[QUOTE=spekter;50398000]I really do hope the bullet sponges in the video were just unlucky scenarios.
Having excessive gun porn but having everyone as a bullet sponge is beyond frustrating.[/QUOTE]
I mean, you can see most characters are wearing some type of body armor, which in real life actually matters and isn't just part of your playermodel skin in this game.
Also the guy playing sucks, misses most of his shots, and when he does get kills it's on the people who aren't paying attention.
The worst part of these types of games really is the one guy with a sniper rifle 800m away killing everyone in one bullet so honestly I'm fine with it.
[QUOTE=booster;50396987]That guy at 06:20 should've been dead.
Why can't games ever do shotguns right?[/QUOTE]
While I agree with this sentiment I don't think a game with properly represented shotguns would be terribly well balanced. Shotguns are pretty OP in a scenario where their drawbacks don't really matter (as in a video game), and even if their drawbacks were somehow simulated, it wouldn't really be much fun to play against them.
This game looks like it's going to be incredible - the STALKER feeling is really strong, even without mutants and anomalies. It's a shame the engine will almost certainly never be put to work for that.
[QUOTE=spekter;50398000]I really do hope the bullet sponges in the video were just unlucky scenarios.
Having excessive gun porn but having everyone as a bullet sponge is beyond frustrating.[/QUOTE]
Having every enemy in the game be a bullet sponge in general is a difficult decision in my opinion. You can make it fun, but at the same time having one hit kills rewards the player with having his actions actually look like they have impact.
I think that this is one of the reasons why the first Dooms lasted so long as games, their combat always feels alive and responsive, and that you are actually interacting with the world with your weapons.
They have an excellent blend of both bullet spongy enemies AND constant one hit kill enemies, instead of just having one or the other.
[editline]27th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50398957]While I agree with this sentiment I don't think a game with properly represented shotguns would be terribly well balanced.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you could do a compromise where the shotguns have realistic distance, but take a shitton of time to setup/have poor trajectories instead of having poor range/make shells really rare.
[QUOTE=genkaz92;50399351]Having every enemy in the game be a bullet sponge in general is a difficult decision in my opinion. You can make it fun, but at the same time having one hit kills rewards the player with having his actions actually look like they have impact.
I think that this is one of the reasons why the first Dooms lasted so long as games, their combat always feels alive and responsive, and that you are actually interacting with the world with your weapons.
They have an excellent blend of both bullet spongy enemies AND constant one hit kill enemies, instead of just having one or the other.
[editline]27th May 2016[/editline]
Maybe you could do a compromise where the shotguns have realistic distance, but take a shitton of time to setup/have poor trajectories instead of having poor range/make shells really rare.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying 1 hit kills, more within the reasonable realm of 4/5 maximum. Redux mod for Stalker Call of Pripyat had somewhat even damage values for both the player and NPCs so both of you could go down in a few shots to the chest. It felt fair and made combat way more tense.
A side effect of a system like this is that it helps simulate suppression in a more natural way. Granted some depth blur and reduced accuracy can help but knowing you can drop in a few bullets regardless of who you're up against makes you think a lot more.
Bulletsponge is when you have to empty half a mag or more into someone just to put reasonable hurt on them. Prime example being The Division.
As far as bullet sponge goes, it should be given more realism, Steel/Ceramic Inserts and kevlar vests for certain ballistic ratings should be there. Headshots always instant kills, unarmoured torso shots should be 1/2 hits(A type 2 vest will not stop a 5.56 for instance, but will stop most Pistol calibre's which would make rifles king, as they should be) which adds a bit of depth to the game.
My main gripe, and most people might not agree with me, is actually the Ironsights or most sights in general. An integral part of the game is the gunplay and Holo sights, aimpoints, even ghost rings have a fair(and very unrealistic) disadvantage when it comes to these things. They take up a chunk of the screen unlike reality where it should give you an almost unimpeded view. So it's basically just looking down a camera at the sights rather than the human eye which is a real immersion and fun killer for me.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;50401065]My main gripe, and most people might not agree with me, is actually the Ironsights. An integral part of the game is the gunplay and Holo sights, aimpoints, even ghost rings have a fair(and very unrealistic) disadvantage when it comes to these things. They take up a chunk of the screen unlike reality where it should give you an almost unimpeded view. So it's basically just looking down a camera at the sights rather than the human eye which is a real immersion and fun killer for me.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this is a fairly prevalent issue in shooters. Would be good if they added a dynamic texture change so that the weapon becomes partly transparent when you're aiming down sights.
[QUOTE=Melnek;50396728]the harder it is to survive the less people will be inclined to turn it into an all out deathmatch[/QUOTE]
You have no idea what the people who play this kind of game are like. The harder it is to survive, the more likely they are to kill everyone they see, horde all the resources, and then prevent anyone else from playing the game in as far an area as they can cover. Just look at Hurtworld: that game is pretty much dead and a lot of that has to do with veteran players controlling the map and preventing people from getting anywhere.
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;50401158]It sure looks nice and all, but I have a feeling it's not gonna be anything to get excited over.
Also that field of view is kinda bad and I can't really understand why the devs can't add a slider for it. Unfair advantage is honestly a lame excuse because unless they're going to ship it with no graphical settings at all and locking FPS to a 30 or something as well,
some people have better PCs than others and that sorta is an advantage[/QUOTE]
I can kinda see where they're coming from. People who are stupidly serious about competitive FPS games often put their FOV waaaay the fuck up to a point where they can almost see what's behind them, even if that makes the game almost impossible to look at, because those people don't care about how their game looks, they just want to always be the best at it. So it becomes almost unfair when a normal person is playing it at a normal FOV because they want their game to still look normal. Though they still could have just capped the FOV to a point where you can't go crazy with it but you can still adjust it.
Looks like a lot of fun until hackers.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;50401266]You have no idea what the people who play this kind of game are like. The harder it is to survive, the more likely they are to kill everyone they see, horde all the resources, and then prevent anyone else from playing the game in as far an area as they can cover. Just look at Hurtworld: that game is pretty much dead and a lot of that has to do with veteran players controlling the map and preventing people from getting anywhere.[/QUOTE]
I have a feeling csgo comp players with sniper rifles are going to be the death of this game, yeah. Twitch headshotting you from a mile away with an SVD.
Ouch the moment they showed gameplay It doesn't look that great.
[QUOTE=Melnek;50396910]
why is fov such a big deal anyway[/QUOTE]
because if its below 80-90 fov, I get motion sick after like 20 minutes of play.
[editline]27th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Melnek;50396728]
the harder it is to survive the less people will be inclined to turn it into an all out deathmatch[/QUOTE]
not in a video game. its going to be an all out deathmatch regardless of anything, even worse if materials are hard to come by. this guy has this loot thats hard to find? kill him! this guy has a fucking can of beans and it takes an hour for them to respawn? dead.
[editline]27th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=simkas;50401332]I can kinda see where they're coming from. People who are stupidly serious about competitive FPS games often put their FOV waaaay the fuck up to a point where they can almost see what's behind them, even if that makes the game almost impossible to look at, because those people don't care about how their game looks, they just want to always be the best at it. So it becomes almost unfair when a normal person is playing it at a normal FOV because they want their game to still look normal. Though they still could have just capped the FOV to a point where you can't go crazy with it but you can still adjust it.[/QUOTE]
not really? competitive csgo players never put their fov at any crazy levels. they might put the gun in an odd position, but that isnt a big deal. and yea, they can, just like with games like call of duty, even they do that and let their games go up to like 120 fov. they tell you that a lot of the animations and 1st person stuff will look odd past 80 or so, but they let you do it anyways.
[QUOTE=Pinut;50401387]Ouch the moment they showed gameplay It doesn't look that great.[/QUOTE]
"The moment" they showed gameplay? So the whole video?
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;50401266]Just look at Hurtworld: that game is pretty much dead and a lot of that has to do with veteran players controlling the map and preventing people from getting anywhere.[/QUOTE]
I find it deeply infuriating with how players act in realistic survival scenarios, it feels incredibly existentially disappointing, even though it's probably just because it's a videogame.
There needs to be a realistic game like that which actively punishes people for being selfish cunts, in other words when someone keeps killing people and stealing their shit, they eventually spontaneously combust or violently explode.
[QUOTE=genkaz92;50401937]There needs to be a realistic game like that which actively punishes people for being selfish cunts, in other words when someone keeps killing people and stealing their shit, they eventually spontaneously combust or violently explode.[/QUOTE]
The problem is, any time you implement a system like this, some will complain that it's not actually a sandbox anymore and some people abuse the system to fuck over otherwise valid players. But without any system at all, you have this bullshit scenario where there are no consequences for your actions, despite that definitely not being the case IRL.
PVP survival simulators have a long way to go, at least in my opinion.
[QUOTE=genkaz92;50401937]I find it deeply infuriating with how players act in realistic survival scenarios, it feels incredibly existentially disappointing, even though it's probably just because it's a videogame.
There needs to be a realistic game like that which actively punishes people for being selfish cunts, in other words when someone keeps killing people and stealing their shit, they eventually spontaneously combust or violently explode.[/QUOTE]
This is mainly why I could never get into DayZ. The game-yness of of any online survival scenario seems to make the social aspect just go to pot. When there's no reason to keep other players alive the survival inevitably turn into fucking Battle Royal.
I can't for the life of me figure out a solution to the problem, though, short of sticking to fascistically moderated roleplay servers.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;50402004]The problem is, any time you implement a system like this, some will complain that it's not actually a sandbox anymore and some people abuse the system to fuck over otherwise valid players. But without any system at all, you have this bullshit scenario where there are no consequences for your actions, despite that definitely not being the case IRL.
PVP survival simulators have a long way to go, at least in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
There would also very much need to be failsaves in place to prevent abusing it. And even if it's done in some completely other way, the bottom line is that a realistic survival game like that needs to have a well balanced sense of "good and evil" in it instead of being "Sociopath Simulator"
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;50402085]One way I can think of would be a survival game having actual people sort of work as game masters.
Like imagine people hosting a server could trigger events, post bounties on people who murderboner constantly and other things like that. It'd really give a living, breathing world for the players to survive and thrive in[/QUOTE]
That could be sort of cool, they could have this huge ass RTS-like map where they can see everything that is happening in the game world, as well as getting some statistical tables/GUIS
[QUOTE=Asaratha;50402280]having a godly entity place it themselves kinda takes you out of it, dont you think?[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, having a bit of a deus ex element could give the game a different atmospheric feel, creating an experience of mostly realism and some mythological elements.
[QUOTE=Asaratha;50402326]well unless a survival game comes out with mythological elements, that won't fit at all[/QUOTE]
Still amusing to think about though, you have this ultra gritty realistic scenario with a bunch of dudes in military uniforms running around, scavenging for things like food and weapons, and then suddenly you see a flying pig or a greek god looking dude descending from the heavens and zapping one of you out of existence.
wonder how well increasing respawn time for every person you kill would work out, i know that would disincentivize me from killing randomly
[QUOTE=Asaratha;50402209]you don't need anti-kos measures, that's just ridiculous. you just need to find a way to incentivize grouping or social aspects.
i have 320 hours in H1Z1, and 230 hours in rust. I kill everybody on sight because there is NO REASON not to.[/QUOTE]
I think giving players goals that are ridiculously hard and can only ever be achieved by making players work together could work for that.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50402627]wonder how well increasing respawn time for every person you kill would work out, i know that would disincentivize me from killing randomly[/QUOTE]
Not a bad idea as far as adding consequences to weigh against the advantage of taking someone down, wonder how it'd work in practice though. I imagine it wouldn't deter those few who are literally making a point of acquiring high-end gear ONLY to hunt worse-off players and camp hotspots though.
Incentivizing cooperative gameplay is probably a more surefire option, but I imagine it'd be hard to implement it organically in a way that isn't just about making PvE nigh-impossible (which would shaft solo-players much the same when the groups/clans/parties rule the lands).
Isn't it team-based? I figure TKing players will be punished somehow. The best way to encourage cooperation is to give players ways to interact other than killing each other - such as helping each other heal, boost over high obstacles, etc.
A good idea I've heard about disincentivizing people from killing one another just because they can is actually pretty simple. One of the main roots of the problem with people randomly killing one another is that there is no real reason to keep that other person alive. Since you can do pretty much everything, that means there really is no other reason to let the other person, especially one you don't know, alive for any other reason then to help you kill other players or otherwise force them to do shit they don't want to. A simple solution to this is to make it so that players can't do everything. For example, if you meet up with another player who has the ability to repair and maintain cars (a car mechanic), then you'd want to keep that other person alive so that you'd have the ability to use cars. While this wouldn't completely stop killings, it'd sure reduce them immensely and make it so that players have to work together if they want to actually survive. It's simple and effective, but it does cost the player some control of their game.
[QUOTE=Asaratha;50402209]you don't need anti-kos measures, that's just ridiculous. you just need to find a way to incentivize grouping or social aspects.
i have 320 hours in H1Z1, and 230 hours in rust. I kill everybody on sight because there is NO REASON not to.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50404543]A good idea I've heard about disincentivizing people from killing one another just because they can is actually pretty simple. One of the main roots of the problem with people randomly killing one another is that there is no real reason to keep that other person alive. Since you can do pretty much everything, that means there really is no other reason to let the other person, especially one you don't know, alive for any other reason then to help you kill other players or otherwise force them to do shit they don't want to. A simple solution to this is to make it so that players can't do everything. For example, if you meet up with another player who has the ability to repair and maintain cars (a car mechanic), then you'd want to keep that other person alive so that you'd have the ability to use cars. While this wouldn't completely stop killings, it'd sure reduce them immensely and make it so that players have to work together if they want to actually survive. It's simple and effective, but it does cost the player some control of their game.[/QUOTE]
These guys get it. If someone is put in a situation where keeping a stranger alive directly benefits them and is better than killing that stranger for their stuff, then they are more likely going to try to cooperate.
It's why you need someone else to pick you up or save you from the special infected in L4D.
For Tarkov, maybe you would need someone to bandage a wound on your back since you can't reach it yourself. That kind of thing.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50404543]A good idea I've heard about disincentivizing people from killing one another just because they can is actually pretty simple. One of the main roots of the problem with people randomly killing one another is that there is no real reason to keep that other person alive. Since you can do pretty much everything, that means there really is no other reason to let the other person, especially one you don't know, alive for any other reason then to help you kill other players or otherwise force them to do shit they don't want to. A simple solution to this is to make it so that players can't do everything. For example, if you meet up with another player who has the ability to repair and maintain cars (a car mechanic), then you'd want to keep that other person alive so that you'd have the ability to use cars. While this wouldn't completely stop killings, it'd sure reduce them immensely and make it so that players have to work together if they want to actually survive. It's simple and effective, but it does cost the player some control of their game.[/QUOTE]
Life is Feudal: Your Own has a system like this. There's a LOT of professions, and you can only max out like three. And they won't be combat abilities, since if you want to actually be a decent fighter you need to put practically everything into training your combat skills, which leaves you with almost no ability to forge weapons, build stuff, harvest materials, ect.
Unfortunately the game itself isn't very good for a variety of reasons, but this is a game where within my first 10 minutes a group of bandits on horses actually [b]robbed me[/b] instead of shooting an arrow through my skull and then riding off to find more people to terrorize. That has literally never happened in any MP survival game I have ever played other than this. In Rust someone might try this on a gullible person, but they'll just kill you afterwards anyway to make sure you didn't keep anything.
[QUOTE=simkas;50401855]"The moment" they showed gameplay? So the whole video?[/QUOTE]
Of course?, every other video I've seen linked has been looking at gun models
[QUOTE=Pinut;50407190]Of course?, every other video I've seen linked has been looking at gun models[/QUOTE]
But all of those also showed gameplay? This is pretty far from the first time they've shown gameplay.
[QUOTE=Leintharien;50406264]These guys get it. If someone is put in a situation where keeping a stranger alive directly benefits them and is better than killing that stranger for their stuff, then they are more likely going to try to cooperate.
It's why you need someone else to pick you up or save you from the special infected in L4D.
For Tarkov, maybe you would need someone to bandage a wound on your back since you can't reach it yourself. That kind of thing.[/QUOTE]
Instead of punishing KOS, game should instead reward cooperation. But trust in a game where you die fast is hard to establish. Cooperating with a stranger, knowing that he could off me in the back at any moment, is really intense. Especially if I have valuable stuff on me. And they will feel the same, thus further increasing the tension. Even in Rust if I drop a fresh spawn some gear, when leaving I'm worried he might pull out a gun on me and kill me when I can't even see it coming.
How do you trust someone when you can see they got buttload of guns on their back/hip?
Making that happen naturally is a huge challenge in game design.
You could do it with the idea of having different skills for different people, but Tarkov doesn't have enough different elements to take advantage of that. You also risk of going into "classes" in such a scenario.
And if you trust someone else enough to bandage you, you make yourself a very easy kill for them. At least in Rust you can actually reason with some people because not everyone has a gun that kills you quickly. Here you will be in a firefight long before anything can be said I feel.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
