[REQ] No text message: Enemy unit destroyed

[Brausepaul]

I think that the message mentioned in the topic is unrealistic because it gives away too much information (do I need another torpedo or not...?). Is it possible to remove that message?

[Jungman]

I hear you and tried some solutions.:down:

You can remove the text message from the NA file. It was that way in SH3 and very annoying, instant feedback before it even slip under the ocean. Bad as someone in a movie theater telling the end of the movie about to happen, takes all the 'excitement' out of it.

IIRC I think Neal used a carboard business card placed over screen to hide the message. :)

Or move the message box down to bottom of screen so you do not see it pop-up so quick. Another problem is your Captain's LogBook icon will start flashing in lower right corner also when you made a kill. Arcade stuff that needs to be removed.

[nvdrifter]

I tried yesterday. I removed it, but another message pops up saying something like "NA... and a date". We had the same problem in SH3 and no one ever found a solution. You will probably just have to live with it.

[Beery]

You can remove the text, but as has been said it leaves an empty message from the navigator. The solution I used in RUb (either removing it or putting another innocuous message in its place) is probably as good as it gets until someone figures out a command in the commands.cfg file or somewhere.

[U-Bones]

You can remove the text, but as has been said it leaves an empty message from the navigator. The solution I used in RUb (either removing it or putting another innocuous message in its place) is probably as good as it gets until someone figures out a command in the commands.cfg file or somewhere.

Not only that, you have to also kill the message flash update notice that tells you a ship sinking has just been placed in your logbook. Not to mention the logbook entry itself.

[Beery]

You can remove the text, but as has been said it leaves an empty message from the navigator. The solution I used in RUb (either removing it or putting another innocuous message in its place) is probably as good as it gets until someone figures out a command in the commands.cfg file or somewhere.

Not only that, you have to also kill the message flash update notice that tells you a ship sinking has just been placed in your logbook...

Is that new to SH4? I don't seem to remember that in SH3.

[U-Bones]

You can remove the text, but as has been said it leaves an empty message from the navigator. The solution I used in RUb (either removing it or putting another innocuous message in its place) is probably as good as it gets until someone figures out a command in the commands.cfg file or somewhere.
Not only that, you have to also kill the message flash update notice that tells you a ship sinking has just been placed in your logbook...
Is that new to SH4? I don't seem to remember that in SH3.

Flash update was a bad choice of words. The SH4 message icon flashes to let you know you have a new log entry. In SH3 you just got the log entry.

[Beery]

Personally I don't understand why the developers seem so obsessed with giving us excessive information like this - information that no sub commander ever had and which neither makes the game more realistic or more fun. In fact this excess of information tends to increase the boredom factor. Part of the fun in a sub game should be in the tension of not knowing whether you need to put another torpedo into a ship to finish her off.

It's like playing a game of chess against a computer and, half-way through the game, being told by the computer that it's going to let you win. It removes all the excitement from the game and makes the next moves just a predictable chore. I mean in SH4 after I get the notice that the ship is going down I can just wander off and search for my next target whereas a real commander would have had to wait around and make sure his target was sunk. The developers have denied us that experience.

I guess I should just be happy that they took out the hull integrity percentage thing. Of course if enough arcade fans whine about it (and on the official SH4 forums they are) there's always the possibility that they'll put it back in, then I'll have to mod it out like I did with SH3.

Speaking of 'simulation vs. arcade', the other thing I noticed with SH4 is that the words 'simulation' and 'realism' don't appear in any part of the packaging or manual. When did 'simulation' become a dirty word in the gaming industry? I remember back in the 1990s when simulations were the ultimate form of computer game - when companies shouted about the 'ultimate in realism'. What happened? I still want the ultimate in realism, and I think probably most players of this type of game want it too. Why has our gaming experience been hijacked by the arcade yahoos?

[partyboy]

Why has our gaming experience been hijacked by the arcade yahoos?
$$$

[Beery]

Why has our gaming experience been hijacked by the arcade yahoos?
$$$

But that doesn't explain why SH3 and SH4 got made in the first place. A sub game is inherently non-arcade-player-friendly. There are long periods of waiting and manoeuvring to get one shot. There are no periods where the game is non-stop explosions and action. Even when you're being hunted by destroyers it's lacking in the graphical mayhem that arcade players want. Clearly no submarine game is ever going to appeal to the arcade crowd - so why is Ubisoft marketing this game to them? Why bother when all it's likely to do is turn away simulation enthusiasts?

I don't think it's money. I think it's probably that when the marketing department got hold of it all they know is 'arcade' so they marketed it as an arcade game, with no mention of 'realism' or 'simulation' - the words that strike fear into the heart of the arcade gamer.

[Galanti]

I don't think it's money. I think it's probably that when the marketing department got hold of it all they know is 'arcade' so they marketed it as an arcade game, with no mention of 'realism' or 'simulation' - the words that strike fear into the heart of the arcade gamer.

As an aside, I find it interesting that all the marketing material depicts mainly surface action, i.e. the Gato surfacing in the midst of the Combined Fleet, with Zeroes crashing all around. And this soon after the release of two popular South Pacific surface arcade games (Battlestations Midway and Pacific Storm). The post-process effects filter also seems to be closely patterned after the PPE filter in Battlestations Midway.

Back to the thread issue though, I think the way the GWX got around this annoyance in SH3 was to alter the damage model so that a ship would sink from flooding before the 'Enemy Unit destroyed' message appeared; and they were largely successful, IMO. I'm trying the same approach with SH4's Zones.cfg file and it seems to be working. Just not so well with Mk. 10 torpedoes, it seems. :shifty:

[Beery]

I like the idea of having flooding be the main determining factor, but the zones.cfg file is so arbitrarily designed that any modding done to it is like a shot in the dark. It was one of the first files I looked into modding for SH3 and I soon concluded that it was an unholy mess and that I'd be better off leaving it well alone (unless I saw no alternative). Others modded it with varying levels of success. As I recall, with the mods that used the flooding method, there were quite a few reports of ships simply refusing to sink no matter how many torpedoes were shot into them.

[U-Bones]

Personally I don't understand why the developers seem so obsessed with giving us excessive information like this - information that no sub commander ever had and which neither makes the game more realistic or more fun. In fact this excess of information tends to increase the boredom factor. Part of the fun in a sub game should be in the tension of not knowing whether you need to put another torpedo into a ship to finish her off.

It's like playing a game of chess against a computer and, half-way through the game, being told by the computer that it's going to let you win. It removes all the excitement from the game and makes the next moves just a predictable chore. I mean in SH4 after I get the notice that the ship is going down I can just wander off and search for my next target whereas a real commander would have had to wait around and make sure his target was sunk. The developers have denied us that experience.

I guess I should just be happy that they took out the hull integrity percentage thing. Of course if enough arcade fans whine about it (and on the official SH4 forums they are) there's always the possibility that they'll put it back in, then I'll have to mod it out like I did with SH3.

Speaking of 'simulation vs. arcade', the other thing I noticed with SH4 is that the words 'simulation' and 'realism' don't appear in any part of the packaging or manual. When did 'simulation' become a dirty word in the gaming industry? I remember back in the 1990s when simulations were the ultimate form of computer game - when companies shouted about the 'ultimate in realism'. What happened? I still want the ultimate in realism, and I think probably most players of this type of game want it too. Why has our gaming experience been hijacked by the arcade yahoos?

You can also be too obsessed in the sim direction, and that is the dark side where the market shrinks to the not worth making level, and lots of potiential users get turned off by what they perceive as the no fun factor. Nothing turns me off more on this board than the realism fanatics. While I like things to be realistic - I also never lose sight of the fact that it is a game.

Personally, I am happy they found the middle ground that allowed the game to be built. It does not bother me if some like to count rivets, nor does it bother me when some make nuke torpedoes and the like. The beauty of this game is that it can be tweaked to satisfy either, and the community would be well advised to realize that a divided house hurts everyone, and alienating and insulting other playstyles is self-destructive.

I greatly disagree with you on what makes this game fun or not, and boring or not, but I fully support your freedom to package and tweak whatever you want, and for other players to enjoy whatever they like. So I simply, and quietly, chose to not use RUB in SH3, as well as RFB in SH4. Everyone has this right, and it does not give you valid reason to insult those who choose other playstyles.

So I would suggest you drop comments like "if enough arcade fans whine about it (and on the official SH4 forums they are)" and keep things on a more practical level. Even if It was not directed at me, I find it offensive.

Offered with good intentions.

[Beery]

You can also be too obsessed in the sim direction

Only if you ignore playability. The problem is, usually it's the LESS realistic features that also make the game less playable and less fun. Take the hull integrity feature or the instant notification of sinking - both 'middle of the road' features meant as a concession to an arcade playstyle, and both features that actually remove fun from the game. Sometimes even the middle road is fraught with pitfalls.

Anyway obsession with realism is where modders come in.

[akdavis]

Personally I don't understand why the developers seem so obsessed with giving us excessive information like this - information that no sub commander ever had and which neither makes the game more realistic or more fun. In fact this excess of information tends to increase the boredom factor. Part of the fun in a sub game should be in the tension of not knowing whether you need to put another torpedo into a ship to finish her off.

It's like playing a game of chess against a computer and, half-way through the game, being told by the computer that it's going to let you win. It removes all the excitement from the game and makes the next moves just a predictable chore. I mean in SH4 after I get the notice that the ship is going down I can just wander off and search for my next target whereas a real commander would have had to wait around and make sure his target was sunk. The developers have denied us that experience.

I guess I should just be happy that they took out the hull integrity percentage thing. Of course if enough arcade fans whine about it (and on the official SH4 forums they are) there's always the possibility that they'll put it back in, then I'll have to mod it out like I did with SH3.

Speaking of 'simulation vs. arcade', the other thing I noticed with SH4 is that the words 'simulation' and 'realism' don't appear in any part of the packaging or manual. When did 'simulation' become a dirty word in the gaming industry? I remember back in the 1990s when simulations were the ultimate form of computer game - when companies shouted about the 'ultimate in realism'. What happened? I still want the ultimate in realism, and I think probably most players of this type of game want it too. Why has our gaming experience been hijacked by the arcade yahoos?

You can also be too obsessed in the sim direction, and that is the dark side where the market shrinks to the not worth making level, and lots of potiential users get turned off by what they perceive as the no fun factor. Nothing turns me off more on this board than the realism fanatics. While I like things to be realistic - I also never lose sight of the fact that it is a game.

Personally, I am happy they found the middle ground that allowed the game to be built. It does not bother me if some like to count rivets, nor does it bother me when some make nuke torpedoes and the like. The beauty of this game is that it can be tweaked to satisfy either, and the community would be well advised to realize that a divided house hurts everyone, and alienating and insulting other playstyles is self-destructive.

I greatly disagree with you on what makes this game fun or not, and boring or not, but I fully support your freedom to package and tweak whatever you want, and for other players to enjoy whatever they like. So I simply, and quietly, chose to not use RUB in SH3, as well as RFB in SH4. Everyone has this right, and it does not give you valid reason to insult those who choose other playstyles.

So I would suggest you drop comments like "if enough arcade fans whine about it (and on the official SH4 forums they are)" and keep things on a more practical level. Even if It was not directed at me, I find it offensive.

Offered with good intentions.

The problem is when the developers concede realism for perceived gameplay and put up roadblocks to tailoring the game to the user's preference. For example, messages notifying you of a "kill" at an arbitrary moment are clearly a concession to perceived good gameplay (need for instant gratification) over realism (no skipper ever received such a message). That is fine and dandy if it is included in the difficulty options (in fact, logically, sinking messages should disappear along with map contact updates when that option is checked), or at least via a text config file.

[U-Bones]

You can also be too obsessed in the sim direction
Only if you ignore playability. The problem is, usually it's the LESS realistic features that also make the game less playable and less fun. Take the hull integrity feature or the instant notification of sinking - both 'middle of the road' features meant as a concession to an arcade playstyle, and both features that actually remove fun from the game. Sometimes even the middle road is fraught with pitfalls.

Anyway obsession with realism is where modders come in.

Wow. I (and some others) in fact DO like hull integrity notification, and the assertion that it means we have an "arcade play style", and that it actually "removes fun from the game" - is blindness to other perspectives at best and arrogant dismissiveness at worst.

I encourage everyone to play and mod as they like, but I insist on having my own opinions, and would prefer to not be insulted about them when they are different from someone elses.

Playability is -subjective-.

[Beery]

You can also be too obsessed in the sim direction
Only if you ignore playability. The problem is, usually it's the LESS realistic features that also make the game less playable and less fun. Take the hull integrity feature or the instant notification of sinking - both 'middle of the road' features meant as a concession to an arcade playstyle, and both features that actually remove fun from the game. Sometimes even the middle road is fraught with pitfalls.

Anyway obsession with realism is where modders come in.

Wow. I (and some others) in fact DO like hull integrity notification, and the assertion that it means we have an "arcade play style", and that it actually "removes fun from the game" - is blindness to other perspectives at best and arrogant dismissiveness at worst.

I encourage everyone to play and mod as they like, but I insist on having my own opinions, and would prefer to not be insulted about them when they are different from someone elses.

Playability is -subjective-.

I don't see how calling your playstyle 'arcade' is insulting. If you choose arcade features (such as a % notification of hull damage) over a realistic alternative you're favouring arcade style play. There are only two extremes - arcade or simulation.

As for whether giving a percentage readout on hull integrity adds or removes fun, how much fun can there possibly be in knowing exactly how many points out of 100 your hull has left? I mean I guess people could game it so that they tried to get as close to 100 as possible without sinking, but if that's the game what part of that is relevant to being in a WW2 submarine? I mean the game is either here to make it feel like we're in a WW2 sub or it's not. In my opinion the game looks and feels like a WW2 sub and clearly that's what the developers intended it to be. If people want to play some fantasy sub where every minute detail of the sub's status is spoonfed them I'm sure there are games like that out there. I just don't think games like SH4 should be aiming towards that. There is fun in suspense, but the % hull integrity removes all suspense from that aspect of the game. The removal of suspense does not increase the fun value. The only people who think it does are those who desire a more simplified and more controllable (and some would say more shallow) game experience - i.e. the arcade fan.

Call it arrogant dismissiveness if you want, but if I went to the Doom forums arguing for fewer arcade features and more realism I think a certain amount of arrogant dismissiveness towards my point of view would be merited. Doom is not a simulation, and SH4 is not an arcade game.

[U-Bones]

You can also be too obsessed in the sim direction
Only if you ignore playability. The problem is, usually it's the LESS realistic features that also make the game less playable and less fun. Take the hull integrity feature or the instant notification of sinking - both 'middle of the road' features meant as a concession to an arcade playstyle, and both features that actually remove fun from the game. Sometimes even the middle road is fraught with pitfalls.

Anyway obsession with realism is where modders come in.
Wow. I (and some others) in fact DO like hull integrity notification, and the assertion that it means we have an "arcade play style", and that it actually "removes fun from the game" - is blindness to other perspectives at best and arrogant dismissiveness at worst.

I encourage everyone to play and mod as they like, but I insist on having my own opinions, and would prefer to not be insulted about them when they are different from someone elses.

Playability is -subjective-.
I don't see how calling your playstyle 'arcade' is insulting. If you choose arcade features (such as a % notification of hull damage) over a realistic alternative you're favouring arcade style play. There are only two extremes - arcade or simulation.

It's not so much the tag as the demeaning way in which it is applied. I will simply continue to be rubbed the wrong way by your condesending attitude towards middle of the roaders. Some things never change.

Carry on and pardon my interruption, I meant well.

[Beery]

It's not so much the tag as the demeaning way in which it is applied. I will simply continue to be rubbed the wrong way by your condesending attitude towards middle of the roaders. Some things never change...

As far as condescending attitudes go, I find it a little condescending and demeaning when my preferred playstyle is referred to as "the dark side where the market shrinks to the not worth making level". I mean how much more condescending and demeaning can you possibly get?

As far as I'm concerned, SH3 and SH4 are simulations. In a simulation more realism (not to be confused with 'reality') is always better. I can never regard an arcade playstyle (or a 'semi-realistic' playstyle - which amounts to the same thing) as healthy for a simulation game because I do not agree that a move away from realism can improve playability. In my opinion realism and playability go hand-in-glove, as the popularity of the RUb mod (and other realism mods I've made) prove.

I see a 'middle of the road' playstyle (a sort of simulation-lite) as extremely harmful. I have a condescending attitude towards middle-of-the-road FEATURES, not the players who favour them, but if someone's arguing for a less realistic feature, when such a feature makes a mockery of the word 'simulation' and when such a feature reduces the suspense value of the game, I'm going to argue with those people. If people see the fact that I make arguments for realism and against watering down realism as condescending, that's a profound mischaracterization.

[Beery]

Here's what it boils down to for me. I believe a simulation should be as realistic as possible. It should be set to 'realistic' in its default configuration. If 'sim-lite' features exist they should be optional. There should never be a situation like there was in SH3 where a 'sim-lite' feature (like the 'enemy unit destroyed' notification) cannot be turned off except by modding it. If simulations were made with 'realism first' as the watchword the realism fans wouldn't need folks like me who are willing to spend six months working 12 hour days making these games more realistic.

In my view game developers should give us a sim first and foremost. Only then should options be added so it can be played by people who don't like ultra realism. The problem with simulation games is that all too often they start at sim-lite and make only a few concessions towards realism.

We simulation fans may be a niche market, but if we weren't an important niche games like this wouldn't exist at all. Realism is important to folks like us, and game developers will lose us if they don't take our needs seriously. Then there will only be games like Doom made, and not even the middle-of-the-roaders want that. Diversity is important and realistic simulation games are an important aspect of that.

[U-Bones]

Here's what it boils down to for me. I believe a simulation should be as realistic as possible. It should be set to 'realistic' in its default configuration. If 'sim-lite' features exist they should be optional. There should never be a situation like there was in SH3 where a 'sim-lite' feature (like the 'enemy unit destroyed' notification) cannot be turned off except by modding it. If simulations were made with 'realism first' as the watchword the realism fans wouldn't need folks like me who are willing to spend six months working 12 hour days making these games more realistic.

In my view game developers should give us a sim first and foremost. Only then should options be added so it can be played by people who don't like ultra realism. The problem with simulation games is that all too often they start at sim-lite and make only a few concessions towards realism.

We simulation fans may be a niche market, but if we weren't an important niche games like this wouldn't exist at all. Realism is important to folks like us, and game developers will lose us if they don't take our needs seriously. Then there will only be games like Doom made, and not even the middle-of-the-roaders want that. Diversity is important and realistic simulation games are an important aspect of that.

This is a game first, simulation second, no matter how hard you wish otherwise. A "realistic" sim would usually make you finish your 5th patrol without firing a single torpedo. I can't see many people lining up to buy that. Ubi was wise to leave a little game in your sim.

And I am all for options, even with "realistic" defaults, sans the scorn for checking a few boxes differently than "we simulation fans" of course.

[U-Bones]

As far as condescending attitudes go, I find it a little condescending and demeaning when my preferred playstyle is referred to as "the dark side where the market shrinks to the not worth making level". I mean how much more condescending and demeaning can you possibly get?

I see a 'middle of the road' playstyle (a sort of simulation-lite) as extremely harmful. I have a condescending attitude towards middle-of-the-road FEATURES, not the players who favour them, but...
I was referring to the "dark side" market reality of a pure sim vs a game, not playstyles.

It is not possible to criticize a playstyle without that criticism spilling over onto its adherents. Your contempt for "sim-lite", and by extension the people who enjoy it, is unfortunate and undiplomatic at times.

THAT was my original complaint. I am sorry I let it spill over into more than that. I simply wanted a less divisive tone on the board. Gamers are people too (and a very important part of this community). I will not be responding further.

Apologies all.

[Jams79]

In my view game developers should give us a sim first and foremost. Only then should options be added so it can be played by people who don't like ultra realism. The problem with simulation games is that all too often they start at sim-lite and make only a few concessions towards realism.
Here's my two cents, unfortunately hardcore simmers are considered an astounding minority in the market resulting in publishers preferring to dumb the game down to get more sales. Unlike casual gamers who'll just ignore a game if it's too "serious/boring" we have wonderful people like you and Ducimus and all the others who will spend the time and effort to make it more realistic for our needs. It's just irritating as hell when they program something "dumbed down" so that we can't get to it easily to mod it out.

[nvdrifter]

Here's what it boils down to for me. I believe a simulation should be as realistic as possible. It should be set to 'realistic' in its default configuration. If 'sim-lite' features exist they should be optional. There should never be a situation like there was in SH3 where a 'sim-lite' feature (like the 'enemy unit destroyed' notification) cannot be turned off except by modding it. If simulations were made with 'realism first' as the watchword the realism fans wouldn't need folks like me who are willing to spend six months working 12 hour days making these games more realistic.

In my view game developers should give us a sim first and foremost. Only then should options be added so it can be played by people who don't like ultra realism. The problem with simulation games is that all too often they start at sim-lite and make only a few concessions towards realism.

We simulation fans may be a niche market, but if we weren't an important niche games like this wouldn't exist at all. Realism is important to folks like us, and game developers will lose us if they don't take our needs seriously. Then there will only be games like Doom made, and not even the middle-of-the-roaders want that. Diversity is important and realistic simulation games are an important aspect of that.
This is a game first, simulation second, no matter how hard you wish otherwise. A "realistic" sim would usually make you finish your 5th patrol without firing a single torpedo. I can't see many people lining up to buy that. Ubi was wise to leave a little game in your sim.

And I am all for options, even with "realistic" defaults, sans the scorn for checking a few boxes differently than "we simulation fans" of course.
I have to agree with U-Bones. SH4 was released as a game, not as a simulation. No matter how much some modders want SH4 to be ultra-realistic, it's never going to happen due to the game's limitations. I think that the obsession in this forum with ultra realism is becoming excessive. Most of the modders here want realism, but some of the attitudes here are getting a little ridiculous. The obsessive attitudes of a few of the modders in this forum might perhaps be scaring away other modders from releasing their own mods due to criticisms. I am all for realism, but if some modders want to release less realistic mods, then they have every right to do so without being criticized by others here who claim to be experts. If people want a more serious realistic pacific gaming experience, then I recommend the great strategy game War in the Pacific by Matrix Games. SH4 is a game and always will be, no matter how many 'super realistic' mods are released.

[tater]

Asking for diversity, and the option of realistic play is "getting rediculous?" Seems to me that coding for different customer's wishes only broadens the appeal.

I thought beery put it well:
We simulation fans may be a niche market, but if we weren't an important niche games like this wouldn't exist at all. Realism is important to folks like us, and game developers will lose us if they don't take our needs seriously. Then there will only be games like Doom made, and not even the middle-of-the-roaders want that. Diversity is important and realistic simulation games are an important aspect of that.

On topic, the instant announcement of a player death really blows in any kind of multiplayer game. In something like this where "fog of war" is the meat and potatoes of the game, it's something to consider. The devs went to the trouble of creating an adversarial capability, the ability for the host to turn off such kill messages is actually pretty critical.

A toggle that modders can turn on or off is always the right choice :D

tater

[FIREWALL]

Asking for diversity, and the option of realistic play is "getting rediculous?" Seems to me that coding for different customer's wishes only broadens the appeal.

I thought beery put it well:
We simulation fans may be a niche market, but if we weren't an important niche games like this wouldn't exist at all. Realism is important to folks like us, and game developers will lose us if they don't take our needs seriously. Then there will only be games like Doom made, and not even the middle-of-the-roaders want that. Diversity is important and realistic simulation games are an important aspect of that.

On topic, the instant announcement of a player death really blows in any kind of multiplayer game. In something like this where "fog of war" is the meat and potatoes of the game, it's something to consider. The devs went to the trouble of creating an adversarial capability, the ability for the host to turn off such kill messages is actually pretty critical.

A toggle that modders can turn on or off is always the right choice :D

tater

BINGO Well put.:up: The devs need to fix it so this game can be adjusted
and fine tuned for all type of players. This game is brand new and were a
kinda "I want it fixed yesterday" crowd. So a little patience is needed to see what the devs come up with. United we stand. Divided we will surely
fall. We all may get what we want.

[tater]

As a quick multiplay example, a few subs attack a major task force with a player running the TF. He thinks he has one cornered, and has a desdiv go over, and they hammer the living crap out of the spot where he should be. If the game awards a kill on the 2d rack of DCs that goes off, he can instantly send the 4 escorts elsewhere to harry the remaing couple subs. If he's not sure... he's not sure, and has to leave a few in that area in case the sub pops back up.

The ability to turn off that message would help the "realism" crowd offline, and allows multiplay (honestly, I'd almost call instant kill awards a showstopper for multiplay---I don't like it in Il-2, and I really like the fact WW2OL doesn't have it).

tater

[GatorSub1942]

I completely agree. If someone can find a way to get rid of that Enemy Destroyed message, excellent. (Maybe Ubi shoud have a go in the next patch? ;))