd class, sub-humans. It was unlikely that many would surrender or be taken alive anyway. However, although it was rare, it did happen. If the option was put into the game, it would also only occur rarely anyway. I know when i'm playing the game, i play for maximum realism, so my primary objectives are to survive & to capture map objectives. If i'm play with the view of "this is me in ww2 on the east front", then if i think i'm in a situation where i'm either going to die or surrender, i'd like to have the option of surrendering. I don't think it would occor alot anyway & it would add realism to the game.
 
Upvote 0
All these ideas are fun, but just being able to punch would be the most logical option, and would presumably be the least effort for the dev team. Everyone understands punching, without it having to be explained - unlike a rock that only stuns people, etc.

Having it be slightly less effective than the rifle butt would seem reasonable to me.

I also like the draw out your bayonett if you havent used it option though. It could default to punch, and if you hadn't used your bayonett, you could "attach" it to your hand the same way you currently do to the rifles.
 
Upvote 0
my options are 3.
1) I'd attack. (Punch, Kick, use helmet or whatever i could to continue to fight)
2) I'd leg it. (run back to friendly lines and pick up some weapons before returning to the front)
3) I'd surrender. (put my arms up and get taken prisoner)
Agree, but u forgot one option = hide & ambush :)

ANother thing that is important in unarmed vs armed battle to the benefit of the unarmed is the Weapon handling factor.
A rifle weigthing about 4-5 kilos is heavY/clumsy to wield and control as opposed to being unarmed.
Ambushing or attacking an bolt action or MG close from the flank, he would not be able to turn quick enough to fire a shot at you...

As it is now, there is no weapon weight/clumsyness/delay simulation.
A PTRD can turn just as quickly as a Papasha weigthing 10kg's more
Making unarmed fighting ALOT more difficult
The armed player simply turns REALLY quick and his gun stops EXACTLY when his mouse movement stops...
In reality the gun would travel AFTER you have stopped your movement, making it harder to Hit the opponent.

U got my point?
 
Upvote 0
Teq said:
U got my point?

I do. However, if that edition was made to the game, i think the difference between a person turning with a weapon in hand as opposed to one without would be so slight, as it wouldn't really be noticed and the only way to make it noticable would be to egagerate the slow turning more, which would take away from the realism. However, your point has got me thinking. What about being able to "grapple/wrestle" the rifle/weapon off your opponent. If you get close enough, they cant fire the weapon if your hands are also trying to pry the gun off of them. How this feature would work, i dont know, but it too would add another aspect of realality to the game.
 
Upvote 0
theniffrig said:
I do. However, if that edition was made to the game, i think the difference between a person turning with a weapon in hand as opposed to one without would be so slight, as it wouldn't really be noticed and the only way to make it noticable would be to egagerate the slow turning more, which would take away from the realism. However, your point has got me thinking. What about being able to "grapple/wrestle" the rifle/weapon off your opponent. If you get close enough, they cant fire the weapon if your hands are also trying to pry the gun off of them. How this feature would work, i dont know, but it too would add another aspect of realality to the game.

Hm I just tried turning quickly with a 15 kilo weight bar and tried to point it at a target... It took me quite some time staiblizing the aim.

The length of the weapon also makes it clumsier to swing.
Weapon bulk I think it would be quite good and realistic.
- You would really feel like you carry a massive weapon and not a paper toy :D

The grapling system has been system has been discussed somewhere in this link I think (dont remember) but ateast on the forum.
(actually I made the suggestion about COD 3 grapplings system)

I agree with the persons saying it would be too complicated though I'd jerk of if a system like that was introduced :D
 
Upvote 0