Author Topic: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2  (Read 14402 times)

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #15 on: 09-11-2009, 11:11:06 »
Concept 2: Advanced communication Rose 'Commo Rose MK II'

Now I know this is a controversial topic, but look at the facts here

The current system uses a bar implementation which rules out the term commo-rose altogether
This bar, I take it, has its root in Fh1 and tries to cater for the 'most important' communication options, stripping down the BF2 communication to reduce spam and make use of Fh1 style radio and voice overs

The issue
1/ The distinction between voice overs and radio overs is muddled
2/ The new system does NOT make use of any heurestic methods or HCI principles to make it use-able ie among other things, it lacks pairing, intuition and forces players to recall the locations of each button they need rather than recognize any semblance of pattern as should be the case
3/ Many people would WANT more options, and hence the stripped down comm-bar restricts users to one group's ideal of a communication set


The thinking behind the new rose
The new commo-rose makes use of BF2's rose order which MUST have undergone strict useability tests and makes use of mouse movements across a tree-architecture that is only 2-tiers deep in the worst case scenario, unlike the current system which uses a 'geedy algorthm' of next-next-next

The Rose MK II adds right mouse click by adding contrary or similar options to the same rose option bars, but requiring right-click to activate, rather than left-click (PR had this, I believe)

The commo rose MK II uses ALL of BF42's most used options as well as all BF2's options and a few custom ones

The rose changes based on the role of the player: Tankers get a different one from infantry, who get custom ones depending on if they have radios or not etc.



Hand signals
This is additional idea that would work in conjuction with rose if implemented. Basically, like FH1, alot of commo-rose options let the player motion in some form or other like the spot animation currently ingame.
Options like hold this position, follow me etc are in this idea

Grenades
Many voice their disdain for the noise a grenade thrower makes that alerts both friend and foe. To aid this, the thrower gets a single option (as per PR) when greande is active. This, when selected issues the shout 'grenade', meaning, the thrower can now decide to shout or not.

Voice versus Radio
A clear distinction needs to made between voice and radio overs for the commo-rose idea to appeal to all

Basically, only a few people should have radio overs which can be heard in tele, while everyone else simply gets a voice over whihc travels only as far as the voice carries

For the radio overs, spamming is further reduced by having only those with a radio capable of hearing the radio-over

The following groups have radios
Truck drivers, armored car and APC drivers only
Tank drivers only
Plane operators and tail gunners
artillery gunners
scouts, only when doing a spot
squad captains only when using a spot
the commander

*These are the only people who can SEND and/ or hear a radio over

The following groups do NOT have radio overs
regular infantry
Scouts not doing a spot, but using the commo rose
squad captains not doing a spot, etc, etc
extra truck personel, extra APC or armored car personel
jeep drivers and passengers

*The above do NOT send radio overs or hear them - they thus recieve and transmit by voice only

In short

The commo rose MK II is supposed to be an all-inclusive architecture that bases itself on a system tried and tested i.e the BF2 commo-rose design
It lends itself to hand signals meaning a player needn't hear the voice over but can tell what is expected by visual
It adds scenematics in the sense that with well-tweaked voice overs, squads can hear each other and enemy infantry in a battle shouting commands and screaming, while keeping everything realistic without any unneccesary radio oves coming through
Players cna quikcly issue commands or coordinate with other players without the need for extra hardware such a microphone, clarity of VOIP language and speech or typing

Alternaitve/ Additionally
With the designs as is, one option can be a taunt, which chooses from a few random voice overs or selects from a select list, aiding in BFVietnam style 'polite conversation from one army to the next'

Recommendation
Voice overs need to be done for this system to work, however, like the current system, many can exist as placeholders with non-audible voice overs for the time being

the devs should create a list of scripted phrases which would be distributed across the forum for people from the required country to send in auditions of recorded voice overs.. selection can then be done based on skill of acting, and clarity of voice

Movie voice overs can be also used if deemed apprioporate - Personally, I liked the voice calls from a bridge too far, but what the hell :-)

Offline Paasky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1.801
  • DON'T PANIC! DON'T PANIC!
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #16 on: 09-11-2009, 11:11:45 »
Oh I can imagine since even in COH that effect is just brutal to watch, even if its your artillery. Seeing a horde of germans getting shred to pieces by it but still trying to persist and get through the "overwatch" area is just sad to look at.

Mudra, at least tractor and bike acts as transportation unlike a leaflet would. ;)
The bicycle is deadly when combined with a zook or schreck. Silent death!
It's half naked people on boats. That's all.
Here in Finland we call that "summer".

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #17 on: 09-11-2009, 12:11:38 »
jeez, its like I'm speaking to myself here!

Offline Lobo

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 736
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #18 on: 09-11-2009, 14:11:53 »
You had fun enough with the off-topic jokes, ladies.

Now back on topic

Offline Rustysteel

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #19 on: 09-11-2009, 16:11:10 »
I like your commo rose suggestions djinn, The only thing I would do different is let scouts & squadleaders alert spots be displayed to the whole team without binocs. Seems a bit odd to me I have to have my binocs in my hand to use my radio to let everyone know the location of a tank. Particularly when that tank is right beside me, it would make teamwork a lot easier.

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #20 on: 09-11-2009, 16:11:24 »
well, ironic, but I needed to restrict the players from spamming the radio, by making all communication not pertinent to artillery guns and vehicle operators voice over for the SL and scout.

Imagine equipping the binocs like picking up the radio... I would even suggest having a radio in one hand for the SL and one-handed binoc-use but that would be cosmetic and not so neccesary. The binoc kit wil thus be like the grenade i.e it will come with a slight modification to your commo-rose... meaning, as SL you have other options not pertinenent to spotting until you equip the binocs.... but perhaps this could be simplified as you say, where in the same commo-rose (with or without binocs equipped), you have spot commands as radio over and others as voice with binocs only aiding in spotting distant targets.

EDIT: For that to be the case however, the round middle commo-rose options needs 2 options (right click and left click) which would be 'spot' for left and 'radio over' for right where the former simply shows the tank on the minimap, and the latter actually shows the spotter a target to hit as per either the curent or the 'ring on the minimap' perspective spot

I'm still trying to figure a way to restrict tank commanders - I don't know how possible it will be to make most commands on their radio overs only audible to those in the tank (as a voice over) and by other tankers

As an infantryman, you should be blissfully unaware of the radio chatter going on across the battlefield (Most of which I'd like to be in urgency or even shouts)- And you SL should only interact with you by voice commands (And so he needs a full set of those)
« Last Edit: 09-11-2009, 17:11:28 by djinn »

Offline Torenico

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.632
  • ¡Viva la Revolución!
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #21 on: 10-11-2009, 01:11:01 »
jeez, its like I'm speaking to myself here!

Man you posted a wall of words.. i really dont wanna read it.

Make it a bit shorter.




Also, how much time did you spend writing that?


Offline Captain Pyjama Shark

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.281
  • Captain of the Gravy Train
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #22 on: 10-11-2009, 01:11:47 »
I very much like your commo rose changes, I feel they would encourage many currently silent gamers to make their voices heard.

Offline :| Hi

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.944
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #23 on: 10-11-2009, 01:11:59 »
I would also have to agree with the commo rose Mk II idea

[2:06:54 PM] Tolga: cant use tha shit underwater -Tolga on the G3

Offline Desertfox

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.657
  • Knowledge is power, and power corupts.
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #24 on: 10-11-2009, 02:11:41 »
It seems less clunky than the current idea and will improve communication

Offline cannonfodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.228
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #25 on: 10-11-2009, 04:11:12 »
Nice one, djinn. I like it. :)

My main problem with the current system is it's too fiddly and unintuitive...

E.g. With the commo-rose, you simply push the mouse (how far you push it doesn't matter) in the direction of the option you want and click. Easy.
Whereas the current bar system forces you to look at the bar because if you push the mouse too far left or right you select the wrong option.

Put simply, I can use the commo-rose without looking at it.

Also, I'd prefer the dev's work on the next update rather than a major overhaul of the comm system.

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #26 on: 10-11-2009, 06:11:22 »
Concept 3: Tank handling and order "Adjusted tank design"

The current system
1/ The best addition to the current system is the cupolla view which rids the tank of 4dimentional-3rd eye external tank view and gives the player a realistic lookaround.
2/ Tanks however don't allow the tank commander to use his abilities unless, ironically he is on foot.            
3/ Furthermore tanks move at their own pace and do not often coordinate with infantry save for covering infantry from the rear (while stationary) and then dashing past them and ending the alliance
4/ Tanks are not as clunky as people would like them to feel, although work has been done to adjust their speed and handling in this direction
5/ The current system allows infantry not driving the vehicle to stare out of the hatch and duck in when under fire, using anything up to and including antitank rifles and grenades!

The thinking behind the new tank design
1. Tanks need to be able to coordinate with infantry and other vehicles without needing to consciously do so, in the same way as teamplay is expected for most team-based multiplayer games, but archtectures need to be in place to 'make' players prone to work together rather than rely on their best-judgment
2. New ordering allows tankers to make use of their binocs and engineer kit while still IN the tank
3. A change in key ordering will make it possible for tanks to move their turrets at current speed, but with more mechanics and less 'biologics'
4. Tankers get a sense of control that dispenses with them leaving or indeed abondoning their vehicles alltogether

The hatch-aspect
  Tank commanders would still occupy position 1, having the cupolla view by default, their aim-sight when they press 'C', not 'x' for consistency with the engine. 'X' will now be for tanks with smoke (Not those that FIRE smoke shells from their cannon, but those will a seperate aparatus like the Matilda)

  The tank commander will also get a hatch view where he can make use of his binoculars and even wrench.
The thinking is, whereas cupolla view allows tankers to see around them safely, it is still mechanical and limiting as the tanker can only drive in a straight line with it activated, hatch view will allow tankers to poke out of the tank and look around as easily as the would on foot, being able to use their service pistol or smg in the rare instance and most importantly sight targets in the distance and plan their attack, as well as manouever tight corners and situations with the use of their MK I eye-balls. Their only risk in this view is the fact that, they can now be easily picked off in this view

To get into hatch view, the tanker must press the crouch key, and while holding it, use the mouse to look around and use binocs etc. I would recommend the devs make use of the BF2 engines ability to give a vehicle-specific headgear (and in this instance, headphones) as the person poking out of the hatch will ALWAYS be the tank commander.

Tank speed
Tanks would, in this design, have 2 speeds. A top speed as per current system or even 2.15 version, and a slowed down speed that all tanks and ground vehicles will match, that in itself matches on to human trot speed. This allows a mixed group of vehicles of all sorts, tanks and infantry to move at the same speed. To use this 2nd speed, the vehicle operator, depresses the 'dash' key and keeps it depressed while moving. A tank can thus give covering fire to infantry moving at its flanks or act as a human shield for them without needing to stop and go, given it better manoeverabilty even at low speed.

Tank turret control
The tank will now use the arrow keys for turning its turret rather than the mouse. The mouse can still be used in fine-tune aiming of the actual cannon once the turret is facing in the direction of the target. WASD will still be for locomotion. With tank turret rotatio seperated from cannon adjustment, the tanker can fire on mobile infantry right infront of it without rotating the entire turret to do so.

More importantly, tanks with a more-complex aiming system will move in a more mechanical fashion and will thus keep clear of infantry, as it would now require cover from friendly infantry itself or other tanks.

*n addition, I highly recommend Brutwursts mini-mod version of the tank reload sound which had a loud CLUNK sound followed by an intricate reload for each tank type, similar to RO. This I think, will let players get a sense of the beast they ride and get used to sheer noises that make up the tank handling.

I would also recommend a small addition of dust risen by the violent recoil of each tank cannon shot, which can be noted both when the tank is stationary and mobile. Same goes for AT guns

In short
1/ Tanks now have 2 speeds. A 'walk' speed, and a default 'dash' speed
2/ Tanks have a more intricate turret adjust system which makes tank combat more interesting, less bioligical, more mechanic
3/ Tanks now allow tank commanders to use their tanker kit fully using the hatch, adding function, purpose and cosmetics to their use as a kit. Other kits can still be used from the hatch, but this time it will be the tank commnader armed with whatever weapon he chooses to carry, not some random infantry
4/ Tank aim-view and fire-smoke' now follow the convention of key settings









 
« Last Edit: 10-11-2009, 06:11:55 by djinn »

Offline Sotka

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #27 on: 10-11-2009, 09:11:09 »
I really like the current tanking settings in fh, even it makes tanks bit easy to use they are still very very easy to bring down unless you are matilda in afrika in map without stuka.

The smoothness is the key.

Offline djinn

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.723
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #28 on: 10-11-2009, 11:11:27 »
Do note that all headers are for ideas that combine together for a single over-all goal, but each can be isolated, and not all NEED to be implemented. The turret rotation is probably the newest of the ideas and I must add, the least tested in public oppinion.


Offline Ionizer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.524
  • Carrier of Squirrel Flu
    • View Profile
Re: Alternative/ improvement concepts for FH2
« Reply #29 on: 10-11-2009, 21:11:33 »
I don't like the Turret control things.  First off, I use the Arrow keys for normal locomotion right now.  What happens to me in this system?  Second, as far I know, tank cannons can only adjust up and down relative to the turret orientation, not left and right, which your system seems to want to do.  Only vehicles without turrets (StuG, etc.) work in that way, slightly adjusting the gun in relation to the gun's mount.  Third, the tanking mechanics are already complex enough to confuse some newcomers (every gun has different sights, velocities, penetration, shell drop, shell types, etc.), it's a lot to absorb the first time you boot up the mod and hop in a tank and can be overwhelming.  We don't want to scare away any potential new players.  Such a drastic jump in turret control would surely piss off some people (even dedicated FH2 vets and fans), so it might be too much.

As for your other ideas, they're okay.  I don't like tying the "Gunsights" back into the "C" button (because, again, I use non-standard controls and it all the way across the keyboard for me).  Although, I do like the idea of not having to switch weapons to deploy smoke from dispensers or mortars (like you said, guns with smoke shells fired from the barrel of the cannons should still need to switch weapons).  But having to redo my entire control setup (that I have been using for years and is firmly ingrained in my muscle memory) does not appeal to me.

Maybe with some testing and tweaks some of these ideas could be great.  Some don't appeal to me personally, but I guess you can't please everyone all the time.  :-/