   Designing realistic Close Quarter Combat multiplayer games
  Lets imagine we were presented with the most realistic cqc game in existence.The weapons, physics and whatever else were moddled perfectly to real life.2 teams of human players go head to head.The gameplay of this game would not resemble that of real life.The reason for this is:-Players can practice the same arenas several thousands times until they know everything inch perfect.----When to throw grenades, when to open doors----How long to wait between each successive shot.----The maximum distance from your target you can be and still hit all the time without focusing your aiming reticle pretty much every tactic is thought of.If you make the weapons inaccurate, players will use the scenary to get close enough so accuracy doesnt matter. Irl people dont have the luxury of knowing where all the furniture is placed before entering a hostile building.Players become Expert Systems. Like chess they know everything. When this happens the rules which apply to real life nolonger apply here.Expert helicopter pilots do crazy near death manuvers to pull of several kills (bf2 anyone?)Lack of fear has a great impact on gameplay. Anyway to solve this? simulated fear ingame? perhaps by a fear-bar?This effects all kinds of games aswell, Age of empires - advance to the final age in lightning fast times.One way to alleviate this problem is to let players modify the arenas and save them to a database, when the map is selected one of the revisions will be selected. Players can (dis)approve maps so they can be filtered. This would remove some of the repetition that comes with games like counter-strike.What do you think?   
  I think you should practice more at Counter-Strike or play with people with a comparable skill level rather than trying to modify similar games so that people who invest themselves lose their advantage.In other words, I think you're focusing on the wrong problem. These games are not supposed to be perfect syntheses of real life. They're supposed to draw on a hyperrealistic version of our misperceptions of close-quarters combat as informed by Hollywood blockbusters to create an environment where we can do the unbelievable.They're supposed to be fun.   ;Quote:Original post by OluseyiI think you should practice more at Counter-Strike or play with people with a comparable skill level rather than trying to modify similar games so that people who invest themselves lose their advantage.In other words, I think you're focusing on the wrong problem. These games are not supposed to be perfect syntheses of real life. They're supposed to draw on a hyperrealistic version of our misperceptions of close-quarters combat as informed by Hollywood blockbusters to create an environment where we can do the unbelievable.They're supposed to be fun.Well and cleverly said. But it'd be nice if you designed a game that couldn't be min maxed. It'd be nice if "design" and "min-max" weren't mutually inclusive.But I think it can be done. I think you can have a game that is deep and can be mastered in a few minutes. I think you can have an experience that is meaningful and easy.Of course, this could just be the unfettered idealism of youth. Time will tell.   ;Quote:Original post by Riviera KidLack of fear has a great impact on gameplay. Anyway to solve this? simulated fear ingame? perhaps by a fear-bar?There's an easy way to solve this.  Make the rounds long, and have no respawns.  Then, make it so that you die very easily (this is a given if we are talking about a realisticly designed simulation).  Players don't want to die and sit out for 10 minutes, so they develope a "fear" of doing anything overly dangerous.  If you have ever played America's Army, then you know what I mean.  Quote:Original post by Riviera KidIrl people dont have the luxury of knowing where all the furniture is placed before entering a hostile building.If we are talking stricly about simulating room-clearing and other CQB related material, then it wouldn't be too hard to build a large random "database" of rooms, and randomly generate them into a level.  If you make it so all the rooms look the same or similar on the outside, then players won't know which room they are entering.  Just my two cents.   ;  I was just going to suggest America's army. There are plenty of open maps, but quite a few CQC maps too. I myself have used a few good CQC tactics (when they worked), such as opening a door, throwing a flash grenade in, closing the door or ducking around the wall, then going in after it went off. Or smoking a room i know a baddie is in, so i can get past them without fighting. Rushing in with a teammate (not always in the best fashion, but still effective).All you would need to do is take a similar game which already models realistic setting and just make some CQ maps for it. Unless you start programming for America's Army,... which you'd need to be in the US Army, I doubt you can make maps for them. Find a few games with good realistic mods and then see if you can make some maps for them.   ;  I agree with darkzim. Just increase the amount of risk and reward. Opponents can be killed faster, but so can you. I would think it would only take one or two shots to take someone down in real life anyway.Letting players only spawn once is a good idea. There is a reason why Unreal Tornument is "Unreal".   ;Quote:Original post by darkzim[...]If you're going to design a game like that, you should aim for the MMO player demography. They're the only ones that are masochistic enough to pay entertainers to bore them.   ;  CS has quick kills, and it rewards the dashing, leaping spraying and praying that makes such games annoyingly unrealistic.  The knowledge that I could probably whup 95% of CS players in an actual gunfight/CQB situation makes the games infuriating to me.Rainbow Six was pretty good, but it hit the inevitable problem of lag deaths.  Nobody likes to be a spectator for twenty minutes after getting popped due to a lag spike that made his character keep running for ten yards past the cover, then stop in the open and twitch.   ;Quote:Original post by OluseyiI think you should practice more at Counter-Strike or play with people with a comparable skill level rather than trying to modify similar games so that people who invest themselves lose their advantage.In other words, I think you're focusing on the wrong problem. These games are not supposed to be perfect syntheses of real life. They're supposed to draw on a hyperrealistic version of our misperceptions of close-quarters combat as informed by Hollywood blockbusters to create an environment where we can do the unbelievable.They're supposed to be fun.i probably should have expected someone to think i suck at these games.In actuallity public servers are so god damn easy (i dont have time for a clan and it wouldn't solve this thread, and its not about me, its about everyone) i want them to remove my advantage -> My knowledge of the maps.I would rather remove the focus of memorizing maps and focus more on inovative tactics. Cs, rainbow 6 series, ut, all more fun when its your first time.Unknown territory is always more challenging. And it will be more challenging for everyone. You have to THINK more when you dont know what is around the next corner.The cs style death wait would be implemented but i dont think this really works. You have to wait plenty long in cs. But that doesnt bother me 1 bit. It never did, the chance of kicking major ass and moving onto the next area are just to high and the rewards outway the disaster of dying. Sitting back and waiting can be just as risky as advancing quickly.The whole idea behind CQC is thinking on the move, looking at the map for a brief time and out thinking your apponent. This kind of thought process only exists for about 1 hour. Sometimes if you dont know the map, it doesnt matter, you expect to loose because everyone else does know the map, so you just wait it out and remember the corners. Its just not a realistic play style.I find bf2 captures the thinking on the move quite well but it wont last forever, but its not CQC (i wish it did have some cqc maps tho).Let me ask, how many people have been playing a game and said:"damn i died, oh well, i didnt know the map".I think this is a common phrase.People should be better through thinking not through memory.Quote:Original post by trapdoorI myself have used a few good CQC tactics (when they worked), such as opening a door, throwing a flash grenade in...No doubt you now know the best places to use flashbangs and when to throw them.And i bet youve done it many hundreds of times. Im sure your very tactical and im not undermining your skillz but your tactics where only tactical the first time you used them. After that its memory. I bet the first time you used a flashbang on a particular room for the first time with success it was more rewarding.And 1 final note: If your (everyone) only concern is winning then your playing for the wrong reason. You should want the experience from start -> end to be enjoyable. The final outcome shouldnt decide if it was fun or not.[Edited by - Riviera Kid on May 28, 2006 4:29:21 AM];  So when the US army or the SWAT goes into to do a room clearing manuevere, using almost the same style each time, its no longer tactical? =PI understand where your coming from tho. I played RS6, and alot of times it felt like I just was winning because I knew A: how long it would take for my opponent to go from point a to point b and (B: Where I could run and not be seen from, and where I could be seen from. Not by looking around mind you, I already cehcked all these the first 500 times I did the map....   