Realism vs Game Balance

[Cereal Killer]

Realism all the way! This is why I bought this game. War was tough! I want this game tough also. I want this game to be as tough as it was for a ww2 soldier. Don't expect that the enemy will give you a chance because you have an unfair disadvantage. He will rather exploit it. That's human, that's the war. Learn you're gun and how to use it to it's maximum possibility. Learn to play as a team. Learn tactics. Stop thinking that every time you get kill, it's because of you're unaccurate gun or unbalanced game play. Every guns or tanks had their upside and downside. Learn thoses sides and you will win. That's what ww2 soldier had to do to stay alive. I want this game to be the same. This is why I found this game fun.

REALISM ALL THE WAYYYYYY!

 

[*MBC* Maxwell Klinger]

For my tastes I like maximum realism but will play lower realism as well..it really does not matter as long as I can enjoy myself..

As RO stands now it is really close to the realism I love but with a few tweaks here and there and it will be perfect.

 

[Theodrake]

I voted for more realism, but I'm really more for accurate modeling. Realistically most firefights where lopsided, that is how the aggressor won.

 

[Lucius]

I voted for more realism, but I'm really more for accurate modeling. Realistically most firefights where lopsided, that is how the aggressor won.

The aggressor didn't win.

I don't want to have a tank that breaks down for mechanical reasons, which nobody in the game has control over, in the middle of a tank battle and losing my only life because of that.

I don't want to have an avatar that reacts 10 times slower than the average soldier on the other side because he is sick.

I don't want to have a map where the outcome is fixed because one side is both better equiped and has the numerical advantage in an ambush position.

I want realistic weapons, realistic environments and realistic physics balanced out so that I can have fun and that skill (or combined skill) prevails. Game balance > realism IMO.

 

[The_Cook]

I'm just looking for a fps that gives us realistic bullet physics i.e. correct bullet drop and feet per second travel.

 

[Theodrake]

The aggressor didn't win.

I don't want to have a tank that breaks down for mechanical reasons, which nobody in the game has control over, in the middle of a tank battle and losing my only life because of that.

I don't want to have an avatar that reacts 10 times slower than the average soldier on the other side because he is sick.

I don't want to have a map where the outcome is fixed because one side is both better equiped and has the numerical advantage in an ambush position.

I want realistic weapons, realistic environments and realistic physics balanced out so that I can have fun and that skill (or combined skill) prevails. Game balance > realism IMO.

The aggressor didn't win? Sorry I am not refering to the second meaning of unprovoked violation of anothers terroritory, I am refering to taking a forceful action intending to dominate or master an opponent. The Soviets most certianly took an aggressive stance against the germans and pushed them back to Berlin and most certianly won. Even as the they did this, the Wermacht was able to mount very aggressive counter-strikes that in some cases stopped the Russian advance cold.

So what I like about RO is I've seen many fights lost because one side was not aggressive enough. That even with even numbers on both sides, the aggressor has to get more firepower into a given capture zone to overwhelm the defenders. That defenders need to balance aggressiveness with just sitting back and mowing down the attackers. That it is more the design of the maps that make it feel more realistic, more so then the accurate modeling. Its why I hate most tank maps. I just see so much gamey tactics I generally start swearing.

 

[Piron]

Realism is more than a visual gimmick. For example the crosshair combined with proper free aim can be more 'realistic' than a bad ironsight that is more 'real'. (And dont start bugging me about this example, its just an example!) Sometimes to suit the specific needs of the medium 'computer game' you have to use workarounds to simulate that realism. Making it look/work 'realistic' does not always mean making it more 'real'.

 

[Oldih]

Funny that many actually want uberrealistic game.

It is not *that* bad but think, RO is going to have very small community when you need to press your movement button (or tap) all the time since one tap is one footstep, and that you press [insert button here] to prevent yourself from coughing and that you need to tap buttons alot when you

 

[trench]

They must've noticed something when they realized they lost two wars in a row, lol. I bet that last jerry was yelling out "teams, teams!!! Stupid haxzors TEAMS!!!"

ROFL

 

[[tR]Mad Mac]

Some realism freaks in here seem to be confused what balancing means.
IMO it means that you always have a fair chance no matter what weapon you use in the appropiate way it was designed for.

RO is not balanced, it's too realistic to be balanced.
It cann't be totally realistic because it's a game and I think it's also designed to play in a competitive way.
For instance semi-auto rifles will in the long run always win from bolt rifles. That's realism but far from balanced for "the poor sucker" who uses the bolt rifle.

Preferring realism is ok, saying that realism brings balance is something which comes close to wishfull thinking because it does not IMO. I hope RO will never be totally realistic, I voted 50-50.

Monk.

Its not balance for the individual, but its balanced for the team. Thats the point you are missing. Sometimes in this game, like in real life... the "poor sucker" has to take it up the ass for the good of the team.

Some poor SOB had to be the first to rush across a street and perhaps get cut down by an enemy MG, but thats only so the rest of the team (perhaps providing suppressive fire) could cross as well.

You seem to want to be able to strafe out and kill the MG by yourself, then run across the street safely. I'm sorry, but thats not the way it worked in real life, and thats not how it should be in game.

I see balance as the ability for each team to have a fair chance at winning the map, and some see balance as the ability for each player to have the highest score.

I dont know about you, but I think "team" balance is much more important. And I believe this sort of balance can be achieved by making the game PLAY as realistically as possible. I'm not going to address those of you who resort to making the arguements that realism= a button for each footstep, I think you are being absurd in your definition of realism.

 

[Hobbits]

OK. I apologize in advance if I come off as a dick, but this is something that has been grating at me for a long time. I have played this game since the first version for ut2k4, competitively and casually. And this argument has been going on for as long as I can remember.

Someone said further up that they want a game that is super realistic, so that tactics win the round, and it is implied here that they don't want individual l33t skillz to contribute to victory.

While I can sympathize with this, a good competitive game NEEDS individual skill to be a factor, NOT just combat knowledge and tactics (although these things should be a significant factor).

The number one thing I have noticed over the years of competitive play that seperates the Realism camp and the Gamer camp is that the Gamer camp consistently beats the Realism guys.

In the mod I could contribute it to one single thing, and this might sound silly but I swear I heard (and witnessed) multiple Realism camp individuals say this. That they refused to shoot without using the irons sights.

So what regularly happened is this, Realism man and Gamer dude run into a field. Realism man drops to one knee, lifts irons sights, takes aim... but wait, he is already dead because Gamer dude took a 50 yard hipshot with his rifle and shot Realism man right in the head.

Was this realistic? NO! Was it fun? YES! Did it require skill and months of practice? YES. THESE are the kind of game elements that make for a good competitive game.

Athena, this is directed toward you and similarly minded individuals. Do you want a ww2 simulator, or a competitive game that will be popular enough to sustain a real ladder and league into the future? I know which one I want, and I know you want both, but I'm afraid that such a compromise does not exist, and that the competitive element that made the Mod what it was (greatest game ever made) must surely die if realism is to be fully realized.

As evidence towards my point. In the mod hipshooting was a vital skill, and there was a (relatively) thriving competitive scene. Then Osfront gets released, and it is in many ways a very similar game. Many of the lessons learned in the mod carry over, but hipshooting has been nerfed into the floor, and even taking quick, carefully placed, ironsighted shots is near impossible because the weapon sway is so ridiculous that you almost HAVE to set up on something. What happens? Much of the competitive scene dies out.

Now I would never suggest catering to the masses, I'm an arrogant elitist to the max, but I would like a game here that supports enough of a player base to make an interesting competitive scene a reality.

TL,DR: Realism = nerfing skill elements = dead competitive scene; 7 years of experience sited as evidence.

 

[xidio]

hungry hobo, i think you've mistaken this forum for the counter-strike one..

Counter strike requires skill.
This game does really not. Neither does halo.

And a game entirely based on realism, why would you want that?
If so, then go play Arma 2, theres nothing "more" realistic than arma, its a simulator. This is not a simulator.

 

[xidio]

OK. I apologize in advance if I come off as a dick, but this is something that has been grating at me for a long time. I have played this game since the first version for ut2k4, competitively and casually. And this argument has been going on for as long as I can remember.

Someone said further up that they want a game that is super realistic, so that tactics win the round, and it is implied here that they don't want individual l33t skillz to contribute to victory.

While I can sympathize with this, a good competitive game NEEDS individual skill to be a factor, NOT just combat knowledge and tactics (although these things should be a significant factor).

The number one thing I have noticed over the years of competitive play that seperates the Realism camp and the Gamer camp is that the Gamer camp consistently beats the Realism guys.

In the mod I could contribute it to one single thing, and this might sound silly but I swear I heard (and witnessed) multiple Realism camp individuals say this. That they refused to shoot without using the irons sights.

So what regularly happened is this, Realism man and Gamer dude run into a field. Realism man drops to one knee, lifts irons sights, takes aim... but wait, he is already dead because Gamer dude took a 50 yard hipshot with his rifle and shot Realism man right in the head.

Was this realistic? NO! Was it fun? YES! Did it require skill and months of practice? YES. THESE are the kind of game elements that make for a good competitive game.

Athena, this is directed toward you and similarly minded individuals. Do you want a ww2 simulator, or a competitive game that will be popular enough to sustain a real ladder and league into the future? I know which one I want, and I know you want both, but I'm afraid that such a compromise does not exist, and that the competitive element that made the Mod what it was (greatest game ever made) must surely die if realism is to be fully realized.

As evidence towards my point. In the mod hipshooting was a vital skill, and there was a (relatively) thriving competitive scene. Then Osfront gets released, and it is in many ways a very similar game. Many of the lessons learned in the mod carry over, but hipshooting has been nerfed into the floor, and even taking quick, carefully placed, ironsighted shots is near impossible because the weapon sway is so ridiculous that you almost HAVE to set up on something. What happens? Much of the competitive scene dies out.

Now I would never suggest catering to the masses, I'm an arrogant elitist to the max, but I would like a game here that supports enough of a player base to make an interesting competitive scene a reality.

TL,DR: Realism = nerfing skill elements = dead competitive scene; 7 years of experience sited as evidence.

COD4 and World at War (vanilla) both died because of "Tactical" servers where you are ONLY allowed to Crouch, ONLY kill with Ironsights/scopes.
NEVER allowed to use Pistol unless you're a Sniper.
Never allowed to blindfire, never allowed to throw a grenade, or smoke without knowing there is an enemy there.

Etc.

 

[Mittwaffen]

Woah this poll shocked me,

So why is everyone playing RO1 and not playing ARMA1/2?
Simulators or pure simulators = very boring, stale and time consuming to truly enjoy it. ARMA2 which i own, is a good example with games using too much simulator (realism) > gameplay.

Its such a small audience that really loves them, that you end up with empty servers and a stale game you spend more time waiting then you do fighting.

I vote for gameplay > realism but only a slight advantage given to gameplay.

 

[xidio]

Woah this poll shocked me,

So why is everyone playing RO1 and not playing ARMA1/2?
Simulators or pure simulators = very boring, stale and time consuming to truly enjoy it. ARMA2 which i own, is a good example with games using too much simulator (realism) > gameplay.

Its such a small audience that really loves them, that you end up with empty servers and a stale game you spend more time waiting then you do fighting.

I vote for gameplay > realism but only a slight advantage given to gameplay.

Its one reason why RO sold 400k copies, but only have around 500 players actively playing this weekly.

They were: Awesome, realistic gameplay and looks fun!

- Playing, gets killed very often, and rarely get to see an enemy, quits teh game, uninstalls and never plays it again.

Where the games with gameplay in mind stay popular.

 

[donpixel]

personally I prefer Gameplay>Realism I mean it's a video game, people looking for "realism rush" should go outside do mountain bike or something.

I think tripwire was smart lowering the "realism" I couldn't stand RO1 no because it was hard, it was just boring. RO2 in the other Hand I'm liking it a lot.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Well, as I've stated several times over the past few years, I prefer realism. Not to the point where you can't play the game, but if I wanted to just play your average video game run'n'gun shooter, I would have gone out and bought one of the mainstream pieces of 'poo' out there instead. Lord knows there are more than enough of them to choose from

 

[[SP]Alfonso]

Realism all the way..!

Anyway, here is what would happen if WWII would have been fought by on-line gamers:

...Large Wall of ROLFMAO...

Not entirely original, just a copy/paste job from my clan's forum.

You sir deserve the IRON CROSS for extreme fun on forums.

I bow to you, and thanks for the laugh

 

[muninn]

The number one thing I have noticed over the years of competitive play that seperates the Realism camp and the Gamer camp is that the Gamer camp consistently beats the Realism guys.

In the mod I could contribute it to one single thing, and this might sound silly but I swear I heard (and witnessed) multiple Realism camp individuals say this. That they refused to shoot without using the irons sights.

So what regularly happened is this, Realism man and Gamer dude run into a field. Realism man drops to one knee, lifts irons sights, takes aim... but wait, he is already dead because Gamer dude took a 50 yard hipshot with his rifle and shot Realism man right in the head.

Was this realistic? NO! Was it fun? YES! Did it require skill and months of practice? YES. THESE are the kind of game elements that make for a good competitive game.

Having played cod1 and 2 competitively, I understand where you are coming from. Flick shotting someone's tiny head sticking out from a crate was probably some of my most hell yeah moments when playing any game.

Nowadays, with all the gimmicky perks and no-recoil autos from the likes of Bad Company 2 I rarely get all that excited when I kill something anymore.

I include RO in that, but not in the way BC2 irks me. While there is something to be said for pixel shooting someone 250m or more away, it is often formulaic and predictable with the bullet drop and the sway (as it should be).

I just wish there was more "wow did I just do that?" moments.

COD4 and World at War (vanilla) both died because of "Tactical" servers where you are ONLY allowed to Crouch, ONLY kill with Ironsights/scopes.
NEVER allowed to use Pistol unless you're a Sniper.
Never allowed to blindfire, never allowed to throw a grenade, or smoke without knowing there is an enemy there.

Etc.

This started happening as early as CoD1 with all the absurdly bad realism mods (Cripple walk speed, dying hospital patient health, unmodded recoil, super nades) showing up. Granted it did not kill the game, the constant release of sequels did. But had the community stuck together it probably would still be hanging in there to this day.

 

[Volucris]

You can have good gameplay and high realism. If you mean good gameplay as in cawwadooty bull ****, then go play cod.


I was hoping ARMA II level realism and detail. Big maps, highly ordered teams, bullets do what they actually do (and are not balanced down because despite firing the same bullet as another gun, it's faster SO OMG GOTTA BACK IT DOWN FO BALANCE), and not this fast action cod stuff.