Hardcore Realism Suggestions Package and Proposal, to Tripwire, modders and community

[Sarkis.]

Originally Posted by Unus Offa, Unus Nex

Well it depends on wether you want players to level up to gain a certain weapon feature or just have it all available from the beginning, which I'm not against either, esp. in classic mode.

I don't want players to level up, We've been doing that for months. Game Über Leveling System

Originally Posted by Unus Offa, Unus Nex

I was merely suggesting a simplified version of the current leveling up system in realism mode, where persistent playing of one class will pay off in some way, in this case unlocking a more powerful scope or more ammunition for the MG.

That won't ever be, people will not want their realism mode changed, we might as well accept that. Improving the game is vastly possible, but that will not equate to changing realism mode gridin... coff coff! leveling system.

Originally Posted by Unus Offa, Unus Nex

Right now my top priorities for the game are the following:

- Fixing pixel skipping during aiming with scopes
- Revised tank control mechanics (keyboard for turret & main gun control)
- Revised MG recoil (i.o.w. less upwards recoil for prone deployed MGs)
- Ingame attachable & detachable bayonets
- Ability to customize weapon within reason historically (sight hood on/off, this or that scope [sniper only], belt or drum [MG only] etc.)
- Much bigger maps
- Fixing missing scope models (Zielsechs etc.)
- Correct scope reticle models
- Removal of fantasy weapons such as the G41 w. ZF4 & SVT40 w. 6x PU etc.
- Removal of super rare weapons from classic mode (MP40/II, AVT40, MKb42 etc etc)

I'm with you on those man

[Unus Offa, Unus Nex]

Originally Posted by Sarkis.

I don't want players to level up, We've been doing that for months. Game Über Leveling System

To be honest I'd love to see the leveling system go too, so no argument there.

But I'm also getting real tired of all the restrictions the Stalingrad scheme has put upon map sizes, layouts, weapon load-outs etc etc.. It annoys me endlessly that TWI chose to limit themselves to this period, as it has brought them nothing but heartache and forced them to come up with ridiculous methods of trying to spice up gameplay whilst sacrificing historical accuracy.

It should've been RO: 41-43, after which a sequel 44-45 could've been planned for 2013 or 2014 if things went well, which they probably then would have.

[Sarkis.]

Have hope. We have many mods coming to the rescue. And also, no one said they have to limit themselves to the Stalingrad period. They can certainly fall back all the way to the start of the war in the Eastern Front. Free DLCs maybe: ''Red Orchestra 2 Road to Stalingrad'' or ''Unternehmen Barbarossa'', and also ''Red Orchestra 2 Crossing the Don''. With new gear, uniforms, maps.. Imagine it all!

I know, I'm a hopeless optimist

[The_Cook]

So pretty much what should be classic mode, yet I still can't find a server in US close enough to losangeles with players on it. go figure. RO2 is slowly dying. I'll check back in again in another month.

[Sarkis.]

Edited OP

• Specific spawn time of specific classes
Longer time spawn waves in general:
• Rifleman.................................................. ......... 30 second wave
• Assault, Engineer, Elite Rifleman, Anti-Tank Soldier.... 40 second wave

Countdown timer once killed for:
• Machine Gunner, Sniper, Squad Leader, Commander...40 second timer
• Tank Commander and crew................................... 60 second timer

Getting Team Killed will always spawn you in at least 10 seconds, the one that comes first

So, if you are more powerful, you are also harder to replenish. And for a more Tactical gameplay. In all TE maps these values would be the same. I know its harsh, but stay alive and this will not bother you

• Auto balance
Priority for which players gets auto balanced as follows: Players with least kills, players with least overall points, most inactive players or AFK

• Beltfed Machine Gunner ammo count
Ammo count for beltfed weapons displayed in the HUD when bringing up the Tactical View. Only for weapons using ammo belt

• More Realistic character movement, speed, and specially inertia
Realism Mode's maximum sprint speed. Classic Mode's maximum jog speed. Strafing jog, pressing A or D, made somewhat slower than going foward, its acceleration also beeing slower. More expressive Inertia and Incumbency effects. Jogging costs a very small constant amount of stamina. Player rotation obeying to a maximum rotation speed related to inertia, weapon weight already influences inertia, e.g. slower to 180º with MGs

Spoiler!

Some situations in CQC really shouldn't play out as if they were dogfights, but some times they do

United Kingdom Military March Colonel Bogey - YouTube

[Ducky]

This thread has a lot of impressive ideas in it. If it would be implemented as a realism mod for RO2, then I certainly will say YES!!!. But if it would be a change request to the current RO2, then I will say NO.

I do like many of the ideas and I think it could be a solid basis for a RO2 realism mod. But on the other hand will it be seen as an other mode for RO2, and it might split it the community even more.
This is also the reason why I am against making those changes into RO2 as it currently is. RO2 is now almost 1 year old and making those changes after 1 year will change the game too much. Some people play and like RO2 as it is now.

Just my 2 (euro) cents

[Mike_Nomad]

+1 Agreed

Truly, I'd rather see TWI's time spent fixing what we have, both the program and the SDK.

[AtheistIII]

Priority for which players gets auto balanced as follows: Players with least kills, players with least overall points, most inactive players or AFK

I don't think the player with the least kills should be first priority to be autobalanced, he may very well be first regarding overall points.
I happened to lead the scoreboard with less than five kills on some occasions only by capping, assisting and resupplying.
In general i would agree with this prioritylist if it would start on the other end.

[Nezzer]

Originally Posted by Sarkis.

• Auto balance
Priority for which players gets auto balanced as follows: Players with least kills, players with least overall points, most inactive players or AFK

I have to disagree with this one. Auto-balance should always and only select the last player(s) who joined, like in RO1 and most games. Points mean nothing. A sniper could be performing really well at his role, but even then he could be the guy with the least amount of overall points.

[Sarkis.]

Originally Posted by Nezzer

I have to disagree with this one. Auto-balance should always and only select the last player(s) who joined, like in RO1 and most games. Points mean nothing. A sniper could be performing really well at his role, but even then he could be the guy with the least amount of overall points.

I think the contrary. Like you said, if a sniper is performing well, he will have kills, if you are killing, you are actively participating. Perhaps you are not such a good player, so you don't have many kills, but you might be capping objectives and performing your duties earning points, you are also contributing. Then there is AFK people, If they are not participating, let them carry the burden of the auto balance. The reason I don't think the server should autobalance the last player who joins, is because he might not be the last player at all, he might just have had a crash, or a disconnect, and is coming back to the fight, bearing kills which prove his participation. Hence not autobalance him.

[Sarkis.]

Originally Posted by Ducky

This thread has a lot of impressive ideas in it. If it would be implemented as a realism mod for RO2, then I certainly will say YES!!!.

Bear in mind we have many mods coming around the corner, and someday possibly Red Orchestra 3.

The great idea in the thread, I think, and people might disagree with me, is the slight change in mindset to the franchise. To provide a stronger appeal to people who have WW2 authenticity for breakfast. And a more tactical first person shooter experience. Is my personal belief that other games have done well enough in teaching us how to play these games too well, so the success lies in making them grittier and an unforgiving experience to the player. We appreciate that! But of course I do not believe that my unforgiving gameplay has to come at the expense of what we have now and what other people believe.

''A lot of impressive ideas'' is all I wanted to hear

[Sarkis.]

Originally Posted by AtheistIII

I don't think the player with the least kills should be first priority to be autobalanced, he may very well be first regarding overall points.
I happened to lead the scoreboard with less than five kills on some occasions only by capping, assisting and resupplying.
In general i would agree with this prioritylist if it would start on the other end.

Oh ! I thank you! That's how I had it in mind, but I mistakenly wrote it the other way around!

• Auto balance
Priority for which players gets auto balanced as follows: Most inactive players or AFK, players with least overall points, Players with least kills

And also forgot to add

• Sniper rifles' third person sound made the same as their unscoped counterparts
Firing a sniper rifle in RO2 always gives away the sniper's general position no matter how many other rifles are firing all across the map

[Nezzer]

Originally Posted by Sarkis.

I think the contrary. Like you said, if a sniper is performing well, he will have kills, if you are killing, you are actively participating. Perhaps you are not such a good player, so you don't have many kills, but you might be capping objectives and performing your duties earning points, you are also contributing. Then there is AFK people, If they are not participating, let them carry the burden of the auto balance. The reason I don't think the server should autobalance the last player who joins, is because he might not be the last player at all, he might just have had a crash, or a disconnect, and is coming back to the fight, bearing kills which prove his participation. Hence not autobalance him.

So the game should use the same point backup system to set the time the player joined before he crashed. It's not like people keep crashing every one. Only a very small minority must suffer from that problem.

As for snipers, playing well doesn't mean only having a high body count. Countersniping gives you few kills, but it can still make you a good sniper. It would be hell to be a sniper in Apartments if autobalance worked like that. Points don't tell the good players from the bad.

[Sarkis.]

It's not about who is a good player, is about who is contributing the least. I am sure a proper sniper would fare just fine. And before it came to auto balance him, it would auto balance people AFK and people with very low points, team killers and so on. It would also look for people with least kills yes, but there always is a dude with 1 or 0 kills. Don't balance guys with 10 kills in favor of those. That's my take, but sure, can be different, no problem.

[Nezzer]

You know nothing, Lucas Sarkis. Choosing the last player who joined is the most fair solution, because if teams are uneven it's usually because of him. To be honest, anything is better than the present random autobalance system, but RO1 did this well.

[Sarkis.]

You, Mr. Nezzer, know much less. Teams become uneven because someone left the game. If anything is better, my solution will suffice hahaha !

[Ducky]

Auto-balance is and will always be a pain to someone. I personally would like to see an autobalnce that would not use some static difference in player number, but a more dynamic one depending on the number of players on the server. The more players at present, the larger the allowed difference in teams.
For example:
< 10 players, then 1 player difference
>=10 < 20 players, then 2 player difference
>=20 < 40 players, then 3 player difference
>=40, then 4 player difference

This will reduce the balance team swaps on servers with higher player count.

On who to swap, well I will go with Nezzer and say the last that joined will swap. If we would go for him with the lowest score, then the newbies will always be those that pay the penalty. And that should be prevented at all times. New players need to learn the game and the feeling of the weapons step by step. It sure won't help them if they get swapped all the time.

PS: To continue in the above trend: I know nothing

[ross]

Looked over the recent changes/additions, and one thing I feel I have to add is that shouldering MGs should disallow movement. Walking with it under your arm is one thing, but walking around with a four-foot-long, 10-15kg weapon with all the ergonomic features of a tree branch shouldered is another entirely... regardless of possibility IRL, it just doesn't strike me as being something that could 'work' ingame.

[Proud_God]

My plan was to make a mod for the part regarding movement being affected by terrain, slope, as I think this will have a big positive impact on gamemplay.

However, it appears you cannot compile code on a 32 bit OS, so for now, this is on hold (until I upgrade my whole PC).

[Sarkis.]

Originally Posted by Proud_God

My plan was to make a mod for the part regarding movement being affected by terrain, slope, as I think this will have a big positive impact on gamemplay.

However, it appears you cannot compile code on a 32 bit OS, so for now, this is on hold (until I upgrade my whole PC).