Realism vs Game Balance

[Sgt.Rock]

Well, here's a little extra on realism about some of the smg's.

Some people said that some people are complaining about the recoil in the smg, but I do feel there is slightly too much recoil (at least in the mp40)

Here's a pic of my time with an mp40 (Osama is definantly dead), the range is anywhere from 25 - 50 yards and I was shooting standing up with no support.



The three red circles are where my bursts are (the two large ones consist of two bursts each). The mp40 was extremely easy to control and accurate.

Those other shots I was having a little fun with. I was looking over the top of the gun to see what is looked liked when it was firing.

So either I'm a really good shot, or its a weapon with minimal recoil and good accuracy.



PS. oh, it was upside down too when I was shooting at it, because the range didnt want the metal rope line that was holding the target up shot by customers. I guess theyve had some really bad shots

 

[melipone]

Thats what I mean Sgt.Rock, if the smg's are both accurate and have low recoil the game would be completely unbalanced and so less fun imo. Some good points though everyone, and im surprised how many peeps want full realism at the expense of balance! Anyway if the smg's WHERE made more realistic the only way to balance is by reducing their numbers, which may also be unrealistic. I hope though that reducing class slots, having maps that give the weaker team in terms of equipment an advantage and fidling with reinforments is enough to keap teams balanced. I might just be looking at it from the wrong perspective though and the majority of peeps see unbalance as a challenge rather than unfairness.

 

[FPS HS]

realism - defintalty I mean in rl your always tryin to gain advantage on your enemy -rite? too much balance and you lose realism

 

[Nimsky]

Realism = gameplay, so realism all the way.

Also, war wasn't balanced.

 

[noshens]

I hope devs take notice of this poll and fix the wounding system (limping for 5 seconds)

 

[jedinstven-o crni Wuk]

want the game as realistic as possible and the hardware allows it.

The reason. When idiots (mostly solo tank players, that kill people to have tanks all for there self) cant even start tanks because they have no clue how they work, they will get ushualy bored and left them for people that realy are interested in them and have fun playing in teams.

 

[breadtruck]

Gameplay over realism. Ive played RO for a long time, and I prefer it to have a bit of fun left in it rather than being completly dulled out.

 

[CKHenson]

If I wanted anything other than realism I'd play COD2 or BF42. Hard core games for hard core gamers. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay under the porch.

 

[{YBBS}Sage]

RO:O shows how FPS games can be balanced even with weapons that have tangible differences in the game. The overall maps, the locations of spawn points and objectives are all (I feel) the main balancing features in this game, along with the reinforcements counter.

 

[Reznor]

I got the feeling people tend to confuse their own preferences with the philosophy of RO. Would you guys really play a game which has absolutly cruddy gameplay but reflects the most realistic game at the market? I wouldn't!

For me I play a game purely for its gameplay and to have fun with it. RO achieves a great gameplay through realism! The game pace isn't unrealistic fast and a realistic behaviour rewards you - rambo didn't survive his first RO match And through the weapon restrictions a decent balancing is given too. So basicly I am purely out for gameplay, but realism helpes all the aspects I worthship in gameplay, thats why I love RO and its realism-developing-philosophy And thats why I chose the third option...

 

[melipone]

well said Reznor

 

[kabex]

I got the feeling people tend to confuse their own preferences with the philosophy of RO. Would you guys really play a game which has absolutly cruddy gameplay but reflects the most realistic game at the market? I wouldn't!

For me I play a game purely for its gameplay and to have fun with it. RO achieves a great gameplay through realism! The game pace isn't unrealistic fast and a realistic behaviour rewards you - rambo didn't survive his first RO match And through the weapon restrictions a decent balancing is given too. So basicly I am purely out for gameplay, but realism helpes all the aspects I worthship in gameplay, thats why I love RO and its realism-developing-philosophy And thats why I chose the third option...

Gameplay is important obviously. What provies RO with fun gameplay for us(the incredibly minor wargaming crowd) is its realism.

Anyway, I(and many others) would really like to see a combined arms simulator, taking absolutely no compromises on realism. A simulator.

If you say "LOL that won't be fun at all! Enjoy getting trench foot!" then how come IL-2 Sturmovik(and expansions) are such praised games? They have an incredibly loyal, friendly, knowledgable fanbase which will never leave the game. Same goes for all other sims, there's many people out there who play these games at 100% realism, and it brings great enjoyment to be able to struggle against the technical difficulties.

I don't know about you but when I play IL-2 at 100% realism and manage to live through the mission, I feel proud of myself. That feeling can't be obtained from any arcade/balanced game. It's balanced, anybody can win.

To be a good IL-2 pilot(in 100% realism) you have to train/practice for months... and read and read and use real tactics and know your strengths and weaknesses, etc. This is the angle that many of us would like to see in a Combined Arms Simulator.

Operation Flashpoint and RO:OST are greatly loved games by wargamers, because of taking no compromises on realism. They have an intended audience, and these people could not have wished for anything more.

 

[gonzman]

The core mechanics of the gameplay have to remain realistic (for a video games standard), but the other things, less important things can be cutaway for the sake of gameplay/ease of use, the map screen for example with a player marker , voice chat and text chat, and elements of a HUD.

They are not realistic, but without them it would make the game a little more frustrating for alot of people to play, things are hard enough as they are in some cases.


Besides, If you had a game that was purely 100% realistic it would be no fun, and I mean none, sometimes I think peoples demand to simulate war environments at 100% accuracy and realism is a scary thing ask, Do you really want to experience anything like it? No, stick to playing games and keep them as games, not simulators.

 

[MkH^]

Well made poll. I agree with the majority though: realism all the way. Afterall, whenever I want to play something geared towards realism while maintaining a hint of balanced gameplay, I play Forgotten Hope. If I want to play something arcadey, I start up Call Of Duty or Battlefield 1942.

And while we're at it, I think RO should lose the final bits of balanced arcade gameplay there still are: fix the tank damage models.

 

[kabex]

Well made poll. I agree with the majority though: realism all the way. Afterall, whenever I want to play something geared towards realism while maintaining a hint of balanced gameplay, I play Forgotten Hope. If I want to play something arcadey, I start up Call Of Duty or Battlefield 1942.

And while we're at it, I think RO should lose the final bits of balanced arcade gameplay there still are: fix the tank damage models.

Good call, Forgotten Hope is a perfect example of a realistic game that was tweaked for gameplay/fun. It's half realistic, half fun. For example, 1 man mans the tanks, 1 man mans a flak 88, etc. Imagine if it was as realistic as RO, it'd be pretty annoying.

 

[Mr._Kong]

My take on the matter is this, in most games, and now this is all types, gameplay is important to me most of all. Think about it, in warcraft for example what do you want? gameplay or realsim? I would same gameplay. but for a game that is supposed to be realistic of course i would say realism. This poll does not make that much sense if youre thinking about games in general. Cause think about all the unrealistic games you have played with awsome gameplay that you have enjoyed. it only makes sense if you think about a genre really.

Oh and i went with option 2.

 

[Heldentod]

REALISM ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*waves the realism flag high up in the sky*

 

[Musketeer]

Realism is important but gameplay must be considerred. I want all the weapons to be accurately portrayed, along with tanks and vehicles. At the same time the map designers need to balance such things as reinforcements, available armor, available kits, arty, etc., to make the game enjoyable. There are plenty of real battles where one side was completely overwhelmed by the other in every respect. That, while real, would not make for a game that would retain attention long.

Mechanically the game must be realistic.

Scenarios must be created so as to be balanced.

 

[Kap]

Realism is important but gameplay must be considerred. I want all the weapons to be accurately portrayed, along with tanks and vehicles. At the same time the map designers need to balance such things as reinforcements, available armor, available kits, arty, etc., to make the game enjoyable. There are plenty of real battles where one side was completely overwhelmed by the other in every respect. That, while real, would not make for a game that would retain attention long.

Mechanically the game must be realistic.

Scenarios must be created so as to be balanced.

Same here.

 

[Panzer Meyer]

I am all for maximum realism, RO is very unique in the aspect altough it still sacrifices some realism in the sake of gameplay. However some of these we've heard are being fixed like the incremental HP of tanks.

So yes, I voted full realism for RO.