Page 2 of 2
Posted: 2007-09-04 22:59
by CAS_117
Ok, I did a quick test ingame and you travel at about 5 m/s (50m/10seconds). I'm not saying like make it a dead crawl, but just enough to discourage the amount of people I see just constantly running through gunfire. I mean it still works pretty well, just running around jumping and twisting. It feels like I am driving a car. Remember, you can change direction in PR instantaneously, but in real life, even without equipment it means slowing down to change where you're running.
However this is impossible in PR, because a player turns their whole body when aiming and turning around. You basically move your whole center of mass instantly no matter what speed you're moving. So my suggestion is basically to limit the amount of "race car driving", when a person is trying to run away. Since you can't limit turn speed, you can only limit the forward speed. So you might be able to turn instantly, but you still have only moved a couple feet, as opposed to the twenty yards in 4 seconds that you see now leaping 6 feet in the air with a triple lutz all while scoring a diving headshot.
Posted: 2007-09-05 14:17
by Long Bow
50m/10 seconds is equal to 165' in 10 seconds. It doesn't sound to outragous but I think we need someone to confirm if that is a reasonable or not speed.
Posted: 2007-09-05 14:59
by Red Halibut
When you consider that the world 100m-sprint record is 9.77 seconds, what we are saying is that a run that is sustainable for about a minute (with full gear) is about half the speed of a world class athlete.
As an idea, let's see what the best times are for a world-class athlete running 800m (approximately the distance your stamina bar will last [citation needed]). The world record is around 1 minute 41 seconds, or 101 seconds. That equates to 50m every 6.3 seconds.
So, we are sprinting in full kit at approximately 2/3rds the speed of an unencumbered world-class athlete regardless of the terrain or slope.
Although I'm certainly happy with the run speed as it currently is, the OP may have a point.
UPDATE: I crunched the numbers:
World record for 800m equates to 28.5kph
PR Sprint for 800m equates to 18kph
We therefore are running at 63% the speed of an athlete. That's as near as dammit 2/3rds.
Posted: 2007-09-05 17:03
by Kruder
system wrote:What about when you run, your sensitivity decreases by a LOT, making it very hard to turn fast?
I suggested the same thing a few months ago,mine was a bit harsher iirc, you cannot move your mouse while sprinting.
Sprinting speeds are not normal imo,soldiers have lots of gear;boots,rifle,food, canteen, ammo ,nades,knife,helmets,kevlar vests,personal stuff etc.You cannot run that fast or change direction that fast with that kind of gear.
I am not talking only about weightweise.They all hinder your movement capabilities,for example your hands are not empty ,
you dont have 5gr weighing running shoes,you have heavy boots maybe weighging 500 grs each,
your ankles are covered
in short you have stuff in/on your back,belt, ankle, head chest,hand.
Finally you play as an average person, with some physical training,not some talented elite spec ops guy/athlete.
World record for 800 100 meters are irrevelant.
Posted: 2007-09-05 18:25
by Bowskill
Long Bow wrote:50m/10 seconds is equal to 165' in 10 seconds. It doesn't sound to outragous but I think we need someone to confirm if that is a reasonable or not speed.
Just did a quick google for what the run time is in the UK CFT, found this "ICFT Infantry Combat Fitness Test - A distance of three miles as a squad carrying 56 pounds of kit each, including their personal weapon. Timed to be completed in one hour, individuals must stay with the squad, or be failed." - That's without a bergan I'm guessing.
3 miles = 4800m, so that's 80m a minute/1.33 m/s ? I'd imagine it doesn't always take an hour, but even so the current 5m/s is way too fast based on this.
If I get shot at when I'm close to cover I often jump towards it to simulate diving I guess, so personally unless there is a way to add climbing and diving I don't think the jump height and distance should be changed, but if possible make it impossible to jump when your energy bar is empty.
Posted: 2007-09-05 19:10
by blud
Bowskill wrote:Just did a quick google for what the run time is in the UK CFT, found this "ICFT Infantry Combat Fitness Test - A distance of three miles as a squad carrying 56 pounds of kit each, including their personal weapon. Timed to be completed in one hour, individuals must stay with the squad, or be failed." - That's without a bergan I'm guessing.
3 miles = 4800m, so that's 80m a minute/1.33 m/s ? I'd imagine it doesn't always take an hour, but even so the current 5m/s is way too fast based on this.
But you can't sprint for 4800m in PR! Your numbers are all irrelevant! If a soldier can run 4800m in 1 hour at a certain speed, they could *sprint* for 100m at a MUCH faster speed.
Also to the guy comparing to "2/3rds" of an olympic runner, you're forgetting that 2 meters in PR certainly looks shorter than 2 meters to me! The "meters" in PR seem to be about 2 feet long to me.
Posted: 2007-09-05 19:29
by VipersGhost
Aren't the PR meters actually further than RL? Anyways...we all know a guy can run 100m's really fast. We only get one sprint speed in PR and we need to pick the best one that fits the PR gameplay goals. If a world class athlete with nothing but his shirt on can run 800m's 40% faster than our soldier...then we have a problem. The PR goal is to NOT aid all the run-abouts, shooters and bullet dodgers. I think lower the run speed would be a move in the right direction here. Sure you want to be able to sprint across an open alley and not get shot. I don't think we want to encourage the mentality that..."f I just sprint I can reach my destination thus thwarting Mr. Defensive in his good spot"...not good but it works. A guy can cover 50 meters through fire without dieing. I support this idea of slowing down the run speed. A good soldier shouldn't need to be sprinting around all over the place as it is. I'd also like their to be a big accuracy decrease after sprinting for a second or two...this would slow down the spammy rushers. Another good thing would be to give the guy sprinting some enertia if possible....slowing it down would help out with that though.
Posted: 2007-09-05 19:37
by fuzzhead
Also, the stamina system is not really close to real world, IRL if you sprint 100 meters, its gonna take you alot longer than 30 seconds to get back to perfectly rested. Sprinting multiple 100 meter intervals is going to to tire you out for the REST OF THE BATTLE! hard to simulate this in PR because the average lifespan of soldier is probably close to only 5 minutes.
Posted: 2007-09-05 20:07
by Wolfe
I think the real issue here isn't the run speed, but the speed at which soldiers change direction. In other words lack of inertia. One second the soldier is there, one second he isn't.
If it took a brief moment to move and a brief moment to stop... Combined with weapon sway and the elimination of insta prone shooting.... now you're talking PR baby!
Posted: 2007-09-05 21:56
by Option40
Truthfully, I think the speeds fine, people in the military, especially infantry, generally aren't out of shape, they can run a long ways, hence the reason for road marches with weapons, or "kit runs" in armor with weapons.....
Posted: 2007-09-05 22:49
by CAS_117
Ok I really am not speaking about fitness levels. I am talking about what type of movement is considered reasonable for the amount of weight a soldier is carrying. Infantry are told at the basic level not to run for extended periods or they risk blowing out their knees from the stress that is sustained.
Secondly, because you can start, stop, and turn almost instantly, simulating a shift in a persons center of mass could be achieved by:
A) reducing traction slightly.
B) lowering speed to an average between walk and sprint.
C) Causing a loss of speed with a sharp turn, combined with a slower acceleration.
Posted: 2007-09-05 22:57
by VipersGhost
Lowering the speed will: require more squad coordination to stay alive and kill something, more shootouts and less run-n-gun, reduce the non-inertia turns (slower speed quicker turns IRL), and give way for better CQB tactics. Also reducing the running speed would be a realistic step. As for the distance we can travel at a sprint...in-game I'm not sure a soldier would do that whilst expecting to be battle ready once he got there.
Posted: 2007-09-06 00:14
by Wolfe
I'm all for significantly reducing the run meter. Basically people are using it as turbo to run back to the fight after they die. It's just another thing that encourages people to disregard their safety and unrealistically run into a gunfight without a care in the world.
Posted: 2007-09-06 00:29
by Option40
Right, blow out your knees or be shot....
I am 11B1P, I am quite aware of the SOP's adopted by various units, and I know If I were being shot at and my PSG told me not to run, you might blow out your knees, I would most likely get a article 15 for disrespecting a NCO.
I do, however, agree with the traction bit, it is hard to stop and get going again, depending on what you have as kit, it's all muscle memory, were taught that if you're running at a dead sprint and you see targets to engage, that when you stop to shoot you do so as if your springing upwards, that way, when you come to a complete stop you are already in your "modified boxer stance" (the recommended stance for firing with rifle)
Posted: 2007-09-06 04:32
by CAS_117
Option40 wrote:Right, blow out your knees or be shot....
Allow me to respond with an equally ignorant statement; you wouldn't be getting shot if you used cover. Which is of course the whole point of this thread. I want the run reduced because its not proportional to the weight of the equipment that is being carried. Reduce the weight and people can't just constantly get up after being shot and sprint around a corner at full tilt. The speed and agility that the player is capable of is perfect for someone without equipment. Remember that PR is about scaled realism within an arcade setting. In real life, you can walk jog, or sprint. So yes the speed that the soldier is moving is perfectly possible, it couldn't be done for the amount of time that it currently is (like the whole round). So instead of reducing the meter, I would rather just slow the speed by 25-23 percent.
Posted: 2007-09-06 05:19
by blud
caboose wrote:you wouldn't be getting shot if you used cover
What cover though? Buildings and fences that people can see you flashing through when they are at long range zooming on you? Grass that blocks your view but not the person 100 or 200 meters away from you from seeing you on a bare hillside? Bushes that don't appear for the enemy? Crates, oil tanks and statics that the enemy can see right through from long range? Terrain and hills that you think you are hiding behind, but that render much more blocky from far away so that you are plainly visible to the enemy?
The engine is far from perfect. All I hear from the overall suggestion sounds like "Slower, more boring" instead of "Faster, more killing".
I could see increasing the time it takes to gain back your stamina, or reducing the amount of stamina you have (although even that would make the game more boring imo just because of travel distances.. but I can see the argument that people have against it though). But I can't see slowing down the run speed which has already been slowed down. And I certainly can't see removing jumping.
You don't need to wait for a beta to try this idea out. Go to your controls and re-bind Sprint and Jump to nothing (or to some far away keys you can't reach). Then play the game and see how you like it, and report back
Posted: 2007-09-06 21:42
by Darkpowder
I am not for removing jumping in PR, no matter how much i enjoy ArmA. The reason a more slower methodical pace is challenging as in ArmA you really don't want to die and take 20 mins getting back to the action like you can do.
Its the CS way of doing things, with that fear of early death, so as long as PR is a BF2 respawn game, the pace isn't best adjusted by removing jumping (certain 360 games with no jumping i think are awful).
There are other ways to change the pace, its about rally points, capturing, game modes, objective modes, and penalties including kit denial for people who die a lot.
The ideas for changing the run pace are interesting ideas, anything that stops the "just being used to run back to the fight after dying" is ok, but it needs to be moderated as to the size of the maps.
And we don't want that hideous 2142 situation of having more vehicles than players spawned and ready.
Posted: 2007-09-07 20:29
by {GD}StevenGarcia
i agree with caboose
Posted: 2007-09-07 20:33
by .Intense
caboose wrote:I am speaking from experience and observation of the firefights I have seen in PR and I still think that players are using their run as an alternative to cover; running in an open area is a death sentence in a real firefight, full stop. The speed that they are traveling is a little too high right now. I know that the running speed has been slowed a already, but it still doesn't feel or look like the soldiers are significantly affected by the weight of their weapons and equipment. The speed that they are moving is perfect for someone without any equipment. I can still regularly hit moving targets despite this, but its just something that could be tweaked. I think that it needs to be about two thirds of what is now.
I think that running has become too much of a strategy and needs to be just a method of transportation. I was talking with someone in the army about PR and he mentioned how fast the soldiers were moving, despite all of their added weight. He describes moving around "It's more of a jog/ shuffle thing, not like a run then walk the way it is here."
As for jumping, the only thing that I can think of gameplay wise that needs jumping is getting into tanks. I think that perhaps just adding either a ladder to the side or just allowing players to enter from the back (while still being able to enter or exit from the top), would make up for this rather out of place feature. The running speed isn't as much of an issue as this. It just sticks out like a sore thumb; Jumping needs to go. Anyways I know this has been mentioned, but I just wanted to add my $0.02
As long as there remains objects that require jumping over to get to a certain area then jumping will remain.