• 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/

Thread for teamwork/realism lovers

Thread for teamwork/realism lovers

  • Increased suppression when away from teammates

    Votes: 63 44.7%
  • Wound effects on stamina/aiming and movement.

    Votes: 86 61.0%
  • Alternative respawn/reinforcement system

    Votes: 42 29.8%
  • More game modes/types - Ie meeting engagent

    Votes: 53 37.6%
  • Effective communication

    Votes: 68 48.2%
  • Squad system

    Votes: 74 52.5%
  • Historical/geo realism

    Votes: 64 45.4%
  • Weapon realism

    Votes: 91 64.5%
  • LImited classes and ammo

    Votes: 56 39.7%
  • Other options that is not mentioned: Plz post

    Votes: 12 8.5%

  • Total voters
    141
  • Poll closed .
Yup.


A little thing called rationing and reasoning stopped this realism effort cold.

It just does not make sense to me to spend time to develop a mod that essentially forces a player into a predefined tactical experience. I think many in the community agree.

Well, that "many in the community" can visit other threads.
THIS thread is intended for those who enjoy this type of idea which is in fact alot of people...
Please delete your non-constructive posts.

And why dont you visit the forum of theese Games supporting my idea as well?

http://www.1944d-day.com/
http://www.resistanceandliberation.com

And also remember Mare Nostrum is on its way ;)
---------------------
So This thread is not dead, sorry :)
 
Upvote 0
Ok, I just want to point one thing out. You say many unrealistic features must be implemented in order to make the overall experience more realistic, correct?

So, why would you take away battlefield-wide comms, when they currently make up for the fact that our soldiers haven't trained together in the Army for 6 months.

No one can predict their teammate's actions on pubs (except clans). Battlefield-wide comms make up for this, so why do you want to take them away?

Thank you for a constructive question :)

I'll answer as good as I can.
The reason I want to limit battlefield-wide comms is to encourage the team to move in squads or within Communication range. Why?

Firstly cause you would not see soldiers running around alone trying to fight the war by them selves..

Secondly you would not see anyone rushing the enemy alone under fire without anyone supporting him...

Did you know that most of the ammo spendt during WW2 was fired to suppress the enemy?
How many do you see spending their ammo on suppression fire in RO?

In this mod, suppression fire will ACTUALLY work as it should... Aim gets shaky, stamina might decrease, and vision gets somewhat blury... all depending on the volume and accuracy of incomming fire.

I think that if I can create an simulation of the actual environment and communcation you had during WW2 you would not see anyone doing much heroic stuff....

Instead you would see players trying to follow eachother and this system will give you a nice reward for doing so...

How will this affect the pubbers?
Well...

Most pubbers are point hunters pubbers so to lure them into following the system I want to add "score sharing" if you are within "green zone".

They will also benefit from decreased suppression effects (aim shake, stamina loss, and blurred vision).

They will be able to type text messages and use VOIP and look at the NCO's map...
If not they will not have a clue where to go, what to do, or where the enemy might be.

On the NCO's map you will be able to see all NCO's on the battlefield, so you can have a slight idea where friendly units are situated.
Also the NCO is able to draw on the map and give waypoints to everyone within "map range"

Anything I missed out?
----------------------------------
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
How about instead of telling people who have negative viewpoints on decidedly unrealistic ways to force 'realism' to get out of your thread, you instead start posting on those other games' forums?

Since you keep plugging them, I figure it would be a much better use of your time than threatening those silly, lost souls who think games are supposed to be fun with reporting them to the moderators.

More on topic, I find it rather funny that you talk about how pubbers never use teamwork... and then, in the same breath, propose to remedy this problem in part by limiting communication. I can honestly think of no better way to force people who don't want to use teamwork to do so, and to make them follow orders, than by not letting them hear the orders in the first place.

I think that if I can create an simulation of the actual environment and communcation you had during WW2 you would not see anyone doing much heroic stuff....
Better get to work. In fact, you had better start right now!

Edit: Wait. Over the course of actually reading the thread, I realized something... Why is this thread not in the modification forums? I've been arguing against this like it was a proposal for how the devs should change RO. I didn't know you essentially wanted to make an entirely new game.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
How about instead of telling people who have negative viewpoints on decidedly unrealistic ways to force 'realism' to get out of your thread, you instead start posting on those other games' forums?

:) yes as u found out, im not forcing anyone. I am suggesting a mutation/idea/suggestion for RO, which I think would give me and those who feel the same way a chance to have fun, without changing to another game.

Since you keep plugging them, I figure it would be a much better use of your time than threatening those silly, lost souls who think games are supposed to be fun with reporting them to the moderators.

I wasnt threatening you because of your oppinion.. I was threatening you because you seemed to be flaming or insulting my ideas.. and not following my prime request of posting constructive content.

More on topic, I find it rather funny that you talk about how pubbers never use teamwork... and then, in the same breath, propose to remedy this problem in part by limiting communication. I can honestly think of no better way to force people who don't want to use teamwork to do so, and to make them follow orders, than by not letting them hear the orders in the first place.

They will hear orders if they stay in communication range. If not, they will feel like lost souls.. just like in real life...
And then "die" or quit playing this mut/mod... Offcourse the ranges on the COmm zone is adjustable... it can ballansed to ensure fun for everyone.

Better get to work. In fact, you had better start right now!

We are deff working on it :) If you have any suggestions, or ideas how to simplify/better etc our system we are all ears :)

Edit: Wait. Over the course of actually reading the thread, I realized something... Why is this thread not in the modification forums? I've been arguing against this like it was a proposal for how the devs should change RO. I didn't know you essentially wanted to make an entirely new game.

Your right about that.. it should be in the modification forum... but in fact the thread started of as an idea for normal RO.. But then I realized it would never be realized this way, and thus I changed the OP content abit...

I dont know how to move this thread either..
 
Upvote 0
Wtf are you guys arguing about??

GJ on derailing the thread :rolleyes:

I dont think its derailing :) its actually pointing out what kinda thread this is, in case people are trying to force it off the forum without knowing what its really about :)
--------------------------------
Ok back on track:

The problems Im facing after yer comments is:

1) How to make public players feel motivated to move close and coordinated without going thru advanced millitary training.
2) How to encourage players to make use of effective suppresion fire.
3) How to make players feel like they are really threatened under fire, without adding any restrictions to the players movement, aim, or vision...
4) How to make public players do the correct actions that benefit the team?
5) How to make RO overall more realistic in its feel without adding any restrictions to the players...


I hereby throw the ball to you
 
Upvote 0
Three things that will make realistic suppression possible: Longer ranges, much more ammo available to the player, and rudimentary bullet penetration.

The maps essentially make the style of play on them. A map with long ranges, lots of natural cover, and no real 'set' paths will be a map that players will tend to behave carefully on. Do not forbid the player from being able to run out in the middle of the street shooting wildly, but instead make it so that he is an easy shot.

Players would learn that behaving 'heroically' will only lead to them getting killed, and with semi-realistic bullet penetration, will learn to seek out good cover.

Grenades should behave realistically as well. There should be different types available to each team, either decided by the mapmaker or decided by the player themselves when they choose a class. Offensive grenades should knock enemy players to the ground and make them disoriented and an easy kill, while defensive grenades should have a chance to wound or kill everything that isn't behind cover in a relatively large radius.

Design maps with cover in mind; a player should be able to advance from safe place to safe place, limited only by the path they choose to take to get in range of the enemy.

Muzzle flash should be limited to a near-invisible puff of smoke, unless it is at night. A very good way to make a player be wary is to have them taking incoming fire without knowing exactly where it is coming from.

Submachineguns and machineguns should be very accurate in burst fire, with little initial recoil. Even prolonged bursts should be reasonably accurate. This will be balanced by less penetration and far less range, as well as severe bullet drop.

Suppressive fire is a little bit more difficult to implement. You could possibly make the player wince, their vision going black as the supersonic crack of a bullet whizzing past hits them, possibly accompanied by a shivering sway to the weapon until the suppressive fire ceases. Rifles and machineguns in that case would provide the most effective suppressive fire by virtue of actually having supersonic bullets; submachineguns and pistols should be far less effective.

In most cases, flanking well and finding good shooting angles should be more rewarding than being a good shot with the rifle. No death messages, of course, and no sprays of blood when a person is shot. A small amount of blood where their body lay is good enough for just about every sort of bullet wound, except for a headshot. Headshots are messy.

Shooting while running should be iffy at best, and shooting while walking only slightly better. Close quarters combat in general would be extremely difficult to fix in RO. I have no idea how to do it.

Players going alone should be allowed to. However, they'd be at the complete mercy of the enemy if they ran in to a prepared unit, and would be a detriment to their team. They should get the point after they die repeatedly trying to do it by themselves.

The whole lone wolf issue in general could be addressed by making more linear maps; the custom maps Leningrad and Berezina are great examples of what an RO map should be. Only being allowed to take a single objective at a time will force teams to work together, even if they don't realize it.

I'm stopping now because this is a pretty impressive wall of text, and the whole stream of consciousness of ideas is starting to wane.

Edit: Also, I think the main issue people have with the whole "oh hey I don't want to lose control of my player!" suppressive fire thing is the fact that they think the effects will last even after the suppressive fire ends. It shouldn't. As soon as that fire lets up, you should be able to return it with all you've got.
 
Upvote 0
Three things that will make realistic suppression possible: Longer ranges, much more ammo available to the player, and rudimentary bullet penetration.

The maps essentially make the style of play on them. A map with long ranges, lots of natural cover, and no real 'set' paths will be a map that players will tend to behave carefully on. Do not forbid the player from being able to run out in the middle of the street shooting wildly, but instead make it so that he is an easy shot.
Etc...

Thanks great answer :)

I agree on all points. And I wish to implement them all if possible...

However, hehe, I would still like to add a reward for those who moves within communication range of teammates and NCO.

If I was to remove the decrease suppresion from this..

Atleast I think you should not be able to see the map unless close to the NCO.
I think the NCO also should be able to see team tags on all within comm range, so he can effectivly give out orders (as in real life he would know his men that well)
--------------------------------------------
As for suppressionfire.. yes offcourse the effect ends once suppression is finished..

The magnitude and duration of suppression is determined by:
a) Accuracy of incomming fire
b) Volume of incomming fire
c) (the angle of incomming fire) Option

Very accurate and dense fire, results in heavy suppression effect.
As an option I would like to have heavier suppresion effect if the fire is comming outside the players FOV.

I've been thinking not to add too much blur over the whole screen, but instead impement the blur in Brothers in arms..
This gives a "visual" feeling of the direction and volume (which you would actually feel because of the pressure created by the bullet.

Also I'd like to have increased heart/breath rate in which influence the aim.. as well as abit of shaking to simulate an instinctive wish to evade the incomming bullets.
-----------------------------------------------------
As for maps, I wish to create ALOT of natural cover as you say.
Actually I tried out Armed assult here, and I found it quite boring because of the lack of cover.... Been waiting 5 years for it.. :(
--------------------------------------------
To have common objectives is one way of gathering people.
But I have to say that I dont really like fixed objectives (or cap zones)
as it tends to create fixed choke points and predicable cover.

Instead Id like to have "Limited Class respawns" and "limited vehicle spawns". IE maximum 15 MG class spawns... if they run out you will have to select a more common class.

This means that the battle may take place anywhere on the map and last untill the enemy or you no longer have any equpment or manpower left to reinforce.

The fight should be to to gain the most strategical position and hold it as long as possible. - This to ensure minimal losses as your team controls the battlefield...

The map would be quite large, much like Berezina, but without any capzones... There will be some strategical with superiour cover towards certain angles.. but wounderable from the flanks etc.

If its done right I hope to see a really dynamic battle moving around on the battlefield where the teams are continuosly striving to gain the best position... Much like seen In BIA.

What do you think about this?
----------------------------
And as said, I like everyone of your ideas...
Except the one about SMG's...

I think the SMG should have good suppression at close range, but because of bulletdropp etc should decrease drasticly propotional with range.

:)
 
Upvote 0
Suppressive fire is a little bit more difficult to implement. You could possibly make the player wince, their vision going black as the supersonic crack of a bullet whizzing past hits them, possibly accompanied by a shivering sway to the weapon until the suppressive fire ceases. Rifles and machineguns in that case would provide the most effective suppressive fire by virtue of actually having supersonic bullets; submachineguns and pistols should be far less effective.

Actually, the order of suppressive effectiveness should look something like Machineguns, Sub-Machinguns, Rifles, Pistols.

For the record, pistol rounds are generally supersonic.
 
Upvote 0
Actually, the order of suppressive effectiveness should look something like Machineguns, Sub-Machinguns, Rifles, Pistols.

For the record, pistol rounds are generally supersonic.

At ranges meeting or exceeding 200 meters? Not really. Most pistol rounds are supersonic at muzzle velocity, but they tend to quickly bleed speed. Hence why rifle cartridges exist.

A reason I say make submachineguns less effective in terms of suppressive fire is so that submachinegunners DON'T give suppressive fire. You know why? Because they should be flanking the enemy, instead of trying to pin him down from from a window 300 meters away. That's a job for rifles or, preferably, machineguns.

A rifle bullet should be equally as effective at pinning down the enemy as a machinegun bullet, considering, you know, they're exactly the same. The only difference is that machineguns put out a whole lot more of them, making them far better at suppression than anything else.

Also, points should probably be shared between the MG and anyone actively supporting him. That is, anyone who has been in his 'sphere of influence' for a couple seconds, and doesn't move out of it, should be able to share points every time he gets a kill. Or something. I don't know. Just trying to replicate that whole MG-based squad thing the Germans had going.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
i dunno , taking away battlewide coms would either destroy the teamwork, or make it bigger. it would either be a great succes (little chance) or a big disaster(bigger chance).

Well I agree if you just see it as "taking away battlewide comms"...
But what I really say is: You LIMIT battlewide comms... AND add features features and rewards to those who stay within comm range....

Examples:

Note: i know some of theese examples are not realistic.. but so arent battlewide comm.

Those who are in comm-range may:
1) See VOIP team tags (clientside option)
2) Hears 3D VOIP sound (to get a feeling orientation and safety)
3) Be able to see "need ammo" tags and other support calls (to cut away unessesary VOIP usage)
4) Able to see NCO map (alternative see friendly movement on map)
5) Share kill score (for those who beleive in scoring
6) slight reduction of suppressive effect pr. teammate within zone.
7) NCO might be able to point out temporary onscreen WP's and "Targets" (to everyone within VOIP range)
(client side option)

To compensate for the lacking intellegence a NCO/field HQ has, he should be able to communicate BF-wide with all NCO's....

In this way, the NCO will act as a field HQ by which the soldier has to rely on to get the job done...

Today the NCO's only power is to cap faster, smoke screen and call arty... well, thats good, but I really feel that he should be able to have greater influence... Thus players have to rely on him abit more to get the job done..

EDIT: Being able to give temp Waypoints and targets will greatly improve public play as most public players a) dont have a microphone b) dont listen to the comm c) Dont know the maps and so on.
A simple "move", "attack", "defend, "flank" ordre... might help the noobs alot more than "shouting on the radio...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
At ranges meeting or exceeding 200 meters? Not really. Most pistol rounds are supersonic at muzzle velocity, but they tend to quickly bleed speed. Hence why rifle cartridges exist.

A reason I say make submachineguns less effective in terms of suppressive fire is so that submachinegunners DON'T give suppressive fire. You know why? Because they should be flanking the enemy, instead of trying to pin him down from from a window 300 meters away. That's a job for rifles or, preferably, machineguns.

A rifle bullet should be equally as effective at pinning down the enemy as a machinegun bullet, considering, you know, they're exactly the same. The only difference is that machineguns put out a whole lot more of them, making them far better at suppression than anything else.

Also, points should probably be shared between the MG and anyone actively supporting him. That is, anyone who has been in his 'sphere of influence' for a couple seconds, and doesn't move out of it, should be able to share points every time he gets a kill. Or something. I don't know. Just trying to replicate that whole MG-based squad thing the Germans had going.

I agree that rifles should stay back suppressing while SMG go in...

In combat mission you see something like this:

SQUA FIREPOWER: (volume X accuracy)
----------50m----100m----300m----500m----700m
2 SMG 75........ 25......... 5 .........NA........... NA
4 Rife 50.......... 40......... 30....... 5............. NA
1 MG 175........ 100....... 75........ 30........... 5
Total: 300.........165........110........35...........5

The numbers show estimated suppression effect as well as hit chance in clear daylight with average cover.
Theese are not the exact numbers as in CM, but I've been playing it alot, so I remember fairly good.

The SMG has Great suppression effect short range.. and radically decrease after that.... The rifle keeps a fairly stable curve.. and MG is providing heavy suppressing allmost all the way..
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Also, points should probably be shared between the MG and anyone actively supporting him. That is, anyone who has been in his 'sphere of influence' for a couple seconds, and doesn't move out of it, should be able to share points every time he gets a kill. Or something. I don't know. Just trying to replicate that whole MG-based squad thing the Germans had going.

Yes indeed! It would love that for the game!

If i can i try to support a skilled machine guner as much i can, but to get some "reward" ingame for team play is a suggestion i always liked very much ! Since you get so many points for resupling the MG guner with amunition, i never have any problem with amunition as mg guner anymore.

I say, give people points if they stick together!
 
Upvote 0
Yes indeed! It would love that for the game!

If i can i try to support a skilled machine guner as much i can, but to get some "reward" ingame for team play is a suggestion i always liked very much ! Since you get so many points for resupling the MG guner with amunition, i never have any problem with amunition as mg guner anymore.

I say, give people points if they stick together!

Yes, me too like rewards for teamwork...
What do you think about sharing killscore with NCO if you are within a certain distance of him? Maybe get 50% of your teammate's kills?
 
Upvote 0
Yes, me too like rewards for teamwork...
What do you think about sharing killscore with NCO if you are within a certain distance of him? Maybe get 50% of your teammate's kills?


sounds very interesting!

but we get all 10 points for a cap as long we are in the cap zone. Why not to get points any friendly soldier do if you are close enough (letz say 5 or 10m?), except the marksman with scope. That way people might really want to stick to "very skilled" players or at least stick just for fun together to share the points. Since most people are "kill-whores" anyway ... or not :p

in war there have been situations where "single" person have got a high award, like knights cross, hero of soviet untion etc. for there actions and decisions. But i think honestly there have been much more often been situations where the whole group, unit or army had a much higher effekt. Cause of there equipment and most important there copearation as "unit" together. So usualy after fights, a whole unit gets a rewar (furlough, food, better supply etc.), like a whole tank-crew gets payed for there shot, and just not the commander or guner.

Thats why i think, teams should share points as long they stick together. If someone still decides to go alone, he always can, but has to consider he might not get the "reward" of his commrads.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
sounds very interesting!

but we get all 10 points for a cap as long we are in the cap zone. Why not to get points any friendly soldier do if you are close enough (letz say 5 or 10m?), except the marksman with scope. That way people might really want to stick to "very skilled" players or at least stick just for fun together to share the points. Since most people are "kill-whores" anyway ... or not :p

in war there have been situations where "single" person have got a high award, like knights cross, hero of soviet untion etc. for there actions and decisions. But i think honestly there have been much more often been situations where the whole group, unit or army had a much higher effekt. Cause of there equipment and most important there copearation as "unit" together. So usualy after fights, a whole unit gets a rewar (furlough, food, better supply etc.), like a whole tank-crew gets payed for there shot, and just not the commander or guner.

Thats why i think, teams should share points as long they stick together. If someone still decides to go alone, he always can, but has to consider he might not get the "reward" of his commrads.

I think you found the words on it :)

The sniper is rewarded by having greater accuracy and higher kill rate anyways... Id like to see he get some kinda bonus for doing certain tasks that is important for snipers. I know he allready get extra bonus for killing CO's, but maybe add points for taking out MG's as well?

yes heroic behaviour is a good thing, when its done at the right time and place....
But I dont think anyone except snipers and Spec ops has learned to solve a battle by themselves and act upon own initiative.
if you get an order to act individually, its a different thing...
IE "Get the MG gunners attention, while we try to flank it!"

I think the time has come to take the tactical game a step futher..
The current games feels like just another round of counterstrike...
Just a few adjustments to weapons, graphics, larger battlefields... But its still run'n'gun too me :(
 
Upvote 0