PDA

View Full Version : R6 and CQB Games -Then and Now: 1998-2006



KungFu_CIA
06-10-2006, 01:14 PM
NOTE: This discussion is about SP as MP is pretty much a more "accurate" depiction of real life CQB as far as speed, agression and accuracy is concerned.


I believe there is a very important issue which has slowly been building ever since the release of Lockdown and that is...

How much change in gameplay and game mechanics is the R6 Community willing to accept before they abandon the R6 series all together?

The reason I bring this up for discussion is because the general sense I get from a lot of posters here and on other R6 message boards is many of the so-called hardcore veterans are just not willing to accept any changes at all and basically want something along the lines of "Rouge Spear II" with better graphics and physics, or "Raven Shield II" with better graphics and physics... But completely ignoring other gameplay aspects which would move the series forward in both a progressive and competitive sense this series needs to be heading in my humble opinion to make it a successful and fun franchise to continue supporting.

Instead of writing an essay on the differences between the original R6 game(s) and real world CQB as well as modern CQB games, I thought I would let some select videos do most of the talking for me.

Rainbow Six: Embassy - 1998

R6 Embassy Video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nv_s4C_G7Hg)

Notice how the gameplay is slow, stealth-like and basically almost as if the player is playing "Splinter Cell", or "Metal Gear Solid".

The Regiment: Embassy - 2006

Embassy Approach (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Izq8yrWfam0&search=the%20regiment)

Notice how the speed is more of a full-on assault.

Inside the Embassy (http://youtube.com/watch?v=qUd1U8KhdCI&search=the%20regiment)

Again, the speed and accuracy required of the player compared to the original R6 is more in-line with real room clearing and CQB tactics: Surprise and overwhelm the enemy before they know what hit them and can mount a counter-attack.

Also, notice at the 1:00 mark in the video how the player dominates his sector of the room (the right side of the room) and his AI team mates dominate their sectors and the Tango goes down without the player having to do anything. This is the kind of AI improvements which need to be made in the next R6 to help bring it up to contemporary standards as far as both realism and tactical first person shooters in general.

....

I am sure there are those who say "The Regiment" appears to play more like "Counter-Strike" or other fast paced games by the looks of the videos... But that is precisely my point to a certain degree!

This notion of playing like you are on an E&E (Escape & Evade) mission using stealth for inflitration and hostage rescue mission is something the original R6 games perpetuated as being a "proper" operating procedure, but the realities of how real HRT and Special Forces operatives conduct CQB operations and the pace at which they move and perform contradict this model.

Granted, there are of course times when stealth is more beneficial than a full-on assult, but for the kind of game R6 is hoping to become in the future... Which I believe is to depict urban hostage rescue mission and CQB... Then I believe the producers need to break away from an erroneous, eight-year old model and start using a more realistic model like shown above.

I also firmly believe the community needs to be willing to accept changes like these and not shout "OMFG! This is supposed to be R6 and not Halo, or BF2!" most importantly of all.

I believe this because if they don't it would then be the community who would be in error in this case and it would be slightly hypocritical of them considering the speed at which most MP (adverserial) matches are played ressembles a more fast paced, run-and-gun style than many want to admit.

Thoughts? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P.S - Here are some real cool videos from "The Regiment" which show where the basis of speed, accuracy and surprise come from and how this is the kind of training the next R6 game should consider instead of just treating the player like an untrained FPS player and not a "real" SF Operative:

Individual Training (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ltkov5Pfkxo&search=the%20regiment)

Wing-Man Training (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KMTJ7bTWMBE&search=the%20regiment)

KungFu_CIA
06-10-2006, 01:14 PM
NOTE: This discussion is about SP as MP is pretty much a more "accurate" depiction of real life CQB as far as speed, agression and accuracy is concerned.


I believe there is a very important issue which has slowly been building ever since the release of Lockdown and that is...

How much change in gameplay and game mechanics is the R6 Community willing to accept before they abandon the R6 series all together?

The reason I bring this up for discussion is because the general sense I get from a lot of posters here and on other R6 message boards is many of the so-called hardcore veterans are just not willing to accept any changes at all and basically want something along the lines of "Rouge Spear II" with better graphics and physics, or "Raven Shield II" with better graphics and physics... But completely ignoring other gameplay aspects which would move the series forward in both a progressive and competitive sense this series needs to be heading in my humble opinion to make it a successful and fun franchise to continue supporting.

Instead of writing an essay on the differences between the original R6 game(s) and real world CQB as well as modern CQB games, I thought I would let some select videos do most of the talking for me.

Rainbow Six: Embassy - 1998

R6 Embassy Video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nv_s4C_G7Hg)

Notice how the gameplay is slow, stealth-like and basically almost as if the player is playing "Splinter Cell", or "Metal Gear Solid".

The Regiment: Embassy - 2006

Embassy Approach (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Izq8yrWfam0&search=the%20regiment)

Notice how the speed is more of a full-on assault.

Inside the Embassy (http://youtube.com/watch?v=qUd1U8KhdCI&search=the%20regiment)

Again, the speed and accuracy required of the player compared to the original R6 is more in-line with real room clearing and CQB tactics: Surprise and overwhelm the enemy before they know what hit them and can mount a counter-attack.

Also, notice at the 1:00 mark in the video how the player dominates his sector of the room (the right side of the room) and his AI team mates dominate their sectors and the Tango goes down without the player having to do anything. This is the kind of AI improvements which need to be made in the next R6 to help bring it up to contemporary standards as far as both realism and tactical first person shooters in general.

....

I am sure there are those who say "The Regiment" appears to play more like "Counter-Strike" or other fast paced games by the looks of the videos... But that is precisely my point to a certain degree!

This notion of playing like you are on an E&E (Escape & Evade) mission using stealth for inflitration and hostage rescue mission is something the original R6 games perpetuated as being a "proper" operating procedure, but the realities of how real HRT and Special Forces operatives conduct CQB operations and the pace at which they move and perform contradict this model.

Granted, there are of course times when stealth is more beneficial than a full-on assult, but for the kind of game R6 is hoping to become in the future... Which I believe is to depict urban hostage rescue mission and CQB... Then I believe the producers need to break away from an erroneous, eight-year old model and start using a more realistic model like shown above.

I also firmly believe the community needs to be willing to accept changes like these and not shout "OMFG! This is supposed to be R6 and not Halo, or BF2!" most importantly of all.

I believe this because if they don't it would then be the community who would be in error in this case and it would be slightly hypocritical of them considering the speed at which most MP (adverserial) matches are played ressembles a more fast paced, run-and-gun style than many want to admit.

Thoughts? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P.S - Here are some real cool videos from "The Regiment" which show where the basis of speed, accuracy and surprise come from and how this is the kind of training the next R6 game should consider instead of just treating the player like an untrained FPS player and not a "real" SF Operative:

Individual Training (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ltkov5Pfkxo&search=the%20regiment)

Wing-Man Training (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KMTJ7bTWMBE&search=the%20regiment)

Woosy
06-10-2006, 01:57 PM
Great post, I belive you're correct KungFu. The thing I like about The Regiment is that it feels authentic, by that I mean the CQB aspect and the movement speed. The tutorial is fab, the AI constantly pushing me to go harder and to go faster "Move your arse, CLEAR!! MAG CHANGE, Clear" etc.. It adds to the immersivness.

I get so in to the gameplay because it's so fast an immersive, when I complete a level I have to take a deep breathe, because most the time I'm holding it. *lol* The challenge within the game is far superior to what Rainbow Six is on many levels. It teaches you how to fire the weapon properly, double tap not full auto, it teaches you to check targets, and concentration while explosions and noise are present.

The other thing thats lacking in R6 IMHO is decision, like in those videos those guys are feigning dead, in R6 everyone would leave them because they know they're dead. For a thinking mans game it hardly does any thinking, bar planning. You never assume anything in this game, dead guys, you put bullets into just to make sure. Hard decisions where hostages have had weapons duct taped to their hands and you have to make a split decision, shoot or smack?

I don't think there is anything wrong with slow movement on a stealth orientated mission, but when that stealth is compromised the transition from stealth to full assault should be shown as fast and aggressive. Unlike SWAT4 which has the feeling your underwear is at your ankles, the speed is too slow.

I think what it comes down to there should be realistic restrictions. Like for example on TR you can shoot through certain material, so a bad guy choosing a wrong place to hide is going to get slotted. When you move and zero in on the target, the move speed is reduced to a walking pace to be able to take that accurate shot. Yet you can if you so wish fire without zeroing in at full speed, but accuracy is all over the place at long distance.

I think that in all honesty needs adding to R6, to make the player who runs and guns firing off like RvS to make their accuracy wack! I mean you can fire the gun un-zeroed in on TR at close range and you can be accurate, but long distance no chance.

I think the only thing TR has in common with Counter-Strike to be honest with you, is that you can pickup weapons. The movement speed is spot on. Ofcourse the game isn't perfect, but for CQB it's way beyond anything Rainbow Six has put out.

I think those who don't want change is their fear of them not being good at the game like previous games. RvS was a good game in certain areas it brought alot to the table, though it lacked in movement transitions from full standing to prone. The ability to run and gun while scoped. Yet half of these things Hardcore gamers want back, I've come to the conclusion there is not such thing as a hardcore fan on Rainbow Six. There is main arguments thats this that and the other is unrealistic, yet they wish to have the run and gun back contradicting realism, or the excuse that you cannot have too much realism or it's no fun. RvS in it's current state is more unrealistic then Counter-Strike, 6 nades and run while scoped something which doesn't happen on CS.

I think if the game was done right with realistic features it would be fun. Increasing the speed to realistic levels no one will accept on here, they prefer Rogue Spear or RvS speed. It's a catch 22, I belive the games downfall will be because it's hardcore fans, who cannot accept change which in fact will make a more realistic and immersive game.

KungFu_CIA
06-10-2006, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:

I think what it comes down to there should be realistic restrictions. Like for example on TR you can shoot through certain material, so a bad guy choosing a wrong place to hide is going to get slotted. When you move and zero in on the target, the move speed is reduced to a walking pace to be able to take that accurate shot. Yet you can if you so wish fire without zeroing in at full speed, but accuracy is all over the place at long distance.

I think that in all honesty needs adding to R6, to make the player who runs and guns firing off like RvS to make their accuracy wack! I mean you can fire the gun un-zeroed in on TR at close range and you can be accurate, but long distance no chance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is something you've mentioned in other posts and I wanted to bring up as well.

I think it is rather interesting no other video game other than Operation Flash Point has addressed the issue of ballistic range properly.

As you say, trained soldiers and operators can fire while on the move at a steady pace and hit targets that are fairly close. Unfortunately, most games model their ballistics in a "one-size-fits all" approach (which I have mentioned numerous times) where if you move in even the slightest direction at all your aim goes all whacked and becomes a randomized cone-of-fire even for targets which are at close range. The difference we are trying to emphasize is that this inaccuracy should be limited to long range targets more than close ranged targets and hopefully the programmers use a realistic definition of what is considered close versus distanst using the metrics of the virtual game world.

Modeling the difference between short and long range correctly would also improve the overall use of scopes and optic enabled weapons and help prevent unrealistic things such as running-while-scoped at the same time promoting more true life realism in the process.

I've also said in the past games need to start treating the movement of the player's weapon and upper torso differently than moving their entire body as this is the critical error in the spreading reticule and pip system almost every single modern combat game uses as well as implementing freelook -- Treating the camera as the player's actual head which can look in directions independent of where they point their weapon -- Which would greatly increase the realism and immersive factor as well as the general fun level of R6 games as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I think those who don't want change is their fear of them not being good at the game like previous games. RvS was a good game in certain areas it brought alot to the table, though it lacked in movement transitions from full standing to prone. The ability to run and gun while scoped. Yet half of these things Hardcore gamers want back, I've come to the conclusion there is not such thing as a hardcore fan on Rainbow Six. There is main arguments thats this that and the other is unrealistic, yet they wish to have the run and gun back contradicting realism, or the excuse that you cannot have too much realism or it's no fun. RvS in it's current state is more unrealistic then Counter-Strike, 6 nades and run while scoped something which doesn't happen on CS.

I think if the game was done right with realistic features it would be fun. Increasing the speed to realistic levels no one will accept on here, they prefer Rogue Spear or RvS speed. It's a catch 22, I belive the games downfall will be because it's hardcore fans, who cannot accept change which in fact will make a more realistic and immersive game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is why I started this thread.

It isn't so much a criticism or condemnation of the R6 Community or its players, but rather a "heads up" about what I feel will be a major issue IF UBI Montreal, and whoever produce R6:5 actually get most of the other gameplay elements right, but change small -- depending on the player's point of view -- Things such as slightly faster player movement speed and the overall pace of the (SP) game. I did not bring up Lockdown at all because it is irrelevant to this disscusion in my opinion.

I am basing this discussion on the presumption the next R6 game will be more true to the original R6 games, but with newer innovations (snake cam) and slight changes which will help move the series forward in the direction it should be heading in my opinion.

JulietHotel13
06-11-2006, 02:33 AM
u know one of the best things i saw in the regiment training video was that your teammate would tell you when he was ready to breach by saying "go" or something like that

Banshee_Wail
06-11-2006, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:

I don't think there is anything wrong with slow movement on a stealth orientated mission, but when that stealth is compromised the transition from stealth to full assault should be shown as fast and aggressive. Unlike SWAT4 which has the feeling your underwear is at your ankles, the speed is too slow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was why I loved the previous rainbow 6 games. You had to use stealth to find where the hostages were secured, and coordinate the assault. If not the AI for the hostage takers would kill a hostage once they had located rainbow. A blend of stealth and speed as the siuation dictated.

PS Is there any way to get a copy of the regiment in the states.

KickURanus
06-11-2006, 10:04 AM
Hasn't anyone seen S.W.A.T.! What could be more real than that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

But seriously, I disagree with everyone saying that a full on assault is the way to go. The huge firefights when somone gets a non-silenced shot off in R6 are amazing. Another thing is R6 is not exactly a normal SWAT resuce game. R6 battles well experienced soldiers and the like, not just amature hostage takers.

Sorry emergency have to go ill finish up later... and make it more clear =P

Woosy
06-11-2006, 11:50 AM
I have a different view on it I guess. You see on the first level on Rainbow Six the bad guys had killed innocent people? The time to be stealthy goes out the window, you need to be hard and aggressive, thats how it's done. You need to hit mutiple places of entry at the exact same time while being loud to disorinate the enemy, you know for a fact they will shoot at you, they killed no problem before. Now if for instance they didn't kill anyone and where asking for demands maybe stealth could be an option. But like the real embassy siege they shot a hostage stealth goes out the window it's a hard and fast assault, which happens in TR.

Some levels I can see the need for stealth others not, like the chemical lab where you would need to be careful with chemicals getting released or hijacked plane on Rogue Spear, due to the difficult position of the hostages. but like I say when you need to switch from stealth to full out assault the transition must be sublime.

You're fogetting these people are Special Forces not SWAT, half the missions they go on are hard and agressive. For example British Embassy Siege, The Moscow Thearte Siege, The Beslan school hostage crisis. They looked at stealth first, in each of these three occasions stealth was considered but dropped from use and full out assault was done.

Doing it the stealth way like you suggest would put more lives in jepardy, like in the Moscow Theatre Siege there was 900 hostages and 45-50 bad guys mainly women combatents. They used a gas to knock them out, which worked and when they breached they shot most of them point blank in the head while unconcious. Bad problem is it killed 130 of the hostages, but it was classed as a successful mission with an impossible outcome. To do that Stealth I think they would of set off their bombs, they had them strapped to their bodies which puts body shots out the question, and if you're compromised game over they will set them off, I believe the Alpha Group said they saw the gas as the only way. You need to weigh the outcomes, stealth looks good but "IF" you're compromised it not only puts you in danger but the hostages.

Here I uploaded some short Video's (http://www.cdek.co.uk/SFVideos.zip) of a stealth reconstruction by the SAS and their entry methods and full assault sop's. I think what makes me laugh about them so much, is that in the ministry one, he chucks the flash bang with his left hand while the entry guy has made entry. Something people who play Lockdown scream unreal it's impossible to throw and pull with one hand. *teehee* You will need to use Medica Player classic in the folder to play the videos.

Yen Lo
06-11-2006, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Banshee_Wail:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:

I don't think there is anything wrong with slow movement on a stealth orientated mission, but when that stealth is compromised the transition from stealth to full assault should be shown as fast and aggressive. Unlike SWAT4 which has the feeling your underwear is at your ankles, the speed is too slow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was why I loved the previous rainbow 6 games. You had to use stealth to find where the hostages were secured, and coordinate the assault. If not the AI for the hostage takers would kill a hostage once they had located rainbow. A blend of stealth and speed as the siuation dictated.

PS Is there any way to get a copy of the regiment in the states. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I orderd my copy online dunno if it will ever make it to the stores.

Banshee_Wail
06-11-2006, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yen Lo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Banshee_Wail:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:

I don't think there is anything wrong with slow movement on a stealth orientated mission, but when that stealth is compromised the transition from stealth to full assault should be shown as fast and aggressive. Unlike SWAT4 which has the feeling your underwear is at your ankles, the speed is too slow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was why I loved the previous rainbow 6 games. You had to use stealth to find where the hostages were secured, and coordinate the assault. If not the AI for the hostage takers would kill a hostage once they had located rainbow. A blend of stealth and speed as the siuation dictated.

PS Is there any way to get a copy of the regiment in the states. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I orderd my copy online dunno if it will ever make it to the stores. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have a link for a place that will ship to the U.S.
Thanks

KungFu_CIA
06-11-2006, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KickURanus:

But seriously, I disagree with everyone saying that a full on assault is the way to go. The huge firefights when somone gets a non-silenced shot off in R6 are amazing. Another thing is R6 is not exactly a normal SWAT resuce game. R6 battles well experienced soldiers and the like, not just amature hostage takers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The main issue we're discussing stems from a strictly game design model/perspective and what Redstorm used to define R6 as being "tactical" in SP. Those two things were:

A) Stealth.

B) The damage model which doesn't allow the actors (player or AI) to take many hits before dieing.

That's all.

This wasn't a bad model for the time, 1998, and it helped spawn its own subgrene among the first person shooter genre as a result.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of stuff the series left out and has continually left out in favor of establishing and maintaining a brand and subgenre identity more than anything else, and perhaps it is time for a real, progressive move forward in the actual gameplay and not just in name or theory?

Since Raven Shield is the latest version of a true R6 game...

Why didn't they include fiber optic "snake" cams, or being able to mirror under doors like in SWAT4 if they were going for a stealth-like approach?

If R6 has such detailed blue prints of a building then why don't they know exactly where the hostages are and exactly where the Tangos are?

Why?

Because these elements are part of the design model which emphasizes a much slower pace than your average arcade shooter... But I am positing this is a false model and it is far from being realistic as much as R6 fans and the producers claim it mimics real life.

Don't get me wrong.

I like the gameplay concessions R6 made/makes to maintain itself as a game, first and foremost, and not a simulation. I am also aware most sim-games do not sell as many units as games which are more open to the public and I don't have any preconceived notions UBI wants to make such a sim-type game either.

However, what I think UBI and R6:5's producers can do if they are so inclined is put in more realistic elements which reflect more true-to-life factors -- Such as a faster pace when assaulting -- Thereby actually changing the style of play that has been established over the past eight years, and by doing so, it chanages the gameplay in a positive way that won't have fans screaming they are "dubming it down", or making the series any less realistic in the process.

I realize there is a fine line between making a game both fun and realistic at the same time...

But I think as a franchise like R6 evolves it needs to really evolve in every sense of the word and not just be a rehash of the same old thing with prettier graphics and more complicated physics.

I also acknowledge the old adage of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" should also be listened to, but at the same time listening to this adage too much can lead to stagnation in the long run and this is what I feel R6 has run into as other CQB games and tactical shooters seem to actually be evolving and giving players a more true-to-life experience which many R6 fans claim they want on one level, but then as Woosy said, aren't willing to accept out of fear of change alone.

It's a double-sided issue and is why I decided to open this thread up for discussion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Woosy
06-11-2006, 12:41 PM
Thats one thing I never understood about SWAT4, say you're going to breach a building. Just like SF you know the layout via blue prints, but we peak under the door. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif So now when we breach and chuck a flash bang in everyone knows we're coming, it contradicts stealth, as now I've got to go room by room looking under doors with a mirror, see thats the flaw of the game there is no transition from stealth to full assault it's wand each room. *lol* It's too slow and tedious, I skip the wand and flash room by room and clear it out it's more efficient. Time is of the essence wanding each room seems really silly but funny when you've been compromised.

Relenquish
06-11-2006, 02:48 PM
TR was to hard to be really open to a large market. However what really made it stand out to those people who actually took the time to get good at is was how much it made you think. How much you got immersed in it. UBI and indeed the rest of the gaming industry, would do well to try and learn from what TR achieved.

I have always been one to believe the true test of a mans brain is not if he can solve the problem, but how quickly he can solve it.

A few things need to, imo, be changed about the series to bring it up to time.

1) is them putting in so many easy ways out. Being able to sit in a smoke cloud and the terrorists do nothing whilst you shoot them. Being able to see though walls. The whole idea of team rainbow is they are elite highly trained and are not reliant on the AIs stupidity, or on super human abilities. The whole idea is to challenge the gamer to be skilled.

2) add in more thinking. I am basically talking about the kind of things TR does. Fake deaths, fake hostages, trip wires, pushing you to think more quickly, under preasure, with distractions about. Advantage the person that thinks. More stuff like take out the CCTV guy and you can enter the building more easily.

3) More realism. Make it feel more real. Better damage model, shooting model, AI, environment. It doesnt have to fit in with RL perfectly, but it has to feel like it could. What this achieves most is immersion. And that is key I feel in this game, that you really feel in control of this worlds best trained soldiers. Also if a hostage dies life goes on for the team. The objective may be failed, but your team still has to get out of there.

KungFu_CIA
06-11-2006, 03:45 PM
You make excellent points, Relenquish.

The key issue here, though, as I personally see it is the average American gamer does not want to think when they play a game. Especially, a first person shooter, tactical or not.

P.S. - I am not talking about competitive E-Sports as they are not that big in the U.S. and are irrelevant to this discussion at this point in time

The only amount of "thinking" and strategy you see in video games these days are in the sports and RTS (Real Time Strategy) games because this is an integral part of those genres appeal and success. Compare this to the first person shooter genre and you will find the word "think" is used very little -- if at all -- Due to lazy SP game design which is either:

A) Scripted and linear.

Thus, it forces the player down a certain path -- figuratively and literally -- In order to tell a story and deliver a cinematic, Hollywood-type experience ala Half-Life and other titles.

I brought this up a long time ago on the Lockdown Forums when we had a big discussion about how most games are now designed as so-called "interactive movies" more than games.

B) The Clarity of Experience which CliffyB (Unreal Tournament) cites and was brought into discussions on these forums after Lockdown was released due to its scripted and linear design as well.

Most games go overboard with the CoE because they hand-hold/spoon-feed the player with absolutely everything he/she needs to know in order to walk-themselves through the game to get to the next objective.

There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to make sure the player knows exactly what they should be doing as the frustration of not knowing what they are supposed to be doing can cause players to actually stop playing the game until they figure it out...

But it has gotten to the point where games aren't even games anymore and are just interactive excersizes -- not even really interactive movies in the strictest sense -- And nothing more...

Which is why the appeal and attraction of Multiplayer Gaming has taken such a huge hold over video games on all platforms due to its unscripted and unpredictable nature.

It is an ironic twist because even though MP is highly unpredictable and unscripted players seem to more easily adapt and actually have to think, I.E. use tactics, to overcome their opposition whether it is another player, or the AI in CO-OP situations compared to the "dumbed down" SP experience most games are now shipping with as an after-thought.

So, again, from my limited perspective, it is a simple case of supply and demand.

Most gamers in the U.S. are young (teens to 20s) on average and have spoken loud and clear they don't want to think when they sit down and play a first person shooter which is why games like Counter-Strike and other non-tactical games are the prferred games of choice in terms of units sold compared to Rainbow Six, The Regiment, Operation Flashpoint, etc.

Yen Lo
06-11-2006, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Banshee_Wail:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yen Lo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Banshee_Wail:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:

I don't think there is anything wrong with slow movement on a stealth orientated mission, but when that stealth is compromised the transition from stealth to full assault should be shown as fast and aggressive. Unlike SWAT4 which has the feeling your underwear is at your ankles, the speed is too slow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was why I loved the previous rainbow 6 games. You had to use stealth to find where the hostages were secured, and coordinate the assault. If not the AI for the hostage takers would kill a hostage once they had located rainbow. A blend of stealth and speed as the siuation dictated.

PS Is there any way to get a copy of the regiment in the states. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I orderd my copy online dunno if it will ever make it to the stores. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have a link for a place that will ship to the U.S.
Thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

try www.gogamer.com (http://www.gogamer.com) they had it sunday nite.

JulietHotel13
06-11-2006, 11:52 PM
heres a video i found on youtube of what seems to be 1st SFOD-D with the 160th SOAR...this is a hostage rescue mission... http://youtube.com/watch?search=delta+force&v=Rmrr5FDfAzA

The-Pizza-Man
06-12-2006, 05:58 AM
Forgive me if I'm going over something that has already been said, but I'm in kind of a hurry and don't really have time to read the last half dozen posts.

One thing that I have noticed about the stealth and infiltration needed in the rainbow games is that it is more a result of map design rather than gameplay mechanics.

The only reason I find it neccessary to use stealth in the missions in R6, RS and RvS is because the distance between your insertion and the number of tangos between you and the hostages is so great.

The levels require that you infiltrate to a point where you are able launch a fast assault. For example, in Met, the first level of RS. I infiltrate up to the immediate rooms around where the hostages are held. Then I flashbang and hit the room with 2 teams coming from either door as fast as I can. If I were to do it any slower one or more hostages would end up dead.

Now the reason that I can't take that fast paced aggressive approach from the insertion point is primarily because the tangos are very numerous. They outnumber my guys by 5 to one or so. They also out number the hostages by an even greater margin. This is not realistic, or so I am told.

The consequence of this is that I don't have weight of fire neccessary to decisively win engagements unless I move carefully and pick off the enemies in individually or in small groups, they can either kill my team because they out number them greatly or are able to kill hostages while I'm pinned down by numerically superior tangos.

There is also the underlying problems with AI, movement and weapons handling. Both your team's and the tangos. They entirely lack the ability to reliably engage tangos except in the most controlled circumstances, on the move or otherwise. The tango AI is also pretty shocking. They seem to have very little knack for self preservation, but they also have frustratingly quick reflexes, further neccessitating taking them by suprise using stealth. The problems with movement and weapons handling have been covered by others.

My suggestion for addressing this issue is to make the size of your assault team larger, something more platoon sized. Make the platoon be controlled hiearchial(sp?) manner. You'd have 2 maybe 3 large sections(8-12 men), but each of those would have 2 or 3 fireteams(3-4 men) that operate in support of each other, plus independent snipers. Then get stuck into the AI. Bottomline is that it has to be effective. This is very important if there are going to be fireteams that have to operate cohesively as a section.

But anyway, I've got to go. Talk more later.

KungFu_CIA
06-12-2006, 07:35 AM
Pizza-Man raises another interesting point someone else even noticed in the new "Vegas" Xbox360 video and that is the Tango and hostage numbers seem to be at more realistic numbers this time around in there are one or two Tangos controlling a room full of hostages which is far more realistic than previous games.

I think what drives this point home is the often used example of the 1979, Iranian hostage crisis which called for 40 members of Delta Force and other supporting forces to storm the U.S. Embassy where only a handful, ten or so, Iranian militants had siezed 70 hostages.

Woosy
06-12-2006, 08:41 AM
There is alot of things missing thats why. If the Met was to be realistic done IRL, they would cut the power to the building just as they breach using NV goggles and use the supressed MP5SD. They would rappel though level 2 and clear that, while other teams assault from multiple positions using gas causing confusion. With the terrorists blind and being taken out with ease, a full assault is possible, they won't pick the front door and pick them off one by one, defeats the point of mutiple teams.

The original Rainbow Six, and Rogue Spear you can be loud if you like. I've never failed it the AI is just bad at situational awareness, RvS is a different story, be loud on HR and they will kill, same if you're spotted. What Rainbow Six needs is dynamic entry. I should be able to use as many entry points, cut power to the building causing darkness, use a harvey wall banger to cause a distraction while I breach with supressed weapons.

Here is an example, Bank on RvS there is no stealth way on this. We take out the guy in the video room, just as he goes down breach the front doors with breaching charges and cover the reception. Kill the bad guys work to the second floor kill the sniper and men on the first floor, while thats going on a second team breaches the side doors and heads for the vault.

Team 1 heads to the vault via the main room puts breaching charges on the door, team two flash bangs, charges go off and full breach the vault. It has to be quick! Team 1 heads in to the vault hostage is safe, team 2 is taking out the bad guys in the office, then you head upstairs to where all the information is gonna be destoryed and use the two teams to breach at the same time. *lol* Can't stealth it by using the door peak you fail.

If we did that stealth in co-op, we would die, the hostages would die, which happened alot finding the best method. The only true stealth level on RvS is the penthouse, the only stealth level on Rainbow Six is that womans house that needs bugging.

Rogue Spear it's the Plane, even that game gave us dynamic entry they gave us the fuel truck as cover. There is no point utilising mutiple teams and planning if you're not going to use them efficiently IMHO. I mean look, I send 1 team in the planes cargo, clear it out and hold once on the first floor stair of the plane. Shoot the tango on the stairs via sniper, second team waiting under the stairs works it's way up the stairs and we mutiple breach level 1 on the plane at the same time, AI doesn't even know what hit it.

There is that level on the Dam, but that level is so HUGE that you need mutiple teams to clear it out. Takes alot of planning to do right, but there should be other ways disabling the power etc.. It takes me about 4-5 minutes to complete that mission in full assault mode, and that feels like an acomplishment with no men dead.

There needs to be what Relenquish said which I agree on from TR, more thinking in the game, there just isn't enough, for whats dubbed the thinking mans game. People feiging dead, claymores to be disarmed, hostages with guns duct taped to their hands, the immersion is amazing. Would be good to have the ability to cut the power to the bulding, hack into their CCTV and do planning, gather intel like that. They done it well on Splinter Cell it adds a whole new element to the game.

DreamMarine
06-12-2006, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:
I don't think there is anything wrong with slow movement on a stealth orientated mission, but when that stealth is compromised the transition from stealth to full assault should be shown as fast and aggressive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's the way it should be done. Don't overreact in bringing R6 from a stealth orientated game to a fully fast paced game!

I remember a lot of missions in the previous R6 games, where exactly this stealth like gameplay gave me so much suspense and immersion. These were outdoor sceneries mostly. (Villages, jungle, big estates, etc) If you were forced to rush constantly through these sceneries, you would lose a lot of suspense and ambience of these maps.

DreamMarine

JulietHotel13
06-12-2006, 11:07 AM
what i think they should do is some how balance these 2 things out

KungFu_CIA
06-12-2006, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JulietHotel13:
what i think they should do is some how balance these 2 things out </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may be the hardest part of all and perhaps why I subconsciously started this thread.

As I said, stealth has its advantages... Like in larger maps where there is sensitive material or objectives that must be secured at all costs like Hostages or information the Tangos are going to destroy if they detect you.

However, the problem is the devs apply this stealth model to the entire game when it isn't realistic, nor it is necessary.

Woosy gave a great example using The Met.

At this point, fictional negotiations are over. It is time to kick-arse and take no prisoners and I *think* this is the kind of model that should be applied to more of the game overall, but it isn't, and this is where I think there is a lot of room to start moving in this direction without turing the game into something less tactical, or what long-time R6 fans like myself want.

A lot of you have brought up good points about how the game's various elements are all designed to favor stealth versus full-on assault and this is also precisely why I started this thread in an effort to see if any of you feel the same way in that perhaps this series has gotten stagnant and is now following an out-dated and highly unrealistic model compared to lower-budget titles like "The Regiment" which actually recreate and depict the realities of what a real CQB operation would be like.

Also, it's not just "The Regiment" that seems to be making real progress in this genre either. Older games like "Operation Flashpoint" with features like free-look and interactive insertions seem to be more advanced and realistic than the current Rainbow series is and these are things I believe the devs need to seriously consider instead of just making R6:5 just another first person shooter with real world weapons, locations and scenarios and a less-forgiving damage model. Those few elements just aren't going to "cut it" anymore in my opinion which is why this discussion exists.

Defuser
06-12-2006, 01:07 PM
This is an excellent thread, really interesting reading, excellent points brought up by all!

I think the general consensus among all here is that the old 'stealth until the last possible second with ultra forgiving AI' is not going to cut it anymore... Primarily because it is not an accurate depiction of special forces activity. Secondly, it is simply not an exciting game device to use in order to ratchet up the tension, which is what SHOULD be in plentiful supply on a hostage rescue mission. The Regiment achieves this tension, the original tension you felt when storming the embassy in the original R6 before you got wise to the fact that you could take as long as you liked if silenced. The Regiment MAKES you move fast because it is paramount that you do, as any R6 game should.

What The Regiment completely lacks is any stealth dynamic - the whole of the game is one non-stop balls to the wind assault, something which I think hurt its standing in reviews and the general gaming public as there was no variable pacing - the whole game was one huge speed run. This is not a problem for most players, but it alienated a large amount of those used to playing first person shooters because you were right in at the deep end - there was no ponderous lining up of the shot or cracking open doorways. It was do it right now in the right way or die - as it precisely should be, but those raised on a diet of treacle-slow shooters like SWAT4 (and especially SWAT3) couldn't understand the immediate full speed. This is not a problem regards The Regiment as a game per se - the only stealth that could be afforded in the game is that of moving into position to get ready for the assault, and since we're already there when the missions kick off, there's no need for it.

There is an unrealistic expection in games like R6 that there should be either a ludicrously slow pace to accomodate for technicality (SWAT series) or an disorientatingly fast one to account for the speed of an assault at the expense of such technicality (The Regiment). R6 sits somewhere in the middle, during both the stealth sections and the loud sections. This is completely wrong because I think the whole game dynamic should fundamentally change when you get compromised - just as it does in a real-life assault.

SWAT3 got somewhere close to achieving this because the devs recognised that the whole pace of an assault changes when the first shot is fired or the first officer is spotted (or does ANYTHING that reveals their presence to the larger terrorist threat). They had a 'stealth' versus 'dynamic' setup that worked quite well considering how needlessly technical the SWAT series are, and how ridiculously slow they are. The pace DID increase when you went dynamic, exactly as it should, plus it was very difficult to get back to a stealth mode after going dynamic (as in real life, once you're compromised, THAT'S IT. Forget slowing down and switching to silenced weapons, once they know you're there, you're going loud). The game did reflect the nature of speeding up, commands were shouted instead of whispered, the player's speed increased (as did your wingmen), the options for tactical entry were expanded to include dynamic options. SWAT3 has a high level of tension because of this unforgiving prospect - once the first shot is fired, the heat is on. It may lack the flexibility of a typical R6 mission, but it preserves the tension of an assault by preserving the consequences.

You may remember in a thread a while back now I tried to push for a 'loud versus quiet' game dynamic that didn't exactly take flight. I think that sort of thing is needed to return the game to where it should be - the speed and excitement of a fast-paced assault, coupled with the tension and nerve-wracking moving into position to commence the assault. Throw in more dynamic entry styles (of which the Rainbow of the book made extensive use), a command system which reflects the difference in disciplines between loud and quiet in an ergonomic and simple way (I tried but failed!) and you'd have a recipe for success.

KungFu_CIA
06-12-2006, 02:31 PM
Defuser brings up some critical points I want to discuss further.

I finally got my hands on "The Regiment" and it is one of the best CQB games I have ever played because it does everything a game like R6 should do, but does them better -- from training to actual missions -- And also it does these things more realistically with little nuances like the fact even though you are conducting your part of the raid, you can hear your fellow squads conducting their part of the larger operation above and below you (Embassy) and there is tons of aural (audio) information going on to the point of overload... Let alone the visual elements of trying to stay alive amid gunfire and other simoltaneous things bombarding your senses at the same time.

However, I also agree this may have been one of the elements which may have turned "The Regiment" off to a lot of potential gamers just like Defuser said.

The amount of aural and visual information that must be processed in the game borders on information overload to the point where even the most hardened first person shooter fan can become disoriented and out-right confused. I admit, I did in the first mission (Embassy), but I stuck with it because not only was it so damn much fun, but I quickly reminded myself this is what is missing from most combat games, CQB-oriented or not: Communication and general ambience/ambient noises associated with a military operation at its peak.

I think the big reason this is a huge turn off to a lot of first person shooter fans is because even in the MP arena where most first person shooters are now played, the amount of information the player recevies and processes is still very limited and filtered out by not only the game itself, but by the player's own devices as well.

Aside from listening to your fellow team members on a VIOP channel, the only things you see and here in an MP game like R6 are grenade explosions and gunfire which is still very controlled and limited when compared to what "The Regiment" throws at you.

I believe this is a big factor in what determines ones enjoyment of a game because we have to acknowledge people play games... Even violent games like R6... To relax (more or less) and a game like "The Regiment" is not that type of game.

Games like "The Regiment", OFP and similar games cause the player to become an active participant a hell of a lot more than your average shooter (including Raven Shield) to a certain degree. By active, I mean the player has to really think -- observe, plan, adapt on-the-fly -- At a much faster rate than in most games. Even in a championship Quake III match, the player(s) are only concentrating on one thing and that is their opponent... Which is my point.

So, the question now becomes perhaps the devs should consider the real differences between stealth and dymanic game modes and incorporate these differences into the game to account for the fact they are entirely different forms of operating?

Also, if they did this it would actually give players more freedom to play the way they want in the long run because if the AI (both sides) can adapt to a certain style of play -- and of course, change accordingly once the style of play changes -- Then this would be another step closer to the realsim the R6 franchise claims it promotes.

In an ironic twist, as arcade-like and "dumbed down" as the console versions of R6 (R63; Black Arrow) are the one thing they do well is they make no bones about the fact they are faster paced games than the PC counter-parts.

It may be a so-called run-and-gun style game from the start... But this doesn't make the console versions any less realistic in this aspect because the AI is programmed to expect a full-on assault and is very unforgiving in you still have to use tactics like flanking and placing your shots in order to complete the levels because the one-hit-kill and more serve damage model is still active in the console versions as it is in the PC versions.

In fact, the AI in Black Arrow acts almost like real people do in MP matches because they are programmed to not just stand there like statues as in Raven Shield, but to seek cover if they see you and call for back-up and even blind fire to try and supress you and your team until help arrives. They also take an active role in hunting the player and their team down (from the start) instead of just patrolling certain zones. This shows a conscious decision on the part of the Black Arrow devs that they acknowledge what kind of game and gameplay dymanics Black Arrow is built around and it is this specific differentiation I believe the next R6 game for PC needs to looking closely at as Defuser said.

Great discussion everyone. Keep it coming http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yen Lo
06-12-2006, 04:58 PM
I thought the timer and score should have been optional till you get used to the speed of the game, it did get old getting 74.63 or 73.87 percent and still not passing the level. Though I generally did enjoy the game and will return to it someday.

KungFu_CIA
06-12-2006, 07:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yen Lo:
I thought the timer and score should have been optional till you get used to the speed of the game, it did get old getting 74.63 or 73.87 percent and still not passing the level. Though I generally did enjoy the game and will return to it someday. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Putting the timer and scoring aside...

The great thing about "The Regiment" R6 needs to implement is actually training the player on how supposed real* SF Operators and CQB room-take downs are done.

*I am going to assume the techniques have been declassified and are probably out-dated by now which makes them safe to be put in a mass consumer product like a video game

This is the one single factor I come away with from TR besides the "speed and accuracy" mantra they drill into your head while playing.

As Relenquish, Woosy and others have said, the level of immersion in TR is not equaled by any other CQB game on the market right now because it does one thing incredibly well:

It lets the player become an SAS member within the bounds of the virtual world the game creates.

R6, SWAT 3 & 4 and similar games don't do this because:

A) They let the AI do most of the actual room clearing and thus, the player is a passive spectator who usually stands back and watches.

B) The training included in the games emphasizes the more general aspects of how to use the AI and advanced equipment, but once again takes the focus off the player having to learn an actual skill he/she can use while playing the game.

I understand why this isn't a great area of concern from most developers as the general assmption is most video game players want to just jump right in and play and will figure things out for themselves... And the fact most of the "tactics" used online are in fact video game tactics and do not even remotely mimic real life in a number of ways...

But again, this is the point of this thread.

Perhaps there should be more of a focus on the actual training as this is one area where immersion in the game world can be accomplished right from the start before the main campaign is played?

Some of you already brought this up on previous threads a few months ago and now I see exactly why you did and I fully agree with this approach because training -- even in a virtual sense -- Is changing the player to be something they normally aren't which is the key to effective immersion and increasing the feeling they are an active participant in the game.

If the devs took this kind of approach then we would not have to worry about them trying to cram "characterization" down our throats because this is another thing TR does incredibly well:

It treats the player as him/herself and thus the success and failure of the player has a much greater emotional impact than if they were playing Ding Chavez, or Logan Keller for example.

This is the kind of immersion Stuart White was going for with Lockdown, but he failed to realize this immersion comes from letting the player be him/herself and allowing the player to fail as him/herself and not trying to create a world full of cliched stereotypes and offensive, childish dialogue which was supposed to mimic real life SF Operators.

JulietHotel13
06-13-2006, 10:13 PM
what ubisoft has to remember is that the Rainbow Six Team is not made up of one character but many and so if they plan on putting a story line behind one person theyre gonna have to put one in all of them which usually come out to be a really stupid one...so ubi dont do that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Woosy
06-14-2006, 08:14 AM
I think the training tutorial aspect of the game would be welcome. It's one thing I think most people would accept, when the expectation is this is a thinking persons game and in-depth. You compare the Training on TR to Raven Shields and I laugh immensely.

Ironicly the training in R6 makes no sence to me or a first time player. The intel lady exlains the teams and go codes but it's so basic doesn't really say how you put them in the game, no room clearing techniques. And when it comes to the shooting of targets no controlled bursts, it's check out each weapon, each paper target is a bad guy no good guys, no thinking involved. *lol* It's a waste of level design which could of been used more efficiently.

Where as TR explained entry and room dominating while being aggressive. It explained how your wingman works, accuracy, controlled bursts and take downs. Since it's forced on the player he/she knows what to do, when they hit the missions, though I think it should be optional.

I think the storyline aspect including team members is a catch 22, they need to be added to the storyline to add depth, but not in the way of Lockdown where it was in your face otherwise it's too distracting. Having no characters at all makes the storyline have no depth, which to be honest all of them have, because they where lacking depth. Didn't need to do it with TR, they're anonymous from the start, where as R6 names eveyone.

KungFu_CIA
06-14-2006, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:
I think the training tutorial aspect of the game would be welcome. It's one thing I think most people would accept, when the expectation is this is a thinking persons game and in-depth. You compare the Training on TR to Raven Shields and I laugh immensely.

Ironicly the training in R6 makes no sence to me or a first time player. The intel lady exlains the teams and go codes but it's so basic doesn't really say how you put them in the game, no room clearing techniques. And when it comes to the shooting of targets no controlled bursts, it's check out each weapon, each paper target is a bad guy no good guys, no thinking involved. *lol* It's a waste of level design which could of been used more efficiently.

Where as TR explained entry and room dominating while being aggressive. It explained how your wingman works, accuracy, controlled bursts and take downs. Since it's forced on the player he/she knows what to do, when they hit the missions, though I think it should be optional. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is interesting how the foundations of TR-style training exist the actual Raven Shield Room Clearing and Hostage Rescue maps, specficially.

What the R6 training maps emphasize is how to use your AI team to clear rooms for you more than how the player can become a "real" SF Operator.

I was messing around with Unreal Ed and I might actually alter the training maps to be more TR-like (for both SP and MP CO-OP) complete with marks on the floor* where you (the player) are supposed to stand because just out of curiosity, I mimiced how TR trains the player and it actually works in Raven Shield to some degree because in TR it forces the player to be the point-man/breacher and by doing so, this allows him/her to basically "control" the AI and use them to their fullest...

Meaning, we know the R6 AI in Raven Shield is dumb as rocks... But not if the player is the one who takes an active role in breaching the room as point man/woman because then they just follow the player in and actually spread out once you get through the door.

This never occured to me... And I bet many others who played Raven Shield... That this may be the best way to "use" the AI -- More like back-up then an actual "intelligent" CQB room clearing team.

It is ironic how a brand new game like TR actually can improve a three-year old game like RVS as far as single player goes... And I also think it really does address the issue of why the R6 AI is really as bad as it is in the game. It is meant to be a back-up more than a tool... But only if the player knows how to mimic a real CQB operator and dominate a room.

This all comes back to what we are discussing and that is the training aspects in Raven Shield are not only poor, but they emphasize the wrong things in SP compared to TR.

*In one of the training map SM (Statimesh) packages the devs included place markers like "Xs" and arrows that can be put on the ground similar to TR which tells the player where to stand and which way to go that just weren't used in the maps.

I was shocked they didn't use these things and this is why I may redo the maps for both SP and MP CO-OP team training.

Woosy
06-14-2006, 11:34 AM
I agree, I belive it's something that should be in SP and online. When you do a training tutorial like that online with friends over and over and work out how to cover each other, you rarely ever use comms. It's so strange but as Defuser once said when he played TR online with one guy, who had the same CT mentality never used comms once, and its so fun.

The other thing, I think it would be good if they bring voice commands to AI like the xbox and Lockdown to make there a quicker way to give the AI orders via MIC instead of using a GUI box. Which could be used in so many cool ways.

I mean, I dunno if anyone here has played Chaos Theory online in co-op? The mic on that worked realisticly, for example when you talked over the microphone it was like talking in real life anyone including the ai can hear you. It has so many uses and raises the immersion level. Like you would be in a dark room, and two guys and you have to whisper down the mic not to be heard, or you can shout and attract the attention of the AI which allows your team mate to either go behind and grab them or make an easy kill.

Since a lot of people seem to like the stealth approach, that to me seems like a great idea as the interaction is very unique. One in a virtual world but one in a real world where you have to make real concious decision. I mean there is so many games where stealth is required and my natural instincts I whisper, it seems the right thing to do. When people are around *lol* they will question why I'am whispering then i realise it doesn't matter but in Chaos Theory it uses this and it works brilliantly.

I know something like this, on R6 could be abused even when you mute someone. But it is essential to have comms in this game for a tactical level of gaming on some levels some people don't need them others prefer them, would be good to see that addition.

KungFu_CIA
06-14-2006, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:

The other thing, I think it would be good if they bring voice commands to AI like the xbox and Lockdown to make there a quicker way to give the AI orders via MIC instead of using a GUI box. Which could be used in so many cool ways. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely agree.

Another part of the problem with the current model in SP is the entire slow = tactical approach extends to weapon switching and other actions which is just not realistic anyway you slice it.

For example, compare how fast you can switch from a primary to a flashgang in Raven Shield with R63/Black Arrow on the Xbox. The console versions are actually more realistic and allow you to do things at a more realistic (faster) pace such as chuck a flash bang into a room and then instantly switch to your primary without the delay Raven Shield has.

It is little details like this which make the series more realistic than the current model does.

Relenquish
06-14-2006, 05:29 PM
Haivng a talk feature needs to include proper admin for it. Including the ability to kick and ban people from using it on a server. Maybe having a feature where only "allowed" usernames can use it on a server. Other wise very few servers will run it as you will have a to much chatter about useless **** when people die at the end of a round.

Infact it should probalby also be done with theoption that only live team mates can hear you.

It isnt a going to be a big game seller or breaker though, there is always TS and Vent so you can atleast organise it so you can speak with your clan mates.


I was thinking earlier in terms of communication that it would be useful to have in game options, or multiplayer options the ability to customize your v commands.

Creating a list as big as you feel you need with several paths.

I know ideally for the communication detail i want to be quickly available to be I need to be able to press something like v 1472 and get, Order: Dynamic Entry: Button Hook: Breach Bang Clear to come up. Ideally.

Basically not be limited to certain v commands, as everyone plays differently, and everyone tends to give different amounts of detail.

I think this kind of custum branch system would help a lot / be really useful / encourage communication between player online / generally kick *** in every way type and form.

reggo
06-14-2006, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
... allow you to do things at a more realistic (faster) pace such as chuck a flash bang into a room and then instantly switch to your primary without the delay Raven Shield has.

It is little details like this which make the series more realistic than the current model does.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently it's just a matter of opinion, but for me, this problem you've mentioned has never been just a little detail. I would rather call it a fundamental design flaw. It's even the priority #1 in my non-exhaustive list of single-player design flaws (posted more than one year ago).

A Call to modders and problem solvers‚‚ā¨¬¶ (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/327107011/m/1571073792/)

Most First-Person-Shooters do it the only way one could logically do it, that is, once the player has thrown the flash bang, his/her character (or drone) AUTOMATICALLY SWITCH TO THE PRIMARY WEAPON (or to the secondary weapon if the primary is empty).

These considerations are even more important with the use of the breaching charge!

The first time I played RvS, I could not believe it:
1) I selected the breaching charge,
2) I put it on a door,
3) My character switched to the trigger (as expected),
4) I blown up the door,
and did my character selected his primary weapon for the assault ??? NO!
5) My character selected a second breaching charge...

What is the purpose of selecting that second breaching charge in such a dramatic moment?
Since the door is already blown up, do the designers want me to install the breaching charge on a terrorist inside the room? This is weird! What do they smoke at Ubisoft-Montreal? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Even the free game America's Army do it right. The designers of RvS should be ashamed!

JulietHotel13
06-14-2006, 10:22 PM
hey guys im planning to buy the regiment but ive seen alot of bad reviews for it but it looks good...is it worth buying?

KungFu_CIA
06-14-2006, 11:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JulietHotel13:
hey guys im planning to buy the regiment but ive seen alot of bad reviews for it but it looks good...is it worth buying? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is worth buying to experience the sheer differences in TR compared to R6 and other CQB shooters currently on the market.

As I said, this is kind of why I started this thread as TR just takes the whole stealth = slow approach and turns it on its ear and exposes how much of a flawed depiction of CQB ops R6 really is at the basic level.

As for TR itself: It is a fun, challenging game in both SP and MP.

However, MP is all but non-existant in the States since it was never officially released here and I don't think there are any TR servers currently left in the UK right now, though, I could be wrong.

If you can set up a LAN with at least three other people then you'll be good to go as the CO-OP portion of this game is where it shines. It is a CO-OP/Team-Based shooter from the start more than Adversarial and was designed this way from the start.

KungFu_CIA
06-15-2006, 12:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reggo:

Apparently it's just a matter of opinion, but for me, this problem you've mentioned has never been just a little detail. I would rather call it a fundamental design flaw. It's even the priority #1 in my non-exhaustive list of single-player design flaws (posted more than one year ago). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a quick heads-up.

There is a mod at RVSGaming.com called the Enhanced Realism Mod:

LINK (http://rvsgaming.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=10#cat)

(Scroll down the page; be sure to get the Final version).

This addresses some of your concerns as it allows faster switching of weapons AND from a grenade to your primary by default if I recall.

It also has some really cool iron-sight effects and SFX enhancements like bigger blood puffs, blood pools and debris particles, so you know if you are hitting your targets or not.

It is fully compatible with my RVS/Rogue Spear Mod and I highly recommend using both of these to play SP with because it makes it a better game overall.

Yoo2
06-16-2006, 03:34 PM
Well on the topic of moving and shooting, it is possible to move and shoot simultaneosly in the real world. On the other hand it's the player's movement, the animations of the player moving from point A to point B. &gt;This is where FPS developers need to recognize. If youve ever played a firstperson shooter, dont the animations look to quick? Dont the characters in space look like they are moving at fast speeds? For example In BF2, every tryed knifing a guy that is jumping around? nearly impossible? You see the player's speed as he is moving is what makes it difficult to shoot someone that is moving. Why is cirle strafing so popular? Because the characters strafe side-to-side so quickly that leading the enemy player to shoot is very difficult. Ive played Americas Army and for the most part the cqb targets are the hardest to hit, not the long range ones. Lag of course is another factor that is cumbersome and creates fustration. I read a post in the GRAW PC forums about a guy who tried to run-and-gun one of the singleplayer missions, but couldnt. The reason why is because the enemy AI were done well by GRIN. So yes, you can run-and-gun in real life, but you wont be able to circle strafe and expect to hit something before something hits you, because cirle strafing is just one extra step. The same goes for strafing side to side, you would probably already go down before you could get a proper fixture of the target.

The ablility to move and shoot is a good idea, but dont overthrow all the restrictions on the player by letting 2 players run around each other in cirlces firing off round after round until one goes down.

KungFu_CIA
06-16-2006, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yoo2:

The ablility to move and shoot is a good idea, but dont overthrow all the restrictions on the player by letting 2 players run around each other in cirlces firing off round after round until one goes down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kind of like how Raven Shield MP is right now? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JulietHotel13
06-16-2006, 08:06 PM
i played the regiment and did the training levels and...wow...i kinda learned something about cqb...and then i played island estate on rvs and damn im pretty good...love the regiment...great game...my guys actually clear rooms on their own too...r6 can learn something from this game

Woosy
06-17-2006, 02:13 AM
Yup see now if they have a tutorial how to play the game like TR on CQB tactics and another tutorial how to use the planning phase more people would use those features and conform to those standards. Making the game more thinking and tatical rounded. Best thing it's immersive, feels realistic and most of all it's daamn fun!

spm1138
06-17-2006, 09:18 AM
Good thread.

Really glad to see people using SWAT3 as a reference (which is is, really).

You could start SWAT3 in either mode, BTW.

I actually felt that sometimes going in quietly didn't pile the stress on quickly enough and led to them fighting more than they would have if the whole thing was hard and loud... that's the big thing SWAT3 did, tried to model surprise and stress and make aggression an effective strategy. Wind them up enough then fire a shotgun over their heads and they'd probably surrender.

That's the thing R6 games have always been missing for me. Any kind of AI beyond "count down n ms and then shoot at the player".

There's also the aiming system too. I can see what it's supposed to be doing but I'd rather some sort of reasonable simulation of weapon behaviour and ballistics.

But yeah, good thread. Wholeheartedly agree with the original poster.

Darth_SS
06-17-2006, 12:54 PM
Looking back on the original, then Raven Shield, then the console games, the pace has been slowly speeding up as the series goes along. However, I look at how un-fun some gunfights were in Raven Shield, and I think that, like it was said in the first post, what worked then doesn't work now.

But also something I noticed is that the gunfights were chaotic, but they weren't so in a good way. A lot of times you would see someone and either manually line your cross-hair up or let auto-aim, fire, keep moving. When you were fighting multiple people, you would pray your team was okay, get in cover, and repeat. Sometimes, you wouldn't know where an enemy was and you would die because you either couldn't turn around fast enough, or because you just didn't know where you being shot from.

Many of the gun-fights were ones you didn't know what was happening, and you basically let your team take care of it for you. It made you use the AI as a crutch, and also as a tool. I know that I, personally, would just follow behind them. This was simply a much safer route, and I think that this slowed the game down a whole lot.

Also, continuing my musing out loud, a lot of games now (I'm not sure if The Regiment falls into this) can make their gunfights into a sense of controlled chaos. The kind of chaos where things are exploding, stuff is being destroyed, but the player knows what is causing this and still feels that they have some control over the situation and still receive the sense that their actions are holding palpable weight over stuff.

Without any better comparisons (I'm sorry) to provide examples, I would say it's like comparing Goldeneye: Rogue Agent to Black.

Rogue Agent create the chaos, but took away any sense of control.

Black created chaos, made the player join in that chaos, and still left control over it.

Looking at Rainbow Six now, there was never any sense of control over what was happening, there was never any emotional investment in the situations. Also, missions never really culminated into anything.

SWAT 3 and 4 did both of these really well. You got a sense of investment in what happened, and the levels were designed so that you would go through them at a relatively constant level of stress, intensity and what-have-you, but they had this tendency of culminating so that you would find yourself at the end executing some massive room clear.

The only mission in Rainbow Six that successfully did this culmination, that I can think of at least, was the private airport in Raven Shield. You went through that level slowly getting more and more enemies, and then it culminated when you stormed the office with 2/3 teams, and saved the last 3 hostages.

I understand that real hostage situations wouldn't be like that, but I think that from a game perspective, this would draw in more players. Ideally, they'd want the sense of satisfaction that would be afforded by this kind of escalation.

In this day and age, especially with the impressive specs that computers have, not to mention next-gen systems, it would seem to be time that Red Storm and Ubi amped speed, tension, and intensity up and created a "controlled run-n-gun" of sorts. That just strikes me as a more exciting game.


Great thread Kung_FuCIA. Very good thread.

Woosy
06-17-2006, 01:56 PM
I think everyone needs to play TR, it's just a far better game. I really do think if you took the training the movement speed, ballistics AI slapped it on Raven Shield be an awesome game.

There is never a controlled situation when breaching a building when you're an assault team it's chaos. You as a player have to be quick and make the right choice, clear rooms and move on, concentrate on the next thing, not the flash bangs and gun fire two floors up from the other teams.

When you play TR online and people try to run and gun side stepping I zoom in double tap guy goes down, people hate it that you can't run and gun. The game turns in to a fast paced CQB fight inside with flashbangs actually doing harm to the player unlike RvS tactics and alot of thinking is used.

The difference with SWAT is that they're a police force, you are there to only shoot when it's reasonable it's not full on agressive. You have non lethel force aswell, there isn't a need to push the player as thats how the game is designed, and it's a flaw in it's design IMHO.

When you breach anywhere on the SWAT 3-4 games you can slow the speed down which is wrong so so wrong, it's the same speed as you would see from CT teams but the Rules of Engagement is strict. For example you won't see SWAT officers look under a door via fibre optics then breach a house chuck a flash bang in then slow it down, then go to another door and fiber under it LOL it's a joke. When you enter a building SWAT or CT team they move just as fast clearing room by room till it's done, blind if they have to time is of the essence no time for fiver optics under each door not when you have inteligence from overwatch snipers and floor plans.

The difference with CT teams is they will let the police deal with it, if they can't get anywhere with the situation negoatiations end. Rules of Engagement is Kill on site, in britain the SAS still need to justify the force or it's prison time, i.e they're not allowed to kill an unarmed terrorist but secure him, but you can bet anyone waving a gun is going down. They won't shout armed police or british army, it's tap tap.

I think you will find RvS a more controlled game, you control the pace there is no rush take your time. Even though the mission at hand is a need of urgency which baffles the mind.

If I have time I'll fraps some Ulitmate Force where they do a stealth op, then people will see how it should be done I think.

KungFu_CIA
06-17-2006, 04:48 PM
Good comments everyone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Looking back on the original, then Raven Shield, then the console games, the pace has been slowly speeding up as the series goes along. However, I look at how un-fun some gunfights were in Raven Shield, and I think that, like it was said in the first post, what worked then doesn't work now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Raven Shield's biggest flaw... And I am not shy about stating this... Is it has terrible, randomized ballistics (cone-of-fire) that penalize even the slightest movement a player makes either with their body, or just the mouse (aim).

This entire system is completely wrong for a CQB game where smaller adjustments (due to tight quarters) are vital to the gameplay in my opinion.

This turns firefights in both SP and MP into nothing but spray-and-pray luck fests because you don't know if you are going to hit what you're crosshairs or scope sights are aimed at... And in the long run, prevents an accurate depiction of a highly trained and seasoned SF operative the player is supposed to be emulating when they play the game.

If the designers insist on using the spreading pips and reticule system from 1998, complete with the out-dated cone-of-fire system... Then this series is doomed to stagnation and contrived gameplay which is the bain of any game's design and should be avoided at all costs if possible.

In fact, I know I have come under heavy flak from some of the MP clan and ladder players for citing the game's ballistic shortcomings...

But this is because R6 is supposed to be a game about real world tactics, weapons and equipment on the one hand... Yet what do the developers end up doing?

They make the primary skill in the game dependent on an exploit (running while scoped), or bobbing back-and-forth, up and down, side-to-side like an idiot and not using actual real world tactics like properly dominating a room or field of fire to track and take down the enemy.

This is exactly what I mean about a contrived gaming experience:

You are forced to play a certain way in order to do well instead of in realistic ways the game supposedly is built around.

Even other R6 fans on other forums (RVSGaming.com) say Raven Shield MP isn't as "tactical" as a lot of the ladder players like to tout and some others on here have finally spoken up about what a joke the MP is compared to other games that use a more realistic and precise ballistics system.

This fits right in with everything we have been talking about because the bottom line is if R6 wishes to claim it is truly a psuedo-realstic game... Even on a superficial level... Then it should at least be a consistent pseudo-realistic experience across the board and not one that literally claims it is one thing and then the exact opposite when you get in the game (either SP or MP) itself, in my opinion.

On a related note, one can clearly see the inconsistencies Raven Shield and R6 have if you play the game the way it meant to be played and that is using the planning, with multiple teams for simultaneous assaults.

The AI is never as fast as real SF teams are and again, is forcing the player to play in a contrived way simply because the game hasn't evolved to the level where the player dictates how they want to play the game.

A perfect example of this is the debate over both jumping (and/or manteling) and picking up weapons.

Everyone says that if jumping is put in, R6 will turn into CS.

This is only true if the developers allow accuracy when firing while jumping ("Bunny-Hopping") which is what they did in CS and why jumping has such a bad reputation in games when jumping is in fact something you can do in real life and thus, are not constrained by any false pretenses just to fit a contrived style of play... Especially, in a realism-based game like R6 where that is the primary purpose: To promote realistic elements and jumping and climbing are things most SF operators... Hell, most people... Can do with their eyes closed.

The same argument and logic applies to picking up weapons, or not.

In the real world, if I see a weapon laying on the ground I can pick it up. There is no invisible barrier, or electric shock I am going to get if I try.

However, once again, developers have given picking up weapons a bad name because they design the game in such a way where you aren't rewarded for conserving ammo (as in most arcade shooters) and/or they design the game in such a way you need to pick up weapons in order to finish the level.

This was one of the major problems with Lockdown's design. It wasn't a serious, tactical shooter at all. It was a throw-a-million-enemies at the player like games from 1999, like Duke Nukem and others where you needed to pick up weapons in order to survive which is why people are so against changes like being able to pick up weapons because they automatically associate the feature with something bad like Lockdown overall.

Woosy once again brings up some good points that fit right into what I said above:

There are inconsistencies within the overall game model itself such as you can go dynamic from the start, chuck a flashbang into a room, kill all the tangos... Yet the tangos in a room right next door still think you haven't even arrived on the scene yet.

That's not realistic on any level and this is something which also needs to (should) be addressed in my opinion along with everything else we are discussing.

Banshee_Wail
06-18-2006, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yen Lo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Banshee_Wail:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yen Lo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Banshee_Wail:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:

I don't think there is anything wrong with slow movement on a stealth orientated mission, but when that stealth is compromised the transition from stealth to full assault should be shown as fast and aggressive. Unlike SWAT4 which has the feeling your underwear is at your ankles, the speed is too slow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was why I loved the previous rainbow 6 games. You had to use stealth to find where the hostages were secured, and coordinate the assault. If not the AI for the hostage takers would kill a hostage once they had located rainbow. A blend of stealth and speed as the siuation dictated.

PS Is there any way to get a copy of the regiment in the states. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I orderd my copy online dunno if it will ever make it to the stores. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have a link for a place that will ship to the U.S.
Thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

try www.gogamer.com (http://www.gogamer.com) they had it sunday nite. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Yen Lo

Darth_SS
06-18-2006, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
There are inconsistencies within the overall game model itself such as you can go dynamic from the start, chuck a flashbang into a room, kill all the tangos... Yet the tangos in a room right next door still think you haven't even arrived on the scene yet.

That's not realistic on any level and this is something which also needs to (should) be addressed in my opinion along with everything else we are discussing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


But how far can you push that?

This would kind of turn them into mad-dashes to the finish, and jam the speed so far up that this concept of "planning" would evaporate.

The only way around that, at least that I can see, is to either make supressors almost mandatory, or put in some "calm zones" that are just kind of big empty spaces.

Relenquish
06-18-2006, 05:29 PM
Planning is far more important when you are going to go dynamically. As much of the thinking needs to be done before you get there as possible.

You also need to plan for what may go wrong.

Dynamic without planning is suicide, dynamic with planning is the most fun thing ever to do on RVS COOP. And that is on a gamethat really discourages going quickly in many ways.

If they built the game around doing thinks with a degree of urgance that would amke it a lot better.

In the console Vegas interview the developer talks about this urgancy, and I hope the PC devs have the same idea and impliment it properly.

There are problems here which needs discussion though. The ability of some one new to the series, or new to playing dynamically is going to find adjusting hard, and making this adjustment easier would be key to the games success if the devs go down this road.

Key to this would be TR style training. improved AI,and I mean drstically improved. Better planning stage. Making the adjustments that make it all go smoother, quicker weapons changes, flashbangs not getting blocked by small objects. Even the terrorist lay out so not to make impossible challenges.

It is a ot of work, but it would make for a more exciting, and entertaining game. Not to mind claims that is is realistic will be 100% more true.

spm1138
06-19-2006, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Darth_SS:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
There are inconsistencies within the overall game model itself such as you can go dynamic from the start, chuck a flashbang into a room, kill all the tangos... Yet the tangos in a room right next door still think you haven't even arrived on the scene yet.

That's not realistic on any level and this is something which also needs to (should) be addressed in my opinion along with everything else we are discussing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


But how far can you push that?

This would kind of turn them into mad-dashes to the finish, and jam the speed so far up that this concept of "planning" would evaporate.

The only way around that, at least that I can see, is to either make supressors almost mandatory, or put in some "calm zones" that are just kind of big empty spaces. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the contrary, you still have to think and plan, it's just some of it needs to be done on the fly. That's much more challenging tactically.

I guess the real knack would be to get the AI up to the point where multiple teams aren't just pointless and you can hit several rooms at once.

KungFu_CIA
06-19-2006, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Darth_SS:

But how far can you push that?

This would kind of turn them into mad-dashes to the finish, and jam the speed so far up that this concept of "planning" would evaporate.

The only way around that, at least that I can see, is to either make supressors almost mandatory, or put in some "calm zones" that are just kind of big empty spaces. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The bigger issue of putting in an actual difference between dynamic assaults and stealth assaults is training the player on how to react to this sudden change if it occurs before they even play the game in the training levels most R6 games always ship with.

This is the most important part of the entire equation -- Even moreso, than getting the AI up to levels where they move faster and do a lot of the decision-making on their own.

It is the most important part of switching to a new approach to CQB because a sudden switch from stealth to an on-going, full assault from that point on which doesn't end is something most R6 players won't know how to deal with at first and will complain the game is "not R6".

They won't know how to deal with it because they will be used to capping the Tango(s) who spotted their team and then just returning to the stealth gameplay of creeping around while crouched and cracking doors open and taking headshots like the previous games reward and are designed around.

The end result would (should) be the player is not only expecting this change, but can then deal with it better which will take a lot of the pressure off them and allow them to still play the game in a reasonable fashion where it isn't a mad dash to the finish, but a much more choatic or faster-pitched sense of urgency than before... Which are two completely different things (mad dash and giving the player a greater sense of urgency).

This is exactly where R6's model goes completely wrong and why Woosy and others like myself are addressing it here.

Also, as far as the issue of using only suppressors... Well, this is also a more realistic reflection of real life and would also make supressors make a real difference if you choose to use them or not.

If you want to go the stealth route, then equip your team(s) with all silenced weapons. If you want to go in loud and dynamic from the start then don't.

This is what we mean about R6's current SP model requires very little thought in vital areas like weapon and kit selection because they don't make any real difference in how the game plays out once you are in the mission.

Another thing which would go hand-in-hand with making R6 more of a thinking persons game and helping adjust the player to the proposed faster and more urgent pace is...

Having a real and scalable level of difficulty for the SP and I don't just mean the ability to quicksave (or not) during a mission.

Real difficulty means things like tension and urgency ramp up as the player progresses through the campaign... Not just making everything incredibly hard (unalanced) from the start to encourage "replayability" in order to beat the level.

Replayability does not and should not mean an excersize in frustration just to finish a level so you can move on and see the other levels.

This is GRAW PC's main flaw and also why Raven Shield was so horrible out of the box with the Tangos having superhuman skill settings in their templates from the start.

This also helps the player with the new approach to CQB and dynamic and stealth entries because it should also be a scalable difficulty as well.

In other words, lets say the overall model is if your team is compromised then all hell breaks loose... But the player could have the ability to tailor certain aspects of this "hell" to suit their needs such as number of Tangos and their skills; How long it takes from the time of being compromised to when they reach the overall objective (hostages; intel) which determines when they get there how hard or easy it is to secure those objectives; the ability to actually turn off being compromised -- maybe a "classic R6 mode" for those who don't, or can't adjust to the new style of play; etc, etc.

This scalable level of difficulty should also include simulation settings like no crosshairs, no magazine or ammo counters, no health meters, equipment weight encumberance, etc.

Why?

Because giving the player a sand-box type of gaming experience is how you make a game more accessible to the masses as well as retain the original 'hardcore' fans at the same time.

This applies to both SP and MP.

Contrary to popular design dogma it is not "dumbing down" the gameplay like LD did -- Which was another huge mistake on Lockdown's developers behalf and signifies lazy development practices from the start.

Bottom line: Once you are compromised, you are compromised -- There is no turning back -- And you must then think faster than you have been because the enemy (AI in this case) is also thinking faster on how to mount a counter-attack and secure their objectives such a hostages, intel, etc.

Thinking needs to be put back in R6 in the sense just planning an elaborate assault using multiple teams isn't as hard as it sounds. In fact, it is the semi-easy part of the SP once you learn how the system itself works.

What is hard(er) and should be made harder is when the plan goes to hell... And I don't just mean you start losing team members during the execution.

This is something "The Regiment" does very well. It throws things at you which require you to actually think while on the move which R6 doesn't have and probably never will to be honest.

For example, when assaulting a building they will have it set up where the Tangos have claymores which must be disarmed by cutting the tripwire. That's a realistic element and the placement of claymores are randomized as well, so you just can't memorize where they are and then just go through the level like a robot.

Raven Shield actually has this ability in UnrealEd as well.

You can specify what kinds of objects and other things that do and don't appear given a specific gametype in order to tailor the gameplay experience however you see fit. I've never seen anyone in the RVS Map community use this feature (because most maps are TDM and require little thought, but that is a totally different thread...) and it is a shame because it is there and would greatly enhance the gaming experience overall and it would greatly enhance the cerebral decision making process the game likes to tout itself as, "the thinking man's shooter".

Woosy
06-19-2006, 06:43 PM
The whole idea of planning is to find the most efficient route/method that has a high success rate, the plan would be gone over again and again and again to see if something is flawed. For example you would have a blue print of a building, along with gathered intel, demands, postions, and then use your mutiple team strike force to take out sections of the building leaving one to rescue the hostages.

There is nothing wrong with going inside a building stealth if it demands it. But take for example if a Terrorist(s) has taken hostages and has killed one, negotiations are dead in the water. For something like that stealth would not qualify, since the "urgency" is to get them out before they kill another hostage, there is no way you can breach say a plane Stealth unless you playin Rogue Spear, realisticaly it's not possible, the only Stealth part would be getting into the final assault position. When you do a Multiple breach on a building, terrorists can't take onboard whats going on, so much noise explosions from breaching charges from different locations, flash bangs disorientate even rooms away, which is great they freeze up and can't think, makes them easier to neutralise. Alot of terrorists give up in fear. Which in TR you find alot are feigning dead.

If however the Hostage takers where in small numbers say 3 and it's a very big building negotiations had been going on for days, and the government wants it to end. Stealth might be a possibility, but only up to the point of assault, that must be quick and agressive and be totaly unforgiving you want to suprise the Terrorists at the point of breach to put fear in to them make them panic and intimidate them.

I believe the only real stealth you will get on Rainbow Six is the map on Covert Ops where a plane has crashed, minus the hostage, lets say it's the recovery of a black box for example sake. The dence jungle is a great cover for stealth in day and night. It's great for supressed weapons especially the MP5SD, which is only audable at a distance of 15 meters so add a scope and do take downs from this distance and stealth is a real possibility. E&E is also easy to do in the dence jungle no one will know who hit them, missions like that you can take your time, the only mission constraint maybe extracting.

I finaly uploaded the Stealth video from UF where they get compromised, thats how it should be.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2BMVstl3yKk

And this is an Assault when the hostage takers kill a hostage.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yZoqpqvD1gA&mode=related&search=

The-Pizza-Man
06-20-2006, 01:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think Raven Shield's biggest flaw... And I am not shy about stating this... Is it has terrible, randomized ballistics (cone-of-fire) that penalize even the slightest movement a player makes either with their body, or just the mouse (aim). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I strongly agree with that, I can't stand the way the ret sytem operated, it is just so random.

KungFu_CIA
06-20-2006, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:

I strongly agree with that, I can't stand the way the ret sytem operated, it is just so random. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be fair it was this way in Rogue Spear as well. In fact, the only game where it was semi-realistic (not over exaggerated) was the original Rainbow Six (1998).

MP Adversarial players love to tout the reticule/pip cone-of-fire as being "skillful", but in reality it isn't because there is too much randomization involved to be considered "skill" as the definition of skill is something which can be mastered and reproduced consistently with consistent results.

Also, the tactic which is used to counter this is the scope exploit left over from Unreal Tournament's sniper rifle whereby they can run around fully scoped and their accuracy is increased three fold (the reticule/pips don't expand). Therefore, they don't have to actually deal with the randomized system that much which is highly hypocritical of them in my opinion.

Again, I say this not to bash the MP Adversarial Ladder communities, but to actually help them get a better game that legitimizes the word skill and that doesn't rely on luck, or randomization because this is the complete opposite of skillful in every sense of the word.

This also brings up what I said above about the developers not doing their jobs properly in the sense even after this exploit was discovered they did nothing to remove it, or lessen it in subsequent patches. This in turn only rewarded the use of exploits like the scope-run, but is an example of what I am trying to convey about developers having the responsibility of properly balancing their game which makes the one we play better:

If drastic changes are made to game like we are discussing here and on other threads (respawns; picking up weapons; third-person; etc.) then it is also the responsibility of the developers to identify possible exploits and then either remove them (if possible), or at least balance those exploits with something which discourages their use.

For example, people hate "campers" in MP games because it slows the pace of the game way down.

Well, if the developer is on the ball then they will have properly programmed ballistic penetration of buildings and structures where you can nail a camper through a wall with a .50 caliber sniper rifle then. Once the camper has been hit a few times, he/she will eventually learn not to camp.

It is a system of checks and balances like these which not only make the game a better game overall, but they also promote more realism as a side-effect since what I described above is how the real world deals with "campers" -- Which is a legitimate tactic on the battlefield if you are defending or securing an objective.

This is directly related to SP because there is an even greater chance for the developers to encourage real-life tactics because it is more of a controlled experience than MP... But the same principles of emphasizing more realistic tactics, behaviors and responses (by the AI and the player) still apply... If not moreso.

A perfect example of this is if you use smoke grenades in Raven Shield's SP, the AI becomes blind, literally, and it becomes nothing but a shooting gallery if you switch on thermals.

This is not realistic at all because while smoke is supposed to conceal your movements, it doesn't mean the enemy just stops and ceases to function at all like the Tango AI does.

In addition, I acknowledge the argument R6 is a video game and doesn't have to be 100% realistic. This is a valid argument.

But when you have glaring problems like the smoke and not training the player properly all R6 will be doing is be touting itself as a "tactical" game in name only when the same old video game tactics apply to both SP and MP and this is why I started this thread to begin with http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Darth_SS
06-22-2006, 08:53 PM
Just tossing this out there:

It's been established that actual room clearing is much much faster than it is in Rainbow Six.

Because of how we aren't using direct motor skills, and are instead operating through a controller, this slows down how fast we can move in the game world.

Is there any way to overcome this?

Woosy
06-23-2006, 12:15 AM
Use the concept that The Regiment uses, it explains to the player how room clearing is done. The speed is faster then Rainbow Six whilst it isn't as realistic as in the real world it's close. I say look at that concept and model R6 around that.

JulietHotel13
06-24-2006, 04:24 PM
yeah i think modeling after TR would be the solution to this whole mess...

KungFu_CIA
06-24-2006, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JulietHotel13:
yeah i think modeling after TR would be the solution to this whole mess... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To a point.

The point where TR went "wrong" is it isn't as unforigiving as many games on the market as far as putting tons and tons of pressure on the player to do everything exactly right in order to get a good score and unlock the next mission/level.

The other thing is it is very limited in what it portrays. It may do CQB and room clearing much better than R6... But this is the only real area where it excels compared to R6 which has and can continue to expand in other areas in addition to the core CQB room clearing experience the games are based around.

I want a good, thinking-person's game just as the next R6 fan... But we have to realize the game is still a game and if you make it too hard you loose a huge potential fanbase before they even try or buy the game based purely on knowing before hand the game may be "too hard" for their liking from the start.

JulietHotel13
06-27-2006, 02:00 PM
the pressure TR gave the player was a good thing...it taught the player how to execute and respond quickly to a situation...however the "unlocking missions" were kinda stupid...and the problem is that now adays the devs of tactical 1st person shooters seem to add WAY to much enemies into one room and thats kinda a bad thing to me atleast...in TR however theyre are usually only couple guys in a LARGE room at most like the parliment mission which i find more realistic that what rainbow six does...which is have stupid enemies and put a large amount of them into one room hoping that one of them will finish the player off...one thing that lacked severely in TR was the weapons selection and planning stages...but the training missions kind of made up for the planning stage, because the room clearing trainings gave the player directions on what to do when they entered a room, so they could still clear a room even without knowing what was behind the door...unlike RavenShield which gave the player a planning stage but didnt work most of the time cuz the friendly ai were too stupid to clear a room

Darth_SS
06-27-2006, 02:18 PM
Okay, I just had a crazy idea to more accurately represent aiming.

Take the system that Black has, kind of. Just put a little pip in the middle of the screen. That is where the barrel is pointed. When you walk or run, just make the little spot bounce and move about realistically.

Eliminates randomness, but retains the problems that arise when you shoot while running.

JulietHotel13
06-27-2006, 06:31 PM
in a sense that wouldnt work because it would still act like a random crosshair...unless the dot was always accurate at where the "barrel" was point at...for ex. lets say your moving nad the dot happens to be point alittle up to the left and you fired your weapon the bullet would go up to the left where the dot was...it would be an accurate rifle yet not having perfect aiming...not sure if u guys will understand what i just tried to say

The-Pizza-Man
06-28-2006, 01:26 AM
Operation Flashpoint aiming anyone?

JulietHotel13
06-28-2006, 09:52 AM
something like what ofp uses would be REALLY good in r6...it wouldnt be considered a bad change

Mx21
06-29-2006, 03:52 AM
Wow, I really didn't know that's how fast it was in real life. I thought it was slow and stealthy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Woosy
06-29-2006, 09:41 AM
Depends, I like the way the aiming is incoporated in The Regiment works well for CQB. Run and shoot hit hardly anything, zoom in you move to a slow speed so you can focus through the rear sight and take accurate shots, not run and gun.

The game does have to be made to somewhat challanging, so unforgiving is part and parcel of the game otherwise whats the point? What R6 did was just said, 1 hit to the head = dead and 1 to the leg is gimped, two or more to the center mass is a kill. Thats what they thought is enough to make it unforgiving the damage model... It doesn't matter if you're loud, it doesn't matter if you take your time, the only challenge is not to get hit. This is wrong!

The other examples like weapon pickups people want the freedom, but there has to be a point you have to say it ruins the concept of Counter-Terroist teams, something that never happens. For example in R6 you have 4 teams. Each team member you can equip weapons ammunition and certain kits. If you the "lead" guy runs out of bullets you soul switch to the guy behind aka "backup" thats how it works. Thats their job, thats their purpose! With 4 teams and over 3000 rounds of ammunition between the lot how can you run out in single player lol? Online the same example applies it's TDM collaborate with your team to maximise your efficientcy if you don't you have a problem. This is where the game should say you're doing something wrong, this is the area where the game needs a tutorial to explain like TR does what to do and how to do it by yourself and with teammates. Not the other way around by doing the wrong and playing over and over again, trying to work out how to do it right thats back to front.

In the Regiment in the tutorial training the game drills into your head certain styles of play. Run+gun is bad zeroing in and shooting is better as you have maximised accuracy and efficientcy, you can shoot unzeroed up close and be accurate taking snap shots but run and gun no go. I dunno anyone who's ran out of bullets in the sp portion of the game because you simply fail. Because it's unforgiving, it does this to raise the standards in the game to make it extremely hard, but very challenging. I can't name another game thats a tactical shooter thats as good as what that does.

Other games such as vietcong will have a small tutorial show you the difference between ironsight and standard, but doesn't go any futher then that, it teaches you the basics, then it's off little puppy to the battlefield and shoot baddies.

I think what some people want is a realistic/arcade hybrid, sounds good but lacks substance (GRAW great example) and challenging aspect. Rainbow Six only has one area of thinking and that is Planning phase, the rest is enter a building and destroy anyone who talks german, spray and pray, there is no procedure there is no training for the player just click start mission like any other game. The great thing about the regiment is that it's all planned out for you. Where in R6 you're blind you have to second guess yourself when to set off the go codes for the other teams, this overloads the player more then what TR does, it's clumsy and needs to be done better.

There is only Bank and Penthouse stealth mission, Island down2 where you need to get to the computer before tangos go to wipe the information that remotely challenge the players online.

Half the time you can chuck smoke sit in it take out the tangos and win the game, no challenge, then the standards drop online co-op to chuck smoke enter a building no thinking involved really. Yet people want to add these extra freedoms in, WHAT!?! All good and well but balance it out cause it looks coccoid.

If half the things where implemented in the game it would look awesome but just wouldn't challenge the player on the most BASIC level.

Online is a different story, there is ways around the camping issue to an extent, and that is kill standard TDM. Put TDM objectives, that way it forces both teams to move to complete the objectives, if one doesn't move they will lose, never seen a camper camp on capture the base as once the bases are cpatured they can't be brought back, so if a camper does 1 base hes gonna get overwealmed. Put both teams way away from the objective and both teams need to work their way to it like SAR, hostage rescue, gather the intel, bomb the building, assination. Protect the convoy. With these modes it promotes movement, some of them it forces you to move. Give them a non linear map random respawn points for round based, tons of options and there you go.

KungFu_CIA
06-29-2006, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:

Online is a different story, there is ways around the camping issue to an extent, and that is kill standard TDM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The big issue is most competitive clans that ladder play soley for the purpose of seeing which team and individuals have the better skill, I.E. coordination and aim...

And they don't want to be bothered with objectives like planting a bomb, rescuing hostages or securing intel or satellites, etc.

Most TDM players are classified as duelists... And that is perfectly fine.

It may not be realistic for two teams of CT's to be running around a training facility trying to kill one another... But so what? It is stil a video game and if you kill what has become a staple of the series -- Good or bad; regardless of promoting realism -- Over the years, you (UBI) will lose a huge portion of the R6 MP competitive community (vs. CO-OP) and this portion of the R6 community has always been the larger one compared to CO-OP and again, there is nothing wrong with that and I will fight for this segment of the community even if I don't completely agree with it or how it came about.

Also, TR does a few things right, but it does a lot of things wrong as well as there isn't enough freedom to try different things if the player wants to when all is said and done.

The only real freedom online is the ability to pick up weapons -- Which by your standards should not even be in TR, but this is the point.

Video games are meant to be fun and exciting and allow players to do things they can't do in the real world... Even realism-based games like TR.

For example, the whole concept of being put in the shoes of an SAS Operative is something 99% of the world's population will never be able to do -- or even want to do -- And this is an area where the game excels with the training and more simulation-like elements.

However, it fails in terms of its overall freedom because it is too unforgiving in a lot of respects and the maps actually are very linear if you look at how they are designed (each map being a point of entry). CO-OP is good, but again, very limited in it forces the player to play in a certain way where experimentation just for the sake of doing something different or wanting to have extra fun is not allowed via the scoring system if the team is going for a good time/score.

There are limits to forcing players to play a certain way and the difference, to me, is forcing the players to use realistic tactics in an MP setting, CO-OP or Adversarial, instead of video game tactics, I.E. glitches and exploits... Compared to limiting the player's freedom to experiment and have replayability -- key -- Online which is where TR has glaring flaws in my opinion.

I am pushing for more the former than the latter because the former helps legitimizes the game itself and those who play it as well as gives those players a greater freedom in the process if it is done right.

Woosy
06-29-2006, 01:00 PM
I think you missed my point Kungfu, to stop "camping" you put objectives for TDM not 1v1 duels which you can easily have DM mode for so I don;t understand that one. But for Team games 8v8 objectives would work out better, only an idea. If people want 1v1 duel fights why would they camp? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif I've seen 1v1 duels on CS/S since 1999 never seen them camp and thats objective based and laddered on enemydown.co.uk. 9/10 games public are TDM not duels and half camp which most people complain about then kick/ban. Either that or complain there is a sniper camping http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. It happens in CSS which is objective based, but you can gurantee the Terrorist on de_dust can camp all he likes at his spawn I'll just wait for the time to run down and win by default that works vice versa.

The difference between TR and R6 is you're "one" person with a team of 2 wingmen, you cannot "control" them i.e soul switch. If you run out of ammunition you're screwed, and may aswell go back to the menu screen and start fresh, however they put weapon pickups to prevent this, if they had soul switching there would of been no need but no game has done soul switching since 2003 so...

On Rainbow Six/Rogue Spear/Raven Shield you have complete control over the "teams" and the "operatives" do you not? I can be anyone in that squad, now if I the lead guy runs out of ammo I can switch to a backup man by soul switching, lets think of it as picking up weapons. If I take control of all my men and somehow in that squad run out of ammunition I have 3 more teams that can back them up. In TR I don't it's one team. If they all run out of ammunition then the player is doing something very wrong. But lets say you allow weapon/ammo pickups as a third backup, then the player runs out of ammo again and the only gun is in the bad guys hand what do you do? You add melee attack a fouth option to the fold, where does it end? Tazer gun, pepper spray, Ballistic shield? In all games you can run out of ammunition and sometimes you have to go back and try something different.

This was a problem in GRAW people have 8 Magazines plus the option of exta ammunition plus ammunition pickups. Even if you could pickup weapons what use would it be when people where still running out of ammunition even when picking up ammunition. So they had to restart, solutuion to that players problem? He must adjust and adapt and fire single shots instead of firing his entire magaine into one mexican, it's a learning experience and the wrong one. It should be explained to the player you have limited ammunition only fire when you need to supress a target but they don't, so run out. Heck Full Spectrum Warrior explains this in the training why not Rainbow Six? You don't see them picking up ammo, off dead guys only at supply points and if Alpha team runs out of ammo Bravo has to take over and back them up same situation as i explained with the mutiple teams.

Games are meant to be fun yes but at the same time challenging check SCDA it's gonna be very challenging from get go, oh and they allow weapon pickups if you don't have a gun unlike the first. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The reason TR is linear is because you play team 1 out of 3 kinda like Rainbow Six with mutiple teams. But you play them in bitesize parts instead of one go. If it was Rainbow Six you could do the whole map but I think you will find the players brain would be totaly overwealmed from when to give the go codes etc... I know I would be, I can just handle TR and whats going on, would be hell to half way through to soul switch then back again too clumsy.

I've never said TR is the ultimate simulation which is 100% realistic. I have said it is way beyond any CQB game out there in many aspects. Yes it has flaws like any other game it does have some unrealistic elements in it but not as many as R6, the concept alone is far far beyond any game in it's genre.

RAZE_672
06-29-2006, 01:16 PM
IMO duelling without objectives is just mindless drudgery. Why is rvs the only fps in which adversarial matches are played without objectives?

Is it the game itself that makes mission play unappealing or are the TDMers here really just a bunch of arrogant louts? The people that play cs and quake can duel and complete objectives at the same time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

KungFu_CIA
06-29-2006, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAZE_672:
IMO duelling without objectives is just mindless drudgery. Why is rvs the only fps in which adversarial matches are played without objectives?

Is it the game itself that makes mission play unappealing or are the TDMers here really just a bunch of arrogant louts? The people that play cs and quake can duel and complete objectives at the same time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't want to speak for any of the clans or ladder players...

But I will make an educated guess the duelist mentality is a hold-over from the early games of the era like UT, Quake, etc... Only with R6 it supposedly takes more skill as the damage model is less forgiving, therefore, players have to be even better in certain respects as there is no respawn and you can be taken out much faster as a result of that less forgiving damage model.

This also flows right into what Woosy is saying and that is if you actually ask any competitive ladder player/clan they will tell you objectives promote camping more than alleviate it. Thus, objective modes like Bomb and Hostage Rescue aren't played at the competitive level most TDM players prefer and herein lies the irony of R6.

R6 started out as a realism based gaming experience as far as SP... But the competitive MP players just gravitated to TDM because of the emphasis it has on both team and individual skill in terms of pure dueling (who is the better shot and who has the better tactic(s)).

Obviously, the argument you're making is they may not be all that "skilled" if they can't handle completing objectives at the same time...

But here is where the distinction has to be made:

TDM players may have no real objective other than killing the opposing team... But TDM players are still playing as a team and this is where you have to just let them play the way they want to play the game because they enjoy it that way.

You have to separate your personal bias against TDM from those who like TDM and let it be.

Basically, you can't force TDM players to be more team oriented (which they are already), or play more like CO-OP players by forcing objectives on them -- Which they have already stated they don't like to begin with -- Just because you (people in general) find TDM boring, or uninteresting.

This is what I think these last two points raised boils down to if we strip away all the nuances.

Also, don't get me wrong. I am all for new game modes which everyone can enjoy... But TDM and those who play it are a large, vocial staple of the R6 MP Community and you have to respect this even if you don't agree with it, or even particularly enjoy TDM as a gametype.

RAZE_672
06-29-2006, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAZE_672:
IMO duelling without objectives is just mindless drudgery. Why is rvs the only fps in which adversarial matches are played without objectives?

Is it the game itself that makes mission play unappealing or are the TDMers here really just a bunch of arrogant louts? The people that play cs and quake can duel and complete objectives at the same time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't want to speak for any of the clans or ladder players...

But I will make an educated guess the duelist mentality is a hold-over from the early games of the era like UT, Quake, etc... Only with R6 it supposedly takes more skill as the damage model is less forgiving, therefore, players have to be even better in certain respects as there is no respawn and you can be taken out much faster as a result of that less forgiving damage model.

This also flows right into what Woosy is saying and that is if you actually ask any competitive ladder player/clan they will tell you objectives promote camping more than alleviate it. Thus, objective modes like Bomb and Hostage Rescue aren't played at the competitive level most TDM players prefer and herein lies the irony of R6.

R6 started out as a realism based gaming experience as far as SP... But the competitive MP players just gravitated to TDM because of the emphasis it has on both team and individual skill in terms of pure dueling (who is the better shot and who has the better tactic(s)).

Obviously, the argument you're making is they may not be all that "skilled" if they can't handle completing objectives at the same time...

But here is where the distinction has to be made:

TDM players may have no real objective other than killing the opposing team... But TDM players are still playing as a team and this is where you have to just let them play the way they want to play the game because they enjoy it that way.

You have to separate your personal bias against TDM from those who like TDM and let it be.

Basically, you can't force TDM players to be more team oriented (which they are already), or play more like CO-OP players by forcing objectives on them -- Which they have already stated they don't like to begin with -- Just because you (people in general) find TDM boring, or uninteresting.

This is what I think these last two points raised boils down to if we strip away all the nuances.

Also, don't get me wrong. I am all for new game modes which everyone can enjoy... But TDM and those who play it are a large, vocial staple of the R6 MP Community and you have to respect this even if you don't agree with it, or even particularly enjoy TDM as a gametype. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't care what people play or what they like. I just find the condescending attitude these TDMers have toward other games and game modes rather absurd. Games they deride as being arcady actually take more skill and team cooperation to play for having objectives. They certainly aren't inferior. I'd rather play americas army, cod, bf2, cs, ect. for adversarial because they offer the whole package: objectives, duelling, team play.

Woosy
06-30-2006, 02:23 PM
Ofcourse on competitive ladders you do get some slight camping not as much as standard TDM. I've never heard of it being a huge issue like RvS where people need HBS to find the enemy. *LOL* As I say it's map and game design. BF2 is designed that you must attack those players spawn sites and keep them down while their team dominates it's respawn based, everyone knows this to be true. BF2 With standard TDM people camp, whats the motivation to attack the other team? It's checkmate. You know if you're a few flags down you better get your butt into gear and capture them back, it makes for great intense games. TDM without objectives can't do this. Even the new game modes on BF2 are objective based.

Games like counter-strike teams can't afford to camp like RvS unless it's biased for that team i.e office where Terrorists need to prevent hostages from being rescued and italy T's can camp, and Ct's need to attack but since both teams will swap and change after 12 rounds and play as T it's who is the better team at the end of the day, so it nulls it void but these maps are never if rarely played laddered. You will find most teams play de_dust,de_dust2,de_inferno and de_train as they arn't biased once again it comes down to map design.

In e-sports these maps wern't played competivily at CPL until the recent "wsvg" annoncement who seem to be going out their way to not only piss off cs players, but me and other girl gamers. "CPL" designed special maps for competive play so that issue isn't a problem at all, again map design. wsvg want to play vanilla maps, it will be interesting, but not everyone is happy about.

Unreal Torny, lol people try and camp the flag to prevent you taking it. But if your team overwealms and kills him and get the flag you can bet your butt that they won't be camping but making chase after you. It makes for some crazy games, which are fast and fun. Quake, you can camp if you want *lol* but If I kill you twice and you remain camping I don't have to do anything more as I will win on frag count, same applies to TDM unlike RvS.

I do really think TDM in R6 is a bit moronic at times it's the only game where camping has no penalty, the only game which has no objectives. It's the only game I know where you kill the enemy team who is your own allied force but wearing different cammo which IMHO is ******ed on so many levels, the justification for leaving it in is "I don't want to play a bad guy" awwww cute. The the other one is don't put female models in the game I find it hard to shoot women. You know I think it's one reason us women are reaping the benifits now in Quake and Unreal, we use women models, guys just can't touch this.

Raven_BROz
07-26-2006, 09:08 AM
I have no problem shooting women http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

big_perm
07-27-2006, 05:21 AM
There is one problem with TDM matching. Draws. They makes matches run upwards of 6 hours sometimes because people draw the rounds out. We do need to get away from TDM and move to having objectives to prevent the 1 man camping in a random spot until time runs out. You could make the team with more players win the round but I dont like that and even then you still can get a lot of draws. We just need something that makes a point scored every round played which is usually an ojective.

The only reason I played Adversarial so much was because thats all Rogue Spear had and it just stuck when we moved to Ravenshield. I love TDM but I cant stand long drawn out camping matches. People would pick garage and try to make the match last as long as they can until you lost your patience and either quit or started rushing. This is why we need objectives. Objectives dont take away from the skill to kill one another, all it really does it sets up points for where the battles take place. The best shooters still win objective gametypes. You cant win without killing a lot of the other team.

Pest_AWC
08-02-2006, 03:58 PM
Wow!!!

I didn't know anyone else liked Objectives in Ravenshield. My clan has been playing 90% objective games since Ravenshield first came out. We play every Wed and Friday night, usually on Athena Sword. Just look for AWC in the server name. We have been having fun all these years and haven't lost many of our original members because of that.

We can't stand most TDM games because you end up with 2 people never finding each other and the time expires while dead people fall asleep. Objectives keep firefights focused in certain areas. Who cares if people camp as long as the objective helps you know logically where they are camping? Objectives Rule!

The additions I would make in a future Ravenshield type game would be:
1) Force the teams to switch sides so each team has an equal opportunity.
2) Don't let green team win if they kill a hostage and rescue the other.
3) Allow rounds won to count on the ladder so people that sacrifice themselves and take risks to win a round are rewarded.
4) Allow admin to lock teams and force selected people to other teams when needed.

Please see our clan site at www.awc-clan.net (http://www.awc-clan.net)

We have a back up game server that doesn't get used much, so make sure to look for the populated server on Wed and Fri.

FYI - we will soon have a custom ladder that will take into account rounds won into the individual scores. There will be many other additions to our ladder stats as well. This ladder is being hard coded so it won't work in the near future for other clans, but who knows what will happen later.

Pest_AWC
08-04-2006, 01:07 PM
Either my statements killed this thread, or everyone is getting ready to join AWC for some Friday night Ravenshield Objectives... :P

RAZE_672
08-04-2006, 01:21 PM
They're just speachless because your clan plays rvs the way it was meant to be played. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Pest_AWC
08-04-2006, 02:03 PM
It's really sad that most people that played Ravenshield have no idea how much fun Objectives are. The strategies used on either side are infinite. I wonder how many people quit Ravenshield because they got tired of watching the last 2 players circle a large map only to never find each other for the simple fact that without an objective, there was no reason to go to any one part of the map...UBI missed the boat by not promoting that aspect of the game in a way that competative clans would participate.