• 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/

A minimap is unrealistic and clich

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Nimsky

Nimsky

Grizzled Veteran
Nov 22, 2005
4,189
945
Elitist Prick Nude Beach
#1
So RO:HOS will have a minimap in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen, at least on relaxed-realism mode. You can see it here:

YouTube - Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad - Gamescom 2009 Part 1/2

The reasoning behind this is that it acts as a compensation for lack of awareness in a computer game. In real life, you have a much better situational awareness and wider field of view. You generally know where your teammates are because you use your peripheral vision. You can also hear them move around. Or if one of them is behind you and he coughs a little or something, you know he's there without having to turn around. And soldiers IRL often have fixed positions and sectors they have to cover. Furthermore, in real life you have an identity, a face, posture and body language. In a game, you only have a nickname.

So I understand Tripwire's idea of implenting some sort of awareness HUD. The problem is that the current minimap doesn't fit RO at all. Not only is a minimap with green or red dots on it arcadish and unrealistic, it's also so 1990's. :p

So here's an alternative. A much more realistic situational awareness HUD. ShackTac's fireteam HUD for ArmA 2.

Basically, it works like this. All members of your fireteam that are in your direct vicinity show up on your HUD as green dots, including the direction they are facing and the distance relative from your position. Every ring in the HUD is approximately 10 meters. Teammates further than ~30 meters away from you will not show up on the HUD. Not only does it simulate the situational awareness that you have in real life, it's also very useful to maintain a formation. And the HUD takes up only a small portion of the screen, unlike the not-so pretty looking minimap. It doesn't show redundant information (the environment) either.

Here are a couple of screenshots that I took in multiplayer.

The players on the HUD:



Using the HUD to make a 360 around the Chinook after landing. I was looking back over my shoulder but as you can see the HUD doesn't turn left or right depending on the direction you are looking; this was an older version. The new version does turn, AFAIK.



Using the HUD to move in an arrowhead formation:



And here's a video (not made by me):

YouTube - ShackTac Fireteam HUD by zx64

I think the relaxed-realism mode would greatly benefit from something similar to this. It can even be used on full realism mode because this HUD isn't unrealistic at all, though I'd prefer to keep the screen as clean as possible in that mode.
 
Last edited:
#2
It's a tough problem to solve when your FPS isn't some futuristic space shooter where we can expect fancy battlefield gizmos in every helmet.

Personally, I would prefer a system like ArmA 2's rookie setting, where fuzzy little balls line up on the edges of your screen to hint at the location of your teammates. Perhaps the size of the fuzzy balls could indicate the teammates distance from you. That would provide similar information but be less distracting and anachronistic.
 
Upvote 0
#3
the little minimap I think hints the area of your commands, as there is no individual radio for officers in RO:HoS, you have to know who heard you and who didn't, and as it wont be organized in fire teams as far as we know(and it wouldnt even make sense for public play either), everybody who comes close enough should show up.

unrealistic? maybe, but it makes the command system much more streamlined and intuitive, so while the feature itself is unrealistic, the experience should feel more real.

That was the main objective in RO, make it very user friendly while keeping the real BS away. As its a realistic game, and not a military simulation
 
Upvote 0
#5
Did you guys actually read Nimsky's post? He's not saying the basic concept of the minimap for situation awareness is bad, but that it can be done better.

I'd MUCH prefer the HUD system he's proposing. Why? Because it's universal, and simple. It give you the information you need, distance and bearing of your teammates, without cluttering up the screen.

The problem with minimaps is that they have to be accurate. Most user created maps and whatnot never have super-accurate mini maps. Like he said they're also cliche. A simple HUD can do the job much better.
 
Upvote 0
#6
The most important difference about Shacktac's hud is the legend showing the actual names of the friendly players within the close vicinity of you.

Simply knowing that a friendly player resides next to you is one thing, If you know his name you can actually communicate to him and work together. And that ability will definitely help with getting teamwork going on a server.

Which is why I suggested that in this this old thread:
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=43278

Showing the direction those friendly players are facing can really help as well in communication. However personally I think showcasing an accurate depiction of the terrain in a mini map with it could actually help the teamwork as well. The looks of the mini map in the alpha are not really to my liking either but I think that could be changed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#7
LogisticEarth said:
Why? Because it's universal, and simple. It give you the information you need, distance and bearing of your teammates, without cluttering up the screen.

The problem with minimaps is that they have to be accurate. Most user created maps and whatnot never have super-accurate mini maps. Like he said they're also cliche. A simple HUD can do the job much better.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I'm not against showing teammates on a HUD for relaxed-realism mode. My point is that a minimap is not the way to do it. A minimap is something that you'd expect in a game like Call of Duty, but not RO. I can already see the terrain on my screen. Showing the terrain on a minimap as well is nothing but redundant information. A minimap also works as a UAV because it lets you know what the terrain ahead of you looks like before you get there. I realize that the point of relaxed-realism mode is to make gameplay easier for new people, but TWI, please be careful with what you add. After all, it's called "relaxed-realism" and not a full-blown arcade mode.

Like I said, a minimap is an FPS clich
 
Upvote 0
#8
Nimsky said:
Exactly.
@Zets just because something improves teamwork doesn't mean that it fits RO. BFBC2's medic revive is great for teamwork but wouldn't be the kind of feature you'd add to RO.
Click to expand...

Normally you have an idea who team mates are and where they are. If someone shouts a command you can hear from his voice who it is. Or if you walk with a group you recognize people.

In game all characters look and sound the same, next to that rather than being with the same group of players all the time as would be the case in a clan. You play with new people all the time.

If you can see who are friendlies on the minimap, knowing what their name is. Doesn't reveal any additional information beside allowing you to communicate as well.

I can understand if you are against showing where friendlies are, which is why a lot of people are against the radar. However if you know where they are anyway you could just as well show what their name is so you can communicate with each other.

personally I find the act of not having to find out who actual players and friendlies are worse, than if you know that someone is a friendly that you know what he is actually called.
 
Upvote 0
#9
Zetsumei said:
Normally you have an idea who team mates are and where they are. If someone shouts a command you can hear from his voice who it is. Or if you walk with a group you recognize people.

In game all characters look and sound the same, next to that rather than being with the same group of players all the time as would be the case in a clan. You play with new people all the time.

If you can see who are friendlies on the minimap, knowing what their name is. Doesn't reveal any additional information beside allowing you to communicate as well.

I can understand if you are against showing where friendlies are, which is why a lot of people are against the radar. However if you know where they are anyway you could just as well show what their name is so you can communicate with each other.

personally I find the act of not having to find out who actual players and friendlies are worse, than if you know that someone is a friendly that you know what he is actually called.
Click to expand...

When I wrote:

just because something improves teamwork doesn't mean that it fits RO.
Click to expand...

... I thought you were arguing for a minimap because it "improves teamwork". Guess I was wrong.

Names on the HUD could be a good thing, but the text would have be almost unreadable small. Unless you do it like the ShackTac HUD, in which case it only shows who are in your direct vicinity and not who is who on the HUD. Why would you need to view the names though? You can also just look at them. I don't see what's wrong with names floating above people's heads (in a small font of course).
 
Upvote 0
#10
The thing with the minimap though is it makes coordination on a small scale (like RO) much more simple and effective.

ARMA doesn't have a minimap, probably because most of the engagements take place over hundreds of meters at a time. The minimap style fits RO because it gives the player a feel for the map, and where people are in it.

Again I think it's fine for relaxed realism.
 
Upvote 0
#11
I've never been a fan of showing enemies on the HUD, but again, that can vary from game type to game type and from level to level. Even showing where all your team members are is unrealistic in many situations. It is all about what you want to consider acceptable in your own mind. What I would advocate for though is always the option to configure the server and your own HUD for friendly icons. Showing player names, I am afraid, would not be a good idea, cluttering an already small HUD.

Someone in an RS discussion suggested having a radio man role who, when near the SL, would allow the SL to see the location of all his team mates. This could maybe work for the entire team where if they are close to the radio they can see the entire team?

Minimaps are good and bad but a necessity to orient players. Content on it is always open to debate but should be enough to show the vitals of where you are, what your next objective is, etc.
 
Upvote 0
#12
Nimsky said:
When I wrote:



... I thought you were arguing for a minimap because it "improves teamwork". Guess I was wrong.

Names on the HUD could be a good thing, but the text would have be almost unreadable small. Unless you do it like the ShackTac HUD, in which case it only shows who are in your direct vicinity and not who is who on the HUD. Why would you need to view the names though? You can also just look at them. I don't see what's wrong with names floating above people's heads (in a small font of course).
Click to expand...

The main reason that i'm pro minimap is for the simple reason that you can have some ground to identify yourself with.
Personally next to that i really hope the mini map and overhead map will have buildings and streets named to ease up communication. Names don't have to be the real street names, but just as a way so you can communicate where you are. The mini map in the alpha shows perhaps 15 meter around you, only showing the names of the 5 closest team mates within that distance should be plenty.

Simply knowing a friendly is on your right flank won't help you, if you cannot ask him to keep an eye at that spot or to possibly warn you. Information is always out there, but it needs to be possible to relay it. Of course you cannot fit all names into a mini map, which is why I suggested a legend or pointers with names.

One of the big difficulties in terms of teamwork at this moment is simply, how to call the person you want to talk to, and how to explain what you want to say. Having default names for many locations, and an easy way to identify the names of people you can see on the radar anyway. Will make actually using teamwork more accessible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#14
Tiger2 said:
How can the devs determine all situations in which you will detect people? Consider the effects of smoke and artillery, friendlies lying concealed and other factors. There are too many situations in which it can go either way.
Click to expand...

Regarding that I find the peripheral view indicator more troublesome as that one indicates enemies rather than friendlies. But that's one of the reasons why I hope that it can at the least be turned off so we can decide for ourselves whether we like it or not.
 
Upvote 0
#15
Zetsumei said:
Regarding that I find the peripheral view indicator more troublesome as that one indicates enemies rather than friendlies. But that's one of the reasons why I hope that it can at the least be turned off so we can decide for ourselves whether we like it or not.
Click to expand...

No, I'd rather they thoroughly test (the peripheral indicators) internally and if it becomes very arbitrary and game-breaking, scrap the whole thing. I dont want to have to join a game with a bad ping just because most games use an awful feature that turns the game into an indicator-seeking exercise.
 
Upvote 0
#18
Well I'm sceptical about the peripheral view indicators and the radar, because if they do not work correctly they can break a lot of things. But I guess we should give TWI the benefit of doubt on this one. Especially as those features are going to be in anyway.

So its better like this thread, to try and think of methods to perhaps make those features better. Rather than to vote for getting them removed.
 
Upvote 0
#20
Tiger2 said:
Actually, for all its troubles it is not worth having peripheral indicators that detect enemy movement. I would instead prefer sound indicators that point to the direction from which an enemy fired.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, locating the origin of a sound can be very deceptive. This can be especially true in a city environment.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu