Running With Rifles - War sandbox shooter - Games

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;30754624]What the fuck about what I just said was dumb? You can disagree with me if you want but how the hell is it dumb?[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/8ovwv.png[/img] hypocrite much?

This game would benefit greatly from having the ability to switch instantly to any friendly soldier you want to, by hovering your crosshair over him and pressing a button. This makes death easier to swallow, and allows you to finish a fight you started (without adding in random soldiers) before a stray shot hit you in the face. It needs some sort of map wide radar, like in Battlefield 2, where a line goes across the entire map and gives you a one time view of where the enemy was when the line reached them, reusable every minute or so. The AI need to have a vague idea of where all of the groups are on the map, so you can have pitched battles that aren't near bases. The AI also needs to have some sort of light restriction on travel, where they prefer to use roads instead going in a straight line wherever they need to be. There's a bug where when you go by a grenade refill station when you have soldiers with you, some of them go to refill their grenades and then won't move until someone shoots in their vicinity. I'd really love it if there was a class system, medic, support, sniper (and engineer when vehicles are added). Also, the ability to create your own squad, that you can load up at any base. So I start a game, open up a menu saying I want a medic, a sniper, and two supports as my squad, and they spawn next to me, and we go out and fight. Next time I'm at a base, I can then load that squad, and they'll spawn next to me again. And, having a great medic system is important, it would be awesome to have wounded soldiers lying around as a medic runs around bandaging them. Which reminds me, this also needs smoke grenades. Just throwing some ideas around, a lot of people seem to be clammering for "VEHICLES WEAPONS AAGAHGAHGAHGAGHA" when there are more subtle but important things that need to be addressed.

Honestly I just want SOME way of shooting over and past the hills and obstacles. The heightmaps are a bit of an issue.

[QUOTE=Twinkletoes;30668260]who here wants a soviet mod[/QUOTE] Yus. Especially if vehicles are added. A mechanized infantry company inside their BMP-2s bursting through a section of American/NATO/generic western country trenches that had just been pounded by artillery, stopping and dismounting behind the cowering defenders and then rushing in to capture the objective while a couple BMP-2s are exploded by some ATGMs in a nearby treeline. Fuck yes.

Just a reminder to post your suggestions in the [url=http://www.modulaatio.com/runningwithrifles/phpBB3/]forum[/url] if you want the developer to see it.

[QUOTE=zeldar;30769378]Just a reminder to post your suggestions in the [url=http://www.modulaatio.com/runningwithrifles/phpBB3/]forum[/url] if you want the developer to see it.[/QUOTE] Too bad we can't post threads until pasik approves of them

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;30769285]Honestly I just want SOME way of shooting over and past the hills and obstacles. The heightmaps are a bit of an issue.[/QUOTE] It's called using the high ground. Forces terrain to be a factor in tactical situations. Of course it's difficult to tell elevation right now, but the solution isn't to add some stupid shit optional camera view.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;30770178]It's called using the high ground. Forces terrain to be a factor in tactical situations. Of course it's difficult to tell elevation right now, but the solution isn't to add some stupid shit optional camera view.[/QUOTE] Would be nice to at least have blindfire ability or something similar

What I kind of want is instead of having to have the mouse directly on them to aim at them rather than the ground, have a small radius where you kind of "lock-on" when your mouse is in it. Make it a little easier to hit enemies higher up than you.

[QUOTE=zeldar;30762289]Texture artist I think.[/QUOTE] [I]yes I can see it being a difficult task[/I]

The next version is going to have a line of sight feature I believe

Multiplayer will be too awesome for anyone to handle. I can't wait. What for multiplayer would you guys prefer, co-op or just competitive multiplayer? I'd love to have both options.

Both too

Both. The competitive should be kind-off RTS influenced. You have to take over outposts, build factories and such, barracks for infantry and armories for weapons.

Maybe something like BF2, where you lose tickets when you don't have any bases on the map.

[QUOTE=Duckmeister;30769098]This game would benefit greatly from having the ability to switch instantly to any friendly soldier you want to, by hovering your crosshair over him and pressing a button. This makes death easier to swallow, and allows you to finish a fight you started (without adding in random soldiers) before a stray shot hit you in the face. It needs some sort of map wide radar, like in Battlefield 2, where a line goes across the entire map and gives you a one time view of where the enemy was when the line reached them, reusable every minute or so. The AI need to have a vague idea of where all of the groups are on the map, so you can have pitched battles that aren't near bases. The AI also needs to have some sort of light restriction on travel, where they prefer to use roads instead going in a straight line wherever they need to be. There's a bug where when you go by a grenade refill station when you have soldiers with you, some of them go to refill their grenades and then won't move until someone shoots in their vicinity. I'd really love it if there was a class system, medic, support, sniper (and engineer when vehicles are added). Also, the ability to create your own squad, that you can load up at any base. So I start a game, open up a menu saying I want a medic, a sniper, and two supports as my squad, and they spawn next to me, and we go out and fight. Next time I'm at a base, I can then load that squad, and they'll spawn next to me again. And, having a great medic system is important, it would be awesome to have wounded soldiers lying around as a medic runs around bandaging them. Which reminds me, this also needs smoke grenades. Just throwing some ideas around, a lot of people seem to be clammering for "VEHICLES WEAPONS AAGAHGAHGAHGAGHA" when there are more subtle but important things that need to be addressed.[/QUOTE] I would love almost all the ideas in that post, but I think the class system should be optional before a game starts. There is something elegant in just having it as simple as it is now. Also, about the switching soldiers, I would love that, but only be able to do it when you are dead. Something I would like would be that you actually change to someone with an equal rank to the one you died as, instead of instantly dropping down ranks. EDIT: Am I the only one who hates the idea of having helicopters? I'm all for ground vehicles, but helicopters might be a bit overpowered, and wouldn't seem to work in a top-down game.

vehicles would ruin the game it's called running with rifles for a reason. the dev wants to focus on infantry tactics sometimes i wish the ai doesn't sit around all the time because as a private you can't lead you so you have to sick with a squad but they barely fucking do anything, most of the time guard. it would be cool if you could customize how each team acts. like offensive/defensive sort of deal. oh and there needs to be a way to separate your men into smaller groups if you want to flank an enemy; telling them where to go and shit. would be cool especially in multiplayer if people were cooperative. the dev also needs to do something about grenades, grenade spam is going to be annoying as fuck in multiplayer. maybe a limit of 1 grenade would make it better.

I personally would like a BF2-style commander role. Can scan the map every so often, set waypoints, drop the occasional temporary resupply crate, and maybe even drop a light vehicle (if they get implemented of course). The artillery strike might be a bit much though. EDIT: [QUOTE=ok alright;30781136]vehicles would ruin the game it's called running with rifles for a reason. the dev wants to focus on infantry tactics[/quote] If they are implemented, I'm sure they'll be optional in the server options (I hope). [quote]the dev also needs to do something about grenades, grenade spam is going to be annoying as fuck in multiplayer. maybe a limit of 1 grenade would make it better.[/QUOTE] Either that or decrease the throwing distance and blast radius a bit. The fact that you can chuck them across the entire screen isn't helping.

this needs a less awkward cover system and suppression [editline]29th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mombasa;30781217]I personally would like a BF2-style commander role. Can scan the map every so often, set waypoints, drop the occasional temporary resupply crate, and maybe even drop a light vehicle (if they get implemented of course). The artillery strike might be a bit much though.[/QUOTE] maybe setting waypoints on the map but everything else is too much shut up

[QUOTE=ok alright;30781136]vehicles would ruin the game it's called running with rifles for a reason. the dev wants to focus on infantry tactics sometimes i wish the ai doesn't sit around all the time because as a private you can't lead you so you have to sick with a squad but they barely fucking do anything, most of the time guard. it would be cool if you could customize how each team acts. like offensive/defensive sort of deal. oh and there needs to be a way to separate your men into smaller groups if you want to flank an enemy; telling them where to go and shit. would be cool especially in multiplayer if people were cooperative. the dev also needs to do something about grenades, grenade spam is going to be annoying as fuck in multiplayer. maybe a limit of 1 grenade would make it better.[/QUOTE] Vehicles wouldn't ruin it if implemented correctly. For example, they have to be very loud, thus not suitable for stealth missions, and they shouldn't have any on-board weapons, only being able to have people that aren't driving firing their machine guns. It would be more for quick transport, something that is essentially needed for a bigger map. All I would really want is one type of vehicle, a jeep. I don't want tanks, or APCs, since then people inside would be essentially invincible unless grenades were used. Also, the vehicles would have a hard time travelling unless using the roads. They should be a lot slower on dirt, and also the trees and rocks and other things would block their way, so they would be heavily encouraged to use roads.

[QUOTE=ok alright;30781267] maybe setting waypoints on the map but everything else is too much shut up[/QUOTE] No you shut up. I don't see why it's too much, dropping the occasional resupply crate on a squad that needs it doesn't seem that bad, neither does the vehicle drop in a controlled area. I do see your point on the map scan though, especially if you're trying to sneak a into a base.

[QUOTE=Tommyx50;30781318]Vehicles wouldn't ruin it if implemented correctly. For example, they have to be very loud, thus not suitable for steal missions, and they shouldn't have any on-board weapons, only being able to have people you aren't driving firing their machine guns. It would be more for quick transport, something that is essentially needed for a bigger map. All I would really want is one type of vehicle, a jeep. I don't want tanks, or APCs, since then people inside would be essentially invincible unless grenades were used. Also, the vehicles would have a hard time travelling unless using the roads. They should be a lot slower on dirt, and also the trees and rocks and other things would block their way, so they would be heavily encouraged to use roads.[/QUOTE] called running with rifles for a reason it isn't meant for the game do you understand this the concept of the game is to wander in deep territory and watching your back for patrols not driving around [editline]29th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mombasa;30781393]No you shut up. I don't see why it's too much, dropping the occasional resupply crate on a squad that needs it doesn't seem that bad, neither does the vehicle drop in a controlled area. I do see your point on the map scan though, especially if you're trying to sneak a into a base.[/QUOTE] you are aiming too far, much more things need to be fixed before you go on about adding this fancy shit which is retarded because we all know how well it worked in battlefield

Instead of being a third, or firstperson shooter, What the game needs is a laser sight only the player can see, like the one in Killzone for the PSP. [img]http://www.puolenkuunpelit.com/kauppa/screenshots/killzone_liberation_psp_01.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=ok alright;30781425]called running with rifles for a reason it isn't meant for the game do you understand this the concept of the game is to wander in deep territory and watching your back for patrols not driving around [editline]29th June 2011[/editline] you are aiming too far, much more things need to be fixed before you go on about adding this fancy shit which is retarded because we all know how well it worked in battlefield[/QUOTE] Your logic is like saying that Minecraft shouldn't have enemies because it isn't mining or crafting. Vehicles would work if implemented correctly. just because the name is Running with Rifles doesn't mean that it is completely running with rifles. Through your logic, grenades should be removed, you should only have 1 weapon, you have to remove the crouch and walk buttons, and you cannot stop moving, WHATSOEVER. Also, remove the knife. Yeah, that would make a great game. Limiting a game because of the name of it is a shitty design choice in my opinion. It's like selling Prototype as a beta version of the game, because if they released the full version, it wouldn't be a prototype anymore. EDIT: Also, grenades are great, not exactly overpowered since everyone can use grenades - if they use them on you, you use them back. It's all equals. It also helps stop camping, and creates a much more varied game, both in small scale (people running away from cover because of grenades), and large scale (this might mean they have to run away from a base, allowing you to kill them more easily and capturing the base, thus allowing people to spawn there, and moving the front lines).

[QUOTE=ok alright;30781425]called running with rifles for a reason it isn't meant for the game do you understand this the concept of the game is to wander in deep territory and watching your back for patrols not driving around [/QUOTE] Although the developer is planning on adding vehicles in the future..

[QUOTE=Tommyx50;30782143]Your logic is like saying that Minecraft shouldn't have enemies because it isn't mining or crafting. Vehicles would work if implemented correctly. just because the name is Running with Rifles doesn't mean that it is completely running with rifles. Through your logic, grenades should be removed, you should only have 1 weapon, you have to remove the crouch and walk buttons, and you cannot stop moving, WHATSOEVER. Also, remove the knife. Yeah, that would make a great game. Limiting a game because of the name of it is a shitty design choice in my opinion. It's like selling Prototype as a beta version of the game, because if they released the full version, it wouldn't be a prototype anymore. EDIT: Also, grenades are great, not exactly overpowered since everyone can use grenades - if they use them on you, you use them back. It's all equals. It also helps stop camping, and creates a much more varied game, both in small scale (people running away from cover because of grenades), and large scale (this might mean they have to run away from a base, allowing you to kill them more easily and capturing the base, thus allowing people to spawn there, and moving the front lines).[/QUOTE] The game isn't that way because of the title, the title is that way because of the game. The whole point of the game is trying out infantry tactics. What good would be taking part of those huge infantry rushes knowing an enemy tank would fuck up the whole assault? Nah, it's better with only infantry: With vehicles, you could get to the other side on the map in no time, and the whole point of the game is running with a squad. The problem with everyone's suggestions is that they complicate the game. Some of us like it the way it is: Simple. If you want to, you can join an assault or go into a stealthy mission alone. you don't have to order your soldiers to lie down or stand by. If you get into cover, your soldiers will do too. You don't have to manage anything, just walk and fire, and it's good just that way. With a good AI, we'll never need an order system, and the AI commander works just fine so no need to have a human commander.

Personally I don't want it to be possible to "Win" competitive multiplayer. Minor victories, yes, of course, like capturing bases from the enemy, but I'd like to be an endless war where it's impossible for one side to actually win it. Maybe there could be a sort of "Area of Influence" around each team's starter area which slowly takes back captured territory if it's unguarded, or makes it a lot easier. For example, if the enemy captures a base deep in your territory, you just have to place a few soldiers there again and it's yours again, or have it automatically be reclaimed after a few minutes. If it was on the border, you'd need to have quite a few more soldiers and a longer period of time. Contrariwise, you have to keep soldiers in enemy territory if you want the bases to remain captured or they'll eventual return to the original owner. I'd also love to see more than two factions, causing wars to break out all over the place. Maybe even (temporary) alliances, both official, (for example, two faction commanders co-operate to take down a major stronghold which is a danger to both sides), and unofficial (for example, two small groups of opposing factions bump into each other while trying to escape enemy territory, and agree to work together to get out alive).

[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;30782900] I'd also love to see more than two factions, causing wars to break out all over the place. Maybe even (temporary) alliances, both official, (for example, two faction commanders co-operate to take down a major stronghold which is a danger to both sides), and unofficial (for example, two small groups of opposing factions bump into each other while trying to escape enemy territory, and agree to work together to get out alive).[/QUOTE] That would be awesome.

[QUOTE=elitehakor v2;30769404]Too bad we can't post threads until pasik approves of them[/QUOTE] I think he doesn't need to do that now. I'm seeing more threads in the other sections besides the news section.

[QUOTE=Uncle_Earl;30782478]The game isn't that way because of the title, the title is that way because of the game. The whole point of the game is trying out infantry tactics. What good would be taking part of those huge infantry rushes knowing an enemy tank would fuck up the whole assault? Nah, it's better with only infantry: With vehicles, you could get to the other side on the map in no time, and the whole point of the game is running with a squad. The problem with everyone's suggestions is that they complicate the game. Some of us like it the way it is: Simple. If you want to, you can join an assault or go into a stealthy mission alone. you don't have to order your soldiers to lie down or stand by. If you get into cover, your soldiers will do too. You don't have to manage anything, just walk and fire, and it's good just that way. With a good AI, we'll never need an order system, and the AI commander works just fine so no need to have a human commander.[/QUOTE] The AI commanding (so far) is limited. It can set the point of where to meet up in extremely dangerous places. The AI refuses to get into cover if you don't, so you can't run forwards and get covering fire. Sometimes the AI just refuses to attack and just sits there (I don't mean defending, I mean literally NOBODY attacks). About the tank thing, if you read my other posts, I have said that it wouldn't need tanks or APC's. I said just jeeps, for faster travel and response, and those would be with lots of drawbacks - [quote=Tommyx50;317733] Vehicles wouldn't ruin it if implemented correctly. For example, they have to be very loud, thus not suitable for stealth missions, and they shouldn't have any on-board weapons, only being able to have people you aren't driving firing their machine guns. It would be more for quick transport, something that is essentially needed for a bigger map. All I would really want is one type of vehicle, a jeep. I don't want tanks, or APCs, since then people inside would be essentially invincible unless grenades were used. Also, the vehicles would have a hard time travelling unless using the roads. They should be a lot slower on dirt, and also the trees and rocks and other things would block their way, so they would be heavily encouraged to use roads. [/quote] Also, I love how "ok alright" is just like "shut up that idea is crap". Makes me really respect him, he's got a strong mind, with all the "no thats not how the game works it doesnt need anything just bugfixes no". Please, use some punctuation. And give valid reason apart from "no that would make the game crap the game isnt made for that shut up". EDIT: [quote=Darth_GW7;143646] Personally I don't want it to be possible to "Win" competitive multiplayer. Minor victories, yes, of course, like capturing bases from the enemy, but I'd like to be an endless war where it's impossible for one side to actually win it. Maybe there could be a sort of "Area of Influence" around each team's starter area which slowly takes back captured territory if it's unguarded, or makes it a lot easier. For example, if the enemy captures a base deep in your territory, you just have to place a few soldiers there again and it's yours again, or have it automatically be reclaimed after a few minutes. If it was on the border, you'd need to have quite a few more soldiers and a longer period of time. Contrariwise, you have to keep soldiers in enemy territory if you want the bases to remain captured or they'll eventual return to the original owner. I'd also love to see more than two factions, causing wars to break out all over the place. Maybe even (temporary) alliances, both official, (for example, two faction commanders co-operate to take down a major stronghold which is a danger to both sides), and unofficial (for example, two small groups of opposing factions bump into each other while trying to escape enemy territory, and agree to work together to get out alive). [/quote] Those are pretty good ideas, but the area of influence should be quite slow. It might not be needed, considering the AI is pretty good at it anyway. Having more than 2 teams would be awesome. For the small-scale though, you should be able to press a button (like E) that would shout out using that text box, something to indicate a temporary alliance, and the other squad leader would be able to press E to verify it.