What if Planetside 2 was more like a simulator? [Archive]

Toppopia

2012-07-30, 01:28 AM

I am starting this thread just to see what people would think about if this game was a simulator/more realistic than making the game easy to play. And to get some ideas off my chest about what game developers everywhere should be looking towards for better games.

Idea 1: The way bullets come out of the barrel.

I have played lots of games, not 1, have i seen has realistic shooting where the bullets come out of the barrel straight, when using ADS they do most of the time, but what about when we are hip/shoulder firing? Is there some unexplained laws of physics that makes bullets come out on an angle, sometimes hitting the roof/floor when we are looking straight ahead? Planetside should have made bullets always come straight out of the barrel, so that if we are moving, our gun sways thus that causes us to be inaccurate, not because of some unknown laws of physics, but because we are doing something to lower our accuracy and we can avoid that by either firing at the right time or not moving. Even when we are standing still our bullets still hit the roof, which they shouldn't, they should fly where we are aiming, but because we will have no crosshair, we don't know where that is unless firing some practice shots, and this too could be inaccurate from our character breathing.

Idea 2: Realistic bullet count.

Does everyone ever wonder how our magazines always magically refill themselves when we arn't looking? Why have few games made magazines that keep the amount of bullets you had after you reloaded, so when you come back to it, it is still half full or 1 bullet away from being empty. It would allow short term and long term decisions about bullet management. So if i am engaging and enemy, do i want to use the last 15 bullets to try and kill him, or reload so i have 45 bullets, but then in a later battle, end up reloading and only having 15 bullets left? And what about having to manually check how many bullets we have left? Something like hold the reload button and it says roughly how many bullets we have left, like "Near Empty", "Below half full", "Half full" etc. This would let us know roughly how much ammo we have, rather than a magic number telling us our exact ammo count all the time for mysterious reasons.

Idea 3: A decent suppression system.
I have played at least 2 games now that have this system, Battlefield 3 and Red Orchestra 2. And in both those games, I have been told that suppressing targets will lower their accuracy and all this other stuff, and i can say that it does not work as well as it should. I suppress a target, they can still pop up and aim on my head, and kill me, even though i am pumping a LMG down range at them. That should not be possible, in that situation, they should be really inaccurate so if they do kill me, it is a lucky/rare shot, and they should move slower so that they can't decide to not hide in cover when i am suppressing them, the whole point of being suppressed is to be so scared you poop your pants and can't do anything till i have reload or someone flanks me, i don't want to be a LMG guy and get killed by my target, thats just stupid.

I could add a 4th idea, but that is about realistic damage to bodies, and that is declared as 'unfun' by lots of people. Like being shot in the leg so i move slower, being shot in arm, so less accurate, being shot in head (if i survive) can't see as well. It would be an interesting feature, but more annoying than anything else.

Rant now over, you may begin discussing.

WWladCZ

2012-07-30, 01:41 AM

Battlefield 3 Supresion system is the only one thing i dont like abourt the game. I play sniper sometimes and when i doge even one bullet i aim on head!!!! BANG !!! And there is hole in the wall and im dead. Just strange system in BF3 and how you sayd When you're LMG guy you get hedshoted even when you fire hard at target. Tho in Red Orchestra 2 The supression works fine you can fire on enemy and make him useless for some time sprint the street and take cover. And its works on you too when under fire your screen will be obscured and you cant hit anything.
Abourt other mechanics im fine with them especiali nr.4 is awsome idea.
-WWladCZ

Mythoclast

2012-07-30, 01:45 AM

1. You can't aim right at all and you get a small cone of fire type spread, even while still. Especially applicable in games because you can just put a sticky in the center of the screen and have perfect accuracy otherwise. I am unsure of EXACTLY what you mean but a small cone of fire is needed for hipfiring and a bigger one while moving.

2. I'd love this. Not just reloading a partial mag into another one somehow.

3. A suppression system? Interesting. Having an effect if tons of bullets whiz by you from certain guns would be interesting.

4. I've always liked this idea. :)

Gonzo

2012-07-30, 01:51 AM

Actually, anytime you dicard a partially filled magazine, a machine on your armor deconstructs it with nanites and rebuilds the raw materials into a full magazine when you go to grab another one.

Duhh.

GhettoPrince

2012-07-30, 01:54 AM

outdoor fights would be hell, you'd be permanently suppressed once more than 200 people are in an area. The bullet count is kind of pointless because you figure a setting with nano technology can keep track of little bits of lead and one of the factions uses laser guns. The cone of fire was one of the worst parts of infantry combat in planetside.

If you want a simulator, there are games like that, but the game with immortal soldiers fighting on a distant solar system in the future probably isn't it.

camycamera

2012-07-30, 01:59 AM

might actually be a cool thing to put suppression in, but this isn't a war simulator. this is a SCI-FI FPS MMO.

actually, now that i think of it, someone should try and make a war simulator MMO with the forgelight engine....

EnderGraff

2012-07-30, 02:28 AM

I have spent so much time thinking over these exact same proposed ideas and wishing that a developer studio, somewhere, would impliment them. But Lately in my gaming carrer, I have decided that these things would actually hinder a game; the game simply wouldn't be fun.
It is one of those things where Balance/fun > Realism, that's how I see it anyway.

As for the hipfire thing, I can explain to you why most games have the goofy angles of bullets leaving the barrel. In real life, hipfire is almost impossible. I have tried it with handguns and even BB guns on several occasions but it is purely luck.

However, in a shooter game, you KNOW where the center of the screen is, and you KNOW that your character model holds his gun perfectly still and in the exact same position every single time he stops moving. So if the bullets obeyed real ballistic physics when leaving the barrel, they would always land in the center of the screen, making hipfire just as good as aimed fire. Which in reality, it is no where close.

Hope I could help :)

Shogun

2012-07-30, 02:38 AM

artificial supression with obscure screensplashing and disabling of a player that hasn´t even been hit is stupid.

if you are being supressed, stay down OR you are killed. if you peek out your head, you will get killed. that´s enough. there is no need to smash it in the victims face. and i don´t see any addition of fun with this. just additional annoyance

Galzus

2012-07-30, 03:07 AM

Seeing bullet tracers whiz by and tank shells being lobbed about nilly willy was suppression enough in PlanetSide 1. I don't need my screen to blur and my character to artificially whimper to know that it's fricken dangerous to pop my head out

Symmenix

2012-07-30, 04:46 AM

Here's my reply to the idea of suppression
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/umDr0mPuyQc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That was my least favorite thing. Suppression in bf3 blurs your vision terribly, doesnt remove accuracy but makes your cone of fire HUGE, and it makes bullets that should go straight (aimed down sights etc) go to the edge of iys CoF, which increases as the blur does.

Bags

2012-07-30, 04:48 AM

Supression is one of the least fun things in BF3 and rewards you for missing.

julfo

2012-07-30, 05:49 AM

Agree with 2 & 4.
Disgree with 1.
Not sure about 3.

maddoggg

2012-07-30, 06:29 AM

First off i read:"hey how about making an awsome sci fi game into simulator?"
And i am like:Wtf?No....

But than i read idea number 3:supression system.
And than i was like:
NO!! - YouTube

BlueSkies

2012-07-30, 06:52 AM

WWII Online tried to be a war simulator... it was terrible

AThreatToYou

2012-07-30, 07:13 AM

To answer the OP,

THIS IS THE GODDAM FUTURE
SUSPEND YOUR BELIEF.

Thunderhawk

2012-07-30, 08:18 AM

To answer the OP,

THIS IS THE GODDAM FUTURE
SUSPEND YOUR BELIEF.

Nothing more to add really

Gugabalog

2012-07-30, 08:39 AM

I agree with most of what people said except this:

SUPPRESSION FTW!

Stardouser

2012-07-30, 08:43 AM

1. This a veiled shot at random deviation while not aimed down sight. And actually, what you're asking for would make spraying easier. You're insinuating that realism means harder to play and not-realism means easier to play but in this specific case you're asking for the ability to spray more accurately. You're playing it down as if you care more about the animation of the barrel's movement more, but in reality this would simply make hipfire spraying easier.

2. We don't have the ability to micromanage objects with our fingers in the game. If we did, we could pop out a magazine and look as the remaining rounds. A rounds remaining counter isn't something to be worried about, it's a necessary expediency for the game.

3. BF3 suppression isn't realistic. Suppression in real life doesn't blur your vision or decrease your accuracy. That one really can't be simulated, it just can't, and BF3's suppression only achieves one thing: It grants an advantage to the one who fires first and gets bullets close enough to suppress. No need to aim well, just fire first in order to induce blurring and deviation on the other guy, then refine your aim for the kill. BF3 may have started out with the intention of one person suppressing another so that a teammate can go around and shoot the enemy up close, but it simply doesn't get used that way 99% of the time. Maybe if they changed it so that suppression didn't kick in for at least 3 seconds(or if it didn't work against people who are running), it would work better because then, it would only work on people who are taking cover behind something and popping out to shoot(because people who are taking cover behind something are likely to stay in place for 3 seconds so that suppression can kick in).
WWII Online tried to be a war simulator... it was terrible

Yes, this probably helped turn off companies to getting in on the MMOFPS idea.

wasdie

2012-07-30, 10:25 AM

Planetside 2 wouldn't be any fun if it was more like a simulator. It's a sci-fi action FPS with a massive scale. Nothing more. The battles are meant to be big and fun, not slow and tactical.

The game is fine the way it is being built.

Having a magazine based ammo system isn't "realistic" as much as it is just a different way of handling ammo. It has pros and cons. They used it in the Battlefield series for the longest time and then they removed it. Nothing really changed when they removed it. Nothing I noticed at least.

A suppression system with this many people would not be a good idea. It can be annoying enough in Battlefield 3, a game which is much more straight forward and has a quarter of the micro management of this game. It would just be annoying here and wouldn't make sense with MAXs.

WWII Online tried to be a war simulator... it was terrible

I'm actually an avid player of WWII Online but I won't disagree when people say it is terrible. It's fine for what it is, but it appeals to a very tiny niche audience. The audience wants as authentic of an experience ever, only to realize that 99% of war is waiting and boring.

I'm also a big ArmA player as well. That too applies to a very niche audience.

When I see PC gamers start talking about making their FPSs more realistic, I don't think they really understand what they are asking for. I believe it's just PC gamers trying to set themselves apart from everybody else by asking for more "hardcore" games.

Sims have a lot of nuances that are very niche and really bog gameplay down. They get frustrating before they are ever fun. Playing a pickup game of ArmA 2 with some buddies on a Domination/Insurgency/Evolution map isn't the same as playing a single co-op mission with 32 guys over 6 hours and killing 3-4 enemies the whole time. 90% of it turns into logistics, not actually fighting.

People usually just want elements of a sim in their FPS. However if you try to make an arcadey shooter like Planetside with elements from a sim, you get the worst of both worlds and the whole thing would not be fun.

Btw, Red Orchestra is not a sim and neither is Project Reality. Those two are very arcady versions of what a sim truly is.

RJTravis

2012-07-30, 11:18 AM

It would be set in 2013-2023 then & be called Arma 3.

SFJake

2012-07-30, 11:58 AM

Nothing worse than adding realism for the sake of realism. A simulator isn't a game. A simulator isn't actually fun.

Eyeklops

2012-07-30, 12:06 PM

I like suppression. It does the job it was intended to do. Allow a heavy to suppress a well defended position so a few grunts have a better chance to move into close range for a more direct confrontation.

As far as the "there will be so many people in PS2 you will always be suppressed" that is a BS argument. It really depends on how they balance out the mechanics, and I feel confident the devs would not let a few stray bullets fully suppress a player.

Syphus

2012-07-30, 12:21 PM

WWII Online tried to be a war simulator... it was terrible

And yet still has much better populations than PS1, and is even older.

Anyway, this thread sounds like he just wants ARMA 2: Planetside Edition.

opticalshadow

2012-07-30, 12:37 PM

arma 2 does a godo job simulating everything fine it would be the example i would bring to this conversation.

Ceska

2012-07-30, 03:03 PM

Idea 1: The way bullets come out of the barrel.

I have played lots of games, not 1, have i seen has realistic shooting where the bullets come out of the barrel straight, when using ADS they do most of the time, but what about when we are hip/shoulder firing? Is there some unexplained laws of physics that makes bullets come out on an angle, sometimes hitting the roof/floor when we are looking straight ahead? Planetside should have made bullets always come straight out of the barrel, so that if we are moving, our gun sways thus that causes us to be inaccurate, not because of some unknown laws of physics, but because we are doing something to lower our accuracy and we can avoid that by either firing at the right time or not moving. Even when we are standing still our bullets still hit the roof, which they shouldn't, they should fly where we are aiming, but because we will have no crosshair, we don't know where that is unless firing some practice shots, and this too could be inaccurate from our character breathing.

Idea 2: Realistic bullet count.

Does everyone ever wonder how our magazines always magically refill themselves when we arn't looking? Why have few games made magazines that keep the amount of bullets you had after you reloaded, so when you come back to it, it is still half full or 1 bullet away from being empty. It would allow short term and long term decisions about bullet management. So if i am engaging and enemy, do i want to use the last 15 bullets to try and kill him, or reload so i have 45 bullets, but then in a later battle, end up reloading and only having 15 bullets left? And what about having to manually check how many bullets we have left? Something like hold the reload button and it says roughly how many bullets we have left, like "Near Empty", "Below half full", "Half full" etc. This would let us know roughly how much ammo we have, rather than a magic number telling us our exact ammo count all the time for mysterious reasons.

So you never played Red Orchestra... it has both points quoted here. But it's quite a hardcore game with not so much player because of that.
It's a great game, but it can be frustrating, less fun.

I'm not sure SOE plan to aim this market. They want a fun game with a lot of people on it, because they want to focus on the scale of the game (size always matter is the moto). You should not search a simulation game with Planetside.

Tactical elements will come from combined arms gameplay, not from (elistist?) gameplay details like perfect aiming and exact bullet count in magazines (don't forget, in Planetside, we have nanites ;) )

wasdie

2012-07-30, 03:57 PM

And yet still has much better populations than PS1, and is even older.

Ha.

WWII Online has much lower populations than Planetside 1 right now. We are talking 30-40 people playing the game during the low-pow and 200-300 max during the high pop. The game is more or less dead.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-30, 04:16 PM

#3 is incompatible with "more realistic simulator-esque"

Seriously, think about what you're saying? You're wanting a simulator style shooter that has some kind of forced mechanic that makes peoples' aim suck?

Suppression fire in RL does not magically make people less accurate. Them being afraid of dying makes them less accurate. Some people will be frazzled by "suppression fire", many will not be. This is just silly to suggest.

#1 and #2 are fine, but I disagree with "no games do this". You obviously haven't played very many games, since I can list a half-dozen off the top of my head, and that's just in the last two or three years.

Syphus

2012-07-30, 04:16 PM

Ha.

WWII Online has much lower populations than Planetside 1 right now. We are talking 30-40 people playing the game during the low-pow and 200-300 max during the high pop. The game is more or less dead.

I've played both in the last few months and I really have no idea where you're getting your made up stats from. But I can't really be bothered dealing with you.

Buggsy

2012-07-31, 05:27 AM

PS1 had a suppression system: it was a long TTK. If you poked your head out from behind a wall you weren't instantly killed and could duck behind again.

shadar

2012-07-31, 10:24 AM

The vast majority of us are here to play a GAME not a war sim. if you want that try arma its the clostest your going to get though i do like your thoughts on the ADS

XxAxMayxX

2012-07-31, 02:56 PM

I agree on the first and last but realism doesn't allways make good game. sometimes it just makes things anoying.

Masterr

2012-07-31, 05:09 PM

I agree on the first and last but realism doesn't allways make good game. sometimes it just makes things anoying.

agreed, it would make this game a camp fest. def. more tactical, but less fun for the zerg

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-31, 05:11 PM

Kind of irrelevant, really. It is what it is. Join the dark side...

Synapse

2012-07-31, 08:56 PM

Nobody goes to war for fun, and it isn't just because you might die.

Some of the very realistic things about how you fight a war, are not fun. Those include ammo management, being disabled and thus "out of the fight", and being stuck behind a wall while the enemy pours rounds into you.

While realistic, none of that is fun, sorry.

Tuoweit

2012-07-31, 10:28 PM

Suppression fire in RL does not magically make people less accurate. Them being afraid of dying makes them less accurate. Some people will be frazzled by "suppression fire", many will not be.

Especially if the people being shot at know that they'll be brought back to life in 20 seconds if they do get killed.

Shade Millith

2012-07-31, 11:01 PM

Suppression is a horrible mechanic.

It is neither fun nor is it realistic.

If you get shot at, you take cover because you'll die otherwise. There's no need for any other suppression.

EDIT: Hell, it doesn't make ANY SENSE AT ALL in Planetside 2.

The soldiers have NO FEAR OF DEATH! They CANNOT die!

BlueSkies

2012-08-01, 08:38 AM

Salad Snake

2012-08-01, 09:14 AM

Personally, I don't see what's with all the hate toward BF3 suppression. It's kind of BS to be able to pop up and snipe some LMG user who's pumping out a bazillion bullets at you, regardless of whether he's actually hitting with any of them or not. In real life, even the calmest marksman wouldn't easily make that shot, and would miss 99/100 times due to fear and over-adrenalized hands shaking. Also, anyone who's played any serious athletics (especially contact sports) will tell you that after an impact or even just in the heat of the moment, your eyesight DOES blur.

Hell, when Red Orchestra & Battlefield came out, I thought some of the most realistic parts were the suppression system. It makes it so that LMG's can actually do what they do in real life, and that make it much harder to retaliate against heavy fire, whether it's killing people or not. (another mechanic I loved that most people hate is RO's ADS "zoom", which mimics how concentrating one's eyes on a distant object will actually sharpen their eyesight on that area, like a zoom. But that's another topic entirely)

/rant

That being said, suppression would not fit this game as it's player numbers ensure you'd be suppressed way too much. Also, the solder's armor probably helps regulate adrenaline bursts. And non-magic mags aren't a fun gameplay mechanic from a design perspective (not to mention this is one of the few cases it can actually easily be explained away!). My point was just to show that suppression does add to realism and makes sense for the games it's in. At the very least it's more realistic than getting a rifle round to the head majority of the times you're just trying to put rounds down range like an actual soldier would.

AtlantisThief

2012-08-01, 09:20 AM

Supression? Give it! No easy mode anymore for you :D No real need for blurry view but more for lower accuracy (blur should just indicate it)

Marinealver

2012-08-01, 09:33 AM

Bullets will have range drop mechanics just like they did in the first planetside.
Only energy and sniper rounds wont (because of the advnaced guase tech used)

Back when it was the old grid system on Hayoo's Idealab thought of an idea of "field stripping" ammo boxes to inventory clips that would save some space but would only be specific to that weapon. IE cant use Beemer Clips in a Lasher or MAG clips in a Jackhammer or Guass Clips in a MCG even thought they all use the same energy cell/12 guage shell/9mm round. However with the whole classsystem you would only get clips/ammo for your weapon so not necessary. Think you might have the ability to carry aditional clips in exchange of grenade capacity.

The old game was all about supression. Do enough dammage, the player will fall back to repair or heal before getting back in the fight. Plasma was dangerous eventhough it only dose moderate damage but because the damage over time makes people run away instead of through. Of course with the supression there is no kills. If someone is hit or can hear rounds comming in, tehy are supressed. Since survivability is not a priority, they wont be that supressed.

Realism? Not really because well realisim even with multiple lives through reencarnation, would still be maintianing vehicles and weapons, standing boring sentry duty, managing logestics and administration, and distances will be so far that it would take atleast a day march to reach the enemy base.

Now instead of realisim I would rather have Immersion, imersion is the simulation or illusion of you actually being inside the situation. For example the animations going in and out of the vehicles is one thing, but how about if a vehicle hits critical damage, you go from the targeting view to inside the cockpit of a shatered screen, getting mildly burned by fire and have to quickly smash your way out (quick melee attack) and crawl out of the burning wreckage before it explodes. Or lets say you are in the galaxy and need to move from the tail gun to the starboard guns because enemy fighters are moving from behind to more straight ahead and the side to avoid your gun fire. As you hit to switch seats it takes you to a 1st person view of you getting out of your gunner seat and crawling through the galaxy to the starboard gun grabbing the handel and getting ready to fire. How about more interactive base with an actual larger map and radar of what is nearby the base so commanders could cordinate defences (or infiltraitors could spy enemy posistions) What about a walking wounded mechanisim where you need a medic to help you in time or you will die but you could crawl your way back, or mabey you cant move but you got a last stand with your pistol, or your are stuck there but holding onto a grenade, no medic comes by only the enemy sqyad that incapaciated you, well here is a parting gift to pay them back.

That is what I want.

sagolsun

2012-08-01, 10:22 AM

Supression is one of the least fun things in BF3 and rewards you for missing.

It also rewards you for shooting enemies behind solid cover which you can't hit without a masskill/player damage cheat.

You suppress them and your teammate flanks and kills them.

How is that a bad thing?

Marinealver

2012-08-01, 10:30 AM

It also rewards you for shooting enemies behind solid cover which you can't hit without a masskill/player damage cheat.

You suppress them and your teammate flanks and kills them.

How is that a bad thing?

Besides it being battlefield 3. This isn't battleside 2 you know.

But after nearly running from incomming rockets and plasma spam only to have someone run around with HA or MAX and because you have supression your chances of fighting this MAX are already penaltized because someone shot at you and missed.

This game has some pretty big explosions, the sound of a snipershot past your head is imediatly going to get you hiding behind a rock and V-W-S immediatly. Plasma or grenades comming in going to kick up allot of dust blocking your view. The game graphic engine and enviormental alphablending should be good enough where you wont need some screned induced WTF system to reward bad shots. This game the only thing that should count against you are the hits, and trust me there will be plenty of "hits" even if you are cowarding in a corner behind a baracadde inside a besieged bunker.

Drachenklaue

2012-08-01, 10:34 AM

I doubt i could count this game as a simulator, jetpacks and dropships are kinda fantasy sci-fi stuff, ARMA 2 is a simulator

sagolsun

2012-08-01, 10:39 AM

Besides it being battlefield 3. This isn't battleside 2 you know.

But after nearly running from incomming rockets and plasma spam only to have someone run around with HA or MAX and because you have supression your chances of fighting this MAX are already penaltized because someone shot at you and missed.

This game has some pretty big explosions, the sound of a snipershot past your head is imediatly going to get you hiding behind a rock and V-W-S immediatly. Plasma or grenades comming in going to kick up allot of dust blocking your view. The game graphic engine and enviormental alphablending should be good enough where you wont need some screned induced WTF system to reward bad shots. This game the only thing that should count against you are the hits, and trust me there will be plenty of "hits" even if you are cowarding in a corner behind a baracadde inside a besieged bunker.

I'm not arguing suppression is a mechanic for PS2. It doesn't make sense in PS2 because with the immortality in-game fear of getting shot isn't a psychological factor. In addition PS2 has simply more lead, lasers and whatnot flying around than BF3.

What I'm arguing is that suppression is a good mechanic in modern shooters like BF3 and is the only thing I'd actually like to see ported from that game to ARMA3, for example.

Pjoo

2012-08-01, 12:37 PM

1) I don't think it's really that important to have in, it's realistic but I don't think it adds to the gameplay too much.

2) It's a nice mechanic, but only if the damage is Operation Flashpoint-like. If you need half a clip to kill a person, not reloading is too often a horrible choice.

3) Supression goes kinda along with the above. If the damage supressive weapons do isn't enough, then it doesn't really matter that the weapon itself supresses. Whatever the weapon that supresses simply needs to be scary enough that you wont stick your head into the fire.
I think the shield system can probably emulate it pretty well anyways, atleast PAYDAY: The Heist and Mass Effect 3 MP do it quite well. Too much stuff shooting at you? Take couple potshots and get back to cover fast so you wont lose the non-regening health.

4) Rather than realistic damage, I would really love to have getting shot throw off your aim or even you knock down so higher-caliber weapons could have stopping power if not oneshotting.

But yeah, all in all, I hope there will be proper benefit for group play and taking the correct approach to dealing with obstacles. Shooting tank from front with RPGs shouldn't make the player think "well it will take me few more rockets than shooting it from behind would", it should be "damn, tank is coming from front, I need to flank it/call in air support/have support from my own MBTs/stick to cover and be really scared." Similarly LMGs shouldn't have slight advantage against people from front, but rather quite substantial one, as a trade off for being less mobile.

opticalshadow

2012-08-01, 12:45 PM

I doubt i could count this game as a simulator, jetpacks and dropships are kinda fantasy sci-fi stuff, ARMA 2 is a simulator

thats not what makes a simulator. arma 2 is a simulator because its engine is designed to be as realistic and authentic as possible within the laws of the real world.

now if arma 2 used that same engine, same laws and everything, but had laser cannons, space ships and aliens, it would still be a simulator, because its still going to simulate the world to the closest possible idea of real world laws. its how we can have complex space simulators dispite not having actual space ships like that. because we use an engine to simulate everythign we know space and its laws to be.

ps2 isnt a simulator because its engine isnt attempting to simulate the real world, or anything close to it. its an entirely diffrent genre. its like call of duty or black ops. both share nearly everything in arma 2, but that doesnt make them sim's,

Buggsy

2012-08-02, 12:18 PM

agreed, it would make this game a camp fest. def. more tactical, but less fun for the zerg

I think you mean less fun for people who think they have leet ADADADAADADA skillz. The Zerg like to play defense too.

thats not what makes a simulator. arma 2 is a simulator because its engine is designed to be as realistic and authentic as possible within the laws of the real world.

Arma2 is not a simulator either.

This is a simulator:

Tankový simulátor - Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. G vs US M4A2 Sherman - YouTube

TO THE RIGHT!!!!!!! RIGHT!!!!!!! RIGHT OCLOCK!!! YOUR OTHER RIGHT!!!!!

I'd like to see some people with their "mad skillz" survive in wwiionline.

SpottyGekko

2012-08-02, 01:18 PM

Very few people would want to play a full military simulator. The old saying "war is 90% boredom and 10% terror" may give a clue as to why. Most people want the simulation to apply to the 10% part of warfare, i.e. the actual combat.

To a certain extent, WWII-Online was proof of that saying. Anyone who ever sat in a bush with an ATG for half an hour to get 1 tank kill will attest to that :D

Spawn at barracks. Wait for someone to spawn a truck. Jump on truck. Wait 5 minutes for enough other people to join you on the truck. Drive for 6 minutes and jump off near the attack objective. Run/crawl for 10 minutes to get in a good attack position. Shoot at enemy but miss, because you misjudged the range to target. You have now revealed your position. LMG rakes the hedge you're hiding in and you die. Spawn at barracks....

^^That was WWII-Online in the early days, and it was brutal. I loved it, because it was actually quite a good sim. It certainly discouraged bullet-spam and wild "heroics". But it also discouraged players :(

OnexBigxHebrew

2012-08-02, 01:23 PM

To have a simulator, the actualy parameters and every detail of a situation need to be tangible and already known. Period.

This isn't even close. This game is a fun Sci-fi game.

TheDAWinz

2012-08-02, 01:36 PM

I think you mean less fun for people who think they have leet ADADADAADADA skillz. The Zerg like to play defense too.

Arma2 is not a simulator either.

This is a simulator:

Tankový simulátor - Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. G vs US M4A2 Sherman - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uBxgSabgIc)

TO THE RIGHT!!!!!!! RIGHT!!!!!!! RIGHT OCLOCK!!! YOUR OTHER RIGHT!!!!!

I'd like to see some people with their "mad skillz" survive in wwiionline.

Are you smoking! arma 2 IS a simulator, it borrows heavily from VBS 2.0 that is used by Militaries around the world.

Sunrock

2012-08-02, 03:29 PM

Well I think the suppression in BF3 works well. It does promote more team play tactics instead of one man army type of game play.

IMMentat

2012-08-02, 04:08 PM

Would make a nice change if someone did this.

Devs in general are still stuck on the "this box shaped object is the player" (hitbox)
This cone emanating from the the box is the players field of view.
This smaller cone emanating from the middle of the box is where the projectiles travel through (player activity combined with a random number generator determines the position).
This line along the lower part of the box is the maximum height that the player can climb onto.
This line sticking into the ground below the character box is the maximum vertical height that a player can attain by pressing "jump".
This picture is what a gun looks like through the players camera.
This model is what the same gun looks like in-game.
so on and so fourth.

Its design by numbers and not many companies have pushed beyond this on over 15 years (mirrors edge and a few other games I can't name are the only ones I can think of that even bothered to use in-game models for a characters feet.)

Give it time and maybe we'll get physics simulators that attach ballistic, recoil and force calculations to an object not to the players camera for guns as well as environmental objects. (garrys mod does this fairly well, just cause 2 with the grappling hook also a decent example).
In the end it is all reliant on code optimisation and computational power, that sort of number crunching can not be easy or cheap, yet.

opticalshadow

2012-08-02, 04:29 PM

I think you mean less fun for people who think they have leet ADADADAADADA skillz. The Zerg like to play defense too.

Arma2 is not a simulator either.

This is a simulator:

Tankový simulátor - Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. G vs US M4A2 Sherman - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uBxgSabgIc)

TO THE RIGHT!!!!!!! RIGHT!!!!!!! RIGHT OCLOCK!!! YOUR OTHER RIGHT!!!!!

I'd like to see some people with their "mad skillz" survive in wwiionline.

arma 2 is indeed a simulator, just like microsoft flight is a simulator, dispite the fact both are not as in depth as some other simulators they are still in fact simulators.

GoldDragon

2012-08-02, 05:05 PM

Here's how I see it, just one point of view on PS2 as a combat simulator.

First off, I have always struggled with my desire to have PlanetSide be more realistic verse more "fun." I recognize that realism can be fun, but not always. For my case, we'll stick with Sim vs Game.

If PlanetSide 2 became a Sim I can see several pros and cons.

Pros
- If I shoot it first, it dies
- Believable physics
- Believable gun play
- You will want to think about any move you make (ideally)
- Vehicles will function as support, not necessarily front line due to resource management
- Organized units will have a reasonable advantage over disorganized opponents who may lack training/discipline.

Cons
- With PlanetSide's numbers, I will die to stray bullets in large fire fights
- We don't really know how laser/energy weapons would work so we can't "simulate" them. (in fact, VS would have to be overhauled/removed because of their technology.)
- Dying in one shot every time isn't necessarily fun.
- Vehicles being limited by "fuel" isn't necessarily fun.

My list could go on, but if you want a combat simulator you would have to remove a lot of the element from PlanetSide that make it PlanetSide. PS is a Science-Fiction game, a lot of what we use just isn't within our technological grasp currently and so can't be truly simulated. It can be theorized and hypothetically simulated but it wouldn't be a true simulation. If I am understanding right, you don't want a full-blown America's Army combat simulation but more realistic TTK, movement, etc right? Honestly I see this hurting the essence of what PlanetSide is at it's core far more than improving it. Granted, it wouldn't hurt to have simulation servers for those who like playing that way, but in general PlanetSide 2 needs to stay a GAME and not a simulation.

As the developers have said, they want the game to be more fun than they want realism.

Just my point of view, food for thought.

opticalshadow

2012-08-02, 05:22 PM

Sc-fi does not negate a game from being a simulation. it makes it non fiction, but that doesnt mean it cant also be a simulation.

for example with day Z, its stilla simulation game, dispite the fact it has Infected in it. we dont have any real life data on Infected creatures of this nature, so instead one was created, and all of the data used in that are added to the game and it then become simulated.

the lasher might not exsist or have the capacity to exsist, but you can code one to exsist within the confines of the simulation to study how its effects would work in laws teh simulation set forth.

theBreadSultan

2012-08-02, 05:39 PM

I think the suppression idea is terrible.

Especially considering that in Planetside, the Players are immortal.

So while near certain death may result in BF3 soldiers cowering, a PS soldier will just take the risk, after all the worst that LMG can really do is hurt him, and if he does die from LMG bullets, it's sure to be a quick death.

regarding countring bullets -
In real life a slodier knows exactly how many bullets he has on him, and those in command know roughly how many minutes of fighting at various intesity the squad has ammo for.

Most magazines contain a few tracer rounds.
32 rounds in a clip, you can put them in how you want.
So for example every 10 bullets you put in a tracer,
That way you only need to count to 3 to know how many rounds you have left in your mag.
And you would use a magazine until it was empty.

I like the injury thing though