That 'feeling'

[Gudenrath]

Originally Posted by greenlemonade

I think its nostalgia...

And a touch of the weapons being more deadly at longer ranges. The new change that makes weapon damage scale down at range will help a LOT.
No more instant deaths from SMG spam 200m away

Nope. Smgs are as deadly as ever on 200m ranges even with the new patch.

[greenlemonade]

Originally Posted by Gudenrath

Nope. Smgs are as deadly as ever on 200m ranges even with the new patch.

You've made that determination after how much gameplay?

Perhaps TW didn't nerf them at a distance, but the patch notes sure say they did. Are you talking about lucky 200m head shots? Those definitely shouldn't pierce a helmet at that range

[Panzer Jager '43]

SMG accuracy is pretty low. If you're making hits at 200m then your target is doing something very very very wrong.

[Devil_Inside]

I agree with TrOOper. Played ROOST and DH after ROHOS and it feels so clunky and limiting even though it seemed ok before.

[Floyd]

I'd have to go with the sound. In RO:Ost the arty was deafening and had substance, there were background battle sounds, and you weren't blurting out things uncontrollably. The sound had the feeling of expanse to it.

There are some excellent sounds in RO2. But I think it could use a little more 'grunge' and a little more punch.

[Nightingale]

I don't think that anything comes near as close to contributing to the Red Orchestra feeling as map size and layout. In Heroes of Stalingrad, nearly every map favours the SMGs in every single situation. There are no advantages to staying down and using your rifle to take potshots at the enemy, because there are simply no situations where this is a good idea. RO2 needs larger, flatter, maps with less cover and more distance to run across.

[MrHello]

Originally Posted by Nightingale

I don't think that anything comes near as close to contributing to the Red Orchestra feeling as map size and layout. In Heroes of Stalingrad, nearly every map favours the SMGs in every single situation. There are no advantages to staying down and using your rifle to take potshots at the enemy, because there are simply no situations where this is a good idea. RO2 needs larger, flatter, maps with less cover and more distance to run across.

Try the client-side hit detection and the new large map, it's great for this. SMGs have no chance.

[m_0_r_0_n]

Originally Posted by Proud_God

As an experiment, y'all should unbind your zoom key and put IS zoom to 0. You'd be surprised how much of the RO1 feeling returns.

How can I do that? I want to play it just with iron sight.

[Proud_God]

Originally Posted by m_0_r_0_n

How can I do that? I want to play it just with iron sight.

Op the ROGame.ini file (in My documents...RO2 folder...), search for 'zoom'. You have a line for rifle zoom, smg zoom and mg zoom. Put them on 0.

[Scarf Ace]

Originally Posted by Proud_God

You may not realize it, but it is the zoom! Zoom kills the illusion of you being on a battlefield (not saying there aren't benefits to zoom as well).

You're completely wrong. Pixel hunting was the single biggest flaw and immersion killer in RO1.

[Floyd]

One pixel hunts now. Its just at a longer range. I've never understood the pixel hunt argument. You are either pixel hunting with no zoom at 100m or pixel hunting at 200m with zoom. Either way, you're pixel hunting.

[u-s-e-r]

Nope, pixel hunting means that you dont see as far away as you would in real life, with the zoom, there were no pixel hunting.

[Proud_God]

Originally Posted by Scarf Ace

You're completely wrong. Pixel hunting was the single biggest flaw and immersion killer in RO1.

By stating that you agree with mee, this thread is about what makes RO2's experience different from RO1's.

[Holy.Death]

I don't feel that zooming is breaking immersion for me. I'd like even to be able to zoom in at all times, for example to be able NOT to zoom while in CQC or be able to zoom while leaning out of my trench to look out for threats in the area (now I have to zoom via IS, which exposes me to an enemy fire a bit too much as it's not as quick as simply poping up a head and hiding it back after less than four or three second.

[Floyd]

Originally Posted by u-s-e-r

Nope, pixel hunting means that you dont see as far away as you would in real life, with the zoom, there were no pixel hunting.

I'm tempted to say semantics, but you've come up with a whole new definition. So what you're telling me is that at 200m with zoom, I'm not pixel hunting? what about 400m?

Its pixel hunting whether or not you need to do it at 50m, 100m, or 1000m. It matters not how far away the target actually is. Its all relative. If he's only 50m away and he looks like he's 100m, then the game plays as if he's 100m. If the target is not a pixel until he's 250m away, and if you're aiming at him at 250m, he's a pixel and you're pixel hunting.

I stand by what I previously said, pixel hunting exists with or without zoom. It just occurs at a different range. Its only a matter of associating the size of your target with his range from you and adjusting your aim (or sights) accordingly.

[Icey_Pain]

The zoom does not break the immersion for me too much. The zoom in classic mode was reduced because of the gameplay it produces, and not the "feeling".
When I come to think of it, it's probably a combination of several factors.

1. The map design, many of the standard maps in RO2 don't have the freedom to flank from several directions, making the combat very one sided. Appartments, Barracks and Spartanovka all feature flanking routes, but they are still very one sided flanking routes. You still have the sense of moving towards a single direction.
Many of the custom maps in RO1 were bigger, and made clever use of blockades to twist the map into another direction.

2. The lighting of the map. In many of the older games, the lack of a decent lighting engine did make it look uglier than modern games. But at the same time, the darkness and lack of contrast makes it look more grim.
Where RO2 does this wrong is that many of the darker maps aren't really dark. Both MamayevKurgan and Barracks both feature a nighttime setting, but both aren't really dark, you can still easily see the enemy from quite a large distance. RO2 should really make use of darkness better and add some weather effects to the maps.

[Viersbovsky]

I can´t really pinpoint it, but I think it´s the maps.

We can all agree that the graphics of Ro2 are better than those of Ostfront, yes?
But still, the maps in Ostfront feel like real places to me. There may be polys and edges, mushy textures everywhere, but still, I somehow have this feeling of it being a real place. Or at least, what a real place could look like, or exist on this planet.

Yet, in RO2, the maps are copies of real places. Research has been done, hundreds of photos have been taken. We have higher resolution textures and way higher polycount. And yet, I always think "That is a map in a game".
Something about the maps kills the immersion, I just can´t lay my finger on it. Maybe it is some kind of uncanny valley equivalent to mapping, where you can accept mistakes easier when everything is simpler than closer to photorealism? The lighting, the fog... As I said, I cannot put my finger on it, I just know that I never fell like being in a place that I could be in reallife.

[u-s-e-r]

Originally Posted by Floyd

I stand by what I previously said, pixel hunting exists with or without zoom. It just occurs at a different range. Its only a matter of associating the size of your target with his range from you and adjusting your aim (or sights) accordingly.

Youre just nitpicking, you know what everyone means by it.

[Mekhazzio]

Originally Posted by Floyd

I stand by what I previously said, pixel hunting exists with or without zoom. It just occurs at a different range.

That different range is an important variable in the equation. The problem isn't, by itself, the zoom or lack thereof, the problem is how far past the threshold you have to go on a regular basis.

In RO1 you started pixel hunting at 50 meters, and the maps had a ~75-meter typical engagement range. In RO2, with zoom, you start pixel hunting at around 150 meters, but the maps have ~100m typical engagement range. If you cut the zoom out, you're looking at roughly 75:100, which is flipping the ratio around entirely. Sure, that's a difference in scale rather than kind, but it's a significant difference in scale.

RO1 would've worked fine without zoom if every map was a Danzig.

[melipone]

Its very subjective. I didn't really feel like I was "pixel hunting" in RO1. This is a phenomena other people report sometimes but it was just not an issue for me, or I just didn't find it to be a negative attribute of the game.

If you play with 320x240 resolution, small monitor size, have poor eyesight, sit 2 meters from the screen then that will affect your idea of "pixel hunting". I exaggerate but there are variables that affect this physically. But then you also have your own perception of what is acceptable for a game, and I always felt RO hit the nail on the head by staying away from zoom, and it was an actual selling point of the game for me. It made it feel more real and the shots felt rewarding, like you actually shot someone a long way away from you. With a zoom it feels a bit cheaper, and you feel like the person isn't that far away because you zoom in. It feels like you have a sniper rifle

I have compromised on this though, I'd rather have none (or optional) but I will go along with how it is now in beta