• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

RO in WWIIOL

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
D

Deathsai

Grizzled Veteran
Nov 24, 2005
844
0
#1
4) What do you think about the realistic aiming, reloading, shooting, and suppression features of infantry in Red Orchestra Ost Front? (Cid250)
I want all of their infantry features
I want only some of the features
Don't like the realism of aiming in RO at all!
Can't give my opinion, because I have not played RO Ost Front

This was a question in the latest WWIIOL newsletter's frequent community polls.

What do you think about the realistic aiming, reloading, shooting, and suppression features of infantry in Red Orchestra Ost Front? (Cid250)I want all of their infantry features
blank.gif
20.4% (140) I want only some of the features
blank.gif
7.3% (50) Don't like the realism of aiming in RO at all!
blank.gif
2.2% (15) Can't give my opinion, because I have not played RO Ost Front
blank.gif
70.2% (482)


Those are the results, so far.

Just wanted to show that RO:O is getting some notice from other gamers, too.
 
#8
Volodnikov said:
I played WWII Online when it first came out. It was okay at some parts, but for the most part it was pretty bad. It improved over alot of patches though, and I can imagine that it has vastly improved by now.
Click to expand...

its awsome now... if it wasnt for a little stiffnes in the infantry i wouldnt even look at RO...
sorry... but i use RO for infantry fun and WWIIOL for the rest...
 
Upvote 0
#10
Not having any crosshairs doesn't mean a game is automatically realistic. A lot of people in this community seem to be under that impression.

On a server, you see "them" jump around with a PPSh-41 hipped, popping "nazis" (;)) left, right and center, yet if someone mentions on the forums RO is lacking in the realism department somewhat and that (for example) OFP does a lot of things more realistically than RO, "BUT OMG OFP HAS XHAIRS AND RO DOES NOt, ITS SO UNREALISTIC" is the one thing that always pops up.

The crosshairs in OFP are there for an indication of where to shoot. They're "floating" crosshairs, meaning they do not point at where a bullet will impact, they point at a point a few yards in front of the barrel so you can see in which general direction it's pointed. This is (in my opinion) more realistic than having no crosshairs, as in real life you have a much better feel for where your weapon in pointed than in a game. RO needs to (unrealistically) display the weapon in your screen while you would not see it being held like it is in third person in real life from first person.

Compared to OFP and some other old realism shooters (like the old UT Infiltration), RO is still extremely fast-paced due to the lack of fear of death. You could say, due to the extremely fast and virtually unlimited respawns you get. During a game, note that (atleast what I have found) you mostly do not take your finger off the 'W' or 'up arrow' key when you die. After five seconds, you'll be back in the action, fully equipped and ready to go. You can sprint right back into the firefight.

To make RO realistic, you'd need to give everyone either one or two spawns per round and increase the rounds per map to five. As it is, RO feels too much like a run-and-gun shooter.

Don't get me wrong, I have fun playing RO, but for me it's just to blow off some steam, so to say. For realism, I play OFP with various mods. For fast-paced action, I boot up RO.

I felt compelled to post this quick rant as more and more people really think that how RO plays on most public servers is realistic, even thought they scream murder when anyone touches their precious SMG's accuracy (generalising here, but you get my point) or slow the game down even more. I mean, how could they! The game doesn't have crosshairs, so it's realistic. It doesn't need to be any slower!

And then most of them also feel the need to bash other games, or even game developers in their forums because they play RO, the epithomy of realism, because it doesn't have crosshairs.

I know the developers are on top of this and they're aiming to make this game as realistic as possible, so do not take this as an attack. I wouldn'tve posted this if I had thought RO was shite or not worth my time. I would just like to see it improve from fast-paced World War Two shooter to a more evolved, tactical team war simulator.
 
Upvote 0
#12
Just FYI, WWIIOL had Iron Sights from the getgo. I'm pretty sure it outdates RO.

Here's the thing... The two games are incredibly similar, and yet they focus on different aspects of gameplay, which IMHO makes them totally different games.

WWIIOL really focuses a lot on the vehicle aspects of gameplay. To be frank, their game feels like a flight simulater to which they added Tank, Infantry, and some Naval aspects. In the background, there is a strategic layer in the game that no other FPS shooter has. But their infantry game is not only lacking equipment-wise (the game goes up to 1943 and yet infantry are stuck using 1040's and earlier equipment), but the infantry play is, well, incredibly awkward. But they TRY to make it realistic. WWIIOL had Iron Sights before any other game I ever played, and they had lean before RO did (but not before MOA).

WWIIOL has a lot of depth because it FEELS like you are actually involved in a war in the strategic sense (just visit their forums! :D) But their infantry play is so horrificly bad that RO takes over where they left off.

The problem is, even if they DID add everything that RO has to their game (and that would take forever to do), they would still suffer the "death delay" problem, becuase all of their shooting is handled client side. Basically, this means that you can shoot someone, and the bullet can hit them, but they can then turn around an shoot you, not having been shot yet on THIER computer. This makes "simulkills" pretty much a regular occurance in their game. Because vehicles tend to have slower rates of fire, this doesn't happen as often for them. But for infantry. It happens A LOT (I'd venture to say at least 25% of the time that you're shooting someone who sees you).

I played WWIIOL for nearly four years before I finally unsubbed last month. I'll probably go back to it, but the problem is that their changes (fixes) to the game take place SO slowly, and their's SO much to fix and add to their game, I just couldn't justify spending the nearly $15 per month on it.


For anybody who is a realism nut like myself, the game is definately worth checking out. And I don't feel bad plugging the game on RO's forums because I can guarantee nobody will leave RO to play WWIIOL. You'll end up playing both. RO for infantry fun, and WWIIOL for vehicle fun.
 
Upvote 0
#14
Rameusb5 said:
I played WWIIOL for nearly four years before I finally unsubbed last month. I'll probably go back to it, but the problem is that their changes (fixes) to the game take place SO slowly, and their's SO much to fix and add to their game, I just couldn't justify spending the nearly $15 per month on it.
Click to expand...


MY account is up till the end of July then I'll unsub for the exactly same reasons. And the poor performance too.

But I'll come back for sure in the near future.
 
Upvote 0
#19
A ww2 online player here too, and yes, its certainly no twitchfest.

Been beating people on the forums trying to get easier infantry spawns, but for some reason there are a alot of fanbois that think ww2 gaming should also include 20 mins traveiltime to the front..which is very wrong and its hurting the game.
MSP makes up for some, but spawning on mission leader is a must these days, BF 2 made sure of that.

Goes for this game too

janster
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu