Jump to content

AntiJargon

Members
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AntiJargon

  1. Have to learn switching teammate fast, but I have only seen that problem when the AI teammates don't have line of sight over a hill/crest. The enemy AI does pretty much the same but we miss it because it's just an enemy shot... we notice it when it ###### us off. The best cure I have found is having the team lay prone seeing over the edge on recon, then pressing 8 for assault, since they dont get up on it. But it would be great to at least have no friendly fire... when you get hit launching a nade and shoot at your feet, the nade shouldnt explode either... and the problem with M136 hitting ground... and being ineffective passing a corner... plus grenade throwing which is like russian roulette, at least I myself not being hardcore online GR player, get those suicidal short throws, and can't really judge how far it will fly... little things could be better. I much prefer the AI following orders strictly and shoot a lot rather than having too many "bright ideas" ... used to think teammates are useless, then I had 3 guys shoot themselves trough 50 elite enemies with one loss... I just commanded them on tactical screen. On high skills they are truly good, and the better I get at the game the more I appreciate the fact that it's usually me who gets them killed switching between them and stuff. The best thing about AI is if you don't see them, the AI mostly will. Especially when line of sight is bad.
  2. Thanks for Hatchet giving the real deal so the discussion got a good start. I personally was looking for more sneaking and assigning targets prior to that, so it goes to show with the myths and the real. Relating to the fun and realism, I also wouldn't think they are mutually exclusive, apart from going silly with stuff like a mission where the ride goes down and ain't nothing your team can do about it but end up dead to last man... How to fit them together? First off what I would like to go away, is the mindset that you have to figure out how to play a mission tactically in order to complete it. Please leave puzzles to adventure games, GR has so much more potential than that. Example: Mission 14 on GR disc... I pigheadedly covered the infantry team with light armor and went west/left side despite dying alot. Finally I learned something completely new, instead of cautiously advancing as usual, I killed loudly and proudly a few guys on upper hills, and as hell broke loose I retreated to guard the flank of a crossfire ambush position I had set. Realism? Big resounding NO. If AI enemy would use their grenades more, with a lower position we would have been dogfood. But the principle of luring them in, that's brains 101 I guess. And that's in one example what I mean. In the Nereta (?) swamps you can do the same thing with high risk, but tactically it's more correct, somewhat upper position, low visibility, trees, plain murder with m203's. Not that anyone valuing his life would counterattack like that over a swamp after a hit and run attack... That's one flawed example of what I mean - a more dynamic battlefield. The maps are small, so be it, but having a full scale firefight and enemies patrolling happily 200-800 meters away, or resting in their base eats away immersion. Now, the assumption would be, "whats the fun in emptying nearly the whole map with one firefight?" Answer, add realism. They won't attack over a swamp. They have scripted use of grenades, not just tossing a hand grenade to a spot, but rifle grenades/grenade rifles/rpgs that they target same as others use ak's. (I already can guess why AI don't use M203 because it hits trees and walls right in front and does not properly estimate ranges. The m203's and enemy counterparts should use the same ballistics as regular bullets IMHO, if no other solution is found - and perhaps they should only detonate at beyond 9 meters. That way scripting is only necessary with choice of weapon and not exact choice of target. Unless you're possessed enough to make flawless obstacle identification and targeting, you have to cheat a bit. I'd rather see you spend 3 months on something better than making it just so. ) How does a platoon of enemies on shift guard duty on some depot area, react to lots of gunfire and explosions from 400 meter distance? Hell if I know, but depending on their training, experience, leaders, assignment and the tactical layout of surrounding terrain the response might be anything. They might have some red army politruk kind of fanatic idiot ordering all but fixed position guards to do full frontal assault. They might go to scripted ambush/hard cover defense positions. They might have several fire teams investigate it, avoiding lowest ground like plague. In any case it's a safe bet that guards on duty remain in guard and will be very alert. What I mean is complexity of reaction might be 50% do this and 50% do that, or 3 groups (fixed guard, ambush, investigate) but no more. With GR as it is now, the map is broken into several smaller areas so instead we shoot 3 guys, 3 more guys investigate and nearby guards get alert. Better than most games but gets old. Anything that remains the same does, I'm not saying my way does not. Variation is needed. There's one very human constant that does not change unless dealing with extremes such as drugged or fanatical enemies, and that's what Patton said, nobody wants to die for their country, they'd rather kill the other, ahem, guy. Morale would not be boring, and I don't think scripting is boring either, not in a tactical shooter like GR. (When we have teams on supress, I don't think any of us mean "get up, fire like crazy and get shot because they will only stop and keep firing" I think we'd prefer the enemy to actually care about the m249 laying 200 shots around him. I would, to say the least. This would also work if there's 15 enemies around there once things get loud. I know there's effort to have this from the very start, but it's on the same level as Endurance value which rarely makes any difference) To make supress count, why not have them do the same as when sniped? 1 shoots others move... or better they all get down and probably can't see you until they get a break, get up and fire again... if all but one guy die, he might (rarely) even surrender or panic and run. The prisoner taking could be included rather flexibly with current AI already. Add possibility to have enemy positions appear on your tactical map, things get interesting (people get drafted at gunpoint in quite a lot of wars). Supression becomes a tactical option given you know your enemy. Now all we need is learn how to tell them surrender... Also by scripting enemies could grouch to good hard cover or pretty much anything, provided conditions like noise are met. Dynamic battlefield scripting + open maps is not boring. It's railshoot and scripting that is. Those who prefer to sneak around taking them group by group, can still use silenced weapons. This is supposed to be a tactical shooter, and realism is as varied as it gets. How about you fail with a silenced weapon, hit 8, your team takes him down loud. 3 single shots are fired, 2 from ak and 1 from m16. Experience, training and leadership. Will the officer personally go and find the poor idiot guard who's shooting at birds? Because sure as hell there's nothing else 50 miles from the enemy on this godforsaken depot... how serious is it? will they send a few guys or have a full alarm? How about do they distinguish the M16? How about if you take out a patrol with a single m203 shot? Having just a few variables like amount and type of gunfire, quality of AI forces, the setting (hostage situation or the most boring guard job ever?), terrain, visibility and sound (thunder, machinery, artillery) can result in huge variation of AI/scripted responses that make sense. Last but not least, as already done with the mod community, random enemy placing would greatly increase replay value. I don't see how it interferes with scripting for instance if script is in form of: if this - then go there - once there initiate script. If there's sets of both random start points and scripts to fit them, more work but much more replay value. In short what it is now is I enter map and start stalking around killing them in twos and threes. What I could be is, should I try that, or should I pick an ambush point and get loud? Or should I sneak to their base and then set fire positions and once ready hit assault and take them down by carefully laid crossfire? This is where the brains get into play. This is where you look at the terrain, look at your intel on enemy and make educated guesses. I'm not promoting missions like puzzles one bit. On the contrary, time limits should allow a little break for a quick plan... there should always be extra time for hassle with controls and at least advance under cover. The missions should not be death traps, except for that one way you have to figure out by trial, error and loading saves. That's how kids also have fun, and that way you can play a mission first time and make it, and play a campaign where you don't load any saves, which robs the immersion. By 10th time you load that save all you're doing is just getting trough this damn mission, not caring about whther your guys get shot. Those who want exxtra hard missions which can only be done one way in one order with a +-1 second margin of error can play harder difficulty, and concentrate on getting everyone home safely. Also people who want action can do it loud, and stalking fans can do it quiet. Realism, flexibility and fun. I don't see a single suggestion there that couldn't be rather easily done with options already present in GR1... just more work with missions. In fact I would rather see a content tweak on GR1 and longer line of sight, rather than some uber bumped graphics, because GR1 was/still is very nice for the eye.
  3. The realism aspect is debatable though, I guess it's up to whether you want the enemies to be regular para/military and decrease their accuracy, or an equal challenge forgetting the game environment for a minute, or play puzzle-like in which there's practically one or two ways to ever live trough mission with anyone. My biggest grief is with time limit missions, that are typically unclear about what you really need to do in what order, not to run out of time. Probably the worst is the one where you cover friendly tanks on russian streets (original GR cd), and the only way to ever win is to simply get lucky and survive the first run without being able to lose your demo pointman. If he dies, no demo will ever survive the machine gun from an APC. It can take dozens of tries just to do that because the game does not (correctly) allow accurate fire from movement. If the assumption is you should be able to play the missions trough with first try, that one is just redicilous. And I hate missions which don't allow me to have some of the team killed, because I want to lose people that die in my campaign. If the whole team dies, it dies. Next mission please. Having to load saves makes it a puzzle campaign, not a war campaign. Sorry if I rambled a bit but it all relates to how difficulty is utilized - do we play realistic or do we play hero games?
  4. Supported as priority 1. Bring back the Command Map only add some specific commands to it. 2. Bring back the character development (point system) 3. Open maps, I dont like the linear maps included in the XBOX version. I really like the feeling of strategy GR has, how you plan to do the objectives also you had lots of options to attack a certain location in different ways you had to be very creative on the move. 4. FULL mod support. That means the ability to add/edit particle systems, surface types, etc, in addition to creating weapon, character, vehicle, and map geometry. Added 5. Ensure that campaigns in the future releases for GR2 can be compatible with earlier campaigns so you can play all the discs in one campaign keeping the same characters (ie. like Ghost Recon, Desert Siege and Island Thunder keeping the same characters developing all trough). 6. Mod support for gameplay including very basic, simple and functional differences in enemy AI behavior (including morale for being pinned down) and accuracy effects of posture, movement, recoil and wounds, and mod support for altering damage effects such as limp, extra inaccuracy due to wounded hand, short windedness due to lung hit, unconsciousness due to head, bleeding, blacking out, shock, or at least altering deadliness of damage. 7. Possibility of failing a mission by early extraction, even getting the whole team killed, without having to replay the mission, as an option. The campaign moves on as individual recon teams do not win or lose wars. 8. AI teammates that make you feel like one of the guys, not Superman. People that pretty much drop anything they see much faster than regular AI enemies, being elite soldiers, but still having to deal with the accuracy effects. Teammates should also respond to enemies very close "by sound" but this can be done simply by giving them a short radius at which they detect any movement. 9. Teammates should also have a spotting range somewhat superior to average AI enemy, which can also be converted to a numeric character development value. This would hopefully remedy possible line of sight issues. 10. Artillery strikes, mortar strikes, airstrikes, mines on occasion for both enemy and the ghost team. Laser for precise airstrikes, assigning target on tactical map for less accurate ones. Should be rather easy considering it's only placing explosions.
  5. I'm not very knowledgeable of the GR dev's position at all, but generally the way it works is developer present plans and publisher has the final say of what features there will be in the game because they pretty much bring the $ in it. Unless you have largely financially independent devs like let's say Half Life 1. That's because there's a limit of how perfect you can make a game and keep selling that much more with the improved quality. Not to mention most gamers might have very different taste from developers or hardcore fans. So they optimize the game features so that it's interesting enough to sell a lot without becoming a huge, costly bloated quest for the perfect game you always wanted to see. Unless there's enough hardcore fans of GR1 to pay $ 500 per game to get it "just so" according to their tastes. And even they vary in taste. I personally wasn't totally crazy about GR to begin with. Immersion was incredible but the whole game was, "whatever you do god forbid don't ever move or change posture to get a shooting position" and just forget about taking down a room the patches fixed a lot but the mods made it for me. Without them it would have been a Full Spectrum Warrior that kills you if you try to have your men advance while being covered ie. you're screwed. That's why I'll be looking at GR2 PC primarily as a tool with which gamers can optimize their own game experience. But the way it should be released should appeal to the tastes of casual gamers who don't surf around net finding the coolest mods or making their own stuff and checking other people's. I just hope the game offers ease and possibilities for the sake of the poor modders.
  6. Now I see them, but only 1 public server... I guess they're on and off. .
  7. Just have to wait & see, but saying their marketing strategy is stupid is weird, if there's no certainty of when the game will come out to begin with, not to mention they're there doing this every day and have done for a long time, and know maybe a thing or two more than us, silly little stuff of course like when the game might be out under this or that scenario. I really hope the game will still have an amount of freedom and a good dose of realism, but how it's going to be off the box, some industry trends have to be considered. Like the modding community already being very much considered an important aspect of how PC games are evolving. Like some predicting the death of PC gaming (I think Sony hires professional comedians), but looking at sales, costs development in near future, looking at how fierce the competition will be it's not hard to understand some priorities, like first get the $ then consider how much can be invested to that favorite project. Movie directors make 4 typical Hollywood flicks for the masses to make one movie they always wanted to do. Oddly enough people go see those movies. I didn't even want to see Terminator 3 but laughed my ass off and enjoyed my time... sort of like PC gamers bashing Halo2 before ever playing the game on XBox. But I'm not getting there *shudder* nor saying GR2 should be the same on console and PC, I'm saying if there needs to be any compromise, I don't want GR2 to be 25% of what I like off the box, I want it to be 0% and sell with the current crop of fps fans (looking at what sells ) and be flexible. That's support, long live the series and everyone's happy. My 2 newbie cents. You can begin throwing stuff at me now.
  8. Can't see what you mean by this? When I go to that link it shows free public servers for that mod. ← that is weird, scrolled all page, I still don't see any... one for subscribers east coast USA
  9. Thanks a ton you're my hero been lookin for this baby all over
  10. Thanks for your trouble but I have that one, the patch I'm talking about is about 5.9 megs as on the fileplanet link. Anyone? oh yeah before people go duh lol, the fileplanet link is from this sites' mod list, that's the problem, it's shown in the mod download section but the only download link is the one I mentioned.
  11. I just reinstalled GR & DS & IT and went looking for Droopy's general_enemy_realism.rar patch... I wouldnt bother playing the game without it, played all the campaigns individually many enough times. It seems fileplanet http://www.fileplanet.com/dl.aspx?/planetr...my_realism.rar# no longer hosts the patch for free public servers = would need the paid subscription to dl it. I'll be damned if I ever use a credit card online... unless I got something wrong and the basic, free subscription for fileplanet somehow allows the download from "High-Speed Servers for FilePlanet Subscribers" I googled it, found 3 links no use... I have the enemy_realism which is different... anyone have a link for free download? Would be great to link the campaigns for 31 missions.
×
×
  • Create New...