Realism or Balance?

[BeserkWraithlor]

I noticed the RO community and players always seem to talk about realism, and wanting features that would imbalance the game. Its good that people can play a realistic game, but is realism really that important and needed if it would tip the balance?

For example, many players say that PTRD is fine and is good for damaging and destroying tanks others say its too hard to use, and then a bunch of people say "PTRD IS OVERPOWERED, PTRD CANNOT BLOW UP A TANK IN REAL LIFE! WEAKEN IT!" Honestly, if they made PTRD more realistic, and made it weaker and unable to destroy tough tanks, then the class would become obselete, and too underpowered. Next, People are discussing how overpowered Panzerfaust is, and others say "Panzerfaust should be overpowered, it can destroy any tank in WW2, the Panzerfaust should be even more powerful, because it can penetrate through any tank armor in WW2."

If they implemented things like Infantry can ride on tanks, and Machineguns reducing accuracy, the game would be too unfair and imbalanced.

Thoughts on balance and realism, and your opinion. I think the game is already realistic enough, but we need to keep the balance steady.

 

[Oldih]

Someone

 

[SheepShaver]

I want both lol.

 

[Faustnik]

I noticed the RO community and players always seem to talk about realism, and wanting features that would imbalance the game. Its good that people can play a realistic game, but is realism really that important and needed if it would tip the balance?

Realism should be the goal when modeling weapons or anything else for that matter. Balance is the job of the map makers. Let the map makers adjust vehicle numbers, wepaon types and situations to give both sides a chance to win using realistic weapons for the time period.

 

[Piron]

No flamebait in my opinion, but indeed perhaps a "little" (and thats an understatement) overdiscussed.

My choice: realism. Realism makes games more of a challenge, balance eventually leads to boredom.

 

[Murphy]

Well said Faustnik.

 

[Mr._Kong]

Realism should be the goal when modeling weapons or anything else for that matter. Balance is the job of the map makers. Let the map makers adjust vehicle numbers, wepaon types and situations to give both sides a chance to win using realistic weapons for the time period.

I like where this mans head is at, good post I hope people see it.

 

[Wolfstuka]

Total realism would not be bad. Throughout the war countries made better weapons to counter the enemy's weapons in effect balancing things out on their own. It could work out well in game, in a few instances the Russian equipment would own and that goes the same for German equipment but overall things would be ok.

 

[Fu. Svedberg]

The one does not cancel the other I want both.

 

[REZ]

What really hooked me onto RO back in the mod days was how difficult the game was. You needed to pay attention and practice alot to be good. Up until that point I was playing your typical flavor of the day FPSs. I'm one of those guys that will master a game and become bored with it very quickly, but RO the mod kept me coming back, day after day.

I very much like some of the new control features (diving, weapon resting, manual bolting, etc.) but there are also alot of additions that I feel make the game too easy, and because of that I find myself getting bored at times. I hope this trend of making RO more 'average gamer' friendly stops at some point, or I may find myself in the market for a new game. This title was something for the advanced and more patient gamer... I hold hope that TW will return to that someday.

Realism or balance? I would like a more difficult game with the same realistic atmosphere. Simulation level realism in my opinion would grind down the gameplay so much that it would cease to be fun, and at the same time I feel as though the game being totally 'balanced' would lead to a less difficult game.

 

[BeserkWraithlor]

Balance would not lead to a less easier game. Halo is horribly imbalanced, but the game has a very easy learning curve, and anybody can win in it.

Oh, and to make it clear, because I did not mention it. I meant balance as in gameplay, not models.

 

[REZ]

Balance would not lead to a less easier game

less easier game




Anyway, what I mean is... I like to play on the teams, or in situations where one side has a significant disadvantage because I enjoy the challenge. Its really satisfying to win when the odds are heavily against you. I'm speaking here in terms of having a totally balanced battlefield as opposed to the handful of tools added into the game that give the player way too much info therefore making the game much too easy. When things are balanced the game is too easy, in my opinion. That may be hard for you to sink your teeth into, but think about what I'm saying. You dont have to think as much or take as much care when everything is balanced out perfectly. When one side has an advantage it causes you to make up for that disadvantage by playing smarter.

 

[LemoN]

*throwsStonesatBeserkWraithlor*
*flamingBeserkWraithlor*
*punchingagainstBeserkWraithlor'sRiotshield*
*eatingMagicalBrownies*

 

[Goetz]

Realism should be the goal when modeling weapons or anything else for that matter. Balance is the job of the map makers. Let the map makers adjust vehicle numbers, wepaon types and situations to give both sides a chance to win using realistic weapons for the time period.

Perfectly stated.

 

[Muddy_May]

I've always played RO for realism. If I want balance, I'll play something else.

 

[Teapot]

Well, RO is a game. And a game has to be fair, for all competitors, in order to be a good game. So I’ll go with balance.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

Realism should be the goal when modeling weapons or anything else for that matter. Balance is the job of the map makers. Let the map makers adjust vehicle numbers, weapon types and situations to give both sides a chance to win using realistic weapons for the time period.

Thank you for a level headed, sensible reply. I agree with you completely.

 

[z4o]

Honostly, I would like a mix of both, leaning more towards the realism side though.

I don't want RO on a sim level.

But I do want RO to simulate the times of war when battle was intense, and if a gun was this accurate at this range, I want it to be like that ingame. The same goes for rate of fire etc.

I don't play RO to play a game, I play RO to feel what it was like to be there, and learn just exactly how brave the men who fought in the battles were. (More of a re-enactment attitude, then a let's win attitude I guess.)

 

[DieFledermaus]

I voted for realism. For me tht means weapons and environment and how realistic the damange and behavior of the cybersoldiers is.

However, it does include how out of balance some maps are. Maps that seem to be set up like "lets see how long the doomed team can take before they lose." are rather boring for me and I am glad there are not that many.

So realism for me does not mean historical accuracy in terms of "The Germans lost the engagment in real life so lets stack the deck against them so they only win if the Russians are complete boneheads." (Or vice versa in terms of which team has the advantage based on the objectives, weapons and so on.)

So I am all for balance in terms of maps set up so both sides have a basically equal chance of winning the game. But I want realism in terms of how the weapons and people react to environmental input.

 

[Arto1990]

Realism