[MONOLITH]

I'll concede that actually "improving skills" isn't necessarily what I'm after. It was the byproduct of "need to get your men alive to the next mission".

No lengthening health bar is fine, but give me something to give a hoot if I lose a guy that I just got through 4 missions with.

The fact that in mission six, my sniper is a much better shot than he was in mission one, is very good incentive for this purpose.

I would be interestesd in hearing suggestions for alternative penalty/rewards system for keeping or losing men.

[SwampRaider]

i dont want a health bar, but in this present day age, i wouldn't mind a HUD that displays my teamates medical/life systems IE:

did he have a broken leg during training exercises:


YES.... I want training camps that improve my men, along with training missions, come training accidents:

Lt. Ryan: suffered broken back 5 months ago from helicopter crash in a NATO exercise::78% recovery

Cpl. johnson torn muscle from roping out of building::100% recovery::

Maj. kowalski just got a small bruise from jumping for cover ::recovery in 3-2-1-0::

sorry i got too specific, but i'd love to see a HUD with a complex Health monitor

oh yea, did i mention training camps between missions? My friend Lt. Dan here has been off his mark lately

[FA sear]

MONOLITH, on Mar 8 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

I'll concede that actually "improving skills" isn't necessarily what I'm after. It was the byproduct of "need to get your men alive to the next mission".

No lengthening health bar is fine, but give me something to give a hoot if I lose a guy that I just got through 4 missions with.

The fact that in mission six, my sniper is a much better shot than he was in mission one, is very good incentive for this purpose.

I would be interestesd in hearing suggestions for alternative penalty/rewards system for keeping or losing men.

I'm not saying that this is the best idea, but what about the longer your character survives, they are able to better maintain their "cool" under pressure, so that the sight sway is reduced, or something similar.

Again, just a thought.

[krise madsen]

jchung, on Mar 9 2007, 10:19 PM, said:

MONOLITH, on Mar 8 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

I'll concede that actually "improving skills" isn't necessarily what I'm after. It was the byproduct of "need to get your men alive to the next mission".

No lengthening health bar is fine, but give me something to give a hoot if I lose a guy that I just got through 4 missions with.

The fact that in mission six, my sniper is a much better shot than he was in mission one, is very good incentive for this purpose.

I would be interestesd in hearing suggestions for alternative penalty/rewards system for keeping or losing men.

I'm not saying that this is the best idea, but what about the longer your character survives, they are able to better maintain their "cool" under pressure, so that the sight sway is reduced, or something similar.

Again, just a thought.

I definately don't mind an incentive to keep teammembers alive. But I really had no use for skill improvements in R6 (was there skill improvement? I never noticed). Their portrait and short bio was all I really needed.

Unfortunately, I don't have any idea what an alternative incentive would be.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Lethal.Ambition]

I remember in OGR I had a support expert (I had modded the campaigns so that MP1 and MP2 were all together with Origimiss) that I had personally developed throughout the entire game.

I was one of those people who enjoyed letting the AI do a lot of the dirty work and I would use my support guy to do just what he had to do, support. I would spray bullets and I would draw attention. He was shot so many times and I would often find myself leaving him behind for a mission or two so that he could recover from his wounds.

This RPG element was so immersive that I could not see me playing Ghost Recon without it. I say that it be kept.

As for the health, I believe that it should be just like OGR had it, with a few innovations. I would even love to see the captain of the team give up his leadership if he is wounded too much, or a sniper reporting to the team leader that due to his injuries he will not be able to effectively take the shot that you just ordered him to make. Now that would be immersive .

[WhiteKnight77]

I become attached to the men I carry into battle and prefer to use them through an entire campaign. I liked the RPG element of GR and I also liked how in R6, if you lost someone they stayed dead the rest of the missions. If someone was wounded, they were wounded on for the very next mission (there was two missions that were back to back and you were warned not to lose anyone and that you had to use who was with you for the second). They were even fatigued for the second mission. Those who were wounded could heal after not being used for several weeks. This is something I have yet to see in any game since R6/RS. I think this is one feature that needs to be implemented in the new BFS game.

[krise madsen]

WhiteKnight77, on Mar 10 2007, 12:02 PM, said:

I become attached to the men I carry into battle and prefer to use them through an entire campaign. I liked the RPG element of GR and I also liked how in R6, if you lost someone they stayed dead the rest of the missions. If someone was wounded, they were wounded on for the very next mission (there was two missions that were back to back and you were warned not to lose anyone and that you had to use who was with you for the second). They were even fatigued for the second mission. Those who were wounded could heal after not being used for several weeks. This is something I have yet to see in any game since R6/RS. I think this is one feature that needs to be implemented in the new BFS game.

Those R6 elements were exactly what I liked about it and what made me care about keeping them alive. Not any skill improvement. Initially I chose Homer Johnston (was that his name?) because he was an accurate sniper, but eventually I just used him because I liked him.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Edited by krise madsen, 10 March 2007 - 05:13 AM.

[Anti-Personnel]

honestly i would be happy with a simple green/yellow/red (but not just 3 levels of health, more like a gradation) type of system where each consecutive hit is a decrease in mobility and accuracy.

shot in the leg, decrease mobility more then accuracy. decrease overall health by some

shot in the arm, decrease accuracy more than mobility. decrease overall health by some

shot in the body decrease accuracy and mobility fairly evenly, decrease overall health by more.

shot in the head, instant death.



stright up and simple.

[Jsonedecker]

WhiteKnight77, on Mar 10 2007, 06:02 AM, said:

I become attached to the men I carry into battle and prefer to use them through an entire campaign. I liked the RPG element of GR and I also liked how in R6, if you lost someone they stayed dead the rest of the missions. If someone was wounded, they were wounded on for the very next mission (there was two missions that were back to back and you were warned not to lose anyone and that you had to use who was with you for the second). They were even fatigued for the second mission. Those who were wounded could heal after not being used for several weeks. This is something I have yet to see in any game since R6/RS. I think this is one feature that needs to be implemented in the new BFS game.

That was cool. One reason you don't see that much anymore is that most games follow a continuous campaign with a hero character. R6, and even OGR, were broken up into very distinct missions with time in between each one. So it made sense.

[Sup]

I'm not saying this is right for BFS's game, exactly, but did anyone here play Operation Flashpoint Resistance?

They took a completely linear campaign, and tacked on persistent men and equipment. You had a certain amount of soldiers, and a certain amount of weapons (at first, just a couple of cheap AK knockoffs,) and everything that left the mission with you (living soldiers/equipment carried on person or in vehicles) was added to your pool for the next mission. Gave a really strong sense of realism to the campaign (since, obviously, it was focusing on an underequipped resistance movement.)

I don't imagine whatever unit you guys have in mind scrounges for weapons off of Russian soldiers, but the overall idea may still be something to keep in mind, from a design perspective (and at the very least is cool enough to warrant a look at ofp:r)

Edited by Sup, 10 March 2007 - 09:27 AM.

[WhiteKnight77]

Jsonedecker, on Mar 10 2007, 10:20 AM, said:

That was cool. One reason you don't see that much anymore is that most games follow a continuous campaign with a hero character. R6, and even OGR, were broken up into very distinct missions with time in between each one. So it made sense.

Games that are meant to be continous mission type missions are fine for the no time to heal, all out action games, but for the Tac-Sim genre, and especially the type of game you seem to be building, it wont be a continuous one. Sure, one mission may last a couple of days (even if there is no dynamic time in the actual game), but will you be right back out the door on your next one 20 minutes after you RTB? I think we will have a few days between missions to let our men heal if need be.

Edited by WhiteKnight77, 10 March 2007 - 08:11 PM.

[RAbbi]

Jsonedecker, on Mar 10 2007, 07:50 PM, said:

That was cool. One reason you don't see that much anymore is that most games follow a continuous campaign with a hero character. R6, and even OGR, were broken up into very distinct missions with time in between each one. So it made sense.

I'm afraid I'm agreeing with WK77 on this one. I think?

Even in GRAW, where we had the whole campaign happen over a few days (what, like 3?), it was unrealistic. I've never personally been HIT by a bullet yet (knocking on wood there), but I've seen enough of those. They don't heal overnight, much less in the time between a dozen or so missions that take place over 3 days, give or take.

In OGR, there were usually a few to several days between missions. It made sense that after a week or so, your SF guys were pretty much ready to fight again. I get it. CPT Mitchell back to full speed, no limp no pain, and all that, after only a couple hours? Not at all. I'd be worried about what sorts of opiates he's on to feel well again 3 hours after getting skulldragged by a .50cal HB on some street corner.

BUT this is not a do or die issue for me. If you incorporate the magically-restocking health-o-meter, I'll probably still play your game. Just don't expect me not to whine incessantly over it...

[MONOLITH]

I split all of the "Can a bullet knock me down" conversation into it's own thread.

Now back to our regularly scheduled topic......

[Livo]

I posted this on the Infiltration forum about 4 years ago.

NOTE; obviously this system doesn't take armour into account, however some of the disorientation effects could be put in for hits that do not penetrate the vest/helmet. The big key is on having your accuracy and vision affected for a semi-random amount of time, depending on the round and where it hit. The concept needs some tweaking and fine tuning, but I think that it could work fairly well.

Also, the bandaging/medic details are purely out there in case medics or evacuating your wounded is in. If not, disregard.


* There is a base damage system for each of the rounds based on their wound profiles in RL, and other factors i.e the M855 5.56mm rounds are far more destructive to tissue than the 7.62X51 round when travelling at 2700fps or higher, between 2500-2700fps slightly more and less when below 2500fps.

Add to that proper hit locations (chest, stomach, arms etc) which increase, or in some situations decrease the damage by a random number of points. This would require per-poly hit detection which I think UT2003 has.

Finally, once the bullet hits, there is a random choice of what happens next, which varies in severity, depending on the bullet's total damage. The choices would be something like:

* Your screen shakes but you can keep on moving (i.e the bullet didn't hit any vital organs or blood vessels) and shooting with some minor penalties (otherwise people would be shrugging off hits), and your speed and stamina are reduced. Maybe your screen flashes red for a second then goes back to normal. You'll be bleeding, and although it's not life-threatening, it'd still be a good idea to bandage to help reduce that blood trail you're leaving behind.


(Assuming chest shot)

* Your vision goes red temporarily and your stamina, movement speed and ability to aim accurately become much slower/poorer. Your vision and body sway somewhat and your arms wobble. You cough or gasp loudly after being shot. (again random) Your vision clears but then after about 15-20 seconds, it starts fading to black and as that happens you fall over and die. Random factors would be the length of time before you fall over, the speed of fading to black and the degree of movement/weapon aim punishment. I can't stress that last part enough, otherwise people would realise what's happening and pull a Rambo before dying.

* Essentially same as above, except that you may drop your weapon (still can draw your secondary).

* Your screen shakes a bit and you fall over (again random time before you fall), however you can still move prone (or slowly roll over to prone if you fall on your back). Your vision keeps redding out but you can still aim and move prone, albeit with some difficulty. This time you last for a little longer before dying (fade to black), but (if bandages ever get added in), if you use bandages, you get a temporary reprieve from death for say a minute, depending on the random factor (this would give a teammate enough time to carry you to a "safe" spot in the map, and you survive). Of course, if you were really lucky, you could be carried to a safe spot by a teammate with the first scenario).

* Same as above except that you stagger instead of falling down, and maybe you can only crouch and move.

[lesterribles]

The slower movement after wounds as in OGR, blurred vision following the concussion of explosives and also, the transfer of health as in Dystopia appeal to me. That HL2 mod and FEAR Combat are the best cyber bootcamp I've ever showed up for!

[Hacksaww]

lesterribles, on Mar 18 2007, 11:55 PM, said:

That HL2 mod... the best cyber bootcamp I've ever showed up for!

Do you mean SMOD:Tactical? It was okay. The more realistic weapons and some other things were okay, but I found some of the things were kind of clunky. But then again, it is a mod.

[Fumarole]

How about using the Ghost Recon method of replacing wounded/dead team members but without the increasing stats? The more casualties you sustain, the smaller the available pool of talent is. You'd still have incentive to keep your team alive - especially if the replacements available have a lower skill set, since you know you can never replace the skill level your top members have once they are dead.

Edited by Fumarole, 20 March 2007 - 04:14 PM.

[JulietHotel13]

what about anxiety and those kinds of factors? I mean you hear it all the time on the news about how a soldier didnt realize that he was hit until he saw it or one of his buddies told him...and how about losing conscienceness and your AI buddies automatically setup a defensive perimeter thing or drags you and the team medic begins working on you until you wake again...

[stevenrasnick]

Pardon me, but some of that just seems a little "out there".

We need to remember that this is a video game. I, for one, do not want the development team spending time on creating moments of unconsciousness and battlefield anxiety, and spending time on fitting them into gameplay, and spending time making sure it's not clunky or random, and spending time o--

You get the picture... Don't we want most of the development going towards very (and I mean VERY) solid, tactical gameplay? Am I the only one fine with this kind of health system?:

Chest, Head - One shot kill
Belly - Two shot kill
Arms - Accuracy plummets
Legs - Walking slows, you limp

I'd rather have no visible meter, number, etc. Maybe, whenever you get shot, a blue icon pops up in the shape of a human silhouette. The area where you were hit would be red. Then you would know how close to death you were, just by knowing the above.

Edited by stevenrasnick, 21 March 2007 - 01:50 AM.

[Toniezz]

stevenrasnick, on Mar 21 2007, 08:48 AM, said:

Pardon me, but some of that just seems a little "out there".

We need to remember that this is a video game. I, for one, do not want the development team spending time on creating moments of unconsciousness and battlefield anxiety, and spending time on fitting them into gameplay, and spending time making sure it's not clunky or random, and spending time o--

You get the picture... Don't we want most of the development going towards very (and I mean VERY) solid, tactical gameplay? Am I the only one fine with this kind of health system?:

Chest, Head - One shot kill
Belly - Two shot kill
Arms - Accuracy plummets
Legs - Walking slows, you limp

I'd rather have no visible meter, number, etc. Maybe, whenever you get shot, a blue icon pops up in the shape of a human silhouette. The area where you were hit would be red. Then you would know how close to death you were, just by knowing the above.

Absolutely true, but still I think only having above situations is to minor. I really would like to have the oppertunity to salvage a team member from his/her death.

No Man/Woman Is Left Behind!

In the time from getting shot up to the point of incapacitation/death the aiming and movements willl get worse and worse. If medics are gonna be in the game (I assume so) a medic should not be able to magicaly cure a person. A medic should only stop the bleeding which enhances just a little bit of decreased aiming/movement or stops the decrease of worse aiming/movement. If a teammember doesn't seek a medic after having a serious wound he can get incapacitated or bleed to death. This way it pays off to seek a medic as soon as you are shot. If he stops the bleeding early you will 'feel' less worse then when you are to the point of getting incapacitated.

I really liked the rescue function in Full Spectrum Warrior. Where you could carry an incapacitated member to a safe zone. The difference to me should be that if (s)he is delivered there (s)he goes off to the hospital and is only available after a few -ingame- 'weeks' (1 or 2 missions) with slightly decreased stat pionts (in stamina or some sort). If the drop off point is a safe zone it would be nice if I was reinforced by (a) new team member(s) (with less stat points).

I think it isn't NORG if you proceed into a mission while being "Combat Ineffective" by the loss of (a) team member(s).

[edit]
That just comes to me. I always hated the GR missions that just faded out if your team was combat ineffective or lost an objective (killed a civillian or lost a or to many team member(s) for instance). To me a mission always has to end at the moment I am extracting or allied reinforcements are moving in towards my position (relieving my duty).

Sorry for the off topic
[/edit]

Edited by Toniezz, 21 March 2007 - 04:04 AM.