Many people in the poll for relaxed realism thread were mentioning a third mode that would be even more realistic than ROOST. I fully endorse this idea on the basis that, in my personal options more options for a different game play experience is always good. And that, an even more hardcore mode might attract more players and might extend the amount of time someone plays the game because they find the hardcore realism more enjoyable which would result in a larger playerbase as a whole. What is the community as a whole's thoughts on this?
True realism/Hardcore realism mode
- Thread starter Hipocracy
- Start date
![[TW]DrGuppy](/data/avatars/s/0/171.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Two modes is plenty. Any more than that and you'll seriously start to fragment the community.
Upvote
0
So, let's see. If we HAD to have only TWO modes, and we HAD to choose, I'd say hardcore realism and realism, as opposed to realism and relaxed realism.
Oh, that's a negative? I wonder why.
I wonder why this "it fragments the community" argument seems to work when we talk about hardcore realism but not when we talk about a relaxed realism mode.
Frankly, I think there should only be one mode.
Upvote
0
The only reason I can think of to justify two modes is if they're far enough apart gameplay-wise to warrant it. Relaxed realism and realistic mode fit into that catagory, whereas realism and hardcore realism do not. The different between the two modes proposed in this thread is far too minimal to be considered as separate inclusions.
We all know you want only one mode, but just remember that not every gamer is like you, or should be. Some will jump in and play the relaxed realism mode for a week and quit. Others will play the relaxed realism for a week and then move on to the realism mode. You and I will jump right into the realism mode and never look back.
Upvote
0
![[-project.rattus-]](/data/avatars/s/0/161.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Too minimal? Now wait a sec, TW always puts emphasis on how little difference there will be between relaxed relism/relaism or normal/hero status...
I say if we do split up the community (which IMHO will be done with two modes, no matter what they are), then why not do it properly and add a mode for players who want to have as little artificial support as possible. I think that would be the best way to rid RO from "features" it accumulated over the years which hamper tactical freedom, break immersion and channel the players to artificial choke-points. Just to repeat myself, i list the featuers I (and some others I know) can do without (from the mod, OST and HoS):
Well, that's all I could think of for now, but I guess I can come up with more stuff.
And I do know thta sounds very much like the usual rant you're used to see from me by now, so I'll have to add the disclaimer: I still love both TW and RO. It's just that that's the direction i'd rather prefer over the one that's previewed. I am fully aware though that onyl a very tiny proportion of active and future RO players think like me.
I say if we do split up the community (which IMHO will be done with two modes, no matter what they are), then why not do it properly and add a mode for players who want to have as little artificial support as possible. I think that would be the best way to rid RO from "features" it accumulated over the years which hamper tactical freedom, break immersion and channel the players to artificial choke-points. Just to repeat myself, i list the featuers I (and some others I know) can do without (from the mod, OST and HoS):
- GPS Style Overhead Map. Let's go back to static maps with no positional marker. Actually, I would even go so far as to reintroduce the hand scribbled sketches of the maps as overview.
- Radar. If I see my teammembers in front of me with huge green names on top of their heads, do I need a radar to show me where they are?
- Announcement Scrolls. "Attention, a satchel charge has been planted"... need I say more?
- Flashing Cap Icon anywhere on the map. I rather have the enemy know that I cap only if they either are inside the zone, or if the cap is complete. But even then, the most apparent thing I'd like to see is a change on the map. No announcement scroll.
- Cap Indicator. I would prefer a cap indicator that only shows that a cap is in progress, but not how much time is left, or how many troops from each side are in it. Now that I think of it, I'd make caps instant as soon as there is no defender in the zone.
- Death messages. That one really changes a lot, especially since it's only a tiny change. But you'll get more paranoid if you don't know if you downed the far off enemy or if he just went prone. Also makes snipers more fearsome, and less easy to spot.
- No fire indicator. Honestly, if you can't get the bearings right with a stereo headset, you should naturally be excluded from knowing where the enemy is. The only justifyable use of those indicators would be a special mode for hearing impaired people...
- Instantly entering/exiting vehicles. Nothing to add here.
- Vehicle Offroad Speeds. They are way exaggerated in the mod and Ostfront.
- Reinforcements Counter and Scoreboard. I could do without both of them. Of course, they should still be taken into account to calculate the map winner for competitive play. Just display both at the round's end.
- More open maps without objective point locks. Remove the "capture object A to unlock object B" mechanic. I am a huge fan of sneaking behind enemy lines and capping uncontested objectives. Especially if there remains the need to defend it afterwards. So many tactical options appear on these maps: How many forces do we redirect to recap an objective in our backs, will that weaken the mian front too much? Are we willing to weaken outr assault force by trying to send a small team behind the lines?
Well, that's all I could think of for now, but I guess I can come up with more stuff.
And I do know thta sounds very much like the usual rant you're used to see from me by now, so I'll have to add the disclaimer: I still love both TW and RO. It's just that that's the direction i'd rather prefer over the one that's previewed. I am fully aware though that onyl a very tiny proportion of active and future RO players think like me.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
that imho counts for ANY mode
its a shame that stuff like that has made it in allmost any shooter just because some ppl are too retarded to listen up
i played some time with 2 crappy speakers and didnt really have much difficulty to locate from wich direction something came from
not as good as a crappy headset or a good headset its still easy as hell
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think too many people here think that players will either adopt the "realism" or the "relaxed realism" mode and that is it. I would think that there will be a great many players that will do both, yes both, and will be more concerned about which map is playing on a server, the server's ping, or where their friends will be playing. Not everything is always black and white, plenty of shades of gray in there. While I will prefer "realism", if I see all the realism servers playing the same maps over and over again, you can bet I will jump into a "relaxed realism" server if it has a map that hasn't been overplayed (and vice versa).
My thoughts on Hardcore Realism.... I don't even know how real "Realism" is yet, although it already sounds real. My guess is that if "Realism" isn't real enough, someone will whip up some mutators soon enough.
My thoughts on Hardcore Realism.... I don't even know how real "Realism" is yet, although it already sounds real. My guess is that if "Realism" isn't real enough, someone will whip up some mutators soon enough.
Upvote
0
WITCHCRAFT!!!!
This is ramping up to be a Arrow key / awsd, g41 / g43, pink / brown argument, that will never have a satisfactory answer and only peoples perceived notions of what they want from a game.
I personally will prefer the most realistic avaliable from twi buuut I would not rule out relaxed realism until i have actually played it!!
Upvote
0
True, we are all basing our opinions on what we perceive the game will be and we don't know if that will be accurate or not.
To me, all indications point to a more accurate game, even with some of these 'relaxed realism' indicators on, and it appears I don't even have to use them if I don't want to, I can clear the screen of my HUD.
All this talk however, is just making me anticipate the game even more ahhhhhhhh!
To me, all indications point to a more accurate game, even with some of these 'relaxed realism' indicators on, and it appears I don't even have to use them if I don't want to, I can clear the screen of my HUD.
All this talk however, is just making me anticipate the game even more ahhhhhhhh!
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
from what i've seen in news and those crappy shakey cam videos, it looks like the "realistic" mode as they are calling it, would basically be the same level that RO is right now. their new "relaxed realism" would include these extra new "features" that most people here, including myself, see as not being realistic as the attempt to ease new players into the RO style.
that said, it would only make sense to offer a third mode that would be even more realistic than the "realistic" mode i.e. current RO. that would include disabling things that have already been mentioned such as deathmessages, overhead map, and capbars to list a few. if you think about it, right now there are some mutators that disable a few features like no death messages etc... however they aren't used anywhere anymore. they are more of a hassle because they are mutators. if those features were by default disabled as part of a preset mode, or at least server admins are given the option to enable/disable which features they want, then you offer a lot of variety and it makes it easy for admins.
there's three categories of people that would be interested in playing HOS: those mainstream gamers that want RO "less" realistic, those current RO players who want it to stay the same as it is now, and those RO players who want it even more realistic than it is now.
i see no problem giving each group what they want in order to get more people playing. it may split the overall community into different sub-communities, but what's wrong with that? look at the community right now and how split it is with only having one mode....it is inevitable that large communities will eventually develop smaller sub-communities within the main group. as long as there are a lot of people playing the game in general, it's not a bad thing, especially if you get to play the game the way you want on whatever "realism" setting you choose.
that said, it would only make sense to offer a third mode that would be even more realistic than the "realistic" mode i.e. current RO. that would include disabling things that have already been mentioned such as deathmessages, overhead map, and capbars to list a few. if you think about it, right now there are some mutators that disable a few features like no death messages etc... however they aren't used anywhere anymore. they are more of a hassle because they are mutators. if those features were by default disabled as part of a preset mode, or at least server admins are given the option to enable/disable which features they want, then you offer a lot of variety and it makes it easy for admins.
there's three categories of people that would be interested in playing HOS: those mainstream gamers that want RO "less" realistic, those current RO players who want it to stay the same as it is now, and those RO players who want it even more realistic than it is now.
i see no problem giving each group what they want in order to get more people playing. it may split the overall community into different sub-communities, but what's wrong with that? look at the community right now and how split it is with only having one mode....it is inevitable that large communities will eventually develop smaller sub-communities within the main group. as long as there are a lot of people playing the game in general, it's not a bad thing, especially if you get to play the game the way you want on whatever "realism" setting you choose.
Upvote
0
i agree on the substance, but not on the form it is packed in.
all the new features not currently present in RO are a matter of personal interpretation wether or not they make the game more realistic.
those who are the "deciders" see the realism mode and all it's features, as the most realistic it can get.
so you won't get anything when you ask for a more realistic mode, you would better ask for a hardcore mode. that you and others would see as realistic, but in the minds of others it would be seen as a mode that is harder than reality without all those aids.
Upvote
0
![[TW]Ramm-Jaeger](/data/avatars/s/0/2.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
The real problem with an every more "realistic" mode than realistic mode is that you will never get more than about 3 people to agree on what their definition of "realistic" is. Everyone has their own opinion on what realistic is. What the realism mode in ROHOS will be is the TWI devs version of realistic, based off our our own real world research, our opinions, and the feedback we've taken from the community.
And I don't really think the community is divided into 3 categories that are (mainstream gamers, RO:Ost/RO:Mod fans, and those that want something more realistic than RO:Ost). I think the community is actually quite a bit more diverse than that. Also, I think there is a large group of people (myself included) that feel like ROHOS should be both more realistic AND easier to play than RO:Ost. Features like the controlled breathing system and FOV correction, mantling, bipod camera, etc make the game more realistic and easier to play. There are also those (like me) that want the actual combat (gun usage, player damage, player movement, etc) to be very realistic, but would like to have more information about the tactical situation so they can actually find the objectives and find other players to fight.
There is also a group of people that have been around since the mod times that want RO to be overly complex and unrealistically difficult. I'm not sure why these people don't understand after 6 years that we don't make that type of game
And I don't really think the community is divided into 3 categories that are (mainstream gamers, RO:Ost/RO:Mod fans, and those that want something more realistic than RO:Ost). I think the community is actually quite a bit more diverse than that. Also, I think there is a large group of people (myself included) that feel like ROHOS should be both more realistic AND easier to play than RO:Ost. Features like the controlled breathing system and FOV correction, mantling, bipod camera, etc make the game more realistic and easier to play. There are also those (like me) that want the actual combat (gun usage, player damage, player movement, etc) to be very realistic, but would like to have more information about the tactical situation so they can actually find the objectives and find other players to fight.
There is also a group of people that have been around since the mod times that want RO to be overly complex and unrealistically difficult. I'm not sure why these people don't understand after 6 years that we don't make that type of game
Upvote
0
Haha, can you imagine moving through a cubist war zone? That would make Otto Dix's drawings look like children's picture books in comparison.
Upvote
0
My main thing that i want to see for a realistic gamemode is not showing too much information.
I mean seeing where a capzone is when you press a button i dont mind that much as the nice thing about ro is that the maps have high detail and with that comes that maps can feel familiar. So aids for navigating are not that bad as you will know every stone of a map after 4 times playing it.
What i do care about is not telling the user information automatically that often nobody has seen themselves. I dont mind giving out information that a capzone is being capped but i want that information only to show up if a teammate is in a that capzone itself. If nobody of your team is in the capzone then nobody could know that its being capped.
If you're in a capzone you can see exactly howmany enemies are in there, atleast for the first 25% of that bar just don't show there are enemies and let them be able to sneak in without a big alarm pretty much going off once the first enemies enter the capzone. Because often when someone enters a capzone for the first time he can only be in a few places and nade spam ensues.
And i dont like the on hud minimap simply because its always there in the screen blocking things i like the idea of hud on demand, and i understand showing names above friendly soldiers up to some ranges because you normally recognize your friendlies so you can call out to them. But does there have to be a dedicated little minimap that shows the same info that you can pretty much see on screen or use reall comms to talk to each other.
in short
I like it if the game becomes accessible, but i dont like changes that tell too many information (especially too early) to the user. Lessening the need for players to keep an eye out for information themselves and need to communicate for global information.
I mean seeing where a capzone is when you press a button i dont mind that much as the nice thing about ro is that the maps have high detail and with that comes that maps can feel familiar. So aids for navigating are not that bad as you will know every stone of a map after 4 times playing it.
What i do care about is not telling the user information automatically that often nobody has seen themselves. I dont mind giving out information that a capzone is being capped but i want that information only to show up if a teammate is in a that capzone itself. If nobody of your team is in the capzone then nobody could know that its being capped.
If you're in a capzone you can see exactly howmany enemies are in there, atleast for the first 25% of that bar just don't show there are enemies and let them be able to sneak in without a big alarm pretty much going off once the first enemies enter the capzone. Because often when someone enters a capzone for the first time he can only be in a few places and nade spam ensues.
And i dont like the on hud minimap simply because its always there in the screen blocking things i like the idea of hud on demand, and i understand showing names above friendly soldiers up to some ranges because you normally recognize your friendlies so you can call out to them. But does there have to be a dedicated little minimap that shows the same info that you can pretty much see on screen or use reall comms to talk to each other.
in short
I like it if the game becomes accessible, but i dont like changes that tell too many information (especially too early) to the user. Lessening the need for players to keep an eye out for information themselves and need to communicate for global information.
Last edited:
Upvote
0