Classic mode, a suitable name?

[Sulman]

Originally Posted by Mekhazzio

As far as I can recall from the last time I skimmed the code, the only actual new mechanic in all of Classic is the trigger lock on weapon state changes. Otherwise, it just tweaks some numbers on mechanics that it shares with Realism. None of what you listed is unique to Classic.

Claiming that Realism mode is poorly named is missing the entire heart of the debate about what "realism" even means. Classic's values for variables are objectively farther away from real-world estimates & measurements than Realism mode's, on pretty much any case-by-case basis.

Since Classic slows down the pace of the game, it puts player agency at a greater distance from results, so it's not even fair to call it a "hardcore" mode, especially since it doesn't have any of the sort of changes that FPS games have traditionally associated with that term, such as single-life play or drastically increased lethality.

TWI named the modes appropriately.

Opinion, opinion, opinion.

[CocaineInMyBrain]

Originally Posted by Sulman

Opinion, opinion, opinion.

Cmon .. At least try to dignify the man with a proper response. He has at least taken the time and effort to look over the actual code for his opinion, what exactly have you done?

[Mekhazzio]

Originally Posted by =GG= Mr Moe

If you are going to start to nitpick, then you can say the values in Realism are more accurate...

BUT

The resulting gameplay for Classic (because of its values) plays out more realistically. <--- I'm more interested in this.

Down that path lies eventual madness, though. By stacking arbitrary changes on top of each other, you run the risk of winding up with an end result that makes no sense whatsoever. You're much better off spending the time to identify and fix the flaws in the model that are the real source of the problem.

For instance, run speed. Classic got its sprint nerf because of people blaming run speed for "run & gun behavior", which is wrong on three levels:

• First, that behavior should be available to players; its existence isn't something that should be stamped out, or you're just watering down gameplay needlessly.
• Second, the reason people have issue with it isn't that it's there, but because its risk/reward ratio is totally out of whack. Reducing run speed doesn't even address that part of the equation. The root cause is the weak death penalty; as long as that's in play, your optimal choice is still going to be reckless behavior, it's just reckless behavior that takes a slightly different form. Problem not solved.
• Third, it's clearly unrealistic - even Realism's sprint settings are pretty conservative by any metric you care to choose, which means Classic's are pure fantasy. Seeing someone molasses-run isn't fantastic for immersion unless you're trying to shoot for a sci-fi stasis field effect

A little bit more design work can get you a real fix instead of a band-aid.

[Nikita]

Originally Posted by Mekhazzio

Down that path lies eventual madness, though. By stacking arbitrary changes on top of each other, you run the risk of winding up with an end result that makes no sense whatsoever. You're much better off spending the time to identify and fix the flaws in the model that are the real source of the problem.


For instance, run speed. Classic got its sprint nerf because of people blaming run speed for "run & gun behavior", which is wrong on three levels:

• First, that behavior should be available to players; its existence isn't something that should be stamped out, or you're just watering down gameplay needlessly.
• Second, the reason people have issue with it isn't that it's there, but because its risk/reward ratio is totally out of whack. Reducing run speed doesn't even address that part of the equation. The root cause is the weak death penalty; as long as that's in play, your optimal choice is still going to be reckless behavior, it's just reckless behavior that takes a slightly different form. Problem not solved.
• Third, it's clearly unrealistic - even Realism's sprint settings are pretty conservative by any metric you care to choose, which means Classic's are pure fantasy. Seeing someone molasses-run isn't fantastic for immersion unless you're trying to shoot for a sci-fi stasis field effect

A little bit more design work can get you a real fix instead of a band-aid.

Never liked Classic's run speed all that much myself, but we've been over this a thousand times.

Realism's speed is very believable over flat, hard ground. When we're talking slopes, stairs, snow, or mud, on the other hand, it's obviously a generous estimate.

Something in between Realism and Classic run speeds would have been my optimal choice, but that's just me.

Don't know if you've played Classic recently, but the run-and-gun problem is relieved by requiring someone to exit their sprint before raising their weapon. When you no longer enjoy a reasonable chance of being able to run into a building, snap your weapon up immediately, and mow down your enemies inside the next room, people behave more conservatively. You can still try to play that way and sometimes succeed--it's just not encouraged. Hardly stamped out--people certainly do try... they just die fairly often.

In addition, the slower run from spawn does actually increase the expected cost of risky behavior...

[TheRealGunther]

I have no problem with Realism's run speed its the total lack of fatigue penalties that I don't like.After sprinting 200 m then being highly accurate from any stance.In classic you have to have a strategic approach conserving some stamina to be able to fire accurately.You can still get those crazy shots it just takes some skill.In realism pretty much anyone who has played a fps before can be deadly due to its weapon handling.

In Ost/Classic the difference in a two year vet and a noob was light and day.In Realism not so much all they have to learn is the map and positions.I like Classic weapon handling because it adds more skill to the equation.Another thing that's VERY realistic is Classic adds momentum to a run and stop shot.A sec slower to ADS many people hate that but it is realistic.Less forgiving to new players true ....but more rewarding for people who has spent the time to learn it.

This to me is what is realistic not the speed itself realism speed is closer to real life I agree.With realism handling everyone is a crack shot tho ignoring fatigue and stance.Where as in classic only the players that conserve stamina and are prone or have a rested position are highly accurate.It just makes for a more tactical approach to the game instead of just charge and fire charge and fire.

Personally I think a custom setting has the best gameplay a combination of the two modes.Classic weapon handling with realism speed and 2x bandaging for example.I wish more servers ran a custom setting a happy medium between the two modes can be reached.

Off the top of my head the only two that come to mind that run custom settings is RGN and sBc servers.Most people would be surprised at the options server side that is available.

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Originally Posted by Mekhazzio

Down that path lies eventual madness, though. By stacking arbitrary changes on top of each other, you run the risk of winding up with an end result that makes no sense whatsoever. You're much better off spending the time to identify and fix the flaws in the model that are the real source of the problem.

For instance, run speed. Classic got its sprint nerf because of people blaming run speed for "run & gun behavior", which is wrong on three levels:

• First, that behavior should be available to players; its existence isn't something that should be stamped out, or you're just watering down gameplay needlessly.
• Second, the reason people have issue with it isn't that it's there, but because its risk/reward ratio is totally out of whack. Reducing run speed doesn't even address that part of the equation. The root cause is the weak death penalty; as long as that's in play, your optimal choice is still going to be reckless behavior, it's just reckless behavior that takes a slightly different form. Problem not solved.
• Third, it's clearly unrealistic - even Realism's sprint settings are pretty conservative by any metric you care to choose, which means Classic's are pure fantasy. Seeing someone molasses-run isn't fantastic for immersion unless you're trying to shoot for a sci-fi stasis field effect

A little bit more design work can get you a real fix instead of a band-aid.

No, you see (in this example) Realism running speed may be more accurate... on clear level open terrain than Classic. The game doesn't distinguish between slopes, steps and inclines, and weathered terrain such as mud and snow. While I may agree with you on a map like Spartanovka the running speed seems more natural in Realism, on Mamayev Classic feels so much better because, well you are slower running in snow. Realism can only go so far when a part of the equation is omitted (terrain type in this example).

Now I know you have looked at the code probably more than most, but the point some people are trying to say, have been saying, is that putting a bunch of accurate real world variables into the game doesn't necessarily lead to more accurate real world gameplay. That is all. As far as ROHOS is concerned, use accurate mechanisms and values where it appropriately portrays more accurate gameplay, and when it doesn't (unfortunately) you may have to 'nerf' some things to get more realistic behavior/gameplay out of the players. Very difficult I'm sure in a video game setting for a number of reasons (spawning etc).

Admittedly, there is a lot of opinion in what people claim is accurate gameplay. As I've stated previously, my own opinion lies somewhere between Realism and Classic as far as ROHOS is concerned.

[Mike_Nomad]

Originally Posted by =GG= Mr Moe

- - - snip - - -

Admittedly, there is a lot of opinion in what people claim is accurate gameplay. As I've stated previously, my own opinion lies somewhere between Realism and Classic as far as ROHOS is concerned.

+1 Agree completely.... This makes for excellent game play.

[Außengeist_GER]

All quiet on the Classic-Front it seems.

[Kleist]

What? I have played some hours on the OdW Classic Server (Germany) and it was nearly full (40 Player) i started at 5pm and stop at 9pm because i have to do some work, too

Today i was happy with the Classic Mode, i hope i will the that much more in the next time.

So keep on playing classic, the better realism mode

If there is no player online join a server and wait a few minutes, they will come and join you, and together you will enjoy a great game than

[Gopblin]

We've been over running debate many times. Three things that people didn't mention here yet:

1) A typical soldier carries 50-100 pounds battle load. It is a LOT harder to run in full kit, believe me.

2) Most soldiers in Stalingrad would've been subject to all sorts of detriments e.g. fatigue, undernourishment, bruises&sprains, shell shock, bad footwear, etc. etc.

3) Regardless of what a realistic run speed is, the maps are not a "realistic" size. Faster run speeds may be justified in ARMA from a gameplay perspective, but not here.

So, it is my opinion that slow run speeds are both realistic and good for gameplay.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

[CocaineInMyBrain]

Originally Posted by Gopblin

We've been over running debate many times. Three things that people didn't mention here yet:

1) A typical soldier carries 50-100 pounds battle load. It is a LOT harder to run in full kit, believe me.

2) Most soldiers in Stalingrad would've been subject to all sorts of detriments e.g. fatigue, undernourishment, bruises&sprains, shell shock, bad footwear, etc. etc.

3) Regardless of what a realistic run speed is, the maps are not a "realistic" size. Faster run speeds may be justified in ARMA from a gameplay perspective, but not here.

So, it is my opinion that slow run speeds are both realistic and good for gameplay.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

Again for true realism some of the points need to be fleshed out.

For example , soldiers didn't carry the same weight in equipment across the board, and certainly as the battle progressed equipment availability changes. Suppose a German unit ambushes a resting Russian one, said Russians would likely not have their full equipment on them. Thus movement speed should correspond with this change. Also in the same vein, by the time the Battle of Stalingrad was nearing its end, the Germans were indeed starving and frostbitten and this should be reflected in the game. But early on during the high tide of Operation Barbarossa and the early parts of Stalingrad this certainly wasn't the case, and should be reflected as such in the game. Unfortunately this would entail a lot of effort on the part of mappers and modders to make these changes on a map by map basis.

Your point about scale and movement speed relation is correct, but I believe the correct solution is to start move towards larger scale maps, instead of just gimping movement speed to match the small maps we have now. Of course this would require significant effort on mappers/modders, and TWI themselves to churn out the long-awaited APCs and light tanks. Again not the simplest solution, but I think it will end better than simply compromising on a temporary fix; which is what we got with Classic.

[HellsJanitor]

Originally Posted by Gopblin

We've been over running debate many times. Three things that people didn't mention here yet:

1) A typical soldier carries 50-100 pounds battle load. It is a LOT harder to run in full kit, believe me.

2) Most soldiers in Stalingrad would've been subject to all sorts of detriments e.g. fatigue, undernourishment, bruises&sprains, shell shock, bad footwear, etc. etc.

3) Regardless of what a realistic run speed is, the maps are not a "realistic" size. Faster run speeds may be justified in ARMA from a gameplay perspective, but not here.

So, it is my opinion that slow run speeds are both realistic and good for gameplay.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

I have to disagree with #1, agree with #2 and be neutral on #3.

Soldiers back then didn't carry 50-100lbs of gear... that is today's standard with body armor ect. The standard for the soviets would be around 30lbs +Gun, give or take.

On #3... I can see that point making sense on Grain Elevator, but not Winterwald or Bridges, or any other future big maps in the works (and lets be real, when vehicles arrive they will get bigger).

[Oldih]

Originally Posted by Gopblin

We've been over running debate many times. Three things that people didn't mention here yet:

1) A typical soldier carries 50-100 pounds battle load. It is a LOT harder to run in full kit, believe me.

Purely going by weight is bit misleading. Sure, there's a difference between carrying heavy load or not, or say full flak jacket and some engineering equipment, but arguably the same argument could be made of the French soldier back in Napoleonic wars. Accounting general gear, weight of clothes, balls, powder, other necessary stuff one might carry in rucksack\backpack\whatever, and suddenly we reach another 40-50 pound estimation, depending how much one likes to presume things. So did regular line infantryman (or even skirmisher) back in the day suddenly become incapable of moving around because of so much weight? To state the obvious: no. At least presuming the soldiers in question are in fairly decent shape, which has always been fairly common requirement over the centuries.

And besides that, it's not a modern invention to leave unnecessary equipment behind to fetch back later if it's necessary. Unless **** was really bad around the fan, you'd be looking hard to find your average Landser fighting in full marching gear compared to say, having only the very essential ammo, basic gear, and maybe few extra bottles of water than carry Tornister and greatcoat because it looks so great on a parade.

Originally Posted by Gopblin

3) Regardless of what a realistic run speed is, the maps are not a "realistic" size. Faster run speeds may be justified in ARMA from a gameplay perspective, but not here.

Difference is, you cannot sprint similar speed uphill or downhill in Arma whereas in RO2 there is no difference is it uphill, downhill, uneven ground, bogged ground, swamp, hip-deep in water and whatnot. When you move up some random stairs as fast as you move on open ground, well go figure.

[Gopblin]

I'll agree with you guys that the total weight of soldier's gear may sometimes be less than 50 pounds, although not by as much as you may think.

Remember even an RO2 soldier has:
Weapon = 10 lbs
Helmet = 5 lbs
2 DP/MG drums = 10 lbs
Ammo/drums/mags = ??
Backpack with water, food, first aid = ??
Shovel, grenades, pistol = ??

Regardless, even 30 pounds drops your run speed by a quarter or so as far as I can recall. At least over any decent distance. It's not just about the weight too, but the extra bulk and imbalance.

My point is that anyone who says "I could run faster than any RO soldier" means running without gear, in running shoes, on a flat track.

Make them run in full kit, after being injured&shellshocked in all sorts of ways, in boots that are falling apart, over broken bricks and mud - they'd be limited to slower, short dashes between pieces of cover, as it was IRL.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

[HellsJanitor]

Originally Posted by Gopblin

I'll agree with you guys that the total weight of soldier's gear may sometimes be less than 50 pounds, although not by as much as you may think.

Remember even an RO2 soldier has:
Weapon = 10 lbs
Helmet = 5 lbs
2 DP/MG drums = 10 lbs
Ammo/drums/mags = ??
Backpack with water, food, first aid = ??
Shovel, grenades, pistol = ??

Regardless, even 30 pounds drops your run speed by a quarter or so as far as I can recall. At least over any decent distance. It's not just about the weight too, but the extra bulk and imbalance.

My point is that anyone who says "I could run faster than any RO soldier" means running without gear, in running shoes, on a flat track.

Make them run in full kit, after being injured&shellshocked in all sorts of ways, in boots that are falling apart, over broken bricks and mud - they'd be limited to slower, short dashes between pieces of cover, as it was IRL.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

You see, this is where we get into the argument about what is too close to a simulator for comfort.
Making every soldier shell-shocked and slow is just something I don't see as having any benefit to the realism of the experience. There is a point where too much just makes it not fun.
Slower speed up stairs and hills I am fine with, but reducing the overall speed simply because there are bricks on the ground and (we assume) every soldier's boots are coming apart is simply the kind of variables we shouldn't (if we are even able to) account for.

I still believe that keeping the overall run speed and loadout of Realism with the increased Stamina recharge and other variables of Classic is the best way to go.

Your loadout variables seem a bit exaggerated as well.
Weapon - 9lbs (Mosin, Kar98K)
Helmet - 2lbs. I literally have a Soviet Ssh-40 helmet next to my desk; it is not 5lbs.
MG Drums/Disks - 10lbs, but these aren't apart of the standard loadout for troops. Shouldn't be accounted for IMO; they are a gameplay element boost.
Ammo - 5 lbs Riflemen; 9 clips of 5 rounds isn't very heavy.
Backpack - Varies. These don't seem to be apart of the RO soldier's loadout, and shouldn't be accounted for. I'd rather they assume these were kept behind the front line.
Bandages - 2 kits, 1lb total.
Shovel - Varies again. Most I would say is 5lbs.
Grenades - 2 each - 3lbs
Pistol - Isn't a standard issue weapon. CO issued weapon only, shouldn't be accounted for.
Canteen - 2lbs full.

Roughly ~22lbs. 37lbs if you want to count the MG Drums/Disks and Shovel.

I'd like to add that I've also gone to MilSim airsoft matches with similar weights of gear.
As long as it was all secured right, it didn't affect my run speed enough to slow me into a jog.

[Gopblin]

Well, we can agree to disagree about our "gut feelings" then. I feel that Classic movement makes tactics the most realistic.

Yes I can maybe run slightly faster than that even with WWII loadout (I currently own bunch of 91/30s, PPS43, SVT40, so I can estimate how hard weapons are to move with, but I'm not a reenactor so I don't know full weights of period gear), but since the maps are so small, and since soldiers are likely in worse shape than a well-fed uninjured guy, I think Classic speeds are appropriate.

Also, milsim/airsoft matches are great fun but tend to be held on relatively dry, flat terrain. I can tell you every time we tried to have a large match anywhere else we ended up having people trip and injure themselves.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

[HellsJanitor]

Originally Posted by Gopblin

Well, we can agree to disagree about our "gut feelings" then. I feel that Classic movement makes tactics the most realistic.

Yes I can maybe run slightly faster than that even with WWII loadout (I currently own bunch of 91/30s, PPS43, SVT40, so I can estimate how hard weapons are to move with, but I'm not a reenactor so I don't know full weights of period gear), but since the maps are so small, and since soldiers are likely in worse shape than a well-fed uninjured guy, I think Classic speeds are appropriate.

Also, milsim/airsoft matches are great fun but tend to be held on relatively dry, flat terrain. I can tell you every time we tried to have a large match anywhere else we ended up having people trip and injure themselves.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

But like I said previously, the maps are destined to get bigger once vehicles are introduced. For places like Apartments I can see your point though.

I actually played up in some mountains in southern New Hampshire.
Getting the injuries is the fun part of Airsoft.

Just curious.. but how do you like your SVT-40? I've been thinking of getting one for awhile. Either that or an M1 Garand.

[Gopblin]

It was really a no-brainer for me. Apart from my fondness for Russian weapons, there's another extremely good reason to choose SVT40.

They're both fine weapons, and M1 doesn't cost that much more. However, the cost of the rifle itself matters little - as long as you buy it at a good price, you'll likely sell it for the same money, so the net cost is essentially 0. What matters is a cost of the ammo, which you will not recuperate.

Currently even worse quality surplus 30-06 is about 2.5 times the price of 7.62x54R, so with my shooting habits I just can't justify feeding an M1 which doesn't do anything better than an SVT40. With the current panic, I think 7.62x54R is actually the cheapest battle rifle round, and SVT40s haven't been as badly affected by the panic pricing as other rifles in the caliber.
I would suggest either one of those or a VEPR in this caliber, PSL rifles are IMO inferior. You might want to wait for the panic to subside and save a couple hundred though. SVTs aren't on the ban list anyway .

PS. Also, "once vehicles are introduced"? It took the dev team many months to change the few lines in configs that were necessary to make the Classic mode, can you imagine how long it will take them to make a vehicle? The mod community is our only hope there I think.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

[HellsJanitor]

Originally Posted by Gopblin

It was really a no-brainer for me. Apart from my fondness for Russian weapons, there's another extremely good reason to choose SVT40.

They're both fine weapons, and M1 doesn't cost that much more. However, the cost of the rifle itself matters little - as long as you buy it at a good price, you'll likely sell it for the same money, so the net cost is essentially 0. What matters is a cost of the ammo, which you will not recuperate.

Currently even worse quality surplus 30-06 is about 2.5 times the price of 7.62x54R, so with my shooting habits I just can't justify feeding an M1 which doesn't do anything better than an SVT40. With the current panic, I think 7.62x54R is actually the cheapest battle rifle round, and SVT40s haven't been as badly affected by the panic pricing as other rifles in the caliber.
I would suggest either one of those or a VEPR in this caliber, PSL rifles are IMO inferior. You might want to wait for the panic to subside and save a couple hundred though. SVTs aren't on the ban list anyway .

PS. Also, "once vehicles are introduced"? It took the dev team many months to change the few lines in configs that were necessary to make the Classic mode, can you imagine how long it will take them to make a vehicle? The mod community is our only hope there I think.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

Good points. Though, in Canada, an SVT-40 is only about $400-600 where it's double that in the USA. However, an M1 Garand there is about $2000 or something ridiculous like that there.

Well, we know vehicle progress IS being done by the mod community. Once RS comes out I'm sure TWI will help them out.

[dogbadger]

Originally Posted by Gopblin

2) Most soldiers in Stalingrad would've been subject to all sorts of detriments e.g. fatigue, undernourishment, bruises&sprains, shell shock, bad footwear, etc. etc.

in that case maybe in realism your speed/stamina should decrease as you level up, a realistically feasable counter to the advantage you get with the weapon unlocks...