A look from both sides

[PanzerLeader]

Doesn't look like a piece of crap to me and seems about the same amount of kick in game with the muzzle lift. Would be nice to have the 3 round burst option in game though.

PPSh-41 - YouTube

The guy isn't showing you anything. Try looking for a video where he shows what he is shooting at. It is quite an eye opening experience.

By the way there are also numerous videos of the weapon jamming in videos just like the one you posted.

 

[the_Monk]

Great post OP!

My thoughts on this subject are as follows:

1. Symmetrical map-balance makes for boring gameplay. Allowing for multiple and different avenues of approach/defense for each side is what keeps gameplay and tactics fresh and exciting. Maps need to be as asymmetrical as possible and need only to be balanced using class-restrictions and number of reinforcements.

2. Symmetrical weapon-balance nerfs tactics and is the single biggest teamwork-killer out there. Make every weapon as effective as the next in any given situation and you'll have a bunch of lone-wolves running around spawning-running/killing-dying over and over the entire round. Weapons need to be balanced in the sense that each team has a counterpart to the other. The individual properties of the weapons need to be balanced by gameplay descisions and tactics of the individual player and NOT artificial stat equality.


When game DEVS make maps symmetrical what happens? Both teams rush to the centre of the map, duke it out for a few minutes (sometimes seconds), rinse and repeat. Maps in RO2 cause a natural "ebb/flow" of the action by NOT being symmetrical. This allows for intense firefights to start ANYWHERE on the map and not become focused on any one part of the map time and again. Absoultely each map should favour one or the other side which would have the pleasant side-effect of providing a huge sense of accomplishment to the side not favoured on said map having just pulled off a victory!

When game DEVS make weapons artificially stat-balanced you see spreadsheets about weapon stats and soon only certain weapons ever see any use because since every weapon is equally effective no matter which team you play for or which area of the map you're in why would you use a weapon with "inferior" stats? Having weapons that have different individual characteristics and stats means each individual needs to employ varied tactics and weapons to best move the team forward depending on the map area and type of weapons being faced in order to be successful. Of course one can always opt for an even greater challenge and take a bolt-action into CQB (I love doing that) to experience the thrill of knowing you really only have that 1 shot if you make contact with an enemy.


At the end of the day RO2 is about constant adjustment of playstyle and weapon choice if you want to get the most (and help the team) out of it. The maps and weapon classes in RO2 demand things of the player. Something not seen in other FPS's where the player customizes the game (ie. their character and weapon) to their whim and enters a symmetrical shooting gallery.

 

[nebsif]

Good post OP.

Imo the problem with SMGs is that u can insta sprint -> fire, other than that im really happy about the weapon approach in RO2.
Overall its like whining that a musket is too OP compared to a bow. >.<

In other realistic, or close to realistic damage & recoil FPS games like Project Reality PPSH w/ drum rapes modern Assault Rifles in CQB. Being able to dominate 1940 bolt action rifles under 100m is really common sense.. otherwise modern armies would still use them for non snipa roles.

Bolt guys should not forget they now have that zoom thingy and can pull off shots that would require weapon resting and perfect pixel on pixel aligning in RO1, unthankful nabs.

 

[MikkOwl]

RO2 is not a realistic game. Neither is RO1. A realistic war sim is a game you play, and the first time you die is also your last. You can never play the game again. [...] Realism is simply a core concept the game is built around. [...] Red Orchestra's realistic concept is that individuals are not supermen, stronger alone than whole armies.

Right, absolute realism would include everything from reality etc. And right, games have limited scope in what they wish to simulate from reality. I don't agree with what you say is the goal of Red Orchestra's simulation. From what they have said (at least from the rumor mill) and the way I always understood it, is they want the gunplay to be realistic foremost. They don't conform to this very strictly though. More on that further down my reply.

Weapons jamming is realistic, should we add that? Or tripping over? Maybe we should include a system that won't let you play the game until you wear a vest that simulates pain when you get shot? An enitrely realistic game would not be fun.

I love the first two ideas, but enduring actual physical pain ranks up there with having my arteries cut open. It would simulate aspects I don't care to experience. I realize anyone has his own opinions and preferences for what that encompasses.

Having said that, I think the game badly needs more realistic weapons handling. I am thinking about how to campaign for the introduction of weapon 'failure to feed/extract', dud cartridges and working out how best represent attempting to fix it. I.e. cycle the bolt, slam in the magazine, perform a reload action. Holding the reload button now performs a partial bolt cycle, to see if the magazine holds anymore cartridges. Real weapons jam. Different weapons have greatly different tendencies to jam, which is part of their strengths and weaknesses. A lower performing weapon (bolt action rifles) are vastly more reliable than the high performing self-loading rifles. An interesting trade-off and concept.

Tripping over would be awesome too. Would add many interesting, sometimes hilarious and frustrating moments. Imagine watchign someone about to throw a grenade at you and you are reloading your MG, and then watching him trip over his own feet, then struggling to quickly get up on his feet and retrieve the grenade that is now rolling a few meters in front of him. Boom. It could also lead to people getting lucky falling underneath a burst from an MG34. Lucky SOB. Preferably, like reality, the risk of tripping should be tied to what goes on. If being suppressed, panicky and dazed from a loud near explosion, it would make sense that tripping be more likely. Sprinting in thick smoke is an obvious huge risk since you can't see even where you put your feet. Certain surfaces. Being injured. Trying to RUN backwards over obstacles, or down stairs (crazy, no one would ever think to try that in reality). Heheh, I just thought of how interesting it would be to see one soldier trip over his prone (or dead) enemy.

The bolt-action rifle and it's impact upon the game. I started gaming with UT, playing instagib. I then moved to MoHAA, playing rifles only, followed by CoD1, rifles only then CoD2, rifles only. There's an elitism around rifles only.

I think the reason is not past player skill (as you suggest but I did not quote), but that bolt action rifles were historically by far what most soldiers had to make do with. They are allround the ****tiest weapons, hardest to use in 'most' situations (ranged stealthy combat not being one of them). To suck this fact up and dealing with it is to 'man it up'. Stoic. Avoiding resorting to crutches etc. Recognizing and adhering to WWII authenticism (a virtue among many who are interested in WWII sims - not surprising). Success with it is a display of superior skills. There are so many compelling reasons for people to promote the usage of bolt action rifles over the other types.

To cry for realism, then complain when using a bolt rifle that it's not possible to outgun players with automatic weapons at 50m is not logical. This is where TWI have the incredibly daunting task of balancing a game that is a representation of war, something that is by it's nature imbalanced.

I think the bolt action rifles are overpowered compared to the SMG in-game. The ammunition is far more destructive than reality and the ability to perform incredibly fast, dead accurate aimed shots enables doing heroic "peek around corner/over cover or 'just saw someone BLAM'" snap shots, much to the dismay of SMG:ers, sharpshooters and machinegunners.

The big issue here I believe is the skill floors for different weapons. If you were to take two players who up until now had next to no experience with first person shooters, and give one a bolt-rifle and the other an SMG, the player with the SMG would probably come out on top. This is almost certainly an accurate representation of the real world circa 1944

Not just that. Bolt-action rifles are inferior all-round weapons. They get worse performing the closer to the enemy one gets. The auto-loading rifles and Sub-machine guns are allround better performing designs in most ways. Learning to use a bolt-action rifle is not about learning to aim, but learning to stay far away from the enemy, to not enter buildings, to use cover and concealment.

[...] if a player joins a server and sees only the rifleman class available, he should always believe that taking that class will fill a role that is crucial to his team. If at any point a player joins the server and can't take any class other than rifleman and thinks "There is no point me playing", this is when the game has a serious balance issue. [...] Remember though, i'm a rifle elitist, so i'm always going to want my beloved bolt-rifles to be better. The nature of meta-game is that right now, it feels like SMGs are kings and bolt-rifles are placeholders until you can nab yourself a different weapon

Bolt-action rifles are the worst primary infantry small-arm (I am getting repetitive). But being the worst does not mean being without strengths. The strength is outrageous, instant accuracy and outrageously inflated killing power. I'm always happy to play with them and I don't feel like I am at a real disadvantage - as long as I keep a healthy distance between myself and the enemy. Finding myself in room to room combat and I feel like it is so useless as a firearm I might as well just try to use it as a melee weapon rather than tempt fate with an aimed shot.

The knowledge of this, is what should be relayed to everyone playing the game. Then they may not feel left out when getting issued these rifles. I almost never bother with picking up another weapon when having a bolt-action btw. I don't know where that weapon has been. Icky. Btw are picked up weapons always with full magazine and spare ammo? Seems like it to me.

[...]I think bolt-rifles should always kill, with the exception of shots to extremities (Although rounds should penertrate arms and then chests, so shooting someone in the arm from the side should still enter their chest and kill them)..

I disagree. I say whatever is realistic,but with the exception of simply having people die instead of being a casualty. It's no fun for them nor much for me if they are unable to carry on the fight in a meaningful way. Currently the rifle rounds are over the top powerful. Death is instantaneous during most hits. Where they land doesn't seem to matter much.

In reality people get various levels of wounds. Many lead to death. But death through bleeding out. Which takes a few minutes, even when shot in the heart. Normally when a person gets shot terminally, they are able to go on doing things as normal for a few minutes until they pass out and die. The immediate reaction to expect from someone who is shot twice through the heart with 45 hollow-points is.. nothing special. Creepy. Always hoped this form of death could be mercifully quick, but it is not.

Reducing the killing power of the rifles would make the rifles worse. But put in jamming and they suddenly gain some of that back. Put in splinters/spalling from hits to stuff near them. Put in injury to arms. And being able to damage/destroy a weapon by hitting it. Stuff that happens more easily with aimed rifle shots.

 

[Sir Roderick]

Ok, so I read your post all the way and there are a few point I would like to reply to. I would like to stress that realism is actually a very valid
concern. Taken from the homepage overview:

...Cutting edge graphics and audio built on Unreal Engine 3, inventive features and streamlined realism will deliver an unrivaled WWII experience.

Yes, you can point out "streamlined", but certainly the game positions itself as a more-or-less realistic game. So if it is practical to do so and not detrimental in a serious way to the actual gameplay, more realism should definately be considered positive.

Making a game more accessable doesn't mean it's a bad game. Or dumbed down. If new players don't join in, the community only gets smaller, producing the games demanded becomes less profitable and companies start to drop out from developing. Right now it might seem awful that a bunch of new players are in the game, running and gunning, but in a few weeks when the playerbase starts to improve, learning the maps and mechanics, getting to that point where unspoken teamwork starts to gel together and flow, these types of players will start to get cut down fast. What happens then, is they either get bored and quit the game, or they try and improve and the community grows.

Perhaps you phrased this a bit confusingly, but as it stands now it doesn't make any sense. You appeal to a wider audience to attract more players, so that your game is more profitable, ok agreed. But then you argue that the new players are going to be leaving in short while anyway because they'll get bored. What's the point then exactly? Your playerbase is still the same size. I'm probably missing something here.

I would also like to say that most people, myself included, don't care about the fact that they are making the game more appealing to a wider audience. But rather the means through which they do so, things like unlocks etc. I feel it detracts from the overall game.

There's a lot of talk about realism. That TWI have upped the realism, or removed it. RO2 is not a realistic game. Neither is RO1. A realistic war sim is a game you play, and the first time you die is also your last. You can never play the game again. Weapons jamming is realistic, should we add that? Or tripping over? Maybe we should include a system that won't let you play the game until you wear a vest that simulates pain when you get shot?

I'm pretty sure there's a proper term for it, but I can't recall at this time. What your doing here is taking an opponent's argument and exagerating it into absurdity. Noone is saying he wants total realism, but a lot of people want the balance to be further towards realism than it is now. Entirely different situation.

And actually, I would like to see weapon jamming.

The Total War games attempt to realistcally simulate politics, economics, logistics etc and how they affect warfare of various periods in history.

There's only one thing to say to this,
Unrelated to the current argument of course, but I really do hope you haven't played the games, they are no where near realistic. I love them, but they are ridiculously unrealistic.

and when we can't perform exactly like we did in previous games (RO1 included), there's a tendency to believe there is something wrong with the game itself instead of our own inability, or unwillingness, to learn and adapt. To cry for realism, then complain when using a bolt rifle that it's not possible to outgun players with automatic weapons at 50m is not logical. This is where TWI have the incredibly daunting task of balancing a game that is a representation of war, something that is by it's nature imbalanced.

Has nothing to do with it. The reason myself and many other people want to see a balance towards more rifles is because it makes sense. (The under 50m argument btw, I have no idea where you get that impression. I haven't seen it come up.)

As I said before, I'd like a game close to realism. A game where the notion of being true to reality where it's practical is a high priority. The current ratio of SMG's/rifles is quite simply not realistic at all. That's the main reason, not because it might make playing rifles more challenging.

Some believe the automatic weapons should be less accurate or do less damage, to balance them against bolt weapons, whereas the other side believe that reducing the amount of automatic weapons as they perform now is a more faithful to history way of balancing the weapons.

Considering the fact that in reality, automatic weapons were both fewer in number and actually WERE less accurate and less damaging, I'd say both. Although accuracy currently is probably fine, there are just too many of them. I mean most of the time the majority of the team can take up an SMG, which is just not realistic at all.

I mean why WOULD you allow so many automatic weapons? I can't think of any.

I agree with the mention of rifle lethality.

Hope that was reasonable and civil enough for you

 

[nebsif]

Actually.. weapon jamming and maybe, maybe even tripping once a while could be epic. xD
Weapon reliability can be just as important "stat" IRL as recoil, accuracy and stopping power, and probably the only area where bolts are much better than semi auto rifles (the ones that we ingame).