Into The Jungle

[Scum82]

In my humble opinion, there should just be a single realism mode. No one plays arcade/classic anymore except on free weekends when new players unknowingly happen to enter such servers.

[...]

Regarding IOM, I think its safe to say, players want LOUD explosions, LOUD gunfire sounds, and most of all, LOUD bullet cracks.

It should actually be a realism mode then. The word realism should not be thrown around like a softball because it is misleading. The Classic mode in RO2/RS is what I would actually call the Realism Mode. The "Realism" mode in RO2/RS should be called Casual Mode. The Action mode in RO2/RS should be called Arcade Mode.

I'll try to explain myself a little better.
RO2's classic mode died its death I think due to a number of things, not least the launch of RO2 putting off a lot of old vets. IOM is a bit more then just lots of loud bangs and bullet cracks, it adds a whole load of extras that are essentially "classic mode+" if you will, plus it makes it so maps only have contextual weapons for the scenario. 1941 / early 1942 maps will not have an MG42 for example and 1944 maps will most likely skimp on PPDs due to them being outdated. It lacks the zoom and enhances the Suppression as well as changing the mechanics for grenades.

IOM spiel aside I would say two modes in this context would be a good idea in the long run. Normal mode being like RO2's realism now, having the unlocks, leveling and weapons without context thrown in e.g. the fuss over the 30 round magazines being there, which I guess are a level 25 unlock. This can be countered with a "Hardcore realism" mode more akin to IOM or something like it with louder sonic cracks, louder explosions, historically contextual weapons (a 1967 map wont have 30 round mags), slower movement, lower / no zoom and other such things.

Maybe also think about the names of the modes. I imagine most players went for "Realism" as that sounds the most exciting. "Classic" to a new player quite possibly has no meaning and, without experiencing RO1, has no context. Most people will gravitate toward "Normal mode" I think, but "Hardcore realism" or something similar sounds exciting in its own right.

I'm all for ditching action mode though. That thing did not seem to appeal to anyone.

 

[Bane5]

*snip*

From your description, I'd go with "Realism" and "Historical"

I would add to that. They should change the pace of fighting fundamentally and not just be minor game-play tweaks. These modes should be really and truly different. Realism would represent constant pitched combat all the time that RO2 currently provides. Historical having more of the focus on maneuver and slower combat that R01 vet reminisce about. As in the maps have different ticket counts/time etc under historical allowing people more time to plan attacks instead of charging in.

If such were the case, I would actually play both quite often. Would you agree as well?

something like it with louder sonic cracks, louder explosions ...... zoom

Anything regarding visuals/ambience needs to be the same among all modes. Just a minor nitpick. But regardless of what they do, some things like zoom/shooting mechanics just have to be unified among modes otherwise so many people will automatically not play the other. Stuff like no unlocks, less weapon choice is ok

 

[Scum82]

From your description, I'd go with "Realism" and "Historical"

The exact wording I'm not 100% fussed about, but so long as it is clear in its intention what the mode will provide. "Classic" sounded somewhat airy and dignified where "Realism" sounds gritty and ugly. So long as people can see that one mode is "This is like RO2 normally" and the other is "I'M GONNA GIVE YOU PTSD YOU WORM!"

I would add to that. They should change the pace of fighting fundamentally and not just be minor game-play tweaks. These modes should be really and truly different. Realism would represent constant pitched combat all the time that RO2 currently provides. Historical having more of the focus on maneuver and slower combat that R01 vet reminisce about. As in the maps have different ticket counts/time etc under historical allowing people more time to plan attacks instead of charging in.

If such were the case, I would actually play both quite often. Would you agree as well?

I would think that is a good way of doing something. Both modes need to be more distinct where a player can instantly see the diffrance rather than running about 20 meters and suddenly thinking "Wait, something about this mode is different. WTF is going on?"
On that I'll add:

Anything regarding visuals/ambience needs to be the same among all modes. Just a minor nitpick. But regardless of what they do, some things like zoom/shooting mechanics just have to be unified among modes otherwise so many people will automatically not play the other. Stuff like no unlocks, less weapon choice is ok

I'll differ there as, provided the IOM basis I'm running on is what is used (naturally this is forum speculation) IOM is both fasinating to players as it is offputting because of its changes. The following video was made during a session on Tuesday (of the week this post is being made) showing the way that the sound and suppression transforms the base RO2 experience:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0vJTNmngz0

From about 30 seconds in I start throwing grenades about. The extra impact in the sound and the suppression is a lot more intense than the regular game. If I were on my Highly decorated... any class in the vanilla game, those grenades would have been a lot quieter, caused no suppression at that range (or little suppression) and generally been a lot less loud and scary. There is no footage of it there, but on another match on Barracks I ran past the mounted MG facing towards A, a German was firing on me and a couple of other folks. Even if you were a 360 noscoper in that situation I would have liked to see anyone be able to turn and hit the MG shooter with how much the suppression would make the screen dance or even hear anything above the number of sonic cracks going off.
I love that, and most people who still play the mod also love it. I do know there are a lot of people who utterly hate it and don't touch the mod as a result.

Essentially I'm thinking about both trying to attract a number of people who would love the brutality of a harder mode / disappointed RO1 vets and simultaneously keep the RO2 style experience for the silent majority.

Regardless this is all hearsay, but if it helps the devs at all in their decision making all is well.

 

[Bane5]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0vJTNmngz0

Wow That screen shake and new suppression system in IOM 1.15 really does wonders.

 

[LugNut]

If there is a video that summarizes the experience many folks associate with RO2, its this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2qOFBulGTg&feature=youtu.be

One of the top comments is: "This is some Red Orchestra **** right here. Love it!"

Many people like the pitched constant combat, its lethality and deadliness. Its the morbid atmosphere, the screams, the yells--pleading with God not to die, crying for one's parents, choking on blood, the constant gunfire, the futility, the sad music, watching so many around you get gunned down. Many who have grown up on RO2 love it. This is one of your best selling points Tripwire. Don't stray from this. The small trends with Rising Storm 1 has me worried that you are going with a more upbeat theme with the music and all.

Sorry, that video, while that's the type of gameplay that I enjoy, is very unlike the gamplay I experience in RO2. Since there is no squad cohesion, there is very little coordinated movement under suppressive fire except on a team level and generally tied into arty. Plus, since the ever present timer is running, there are no pauses in the fighting where people coordinate, it's pretty much rush the caps nonstop until you win or lose.

Much of that scenario reminded me of Apts or grain elevator in environment, except in RO2, if you were that german squad, you all would have been dead in 2 seconds, or your MG'er would have been leading the charge up the stairs in a full sprint.

Don't get me wrong, I think RO2 did a great job with the sounds and weapon handling, but the pace is too high for my tastes.

Regardless, as much as I like the feel of IOM and Classic before it, it seems silly to expect significant changes to the gameplay design of RS2. Why would the devs waste time and money on a "hardcore" mode when no one played it in the past or currently? Why would they make big changes that would alienate their playerbase? Why screw up a winning formula?

I'm sure they will fix and change some things to make coordination better, maybe even change how spawns are deployed, but the pace will stay the same, the objective layout and map size and design will be familiar, because people like it. Plus, there's limits placed by the engine. Hopefully, a little more "realism" will be added, variable movement speeds based on terrain, a little less zoom, things like that, but I wouldn't expect any abrut and major changes.

 

[Nilsson]

Movement , weapon handling and supression should stay at the same value for all modes.

Normal mode should have unlocks, historic mode should only have the historic correct weapons.

I would rather have these loadouts ( and maybe roles) as a server side option so that all play one mode.

For the movement I would like faster stamina reduction in water, uphill moving and moving through the jungle. Normal speed on roads and places were you go in real life.

 

[Nilsson]

On the topic of squad based gameplay.

1.Suggestion: make respawn a squad thing. Say you always spawn on sls but when he is dead you spawn on your squad position.

Example: You have an 8 men squad and attack. 4 guys get killed (inl Sl) the other 4 stay togehter and take cover. Now you can respawn on them.

2.Suggestion: make "respawn tickets" for squads. These respawn ticket only influence the abilltiy to spawn on your squad not the overall team tickets.
They refresh with time. So for the example above you start with 8 and lose 4 as the 4 killed players respawn. Now the respawntickets stand at 4. They will go up after a set time, maybe 45 sec. In the next 30sec 6 players get killed. Now only 4 of them can spawn on the squad while the others have to spawn further back.

Variations/additons:
-If a player survies 90 sec without getting killed the squad gets one addtional respawn ticket.

-If a squad loses all respawntickets they get a 45sec ban on respawn on squad. This should simulate a failed attack were the attacking squad got whipped out and the surviors hav to fall back to regroup.

- Maybe respawn on squad is only an option when 3 people are together ( maybe in a 40m circlezone lilke the thing with banzai) or one sl+ one soldier

- the respanw on squad should encourage the sl to take more risks instead of hiding as a spawn point because the peolpe can spawn on a forward position even when he falls.

 

[dibbler67]

Sorry, that video, while that's the type of gameplay that I enjoy, is very unlike the gamplay I experience in RO2. Since there is no squad cohesion, there is very little coordinated movement under suppressive fire except on a team level and generally tied into arty. Plus, since the ever present timer is running, there are no pauses in the fighting where people coordinate, it's pretty much rush the caps nonstop until you win or lose.

Much of that scenario reminded me of Apts or grain elevator in environment, except in RO2, if you were that german squad, you all would have been dead in 2 seconds, or your MG'er would have been leading the charge up the stairs in a full sprint.

Don't get me wrong, I think RO2 did a great job with the sounds and weapon handling, but the pace is too high for my tastes.

Regardless, as much as I like the feel of IOM and Classic before it, it seems silly to expect significant changes to the gameplay design of RS2. Why would the devs waste time and money on a "hardcore" mode when no one played it in the past or currently? Why would they make big changes that would alienate their playerbase? Why screw up a winning formula?

I'm sure they will fix and change some things to make coordination better, maybe even change how spawns are deployed, but the pace will stay the same, the objective layout and map size and design will be familiar, because people like it. Plus, there's limits placed by the engine. Hopefully, a little more "realism" will be added, variable movement speeds based on terrain, a little less zoom, things like that, but I wouldn't expect any abrut and major changes.

In general, we are aiming to promote more defined firefights between players, enhancing and updating some of the core shooting mechanics.

 

[Bane5]

On the subject of Voip

On the subject of Voip

3D VOIP is something we'd all like to have, but while it is technically possible on UE3, it's a performance hit and a half that we're not sure is acceptable. That's not to say that it might not still happen (if for example, someone came up with a novel way of reducing the performance overhead), but I don't think I can get into any trouble by saying that it's not currently a thing at the time of writing.

Something I'm curious about. I understand that distance traces are computationally demanding given that the distance formula is [((x2-x1)^2+(y2-y1)^2+(z2-z1)^2)^0.5], calculating all those exponents requires many many many cycles of division and in turn a single instance of division requires many instances of addition, but why not just make the VOIP not be a circular radius and just be a square instead?

The formula would just be checking if [abs(x2-x1) < value] || [abs (y2-y1) < value] || [abs(z2-z1) < value]?

The result being just 6 single cycles (absolute value is just an XOR then subtraction) of simple addition per player which should be extremely low in terms of resource cost? I study Integrated Circuit design and know the architecture behind how logarithms/exponents are generated on hardware.

If the square is small enough, it wouldn't be noticeable that the chat distance varies sometimes.

Or is there something else that makes it prohibitive?

 

[jalex3]

Are there any plans to change the cover system, or will it be returning as is?

 

[Bane5]

A new way to handle recoil

A new way to handle recoil

In general, we are aiming to promote more defined firefights between players, enhancing and updating some of the core shooting mechanics. .... But for face-to-face engagements at normal combat ranges, a little more thought, practice and skill may be needed. Easy to use and understand, a need for calm under fire, but still deadly.

Recently, I've spent a lot of time thinking how to make shooting harder without removing zoom (no zoom is really unrealistic eye resolving power). When a video-game tries to make shooting hard they do 1 of 4 things generally:

1). Make bullets not go straight (cone of fire) which is obviously unrealistic.
2). Implement arbitrary weapon sway at all times when aiming which generally is unrealistic as well.
3). Make recoil extremely large as in deviate your screen such that you're looking at the sky after a few shots. This is also unrealistic as weapons don't have that much recoil.
4). Make the aim down sights view zoomed out such that a person at 50 meters appear smaller at that distance than he would in real life. (i.e. no zoom/big FOV)

I'm going to propose a 5th option:

From watching people try to aim in slow motion while firing, there is something I've noticed. When a person is firing an automatic weapon, oftentimes, they have to adjust the direction they swing the weapon multiple times because their grip isn't perfect.

What I suggest is that recoil not be a single movement that goes up or down but rather a very quick sequence of movements. For example, in-game right now, firing a bullet is usually might be just 3 degrees up, and 1 degree right.

Imagine if instead, a single shot was 3 degrees up, 1 degree right, then 1 degree down, and 0.25 degrees left, then 0.25 degrees up again. What this does is, recoil compensation is no longer just simply moving your mouse down at the correct rate. Instead this new system will force players to readjust their aim multiple times to lesser degrees representing an imperfect compensation with grip. Those who are skilled and calm shooters might be able to still manage shots before the next oscillations happen.

To summarize: make recoil a series of oscillations instead of just a single angle deviation. A plus side is that the recoil from higher ROF weapons become dynamically harder to control as the oscillations can overlap from multiple shots.

 

[Paulchen Panzer]

3). Make recoil extremely large as in deviate your screen such that you're looking at the sky after a few shots. This is also unrealistic as weapons don't have that much recoil.

Could they go with motion capturing in a shooting hall or factory and shot the weapons they`re going to use in the game? So they would have realistic recoil then i think? They place sensors on the weapons and on the motion actor - something like trackers with cameras - which are recording how recoil there is and how it`s looking. Or is this too realistic?

Would be cool or is this expansive?

 

[Bane5]

Could they go with motion capturing in a shooting hall or factory and shot the weapons they`re going to use in the game? So they would have realistic recoil then i think? They place sensors on the weapons and on the motion actor - something like trackers with cameras - which are recording how recoil there is and how it`s looking. Or is this too realistic?

Would be cool or is this expansive?

The devs can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is the problem of sight misalignment on the guns in real life which is difficult to handle well if at all in fps games. Motion capturing would include this sight misalignment. Most games from my understanding just key frame the recoil deviations to keep the sights aligned and use motion capture to animate stuff like barrel flexing, the magazine jiggling, extremely tiny vibrations, and all that stuff. Again correct me if I'm wrong.

Its rather hard to discuss this issue without more input from the devs. I need to play killing floor 2 again and look closely at how they managed recoil and whether the sights misalign when firing.

 

[foln]

The new squad system is currently being built with an emphasis toward playing with your friends, ease of cooperation/working with the rest of the squad and squad communications. This squad system should provide more

 

[nejcooo]

Wondering how much it's gonna cost. I'm guessing around same as KF2.

 

[Jerren]

I think the biggest aspect of darkest hour/ ro1 that I have heard people prefer was how open they were. And they didn't have red screen "out of bounds" punishment. So your squad to go behind enemy lines and take multiple paths. Squad does this well. RS and ro2 has an combat arena feel that is more linear. Hopefully rs2 will be more open. Honestly I hope the dev team studies what Squad did. It is truly ground breaking how their squad communication system is. And how maps are truly open without "get back or you will die" screens. But RS does other things better than squad, like combat and weapon mechanics and hit boxesx etc...

 

[Cwivey]

I think the biggest aspect of darkest hour/ ro1 that I have heard people prefer was how open they were. And they didn't have red screen "out of bounds" punishment...

They had "minefields" and spawn-killing instead.

 

[Jerren]

They had "minefields" and spawn-killing instead.

I'm not talking about out of bounds. I'm taking about how once a point is captured, in ro2 it forces you and your team to keep moving in a certain direction an won't let you go back or get behind enemy lines. If you do screen turns red. But Squad and darkest hour lets you go any direction in the map you want without penalty. It's much more fluid.

 

[aboveplebs]

You can spend one million on vehicle interiors.

Second million on map design.

Third million on sound design.

But this will never be an engaing combat experience without 3d voip. Pub servers will still be run 'n gun Call of Dooty style just with more swag. With 3d voip you can organize squads on the spot and it makes you feel like you're actually a soldier fulfilling a task and not a rambo that runs to a capture zone and dies.

The problem I see with all games that try to mimic war is that they don't punish player's death and they don't reward successful tactics.

You die and you respawn within seconds, at this point CS:GO gives me more chills and adrenaline rush because if I die I have to sit on my bottom parts till the round ends. Without rounds system there is no tactic depth either, how can you plan anything, hide anywhere if the guy who you just killed is coming back with a vendetta in next 30 seconds?

Another thing is that in a real war you really DON'T want to be there but in a game you feel like a superhero so again - rounds instead of 5 seconds respawns.

I know that you will cry about waiting for the next round but what's sweeter than making a last stand with your bolt action against 5 soviets?

 

[PoisonStrudel]

You have to remember that the maps in Squad/DH are big, Kilometer big. Unless RS2 drastically changes the gameplay style of RO2/RS then I don't think we'll see any big changes. They tried doing it with Arad in RO2, and look how that turned out.