Member
That's one of the main things that ruined RvS for me because I found the maps were not that exciting where as R6/RS had far better mission locations and offered more replayability and inspired me to keep playing them if I failed.Now, Raven Shield............................................ .............
I also believe the missions were fundamentally unexciting - nothing wrong with how they were rendered - but we had nothing like the grandeur of the opera house, long sightlines of 747 (and it's resonance with much counter-terrorist activity) or the pure atmosphere of going to Kosovo.
In RvS, if I failed a mission a number of times, it got to the point where I was sick of playing the map but continued to play for the satisfaction of finishing them and was glad I never had to do it again once completed, where as in R6/RS, I couldn't wait to try the maps again because they were that much better.
Member
Very good thread! Thanks to Defuser! Let's all dream this dream together!
I have a kind of philosophical question about team AI:
if, in this kind of dream R6, i take one of the given plans (which should work), and i make the operatives (which should have an effecient AI) do the whole job on THEIR OWN.
should this always result in a success???
if not, was it a bad plan? or was it because of bad team AI? or was it just bad luck? how much comes the efficiency of the player into account?
you got the point? how much should the success depend on these factors:
- planning
- team ai
- player efficiency
- luck
depending on the chosen model the gameplay changes. For example:
1)
planning: 50%
team ai: 20%
player efficiency: 20%
luck: 10%
-> you have a VERY tactical game with lot of weight on planning. (actually, it's more a kind of strategy instead of tactics)
2)
planning: 20%
team AI: 60%
player efficiency: 10%
luck: 10%
-> you have a very strong AI and a relatively unimportant planning phase. But maybe the AI is too strong, because they could do the job almost entirely on their own.
3)
planning: 0%
team AI: 10%
player efficiency: 70%
luck: 20%
-> you know this game: LD!
i believe, these 4 factors model the kind and quality of SP gameplay of R6 pretty well.
of course, once it is decided about the composition of these 4 factors, there are a LOT of other questions which have to be decided on.
but at the end, you can check, what kind of gameplay the R5 game has.
BTW, I would approximately vote for:
planning: 30%
team AI: 30%
player efficiency: 30%
luck:10%
DreamMarine
p.s.:
for all, who are interested in, here is how you test, if the game fulfills the formula:
1) make the best assault plan you can think of. make the team AI do the assault entireliy on their own. repeat this several times. the rate of success should equal:
team AI / (team AI + luck)
2) now make the worst plan, you can think of, and repeat the above procedure. now, the rate of success should equal:
teamAI / (planning + team AI + luck)
3) you can do the same with different players (worst and best), and so on!
sorry for the mathematics!
Junior Member
Loved the first post - I too remember playing the embassy demo - just the loading screen made me wet my pants, once the game started id moved into heaven.
I agreed with almost all of it except some of the criticisms of RvS - yes the AI wasnt great but it wasnt a terrible game.
Also most people seem to think that real life CT teams moving "fast" is because they just run fast. This isnt the case (theres some videos on this forum, perhaps someone can find the link, of room clearing techniques). Now, while it may look quick, they are actually moving very slowly, no faster than a quick walk. The reason it looks quick is because of the efficiency of their movement.
therefore I dont think its realistic, or fun, to make the in game player be a ble to run really fast. In my opinion RvS's speed is about right. A balance of speed and realism.
Anyway thanks for a good read. Will PM you my address for the medal
Member
In my eyes, the AI should be competant to handle every task you throw at it. The assumption that the player somehow needs to have the AI crippled enough to necessitate their role in the proceedings is nonsensical. Hold on a second! Wouldn't this allow us to just sit back and watch the game, not participating in it at all? What if we just used the suggested plans and watched the game through to the end?
YES! But how then could you derive any enjoyment from it? And that's exactly the point. Don't cripple the game because some people won't get involved. As if anybody's going to say "This game is ****! I just sat and watched the AI!" when they could so easily get involved themselves? Don't cripple the AI just to make the lazy people put themselves into the assault. By all means, make the AI good enough to be able to follow a (sound) plan without player involvement. If you had any desire to PLAY the game in the first place, you'd take the role of one of the teams - for god's sake! You've payed money for this! If anything, watching a successful assault by the AI would make you WANT to get involved to the fullest extent if only to prove yourself competant! For those who want to watch the/their own plan unfold - LET THEM. That was the intention all along, was it not, with the obsever modes in the other R6s? It was just unfortunate that the AI was not competant enough to follow the plans to the letter, with any degree of skill.
IF the AI was capable enough, then it would make the game infinitely better on the planning side... Take a game like 'The Regiment', where even though there is no planning phase, you can instruct your AI squad to clear in a variety of different ways. They clear remarkably well - so well, in fact, that in the vast majority of situations you can rely on them to complete the tasks you were set. Does that mean somehow you don't get as much enjoyment from the mission? Does it hell! If you feel the need to get involved, you simply clear the next room yourself. You have THE OPTION to get the AI involved... The AI in 'The Regiment' will also come unstuck if they don't get the right tactical aid to clear the room. You have to toss the flash/frag/cs for them, if you choose to do a grenade assault. It doesn't have as much depth as the R6 games have, but it does illustrate that with a combination of tactics and good AI, they can overcome the vast majority of opposition forces. Is this any less enjoyable? For me, no. If 'The Regiment' had as much depth as the R6 games had in terms of kit choice and planning, then I would be in hog's heaven.
Senior Member
I agree the AI should be compentent to do the job. The player's role is to know is job in the room and do it, the AI trusting the player would do it. If the player doesn't cover his arc, well a threat could hit the AI.
Also I think what is important is map and mission size. Lately the missions, esp with LD have become massive. I'd much rather see smaller maps, with 10 ro 15 tangos at most. A mission shouldn't last longer than 5 minutes, but have a lot more.
Member
The risk of 10-15 tangos is how to make it challenging.
The Enemy AI will need a huge boost to make 10-15 enemies a challenge. And making them super human, ie RVS ELITE, is not fun.
Swat 4 is probably the closest game to being able to make a few enemies challenging.
I would like to see a variety. Playing though a large map like meat packing plant I find fun. But mix in maps designed for dynamic, 3-4 minute assualts would also be great. Focusing on only a hand full of points where there are multiply threats and angle to cover.
You cant go wrong with variety :-D
Member
Most hostage situations are over in a matter of minutes once the assault has begun, take a look at;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hostage_crises
And most of them involve less than 10 tangoes, typically 5 or 6. In situations where there were a large amount of tangoes, such as the Moscow theatre siege, upwards of 30 (42 I think), then the location where the siege is taking place is literally FLOODED with operators, and extreme tactical measures have to be taken to make an entry possible. For even 5 or 6, like the 1980 Iranian Embassy Siege, there were at least 3 teams of 4 men storming the building. Realistically, you have to have EVERY avenue of the building closed off, contained, and ready for the attack.
Assaults against 30+ tangoes with only 2 teams of 4 men simply would not happen. It would be very dangerous and irresponsible to attempt it. Even with all the tactical advantages in the world, and the best team available, it would still be remarkably risky due to the sheer weight of numbers involved. Where R6 falls down is that tight groups of tangoes SHOULD present a challenge. They should represent danger. If they are communicable and trained, even more so. They should not be paper targets.
Some would argue that this would make the missions too short and unexciting, with only a handful of tangoes that were there once before. If the world of Rainbow is appropriately realistic, with the necessary considerations within the gameworld taken into account (such as the required speed of an assault), then you simply cannot have the assault without more than 8 men on a building containing more than 30 tangoes. If realism is adhered to, it would simply be highly irresponsible.
This is where the game mechanic gets broken to fit the lack of realism taking on masses of tangoes entails. The tangoes are either placed few and far between BUT strategically (i.e. when was the last time you saw two tangoes in the same room in a R6 game, who weren't placed in strategic locations?) or bunched together out in the open. To take on 40 men, they have to be spaced evenly and strategically for them to not overwhelm the player (as could well happen) but also ensure that there is a constant flow of action all through the mission.
Senior Member
This is where you need to strike a balance between gameplay and realism. I found some of the larger maps in RvS were too loaded with tangos. I have a lot more fun in terrorist hunt looking for 5-10 on the large maps. Tension is not knowing what's behind every corner/room. Advancing down a street. The tension of looking is pretty good. LD is way over the top combined with the forced path is way too shooting gallery.
Senior Member
The practical counter-argument developers and publishers use is they work off the assumption a player who is already in a game WANTS to be there and wants to (already) be involved... Or else they wouldn't be playing the game in the first place.Originally posted by Defuser:
In my eyes, the AI should be competant to handle every task you throw at it. The assumption that the player somehow needs to have the AI crippled enough to necessitate their role in the proceedings is nonsensical. Hold on a second! Wouldn't this allow us to just sit back and watch the game, not participating in it at all? What if we just used the suggested plans and watched the game through to the end?
YES! But how then could you derive any enjoyment from it? And that's exactly the point. Don't cripple the game because some people won't get involved. As if anybody's going to say "This game is ****! I just sat and watched the AI!" when they could so easily get involved themselves? Don't cripple the AI just to make the lazy people put themselves into the assault. By all means, make the AI good enough to be able to follow a (sound) plan without player involvement. If you had any desire to PLAY the game in the first place, you'd take the role of one of the teams - for god's sake! You've payed money for this! If anything, watching a successful assault by the AI would make you WANT to get involved to the fullest extent if only to prove yourself competant! For those who want to watch the/their own plan unfold - LET THEM. That was the intention all along, was it not, with the obsever modes in the other R6s? It was just unfortunate that the AI was not competant enough to follow the plans to the letter, with any degree of skill.
The imbalance between player interaction and competent AI we are discussing arises when they scale back the AI to A) Accomodate the hardware constraints of low-end computers, or console systems, or B) to facilitate more action on part of the player because as much as we may not want to admit it... There will always be gamers who say, "Man. That game sucked because the AI did everything for me. If I wanted to watch AI, I'd rent Terminator III!", or something similar...
And it is this kind of feedback -- especially during beta testing -- Publishers and developers will always listen to more because it translates, in their minds, into potentially lost sales... Regardless of how flawed the initial comments are.
As I said earlier, I'd love it if AI team mates in squad based shooters actually DID a lot of the work for me... And when I say "work" I mean were competent and alert enough to watch not only my back, but their own back's as well, so I didn't have to babysit them like current squad and team-based AI forces players to do 90% of the time.
However, again, "doing the work for me" is always falsely translated into "turn the player into a passive spectator instead of an active participant" which again, while flawed, is the basis for why a lot of AI is dumbed down in the production phase as it is one the things they can easily check off their list of priorities as "done" and move onto the next order of business.
Member
I think the bad guys should really be placed in sensible statigic positions. Not just a few in that room a few in there.
Maybe a few central masses inside the building near the hostages. Then some patrols of a few badies going around. Certainly it should be a hunt, not a continuous firing range.
As for numbers. I think plenty and stupids getting a bit to old now. Swat 4 and TR as great fun becasue the tangos and x-rays react to you. Now when I play RVS it seems dull, like shooting cardboard cut outs.
Tactical shooters should have fewer, but more challenging.
Again like many things, how it can be done depends upon how good the AI is. If the ais not up to it the only way to make it challenging is to flood the map with bad guys and hope a few of them get lucky.
As for realism and numbers, the game needs to be challenging, and people want more than 1 or 2 kills. I would say most RS fans would be disappointed with less than 17 badies on a map.
DG idea of 5 minute short missions I feel could really work if the enemy ai is challenging and it makes you think in planning. It was never possible with previous AI, but maybe this next game could have it.
AS DG says, a good balance needs to be met. To put a sure figure on whats good atm is impossible as we have no idea of waht kind of maps there will be, the ability of the AI, and a million other factors.
