| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jadek Menaheim
warravens
League of Infamy
121
   |
Posted - 2013.10.03 15:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
When I see technology such as Tracking Point's PGF I am happy CCP Shanghai hasn't adopted realism to this extent. I could only imagine the sheer level of forum QQ eruption if accuracy and timing was a feature that was purely democratized.
In terms of battlefield realism it would seem that 23,000 years into the future mankind would have already made significant advances on precision guided firearms. In order to achieve one's tactical goals, which ultimately amounts to breaking things and killing people, fairness really doesn't have a place on the battlefield. However, realism doesn't always need to have a place in a game in order for it to be fun and recreational. On the other hand  , a part of me wouldn't mind trying to find a way to counter and subvert deadly accurate AI targeting systems.
HTFU, it's New Eden! 
|
Syeven Reed
Inanimate Objects
44
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 16:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
How about an electromagnet that forces bullets and plasma away from your body. So they can still shoot you with "AA", and the faster the bullet the better (a sniper for example). But AR users have slower bullets and spread their fire. |
iceyburnz
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
1013
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 16:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
Realistic Future warfare is boring as an FPS.
It involves 5-10 computer nerds sending instructings to swarms of robotic drones of various sizes, hacking commnets, and waiting for the order to drop EMP and Gamma emitting weapons on large amounts of people with absolutely no say in the matter.
Better games resemble world war 2 with ray guns. |
Surt gods end
Demon Ronin
1112
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 16:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
Hunting is one of my hubbies, and tho in a battlefield I see the use in it, I prefer knowing that it was all me that took down Elk and not a machine.
*why it's ok in the battlefield?*
Cause one of points of battle is NOT to die for your country, but have your enemy's die for theirs. |
calvin b
Molon Labe.
RISE of LEGION
666
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 17:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
I would have thought in 23,000 years mankind would have learned by now not to kill one another. So in a nut shell an ape is an ape. |
Gods Architect
SVER True Blood
Public Disorder.
629
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 18:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jadek Menaheim wrote:When I see technology such as Tracking Point's PGF I am happy CCP Shanghai hasn't adopted realism to this extent. I could only imagine the sheer level of forum QQ eruption if accuracy and timing was a feature that was purely democratized. In terms of battlefield realism it would seem that 23,000 years into the future mankind would have already made significant advances on precision guided firearms. In order to achieve one's tactical goals, which ultimately amounts to breaking things and killing people, fairness really doesn't have a place on the battlefield. However, realism doesn't always need to have a place in a game in order for it to be fun and recreational. On the other hand , a part of me wouldn't mind trying to find a way to counter and subvert deadly accurate AI targeting systems. HTFU, it's New Eden!
If you want realism play ARMA |
Sylwester Dziewiecki
Beyond Hypothetical Box
178
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 19:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jadek Menaheim wrote:When I see technology such as Tracking Point's PGF I am happy CCP Shanghai hasn't adopted realism to this extent. I could only imagine the sheer level of forum QQ eruption if accuracy and timing was a feature that was purely democratized. In terms of battlefield realism it would seem that 23,000 years into the future mankind would have already made significant advances on precision guided firearms. In order to achieve one's tactical goals, which ultimately amounts to breaking things and killing people, fairness really doesn't have a place on the battlefield. However, realism doesn't always need to have a place in a game in order for it to be fun and recreational. On the other hand , a part of me wouldn't mind trying to find a way to counter and subvert deadly accurate AI targeting systems. HTFU, it's New Eden! That's amazing technology.
|
Operative 1171 Aajli
Bragian Order
Amarr Empire
480
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 19:18:00 -
[8] - Quote
People keep criticizing a call for realism in a video game but usually realism is brought up as a reference to how real life equipment and tactics influence the features in the game. After all this game wouldn't exist if real combat didn't exist to influence its development.
Likewise, realism must be suspended if it interferes with enjoyment or balance of the game.
If a fantasy weapon like the FG or swarm launcher is just too versatile it needs to be nerfed. If a vehicle's ability to run people over is getting spammed and abused it needs to be nerfed.
Likewise, if real life provides a good reference point for game balance or flavor then that should be a starting point and then tweak it from there. |
Crimson Judgment
ROGUE SPADES
EoN.
125
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 20:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
so aim assist isn't some kind of super advanced tech allowing pinpoint precision by a complete novice? |
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
2232
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 20:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
Realism can be taken to mean two different things:
1) Consistent with what we have now
2) Internally consistent
"Current Day" games need to be concerned with the first, but SF or Fantasy games need to worry more about the second.
Any good SF story postulates some change in the universe from what we have present day and then explores what can be extrapolated from there. They get one change or set of changes that we have to take as given, FTL, teleportation, alien contact, etc. They get that for "free" and we suspend our disbelief to enjoy the story.
But - they have to be consistent from then on. No pulling contradictions. If teleportation works one way the author can't alter that in the middle of the story just because he wants a certain effect or plot point. He has to remain consistent with the original world he created.
If a FG can kill a tank with a direct hit you can't code it to do zero damage to a dropsuit on a direct hit. That would kill the realism.
If you want that effect you could introduce enough shot spread that a direct hit would be much less likely. That maintains realism (consistency) and gets you what you want.
CCP handles the concept of battlefield automation pretty well with the lore of rogue drones. The idea is that it IS possible to automate the battlefield but everyone is deathly afraid of doing so because of the "Frankenstein effect". That keeps the soldier on the field and makes the game possible.
Now could we get a middle level of automation such as aim assist and ground predictive targeting for MD's? Yes, we could without worrying about the technology taking over. The challenge would then drain out of the game though, and nobody would stick around. What competitive bowler would play in a bumper bowl league? The challenge there is to get the lore to explain why there is still some player skill required.
There are other areas where the consistency breaks down, such as CRUs not actually holding clones to be captured and objective spawning that I think would be game improvement if they were made more realistic. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |