I have noticed a decline in the popularity of RO in the past while. I have been trying to think of ways to remedy this and incorporate more realistic team-based game play. I feel it is one of the most realistic games available but I also think that it could be improved to become even more realistic. I also think that it could become more focused on clan-based or team-based play. There are plenty of other, newer games out there with all the bells and whistles for the players who enjoy that type of thing (shoot-
"Realism" Clan Add-on?
- Thread starter [5.SS] Richter
- Start date
I think there's a hidden message here...
Anyway, I strongly disagree with number two. Why would you want to make them unrealistically inaccurate?
Upvote
0
Quote:
Originally Posted by [5.SS] Richter
I have noticed ... I have been ... focused on ... German ... SS ... dreams. Thanks.
I think there's a hidden message here...
Anyway, I strongly disagree with number two. Why would you want to make them unrealistically inaccurate?
Thanks for twisting my words, Yellonet.
Number two would not make them unrealistically inaccurate (they were very inaccurate) and it would eliminate running and gunning (spray and pray, etc...). A tactic that most realism players detest.
Upvote
0
Maybe because they are perfect weapons for run and gun and make the gameplay arcadish.Check accuracy of hipshots while running and crouching,point is you get no penalties while running(thus gunning) to your accuracy or no bonuses when you stop to shoot.But accuracy is worsened when moving with IS,that is why we see assault classes in game are always strafing back and forth while spraying.
This is a unique feature in FPS games except quake and Ut.Even in CS(most ppl here find that game "unrealistic") your accuracy is partially reduced on the move.
Upvote
0
Unless you're a real nazi you should just smile, becuase I was just joking with youThanks for twisting my words, Yellonet.
Upvote
0
Well as they're very inaccurate while moving then they should get increased accuracy while being stationary, not the other way around.
Do you really think that you can't hit anything if you move and shoot with a fully automatic weapon?
Upvote
0
In general, I agree with [5.SS] Richter except for # 11...
This suggestion would only work well in nearly FULL servers. If it were implemented, it would only be acceptable if the suggested changes were optional, to be controlled by the individual Server Admins.
12 is already part of the program to a large degree... your suggestions are leaning heavily toward Clan/Competition and not balanced toward both Public and Comp Servers. That is only a sure fire way to chase many RO players away.
Examples:
I honestly believe TripWire got it right.
This suggestion would only work well in nearly FULL servers. If it were implemented, it would only be acceptable if the suggested changes were optional, to be controlled by the individual Server Admins.
12 is already part of the program to a large degree... your suggestions are leaning heavily toward Clan/Competition and not balanced toward both Public and Comp Servers. That is only a sure fire way to chase many RO players away.
Examples:
- If there are 6-10 tanks available per side, than how many players would be necessary for each tank to be operated properly to be an effective battle wagon? Darn near a full server is required. Otherwise, adequate gameplay is out of the question.
- A position change animation would make that option expensive, resource-wise. Therefore, its unnecessary baggage.
- Slowing down a vehicle player exit would give unfair advantage to the Satchel/Faust foot soldier attempting to destroy the tank. Especially in a lightly populated server. Where the Tanker would have little or no protective infantry accompanying and protecting the Tank from foot soldier assault.
- Not all servers are FULLY POPULATED all the time... this must be seriously taken into consideration when overall changes are suggested. Also, all changes however minimal, must be made to be Server ADMIN options. Either on/off and/or multi-choice depending upon the optional changes offered.
I honestly believe TripWire got it right.
Upvote
0
#1: No! Never! Use the search function. Mediscs have been suggested a billion times before (plus/minus 10...) and we always came to the conclusion that we don't want them, we don't need them, and there occurence in RO would be unrealistic.
To me this sounds like an assumption that is based on the fact that automatic rifles in videogames are always less accurate and they do less damage than single shot rifles even if it doesn't make sense, because it helps to balance the weapons. As a realism clan player you should know that this is nonsense though.
Just so you know, smgs were invented to enable the soldiers to "run and gun" and they are hard enough to use in RO.
#3: Nope. In the official maps the loadouts are fine and if you have a problem with the loadouts of a custommap you have to contact the mapper.
#4: We don't need a reduction of throwing ranges. Its fine as it is. IF the killing radius was ever increased we need more exact calculations for the grenades than a blast radius. Shrapnels, body exposure, stuff like that.
Its not as easy as you suggested it.
#5: sure. why not. New vehicles are always nice.
#6, #7, #8, #9, #10:
No! The maps are balanced for the re-inforcements that are set for them. If you have a problem with these settings contact the mapper. The official maps are fine for the most part. Re-inforcements = lifes. Lifes for individual players would result in unfair situations, as smg players are destined to die more often than riflemen who tend to hang back instead of being in the thick of battle, up close with the enemy.
And the rest of these suggestions has nothing to do with "realism"...
Its something the mapper has to decide and if you don't like the map, contact the mapper!
#11: You DO know what the search function does? We definately need switching/entering/exiting times/animations, but this has been suggested more often than you used the search!
#12: search!!!
#13: I don't see the problem. Everyone can set up a campaign if he wants to. Why would you need the game to do this for you?
In fact it is even better if you do it on your own, because you are totally free then. You need a poland map, ok, just pretend that baskan valley was in poland. If this was done by the game we would have those realism-nazis all over the forum that it would be totally unrealistic...
#14: More realistic calculations are suggested all the time, but no one suggested sovjet superiority in numbers as of now... It would be stupid anyway, because this is a game afterall, so both sides should have equal chances to win on each map. I know there were missions which simply had to go wrong, but we don't need them in a multiplayer game.
Everytime I see such a huge bulk of suggestions by someone I don't know I'm sure right from the start, that those are suggestions that have been brought up a hundred times before, and most of the time I was right.
Take your time to read the stickies, use the search function and THEN present ONLY the ideas that are still left.
No one wants to read these chunks of text everytime someone comes over to enlighten us with his realism ideas, because we already read it a hundred times before, in threads that were dedicated to one suggestion and that contained a real discussion, which would be absolutely impossible in this thread for example, because we would have four people discussing point 5,7,9,14 and 6 people discussing point 1,4,8, and so on. You get my drift.
This is nothing personal and it wasn't meant half as harsh as it might sound, but its just something I wanted to say for quite a while.
Huh? Sources please... Why should a smg be more inaccurate than a rifle other than its reduced barrel length to make it more usable in close quarters?Thanks for twisting my words, Yellonet.
To me this sounds like an assumption that is based on the fact that automatic rifles in videogames are always less accurate and they do less damage than single shot rifles even if it doesn't make sense, because it helps to balance the weapons. As a realism clan player you should know that this is nonsense though.
Just so you know, smgs were invented to enable the soldiers to "run and gun" and they are hard enough to use in RO.
#3: Nope. In the official maps the loadouts are fine and if you have a problem with the loadouts of a custommap you have to contact the mapper.
#4: We don't need a reduction of throwing ranges. Its fine as it is. IF the killing radius was ever increased we need more exact calculations for the grenades than a blast radius. Shrapnels, body exposure, stuff like that.
Its not as easy as you suggested it.
#5: sure. why not. New vehicles are always nice.
#6, #7, #8, #9, #10:
No! The maps are balanced for the re-inforcements that are set for them. If you have a problem with these settings contact the mapper. The official maps are fine for the most part. Re-inforcements = lifes. Lifes for individual players would result in unfair situations, as smg players are destined to die more often than riflemen who tend to hang back instead of being in the thick of battle, up close with the enemy.
And the rest of these suggestions has nothing to do with "realism"...
Its something the mapper has to decide and if you don't like the map, contact the mapper!
#11: You DO know what the search function does? We definately need switching/entering/exiting times/animations, but this has been suggested more often than you used the search!
#12: search!!!
#13: I don't see the problem. Everyone can set up a campaign if he wants to. Why would you need the game to do this for you?
In fact it is even better if you do it on your own, because you are totally free then. You need a poland map, ok, just pretend that baskan valley was in poland. If this was done by the game we would have those realism-nazis all over the forum that it would be totally unrealistic...
#14: More realistic calculations are suggested all the time, but no one suggested sovjet superiority in numbers as of now... It would be stupid anyway, because this is a game afterall, so both sides should have equal chances to win on each map. I know there were missions which simply had to go wrong, but we don't need them in a multiplayer game.
Everytime I see such a huge bulk of suggestions by someone I don't know I'm sure right from the start, that those are suggestions that have been brought up a hundred times before, and most of the time I was right.
Take your time to read the stickies, use the search function and THEN present ONLY the ideas that are still left.
No one wants to read these chunks of text everytime someone comes over to enlighten us with his realism ideas, because we already read it a hundred times before, in threads that were dedicated to one suggestion and that contained a real discussion, which would be absolutely impossible in this thread for example, because we would have four people discussing point 5,7,9,14 and 6 people discussing point 1,4,8, and so on. You get my drift.
This is nothing personal and it wasn't meant half as harsh as it might sound, but its just something I wanted to say for quite a while.
Upvote
0
Unless you're a real nazi you should just smile, becuase I was just joking with you
I can assure you that I'm no Nazi and I was joking back.
I am just trying to suggust ways to improve (or what I see to be improvements) an already fantastic game. I would like to see both the game and the realism community built around it grow. Right now both seem to be stagnant. I feel that these things and more would help this even if it were to cost a few dollars more. I am also only talking about a patch for the realism community. I realize that most of these things would not be the best for public servers. Public servers could still run the current game while realism servers could run the realism patch (which isn't very likely to come about anyway).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
If anything the popularity is rising. Perhaps not in the "realism" realm, where the public interest has never been high.
Upvote
0
For me, this is sadly true. I find my self with mps way more often shoting, even on medium range, way more often from the hip, cause I can not garantue a hit with ironsights. Eeven with short bursts, i see the bullets landing very close to the enemy. As long the MP is not rested (for me at least) I just seem impossible for me. With rifles, I always can bet on there accuracy. Regardless the distance. As long the map is not really absulte close quarters (like Kessel, Krashny, Basovka trechnes) I prever a bolt/rifle over any mp. When I use the mp from hip, there is no 100% chance to hit the enemy, but I am at least moving way faster then with ironsights and have no real penalty on my accuracy, i got that way more kills then with ironsight. Its something I that disturbs me since the mod, but as long i can get the rifles, there are worst things. Since i do also get not very often killed by MPs on medium range.
Maybe I just sense it wrong, but for me MPs are not really a deadly or fearfull weapon in the game.
maybe cause the realism just has never been done "right".
I seen more people leaving frustrated this game, cause they got bored from tanks/infantry aspects that dont work realistic enough. I mean, the people that leave, cause they think the game is TOO hard and realistic, would leave in any case. The community is not that big, thats right. But the endless discussions about realism, the complaining on the servers, when there tiger got again destroyed on 1000m frontaly from a T34, or there shot bounced from the IS 2 for the fourth time and they got killed by his superior 12,2cm gun. Or beeing shot down by some "pop up" rifle wars etc. show me that there can be done much.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'm feeling the exactly same here, I hate MPs but when I use them I normally almost never use ISs I just crouch and keep shooting without using them at medium range. Sad. I almost always use rifles.
Upvote
0
When CoD first came out, it was a crappy game. With the UO add on it was much better. With GFM it was great. At least with RO:OST we are starting with a great game. If a few things were changed or the game was made easier to mod (currently the only way to change weapons or skins is to make the changes to the maps themselves), it could be the best most realistic and fantastic game ever.
Upvote
0
I just want to say that all of the guns that are used in this game were very accurate at the ranges used in this game. With exception of the pistols and panzerfausts of corse. All of the smgs machine guns semiauto rifles and rifles were accurate at 100meters or more. Now i dont mean they could hit a one inch target every time but they were effective enough to kill someone at that range fairly easy. Most of the time in this game on infantry maps your shooting at people at ranges a faction of that distance away. When your using a submachine gun aiming at a target the size of a full grown man thats 20-30 feet away you dont need to use iron sites to hit him. it would be fairly natrual point and shoot. kinda like throwing a ball at someone. just instinctive.
So yeah something like this change couldnt be called realism.
So yeah something like this change couldnt be called realism.
Upvote
0
The SMGs are fine. They're plenty in accurate especially when running. The only reason they don't seem inaccurate is because you're dying anyway. But I'll bet if you checked the number of rounds fired vs. the number of rounds that hit home, you'd see that the vast majority of rounds miss. Of course, it only takes a few hits to kill (sometimes just one).
Think of it this way. If I'm firing a weapon from about 30 feet away, and I'm pumping out anywhere between 450 and 900 rounds per minute (that's between 7 and 15 rounds per second) it's a good bet that if I hold down the trigger and just sort of wave the weapon in your general direction, I'll probably hit you with at least, oh, three bullets. So if I take, say, a PPSh with a 900rpm rate of fire, and I hold the trigger for 2 seconds, I'll have fired 30 rounds at you. Let's say only 2 hit you, but you're dead. The other 28 were wildly off target.
That's still a pretty inaccurate weapon.
As for adding in various server-side options for admins, I'm all for it, although I think you're asking for stuff that would require a lot more work by the mappers (IE: developing loadouts for each map based on timeframe). Plus, at least with maps that are supposed to be a specific battle, it's not really historically accurate to make "later/earlier war" versions of those maps unless there were additional fights at the location under the same general conditions.
Think of it this way. If I'm firing a weapon from about 30 feet away, and I'm pumping out anywhere between 450 and 900 rounds per minute (that's between 7 and 15 rounds per second) it's a good bet that if I hold down the trigger and just sort of wave the weapon in your general direction, I'll probably hit you with at least, oh, three bullets. So if I take, say, a PPSh with a 900rpm rate of fire, and I hold the trigger for 2 seconds, I'll have fired 30 rounds at you. Let's say only 2 hit you, but you're dead. The other 28 were wildly off target.
That's still a pretty inaccurate weapon.
As for adding in various server-side options for admins, I'm all for it, although I think you're asking for stuff that would require a lot more work by the mappers (IE: developing loadouts for each map based on timeframe). Plus, at least with maps that are supposed to be a specific battle, it's not really historically accurate to make "later/earlier war" versions of those maps unless there were additional fights at the location under the same general conditions.
Upvote
0
Some decent ideas there Richter.
Longevity is key in any game, moreso with realism clans/units.
COD2 running WRM was about as acceptable as realism got for that game.
RO has much more going for it in the realism gameplay sense, it would be a game for years if some type of realism clan mutator could be made.
Each server admin would be able to tweak the script to suit their own style of play.
Accuracy could be tweaked, weapon limits etc etc.
Longevity is key in any game, moreso with realism clans/units.
COD2 running WRM was about as acceptable as realism got for that game.
RO has much more going for it in the realism gameplay sense, it would be a game for years if some type of realism clan mutator could be made.
Each server admin would be able to tweak the script to suit their own style of play.
Accuracy could be tweaked, weapon limits etc etc.
Upvote
0
Thank you, Nagels. That was exactly what I was trying to get at. More ability to "tweak" built into the game itself. Maybe I shouldn't have used specific examples when I originally posted but just said the ability to "tweak", change or pick from a list the following: skins, weapon acurracy, etc...
More ability to "tweak" built into the game itself. Maybe I shouldn't have used specific examples when I originally posted but just said the ability to "tweak", change or pick from a list the following: skins, weapon acurracy, etc...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I too think that realism clans/units would be prepared to shell out mula for some type of tweakable mod.
Each clans server would be constantly visited by pubs who enjoy realism play and by other realism clans.
It would make for a superb community
Each clans server would be constantly visited by pubs who enjoy realism play and by other realism clans.
It would make for a superb community
Upvote
0
Maybe, but maybe not. While I'm all for giving server admins the ability to adjust gameplay along as many variables as possible, bear in mind that not everyone's notion of what is "realism" matches up.
In this discussion alone we've had a minor debate about the "realism" of SMG accuracy and usage in RO. Some folks view the SMGs as "noobish" and as being used unrealistically. Others say that the gun itself is fine. Personally, I think the gun is fine but the problem is with the user, and that's not something that tweaking server variables will help much. But then, I tend to think that the key is to make the equipment itself operate as realistically as possible, while accepting the fact that the PLAYERS won't necessarily USE said equipment realistically. I'm willing to accept unrealistic uses of the equipment, because the alternative (IE: altering equipment unrealistically to produce one person's notion of "realistic" gameplay) doesn't sit well with me.
That said, options are always a plus and allows folks to adjust. Just don't think that when a clan or admin changed settings everyone would say "Yes, this is realistic." Hell, I'm sure there's some people out there who think it's unrealistic that the Germans ever lose a round, so for them, realism is "All German equipment operates so well that Germans always win."
In this discussion alone we've had a minor debate about the "realism" of SMG accuracy and usage in RO. Some folks view the SMGs as "noobish" and as being used unrealistically. Others say that the gun itself is fine. Personally, I think the gun is fine but the problem is with the user, and that's not something that tweaking server variables will help much. But then, I tend to think that the key is to make the equipment itself operate as realistically as possible, while accepting the fact that the PLAYERS won't necessarily USE said equipment realistically. I'm willing to accept unrealistic uses of the equipment, because the alternative (IE: altering equipment unrealistically to produce one person's notion of "realistic" gameplay) doesn't sit well with me.
That said, options are always a plus and allows folks to adjust. Just don't think that when a clan or admin changed settings everyone would say "Yes, this is realistic." Hell, I'm sure there's some people out there who think it's unrealistic that the Germans ever lose a round, so for them, realism is "All German equipment operates so well that Germans always win."
Upvote
0
For smgs i'd vote for increased effectiveness when in ironsight mode. When you use a smg unrested in prone its awesome but rested or not in any other stance will let it kick to hell. Why not make a rested smg thesame as a unrested prone smg :\.
Upvote
0