killzone movie................ expect a bit more now
- Thread starter hey69
- Start date
eh...logically, you are supposed to dodge hellyeay when under fire, no matter what type of war it is! 
maybe the game isnt complete yet? ANYWAY, more i watch vid2, i come to see that either the player sucks, or something is wrong with the aim. the damn dude dosent seem to hit those slowly leisurely hellgrath commandos with all that shooting.
i hope to see a good auto aiming system and adjustable sensitive, hell USB kb+mouse support be nice. Ps2 DS2 *might* have a problem with those loosey sticks.
maybe the game isnt complete yet? ANYWAY, more i watch vid2, i come to see that either the player sucks, or something is wrong with the aim. the damn dude dosent seem to hit those slowly leisurely hellgrath commandos with all that shooting.
i hope to see a good auto aiming system and adjustable sensitive, hell USB kb+mouse support be nice. Ps2 DS2 *might* have a problem with those loosey sticks.
like I said I've haven;t seen the footage *shrugs*. who knows, a bug?
maybe, I hope they put an option to turn off the 'simulated kickback' for hte firearm. personnelly I find it instrusive.
hey, it's the opppsite with me. I absolutely *HATE* auto aiming, which kinda explains the no FPS on comsole thing I've got going at the mo
chaphack said:eh...logically, you are supposed to dodge hellyeay when under fire, no matter what type of war it is!
Um. No Chap. You're not.
The rational of why you're wrong goes back to ancient times, to my knowledge the first time is perhaps when Plato wrote in The Republic of Aristotle pondering why soldiers stand and fight during battle at all. For if the battle is anticipated by the individual to be easily won, what good is ones singular contribution? And if the battle is anticipated to be lost, why stand and fight at all when the chances of his lines being overrun are huge and the chances of injury and death yet higher. So, why do soldiers fight... ever. This study of utility falls under the aegis of modern Game Theory and it basically shows that your full of shit.
For example, your logical strategy would promote an AI that when confronted - instantly turns and runs for their lives. Which, is one of the quirks I've heard of happening in AI routines, but rarely happens in real life for this type of 'elite' small group encounters.
Often, when operating in groups (especially of highly trained individuals) there will be decisions made that to an outside observer seem intuitively wrong, but are in fact the strategy that maximized utility. For example, I'll go into this after your next responce.
chaphack said:
On the contrary. Perhaps the AI has observed that their initial landing point provides weak defense (duh) and if you watch their movement it's quite realistic. After hitting the ground in a group of 4, two provides covering fire at the drop point as the other 2 run up to the "choke-point" and stop behind cover on the far side and start shooting. By now, the other 4 of the unit have hit the floor and the origional two providing cover fire advance, one of which runs past the choke point and starts shooting. With the entire first group providing cover, the second four pull an overlap move and advance past the choke-point, at which time the video ends. If looks like the shooter may have capped one at the chokepoint, but two have already gotten threw, so he's lost his tactical advantage and they've basically "won".
So, if they would have pulled one of your "duck behind cover" strategies, they're at a tactical disadvantage and will probably lose. They minimize the effectiveness of their superior numbers and their ability to project a high intensity pseudo-CQB to overwhelm the player. By ducking for cover, they open themselves up to the singular player being able to snipe and kill them off as individuals at the distance they are.
Although, I must admit it would appear that "realistic" gaming has desensitized people to how actual combat works. While I'm hardly experienced, I can tell you from my days of Airsoft and Paintball that "sniping" as often percieved (even in Airsoft) is utter horsehit - it just doesn't happen. We used to laugh at the new people around who'd tell us how they want to be a "sniper." Cover is overrated (as you loose inititive by covering yourself and loosing observation of the battlefield) and the player and team that controls the initiative (eg. when to engage & when to disengage) and the ability to project more fire faster in a brief high intensity battle will always win. This is quite unlike the mentality of the average Counter-Strike player who thinks they, as an individual, can snipe or bunny hop to victory.
Now, I've come to realize that when I make a comment that's not explicitly stating the negatives which I generally assume people hold as the status quo condition, there will be some who assume I'm doing nothing but talking about "Teh Wonderlful world of Sony l33ts" or something. So, while this isn't the best AI I've ever seen; for how large of a tactical unit it is - it's damn good. I bet it could give HL2's AI (which I've only seen in groups of 2 in tactical situations) a run for it's money.
marconelly!
Veteran
I think analyzing the realisticness of enemy AI too much doesn't really make sense. As long as they provide enjoyable opponents, it's all good.
For instance, if by 'good ai' we say 'the AI that avoid being killed by all means and wants to kill you by all means', then you, as a player, would get easily frustrated by enemies literaly destroying you (because really, you would have no chance against all of them) and jumping and running zig-zag all the time effectively making it impossible for a player to kill them. I'm sure a game with enemies that smart would never appeal to anyone.
For instance, if by 'good ai' we say 'the AI that avoid being killed by all means and wants to kill you by all means', then you, as a player, would get easily frustrated by enemies literaly destroying you (because really, you would have no chance against all of them) and jumping and running zig-zag all the time effectively making it impossible for a player to kill them. I'm sure a game with enemies that smart would never appeal to anyone.
I believe there's an implementation simillar to Halo, where your aim slows down a bit when you roll it over the enemies, but there's no 'auto aim' in the true sense of the word.
For reference, I have never seen war footage of soldiers charging forward and hopping like rabbits on extasy.
And Vince, for the love of Eru, PLEASE start using "through" unless you are actually talking about THROWING something! You posts are always so well put together, but for some reason you often make that word replacement, and it just makes me stumble over my cerebellum when perusing through one of your lengthy posts.
You may freely substitude "thru" if you'd like, however.
And Vince, for the love of Eru, PLEASE start using "through" unless you are actually talking about THROWING something!
You posts are always so well put together, but for some reason you often make that word replacement, and it just makes me stumble over my cerebellum when perusing through one of your lengthy posts.You may freely substitude "thru" if you'd like, however.
nondescript
Regular
Vince - you could figure out all THAT from those grainy video clips!? The CIA should hire you as a photo analyst...
One thing that *might* help explain the AI behavior is that they're taking fire from the other side too... Notice that the pinned-down AI is also returning fire at the other side. If their LZ is surrounded, there really is no cover - my guess is the best strategy is to lay suppressive fire and get the hell out.
Heh, that reminds me of a ancedote a Army officer once told me. During basic training, the training officer used an AK-47 and a M16 and fired them at a 4-inch thick slab of wood. The M16 rounds (5.56mm) got about halfway. The AK-47 rounds went clear through, since they're long-cartridge 7.62mm. The training officer told them, "The moral of the story is: don't hide behind trees!"
(Note the correct usage of "through" )
Anyways, arguing over a 20-second blurry-ass video is pathetic. Why don't we wait for the actual game before passing judgement.
One thing that *might* help explain the AI behavior is that they're taking fire from the other side too... Notice that the pinned-down AI is also returning fire at the other side. If their LZ is surrounded, there really is no cover - my guess is the best strategy is to lay suppressive fire and get the hell out.
Heh, that reminds me of a ancedote a Army officer once told me. During basic training, the training officer used an AK-47 and a M16 and fired them at a 4-inch thick slab of wood. The M16 rounds (5.56mm) got about halfway. The AK-47 rounds went clear through, since they're long-cartridge 7.62mm. The training officer told them, "The moral of the story is: don't hide behind trees!"
(Note the correct usage of "through"
)Anyways, arguing over a 20-second blurry-ass video is pathetic. Why don't we wait for the actual game before passing judgement.
Heh Can't believe someone is able to judge the game's AI by these few seconds clips, and even compare it to Halo saying that AI in Halo is so much more advanced
Must be some extreme funboi bias blurring the mind.
Anyway, I'm pleasantly surprised by the animation, polygon detail and frame rate in these videos. I was expecting a chuggy slideshow fps and jerky animation, but looks like the game will deliver at least on a technical viewpoint.
A mouse and keyboard support would be good though, none of excisting console fps shooters have not yet appealed to me cos I just suck aiming with the controller(s).
Can't believe someone is able to judge the game's AI by these few seconds clips, and even compare it to Halo saying that AI in Halo is so much more advanced Must be some extreme funboi bias blurring the mind.
Anyway, I'm pleasantly surprised by the animation, polygon detail and frame rate in these videos. I was expecting a chuggy slideshow fps and jerky animation, but looks like the game will deliver at least on a technical viewpoint.
A mouse and keyboard support would be good though, none of excisting console fps shooters have not yet appealed to me cos I just suck aiming with the controller(s).
Not hard to spot certain things if you KNOW what to look for. The situation he descriped could be depicted in a few short seconds. Certainly doesn't come near describing an AI for the WHOLE game, but if you show even one situation that defies "gamer expectations" and covers existant military tactics, it can certainly alter one's expectations from the rest of the game. (And make it better/worse depending on what one WANTS from the game.
I was right. The AI is not complete. Explains the slooow reaction to surprise fire.
Vince,
What you said is more like warfare for the olden times. Yeay know, bunch of Romen Legionaires all line up at one side, while you have the Egytian Phalanx at the other side and everyone charges at each other with their horses, swords and shields. Today with sophisticated weapons firepower and aim, standing still makes you THE biggest duck of all!
Heres what i think when you come under fire(surprise one to boot!). First off, you duck for nearest cover. No, you dont hippy yappy all around and trying to flee. You hit the ground atm of fire, crawl towards any cover and fire back a few shots in the general direction of fire.
Next, while still firing, you try to establish visual regroup with the rest of you squad and plan the next course of action from your cover. Try to pinpoint where your ambushees are, and deploy your heaviest weapons and blast at em. Covering Fire! Pin em back! If you have, throw a few smoke nades to hide your squad and deploy a split off group to flank the enemy. Take a detour and hook right at the back off your ambushees to surprise em and finish them off, while the rest of the squad provide heavy cover fire behind cover!
I say....
Vince,
What you said is more like warfare for the olden times. Yeay know, bunch of Romen Legionaires all line up at one side, while you have the Egytian Phalanx at the other side and everyone charges at each other with their horses, swords and shields. Today with sophisticated weapons firepower and aim, standing still makes you THE biggest duck of all!
Heres what i think when you come under fire(surprise one to boot!). First off, you duck for nearest cover. No, you dont hippy yappy all around and trying to flee. You hit the ground atm of fire, crawl towards any cover and fire back a few shots in the general direction of fire.
Next, while still firing, you try to establish visual regroup with the rest of you squad and plan the next course of action from your cover. Try to pinpoint where your ambushees are, and deploy your heaviest weapons and blast at em. Covering Fire! Pin em back! If you have, throw a few smoke nades to hide your squad and deploy a split off group to flank the enemy. Take a detour and hook right at the back off your ambushees to surprise em and finish them off, while the rest of the squad provide heavy cover fire behind cover!
I say....
chaphack said:What you said is more like warfare for the olden times. Yeay know, bunch of Romen Legionaires all line up at one side, while you have the Egytian Phalanx at the other side and everyone charges at each other with their horses, swords and shields. Today with sophisticated weapons firepower and aim, standing still makes you THE biggest duck of all!
Chap, the only peoiple who are laughing are those that know what they're tlaking about and are reading your post. Please, refrain from trying to educate me on Game Theoric actions relating to human behavor. Perhaps if your name was Fred I'd listen, but untill then...
With todays sophisticated weapons, hiding behind cover means your dead. The entity that can project the most firepower at a target in the shortest period of time will win - hands down. This isn't even up for debate.
Besides, most "trained" individuals in standing armies that aren't G7 countries can't shoot for shit. Going back to the the whole topic of picking a logical strategy for this "game" - the opponent whose shooting at you will not stand and keep shooting at you if 5 guys open fire on him after he gets 1 round off. That is, if he's not laying on the ground already.
Chap said:
Find me the SFOD-Delta, SWAT, SEAL or other special operator that will do that.
They train themselves repeatedly in CQB and MOUT conditions so that when some moron, much like yourself, tries to pick one of them off they instinctivly snap fire back. The pussy will allways lose in a battle.
besides, this strategy is illogical in asymmetric warfare. If I'm part of a coherent group, why wouldn't I want to maximixe the benefit of my superior firepower trained on a singular target? By hiding and "taking cover" you segment yourself (eg. the "Re-establish contact") and allow for one guy with a rifle and $50 scope to kill you all off one by one as you do your checklist of things?
Perhaps in an open field you drop, but sure as hell not in MOUT conditions.
Chap said:Next, while still firing, you try to establish visual regroup with the rest of you squad and plan the next course of action from your cover. Try to pinpoint where your ambushees are, and deploy your heaviest weapons and blast at em. Covering Fire! Pin em back! If you have, throw a few smoke nades to hide your squad and deploy a split off group to flank the enemy. Take a detour and hook right at the back off your ambushees to surprise em and finish them off, while the rest of the squad provide heavy cover fire behind cover!
I say....
Tell Arnold, Mel, and Rambo they're helping to brain-wash the next generation of Americans.
Ohh, and how are you going to "flank" the enemy in a MOUT/CQB condition where your restricted to a street?
Walk around the block? Try to go house to house and clear 500 rooms on the way?chaphack said:I was right. The AI is not complete. Explains the slooow reaction to surprise fire.
Excepting that they not being shot from behind, and were advancing steadily while firing at their attacker. (Notice towards the end they start hitting more often as well, while an instant scatter would have left everyone ineffectually spraying bullets from a distance.)
chaphack said:Today with sophisticated weapons firepower and aim, standing still makes you THE biggest duck of all!
Of course so does entrenching yourself to wait for grenades or support fire, instead of taking out the threat (especially if it's a LONE threat) quickly and moving on.
chaphack said:
A) a squad like that moves expecting fire at some point and to react fastest and best, so "surprise" is not really a factor, but rather just a pointer to the threat's location.
B) these all seem to be well-armored soldiers, so one bullet is not going to take one down and it's not as critical to avoid quick sprays
C) scattering to the nearest cover and losing visual sight of squad members would certainly hurt their ability to coordinate and take out a threat they have total numerical superiority over.
chaphack said:
Which is exactly how they instantly responded, with soldiers advancing while laying down fire, and others moving forward faster to get to better position. (and, in fact, towards the actual cover) Considering they landed in an area with no cover and had none offered on the other side of the street, the only way for them to have gotten some instantly would be to have run to the near side of the street over which the ambusher was attacking, and that would certainly limit their lanes of attack and make it easier for one gun to keep them pinned.
Offhand the thing I find most out of place is that there should have been a gunner on the transport itself to take out targets and protect the soldiers while they're most vulnerable.
Firstly vincey holy boy, how much are you involved in any trained military ops or something? Me nothing, so yeay take that as you will.
You can be brave and dumb or brave and smart.
Oh well, so many military talk from us experts! 8) 8)
No you are not. M16 AK47 MP5 etc arent THAT powerful. More powerful than spears and swords, yes. But covers still help. Taking cover(shield + hidden) gives a higher chance of survival than than wide opened and exposed.
Well...
And thats why you need cover + regroup. The enemy in the vid is shooting, not only from a surprised ambush, but also from higher grounds. Whats the point of standing in the open and blitzing confusedly? You think a group of guys who just airborn decended, could reply instantly to hidden enemies? Who has the advantage here? If you try to hit fire with fire, the enemy can just stay hidden and take your 5 guys down. What about if the enemy has some form of fragmentation dispersing weapons? More easier to down a cluster of firing fools. Best to stay covered and spread, to reduce the area of hit.
He who lives, lives to fight another day....or something like that!
You can be brave and dumb or brave and smart.
Was talking about an ambush, a killzone if you will. One guy is even harder to spot in all that rubble. Not point being heros and whacking the hidden dude. He could stay hidden, fire, stay hidden and is so much harder to detect in all that chaos. Wasting ammo and more at risk. Play safe and plan dude plan. And you dont do a "checklist" of things. A well trained commander should know instinctively what to do in different situations.
MOUT condition allows the enemy to stay hidden. You dont contact them head on. Flank brudder flank. There is a saying that nothing stops an infantry march...or someting. Or if you have a sniper in your squad, you can also deploy him instead.
Oh well, so many military talk from us experts! 8)
8)chaphack said:
How 'bout this. You wear some body armor and I stand 10 feet away with an old school AK47 and we see about it's penetration ability.
This was my point of the initial reply - Watch the video. They are clearly moving forward in a somewhat organized cover/overlap manner. It's not the swarm tactic you're trying to state.
No, you do exactly what they did. You kneel down and shoot at the guy shooting at your landing squad. You don't run for cover like you saying, see this is the fundimantal point I'm trying to make and you keep glossing over or not understanding: As a unit, they have added utility as a group by working together and not acting as an individual by running for cover. This isn't up for debate Chap.
Haha. Alrighty Chappers. The hidden sniper is also not 3/4ths of a mile away in an open field - this is pure MOUT, and you're wrong.
I give up.
I already stated I'm only talking my my days playing team based CQB Airsoft. Perhaps Demalion can comment, but I don't think he's going to support you on this one.
Yes, but who fights face to face today? Its not ancient swords and shields warfare. Bullets are the most effective when aimed straight and perpendicular. Reason why helmet are all curvy, not just to fit your head, but hopes of DEFLECTING an incoming bullet, coz the thickness of your everyday helmet aint strong enough to STOP bullets. Taking cover breaks the angle and adds more "armor" to your present one.
And they are too slow and too open for safety sakes. Which was my point of content.
No. You hit the ground and quick crawl to the nearest cover point. If the "nearest" is tad far, than you just have to dash em. Staying in open = doomed. Thats my point too.
Taking cover does NOT mean spreading all over the shop, north to south, just disperse from your obvious-easy-to-target formation and take cover. In the video, there are plenty of nearby cover, it is a mystery why those guys are not making use of them....
Unless you taken real military training, i say yes.
Why? In an open field, it is soo much easier to spot than in a destructed built up area.
Thats why you dont outright overpower him, take cover and take note. Then you either flank or snip him.Alrighty, whos the General around?
no it's not. the one thing Vince has going for him in his assertions is that he has at least experience using them in a simulation batlefield. under some very real (and kinda painful) conditions.
it's not that your strategy doesn't apply, it's that it's inherent weaknesss limits it's usefulness from a purely strategic standpoint
nondescript
Regular
Lol...B3D forumites debating combat tactics is about as absurd at whales going hang gliding.
I don't know much, but I got some simple training back in high school (in Taiwan, all males serve in the army, but I'm a US citizen, so no problem, but we still had "military training" class in high school)
1. 3-second rule. Never keep your head stationary for longer than three seconds. That's about the time it takes for the enemy to see and draw a bead at you.
2. Small-arms fire is pretty ineffectual after 100-200 meters on open terrain. Just can't aim well enough.
3. Dodging grenades - well, you can forget about that. A modern grenade will spray shrapnel in a sphere 50 meters in diameter. If you can see the grenade when it explodes, you're probably dead. Make sure you're out of it's line-of-sight.
As far as tactics goes, didn't really learn much about that. Just stay with your squad, stay calm, follow orders. I guess these are rules meant more for infantry than crack special ops.
--------------------------------------------------------
(completely unfounded)
My guess is, if you're surrounded on lower ground but you have more men, use your superior volume of fire to suppress the enemy, while racing out of there. It's not easy to hit a moving target, espicially while being shot at. In Vietnam I think the bullets-to-kill ratio was 100-1000:1. Keep the team moving, laying down suppressive fire, and maybe have some people taking temporary cover to take a few aimed shots before getting up and moving again. Once you've broken through their perimeter, and you're not surrounded anymore, you can take effective cover and begin clearing out the defenders.
Taking cover once you hit dirt doesn't seem like a good idea to me, because there really is no way to hide if you're surrounded from above. You could hide from one side, but you'd get shot in the back by the other side. Even if you did find effective cover from all sides (like a really deep foxhole), taking cover in a place where the enemy knows EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE is not really cover anyways. One grenade, and you're dead. If the shrapnel doesn't kill you directly, it will ricochet off the concrete walls and kill you.
I guess the point is, if you're in a bad position, get out. Taking cover in a bad position just means you die a little bit later. This isn't to say that taking cover isn't important, it is. But "real cover" means that between you and the enemy, there is something blocking his fire, and more importantly, that you can disengage and pull back if necessary. The goal is to control the terms of the engagement - if its to your advantage, keep at it, if it's not, run.
(But what do I know...anyways, it was fun to write)
I don't know much, but I got some simple training back in high school (in Taiwan, all males serve in the army, but I'm a US citizen, so no problem, but we still had "military training" class in high school)
1. 3-second rule. Never keep your head stationary for longer than three seconds. That's about the time it takes for the enemy to see and draw a bead at you.
2. Small-arms fire is pretty ineffectual after 100-200 meters on open terrain. Just can't aim well enough.
3. Dodging grenades - well, you can forget about that. A modern grenade will spray shrapnel in a sphere 50 meters in diameter. If you can see the grenade when it explodes, you're probably dead. Make sure you're out of it's line-of-sight.
As far as tactics goes, didn't really learn much about that. Just stay with your squad, stay calm, follow orders. I guess these are rules meant more for infantry than crack special ops.
--------------------------------------------------------
(completely unfounded)
My guess is, if you're surrounded on lower ground but you have more men, use your superior volume of fire to suppress the enemy, while racing out of there. It's not easy to hit a moving target, espicially while being shot at. In Vietnam I think the bullets-to-kill ratio was 100-1000:1. Keep the team moving, laying down suppressive fire, and maybe have some people taking temporary cover to take a few aimed shots before getting up and moving again. Once you've broken through their perimeter, and you're not surrounded anymore, you can take effective cover and begin clearing out the defenders.
Taking cover once you hit dirt doesn't seem like a good idea to me, because there really is no way to hide if you're surrounded from above. You could hide from one side, but you'd get shot in the back by the other side. Even if you did find effective cover from all sides (like a really deep foxhole), taking cover in a place where the enemy knows EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE is not really cover anyways. One grenade, and you're dead. If the shrapnel doesn't kill you directly, it will ricochet off the concrete walls and kill you.
I guess the point is, if you're in a bad position, get out. Taking cover in a bad position just means you die a little bit later. This isn't to say that taking cover isn't important, it is. But "real cover" means that between you and the enemy, there is something blocking his fire, and more importantly, that you can disengage and pull back if necessary. The goal is to control the terms of the engagement - if its to your advantage, keep at it, if it's not, run.
(But what do I know...anyways, it was fun to write)
