Describe what your ideal shooter would contain.

[krise madsen]

I'm all for the message thing, and of course the player shouldn't be frustrated more than necessary. Again, you may eventually end up with the player not being able to pick up any weapon or ammo (for a number of reasons). That's not the important part. The important part is that you start off going for max realism and then tweak it for whatever reason.

That kind of approach can become almost tangible. I'm pretty sure that was the starting point for the original Rainbow Six, even though part of the game was rather unrealistic, and had a lot to do with making it the classic it is.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Hatchetforce]

I'm all for the message thing, and of course the player shouldn't be frustrated more than necessary. Again, you may eventually end up with the player not being able to pick up any weapon or ammo (for a number of reasons). That's not the important part. The important part is that you start off going for max realism and then tweak it for whatever reason.

That kind of approach can become almost tangible. I'm pretty sure that was the starting point for the original Rainbow Six, even though part of the game was rather unrealistic, and had a lot to do with making it the classic it is.

Respectfully

krise madsen

The player definitely shouldn't be frustrated more than necessary. Particularly by head shake inducing moments where the AI can do something a player can't. Or by a system that says a higher difficulty = AI that can withstand 2 headshots. We usually didn't have that problem in Dangerous Waters, right Krise?

Recovery of battlefield weapons, for whatever reason - there are a host - is a necessity. Even if it only teaches you that you should not have done it. You can't carry ten weapons, but I have carried my main weapon, a sidearm, and an extra weapon such as a shotgun for breaching or a sniper system for other engagements. I won't go into the debate again. I have listed the reasons at least twice on this board. I will repeat my mantra though. Unless limited by design - and that time will come - removing realism to promote realism never works. It is the cheap solution normally only used by governments and beaurocrats. By that I mean solving the symptom instead of the problem.

"We removed weapon pickup because it isn't realistic." Wrong. Under particular circumstances it is. What has to be done is to make the weapon and the situation vary according to the rules of realism. That will solve the problem rather than developer interference when such interference is not needed...or wanted. Interference

with what I have coined 'The Natural Order of Realistc Gameplay.' I know, I know, someone is bound to start calling it NORG.

Krise, a recovered weapons's capability will be dependant upon many things. For every geographic area, country, and unit, weapons will have a certain reliability. Why? Because that's the way things really are. I have seen new 74s with no front site post and grenade ammo that wouldn't slide into the launcher. It is up to you as an operator to study the intel and know this. You can't always tell by looking but a cursory inspection will reveal any obvious problems. Hoever certain weapons likely have shortcuts in manufacturing, lack of care, etc. and may carry with them operational issues. You reach a point though where you are just frustrating the gamer and this has to be noted. I didn't say corrected. There is a better remedy for that.

[Ick]

Excellent input.

[krise madsen]

I'm still stumped by DW. Just can't get my brain wrapped around it (or to be truthful, I'm just too damn impatient! ). I did much better with Fleet Command

But you're right of course, the developer trying to "manage" gameplay is a very, very bad thing and it's done far, far too often by game makers.

That said, I can live with certain compromises and abstractions when they're added for a reason, NOT when nobody bothered to try coming up with a better solution.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Edited February 19, 2007 by krise madsen

[Sup]

"We removed weapon pickup because it isn't realistic." Wrong.

It is, however, good to remove it if it isn't relevant.

In games like Ghost Recon and R6 realism was a factor in the lack of weapon pickups, naturally. But the real reason was game design.

For the most structured, streamlined, effective experience, it was very wise to remove weapon pickups; R6 was about executing plans more even than it was about realistic combat, and grabbing dudes' guns has nothing to do with that. GR was about movement and stealth, and while weapon switching wouldn't have really hurt it's gameplay, there was absolutely no reason to implement it, save wholly unnecessary realism that the average player wouldn't appreciate anyway.

I'm not saying at all that there shouldn't be an option to pick up weapons in this case (ofp's a great example of it being added excellently,) of course. It should just be noted that 'weapon pickup isn't realistic' isn't the only reason to leave weapon pickup out of a realistic game.

[Hatchetforce]

I'm still stumped by DW. Just can't get my brain wrapped around it (or to be truthful, I'm just too damn impatient! ). I did much better with Fleet Command

But you're right of course, the developer trying to "manage" gameplay is a very, very bad thing and it's done far, far too often by game makers.

That said, I can live with certain compromises and abstractions when they're added for a reason, NOT when nobody bothered to try coming up with a better solution.

Respectfully

krise madsen

I remembered seeing your name over on a few boards. DW is the pinnacle in it's field, but the antimod behavior is puzzling.

Managing gameplay can be a mortal sin. The ONLY ONLY time this should be done is to handle a technical limitation. Otherwise if there is something that important for the player to discover or a direction for them to head, either rework the level or give them a cut scene. Getting in the way of issues such as jumping and weapon pick ups (just to name two) are absurd and an example of trying to avoid a problem rather than addressing it. Realistic shooting while running is another item often removed rather than being properly modeled.

Unless we are moving very rapidly, weapons dropped at the scene ALWAYS have some relevance. I have yet to see a game where there were selective instances of weapon pickups - that is you could only do it at certain times chosen by the developer. Usually they block it out the entire game or else allow it. Blocking it out has no justifiable reason. That's what we need, more dev control and less player choice...not. Removing such capabilities is indefensible. Particularly when leaving in such numerous real world abilities opens up a broader scale of gameplay and player choice.

If players are doing something that isn't realistic and the devs are trying to prevent this, the solution IS NOT to prevent them from doing it. The solution is to allow it but also enforce the real world consequences. For as many times as players do something that isn't normally done in the real world, there will be that incident when it is exactly what an actual operator would have done. Removing these freedoms has no place when it is technically possible to accomodate such wonderful and much needed player freedom.

[FA sear]

I have to agree that any limitation that is placed upon a player that is not there on account of technical reasons simply should not be there. Period.

This was the great thing about OFP. There were some squad commands that I literally only used a couple times throughout the entire game (almost 60 missions), and when I needed it, I was sure glad it was there. Of course even OFP has some issues with realism, but overall it was the most satisfying gaming experience I have ever had.

This was a MAJOR issue I had with [GR]/GRIT/DS. At the very least one should be able to pick up ammo or weapons from fallen friendlies, but the limitations of the game were far to severe. The person with the AT round dies and the mission ends? The person with the demo charges dies and the mission ends? Quite simply the less limitations a game has the better it is. One of my major peeves about GR.

[pz3]

You have my full and undivided attention right now hatchet.

That little BFS logo under your avatar and what your saying is making me giddy.

[krise madsen]

I remembered seeing your name over on a few boards. DW is the pinnacle in it's field, but the antimod behavior is puzzling.

Managing gameplay can be a mortal sin. The ONLY ONLY time this should be done is to handle a technical limitation. Otherwise if there is something that important for the player to discover or a direction for them to head, either rework the level or give them a cut scene. Getting in the way of issues such as jumping and weapon pick ups (just to name two) are absurd and an example of trying to avoid a problem rather than addressing it. Realistic shooting while running is another item often removed rather than being properly modeled.

Unless we are moving very rapidly, weapons dropped at the scene ALWAYS have some relevance. I have yet to see a game where there were selective instances of weapon pickups - that is you could only do it at certain times chosen by the developer. Usually they block it out the entire game or else allow it. Blocking it out has no justifiable reason. That's what we need, more dev control and less player choice...not. Removing such capabilities is indefensible. Particularly when leaving in such numerous real world abilities opens up a broader scale of gameplay and player choice.

If players are doing something that isn't realistic and the devs are trying to prevent this, the solution IS NOT to prevent them from doing it. The solution is to allow it but also enforce the real world consequences. For as many times as players do something that isn't normally done in the real world, there will be that incident when it is exactly what an actual operator would have done. Removing these freedoms has no place when it is technically possible to accomodate such wonderful and much needed player freedom.

Yup, their mod attitude puzzles me too. A game like DW lives or dies by mods (and sales have been very dissapointing, btw).

I suppose we could start talking about the NORG doctrine then? I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't become a dogma. For instance, I want my respawns in coop. There's hardly anything realistic about a dead guy re-materializing, fit for fight, out of thin air, but I want it anyway. But NORG is still the best (and probably only) truly effective approach to the tac-sim.

Ironically, some developers have a habit of omitting good gameplay features because "it's not realistic", yet the game as such is grossly unrealistic...

A good example of NORG in action is the Infiltration mod for Unreal Tournament. You can dowonload it here: Infiltration website, or you can just read dslyecxi's exllent review here: Infiltration review

With (probably) a bit of tweaking, it would take care of a big chunk of my "ideal" game.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Hatchetforce]

I remembered seeing your name over on a few boards. DW is the pinnacle in it's field, but the antimod behavior is puzzling.

Managing gameplay can be a mortal sin. The ONLY ONLY time this should be done is to handle a technical limitation. Otherwise if there is something that important for the player to discover or a direction for them to head, either rework the level or give them a cut scene. Getting in the way of issues such as jumping and weapon pick ups (just to name two) are absurd and an example of trying to avoid a problem rather than addressing it. Realistic shooting while running is another item often removed rather than being properly modeled.

Unless we are moving very rapidly, weapons dropped at the scene ALWAYS have some relevance. I have yet to see a game where there were selective instances of weapon pickups - that is you could only do it at certain times chosen by the developer. Usually they block it out the entire game or else allow it. Blocking it out has no justifiable reason. That's what we need, more dev control and less player choice...not. Removing such capabilities is indefensible. Particularly when leaving in such numerous real world abilities opens up a broader scale of gameplay and player choice.

If players are doing something that isn't realistic and the devs are trying to prevent this, the solution IS NOT to prevent them from doing it. The solution is to allow it but also enforce the real world consequences. For as many times as players do something that isn't normally done in the real world, there will be that incident when it is exactly what an actual operator would have done. Removing these freedoms has no place when it is technically possible to accomodate such wonderful and much needed player freedom.

Yup, their mod attitude puzzles me too. A game like DW lives or dies by mods (and sales have been very dissapointing, btw).

I suppose we could start talking about the NORG doctrine then? I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't become a dogma. For instance, I want my respawns in coop. There's hardly anything realistic about a dead guy re-materializing, fit for fight, out of thin air, but I want it anyway. But NORG is still the best (and probably only) truly effective approach to the tac-sim.

Ironically, some developers have a habit of omitting good gameplay features because "it's not realistic", yet the game as such is grossly unrealistic...

A good example of NORG in action is the Infiltration mod for Unreal Tournament. You can dowonload it here: Infiltration website, or you can just read dslyecxi's exllent review here: Infiltration review

With (probably) a bit of tweaking, it would take care of a big chunk of my "ideal" game.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Ha ha, you are killing me. NORG.

Respawns are not a gameplay mechanic per se and as such SHOULD be a server side toggle. Choices along the lines of No Respawns, 1, 5, 10, Infinite or Team Account. Team Account is where the Team as a whole can be given a limited number of respawns. Everyone on that Team that dies draws on that same number of available respawns. As the rest, it is a server side toggle.

Respawns can be used in conjunction with realism. There isn't a dichotomy there. They are a faster way of reinserting players into the game.

[Sup]

Respawns are not a gameplay mechanic per se and as such SHOULD be a server side toggle.

But they are a game mode mechanic. Depending on the level of structure and focus in your mulitplayer mode their operation can be very important; Obviously Battlefield's domination gameplay would not work properly without it's simple wave spawns and team resources, and naturally CounterStrike would never play well outside of it's roundbased format.

[krise madsen]

Ha ha, you are killing me. NORG.

Respawns are not a gameplay mechanic per se and as such SHOULD be a server side toggle. Choices along the lines of No Respawns, 1, 5, 10, Infinite or Team Account. Team Account is where the Team as a whole can be given a limited number of respawns. Everyone on that Team that dies draws on that same number of available respawns. As the rest, it is a server side toggle.

Respawns can be used in conjunction with realism. There isn't a dichotomy there. They are a faster way of reinserting players into the game.

I'm still cranky about loosing those options in GRAW

Which brings me on to "difficulty settings":

The idea came from Pritzl and his flightsim experience: In flightsims, you can usually tweak the difficulty/realism settings as you please, regardless of any influence on difficulty: You could make your aircraft invincible and all enemies lethal fighter aces or the other way around or..., whatever you want.

I want the same in shooters. To this I'll add 3 difficulty settings: Easy, medium and hard. There aren't fixed settings but rather defaults. You can set the, say, medium difficulty, and the various settings will automatically be set to a medium difficulty level. You can then tweak each individual setting as you desire. You can even save your personal settings.

There's also a "realism" setting. This isn't related to any difficulty level, but exclusively to the most realistic setup (which may very well be the most difficult setup as well, but that's besides the point). Again, this is a default that you can tweak as you desire.

These are, of course, all server side settings for MP. Ideally, your settings can be ported to a simple file that server hosts can share between each other. One might even see various "schools of thought" in relation to settings (much like debate rules).

Respectfully

krise madsen

PS: I hereby submit NORG (Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay) as an official GR.net term. Let's see how fast the word gets around the forum

[ZJJ]

PS: I hereby submit NORG (Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay) as an official GR.net term. Let's see how fast the word gets around the forum

Why do I have visions of "I support NORG" showing up in signatures?

[WhiteKnight77]

You mean like this?

Just something I tossed together real quick.

[Xeno]

PS: I hereby submit NORG (Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay) as an official GR.net term. Let's see how fast the word gets around the forum

Why do I have visions of "I support NORG" showing up in signatures?

Thats just crazy

[Hatchetforce]

You mean like this?

Just something I tossed together real quick.

I give up. I give up.

Krise,

Properly instituted variances in difficulty levels are both easier and harder. Especially If you do it within the bounds of NORG. He he. Usually difficulty is increased by making the enemy deadeyes shots, and allowing them to take superhuman direct fire. Ridiculous. Or how about the psychic enemy that can track you through walls. Splinter Cell DA anyone?

Little or no attention is paid to a genuine change in tactics, the semblance of varied experience, or a tendency toward mentally induced reactions (fight or flight conundrum). These are the areas of true craftmanship. Giving them (AI) items such as better weapons (within NORG) and reinforcements is the easy but necessary part of increasing difficulty. Bear in mind those are but two of many ways to realistically increase difficluty. There are a wide range that are too often ignored. Some items that can be adjusted are tangible while others more abstract and esoteric - such as AI experience and capability to react. But nowhere should the enemy become the automaton that eats bullets for breakfast and has little side effect except indigestion.

PS: I hereby submit NORG (Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay) as an official GR.net term. Let's see how fast the word gets around the forum

Why do I have visions of "I support NORG" showing up in signatures?

Thats just crazy

Ha ha ha ha - Nice Sig.

[WhiteKnight77]

You mean like this?

Just something I tossed together real quick.

I give up. I give up.

You started it.

[krise madsen]

I give up. I give up.

Krise,

Properly instituted variances in difficulty levels are both easier and harder. Especially If you do it within the bounds of NORG. He he. Usually difficulty is increased by making the enemy deadeyes shots, and allowing them to take superhuman direct fire. Ridiculous. Or how about the psychic enemy that can track you through walls. Splinter Cell DA anyone?

Little or no attention is paid to a genuine change in tactics, the semblance of varied experience, or a tendency toward mentally induced reactions (fight or flight conundrum). These are the areas of true craftmanship. Giving them (AI) items such as better weapons (within NORG) and reinforcements is the easy but necessary part of increasing difficulty. Bear in mind those are but two of many ways to realistically increase difficluty. There are a wide range that are too often ignored. Some items that can be adjusted are tangible while others more abstract and esoteric - such as AI experience and capability to react. But nowhere should the enemy become the automaton that eats bullets for breakfast and has little side effect except indigestion.

As WK said, you brought it on yourself

I supposed I'm just jaded. I'd honestly given up even thinking about anything as sophisticated as what you suggest. I like it though, a lot. Which is partly why I suggested the "realism default": You get the most realistic setup, the best the developer can do and then you can tweak it a bit to suit your individual skills. However, I don't have a problem with certain features being scaled beyond NORG to suit the skills of the individual player.

I fully agree with the notion of a scalable AI: Greenhorns that run away at the first sign of trouble, fanantics that fight to the death no matter what, and regulars that put up a good fight, until your sniper takes out their commander. Not to mention their general soldiering prowess. I'd want to see something like that before I'd belive it though.

I wouldn't mind scalable quantity of enemies either: Take easy street and face a squad; do it the hard way and you're up against a platoon, with tank support maybe? Though I do suspect incorporating that into the same mission would be very difficult

Respectfully

krise madsen

[WhiteKnight77]

For the record, I do like what HF has been saying about creating a game and not cutting out the parts that should be in the game trying to make it balanced. Real life isn't balanced.

[krise madsen]

For the record, I do like what HF has been saying about creating a game and not cutting out the parts that should be in the game trying to make it balanced. Real life isn't balanced.

I'd be very suprised if you belived otherwise .Which nicely leads to the next item on the agenda: Play balance

In PvP/TvT multiplayer, at some point you must relax the NORG requirements in light of the fact that it is, after all, a friendly match, and balance and fair play (to an extent) is an issue. I'm sure your basketball team would win more if all your players wielded cricket bats, but it wouldn't be cricket, would it?

Play balance is a very difficult subject as is. Rest assured that MP gamers will find any chink in the balancing armour. Idential weapons on each side and symmetrical maps can only take you so far, but when you go beyond that things can get really complicated. No wonder many servers play each map twice, with teams switching sides between matches.

To be honest, I very rarely play MP (except coop) so I don't have very strong opinions about it. Whatever works for the MP community is cool with me. What I dont want to see is SVD's with the accuracy and rate of fire of the M24 (to balance snipers), or T-72's with Abrams performance, messing up my SP and Coop games.

Another key issue is the "control" of MP games. The usual approach is for the developer to include all sorts of restrictions, tweaks and features to balance and manage gameplay. That's wrong.

Case in point: GRAW MP patching restricted the number of hand grenades carried to eliminate grenade spamming. What should have been done was leaving it to the server host to decide the number of grenades to be carried, from 0 to 100 for all I care. The host is far more in tune with the MP community than any developer ever will be.

The proper approach is to provide the hosts with the tools and let them deal with the issues. One example could be providing hosts with a "no-go" zone tool (with variable radius) around spawn points to prevent spawn camping. Depending on who you are and what you're playing, spawn camping can be an abomination or a natural part of the game. Providing the tools to the hosts and leaving it up to them to deal with the issue is the better solution in the long run, IMHO.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Hatchetforce]

You are going to have to trust me on this, but NORG balances the game. Relaxing and adjusting is what happens that causes players to throw their hands up in the air and say, "What the hell were they thinking! That's BS. That wouldn't happen!" Cricket Bats are what a basketball team gets when devs 'balance and relax' a game. They don't get them when it's done right.

On the grenade issue, you do several things. First, you give a person a realistic load out choice. 100 isn't a choice. With 100 you have to alter the weight incumbrance physics and that doesn't work and isn't worth the time just because someone wants to carry 100 grenades. You can't even do that in Crackdown.

With 100 you are asking for trouble. There's the imbalance. That's a cricket bat. The host is in tune with the game he wants to run, and likely his circle of friends, but not the entire community per se. If that is the game he wants then he picked the wrong title. As many choices as possible should be allowed, but some affect game design to such a drastic degree they should be avoided.

Weight encumbrance physics are an important part of gameplay. Otherwise, you are pulling a major support beam out from under the entire structure. The community has been screaming for a great realistic gritty title and a game developer has to focus. Trying to make a title that can flex from gritty realism to a bombasitc-free-for-all-carry-100-grenades is doomed to failure. Games that try to be everything to everyone wind up being nothing to anyone.

Give them a choice of between none and 6. Then you institute the realistic time it takes to get a grenade from your gear, pull a pin, and throw it. The faster you throw a grenade, - yank and toss - the less accuracy. That's a fact. You give them a realistic accuracy and throw distance, and realistic blast effects (pattern, radius, etc) What happens is grenade throwing becomes a tactical decision.

There is no snatch and grab and the grenade spamming goes down when people start getting shot trying to frag people. It also goes back to tactics and the Darwin principle that is very prominent in NORG. If you want to run up and drop into a low area 15 feet in front of the bad guys location when they likely have grenades, and you do it in broad day light with no stealth, then you deserve what you get.

As far as number of enemies, I addressed that in another post. Higher difficulty + the stealth used + possible side missions (secondary objectives) completed = effect on number of enemies. It also depends on the enemy, mission location, objective, siutation - including target importance to the hostiles. What is their capability? Not every terrorist organization or hostile military is full of R6 operators gone bad. They are not all standing around in a room fully kitted, jocked up as a QRF. It seems that every game has the worlds most highly trained mercs. The bad thing there is there is no enemy variance throught the game in a situation like that.

[Stalker_Zero]

hee heee thats a funny word. ........NORG!!!!!!

I like saying it.......NORG.....NORG NORG!!!! ....................ok I'll read the above posts now.

[krise madsen]

You are going to have to trust me on this, but NORG balances the game. Relaxing and adjusting is what happens that causes players to throw their hands up in the air and say, "What the hell were they thinking! That's BS. That wouldn't happen!" Cricket Bats are what a basketball team gets when devs 'balance and relax' a game. They don't get them when it's done right.

On the grenade issue, you do several things. First, you give a person a realistic load out choice. 100 isn't a choice. With 100 you have to alter the weight incumbrance phusics and that doesn't work and isn't worth the time just because someone wants to carry 100 grenades. You can't even do that in Crackdown.

With 100 you are asking for trouble. There's the imbalance. That's a cricket bat. The host is in tune with the game he wants to run, and likely his circle of friends, but not the entire community per se. If that is the game he wants then he picked the wrong title. As many choices as possible should be allowed, but some affect game design to such a drastic degree they should be avoided.

Weight encumbrance physics are an important part of gameplay. Otherwise, you are pulling a major support beam out from under the entire structure. The community has been screaming for a great realistic gritty title and a game developer has to focus. Trying to make a title that can flex from gritty realism to a bombasitc-free-for-all-carry-100-grenades is doomed to failure. Games that try to be everything to everyone wind up being nothing to anyone.

Give them a choice of between none and 6. Then you institute the realistic time it takes to get a grenade from your gear, pull a pin, and throw it. The faster you throw a grenade, - yank and toss - the less accuracy. That's a fact. You give them a realistic accuracy and throw distance, and realistic blast effects (pattern, radius, etc) What happens is grenade throwing becomes a tactical decision.

There is no snatch and grab and the grenade spamming goes down when people start getting shot trying to frag people. It also goes back to tactics and the Darwin principle that is very prominent in NORG. If you want to run up and drop into a low area 15 feet in front of the bad guys location when they likely have grenades, and you do it in broad day light with no stealth, then you deserve what you get.

As far as number of enemies, I addressed that in another post. Higher difficulty + the stealth used + possible side missions (secondary objectives) completed = effect on number of enemies. It also depends on the enemy, mission location, objective, siutation - including target importance to the hostiles. What is their capability? Not every terrorist organization or hostile military is full of R6 operators gone bad. They are not all standing around in a room fully kitted, jocked up as a QRF. It seems that every game has the worlds most highly trained mercs. The bad thing there is there is no enemy variance throught the game in a situation like that.

Erm, I wasn't suggesting actually allowing 100 grenades per player, sorry if I gave that impression I merely ment to say that as I don't play MP I don't really have a problem with non-NORG features if it makes MP players happy, as long as it doesn't mess up my SP/coop game. One example would be Battlefield: Vietnam (though admittedly heavily optimized for MP): The last thing I want in a Vietnam War SP/coop game is to face NVA helicopters or other air support over South Vietnam. It didn't happen, end of story.

And you are, of course, correct that you can't include everything in a game. If gamers don't like it, they should go play Battlefield 2 or something.

What I am suggesting is that developers shouldn't be blind to the fact that at least sometimes, even NORG fans want to duke it out on equal terms, more akin to "sport" than "simulation" (albeit basic NORG features concerning movement, aiming e.c.t. should of course be retained).

As for encumbrance, it's one area in serious need of NORG. In principle, you should be able to carry what you want. If you want to carry 10 handguns in your backpack, or two machineguns and a sniper rifle, so be it. But you have to pay the price as well. Added weight will make you slower, tire faster, less stealthy plus many other parameters. Bulk should also be a parameter in that regard: It´s pretty hard to sneak up on an enemy with all sorts of junk rattling around your body.

In addition, there is the fact that you can in fact not decide exactly what you want to carry: If your're a SEAL, your buddies might not look too kindly upon you carrying only a knife and a smoke grenade, however much you explain that it's the only way to be truly "1337". And if the Marine marksman decides that he'll use a sawed-off shotgun for his long range sniping today, he'll probably be in serious trouble with his NCO. Likewise, if you're on a long range patrol/raid/whatever, you can't just fill up your backpack with ammo and guns. You need room and weight for clothing, food, water, comms gear and whatnot. Even if such items aren't simulated in the game, NORG dictates that you take it into account.

On a semi-related note (which I oddly have never considered before): These days, if you're carrying a carbine, you probably have one of those fancy slings fitted to it: Let go of the weapon and it just dangles across your chest. Thus, it shouldn't always be necessry, in-game, to sling your weapon over the shoulder before grabbing some other kit. One relevant area is going for your sidearm (if your main weapon malfunctions or run out of ammo): It could very well be faster to switch from carbine to handgun than the other way around.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Hatchetforce]

For the sake of game focus, it is best to stay away from player responsibilities such as food.

Assault slings are the order of the day. As for transitions, anytime it is quicker to reload your main weapon than to transition to a pistol then the devs have committed a grave error.

Be aware that certain core design features once implemented become hard coded and it may not be possible to allow player control. In such case hard coding should be instituted for the best experience.

I didn't think you were suggesting 100 grenades but I used that example to clarify a point.

People would be bounced from a team for refusing to carry the proper gear. But if you are a Team Leader in SP and you choose to try and Rambo it with no weapons except a knife, you are going to learn a very harsh NORG lesson about stupidity.

This goes hand in hand with what I said about jumping. Don't disallow it. Let guys jump and shoot...and die repeatedly. Experience is a harsh taskmaster. It gives you the test first and the lesson afterwards. You get what you need just after you need it. Game devs shouldn't be countering Darwin by trying to protect players from their own stupidity. Learn a lesson by dying a few times and it will stick with you better than if you were prevented form doing it. There is the solution.

And if a player wants to join a MP game and not take a weapon, then the server (Team Commander) can kick him for stupidity - real world there. In SP if he chooses to be knife boy, he will likely learn another tough lesson about wading around and peeing in the shallow end of the gene pool.

[Whisper_44]

Hatchet you have such a way with words

In SP if he chooses to be knife boy, he will likely learn another tough lesson about wading around and peeing in the shallow end of the gene pool.