• 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/

Grenades?!

And that's realistic as far as it goes; in real CQC you at least try and use your weapons sights, or will hold it in close aim where you're looking over the sights -- and all other things being equal the man who is better aimed will prevail.

If you're entering area that seems hostile preparing , but if you just exit the spawn and some random enemy was hopping around I doubt you're expecting that unless you move with ironsights on 24h\7.

It would break the game's aim system scale to put free-aim on grenades, substantially nerf skill

War by nature substancially nerfs your skill and does everything it can to prevent you from using it to the maximium potential. You might be able to pitch baseball at extreme range with perfect accuracy if you practice around alot but throwing grenade in middle of a firefight when there's bullets flying near has diffrent story, as basically even in just simulated combat experience accuracy past 100m, regardless how huge balls of steel you have unless you're really used to the whole situation, same applies with shooting. The basic idea behind it is realistic for several reasons, however making it reasonable is the problem.

(see DirtyRat's Post).

Yes I've read his post several times but I still express concern simply due the Great Internet ****wad Theory. Optional server side setting could do the trick.
 
Upvote 0
If you're entering area that seems hostile preparing , but if you just exit the spawn and some random enemy was hopping around I doubt you're expecting that unless you move with ironsights on 24h\7.
What's your point?

War by nature substancially nerfs your skill and does everything it can to prevent you from using it to the maximium potential.
The same could be said for playing games on a 2D projection with a keyboard and mouse due to sensory and control limitations. Again, what's the point of this disgression?

:confused:
 
Upvote 0
About the nadespam: the problem with nades in CA and Ost. was neither their power (in CA by some standards they were more realistic) nor their range (bacause you can throw a stick hand grenade further IRL compared to standard designs like russian F1, and distances in RO are usually lower than it seems). The cause of the nadespam lies in the bottleneck corridor-like style of the maps. When you are 100% sure that enemy is using certain path all the time, you throw nades in there. Nadespam doesn't happen in maps with many good "assault paths" leading towards objective. When there's only 1 assault path or all of them lead through certain point on the map - the nadespam starts.
IRL, unless you're in battle over 1 location for many hours, you don't know about those "popular assault paths", so you basically don't spam nades. You throw them when you see the enemy/hear the enemy/know they are there/think they are there. But in a game like HoS, with a set of maps, with no means to make new paths through the map (I haven't heard about blowing up parts of ANY wall on the map with explosives) the only way to prevent the nadespam is good map design.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
About the nadespam: the problem with nades in CA and Ost. was neither their power (in CA by some standards they were more realistic) nor their range (bacause you can throw a stick hand grenade further IRL compared to standard designs like russian F1, and distances in RO are usually lower than it seems). The cause of the nadespam lies in the bottleneck corridor-like style of the maps. When you are 100% sure that enemy is using certain path all the time, you throw nades in there. Nadespam doesn't happen in maps with many good "assault paths" leading towards objective. When there's only 1 assault path or all of them lead through certain point on the map - the nadespam starts.
IRL, unless you're in battle over 1 location for many hours, you don't know about those "popular assault paths", so you basically don't spam nades. You throw them when you see the enemy/hear the enemy/know they are there/think they are there. But in a game like HoS, with a set of maps, with no means to make new paths through the map (I haven't heard about blowing up parts of ANY wall on the map with explosives) the only way to prevent the nadespam is good map design.
Excellent post! Also IRL you don't have an unlimited and endlessly respawning supply of grenades to manage a choke point. This is obviously less of a problem in realistc game modes that don't offer respawning or reinforcemnt, so like DirtyRat I think it's worth looking into how respawn unrealistically impacts the supply of powerful munitions on very fintie play space.

:)
 
Upvote 0
The more experienced RO players will all agree that adding freeaim to the grenade throw is a good idea. It represents the inconsistency in throwing action you have in real life.
Your statement is false, I'm a 'more experienced RO player', have thrown real grenades, and don't agree... In fact free-aim on grenade throws is neither congruent or to scale with 'inconsistency in throwing action you have in real life.'

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
have thrown real grenades, and don't agree... In fact free-aim on grenade throws is neither congruent or to scale with 'inconsistency in throwing action you have in real life.'

It would be somewhat inconsistent under common conventional warfare situation when there's bullets flying around for already biological reasons even if you're used to the fact there's **** flying around.

Just to quote LemoN's one post from one of the numerous supression discussion threads when relatively inexperienced soldier is getting shot near, no physical fatique involved.

dec.Par.41006.Image.600.750.1.gif


Source: On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace by Dave Grossman and Loren W. Christensen, PPCT Research Publications, 2004.

Is that good enough?

In case you are too lazy to check out that book, this gives you a rough overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Com...iology_of_Deadly_Conflict_in_War_and_in_Peace

Now sure if you're used to **** flying around, it's not that big problem but your body is biologically still doing similiar stress reactions whether you like it or not.
 
Upvote 0
Your statement is false, I'm a 'more experienced RO player', have thrown real grenades, and don't agree... In fact free-aim on grenade throws is neither congruent or to scale with 'inconsistency in throwing action you have in real life.'

:rolleyes:

You don't have to have thrown a real grenade to know that there is variation in throwing action, if you had a ball and had to throw it at a target at some distance away, you would not hit the exact same spot each time.

As for your claims of experience (perhaps I should have explicitly stated "competence"), I cordially invite you for a 1v1 so that I may gauge the validity of said claims. Of course, I have no doubt that you'll decline for a number of trivial reasons which I'm sure you will inform me of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoak
Upvote 0
It would be somewhat inconsistent under common conventional warfare situation when there's bullets flying around for already biological reasons even if you're used to the fact there's **** flying around.

Just to quote LemoN's one post from one of the numerous supression discussion threads when relatively inexperienced soldier is getting shot near, no physical fatique involved.

Now sure if you're used to **** flying around, it's not that big problem but your body is biologically still doing similiar stress reactions whether you like it or not.
Yes, and this is why I personally object to and don't like RPG 'fear and loathing, weakness and happiness, and general emotional twitedness' built in to FPS Tactical Realism games. These aspects of character and control are individual, so while some people will flinch and crap their pants at the sound of a horse farting, some will keep shooting half eviscerated by a mortar shell. Your are of course welcome to like what ever you prefer, but there are better means to getting a realistic, to-scale result then pre-programmed failure, and I for one don't want to play a game with someone elses notion of how I would react when I know exactly how I do react.

You don't have to have thrown a real grenade to know that there is variation in throwing action, if you had a ball and had to throw it at a target at some distance away, you would not hit the exact same spot each time.
That variation, for the most part is under your control or lack there of, not the magical hand of the game designer or some magical 'free-look' disconnect in your nervious system between the coordination of your hand from your eyes -- yet in this instance that's precisely what free-look will do; the game already has inaccuracy in code, as well as the to-scale inaccuracy based on player skill in tossing grenades.

As for your claims of experience (perhaps I should have explicitly stated "competence"), I cordially invite you for a 1v1 so that I may gauge the validity of said claims.
My 'experience' and that was your original choice of words, weak basis of an argument, and only word choice remotely germane to the discussion in the comparison of throwing real grenades and Red Orchestra's development (and my experience there extends as tester since early alpha of the mod for Unreal Tournament 2003, and a member of the team up to the Make Something Unreal run-off). Why is it exactly you feel I should provide a demonstration of my game skill (when I've made no claims about it) and what do you think could possibly compel my interst in doing so?

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Your are of course welcome to like what ever you prefer, but there are better means to getting a realistic, to-scale result then pre-programmed failure, and I for one don't want to play a game with someone elses notion of how I would react when I know exactly how I do react.

RO:HoS is going to feature one of those pre-programmed failures, which would give more pragmatic reason to include minor free-aim for grenades.
 
Upvote 0
And since when does doing one thing wrong justify doing two wrong?

Ultimately it's up to the developers, if you want answer for that semi philosophical question you can probably figure something out yourself. However the thing works the other way around: if you can justify something in the name of realism, you can easily do it for other things. We could start arguing about the importance of field latrine... because it's realistic and happened to plethora of people. Needless to say that's going way off target when it comes to gameplay experience.

However now that we're at it I'm curious to hear your more detailed argument why small, carefully added freeaim for grenades is a bad thing? You've been going on about how X is realistic, then after presenting something that has realistic basis for it for diffrent reasons you start saying how false and wrong it is and in the next post you suddenly start speaking how you personally view the subject and give more clarification to the question "Why", until going back to the black'n white line which is quite inconsistent and slightly irrational considering how you suddenly switch from more concrete matter to highly philosophilcal one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoak
Upvote 0
However now that we're at it I'm curious to hear your more detailed argument why small, carefully added freeaim for grenades is a bad thing?
I did not say 'bad', that's your choice of words not mine; all I said, explicitly, was that free-aim on grenads is not consistent or congruent with free-aim with a weapon that has sights. That's not an 'argument' it's a fact. Using the same kind of reasoning being applied to putting free-aim on grenades; tanks should be able to jump and strafe. What's more no one has offered any explination as to how this will solve the grenad spam issue. More magical thinking?

You've been going on about how X is realistic, then after presenting something that has realistic basis for it for diffrent reasons you start saying how false and wrong it is and in the next post you suddenly start speaking how you personally view the subject and give more clarification to the question "Why", until going back to the black'n white line which is quite inconsistent and slightly irrational considering how you suddenly switch from more concrete matter to highly philosophilcal one.
Wow, and I thought I used long sentences... I can't address an argument you don't support with any example, this is little more then a petty ad hominen attack and insult.

:rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
Hoak, what you fail to realise is that free aim is only realistic when not aiming down sights. Unless your eyes are nailed to your torso of course.
What 'fail to realize' is I already said exactly that.

So I don't really get what your continuous talk about grenades not having sights is all about.
That's obvious, full context thinking beyond looking for ways to attack and insult (without even making an effort to understand the discussion) escapes you.

Free-aim with grenades is perfectly viable and realistic.
Viable? Realistic? Wearing strap-on dlidos is viable and realistic...

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
What 'fail to realize' is I already said exactly that.

I'm sorry, but I'm using British English. :rolleyes:
And actually, you said that free aim on grenades shouldn't happen because they don't have ironsights.

That's obvious, full context thinking beyond looking for ways to attack and insult (without even making an effort to understand the discussion) escapes you.

I beg your pardon?
I didn't insult you anywhere, stop making up stuff and stop trying to correct my spelling.
 
Upvote 0
And actually, you said that free aim on grenades shouldn't happen because they don't have ironsights.
No, not 'because', that's not an arguement for anything...

I beg your pardon?
Ok, since you begged, one pardon...

I didn't insult you anywhere, stop making up stuff and stop trying to correct my spelling.
Not making anything up, read your post(s) again -- sorry didn't realize English was your second language, and you're the one making the effort at translation, so I beg your pardon, but, I never, on any occasion have said anything about or tried to correct your spelling or grammar...

:)
 
Upvote 0
Incorrect, a grenade has no ironsights in the real world or in the game to mitigate the effecs of free-aim, where you look in game is where you aim and approximate a center of aim and a complex ballistic trajectory; and even that's an approximation.

This is the point that I was referring to.
Grenades do have "sights" in the game (your hand) and that makes free-aim a perfectly viable thing to implement. And no, where you look in the game is not where you aim, that's why all weapons have free-aim (although I still think that free-aim on ironsights is complete bollocks).

Of course, if you forget about the hand then your comment makes sense. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoak
Upvote 0