Implementing Track IR functions is really the answer like Arma2 has.
No, it's not a good answer/solution. Mainly because it costs money.
Upvote
0
Radar on RO HOS - Big Error of Tripware
- Thread starter Celonius
- Start date
No, it's not a good answer/solution. Mainly because it costs money.
Upvote
0
I know the overhead map with gps wasn't always there. But its a feature that doesn't bring that much to the table in my opinion. Having it or not having it doesn't really change anything. Its only advantageous the first 2 times you play a map.
My definition of good or bad is simply based on the need whether things need to be decided server side. If enabling/disabling something wouldn't give you an advantage or disadvantage that setting shouldn't be server side it should be optional for the players. And it should be optional in that case in all the default game modes, as you won't harm anyone using them.
Aka if death messages would be altered so there is no advantage in having death messages on, players could decide for themselves whether they have them on or not. At the moment death messages are an important tool for knowing whether or not you hit someone, if that advantage gets taken away a player could decide for himself to enable or disable them without being at a disadvantage.
Realism is always a subjective matter, things you count as unrealistic can be called realistic with as many valid arguments for its implementation as against. A popular discussion is for instance having only 1 life or being able to respawn. A war was fought with more than 32 people, but after you died you wouldn't be able to immediately reincarnate into someone else. Or with the fov the sizes of objects don't change in the real world, although in the real world you have both a wide fov and everything looks 2x bigger than currently in ro on a 21" monitor.
So where possible I think people should be allowed to change settings to the setting the most realistic in their eyes or to a setting they themselves consider to be the most fun. As long as one feature doesn't have an advantage over the other, it won't matter what the other player sees.
The individualism of a player should be respected in my opinion. I would turn off the gps in the overhead map if it were possible. There is no disadvantage or advantage for me in doing that. If anything I find the GPS in red orchestra similar to the red trader line in killing floor. If you know the locations of the trader having that red line doesn't matter anything any more, but on a new map it just helps you find the way.
Something similar is what I hope to see with the fov settings. Currently there seem to be 3 fov settings. say its 90,75,60 (walking, ironsight, breathing mode). I would love for myself to perhaps set the fov to 75,75,75 or setting it to 80,75,60 so ill have a smaller amount of zoom transitioning. As long as there are boundaries for a max and min fov angle there is no harm in individual customization.
The key is that the playing field stays even and fair. I mean sure a player can probably decide to not use the additional features of relaxed realism and get a similarly realistic experience as when playing realistic realism. They key issue with that is that the features you decide to turn off will then give you a disadvantage to the players that have them turned on, that's the reason for a need to have a separate server setting.
I mean as far as we know the only differences between realistic as relaxed realism are forms of information being automatically shared among your team. As your walking speeds won't change nor your ability to withstand bullets.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
TrackIR is a great compromise. It really changed the way I played flight-sims. I recall Ramm was asking about TrackIR either on the TW forums, or on the TrackIR forums. So maybe it'll be an option.
Free look can easily be implemented either with TrackIR, or a separate "shift" key for mouse-look. I would hope free look is constrained when your in IS / cheek-weld (say only your eyes can move, instead of your whole head - or you can only move your head left, away from the gunstock).
Upvote
0
you mean fov correction and perception is something that belongs to the "relaxed realism"? when its there just because real life works that way?, You mean it shouldn't be in the "real realism" mode? wouldn't it be a contradiction?
you are probably mixing concept of how realistic the game is with how basic and raw it is.
basic and raw, pretty much like the first versions of RO, doesn't mean more realistic, because crippling all those new realistic features, just because it makes your life easier, which is oh-so-terrible for the hardcores 13375, would make it unrealistic, so, how do you explain that the more realistic version will be less realistic than the relaxed-realism then?
oh, and real life should be easy. But it seems that the "realism fans" prefer a crippled unrealistic reality that only exist in their heads, such is irony.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I seem to remember that he's got one and maybe another in the office.
Question is : does UnrealEn support it.
I looked once a long while ago and got a negative reply.
Prove me wrong please...
Upvote
0
Cool. Too bad my old TrackIR 2 doesn't work with Windows 7... dualboot to XP, or upgrade to a new TrackIR?!
Assuming it makes it into ROHOS, of course. Either way, I'd be pretty happy with any type of Free-look - mouse or TrackIR.
Edit: Found a linky to hack TrackIR2 into Win7 for anyone interested: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/7741001328
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Sounds like something worth boycotting... it's common practice to ignore Linux/Mac, but newer windows versions?
Upvote
0
Please read my post again, as you're clearly misunderstanding what I am saying... Its pretty lame of you accusing me of wanting to make the game hard so I can own newbs or whatever.
I want the game to be accessible and get a huge community. But in realistic realism mode I want players to figure out what is happening around them for themselves. Rather than having it handed out to them on a silver platter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 2 kinds of visions about realism in games
1) You have people that care about functional realism. Which means to basically get information fed to you that you would have known in reallife but miss in a game. This is all about making things work as in real life.
2) The other group consists people that care about visual realism. This is a perception of realism that makes things "feel" realistic, it is all about immersion. So here its generally about not having systems tell you information that you could have found out yourself.
One is not better or more realistic than the other, and on different topics people prefer the visually realistic method or the functionally realistic method.
Here are some examples:
FOV
Functional realism:
You want to be able to see as far and as big as you can in reallife, and see things in a wide fov and know what is happening in your fov. (aka a fov indicator + different "zoomed" stages)
Visual realism:
You want the image to be as stable as in real life, even if you cannot see things as well as you would be able in real life. So you won't transition from one visible "zoom" state to another.
Lives
Functional realism:
Wars weren't fought with 32 men, you need re-spawns to make up for the lack of players on the battlefield otherwise.
Visual realism:
In real life you only have one life so its unrealistic to be able to respawn.
Arrow on the overhead map:
Functional realism:
You would have had a briefing on a missing and a general idea of your surroundings and what's happening. Due to players lacking this briefing its realistic to help them in finding their way in their surroundings by the arrow.
Visual realism:
There weren't gps systems in the 2nd world war so it shouldn't be in the game.
Indication of being hit
Functional realism:
You would know roughly by the air of a bullet flying by, where the enemy fired from to hit you. As a player cannot feel in a computer game its realistic to give this information in the form of an indicator to the player
Visual realism:
When you get hit in real live you wouldn't see a symbol blinking on your eyes showing where an enemy is so its unrealistic to show this in game.
Enemy cap presence
Functional realism:
You would know when an enemy was about to overtake a position and fighting for it. As you respawn you don't always know what is happening so telling the state of enemy presence in a capzone is realistic.
Visual realism:
You would need to find out yourself or hear from a team mate about what is happening in the capzone.
Hud indicators
Functional realism:
You would know where you would be hit or how many ammo pouches you have left or how tired you are. So showing an indicator on the screen for the status of those properties is realistic.
Visual realism:
You wouldn't wear any sci-fi goggles telling you exact information and statics about yourself. All you should see on the screen should be what your eye sees.
Friendly names above heads
Functional realism:
In the real world you would know who the soldiers are around you and know them by name. To simulate this effect it's realistic to show the names above friendly players.
Visual realism:
In the real world you would not see the names of your team mates floating above their heads.
Suppression system
Functional realism:
You do not have the same kind of fear in game as you have in real life, so its realistic to implement some reactions to fear like a subtile sway or jerking action in the game itself.
Visual realism:
When you get shot at you do not get a physical reaction that causes you to move your hands in any odd method. So a suppression system is unrealistic.
In the above examples you will sometimes agree more to the functional realism vision and sometimes to the visual realism vision. But both statements are always equally right, its all about personal preference. This is the reason why you can have endless discussions about realism without anyone being actually wrong.
Which is the reason why I think that in the situations where the functional realism is not easier or harder than the visual realism version, that it would be best to allow the end user to locally select in the options menu what he prefers. That way different opinions are easier to please.
I expect the relaxed realism part to have more functional realism, and the realistic realism part to have more visual realism. But for some features the functional realism vision will be used for both realism settings, and visa versa. Which is the exact reason why I think that relaxed realism for a big part will actually be as realistic as the realistic realism setting.
The difference would primarily be based around vision.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Point me where I said such a thing... I never meant something like that, more like you want to play separated from the "newbs" than to own them.
You just want somewhere to park them to stay as far away from them as possible.
Thats what I meant
In real life you dont have to find that stuff for yourself, you have a wider field of vision and other senses that "hands info to you on a silver plate"
Functional realism affects much more the gameplay and the battle progress than "visual realism" (yet you named visual realism the "real realism" as if thats the only true way) so why should it be then the one you park the noobs in?
TWI is working their asses off to research and implement a lot of features to make this game the most realistic game ever, and I think its quite unfair on your part that you want to relegate all that work to the "less realistic" type of game.
The current realism servers in RO, are about death messages, maps, scoreboards, etc... those are the "gamey aspect" of RO
Everything that is realistic should be in both versions.
Everything that is not part of real life (DMs, GPS, Cap Bar, etc...), should be in relaxed realism
This is my view on it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
For the love of god please, please, please read my post before replying ffs. You're quoting bits and pieces without looking what I'm actually talking about.
I never said that visual realism is more realistic than functional realism. Its based on opinion. What people prefer depends on their on perception of things and can differ on a case by case basis. I expect relaxed realism as realistic realism to be equally realistic depending on which perspective you follow.
Why would I want newer players to stay away from realistic realism mode I never stated that, please read my post again and then 3 more times. There is nothing more noobish about either relaxed realism or realistic realism, or functional realism or visual realism. Its all a matter of preference.
Heck you want a heavier focus on visual realism in the realistic realism version than I want and beside that force it down people their throats. As for instance I want to keep the gps optional for players, and keeping the hud on demand system in. Those are some of the most important features for helping new players get the hang of the game, so they know where the action is. While allowing people to disable it if they prefer to do so.
You need to understand that your vision of realism is only that, it's your personal opinion and not a fact. Both the functional realistic as visual realistic versions are equally realistic. And its impossible to proof that one asset is more realistic than the other. Unless you're trying to make a statistic representation of the group being marketed to.
Personally I prefer functional realism in a lot of the cases, unless it means telling you information that you perhaps wouldn't have found out yourself. Such knowing whether an enemy is in the capzone.
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Functional realism makes use of models to simulate abilities missing in a game that would be available in real life.
- Visual realism says that those model are too different from real life, so that it's better not modelling that ability at all.
that is the reason why in a game every discussion about realism can be put either into a corner of functional realism or visual realism. A model is per definition different from reality, and the perception of how well it works without a set defined guideline. Depends purely on a person's opinion and preference.
I never said that visual realism is more realistic than functional realism. Its based on opinion. What people prefer depends on their on perception of things and can differ on a case by case basis. I expect relaxed realism as realistic realism to be equally realistic depending on which perspective you follow.
Why would I want newer players to stay away from realistic realism mode I never stated that, please read my post again and then 3 more times. There is nothing more noobish about either relaxed realism or realistic realism, or functional realism or visual realism. Its all a matter of preference.
Heck you want a heavier focus on visual realism in the realistic realism version than I want and beside that force it down people their throats. As for instance I want to keep the gps optional for players, and keeping the hud on demand system in. Those are some of the most important features for helping new players get the hang of the game, so they know where the action is. While allowing people to disable it if they prefer to do so.
You need to understand that your vision of realism is only that, it's your personal opinion and not a fact. Both the functional realistic as visual realistic versions are equally realistic. And its impossible to proof that one asset is more realistic than the other. Unless you're trying to make a statistic representation of the group being marketed to.
Personally I prefer functional realism in a lot of the cases, unless it means telling you information that you perhaps wouldn't have found out yourself. Such knowing whether an enemy is in the capzone.
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Functional realism makes use of models to simulate abilities missing in a game that would be available in real life.
- Visual realism says that those model are too different from real life, so that it's better not modelling that ability at all.
that is the reason why in a game every discussion about realism can be put either into a corner of functional realism or visual realism. A model is per definition different from reality, and the perception of how well it works without a set defined guideline. Depends purely on a person's opinion and preference.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
thats where you are wrong, because functional realism, will encourage a realistic behavior, the battles will be fought at real ranges, people wont get separated from their squads, soldiers wont be able to ninja bayonet other soldiers that should be seeing them in real life, soldiers guarding entrances wont take their whole vision constantly away from one defensive position because they can't see the other one, and so on...
Calling it "realistic realism" is quite saying it
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Beside that you are exagerating, everything comes at a cost as well. And whether the cost will be worth the benefit is an individual evaluation. And nobody will go for a game made pure out of functional or visual realism its always a mixture of things.
I didn't pick that name for the game mode. You could call it hardcore mode, or "dysentry simulation" mode as some might end up calling it if they don't like it.
The devs picked the names not me, most likely because this is how they feel the game is the most realistic. Yet a lot of people feel that COD hardcore is more realistic than RO, while utilizing correct arguments. I don't agree with the sentiments but that doesn't make the statement wrong.
When you go in terms of simulating human responses to things and human behaviour you're entering a grey area. Some data can be backed up with hard facts. But whether a person would see something in his peripheral vision is a pretty big study on its own. And simplifications would need to happen, and that is where possible issues will come from.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
If you want to locally cripple the game for yourselves, if that makes you happy, fine for me, but don't make me go into a server to play the game crippled in a way that wasn't intended to play, just because of some guy decided that his individual evaluation of realism is different from the devs.
Devs said there will be a less realistic version (relaxed realism) and a more realistic version which I think wasn't named by them, and you, who says that one option is not more realistic than the other, are the one who attached the name "realistic realism" to "visual realism"
so if there is a less realistic version (stated by the devs), it should be about what it really is less realistic and not up to interpretation, such as death messages.
The most realistic version should consist of a series of options that removes information that a soldier wouldn't know in real life. Those things that are confirmed that doesn't add neither visual, nor practical realism.
Edit: Christ!, I think I'm gonna dream of the word realism tonight, I don't think I've ever seen it so many times in a single day.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
And the point goes that its debatable what options those are.
Stuff like a suppression system if there is one wouldn't change for any of the realism versions, and its most likely the same with the fov indicator and fov zoom. Purely because the gameplay should stay consistent.
But when looking at hit indicators, or capzone notifications its debatable which one is more realistic. And would depend on the opinion of the devs. As there is no such thing as really less realistic for a lot of the options. And as I said of course would features that enabling or disabling would give an advantage or disadvantage to someone be set by the server.
If a function makes it easier to work as a team while being a function that doesn't exist in reallife. It can be more realistic because a team would work as a team. Or it can be unrealistic because such a feature wouldn't exist in reallife.
About deathmessages for instance normally you would probably tell when you had hit someone, so people would know when someone was shot. And in game its harder to see whether you hit someone, which would be easier in real life. So in that sense its defend-able to call death messages realistic.
Last edited:
Upvote
0