Classic vs Realism

[Vapid]

Unbelievable - I mean could anyone imagine this a week ago?

http://i.imgur.com/fvRN1.jpg

[melipone]

Originally Posted by Mike_Nomad

Not exactly accurate.... most every realism server is FULL.

Look at the server legend carefully.

The R is Classic
The skull is Realism
The star is Action

Pretty sure he meant not many people are play Coundown Realism. If you apply the countdown filter in the server I count about 14 populated CD servers. Most are Action mode. Theres a server with 40 in a Classic CD game but no realism ones

I think the problem with CD is people haven't really given it a proper chance yet. The game had too many issues at launch for people to experiment with different modes I think. I don't know how it plays now, might give it a go

[Coolicus]

I prefer classic mode but for me it isn't so much a question of realism as it is of authenticity.

Whilst classic mode might have gamey restrictions on movement speed and it does make it unrealistically hard to hit targets that are only a few hundred meters away I think what it produces is a more authentic experience that gives a better "feel" for the fighting the soldiers would have experienced.

[Kleist]

Classic - because it feels much more realism and I don´t like the zoom in realism-mode

[Grobut]

Originally Posted by Ducky

That is not completely true. The run and shoot effect doesn't come from the realistic feeling of your running avatar, but from the fact that we do respawn after we get killed. Their is no real need to be afraid to die, because we respawn and can continue run and shoot. Take a look at realism mode in combination with CountDown game type. People value their life there and don't run and shoot.

CD is applying the ultimate penalty a videogame can reasonably apply to death, it takes the game away from you and says "no more fun for you dead guy, you wait now!".

So yes, that does give players more reason to value their lives, of course it does, nobody wants to be the first guy to die in CD match and have to wait the whole round out.

Thing is though, CD is also avalible in Classic if you want that extra incentive to stay alive, and more so, Classic is doing a better job making you want to stay alive even without CD's ultimate death-penalty, so that doesen't really change what i said.

Likewise, even in CD-Realism, i would be very supriced if you don't still see some lulzy stuff like circlestrafing going on, i'm pretty sure you would once the players are facing off inside a building. Fear of death is not the only measure of realistic play, authentic and belivable movement and actions is also very important to that fickle immersion of ours, our suspension of disbelief, and when i see people do lulzy FPS stuff in a game like this, it really pulls me out of the whole experiance.

[Hair Grease]

Classic mode brings most of the stuff I disliked about original RO. The only problem this game has in realism mode is map size. Oh it would be so nice to play on that epic DH Berlin map in ro2

[Mekhazzio]

Originally Posted by Hair Grease

Classic mode brings most of the stuff I disliked about original RO.

Same here. The movement and zoom system changes are a dealbreaker for me. Classic mode is addressing a problem (run & gun) in the wrong way, by attacking the symptoms instead of the root causes.

In a game that's supposed to be mimicking realistic combat, making players blind & crippled is a bad way to slow gameplay down, because it has unintended consequences elsewhere. There's nothing innately wrong with swift movement and actions: modern hostage rescue teams do "run and gun" maneuvers that make Action mode look sluggish.

The problem with it was that the risk:reward ratio was all skewed, that's the heart of the issue, primarily caused by a networking model that rewarded any and all movement (now fixed, huzzah) and a death penalty that gets people back in the action quickly due to short respawn timers and forward-placed respawns. The latter makes a big difference, as you see in the way people play Territory versus Countdown, despite Countdown having a pretty severe assault time limit that forces rushing. Maybe time for a death-penalty mutator...

[Leopardi]

I like the running in realism when crossing openings, but at the same time I don't like the snappiness and CoD paced action it enables.

Maybe Classic with Realism sprinting speed but slower transitions to get your weapon in hand?

[Nezzer]

Realistic features and mechanics: Realism
Realistic gameplay and pace: Classic

Realistic gameplay is more important than realistic mechanics for me, so I prefer RO Classic. Also, the question of the OP is "Which plays more realistically?"

[ChargerCarl]

I just wish you could run faster than a toddler in classic.

[dweeb]

To me it basically boils down to the same level of realism but:

Realism is a battle between two relatively fresh forces in good health.

Classic is a battle between two totally exhausted armies who haven't slept or eaten much for awhile.

[[SDS]DOA]

Originally Posted by Mekhazzio

Same here. The movement and zoom system changes are a dealbreaker for me. Classic mode is addressing a problem (run & gun) in the wrong way, by attacking the symptoms instead of the root causes.

In a game that's supposed to be mimicking realistic combat, making players blind & crippled is a bad way to slow gameplay down, because it has unintended consequences elsewhere. There's nothing innately wrong with swift movement and actions: modern hostage rescue teams do "run and gun" maneuvers that make Action mode look sluggish.

The problem with it was that the risk:reward ratio was all skewed, that's the heart of the issue, primarily caused by a networking model that rewarded any and all movement (now fixed, huzzah) and a death penalty that gets people back in the action quickly due to short respawn timers and forward-placed respawns. The latter makes a big difference, as you see in the way people play Territory versus Countdown, despite Countdown having a pretty severe assault time limit that forces rushing. Maybe time for a death-penalty mutator...

+1 my thoughts exactly. Thank you for articulating it better than I could. I feel like classic forces you to play more defensively and it takes away from at least my aggression. Leaving cover to storm an enemy held building is suicide if the enemy soldiers aren't totally incompetent and you don't have a healthy amount of cover. That was my impression from playing a few maps of it last night anyway. Realism seems like a better mix of risk-reward. If some people like classic, that's fine. I just find it too tedious.

If they want to reduce run and gunning, which I am all for, I'd suggest cutting down the stamina, but not the speed. That way, sprinting is still effective, but has to be used more judiciously and not just the default movement method. I think we should have the option to really move if we have to, even if it's only for a short burst. In real life, if someone is shooting at me, I'm sure I could find an extra gear even if it was only for several yards to dive behind some cover.

[Empty Box]

Originally Posted by dweeb

To me it basically boils down to the same level of realism but:

Realism is a battle between two relatively fresh forces in good health.

Classic is a battle between two totally exhausted armies who haven't slept or eaten much for awhile.

Realism = Early Stalingrad
Classic = Late Stalingrad

I like the way you are thinking. Boom, realistic reasoning for a realism debate where realistically, both modes are realistic through realistic justification!

Okay, that last sentence made little sense, so I'll just put a tank here and leave.

[Scarf Ace]

I voted realism, though currently Classic is the more complete game mode right now. Realism still needs tweaking.
Had TWI focused on realism mode before launch there wouldn't be much of a need for classic.

[Kleist]

Originally Posted by dweeb

Realism is a battle between two relatively fresh forces in good health.

Classic is a battle between two totally exhausted armies who haven't slept or eaten much for awhile.

That´s right.

And that´s why i like the running speed like it is in classic, it´s much more realistic for a WW2 game.

I can´t understand people who say: "the running speed in RO classic is to slow, i can run much faster..."
Of course they can, but they aren´t soldiers in a war like WW2. Bad food, less sleep, long marshes and the death is all around.

RO-Classic has the perfect gamespeed.

RO Classic, that´s my RO. And I´m glad that there are so many people who love and play it with me now.

But it´s good that there are some other people who like RO2 with the other modes, so they support TWI, too.


There a only a few things they have to change in the RO Classic mode.
- they have to slow down the speed when you are using a ladder (maybe with a 1st person view of your arms)
- and new animation for running, becuase in classic you walk very slowly,but you have a animation with large steps.


Oh, and another thing why i prefer RO-Classic: There is no mega-zoom

[Destraex]

This is just a popularity poll. To make those who play classic (and know weapons are not realistic) to have peace of mind.

[SoFGR1]

Ι used to LOVE classic back in the beta, but now it feels too much for public play

Yes i like a tiny bit of shift zoom - spawn on SL - bandaging wounds - a bit less sway in general - more stamina and higher player speed - lockdown - killcam and player names in long range

realism plays MUCH better now since theres extra sway when the soldier is fatigued and/or suppresed and no zoom during suppresion, bandaging takes twice as long compared to action mode and the higher number of semi-autos + the AVT/mkb horde doesn't bother me at all

sooooo my vote goes to realism

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I prefer Classic as I think it offers the most realistic team gameplay. It seems to foster better unified teamplay and player behavior. It just needs a bit more tweaking (more stamina for running etc) to be perfect.

Realism might have more realistic features, but the gameplay seems more run-n-gun'ish in comparison. In other words, those features don't impact the game in a realistic fashion like it should. Still it is much better than it was on release day and I can play it and have fun if I have to.

[Golf33]

Originally Posted by Mekhazzio

There's nothing innately wrong with swift movement and actions: modern hostage rescue teams do "run and gun" maneuvers that make Action mode look sluggish.

Those teams didn't exist back then. Neither did the type of training they undergo. Nor did the specialised selection processes that produce units full of only the fittest, fastest, toughest and smartest individuals who then undergo that training.

Surely if you want to play an avatar with the capabilities of a modern, elite soldier - you should be playing a game that lets you do it?

If you want to play a realistic WW2 game, then I think Classic has it nailed. Exhausted, stressed-out, hungry, cold, and afraid: that sounds like the WW2 memoirs I've read.

[Mekhazzio]

Originally Posted by Golf33

Surely if you want to play an avatar with the capabilities of a modern, elite soldier - you should be playing a game that lets you do it?

That's a depressingly under-served FPS niche; even the Rainbow Six series went all twitch-shootery many years ago. But mimicking that performance level wasn't my point, it was more to highlight that the maximum extent of human capability is far beyond what everyone calls unrealistic in RO2. You can cut the numbers in half and you're still well above RO2's Realism mode for most things (reload speed is the major standout, here). Besides, a major advantage for modern HRT operations is the scientific study of the subject and heavy training, and you're already getting some of that bled into the gameplay here because of the experience of the person behind the controls.

There's campaign fatigue, and then there's physical handicaps. By any comparison to objective data, Classic mode is closer to the latter than the former.