[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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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. Not to mention the logbook entry itself.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by U-Bones

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]

Originally Posted by Beery

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]

Originally Posted by Beery

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

$$$

[Beery]

Originally Posted by partyboy

$$$

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]

Originally Posted by Beery

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[akdavis]

Originally Posted by U-Bones

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.