PDA

View Full Version : (1998-2006) R6 Series Player's Guidelines - Feedback Welcome



GhostReconJunky
03-09-2006, 04:42 AM
As an original R6 gamer, I feel commited to stating my opinion of R6 as a series.

This is all subject to change. And I will add as I have more time to do so.

Climbing System:
One of the coolest features that was forgotten in RvS was the climbing feature. All titles prior to this let you climb small objects. These objects were specific and somewhat rare. But it is definitely a feature that should comeback in the next installment of the series. Just make sure you don't make it into a flying glitch like in Rogue Spear!

Movement System:
R6 has had pretty standard and boring movement since day one. Run and walk, that's all she wrote. However, this can be improved upon greatly. There should be 4 different movement types, and these movement types should all affect a "Stamina Bar." You can refer to the stamina bar via the GUI interface, and/or audible and visible changes in the players actions. Lockdown's movement system was awesome! With the exception of the hideously fast running speed! One of the only features of that installment that I enjoyed was it's ultra realistic movement. You should NOT be able to scope while running. It is simply impossible to scope a weapon while running and shoot with pin point accuracy like in RvS. Lockdown's system was correct even down to the snipers being unable to move while scoped. Good job, and I hope it carriers over to the later installments.

Walk - Walking shouldn't have any affect on the stamina bar. It does not stress the operatives body in any way. A walk speed should be a steady pace where an operative could aim while moving farily accurately.
Run - Running definitely should have an affect on the stamina bar. After a somewhat long distance has been ran, the operative should begin to feel fatigued (naturally). He should be audibly noticeable as he begins to breathe slightly heavier and heavier. Aiming should be greatly decreased down to a VERY inaccurate shot. The operative should also begin to slow down after a limited amount of running.
Sprint - Sprinting should be a new and innovative feature to the R6 series. In this movement form, an operative should begin to run at the fastest speed of his ability. This option would be primarily used as an evading tactic, or a faster way to arrive behind cover fire. In this movement form the operative should also bring his weapon down to his torso for absolutely no aiming ability until returning to a Run, Walk, or...

Prone - The prone position was an excellent addition to the R6 series from RvS. It allowed a very accurate and controlled rate of fire. The mobility of this position was very low and realistic. You had limited horizontal and vertical vision, as well as crawling speed for fowards, backwards, and sideways. A great feature that should definitely be implemented into later installments of the series.

Gun System:
R6 really capitalizes in some of the gun attributes, and really lacks in others. To start, I'd like to note that making the game with all the correct weapon names and attributes is 100% necessary to a realistic tactical shooter. Further branching out, the weapon system could be improved with realistic aspects, such as gun jamming. Operatives have a great understanding of weapons, and before entering battle would most definitely perform maintenance on their weapon. Therefore gun jamming would have to be very rare to be a fun and realistic feature. Now as far as a recoiling and blooming system, I think RvS has the right idea. Some will argue that the R6 series should either bloom or recoil as you fire your weapon. However, I think the bloom while recoiling system in RvS was by far the best. It made using weapons a skill more than preference. I do believe the RvS system was a bit exaggerated on the bloom effect. But I must say it was pretty damn close to perfect.

Wounding System:
The wounding system is extremely lacking in the series. It has so much room for improvement. This is Redstorm's opportunity to really set the standard. With that said, it has been an idea of mine (and many others) to implement a realistic wounding system. Branching out on this idea:

General - General wounds could inolve blood loss. A completely new system I'd like to propose to the series. After a major wound takes place, the gamer has about 1 minute to find another play to help him/her. This other player would need to help in the form of a completely new item; The "Field Medical Kit." This kit item could be selected in place of other kit items such as the Heartbeat Sensor, Grenards, Electronics Kit, etc... The "Field Medic Kit" (FMK) would not necessarily repair the player to a healthy state, but rather repair him to a state where he will not bleed out to his death. This idea would serve as a very fun and intense gameplay feature to the new R6 games. Friends will be desperately trying to save each other while taking heavy fire themselves. Not all wounds should result in a bleed out death, only major wounds.
Arms - Arm wounds should disable the gamer's ability to shoot accurately
Legs - Leg wounds should disable the gamer's ability to run or even move in some cases. This would also present a new and fun feature to R6. A player can be be shot to the ground via a leg wound, but still play while being immobile. The FMK could come into play with this feature as well.

Also: When operatives are nearing death they should become disoriented. Possibly even lose functionality of their movement keys (in ex: pushing W to move forward makes you move left). Vision should blur until the darkness consumes them! haha Seeing a player stumble around all disoriented and about to die would be satisfying to view! Admit it!

Respawn Feature:
This is Rainbow Six we're talking about. A tactical game cannot and should not allow immortality. If you get killed, you must suffer the consequences of being the inferior player (wait for the next round). Then maybe you can better yourself as a tactical player, and survive the next round. Putting respawns in R6 makes us gamers not value our life (in game). And if we do not value our in game life, we are just putting the tactical aspect of the game in the trash. Not to forget, every single title up to RvS was a huge success. If the games a hit without respawns, UBI has nothing to worry about as far as selling the game without the option.

Spectator Feature:
The spectator feature of R6 will make or break the series. It MUST be in R6 for the game to be a success. R6 is a personal game. Everyone knows everyone. Having the spectator feature in game enables players to focus their attention on others. This level of personal gaming is loved by the community. So if you are a new person to the series (RvS or later), your opinion on respawns is somewhat irrelevant. And you must develop the respect of the series as a whole.

In the Extreme Event:
If the developers refuse to remove respawns from the game, they must at least implement it as a tactical/realistic feature. An idea that approaches a "Realistic Respawn" (two words that should not be together) would be a helicopter that brings reinforcements to a safe insertion zone, once half your team is dead. That would significantly decrease in "waiting" as well as serve a somewhat fun feature. This feature could also be used as a "Join On The Fly" feature. Once you have 3-6 players waiting to join a round, a helicopter could be dispatched to "Join On The Fly." This could be fun for a capture the flag game type too.

Dane175
03-09-2006, 04:45 AM
I nomiate GhostReconJunky to the Council (If they choose to allow more). I'm sure others will agree. We need more old school multiplayer guys on the council.

GhostReconJunky
03-09-2006, 05:10 AM
Thanks Dane.

Only in an extreme and awesome situation would this take place though!

GSG_9_Rage
03-09-2006, 05:56 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

subzero1900
03-09-2006, 08:26 AM
that Idea would totally suck, IMO...this is a game, I dont want to have to be hounded by my teammates to all carry a useless piece of equipment and forsake another just in case the "medic" is KIA...this would totally suck as an Idea...or as a feature


The medics down...Oh no...I got shot.....Im slowly bleeding to death even though most Combatants carry their own medical equipment as In Gause wraps and can perfectly apply it to them-selfs withought searching out and giving away the postition of another teammate...no I must slowly wait for death because I didn't waist a equipment slot on a useless POS...that isnt as big or heavy as a normal piece of equpment and could be easily stuffed in a pocket withought requireing me to leave grenades, claymores, C4, Flashbangs, Extra Magazines, heart beat sensor, Tear gas, WP grenades, ect....

GhostReconJunky
03-09-2006, 10:51 AM
In response to subzero's post...
that Idea would totally suck, IMO...this is a game, I dont want to have to be hounded by my teammates to all carry a useless piece of equipment and forsake another just in case the "medic" is KIA...this would totally suck as an Idea...or as a feature

First of all, not all your wounds are going to be bleed out deaths in this proposal. Only major wounds such as the infamous non-fatal head wounds, and chest hits that penetrate the kevlar.

Second, I'm in no way implying there should be a medic in R6. I just think all R6 operatives should be skilled in the field of SELF or TEAMMATE medical procedures. That is why the bleed outs/FMK (field medical kit) would be a huge pro to our wounding system. In other words, I never said you could not use the FMK on yourself.

And if you disagree with some of my idea's as a long term R6 player, please refrain from using the word "sucks." Because I believe my ideas are well thought out. If anything, I think your quick response is lacking in content and understanding of my idea.

Aj6627
03-09-2006, 01:48 PM
I don't like the idea of the medic system.
How many people would carry medic kits in the average server?
There aren't that many people out there(except for clans that play together) that have much strategical gameplay regularly.
The object of the game is to not get shot and kill the other team anyway. Why should the game have people able to be healed somewhat?
I like the system in RvS where if you get shot you limp, and then if you get shot again you die.

I agree somewhat that there should be no respawns. I would like no respawns in Team games, and only respawns in FFA Sharpshooter.

I do want the spectator mode as it was in RvS.

I haven't played LD for PC yet, so I can't comment on that.(only on the crappy XBOX version)

subzero1900
03-09-2006, 02:29 PM
actually, I thought your idea out very well, and while in text it seems good, the outcome is horrible'

A. Now instead of being worried about dieing in combat, I have to worry about finding a medic before I bleed to death

B. I now have to carry an Item that Occupies <span class="ev_code_red">ONE OF TWO</span> Equipment Slots or I cant stop myself from bleeding to death

C. I now would either A. FInd a designated Medic <span class="ev_code_yellow">(which is really arcadie)</span> Or B. Waist one of my valuable Equipment slots so I don't bleed to death.

E. Considering the size of Gause Wraps There is no need for me to waist An Equipment Slot

F. Now your compromising the One-shot kill rule and Making it <span class="ev_code_yellow">(agianst what I thought your ideas were about Realism)</span> a health bar game <span class="ev_code_yellow">(which would be unrealistic)</span>

G. I never said "Medic Class" Im saying a designated medci liek <span class="ev_code_yellow">"Hey you Haze19034 You got to carry 2 equipment slots of FMK's and Camp the hole round and do absolutely nothing"</span>

so summed up the Idea sucks, And its nothing against you as being <span class="ev_code_yellow">"a long term R6 player"</span>, I could care less about how long you've been playing the game, and more about how the idea would pan out ingame with Current Working R6 Games.

GhostReconJunky
03-09-2006, 04:48 PM
Direct Response:

I want to make it clear that all my ideas further the realism of this series 100%. The word "arcadie" should NOT be used in reference to my post.

A. Again, not all wounds are major. In other words you will not bleed out unless its a vital organ for example. So it's fair to say bleed outs would be rare unless you're hit with a powerful weapon from a short distance. And no, you don't have to worry about finding a medic if you are worried about bleeding to death, because you can carry your own field kit to repair your wounds to a function state. That explains "A."

B. Carrying items that OCCUPY ONE OF TWO slots is part of the R6 franchise. If you don't like that setup, don't play the series. It is designed this way to balance out the player's abilities. That goes for all items, not just my FMK idea. Realistically you could carry an HBS on your vest. But for balance purposes, they do not allow that. So "B." is null and void.

C. Again, the operatives are NOT medics. Don't refer to them as that, because they are operatives. Medics are designated people who are in war to heal operatives (aka soldiers). So that part of your reply is way out of line. And once again, you are not "waisting" a valuable equipment slot. All kit items serve a unique and very valuable purpose (especially an FMK).

D. You skipped this letter for some reason...

E. Yes, gause wraps could fit in a pocket. You are absolutely right. But so could another pistol, an explosive, an HBS, etc... You have to draw the line somewhere. Because if you don't the game will become unbalanced with super players that are equipped with a plethora of items.

F. I am IN NO WAY comprimising the 1-shot 1-kill rule at all. In some situations you can be hit in vital organs and still be alive. This is what I'm referring to as a "major wound." This is where you'd begin to bleed out and need an FMK. Also, I did NOT make any mention of wanting a health bar in the game. A simple and small GUI addition with a human body would serve as a bleed out reference. This idea is MUCH better than RvS's system where you are hit in the head, and start to walk with a damn limp. "OUCH MY HEAD, OH MY GOD! I THINK IM GOING TO LIMP NOW COMPLETELY ORIENTED LIKE I WAS BEFORE I GOT SHOT IN THE HEAD!" But I guess you seem to enjoy that system. For us tactical players, we like advancements in our gameplay. You can continue playing RvS if you like inferior wounding systems.

G. OK, equipping 2 Field Medical Kits would serve no purpose. It would be as useful as equipping two heartbeat sensors. And obviously he wouldn't be forced to camp the entire round. He could play like everyone else. He'd be playing as a tactical operative, fighting for his teams victory. Now in the event that he is fighting and notices a criticaly wounded teammate, he could help that person survive. It would bring a whole new emotion to this game. Risking your own life to save another. As mentioned before, if somebody is wounded and cannot move, an FMK kit could enable a body dragging feature, where you bring a teammate to cover to perform a repair. It would be completely innovative and really set the standard for tactical FPS games. And I'll stand by it 100%. You will have wounded people contacting you via the built in VoIP system to help them out in a location on the map (sort of like RvS's mini map feature).

So to sum it up, I countered every single one of your ill-mannered responses to my idea. I am open to CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, but not children running their mouths, just saying my idea "sucks."

And I'd like you to stop responding to my posts if you would please. Because at this point you are just ranting in a online forum battle regardless of whether you like my idea or not.

good day.

ruled
03-09-2006, 05:16 PM
i like everything about that post cept for that stamina bar ****. not need, i think that running/walking scheme should be the same as rvs.
and yes i did play the other r6 titles but i found the rvs style of running and scopeing the best

GhostReconJunky
03-09-2006, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by ruled:
i like everything about that post cept for that stamina bar ****. not need, i think that running/walking scheme should be the same as rvs.
and yes i did play the other r6 titles but i found the rvs style of running and scopeing the best

Thanks for your response, it is appreciated. However if you want a tactical game, RvS's running while scoped was not tactical. It was basically super human. Although it may have been fun to pull off some nice running/scoped shots, it just didn't cut it on the tactical aspect. And I'd have to standby my decision to leave it out of the next installment.

Lockdown's movement is actually correct with the exception of too fast running speeds.

GhostReconJunky
03-10-2006, 10:26 AM
updated all information as of 3/10/2006

KungFu_CIA
03-10-2006, 12:55 PM
GhostReconJunky

You have some interesting ideas.

Let me help focus the discussion a little more by asking you and others this:



What kind of game do you want R6 to become?

A hardcore, realism simulator?

Or a game which emphasizes real world weapons, equipment and tactics, but which is still a game at its core like the original R6, RS, UO, etc?

The reason I am asking everyone is because while there is absolutely NO information about what the next R6:5 will entail...

I would just like to know, from a limited Community stand point, what most of you would like to see the series evolve into.

GhostReconJunky states he/she wants it to be 100% realism and I want to see if others feel this way, or if others have counter-arguments and how they view R6 as an evolving series.

I will post my thoughts after a few responses.

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

Defuser
03-10-2006, 04:06 PM
KungFu, that is possibly the most obviously weighted question I have ever seen. Regardless of my response to it, and regardless of the fact that I'm risking getting berated for bringing it up - the question of whether people want a 'game' ('like the other R6 games') or a 'simulator' is one that is quite obviously geared towards generating support for the former. In effect, you have excluded all the characteristics of a 'game' from what GhostReconJunky has proposed - instead saying that adopting his ideas would make it a simulator instead of a game - a 'game' like the other R6s. You're effectively saying, that if introduced, his ideas would make the game fundamentally not R6. This is an emotive and misleading argument as it pulls at the heartstrings of those who want to see R6 do well, and feel like R6, but there is absolutely no reason that at least some of GRJ's ideas could be implemented without compromising the R6 feel. You've already made a value judgement on how effective you think GRJ's ideas are and, in effect, have already indicated what your following response is going to be like.

GhostReconJunky
03-10-2006, 04:24 PM
a game which emphasizes real world weapons, equipment and tactics, but which is still a game at its core like the original R6, RS, UO, etc?

Interesting post.

To clear things up, I want this game to focus on Rainbow Six and Rogue Spear. Obviously if you design it hand in hand with those games, it'll be underdeveloped. That is why I want it to be based off those games, and extremely revamped. So to answer your question, I want this:

"a game which emphasizes real world weapons, equipment and tactics, but which is still a game at its core like the original R6, RS, UO, etc?"

GhostReconJunky
03-10-2006, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Defuser:
KungFu, that is possibly the most obviously weighted question I have ever seen. Regardless of my response to it, and regardless of the fact that I'm risking getting berated for bringing it up - the question of whether people want a 'game' ('like the other R6 games') or a 'simulator' is one that is quite obviously geared towards generating support for the latter. In effect, you have excluded all the characteristics of a 'game' from what GhostReconJunky has proposed - instead saying that adopting his ideas would make it a simulator instead of a game - like the other R6s. You're effectively saying, that if introduced, his ideas would make the game fundamentally not R6. This is an emotive and misleading argument as it pulls at the heartstrings of those who want to see R6 do well, and feel like R6, but there is absolutely no reason that at least some of GRJ's ideas could be implemented without compromising the R6 feel. You've already made a value judgement on how effective you think GRJ's ideas are and, in effect, have already indicated what your following response is going to be like.

You really nailed that right on. I am trying to strive for total R6 game feel. With a ton of revamped and new innovative features. Very well put, and thanks for posting.

KungFu_CIA
03-10-2006, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Defuser:
KungFu, that is possibly the most obviously weighted question I have ever seen. Regardless of my response to it, and regardless of the fact that I'm risking getting berated for bringing it up - the question of whether people want a 'game' ('like the other R6 games') or a 'simulator' is one that is quite obviously geared towards generating support for the former. In effect, you have excluded all the characteristics of a 'game' from what GhostReconJunky has proposed - instead saying that adopting his ideas would make it a simulator instead of a game - a 'game' like the other R6s. You're effectively saying, that if introduced, his ideas would make the game fundamentally not R6. This is an emotive and misleading argument as it pulls at the heartstrings of those who want to see R6 do well, and feel like R6, but there is absolutely no reason that at least some of GRJ's ideas could be implemented without compromising the R6 feel. You've already made a value judgement on how effective you think GRJ's ideas are and, in effect, have already indicated what your following response is going to be like.

I don't think it is a weighted question at all.

The thing is there are -- or, at least appear to be -- Two different kinds of gamers who play games which are touted as being "realistic" or based on/in realism.

Someone said in another thread that R6 has always straddled the line between realism AND fantasy in it assigns an eight-man team (original games with planning) complete with heart beat sensors to take down 30-40 Tangos when in real life, some plans call for 20-40 men to take down only half that number and vice versa (the Delta Force raid on the Iranian Embassy called for 40+ men for only like 12-15 Terrorists).

All I was asking is which direction do you feel the game should be heading because while GhostReconJunky may not consider his bleeding out/medic idea a 'hardcore realism' element... In a lot of ways it is depending on how it would be implemented (compared to other games which have medics and bleeding).

GRJ, himself, openly said he wants 100% realism in R6 and I just commented there comes a line when realism turns a game into a simulator. That is all.

subzero1900
03-10-2006, 09:32 PM
I think RvS has the right idea. Some will argue that the R6 series should either bloom or recoil as you fire your weapon. However, I think the bloom while recoiling system in RvS was by far the best. It made using weapons a skill more than preference
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
This is by far the thing that gets me, It wasn't skill it was completely LUCK, Try a pistol match with that concept, Good Luck, there is no skill its random luck baised ****.

Its all about putting the most X amount of bullets in Y amount of time with Z amount of Luck percentage

Woosy
03-11-2006, 03:19 AM
It's a good Idea for an army game, like ghost recon or AA where there is alot of distance to cover. For special forces if we breach, and you're shot they're told to call a man down and to move on, grim reality, they never stop or give up, this is what we train for, there is no time for field dressings, we're totaly comitted now, there are bad guys coming or willing to execute the hostage, speed is the key, can't stop now.

If a man goes down you leave him, if you linger your other mates get it, 1 death now becomes 3. You're an elite Special Forces operative, hand picked from the best of the best in the world in our Unit Rainbow, we don't expect to get hit, we hit them hard and kill them fast, you know the risks. Our job? Our job is kicking butt, and to eliminate the threat before they eliminate us, this isn't an option, it's a matter of survival! This can meaning losing friends in our virtual reality. But we train hard to fight easy. Do you really have what it takes, to be a virtual elite special forces operative?

Relenquish
03-11-2006, 04:03 AM
The hole FMK seems pretty anti-fun imo.

Plus the idea of being imobilised, thats the least fun thing i have ever heard.

On KungFu's question

I want it to be a game where you can imply real world tactics, not a simulator where you can have a game.

Being imobilised, bleeding to death, doesnt sound RS to me.

GhostReconJunky
03-13-2006, 10:43 AM
So you guys enjoy the old school shot in the chest = limp system?

I'm not saying the FMK system should be implemented, I'm just saying the current system is bad. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Relenquish
03-13-2006, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by GhostReconJunky:
So you guys enjoy the old school shot in the chest = limp system?

I'm not saying the FMK system should be implemented, I'm just saying the current system is bad. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The limp system for RVS is obviously flawed. ANd of course needs improving, I was just arguing that, realisms great, but the comes a point where you ahve to remembers its also a game. And games need to be fun. Ofcourse its up to the devs to decide that line. I guess some would argue not being able to shoot as well is anti-fun and counter productive to the game.

I should probably of included some where in my previous post that I totally agree with a lot of the other stuff you said. Kinda makes me look grumpy just disagreeing with what i dont agree with. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ArchangelSKT
03-13-2006, 11:39 AM
About the limp/damage system.

I would them to include the one from OPF, where if your getting seriously injured in your legs you can only crawl not walk.

Still able to return fire and defend yourself with a somewhat effected aim though.

GhostReconJunky
03-13-2006, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by ArchangelSKT:
About the limp/damage system.

I would them to include the one from OPF, where if your getting seriously injured in your legs you can only crawl not walk.

Still able to return fire and defend yourself with a somewhat effected aim though.

that sounds like an awesome idea... seems aracadie at first.. but if the devs do their job right, anything can be made with the R6 feel to it ... just like at RvS ... the unreal engine lol