• 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/

True realism/Hardcore realism mode

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
[TW]Ramm-Jaeger said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...

just a little question

in some other post you guys said you researched how the human eye works
and in another post you said you took some time on the range to see how those different weapons handle

so WHY for christ sake are you praising freeaim whilst in ironsights as realistic? (in the vids)

if you did research on how the eye works you would have noticed that if you aim down the sights they allways stay dead in the center
period

it would be a different matter if you actually could focus on a slightly different spot whilst having the iron sights aligned, but then they would be pretty blurred
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#22
Going in ironsight in this game is that you put your gun in your shoulder and your face in the position where you often look through the ironsight.

The slight movement of the gun not being stuck to the center of teh screen is most likely there to simulate exactly pulling the gun a little down while keeping focussed on whats above it. Aka you are not looking down the sights at that point anymore you're looking over the sights so you wont have a crosshair blocking your view. Atleast its explained like that in the gametrailers gamescon video.

Now you could say in that case the ironsights should unalign the issue with that would be. That gun and eye movement for simplicity sake are one and the same movement. So incase you didnt want to focus on another point in the distance but would rather focus on the gun, then when moving suddenly your sights would unalign.

Remember that the screen is not projected directly into your eye, you still focus on the actual screen as well. and your own eye will either keep looking at the center or keep focussing on the ironsight. You could do exactly the same with ironsights stuck in the center, but when your gun moves a little over the screen it helps in the impression that its a real world object.

Im not saying that either is better but there are enough arguments that support both of the causes as being more realistic.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#24
Which means it is a personal feeling for you. In RO sights are a lot smaller when looking through them so you need less freeaim to look over your sight so i guess the effect is possibly less severe than say arma.
Personally a small amount of free aim in first person mode is quite nice as it can stop some exploiting and negative side effects of having a sight in the center. Although i personally never had any issues with arma etc.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#27
Zetsumei said:
Personally a small amount of free aim in first person mode is quite nice as it can stop some exploiting and negative side effects of having a sight in the center. Although i personally never had any issues with arma etc.
Click to expand...

Good point. I think it appears more immersive, as it feels like the gun is an object in the "world" instead of part of the camera / monitor.

As long as the free-aim stays that subtle, and should be less subtle (I think) for rifles, it seems like OK.


I would still like to have a free-look option, so I can check side to side without moving the gun, and drawing attention to myself.
 
Upvote 0
#28
[TW]Ramm-Jaeger said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...

We actually do understand that you don't make that kind of game. What we don't understand is why you don't make a game like that :p

I think that I may have been a tad on the nagging side in here recently, and I want to make some things clear: I do love some of the features, like the mg bipod system, penetration, mantling etc.

But just like Fedorov, I simply don't like having free intel that in reality the player would have no chance to access without recon. The GPS style maps are actually a minor part in that, as most people learn their way around the maps quickly and thus only need it for capture point status rather than navigation...
But the whole announcement business really bothers me, and I don't think leaving out all of that stuff wouldn't make RO anymore complex than it is, as the gameplay mechanics would basically remain the same, as in the gunplay, how maps are won, etc. The only thing that would change would be a much higher need for player communication and coordination to succeed.

Now I do know that both communication and coordination are a PITA on public servers, so all those features make sense (more or less, except for the satchel announcement, which is about as useful as a "a gun has been fired" announcement...) if you regard it from the viewpoint of a single player joining and wanting to have fun on a public server full of strangers.
BUT it makes competitive play predictable and boring. Not boring as in "not enough action on screen", but boring as in: almost no flexibility in tactics, no surprises, no feints, etc. Which makes every competitive game play basically the same, with just the accuracy of enemy fire making a difference.
And now, especially with the lockdown mechanic, I fear the maps will play even more rigidly than most do on Ostfront already.

I know that most buyers will be individual players with no intention of joining a clan or at least a group of regulars, but it's the scene that plays the game competively that gives it longevity, by organizing tournaments and hosting the servers.
 
Upvote 0
#29
It's also business 101. You got Group A which is the huge CoD/BF crowd. Then you got group B which is the realism/sim crowd(us). Group A dwarfs group B by a large portion. I know these groups can be broken down into smaller groups, but this is a generalization.

Now you got a company making a product with core fans from Group B(us). Why in the world would you not try and bring more people over? You can still stay true to the fans while going after that "CoD dollar". I don't consider this "selling out" or catering to the mainstream at all. Simply put, its the middle ground, we're on one side and their on the other side.

Oh and yes, CoD is a very legitimate comparison. If you need an explaination as to why then you probably haven't played in hardcore mode on a tactical server. If only they gave a few more server setting options for HC mode, as it is now you gotta have an admin to enforce.
 
Upvote 0
#31
LemoN said:
just a little question

in some other post you guys said you researched how the human eye works
and in another post you said you took some time on the range to see how those different weapons handle

so WHY for christ sake are you praising freeaim whilst in ironsights as realistic? (in the vids)

if you did research on how the eye works you would have noticed that if you aim down the sights they allways stay dead in the center
period

it would be a different matter if you actually could focus on a slightly different spot whilst having the iron sights aligned, but then they would be pretty blurred
Click to expand...

I'll generally put up with a bit of attitude from forum members to a point, but for you to get any replies from me in the future I hope you learn to be a bit more respectful and use some tact when you want a response from me. I really won't put up with this type of attitude from you on these forums any longer.

As Zets mentioned, the free-aim in ironsights represents you moving your weapon around a little while your eyes continues to look forward. Now if you listen to the description in the video (as Zets did), you'll hear that plainly described.

And regarding free-aim in IS in Arma vs ROHOS, if you notice the free-aim in RO:Ost is way different than the free-aim style in OFP/Arma. I've never been a fan of the way they did free-aim, I just don't think it feels natural (as do a lot of things in that game). The point here is, ROHOS free-aim (iron sights or not), don't feel anything like ARMA's.

And honestly, once again, until you play the game, you can't really judge how it feels when you are playing, rotating your weapon around, etc. Its cool to pass comment, and give your impression of what you saw in the video, but to truly judge you'll have to see it in action first hand.
 
Upvote 0
#32
i still dont really like what i saw in the video's concerning the freeaim

anyways, im sorry if i wrote this with a little bit of bad attitude :eek:, but im getting pretty frustrated after hearing that lots of features get implemented into HoS that look bad without informations for me
saying that we would like it doesnt really cut the cake for me

btw what happened to the vehicles in the features list?
any official word about that?
 
Upvote 0
#33
LemoN said:
i still dont really like what i saw in the video's concerning the freeaim

anyways, im sorry if i wrote this with a little bit of bad attitude :eek:, but im getting pretty frustrated after hearing that lots of features get implemented into HoS that look bad without informations for me
saying that we would like it doesnt really cut the cake for me
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anything that looks bad except the take cover icons that i assume they'll be purely optional, and of course the epileptic flashes that are a video problem not the game itself, other than that the game looks pure gold to me, so I guess "looking bad" is very subjective

LemoN said:
btw what happened to the vehicles in the features list?
any official word about that?
Click to expand...

I doubt you will get any answers here, if they decide to not have vehicles in game it will suck but I doubt they'll tell you now here if that was the case

but I do think there WILL be vehicles, however, I think they prefer to wait before making it official, so you wouldn't get an answer in this case either
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#34
Just like we had some mags previews about infantry stuff, i expect the same with tanks and stuff in maybe half a year or so. All magazine and preview/review exposure is a good thing for ro and its future community, the more news is exclusive the more likely people will put it in their mags.

It was most likely a mistake to put vehicles in that list, so either vehicles were cut from the shooting range or game, or they just wanted to keep vehicles under wraps for a while.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#36
HUD, means no more team killing. How many times you have get killed
when you have allmost capped zone. And some idiot throwed nade to there.
How many times you have thrown your headset to table, when someone
from your team killed you on decisive moment, well all RO-players know
that..many times.

And now that HUD will kill all that frustration, which makes RO-actually fun.

Its like when i was teen played ice hockey in team, the goals where
uncommon goody for me. How ever when you were able to do one.
You were so happy many hours, much more happy than you make
goal in EA NHL game where you are able to do goals once in minute.
And thats what i think is the heart of RO.

When you are able to get something or do something after that all
frustration when you have been killed 10s of times trying to cap a basovka
frontline whith a team which isnt so talented than otherside. And you
you finally get it, you feel like "I f**king did it no matter how much better
players there were on the other side!"

And new players will not get that feeling, because first there must be
frustration, before you can really enjoy your accomplishment.

-Do i really mean what i say, hmm not sure. This forum have been came a hive of complaining
so i just try to act like everybody else, so that they wont dip my head to toilet.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#37
People always complain about things more than praise. I think the devs know fairly well that people care for issues because they care for the game, some to a point of really getting angry about things.

personally the most information or criticism i find for things that i do, is from angry people. If people are pleased or don't care they generally wont post. Often when someone finds an issue anywhere they think its known by the people that can solve it, and maybe end up getting so angry to verbally assault the ones in control, often that is the first encounter for those that such an issue exists.

Its human nature that one a person is getting angry that hell loose some of his control over his behavior.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#39
Zetsumei said:
My main thing that i want to see for a realistic gamemode is not showing too much information.

[...]

Lessening the need for players to keep an eye out for information themselves and need to communicate for global information.
Click to expand...

Signed. Games should be challenging, this is what keeps people play them a long time.
 
Upvote 0
#40
I truly hope that you at least include weapon recoil and balance into the relaxed realism part of the game because as i said in the other thread, to have completely realism based mentality without respect to game playability would be a huge mistake.

You just have to look at what all the megahit First Person Shooters have in common, they are fun and have long term playability. Quake 3, CS, CSS, COD 1, COD 4, BF 1942, BF2, TF2.

I fear that going to hard on the realism will ruin HOS for many. Blind firing is going to get overused, lying down with a smg while leaning even from a distance is basically going to be too powerful and players are going to throw grenades non stop because they are going to be very powerful!

RO/DH had this incredibly blend of balance and realism that made it arguably the best FPS in the market, don't lose this competitive advantage by skewing the balance in favor of realism without truly thinking about the consequences that the loss of balance could have on the long term playability of the game.

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=36012
 
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