GrAnit

Changes to make gameplay more interesting

32 posts in this topic

1) Return of the old bunkers

2) Increase infantry rendering to 1200m - so planes can see what hey are bombing

3) PPOs:  Tall and interlocking sand bags, bushes/brush for camp, mines.  Reduce timer on anti-tank PPO.

4)  More variegated colors on destroyed buildings - so it is harder to see infantry (like the very old ruined buildings).

5) Darkened interiors of building  - so infantry can't be as easily seen

6) Reduce the absurd amount roll for vehicles with their engines turned off

7) Climbable river banks

8) Infantry 'jump' ability over ground objects

9) Blast wave effects. Blast wave visual effect that used to be in the game.  

10)  Fill out American vehicle kit.

11) Roof access to most buildings.

12)  ATG damage model 

13) Torpedo planes (Blen, HE111)

 

Edited by GrAnit
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that consistently bugs me that may seem minor - is the ****** WINDOW FRAMES. When you go between crouch and stand inside a building to try to see what ei are coming at you outside and you can't see a thing because a thick white line blocks both views.
I'm not suggesting we should be able to punch them out (but we should be able to punch them out).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.  Need to improve things that effect unrealistic game play.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2018 at 7:14 AM, papagaeio said:

One thing that consistently bugs me that may seem minor - is the ****** WINDOW FRAMES. When you go between crouch and stand inside a building to try to see what ei are coming at you outside and you can't see a thing because a thick white line blocks both views.
I'm not suggesting we should be able to punch them out (but we should be able to punch them out).

Huh?
Can you post a screenshot of that?
I've looked out lots of windows, but either not had this happen or dont understand what you mean

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14  be able to climb trees.

15  PPO FBs

16  2 different sizes of FBs (PPO). 1st one would only support a couple of platoon size units (same tents you see now) Limited on Tanks, Atg, (light equipment) etc.  The next one would be a full out supply which would have a Fuel Dump, Ammo Dump, Motor Pool, Barracks tents, etc. and a place able AI. You would have to place a FB per brigade.

17  500 pound bombs will damage FB (PPO) = 5% damage on a DIRECT hit. 250 pounders = 3% damage on DIRECT hits (or equivalent size metric). It would take a lot of runs with planes to finish the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 Different types of Engies. 1. builds FBs (PPO)  and air fields. 2. Blows up stuff 3. builds bridges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 2:23 PM, GrAnit said:

 

4)  More variegated colors on destroyed buildings - so it is harder to see infantry (like the very old ruined buildings).

 

 

NHnleGL.jpg

5oUYJtK.jpg

Those did make it harder to see inf, and even though very simple had a certain 'desolation of war' sort of charm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, biggles4 said:

NHnleGL.jpg

5oUYJtK.jpg

Those did make it harder to see inf, and even though very simple had a certain 'desolation of war' sort of charm.

A number of years ago, in a discussion of how counter-intuitive game building and marketing is, the Rats told us that game changes to improve camouflage and the "hide-ability" of infantry and other game elements, resulted in their testing in fewer overall kills, and particularly in fewer kills by noobs and less retention of noob subscribers.

The reason is that shooter games like this one have to be designed so that players have something to shoot at.

Most players think of "better camouflage" only from their own perspective: they'll be harder to see, therefore they'll live longer, therefore they'll have more-fun missions.

The design problem is that your targets are better camouflaged too, so you're less likely to spot them and kill them.

Better camouflage tilts the game in favor of defenders, because camouflage only works if you're stationary. More effective defense means fewer successful attacks, and slower game action.

In order to justify adding better camouflage, it'd be necessary to add factors that favor attackers. There are candidates for that: more and longer-lasting smoke and battlefield haze, taller vegetation, more artillery and mortars. But, all of these have other complications. None could be simply introduced. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Silky said:

Capture FB mechanic replacing detonation charge mechanic 

Delete FB mechanic, replacing go build yer own damned FB
:P

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jwilly said:

A number of years ago, in a discussion of how counter-intuitive game building and marketing is, the Rats told us that game changes to improve camouflage and the "hide-ability" of infantry and other game elements, resulted in their testing in fewer overall kills, and particularly in fewer kills by noobs and less retention of noob subscribers.

The reason is that shooter games like this one have to be designed so that players have something to shoot at.

Most players think of "better camouflage" only from their own perspective: they'll be harder to see, therefore they'll live longer, therefore they'll have more-fun missions.

The design problem is that your targets are better camouflaged too, so you're less likely to spot them and kill them.

Better camouflage tilts the game in favor of defenders, because camouflage only works if you're stationary. More effective defense means fewer successful attacks, and slower game action.

In order to justify adding better camouflage, it'd be necessary to add factors that favor attackers. There are candidates for that: more and longer-lasting smoke and battlefield haze, taller vegetation, more artillery and mortars. But, all of these have other complications. None could be simply introduced. 

Theoretically that all may be true.  But fighting battles in the old destroyed building was a lot more fun that fighting in the current set of destroyed buildings.  What keeps people engaged is the level of fun and excitement they feel when they play.  Current cities feel cold and sterile, not realistic.  Add more smoke, city debris, etc - that would be great, but what we have now, although it may 'look' better, plays terribly.  And it is all about gameplay that keeps players interested.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GrAnit said:

What keeps people engaged is the level of fun and excitement they feel when they play.  Current cities feel cold and sterile, not realistic.  Add more smoke, city debris, etc - that would be great, but what we have now, although it may 'look' better, plays terribly.  And it is all about gameplay that keeps players interested.  

Yes, and all of that is important. But revenue results are the bottom line for the company's continued existence. If no-skills-yet noobs are too befuddled by the game's visual realism and never get a kill before being killed, too many of them leave...and don't get to the vet-experience of enhanced "level of fun and excitement" that you want...so CRS loses. 

It's the vertical learning curve again. The negative side of so many elements of realism. I say that as a proponent of maximum realism since the beginning.

Layer this on top of the development cost to revise all the game-graphics for the visual look and functionality we're discussing, and it gets even tougher for CRS. To make the game "better", they have to make a huge-for-them investment, knowing that it'll decrease their ability to get new subscribers.

Consider that there are other things on which they can spend those development resources, about which they have data showing a likely increased subscriber draw. 

I think probably that's a reason why the game world remains pretty much visually simplified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 2:23 PM, GrAnit said:

1) Return of the old bunkers

 

AFAIK, this is already happening. I have no idea why.

The bunkers were completely unrealistic and made for bad gameplay (sitting in a small room with your gun aimed at a wall two feet in front of you). Unless you're a suicidal Japanese soldier on Iwo Jima, this is silly BS (and not fun). When I put on the nostalgia goggles, I have fond memories of tense, desperate bunker defenses...and then I remember how utterly stupid and unrealistic it is to do that in the context of a camped AB, where you run from a spawnpoint to a bunker and pray that you warp enough to avoid the bullets. The more I see that the playerbase is into garbage like this, the more I'm inclined to finally leave this game for good and switch to the new batch of WW2 titles on the horizon (i.e. realistic options like Post Scriptum or Hell Let Loose).

 

Camped spawn points and gameplay consisting of a bunch of players packed in a room like sardines with their guns aimed at the door is *NOT* what the new devs should be aspiring to accomplish.

Edited by xanthus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can’t place a FMS if there’s an enemy FMS within 300m

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** You can’t place a FMS if there’s an enemy FMS within 300m

That's not true; sure you can.

Unless they just changed it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Silky said:

You can’t place a FMS if there’s an enemy FMS within 300m

not sure where you're getting that from - there have been instances where FMS's from opposing sides are within 20m of each other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, xanthus said:

 

AFAIK, this is already happening. I have no idea why.

The bunkers were completely unrealistic and made for bad gameplay (sitting in a small room with your gun aimed at a wall two feet in front of you). Unless you're a suicidal Japanese soldier on Iwo Jima, this is silly BS (and not fun). When I put on the nostalgia goggles, I have fond memories of tense, desperate bunker defenses...and then I remember how utterly stupid and unrealistic it is to do that in the context of a camped AB, where you run from a spawnpoint to a bunker and pray that you warp enough to avoid the bullets. The more I see that the playerbase is into garbage like this, the more I'm inclined to finally leave this game for good and switch to the new batch of WW2 titles on the horizon (i.e. realistic options like Post Scriptum or Hell Let Loose).

 

Camped spawn points and gameplay consisting of a bunch of players packed in a room like sardines with their guns aimed at the door is *NOT* what the new devs should be aspiring to accomplish.

There was nothing more fun than defending those old bunkers.  The hallways were long enough so attackers would not be able to kill you before you see them.  Being killed defending a bunker or cp without having a fighting chance is the bane of this game, and the newer design stink in that regard (sorry Rats).  The old bunkers did not have this problem nearly as badly as the new bunkers do.

As for getting from the spawn point to the bunker, the AB layout then and now have the same issue, and that is not at all what I was taliking about.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GrAnit said:

 The old bunkers did not have this problem nearly as badly as the new bunkers do.

Climbing into the titanium swiss cheese trees and getting 25 kills as a sniper was incredibly fun too, but it was intensely lame and unrealistic.

Best to just remove bunkers from the game once and for all; follow different spawn models (i.e. Post Scriptum) and abandon the cartoony, ridiculous spawn camp warz. Hell, remove the whole "flag building" concept entirely and re-do area capture too...

Edited by xanthus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, B2K said:

not sure where you're getting that from - there have been instances where FMS's from opposing sides are within 20m of each other

It’s a suggestion, what with this being a suggestion thread 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, delems said:

*** You can’t place a FMS if there’s an enemy FMS within 300m

That's not true; sure you can.

Unless they just changed it.

 

It’s a suggestion 

 

you create an authentic front line with FMS  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty much everything graphical needs to follow a single thread of spaghetti tangled in itself and other spaghetti code from 20 years ago (AFAIK)

the ";" are probably going through Bit rot at this point.

 

they need cool ideas for v2 though

 

On 5/18/2018 at 6:25 PM, jwilly said:

A number of years ago, in a discussion of how counter-intuitive game building and marketing is, the Rats told us that game changes to improve camouflage and the "hide-ability" of infantry and other game elements, resulted in their testing in fewer overall kills, and particularly in fewer kills by noobs and less retention of noob subscribers.

The reason is that shooter games like this one have to be designed so that players have something to shoot at.

Most players think of "better camouflage" only from their own perspective: they'll be harder to see, therefore they'll live longer, therefore they'll have more-fun missions.

The design problem is that your targets are better camouflaged too, so you're less likely to spot them and kill them.

Better camouflage tilts the game in favor of defenders, because camouflage only works if you're stationary. More effective defense means fewer successful attacks, and slower game action.

In order to justify adding better camouflage, it'd be necessary to add factors that favor attackers. There are candidates for that: more and longer-lasting smoke and battlefield haze, taller vegetation, more artillery and mortars. But, all of these have other complications. None could be simply introduced. 

this reminded me of the boring uninspired aesthetic trend from the past 10 years: solder guys wearing washed out grey/brown fighting in grey/brown with popping toys and moving like robots.

regardless of engine or team most FPS's fall into that lame trap, even BE had cool explosions, nice grass, satisfying plane sounds, and a whole bunch of other intriguing things. they weren't all great but some great things were sacrificed in order to jump into the lame trap, they're worth remembering or even coming back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, xanthus said:

.Best to just remove bunkers from the game once and for all; follow different spawn models (i.e. Post Scriptum) and abandon the cartoony, ridiculous spawn camp warz. Hell, remove the whole "flag building" concept entirely and re-do area capture too...

The best thing they could possibly do to make this game play like a war, and not like a grand match of cap-the-flag, would be to evolve the MS tech, until all spawning is from player prepped positions. With that you wouldn't even need any sort of capture mechanism, just rules regarding supply lines. 

Edited by biggles4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One idea I posted a long time ago that I believe might be doable would be to vary the algorithms used to place certain objects. I believe that, for instance, the trees in the big forests are placed via algorithms. Using a variety of algorithms, as well as objects, in different parts of the map might liven things up just a little: forests like we have now over here, more pine trees over there, some with more glades perhaps covered in grass, others with more stumps and rocks, yada.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, no algorithms.
The forests are lovingly planted by hand and fertilized with powdered unicorn horn by tiny little elves
(Who of late have taken to painting tar on the elm tree trunks) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.