Do you want ROHOS to have DH's suppression system?

[Oldih]

You guys are really going to discourage devs posting in these feedback threads if EVERY time we post some info on the game you jump to conclusions and always assume that the way we've implemented any new system is "Omg WTF it's arcade COD" worst case scenario

Anyway, there is an old saying in the air force - "If you aren't catching flak, then you aren't over the target." I guess we are right on top of it

Right?

 

[Zetsumei]

Well personally I'm happy with the news I'm hearing here And the poll shows that the majority of the lunatics on this forum are as well.

 

[VariousNames]

First off it IS realistic to have players characters increase their abilities over time. It happened to real soldiers, it's going to happen with ours. [...]The effects of any capability changes will be really subtle, and probably be a max difference of say 10% between lowest rank and highest rank.

We'll likely have server setting to disable some of this stuff for things like competitive play. And we'll have servers set up with min/max rank so players of similar skill levels can play together. But really, the gameplay effects of rank are pretty subtle, and once you experience it you'll likely think it's no big deal.

If I want to play an RPG, where I roleplay a soldier, I'll go play Mass Effect.

I don't want my avatar to be different from anyone else's. I don't want new players to be penalized for being new. They're already going to have enough to contend with learning how to deal with the ballistics sim and weapon sway.

What I'm disgusted with is not what you're not saying (e.g. omg cod!), what I'm disgusted with is what has already been said.

You keep saying "probably," and I keep qualifying "if." If you're planning on a margin of superiority of even 10%, hell, even 2%, between top rank and bottom rank, I simply refused to purchase your game. Period. If you're not planning that, great.

I think it's better that I tell you I don't think it's a good idea rather than wait til it's embedded in 50,000 lines of code and in beta testing phase before I express my opinion.

 

[LemoN]

You guys are really going to discourage devs posting in these feedback threads if EVERY time we post some info on the game you jump to conclusions and always assume that the way we've implemented any new system is "Omg WTF it's arcade COD" worst case scenario

First off it IS realistic to have players characters increase their abilities over time. It happened to real soldiers, it's going to happen with ours. That doesn't mean it will be implemented in a way that is crazy unrealistic COD level - with vast changes to capabilities and lame perks like guys able to magically crap grenades when they die. The effects of any capability changes will be really subtle, and probably be a max difference of say 10% between lowest rank and highest rank.

We'll likely have server setting to disable some of this stuff for things like competitive play. And we'll have servers set up with min/max rank so players of similar skill levels can play together. But really, the gameplay effects of rank are pretty subtle, and once you experience it you'll likely think it's no big deal.

Regarding the questions on MGs, yes they are more accurate, but also have more/different recoil based on our experiences now firing the real mgs. So firing in bursts will be really important.

Since we are talking about Stalingrad, I'd rather say that in most cases your abilities would deteriorate rather than increase.
Soldiers operating in not overly exhausting conditions with an average of 5.5 hours of sleep will maintain their "skills" up to 8 days in the field, given proper supplies of course. After that their abilities start to decrease until they end up totally exhausted. I don't think that in Stalingrad any of those conditions were met for any side.
If anyone want's sources on this, feel free to ask me or google it yourselves.

Being longer in the field is a two edged sword. You may grow more resistant to suppression and grow more sophisticated in tactics but your overall mental and physical condition will deteriorate relatively fast (Probably a matter of a couple of days in Stalingrad).

Overall I think that this Hero system truly is something that we have to wait for and see how it plays out. I may not like the overall idea of it, but if it doesn't interfere too much with the overall "balance" I can't see much of a problem.

 

[VariousNames]

Regarding this "realism" aspect that Lemon is probing into regarding levelups...

I do want to mention the fact that people die in real life, and they die for good. If you're planning on levelups, maybe you can make them based on one single life before the entire progress is wiped. Flat. Then you're a greenhorn again. That would be realistic?

The quality of the German army certainly diminished as large numbers of the experienced German personnel were steamrolled by the Allied war machine.

 

[-[SiN]-bswearer]

First off it IS realistic to have players characters increase their abilities over time. It happened to real soldiers, it's going to happen with ours.

no offense, but i think you're still missing the point a lot of people are trying to make which is that they, the physical person, are representing the "soldier" as opposed to their avatar representing the "soldier"......the actual player will increase their abilities over time and the result of that will show through their ability to better control their avatar (movement, shooting accuracy, compensation for recoil etc...). from the way it continues to be explained is still that the avatar will be affected to represent a player's "gained experience/ improved abilites" despite that being completely unnecissary since their abilities to better control their avatar will already be improving as they play the game.

granted we'll all have to wait and see what happens, but from the bits and pieces we've been exposed to and additionally having KF's "progression system" fresh in our minds, it's no wonder there seems to be a lot of people "jumping to conclusions".

 

[Zetsumei]

Personally I think stuff like perks can actually be fun for public play, as rpg a like systems give me a reason to continue to play public. The important thing is just making sure that game play stays intact and not everybody becomes an achievement farmer.

 

[Xendance]

no offense, but i think you're still missing the point a lot of people are trying to make which is that they, the physical person, are representing the "soldier" as opposed to their avatar representing the "soldier"......the actual player will increase their abilities over time and the result of that will show through their ability to better control their avatar (movement, shooting accuracy, compensation for recoil etc...). from the way it continues to be explained is still that the avatar will be affected to represent a player's "gained experience/ improved abilites" despite that being completely unnecissary since their abilities to better control their avatar will already be improving as they play the game.

granted we'll all have to wait and see what happens, but from the bits and pieces we've been exposed to and additionally having KF's "progression system" fresh in our minds, it's no wonder there seems to be a lot of people "jumping to conclusions".

But the real physical person can't do nothing for the suppression system that is going to be in. Your skills won't affect that fact one bit, unless you just don't get suppressed.

 

[[TW]Ramm-Jaeger]

You keep saying "probably," and I keep qualifying "if." If you're planning on a margin of superiority of even 10%, hell, even 2%, between top rank and bottom rank, I simply refused to purchase your game. Period. If you're not planning that, great.

Sorry to be blunt, but we'll just have to lose a sale in this case, because we are going to adjust the capabilities of the players in the way that I mentioned in my post above. We appreciate feedback, but threatening to not buy our game first off is an entirely rude way to give feedback, but second, is not likely going to get us to change our mind.

Now if we start beta testing the game later this year, and a majority of players don't like the system, that would be a reason to reconsider its implementation. But some forum members getting militant and jumping to conclusions sure as heck isn't going to get us to change our minds.

 

[VariousNames]

we are going to adjust the capabilities of the players in the way that I mentioned in my post above.

[...]But some forum members getting militant and jumping to conclusions sure as heck isn't going to get us to change our minds.

Tada. It is going in the game. And you're planning on beta testing it with it included in the software. So much for jumping to conclusions.

It's not a threat, it's a fact. I'm not buying it with the system you described included.

And in the same way that you don't care that you lost a sale, I don't care if that doesn't affect you. I'm just not buying it. The end.

 

[SheepDip]

You uhhh...gonna stop posting in the forums then?

Not sure how this thread has gone so far south - player progression becoming more common in all sorts of games, and I've often thought whilst playing ROOST that something like that would be nice to see in a progressive combat situation. I have no problem with player progression beyond the limits of the game itself (i.e map/weapon knowledge/reaction time etc) - because it means that it's harder to hit the "ceiling" of your ability as a player.

As for things specific to the conflict, such as soldiers deteriorating as the battles go on etc - who the hell would want to play that? This is supposed to be fun after all - I like realism as much as the next man but I'm not looking for a simulation of hell on earth.

As for the supression system (again) - we've discussed this to death surely? TWI have decided to implement one, and in the most part there's been demand for one on these forums - when it's in BETA if there's something wrong with it, it'll be changed/tweaked/whatever.

So what's the problem?

 

[Vyllis]

Okay we all know you will not buy the game. No need to repeat it over multiples posts.
Maybe i'm incorrect/impolite but i find theses people that ragepost without constructive feedback very very annoying and noisy.

So don't buy it and goodbye.

sorry my english isn't very well.

 

[Proud_God]

Hmm, with all due respect Ramm, but the idea of improving your character with level seems like it is something you, or more likely your publisher, pushes to boost sales, seeing how all hugely popular games (CoD, Battlefield, WoW, etc) use a 'level-up' system.
Not saying I won't buy your game because of this, it's just a bit sad to hear.

Also,

First off it IS realistic to have players characters increase their abilities over time. It happened to real soldiers, it's going to happen with ours.

It surprises me no one pointed out how silly this argument is, seeing your ingame avatar will have died 1000's of times.

 

[SheepDip]

It surprises me no one pointed out how silly this argument is, seeing your ingame avatar will have died 1000's of times.

You don't represent the same soldier thoughout the game though, everytime you spawn again you're spawning as a new soldier of class "x".

So the stats/progression are for you as a player, not as your avatar or the soldier you're controlling.

And we've no idea yet exactly how dramatic the differences between inexperienced and experienced soldiers will be...

 

[Yoshiro]

We are our own publisher. If it is in the game, it is because we want it in the game. If it isn't, it is because we don't want it. Nobody else has control over the title. We believe we have systems that we can make work in a realistic fashion. We are pushing ahead with them. We will not change this because somebody who doesn't know how the system will work believes it is a clone of a system in Call of Duty.

But as John said, we plan to have a beta, and we plan to listen to player feedback based off that beta. It will also be able to not use the system at all according to our plans. Just run a server that doesn't use it, or play on a server that doesn't use it.

 

[SiC-Disaster]

I'm starting to get used to the idea. I'm not all that fond of it, but it's not going to stop me from buying ROHOS and enjoying it immensely.

One thing i would like to suggest however is that getting anywhere takes time. Preferably a lot of time.
For a system like this to remain fun, you need to have something to work towards but we all know you cant put in unending content.
A game like BC2, while fun for a while, loses a lot of its appeal for most players after they have unlocked everything. And unlocking things was fast, real fast.

However, i'd like to point out that the gameplay in most games that apply a system like this are all very generic, and because of that rely on that system to make the game fun.
I have no doubt in my mind that ROHOS does not need a system like this to be fun, and because of that can make it 'acceptable' to take forever to get your character somewhere.
Especially if, as you say, the differences arent that huge anyway.
It just seems a waste that for example, all players can achieve rank 3 in an hour. It's not an accomplishment, so there is really no use for it to go that fast.

 

[Zetsumei]

I hope that most ranks are actually based on the performance of the rest of the community. So you are compared against other players rather than a static level.

So that for instance for the highest level you need to belong to the best 5% of the active players in the game. Rather than having to have played the game for x hours.

Although things like weapon unlocks could happen through achievements so at some point everybody can get access to all weaponry. (remember there is still 1 elite rifleman and elite assault class so you'll see at max 1 of every weapon).

Personally I love RPG elements in public games as long as as its subtle, gives me something to keep playing for.

 

[Bobdog]

I do want to mention the fact that people die in real life, and they die for good. If you're planning on levelups, maybe you can make them based on one single life before the entire progress is wiped. Flat. Then you're a greenhorn again. That would be realistic?

It surprises me no one pointed out how silly this argument is, seeing your ingame avatar will have died 1000's of times.

Your avatar dying is irrelevant. Here is a simplified version of how I think it will work:

Before the player is assigned to an avatar, he is a "ghost". His avatar will come from a pre-existing reinforcement pool; some of the soldiers in the pool are new recruits who have just arrived in Stalingrad (regular riflemen, etc.); others have been there a while and are battle-hardened (elite riflemen, etc.). If the player has a high enough rank, he will have access to the more experienced soldiers. The experienced avatar isn't coming back to life over and over again, the player's ghost is just being put in multiple, different soldiers who have similar levels of experience.

 

[VariousNames]

Not sure how this thread has gone so far south - player progression becoming more common in all sorts of games, and I've often thought whilst playing ROOST that something like that would be nice to see in a progressive combat situation. I have no problem with player progression beyond the limits of the game itself (i.e map/weapon knowledge/reaction time etc) - because it means that it's harder to hit the "ceiling" of your ability as a player.

Meaning new players (or casual players) are always at a disadvantage.

Have you ever tried to play Counter Strike? How about Unreal Tournament, or Quake? Those games don't have progression systems, but the new players always get creamed. The holy grail for most players is obtaining a consistent 1.0 kill-death ratio in Counter Strike. And it takes months to get that good, even on public servers.

Do you really need reduced suppression effects? Do you really need anything to be able to beat the piss out of a greenhorn?

As for things specific to the conflict, such as soldiers deteriorating as the battles go on etc - who the hell would want to play that? This is supposed to be fun after all - I like realism as much as the next man but I'm not looking for a simulation of hell on earth.

Ramm specifically said that the persistent progression system would be realistic. I argued that it was not. And effectively, apparently, because you're now complaining that it would be too realistic to have a progression system that lasts as long as your in-game lifespan does.

As for the supression system (again) - we've discussed this to death surely? TWI have decided to implement one, and in the most part there's been demand for one on these forums - when it's in BETA if there's something wrong with it, it'll be changed/tweaked/whatever.

So what's the problem?

I didn't mention the suppression system in the quote you're responding to.

However, regarding public opinion on persistent progression:

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=416

Your avatar dying is irrelevant. Here is a simplified version of how I think it will work:

Before the player is assigned to an avatar, he is a "ghost". His avatar will come from a pre-existing reinforcement pool; some of the soldiers in the pool are new recruits who have just arrived in Stalingrad (regular riflemen, etc.); others have been there a while and are battle-hardened (elite riflemen, etc.). If the player has a high enough rank, he will have access to the more experienced soldiers. The experienced avatar isn't coming back to life over and over again, the player's ghost is just being put in multiple, different soldiers who have similar levels of experience.

I genuinely regret to inform you that ghosts aren't real.

However....regarding this kind of....interesting "reincarnation" theory....does this mean when you teamkill, you respawn as a cockroach

 

[Bobdog]

Fine. If you die once, the game deletes itself, your computer explodes and TWI dispatches the hit squad.




It's just a gameplay concept.