Handling cqb: the cqb "stance"

[Friedchiken 0]

I'm not sure if people have already discussed potential systems of close combat but here's my idea:

With the addition of the "walk" toggle (f by default), it became a little easier to move around constricted spaces (like the the BAS ranger Raid mission where you had to raid bomb making operations).

The problem is that from what I see in movies and games (not exactly accurate I know ^.^;;;;;) most combatants fight CQB with speed and reflexes.  They change from a shoot and scoot method to firing from the shoulder, using their familiarity with their weapon to make decent shots.  Of course if they used this tactic in medium/long range fights, they need to revert back to aim/shoot tactics or miss everyone.

So, to handle the changes in movement from long to close ranges, a button (maybe f again ) could be used to toggle the player's "stance" into one more suitable for close encounters.  In this stance, movements would be quicker and the gun would be forward aiming even when on the move (but not running, I can't even do that in laser quest ^.^;;;;).  Shooting would be some what accurate but not precise.  Since the player would be shooting from the shoulder, the crosshair would change into something less precise (like a circle ) so even when the gun is bobbing around the player will not know "precisely" (like pinpoint) when a bullet will go.  Which may force players to sometimes look into the sights when a hostage or civilian is involved.  Finally, in this stance, medium range shots would be somewhat difficult so its back to the iron sights which were still accessible in this stance.

So what I'm saying is that I want a system where near point blank shots are easier to pull off while moving at a reasonable pace (ie not running but almost jogging but not really), and making it possible to fluidly move into buildings with specialized movements.

Now the only problem is to figure out how the AI is supposed to know when to change "stances".

Any questions?

I'm just as excited as you all for the sequel

EDIT:: Oh, and to make sure people don't always use this stance, it is faster that the current "walk" speed but your can't travel long distance as well as if you were in "long range mode"

[Dubble0zero 0]

Great idea...

That would fix one of the few faults that OFP had...

[Friedchiken 0]

Thanks.

Well, I wonder if I'm right about firing from the shoulder.  I saw it in Blackhawk Down.  Also, I guessed that if you always looked through the sites, then either your neck would hurt (I shot my dad's "Daisy" pellet gun quite a few time, maybe with the wrong aiming style but accurately enough with real iron sites) or you could bonk your self in the head running around into walls while raising that gun butt right in front of your face.

I did that 5 years ago playing Laser Quest

[Korpisoturi 0]

Would be good addition, like in that mission where u have to kill a russian general who's in somekinda mansion. Also, combat knives/bayonets and ability to hit enemy with rifle's butt would be good for silent killing.

[PainDealer 0]

Quote[/b] ]Now the only problem is to figure out how the AI is supposed to know when to change "stances".

imo the only problem is that OFP was never made for CQB. why should they waste so much time on this kind of feature when 95% of the action is outdoor shooting and 75% of it long range.

I don't think it will have that big role. (good idea though)

[Friedchiken 0]

Yeah, I know.  I like long ranged combat too for this kind of game.

The system does not need to be that perfect.  Just look at the clipping problems with a 100% complete game  

Seriously, I ran into so many CQB problems when playing the FDF campaign.

Whenever you get close to the objective, you are killing enemies up close with full speed.  Whenever your cleaning out a town your fight in built up areas.  When assualting a base you actually have to enter it (gasp! so dangerous!).  Whenever you move through forests thats CQB again (And I don't even mean thick jungles, just regular forest excercises).

While long ranged fights are most engagements, cqb is the method to complete objectives (50% of the time ^.^;;;)

I mean think of all the times your have to clean out a closed in area like an enemy base but you get shot because you are either too slow or you have to stop to shoot.

The current system is okay but a CQB system should be used to save against the save-load cycle of trying to kill the cowardly enemy around the corner at point blank.  In the end, my biggest wish would to be able to shoot point blank targets in a fluid dynamic motion.

(Not to poke the subject but I still can't think of a situation where you wouldn't need cqb at any part of the operation.  Being a civilian, that's manuvering around "tight" spots)

I'm really sorry if I sounded really sarcastic.  I got shot 11 times by a resistance machine gunner when playing the FDF mod mission where you are the only guy to clear out the resistance fortress because the ai can't follow in with numbers.  And I guess the bridgefight mission didn't need CQB.  

[Pathy 0]

The only thing i'd say is, the AI just needs to be able to hand CBQ, at the moment, you end up storming buildings along,while the AI runs around outside, keeping to the formations.....

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I think its fine as it is. I don't want to see OFP becoming a run and gun game- its just not realistic. As it is, you can walk and fire accurately. If you need to move faster, run to the next bit of cover and then fire.

[Friedchiken 0]

I actually agree that the current system is okay.

But while the walking speed is realistic while firing, when moving while firing, accuracy is not that important when moving so I would still like the walk speed to change into a speed walk.

And yeah, I heard how this could be abused, especially for multiplayer.

So, now that I think about it, the most optimal change would be to keep the same system but make the walk toggle's (f) movement quicker like jog/walk but make the aim jump like hell with the body.

PS: You're right that I could just run for different cover and fire from there, but I need someone (can't play MP, 56k) to distract that corner danger with something but the AI can't use urban cover very well.  Maybe while making maps, objects could have some preset positions where an AI would know how to use that piece cover.  That way, being pinned down wouldn't need an arcade solution and more teamwork and supression strategies could be used with AI

PPS: I guess the main reason why I brought this up is that I think the walk feature is helpful but it's potential isn't reached because of the limited speed of movement. If I wanted to be as accurate the shoot while move in game, I wouldn't be moving at all. I once saw a (non-gameplay) trailer for Hidden and Dangerous 2 and that walk speed in the bombed out area was still steady (read: slow pace) but was faster than the walk speed in flashpoint.

[Friedchiken 0]

Okay, I tried walking about indoors again and I found the speed perfect

I'm not sure about the way the soldiers hold the guns against their elbows but it's actually okay.

The only thing I want is for a running handgun animation where the gun is lowered in front of the body and not like the unarmed running

OFP2 is mainly going to be a serious upgrade of the VBS engine right?

[Ymac 0]

Hi, today i have been playing "call of duty pc game". I don´t like the game but I have seen some things that are very realistic. This things are:

- when there is an exploxion near of you, the player fells dizzy, and the time is  very slow for few secons. Is very realistic

- when there is an xplosion, this make a crater

I thing that is a good idea that bohemia interactive makes effects like that

PD: I am spanish and my english is very bad

[PainDealer 0]

...and way off topic

[Heatseeker 0]

For CQB? I'll tell yas what we need... no more clipping and shaky stuff, solid cover we need solid trees, houses and objects, i want to cover behind a fallen tree log and pop out to fire a couple rounds and duck for cover again (ala vietcong), solid walls would also help big time, usually shrapnel from nades goes thru them and thats no good. We need interactive invironment, use walls, windows, sandbags and bunkers. peek around corners, doors, over crates and logs. OPF is a world of paper, we need a solid/realistic world to interact with. I want to move from cover to cover and use supressive fire, take cover behind a tree to safely reload my gun, etc...

Wich all leads to a.i. ofcourse, bots need to use cover, better formations, advance carefully using supressive fire, they need to interact with the environment (objects, buildings, etc), i want to use a window on a building without being shot from 300m like the building wasnt even there, i want to drop a time delayed hand nade against a wall and see it bounce, etc..

Better physics, better gameplay, better colision detection, better a.i. so we can have better OPF (this regards not only cqb but gameplay has a whole ).

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Everything in OFP already provides cover from fire.... what are you talking about?

Tree trunks protect (better than they should) from enemy fire.

The only (mild) problem is explosions going through relatively thick walls - however they should go through thin interior walls, and for example fences.

[Heatseeker 0]

Everything in OFP already provides cover from fire.... what are you talking about?

Tree trunks protect (better than they should) from enemy fire.  

Im talking about fighting a.i. in the dense forests of Everon for example, being shot while running between all those trees, or thru the vegetation when we cant even see them, its no use to hide behind a tree in OPF. There is no point in using windows or walls or objects to reduce body exposure. It is suicidal to shoot at a.i. from top of nogova's tall buildings. They always shoot at you like the world objects arent there.

Good reference that might help you understand my point would be vietcong, a tree/log or rock always provides solid cover, there is no point in using crates or trees for cover in OPF, ever noticed that if you shoot at a soldiers gun in OPF it bleeds, thats all you need to have exposed for the a.i. to kill you. Luck is OPF's greatest factor of survival .

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I use trees for cover all the time. I don't know what you are talking about.

Vegetation (bushes, small branches of trees etc) should NOT protect you from enemy fire.

The AI seeing through these things is a completely different issue and not relevant. Take it to the AI thread, but it's already been mentioned many times.

Everything that should protect you from fire in OFP already does, and some things that shouldn't so much do already.

If you don't want shooting the weapon to damage the player, say that. There's nothing wrong with the cover afforded by OFP right now.

[Heatseeker 0]

Vegetation (bushes, small branches of trees etc) should NOT protect you from enemy fire.

The AI seeing through these things is a completely different issue and not relevant.  Take it to the AI thread, but it's already been mentioned many times.

Well, from my personal experience the probability of being shot behind a tree or in the open is the same, a burst will hit you no matter if your behind a tree or not.

The AI seeing through these things is quite relevant in my opinion, specialy if we would like to have improved CQB in OPF2, while discussing cqb and its implementation in OPF2 i dont see why is wrong to discuss a.i. behaviour in this thread.

Also i have been shot by a.i thru sandbags, walls and fences and its hard to trust OPF's buildings when the AI can see and walk right thru them, its kinda pointless to discuss how solid objects are in the game when the bots can move thru house walls, but i guess this provides them cover... .

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Theres no problem with asking for the AI to not be able to see through things they shouldnt.

The problem is asking for things to stop bullets which do not actually stop bullets.

A single sandbag will not stop a bullet. AFAIR you need about 0.8m of sandbag to stop a 5.56 round - obviously varies with type of round. Branches, twigs, leaves, DO NOT stop bullets. They might deflect them... they might not.

What do you want? The AI not to see through bushes? Fine, thats already been requested in countless threads.

Bullets not to go through bushes? No.

[Heatseeker 0]

What do you want?  The AI not to see through bushes?  Fine, thats already been requested in countless threads.  

Bullets not to go through bushes?  No.

I want to use rocks, trees, trenches, fallen tree logs, crates, etc for cover like in Vietcong, i want to minimize body exposure and make myself a more dificult target, and to peak to the sides or over objects to shoot and fall back into cover.

I want more solid buildings with better colision detection and use them for cover, i dont want my gun to push my body to the side when it touches a building.

Where did i say i wanted bushes, branches and leaves to be bullet proof , and it doesnt help much to have solid objects if the AI can see through them and nade you .

[Friedchiken 0]

I think what heatseeker means is that cover doesn't really affect how the ai aims at you. They may be able to just se that peice of flesh exposed and fire away without being obstructed by the fact that they can't see the rest of your body. They only see the position.

Basically the ai can see you clearly when they detect you due to their programming (they only know your position, they don't actually "see") and don't suffer under the sight abiguities that humans have to decipher (friend or foe, where in the brush, should I fire blindly into an area)

[Heatseeker 0]

Basically the ai can see you clearly when they detect you due to their programming (they only know your position, they don't actually "see") and don't suffer under the sight abiguities that humans have to decipher (friend or foe, where in the brush, should I fire blindly into an area)

Omg , thank you, thank you .

[SnypaUK 0]

The AI should recognize concealment and cover a bit more by making them detect you later if you are behind a bush. With cover they should not be able to hit you so easily. Likewise the player should be rewarded for using suppressing fire by having the AI cower behind cover and shoot more sporadically and less accurateley

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Again:

This thread is CQB related, not AI related. All these AI issues are already covered in the AI thread and are not relevant to the stance thread.

[Friedchiken 0]

Ok, again on movements.

My family recently got a new treadmill and while alone I figured something:

In ofp the endurance run is actaully the most efficient way to run despite how funky it looks ingame. It doesn't tire your arms and it was natural to run from the hip if all you want to do is to run a distance while keeping the gun in the general direction. And it's realistic how you can't hit a dang thing!

Next thing, since this is specifically a thread related to stances, I would suggest if BIS goes to do mo-cap again for the animations, that they have the guy aim the gun in the most natural practical way without worrying about how much space the gun takes of the screen. If you've used some of the custom animation packs, the way a gun is held make it take more screen space than the purposely hold the gun to one side (the right) in a wide-view but not usual stance. What I mean is that I want the animations to aim from the shoulder and not the elbow pit

[trinec 0]

Just some info on cqb shooting while moving is not a walk nor a run it is inbetween and a continous motion and you can hit targets this way with practice it is also about stance for shooting. while still you put one leg forward and and lean forward. example

its a pain to get use to shooting this way because most are taught the weaver stance in basic pistol marksmanship.

I wouldnt run around in wide outdoors open area doing cqb stacks. but if you have learned cqb you would probably when the chance arrived to stand and shoot you would use the cqb stance to shoot if the area permits.