Realism or Balance?

[sharpshooterklj]

I voted balance big time. Nobody wants RO to be an unbalanced game, thats just no fun at all. Like for instance, lets say TWI tweaks some weapons in the game, making them more or less powerful. Then as a result you will have people racing to join the good team or get the good class. Then people stuck on the crappy team or with a crap weapon will either quit the server, get slaughtered and then quit the server, or get slaughtered and then quit RO.

I really like realism, but balance is very essential to making the game fun for everybody.

 

[BeserkWraithlor]

Agreed. Also, why would you make gun X very crappy and weak in the game, just because gun X was very crappy in WW2, and why would you want Tank B to be increadibly overpowered just because it makes the game more accurate to the real life version?

My point is, people always say gun Z MUST stink in the Game, because it stinks in real life.This is very common in WW2 games, like in Company of Heroes, when people are complaining about how weak a German Tank is, even though German Tanks are very overpowered in Company of Heroes, they want the game to be even MORE accurate, and make the tank stronger than it is.

Ex:
Person1:OMG! Tiger is freaking imbalanced! Nothing can hurt it, and its cannon is too powerful!
Person2:Stop whining. The Tiger is fine, its the most powerful tank in WW2, so it should get a buff.
Person1:......

 

[george]

Always discussed, especially around "Patch-time."

Listen, BF1942's goal was to give the player an experience as though he were really in 1942. They didn't go for the whole realism thing, because that wasn't their goal. If you ask me, RO:O is doing fine. There is a point where to much realism is a BAD thing. Some people need to realize, that this is a game, and replicating EVERYTHING would make it not so fun. Games are supposed to be "fun" so a "not so fun" game wouldn't "be so fun!"

Hahahahaha!

 

[Yoshiro]

Our stance on this as we have said many times.

Realism to the point of it not being fun. If we had to put a ratio to it: 90% + something realism, rest balance.

We try and get our systems ingame to act as true to life as possible, but there are somethings we have to abstract to make them work in a video game (such as artillery doesn't take 20 minutes to arrive), but the procedure is based on the real deal.

 

[malice]

Like everything in life you cant go to much one way or the other. Realism is great and thats why I play ROOST but if you went for all out realism it would ****, not because realism isnt good but because certain elements from RL cant be replicated in a game ie: fear of death. So you need a mix, my view is the weapons, run speed and tanks should be as realistic as possible and its up to the mappers to provide the balance. Either by terrain, giving one side a better load out or by other methods.

 

[Isaak Johnson]

Exactly, I love the realism aspect RO has brought into video gaming, but the reason I like it even more is because its realistic with just enough balance to be perfect.

 

[[RWTD]Ghost[BCthc]]

I voted for realism. Reasons being, war, like anything else is not fair. If I wanted a fair game I would play mario golf. RO does do a good job of keeping the balance at the functional (and overall fun) level, though I would love to see tweaks in the armour department (like 90% of us). A fellow brought up the point of limiting tank spawns, and I think that would go a looong way to improving the game. If anyone has done their research (and yes, I brought my flameproof suit ) they will see that german tank's and tactics far outclassed their soviet counterparts. Only in the final year of the war did the soviets catch up in the armour development and field tanks worthy of their german counterparts. Some might argue that the t34/85 outclassed many of the mid war german tanks, but this was offset by the lack of quality training and radios, which the germans had in all of their AFVs. The mainstray of the german armour division was the Pnz IV, which was a fair match to the t34 as far as gun to gun strength, even though the T34's armour was superiour. Anyways, I have to grab some dinner, no more time to ramble

 

[[tR]Mad Mac]

I want the game to play out like real life scenarios, but want both teams to have and equal opportunity to win any engagement.

I voted for realism. Reasons being, war, like anything else is not fair. If I wanted a fair game I would play mario golf. RO does do a good job of keeping the balance at the functional (and overall fun) level, though I would love to see tweaks in the armour department (like 90% of us). A fellow brought up the point of limiting tank spawns, and I think that would go a looong way to improving the game. If anyone has done their research (and yes, I brought my flameproof suit ) they will see that german tank's and tactics far outclassed their soviet counterparts. Only in the final year of the war did the soviets catch up in the armour development and field tanks worthy of their german counterparts. Some might argue that the t34/85 outclassed many of the mid war german tanks, but this was offset by the lack of quality training and radios, which the germans had in all of their AFVs. The mainstray of the german armour division was the Pnz IV, which was a fair match to the t34 as far as gun to gun strength, even though the T34's armour was superiour. Anyways, I have to grab some dinner, no more time to ramble

You cant have the game compensate for intangible things such as training differences and combat experience. Let those factors come from the experience levels of the players themselves.

 

[DONT_SHOOT]

realistic atmosphere, weaponry, tactics, and beer. thats what i want. ill settle for 3 out of 4.

 

[Mr. Harms]

I havn't read the posts above but I just want to say what I want to say; if realism added to one side makes the game unbalanced, then most likely there is going to be realism you can add somewhere else to make it balanced again, if you can't find anything right you can change variables such as how maney people can have this kind of gun, team ratios on certain maps, etc. only decide not to add realism for balance perposes as a last resort if there is no other thing you can change to keep it balanced.

 

[Wilhelm Hansen]

Realism and balance go hand in hand just like milk and cereal. Other than that nothing else matter's.

 

[angelangel]

Realism is the way to go.

 

[Rak]

Realism and thus immersion. That's why I'm here.

 

[Heler]

The game isnt balanced as it is.

The t34 dominates the panzers on the field.

More realism please?

(and dont give me this **** about how the t34 was such a good tank. Sure, it was. Why is it penetrating a tiger from the front or an angled panther? I one shotted a 100% fine tiger in a t34/85. Sure, I hit its ammo box, but in real life that wasnt possible for the t34.)

Dont get me started on the IS2.

 

[Letum]

Thank god WW2 didnt really have balance and realism.

If it had balance we would still be fighting it.

The realism bit of the war was bad enough without balance.

 

[Kozuth]

most realism but some balance to..

most realism but some balance to..

Well a computer game can never get so realistic that u actually die if u get shot. And if the game was only based on realism.. Well then it should start at the recrutment office. Then the Basic training and so on. Then being ship to the front being in fight for about 5-10 minutes before bieng shot. then make a new player and start all over.. So some unrealistic feutures must be in the game or no one would play it. For example a Friend of mine went to New York for a game event both computers and boardgames. A guy there had come up with a game idea called Gallipoli.. Very realistic setup It took 5 hours to fill the caraters sheets. (date of brith.look etc u get the point) The game starts at the trenches of Gallipoli. U hear a whistle blow now jump up from the trenches and try to take that German Machinegun nest. Then the inventor of the game takes everyones charater sheet and ripps them apart and say U ARE ALL DEAD.
5 hours work for 30 sec of playing. Now thats realism for u..
So my point is u need both to actually enjoy the game

 

[Ron]

Well my view on this is have the actually combat as realistic as possible but leave in some unrealistic stuff like respawns, and teamwork aids like voip, and friendly icons when your near teammates etc etc.

 

[2M|Bivoj]

My priority is historical accuracy. I voted for realism; realism is nice, but I prefere historical accuracy.

 

[tigershuffle]

Realism for me! IMHO its still down to players ability and thats never gonna be balanced... (I **** at infantry... even if he has catapult and i have moisin - i lose )
Id even prefer some maps to 18attackers v 14 defenders and viceversa on some maps...how ofter are battles 1 platoon v 1 platoon.

 

[Fu. Svedberg]

Id even prefer some maps to 18attackers v 14 defenders and viceversa on some maps...how ofter are battles 1 platoon v 1 platoon.

Well this is sort of taken care of in the game currently by the reinforcements. On some maps one team has i.e. 180 reinforcements and the other 250 reinforcements. Then it's all up to the players that are the "underdogs" to make sure they accomplish their objectives of the map AND don't run out of reinforcements before the round ends.