Idea to increase teamwork

[snakedude24]

I have an idea. It's pretty revolutionary, so hold on.

You install RO, and spend 6 months (in real time) in training camps. You then spend a month or so on a train bound for the frontlines. As soon as you get there, a MG opens up and kills you, and your computer goes beserk and reformats itself.

Or...... we could just allow gamers to make their own decisions and let them put their own value on their lives.

But.....

A.) Thanks gonzo

B.) I still want to know how introducing random modifiers into the game makes it more realistic. It would appear to me that a massive HUD with 4 bajillion shiny objects telling me everything about myself *might*, just might, detract from an otherwise immersive experience.

 

[Teq]

I see your point, but disagree Teq.
I'm against suppression effects, I don't want a game to decide whether I'm suppressed or not.


Funny thing is, you offered the only solution to implementing fear of death IMO. If there is no respawn, like in CS, players care more about their digital life. If they don't they are dead

With the current gameplaymode grouped respaws seem the most logical solution.

Monk.

I want you still to remember that your body is safetly situated in front of a computer.
Your history is not the one of an average soldier back in 1940's.
You do not fear to get hurt or loosing your friends.

In current RO there is compensation for the feelings of really being there.

This can only done by adding the missing effects on your available senses (visual, audio and controlls).

The feeling of survival in game is defined by not loosing points, NOT anything about loosing your own and comerades lives!

If RO was played realisticly, you would be having long exchanges of fire. Players would take cover and be carefull.

Under a fire fight, you would NOT move without having someone to suppress the enemy or take the enemies attention while you move. This is how you are trained to be safe.
This is non existent in the current RO, thats why I call it WWII Counterstrike.

The fact is that what you need to be a good player in ROis to know the map in and out , have reaction time and pin point accuracy of a 14 year old CS player, and ofcourse high spec hardware!

Back in the days, all you knew about the "map" was the intel given to you (if you where the attacking part)
Sometimes terrain was completely undiscovered.
You had to rely on carefull tactics moving forward SLOWLY, inch by inch! Covering EACH and EVERY spot on your way.

In reality 90% of the ammo spent was used for suppression fire... How much ammo is spent for suppression in current RO?

In WWII you've been fighting for days, weeks, years.
You are tired, mentally drained.
In current RO all soldiers act as it was their first day at war. Everyone have the same physical attributes.

Now, what can be done to compensate for all theese lacking facts?

The only element I can come up with, is to give "unrealitic" limitations/indications on your availible sensens, so that your mind understands what the body cant....

 

[Teq]

I have an idea. It's pretty revolutionary, so hold on.

You install RO, and spend 6 months (in real time) in training camps. You then spend a month or so on a train bound for the frontlines. As soon as you get there, a MG opens up and kills you, and your computer goes beserk and reformats itself.

Or...... we could just allow gamers to make their own decisions and let them put their own value on their lives.

But.....

A.) Thanks gonzo

B.) I still want to know how introducing random modifiers into the game makes it more realistic. It would appear to me that a massive HUD with 4 bajillion shiny objects telling me everything about myself *might*, just might, detract from an otherwise immersive experience.

This clearly shows that you do not understand my point, so I suggest you read thru my articles accuratly.
Thats the least respect I can have from a mature community aiming for gaming realism.
-------------------------------
Let me say this short:

* You with your mordern history, feelings and personality, cannot understand what it's like being at war back in the days.

This can only be given to you by adding artificial indications/limitations that is not realistic in terms of PHYSICAL experience, but compensate for the missing realism YOu cannot understand in front of you computer.

90% of the people here does NOT understand the stress you live thru in a war, so the game has to help people understand this.... Otherwise it will be a 14 year old kiddo, deciding what is best for him... and Voila! EVERYONE IS A ****ING HEROIC RAMBO!

Do you understand now?

This is how teamwork SHOULD be like:

http://www.primordial.com/Videos/PrimordialSoldierEmbedded.html

http://www.primordial.com/Videos/UnitDetectionConcept.html

http://www.primordial.com/Videos/GroundGuidanceConcept.html

All though this is modern warfare, its abit like it was in WWII.
Do you see ANYTHING like this in RO?
Even in clans... I DONT think so...
The game is WAY too fast phased to move like that....

 

[ANG3L]

My Solution, to help getting people to play as a team.

This might actually bode well for the mappers out there what with the competition up & running for them now. (something for thought)


Problem;
Everyone spawns, and woooof there off! every which way, no listening, no teamwork, just off on there own little mission.

possible Solution;
Don't reveal all the cap points on the 2d map, show them one at a time, a point of focus, once they have achieved that then the second one is revealed, and so on. This method isn't restricted to spoon feeding the sides to one objective at a time, for example; the final objective could reveal 2 cap points at the same time forcing both the teams to split.

This really is down to the mapper and how he want he's map to play out, and how soon.

This also adds suspense to the game because no one knows how many points they have left to cap or defend for there side to win the round. Works for both sides whether defending or attacking, doesnt matter how the players get to that point so long as they do.



Additional features;
Once the cap point has being achieved and say this one isn't re-capable, the attacking side spawn moves within 50-100m's (including support vechiles) of that point as so to establish there new front line/lines. The defenders spawn points are also within 50-100m radius of there line/lines, this should ensure that they is a constant battle going on at the objective points throughout the map.

We all know that game can only do 32 people on the servers so 16 per side at best yeah, which isn't an awful lot. But if you keep a constant flow of units around the mapzones this should go some way to creating an illusion that they is more, and also intensify the battles.

Once the attacking side have capped there objective, 7/10 it shouldn't be re-capable because the chances are they have earned that.




Edit;
Yes people will be able to remember what area's are capable after playing the map for a few times, but just because you know where to go to next doesn't necessarily mean that they will be available to cap, unless the rest of your TEAM have capped the first cap points.

This is very good idea but;
It will not work with all maps, if I may koitess1944 has four cap points and is very straight forward in terms of objectives, all four points marked out on the 2d map four everyone to see.

Now what would happen if only two pairs of cap points where revealed to both the teams? (most likely the ones nearest to them first) and the last two where not revealed/nor capable for either of the teams until first two had being capped.

If done properly this should act as gentle way to encourage team play and as a very light guide to how the map/maps would be played out without restricting, forcing, nor penalizing, the players.

This should intensify the battles in the maps, and would also be very new user friendly.


So they you have it.

ANG3L

 

[snakedude24]

Actually, I personally play in the KAS clan, and we do very well in simulating a real combat environment, and we often win because of it. We move up slowly. We move up surely. We often win.

doomed and I were playing 2 vs 6 on Lyeskrovy. We won because of our teamwork.

So yes, there is certainly a point to be made for teamwork. However, I don't enjoy the idea of forcing it onto people. doomed and I often split up - it didn't mean we weren't working as a team, it just meant that we needed to be in certain area. So under your idea, my aim and his (among other things) would have been punished, even though there were only two of us.

Teamwork already has inherent benefits, as I stated earlier. doomed and I are in his basement, talking to each other, joining the same servers, and we usually end up near the top of the scoreboard - not because we are "l337," but because we stick together.

Don't like the noob Rambo-ing? Ignore him. He will die more often than not. While he's being a moron, take squad leader, toss some smokes, and go sit in a cap zone...

Instead of whining about a lack of teamwork, try creating it.

PS.... I certainly agree with you that the suppression effect needs to be increased. I can easily shoot through the most heavy suppression now. Once again, though, don't impose arbitrary rules on players because they are alone.


EDIT - And yes, those rules are arbitrary. Why is there a difference between 20m away from your teammate and 25m away? Why are any of these artificial limitations even talked about seriously?

 

[snakedude24]

possible Solution;
Don't reveal all the cap points on the 2d map, show them one at a time, a point of focus, once they have achieved that then the second one is revealed, and so on. This method isn't restricted to spoon feeding the sides to one objective at a time, for example; the final objective could reveal 2 cap points at the same time forcing both the teams to split.

This also adds suspense to the game because no one knows how many points they have left to cap or defend for there side to win the round. Works for both sides whether defending or attacking, doesnt matter how the players get to that point so long as they do.

ANG3L

Once again, we run into the problem of imposing odd limits in order to control players' behavior. Players will do what they will - won't they just memorize the map? This sort of limitation would only be effective for people playing the map for the first time, in effect, making the learning curve for newcomers even harder.

Guys, you can't just make rules so that people think the way you do. That's Communism

 

[Teq]

Actually, I personally play in the KAS clan, and we do very well in simulating a real combat environment, and we often win because of it. We move up slowly. We move up surely. We often win.

doomed and I were playing 2 vs 6 on Lyeskrovy. We won because of our teamwork.

So yes, there is certainly a point to be made for teamwork. However, I don't enjoy the idea of forcing it onto people. doomed and I often split up - it didn't mean we weren't working as a team, it just meant that we needed to be in certain area. So under your idea, my aim and his (among other things) would have been punished, even though there were only two of us.

Teamwork already has inherent benefits, as I stated earlier. doomed and I are in his basement, talking to each other, joining the same servers, and we usually end up near the top of the scoreboard - not because we are "l337," but because we stick together.

Don't like the noob Rambo-ing? Ignore him. He will die more often than not. While he's being a moron, take squad leader, toss some smokes, and go sit in a cap zone...

Instead of whining about a lack of teamwork, try creating it.

PS.... I certainly agree with you that the suppression effect needs to be increased. I can easily shoot through the most heavy suppression now. Once again, though, don't impose arbitrary rules on players because they are alone.


EDIT - And yes, those rules are arbitrary. Why is there a difference between 20m away from your teammate and 25m away? Why are any of these artificial limitations even talked about seriously?

1) A game is allready artificial

2) RO lack 2 major senses (smell & body feeling) as well as personal insight in the player you act for, with no indication to compensate their absenses.
Ofcourse noone in front of a computer will ever feel the HORRIFYING pressure of an explotion.
Or the shocking force of the bullets over your head, and splinters of sand and dirt hitting your face...
SEeing your comrades and friends getting slaughtered and teared apart screaming.

The average soldier did not take this lightly. Nor did he have much training.
And thats what we usually play, average soldiers, with average stamina, and average weapon sway.

3) I allways create teamwork when I play. I act as much as possible as I am really there, but 90% of others dont cause they dont care about their own lives nor the reinforcements.. Why? cause they have no indication about what they'd REALLY feel when they are there.

4) 2 vs 6 is not about your good team work, but the fact that those 6 a) really ****ed as individual players b) could not suppress you as a team. Ie ran in one after one getting killed.
If they wher good in real life, they would have suppressed u, flanked you and finished you. In RO you cant get suppressed, so thats why TWO persons can kill 10.
With my system you would have been dead unless you got more people to help you.

5) In real life you had to scream to your squadmembers to be heared or use visual hand signals.
This required a clear line of sight on your teammates.
Thats why I put 20-25 meters as the com-zone.
Outside this range the feeling of connection to the squad will gradually decrease, to a point where you will feel cut off from your squad.
AT this point you are woundrable for enemy suppression.

6) The adjustments doesnt have to be BIG, its just enought to give you a benefit over the solo heroic player, and slowing down the game phase an inch so you can actually take abit of time to plan, communicate and coordinate your movements.... as in real life...

7) Yes I can make rules. All things has rules that you have to follow or get punished for it.
There are allways exceptions to rules, and so it is for my idea... but nobody has ever asked for them, cause they are more conserned about finding holes in it rather than seeing its potential...

8) Looking at the ammont of views on this post named "Ideas for increasing teamwork", you can clearly see
a) how little the commity cares for this subject
b) what the community thinks about my previous posts

If a, I guess RO attracts weapon realism fanatics, and not real teamplayers....
If b, well, I am either bad in communicating my points, or the community dont like my views.

 

[Australian]

Honor System like in America's Army anyone?

 

[snakedude24]

1) A game is allready artificial.

Well, duh. We are just trying to keep it as realistic *as possible*.

2) RO lack 2 major senses (smell & body feeling) as well as personal insight in the player you act for, with no indication to compensate their absenses.
Ofcourse noone in front of a computer will ever feel the HORRIFYING pressure of an explotion.

Or the shocking force of the bullets over your head, and splinters of sand and dirt hitting your face...
SEeing your comrades and friends getting slaughtered and teared apart screaming.

The average soldier did not take this lightly. Nor did he have much training.
And thats what we usually play, average soldiers, with average stamina, and average weapon sway. .

Indeed. So do all computer games, and putting in artificial limitations won't change that.

3) I allways create teamwork when I play. I act as much as possible as I am really there, but 90% of others dont cause they dont care about their own lives nor the reinforcements.. Why? cause they have no indication about what they'd REALLY feel when they are there..

So just because you want something you want the game changed? I want bolt actions to have 700 bullets and never bolt and shoot lightning. We can't win all the time.

4) 2 vs 6 is not about your good team work, but the fact that those 6 a) really ****ed as individual players b) could not suppress you as a team. Ie ran in one after one getting killed.
If they wher good in real life, they would have suppressed u, flanked you and finished you. In RO you cant get suppressed, so thats why TWO persons can kill 10.
With my system you would have been dead unless you got more people to help you...

Seeing as you weren't there, kind of hard for you to comment. We actually won because we picked spots where we coul cover each other's flanks, but whatever.

I'll dissect the rest later - I gotta go grab some lunch

 

[ANG3L]

Once again, we run into the problem of imposing odd limits in order to control players' behavior. Players will do what they will - won't they just memorize the map? This sort of limitation would only be effective for people playing the map for the first time, in effect, making the learning curve for newcomers even harder.

Guys, you can't just make rules so that people think the way you do. That's Communism

Communism You first class berk!

Yes people will be able to remember what area's are capable after playing the map for a few times, but just because you know where to go to next doesn't necessarily mean that they will be available to cap, unless the rest of your TEAM have capped the first cap points.

This is very good idea but;
It will not work with all maps, if I may koitess1944 has four cap points and is very straight forward in terms of objectives, all four points marked out on the 2d map four everyone to see.

Now what would happen if only two pairs of cap points where revealed to both the teams? (most likely the ones nearest to them first) and the last two where not revealed/nor capable for either of the teams until first two had being capped.

If done properly this should act as gentle way to encourage team play and as a very light guide to how the map/maps would be played out without restricting, forcing, nor penalizing, the players.

This should intensify the battles in the maps, and would also be very new user friendly.

 

[snakedude24]

Yes people will be able to remember what area's are capable after playing the map for a few times, but just because you know where to go to next doesn't necessarily mean that they will be available to cap, unless the rest of your TEAM have capped the first cap points.

This is very good idea but;
It will not work with all maps, if I may koitess1944 has four cap points and is very straight forward in terms of objectives, all four points marked out on the 2d map four everyone to see.

Now what would happen if only two cap points where revealed to both the teams? (most likely the ones nearest to them first) and the last two where not revealed/nor capable until first two had being capped.

If done properly this should act as gentle way to encourage team play and as a very light guide to how the map/maps would be played out without restricting, forcing, nor penalizing, the players.

This should intensify the battles in the maps, and would also be very new user friendly.

Or, what would happen is a bunch of noobs rush the first cap, while veterans go ahead and camp what they know as the second cap (it's unrevealed right now), but at least with the current system, the defenders know what is being taken. Sure, it will lead to more firefights - more noob firefights, that is.

Why would I risk my life attacking the first cap when I know that the rest of my team will single mindedly assault it, when I could as an alternative just position myself to capture the second area right away?

It would not be very user friendly - all you are doing is teaching them to run blindly at the objective, instead of flanking, seperating, you know, just those little things called teamwork and tactics, which, if I'm not mistaken, was the original point of this thread. Wanna get rid of teamwork, and by association, tactics?

Simple.

Create a map with one objective. I am certain that it will be a Counterstrike type fragfest. Slow, patient players will have no place as 32 people rush one objective. They will either be useless (undesirable result) or killed by Rambos (another undesirable result).

You aren't penalizing the players by putting these rules in place? Really? Try telling that to my German teammates on Konigsplatz, who managed to recap the Siegessuale at the exact moment the Reichstag fell. By your system, we couldn't have even captured the Siege, and we would have lost.

You want to completely alter the way we play our game, making it simplistic, silly, and tactic-less, and then claim that it's a gentle way to force us, the people who bought the game, to play your way.

Yes, teamwork is certainly needed - but this linear, brainless approach will turn creative, tactical play into "who can shoot the most bullets?"

I don't like tanks. I think they distract from the primary goal of Red Orchestra. But, I don't whine about them. I kill them.

Same thing for everyone here in favor of these ridiculous systems. Want teamwork? Join a clan. Rally your fellow pubbers. Lead by example. If they don't wanna follow you, screw 'em. Do the job.

Do not, under any cirumstances, force players to make a tactical choice, because that is when the game ceases to be tactical. What's next, creating levels that are 1000 feet long but only 50 feet wide, so that everyone is forced to stick together? You might say "Oh that's stupid," but the truth is, that is exactly what you are proposing.

Do you really want that?

 

[ANG3L]

snakedude24

First things first go back and actually read my post, and keep reading until you understand what it is I am saying, and if you cant understand what I am saying then have some one read it back to you.

This thread was started to see what Idea's & Suggestions in what ways could things be slightly changed to try to encourage people to play the game as a team.

Mappers have the ability within there reach to try one or two of these suggestions out, with no great loss and no adverse affects on the standard game.

Not narrow minded criticisms from people who don't even understand the post they are actually criticising.

I will not be reading what ever it is your going to post, my post is done and I am happy with what I have said, Have a Nice day.

 

[snakedude24]

snakedude24

First things first go back and actually read my post, and keep reading until you understand what it is I am saying, and if you cant understand what I am saying then have some one read it back to you.

This thread was started to see what Idea's & Suggestions in what ways could things be slightly changed to try to encourage people to play the game as a team.

Mappers have the ability within there reach to try one or two of these suggestions out, with no great loss and no adverse affects on the standard game.

Not narrow minded criticisms from people who don't even understand the post they are actually criticising.

I will not be reading what ever it is your going to post, my post is done and I am happy with what I have said, Have a Nice day.

I have read your original post, and I am sure that you are reading this post now.

I was not only going after the OP, but after I realized that you also had the Ro-Reality mod in the works, I kind of vented on that too, as well as discussing other things.

One hint when you are dealing with forums - threads rarely stay on topic after about five posts. We're human. We can't help it.

Narrow minded? I have given you plenty of examples. I would daresay you are the narrow-minded one here - after all, it is you that wants people to play a certain way, not me. I want open-ended gameplay.


Am I not allowed to critique a possibly game-changing modification?

 

[Teq]

Or, what would happen is a bunch of noobs rush the first cap, while veterans go ahead and camp what they know as the second cap (it's unrevealed right now), but at least with the current system, the defenders know what is being taken. Sure, it will lead to more firefights - more noob firefights, that is.

Why would I risk my life attacking the first cap when I know that the rest of my team will single mindedly assault it, when I could as an alternative just position myself to capture the second area right away?

It would not be very user friendly - all you are doing is teaching them to run blindly at the objective, instead of flanking, seperating, you know, just those little things called teamwork and tactics, which, if I'm not mistaken, was the original point of this thread. Wanna get rid of teamwork, and by association, tactics?

Simple.

Create a map with one objective. I am certain that it will be a Counterstrike type fragfest. Slow, patient players will have no place as 32 people rush one objective. They will either be useless (undesirable result) or killed by Rambos (another undesirable result).

You aren't penalizing the players by putting these rules in place? Really? Try telling that to my German teammates on Konigsplatz, who managed to recap the Siegessuale at the exact moment the Reichstag fell. By your system, we couldn't have even captured the Siege, and we would have lost.

You want to completely alter the way we play our game, making it simplistic, silly, and tactic-less, and then claim that it's a gentle way to force us, the people who bought the game, to play your way.

Yes, teamwork is certainly needed - but this linear, brainless approach will turn creative, tactical play into "who can shoot the most bullets?"

I don't like tanks. I think they distract from the primary goal of Red Orchestra. But, I don't whine about them. I kill them.

Same thing for everyone here in favor of these ridiculous systems. Want teamwork? Join a clan. Rally your fellow pubbers. Lead by example. If they don't wanna follow you, screw 'em. Do the job.

Do not, under any cirumstances, force players to make a tactical choice, because that is when the game ceases to be tactical. What's next, creating levels that are 1000 feet long but only 50 feet wide, so that everyone is forced to stick together? You might say "Oh that's stupid," but the truth is, that is exactly what you are proposing.

Do you really want that?

Sorry to say, but you seem kinda narrow minded.
why? Cause you limit your thinking to only one option: YOUR way

I really enjoy parts of red orchestra, but I strongly beleive elements could be added to fullfill MY needs. Now do you want to FORCE me to play your way?

There are different people with different needs.
Thats why we have short spawn times, long spawn times, no respawn, limited respawn.
We have Large tank maps, small CQB maps, serial cap maps, linear cap maps. Narrow maps, wide maps.

A narrow map tells you that THIS is the battle area which the players may move within. IE Konigplatz.
With 3 tanks on that map it's VERY close to a Serial cap map.
IE its very hard to flank on it, and the sides are forced to use proper supression fire from tanks and MG to push forward.

And regarding rules.... RO was said to be realistic w/tanks allmost on simulator level.
Now, when I started play it:

* I couldnt jump over a sandbag.
* I couldnt stop my reload.
* I I couldnt use suppression fire on noone.

* I have to drive AROUND wooden fences with my 20 ton tank!! What kinda rule is that?
* I couldnt hear the grenades land 5 feet from my legs and the list goes on and on....

Theese artifical limitations FORCE me to play in unrealistic ways....

And who can say that there are CAP zones in real war?
You dont.
You have tactical locations, which is easy to defend from and push the enemy back.
You have to push the enemy back to open up for your supplies and close the enemies supplylines.
But there is no indicator that shows that you cap something or how many enemies you ve got in that zone...

THIS IS AN ARTIFICIAL ADDED FEAT to compensate for the fact that you play 32 players on a large map....

So as a summary I dont think your arguments are strong enough.
And as you say, Its simple:
If you play on a server with visible capzones, you change server to one without and play there

If you see an idea you dont like, do the same, find a thread you like and try to help them develop their idea further....

If you dont like an idea. Make sure you get all the facts , and read the posts propertly before you answer.
A few of the people critisizing me just did, and they've changed their opinions...
Good news, you will see the Group spirit idea most likely within a few months. So we will see how it works out then

 

[snakedude24]

You don't get to respawn in real war.

You don't get "movement keys" in real war.

You don't get a lot of stuff in real war.

So sorry to break it to you, but there is a limitation on what games can present.

My thing is, I don't want to change the current system because it allows for open ended gameplay - i.e, you can Rambo if you want to, or play it safe, or go solo.

You, on the other hand, want to punish people for not playing the way you want them to.




I hate to bring it up again, but your vision of teamwork is very arbitrary.

doomed and I clearly worked together on Lyeskrovy, covering each other, but rarely were we within 25m of each other. Under what you proposed, that essentially doesn't count within the mod/game/mutator's definition of "teamwork." So, if I covered doomed from 26m, , or even 25.1m, instead of 25m, I suddenly am not a team player? Explain that.

I just want to play as I feel. I'm sure a bunch of other people do too.


On a lighter note, what happened to "I'm not going to respond to your post?"

 

[snakedude24]

Also, your point about "join another server" is certainly valid.

However, keep in mind, at any given time we probably only have 5-6 servers that have over 10 people, no bots, not full, and probably only 2 on a map I like.

So yes, this mutator/mod/gameplay change could certainly affect me, so I am debating it.

That would be my right.....

 

[sonar]

Squad Ideas

Squad Ideas

I think that if at the start of a game you should automatically be assigned to a squad.This should be viewable using one of the F buttons for instance.This alone would make for more team playing.The reason being that if you see guys on the battlefield you know your supposed to be with,you will be more inclined to stay together.Also if your in an area where another squad are operating everyone can see your in the wrong place and politely tell you to "piss off back to your own squad".And if there was squad scoring instead of individual this would start friendly inter squad rivalry "A.squad save the day again" type of thing.This would again reinforce the benefits of real team play.So once again just tell us who were supposed to be with and I think most people will try to stick together.Last thing the random selection of sqaud members would mean you would get veterans fighting alongside raw recruits(noobs) who would gain experience from working alongside the vets,just like in real life and would stop it getting too matey in the squad selection.

 

[[5thW]Rehakles[TRO]]

I dont think that adding more indicators to the HUD would actualy create more realism...

I dont know about others, but I feel surpression in the game. When I know an approach is covered by an MG and a sniper, and Im stuck with a MP40 about 200mtrs away from them, I definitly not gonna try and storm down there. And well, maybe its just me, but I "feel" something when I play. I still remember a clan-match we had once on Kessel. We lost the warehouses pretty fast, a short time later we lost NorthRail and Assembly, and we found us down to only the SouthRail with about 12min to go. Well, we hold the ground, but after this hell of a fight, I was shaking all over.......

...what actualy would add a more realistic feeling to the game IMO:
1) deal with clipping. Getting shot by people that (from your point of you) cant shoot you, coz their weapon is located behind a wall/sandbag/whatever is one of the most unrealistic "features" of RO and it killed the fun quite often for me.

2) sort the nades. The slightes bit of cover will save you from getting blown into peaces.

3) Improve the tank-damage-model: I dont know how many times I got killed by shells that actually bounced off my tank and still blew me up.


just a side-note:
* I couldnt jump over a sandbag.
* I couldnt stop my reload.

Stuff like that might be annoying here and there, but in the end, it slows the game down and seperates it from fast-paced, acarde-orientated shooters. Im quite happy that I dont see soldiers that jump 2 meters in the air for example, and the fact that you cant stop your reload as well as the fact that your ammo is stored "clip-by-clip" and not being added magicly to the last magazine you just used, makes you think first before you actualy press the button

 

[snakedude24]

I dont think that adding more indicators to the HUD would actualy create more realism...

Agreed. I personally play with no HUD - makes me feel like I'm an actual soldier.

I dont know about others, but I feel surpression in the game. When I know an approach is covered by an MG and a sniper, and Im stuck with a MP40 about 200mtrs away from them, I definitly not gonna try and storm down there. And well, maybe its just me, but I "feel" something when I play. I still remember a clan-match we had once on Kessel. We lost the warehouses pretty fast, a short time later we lost NorthRail and Assembly, and we found us down to only the SouthRail with about 12min to go. Well, we hold the ground, but after this hell of a fight, I was shaking all over.......

I agree. Sometimes suppression is just a state of mind. However, I would like to see the effects increased - right now, I can just say "**** it," get up, and plug a machine-gunner who is "suppressing" me. I don't like that.

...what actualy would add a more realistic feeling to the game IMO:
1) deal with clipping. Getting shot by people that (from your point of you) cant shoot you, coz their weapon is located behind a wall/sandbag/whatever is one of the most unrealistic "features" of RO and it killed the fun quite often for me.

True. I would also support moving the first person camera to eye-level - I'm tired of riflemen shooting me when all I can see is their helmet.

2) sort the nades. The slightes bit of cover will save you from getting blown into peaces.

Ahh... not exactly sure what you mean by this. Please clarify.

3) Improve the tank-damage-model: I dont know how many times I got killed by shells that actually bounced off my tank and still blew me up.

Well, definitely. I can't think of many people who would disagree with that *zips up flame-proof suit*

just a side-note:
* I couldnt jump over a sandbag.
* I couldnt stop my reload.

Yes, these are certainly problems. Both of these problems have been discussed to death - we are just hoping for Tripwire to come through for us.

Stuff like that might be annoying here and there, but in the end, it slows the game down and seperates it from fast-paced, acarde-orientated shooters. Im quite happy that I dont see soldiers that jump 2 meters in the air for example, and the fact that you cant stop your reload as well as the fact that your ammo is stored "clip-by-clip" and not being added magicly to the last magazine you just used, makes you think first before you actualy press the button

Well, you seem to contradict yourself regarding reloads, but whatever.


I would like to do everything *within reason* that I could pull off in real life.

That means NO to HUDs. It means YES to manteling, stopping reloads, etc.

 

[Teq]

I dont think that adding more indicators to the HUD would actualy create more realism...

I dont know about others, but I feel surpression in the game. When I know an approach is covered by an MG and a sniper, and Im stuck with a MP40 about 200mtrs away from them, I definitly not gonna try and storm down there. And well, maybe its just me, but I "feel" something when I play. I still remember a clan-match we had once on Kessel. We lost the warehouses pretty fast, a short time later we lost NorthRail and Assembly, and we found us down to only the SouthRail with about 12min to go. Well, we hold the ground, but after this hell of a fight, I was shaking all over.......

...what actualy would add a more realistic feeling to the game IMO:
1) deal with clipping. Getting shot by people that (from your point of you) cant shoot you, coz their weapon is located behind a wall/sandbag/whatever is one of the most unrealistic "features" of RO and it killed the fun quite often for me.

2) sort the nades. The slightes bit of cover will save you from getting blown into peaces.

3) Improve the tank-damage-model: I dont know how many times I got killed by shells that actually bounced off my tank and still blew me up.


just a side-note:
* I couldnt jump over a sandbag.
* I couldnt stop my reload.

Stuff like that might be annoying here and there, but in the end, it slows the game down and seperates it from fast-paced, acarde-orientated shooters. Im quite happy that I dont see soldiers that jump 2 meters in the air for example, and the fact that you cant stop your reload as well as the fact that your ammo is stored "clip-by-clip" and not being added magicly to the last magazine you just used, makes you think first before you actualy press the button

I know you feel the suppression, but I know alot more players who doesnt.
And thats the point.. if you feel it and others dont, you are stuck trying to survive while the rambos pour it at you..... and often sadly win...

Compared to real battles, RO is faar too fast phased...
Atleast in open fields.
And according to what you say, you think not being able to stop reloading helps with slowing down the phase...
and thats exactly what I want too...

My point in this article is to put a stop to this Rush and spray type of game play.
The chance of survival should be increased alot even for noobs.
Firefights should be lasting alot longer.
Thats what suppression will help you with.

There should be very difficult killing the enemy from the front... and as you all know, 90% of the ammo spent during WW2 was used for suppression fire.

The only way to really kill the enemy fast was:
a) To flush him out with support weapons (arty, tanks, mortar, flamethrower or sniper)
b) Suppress and flank him
c) Make him run out of ammo or reinforcements and rush him.

Regarding HUD, I agree to one point..
BUT You have to remember that in real life you can look down at your body to see how many clips you have left.
You can FEEL your stamina drain...
You can feel the pressure of the bullet impacts etc.

In RO you cant feel so something has to compesate for that.
WIthout an indicator it can be hard to understand how tired you really are... and you might rest too long or short cause you dont know when youre not tired anymore...
------------------------------------------------
Regarding nades: I think they are too effective. They had more suppression effect than killing effect I think. 1) because few dared to fuse them because of unstable fuse time 2) Because you could hear the fuse burning, smell the fuse smoke, AND most imporatly HEAR it landing. This gave u time to get away or down.

Clipping and stuff like that: totally Agree. PEnetration mut fixes that when its done.
See someone clipping in a window, shoot thru the wall.

Stopping reloads is a must. Realism is about be able to do what you can in real life.
Also not to be stopped from doing things that 90% people wound not do...
such as shooting back at an MG firing directly at you....