Action Mode Thread - Part 2

[FBOTheLiuetenant]

The first time I saw this I thought it was just a late April Fools joke.

But if TW employees want to experiment and broaden the game, that is all good. I'll simply not touch it with a 10 foot bayonet.

[Torio]

Originally Posted by FBOTheLiuetenant

The first time I saw this I thought it was just a late April Fools joke.

But if TW employees want to experiment and broaden the game, that is all good. I'll simply not touch it with a 10 foot bayonet.

Indeed the ten foot bayonets should stay in Action mode. I WANT ONE!

[Rak]

I was waiting for the Jetpack addon but sadly TWI closed it's thread in suggestion forums, it was such a great idea.

[Papa Lazarou]

Originally Posted by Rak

I was waiting for the Jetpack addon but sadly TWI closed it's thread in suggestion forums, it was such a great idea.

Red Orchestra: Secret Weapons of WW2

[RAF_Pstyle]

Yoshiro,

No harm in adding extra features, particularly if they don't require any development time.. however,

I think the "modes" (action, realism, yadda yadda) is a little bit redundant, with respect to the pragmatics of how this plays out server side.

Aren't server operators going to simply select the set of realism options that they feel best attracts the right player base anyway? This might not match the particular set of options that TWI has placed within each "mode".

My suggestion would be to do away with the "modes" and simply allow full control of realism settings server side.

If you really wanted to distinguish servers based on some kind of realism "rating", allocate a % score to each realism option and then let the "realism" rating of the server reflect that score.

[ueber]

Originally Posted by Rak

I was waiting for the Jetpack addon but sadly TWI closed it's thread in suggestion forums, it was such a great idea.

Maybe we should put RC russian mine dogs back on the agenda!

[Cyper]

If people want this action mode - sure. But I don't think its the right time to focus on this now. Regarding the mode I'll do a nomad: whatever...

Personally, I'll get some action with far cry 3.

[Vapid]

John's quiet - has he hanged himself? I just feel embarrassed at this point. There's no point me lurking around here simply to make negative comments (as many tend to) so I'll just say thank you and good bye. This really isn't what I wanted in this game.

Good luck with your future endeavours; I might hop back on a server or two if and when we get more vehicles.

[Rak]

Originally Posted by ueber

Maybe we should put RC russian mine dogs back on the agenda!

Why not as an engineer unlock?

BTW an idea, why don't you remove commander/squad leader etc. from the Action mode and give his abilities as "killstreaks" to players? I mean getting recon plane for 5 kills, mortar barrage for 10 kills, artillery for 15 kills. They are already in the game and surely will be easy to implement?

Also please make XP winnings visual so we can learn how many XP we've earned by looking at the player we've shot. Some perks such as ninja/steady aim could also make other shooter fans feel at home.

Possibilities with the new mode is endless! I'm excited.

[Dr.Phibles]

there just testing something a member of the devs made in his spare time stop being so sarcastically whiny I personally hope this over rites relaxed realism mode so more servers go full realism and we all get the RO2 we want.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by Rak

...
Also please make XP winnings visual so we can learn how many XP we've earned by looking at the player we've shot. ...

Visual? I want the full experience. I want to hear the sound of gold coins tinkling into my virtual ego basket.

[MarioBava]

Originally Posted by RAF_Pstyle

Yoshiro,

No harm in adding extra features, particularly if they don't require any development time.. however,

I think the "modes" (action, realism, yadda yadda) is a little bit redundant, with respect to the pragmatics of how this plays out server side.

Aren't server operators going to simply select the set of realism options that they feel best attracts the right player base anyway? This might not match the particular set of options that TWI has placed within each "mode".

My suggestion would be to do away with the "modes" and simply allow full control of realism settings server side.

I think this is pretty much what they are trying to do, the philosophy that's at work here. The "Action mode" distinction just adds two or three of those settings that round out the spectrum from Classic through Realism to Action to give more choice for custom server settings. Devs have already said that most all the Classic mode additions are configurable so that servers can create their perfect hybrid of Realism and Classic, and I'm sure these three tweaks for "Action" mode would be the same. The "modes" are just stops on the dial, really, for admins that want to "set it and forget it" and not do too much fiddling with what would lie in between. I previously said it might be a way for TWI to wash their hands and throw them up and say "That's it, we clearly really can't figure out the perfect game for everyone here, so while we work on actual new content and bugfixes, we're also going to give you as many configurable options as we can on an even broader spectrum of what RO2 can be, and let the community settle into the RO2 that they want moving forward," but I don't think that's a bad approach, especially coming from a company birthed from modding.

Originally Posted by RAF_Pstyle

If you really wanted to distinguish servers based on some kind of realism "rating", allocate a % score to each realism option and then let the "realism" rating of the server reflect that score.

Hypothetically I LOVE this idea, but it seems to have been well established by the forums that we have a philosophical problem with how to define realism in the game. Whatever the original intentions of the devs with "relaxed" vs "realism", the spectrum we have now is not necessarily a true realism continuum anymore since "Classic" introduces unrealistic options even though it appears to be the "opposite" mode to "Action" (which is also partly unrealistic, but to the other extreme). Also, forum-goers would quibble endlessly over whether particular settings have the proper weight on such a scale. Is Classic mode more realistic because of the tactical feeling some get, or is it more realistic to model such things as fov compensation and run speed on norms closer to actuality of gun effective ranges and soldier performance? I think there will always be disagreement over those ideas.

Alternatively, your idea could be conceived as percents of each mode's default setup rather than a scale of how realistic the settings are. Server info could display at a glance for example, this server is running 100% of default Classic mode settings, or this server is 90% Classic, 10% Realism, or 100% Realism, or 75% realism, 10% Classic, and 15% Action. That type of thing. Another click on the percent info could display all settings in detail. I think that would work really well.

[Raneman]

If Tripwire really wants a new audience, aren't there better option for audiences to attract then ADHD Cawadoody kids?

Why not try to attract the FH and RNL and such crowds?

[RAF_Pstyle]

Originally Posted by MarioBava

Server info could display at a glance for example, this server is running 100% of default Classic mode settings, or this server is 90% Classic, 10% Realism, or 100% Realism, or 75% realism, 10% Classic, and 15% Action. That type of thing. Another click on the percent info could display all settings in detail. I think that would work really well.

Nice suggestion.

In addition maybe TWI could replace the term "realism" with "difficulty" and that should help calm a few expectations and prevent some forum rants, especially given (as you say) that some features in the higher difficulty modes are not strictly "realism"..

[Fishsticks]

Originally Posted by Raneman

Why not try to attract the FH and RNL and such crowds?

Because there is absolutely no payout in attracting all 5 of those players.

[ButchCassidy]

Originally Posted by Yoshiro

The first thread seems to be broken. http://forums.tripwireinteractive.co...ad.php?t=77940 (Page 19 is not loading) . Please continue the discussion here.

Long story - Short Version:

Action mode is an experiment that would replace Relaxed Realism with an even more casual mode. It was created over a weekend in a coders spare time and no RO 2 development time has been lost.

It features:

• Addition of crosshairs
• Removal of freeaim
• Reduced weapon damage

This experiment is designed to help us see if this is worth pursuing for those who tried RO 2 and still found it too hard to get into.

I think its a worthy experiment..
I personally think that "action" mode should be a pretty long way from Classic..Allowing new gamers to ease into the game and if they find themselves enjoying it would allow them to move into a much tougher gaming experience be it realism or classic..

Afterall not everyone enjoys being thrown to the lions and then ripped apart during the first couple of hours of playing a new game.
Making things easier for first timers and allowing them to grow into the game is surely of benefit to the overall playerbase and the community.
With players who are more used to arcade shooters like COD or BF3 (and their are many hundereds of thousands of them) it could offer them a chance to get to grips with the basics of an RO game and also offer them further steps beyond action mode should they choose to take them..

If we did not take a few chances now and again we would all still be throwing rocks at each other..or could they be virtual rocks..

[greenlemonade]

Then I'll say this again.

I've introduced RO2 to a lot of people and the most common reaction is:
"There's a lot of stuff to take in all at once. Hard to learn at first."


Even in Action mode, RO2 has plenty of things you don't see in CoD and others these days:

Realistic recoil
Heart Shots
Class Restrictions
Shift hold breath/zoom
Bleeding out (much different from "last stand" or whatever)
Suppression (big one there)
"Flinching" from close bullets
First-person cover system/blind fire
Bracing weapons (weapon collision)
Dial-in sights
64 person servers
MUCH larger, open battlefields
Limited Re-enforcements
Spawning in waves
More realistic tanks
Dynamic MG deployment (we did see this in a few games, but never done right)
WW2 Eastern Front (rarely done, especially in recent years)
Commander role


So even with the "training-wheels" of:
Cross-hair/no free-aim (Minimal compared to other games. Still NEED ADS for precision)
Faster pace (Still not as fast as COD)
More health (but still not as much as the super-humans in COD and it doesn't "regenerate")


New players in Action mode have a LOT of unique features to enjoy.

[melipone]

I don't see why you need to alter core elements like remove freeaim in order to attract more players. This is one of the things that makes RO unique, and it probably just needs to be explained to the player better.

There could be Multiplayer Tutorial mode that you can access from the main menu that explains the free aim mechanic and allows you to experiment with it a bit. There will be people who won't do the single player but might click on a "multiplayer tutorial" on the main menu that would explain the mechanics of the game and overall goal for the player. A part of the tutorial could be to actually match new players together in a small territory map

Some kind of Ranked server mode could exist too that only allows players of <10 rank to join.

You could have matchmaking that tries to assess a players ability based on stats obtained, like average teamwork points, average KPD, how long they played etc. I just noticed for the first time that the beta has "instant match"..that could work well

There are lots of options to ease players into the game without cutting out large chunks of what makes it unique imo

[MarioBava]

Originally Posted by greenlemonade

Then I'll say this again.

....

New players in Action mode have a LOT of unique features to enjoy.

I think you make a very good point.

[Papa Lazarou]

Originally Posted by melipone

I don't see why you need to alter core elements like remove freeaim in order to attract more players. This is one of the things that makes RO unique, and it probably just needs to be explained to the player better.

There could be Multiplayer Tutorial mode that you can access from the main menu that explains the free aim mechanic and allows you to experiment with it a bit. There will be people who won't do the single player but might click on a "multiplayer tutorial" on the main menu that would explain the mechanics of the game and overall goal for the player. A part of the tutorial could be to actually match new players together in a small territory map

Some kind of Ranked server mode could exist too that only allows players of <10 rank to join.

You could have matchmaking that tries to assess a players ability based on stats obtained, like average teamwork points, average KPD, how long they played etc. I just noticed for the first time that the beta has "instant match"..that could work well

There are lots of options to ease players into the game without cutting out large chunks of what makes it unique imo

Completely agree.

A better tutorial would help new players way more than cutting out free aim, adding a crosshair and making weapons do less damage.