Not debating about kill messages, but just proving that most if not all games are played with the easier/less realistic settings if possible.
Upvote
0
Hardcore Realism, Realism and Mainstream Mode
- Thread starter Agent()()9
- Start date
I don't like kill messages. Without kill messages you can play dead, after receiving few shots. You don't know, if your grenade killed an enemy or not, so you have to be cautious. This brings more realistic gameplay (and more interesting for me).
I don't like scores.
How about disabling scores for non-death players? So you can see score only, if you died.
I don't like scores.
How about disabling scores for non-death players? So you can see score only, if you died.
Upvote
0
Personally i dont mind for delayed deathmessages or no deathmessages at all. As long as you cannot use it to immediately verify a kill.
If deathmessages are delayed or disabled its important that somehow you delay the scoreboard, or only allow it being showcased when you're dead or the match is over.
Without changing the scoreboard together with deathmessages, you loose all the fun of deathmessages, yet can still verify you made the kill.
That is why i hate the deathmessages in the rohos gametrailers video,
it doesnt have the social aspect of deathmessages (that you can see who you got killed by and take revenge, and the social aspect of seeing kill strickes).
All it does show is the exact thing i hate of deathmessages, that you can see you killed someone, although adding the distance next to it. Personally i would then prefer to just have all deathmessages as long as the distance is not showed for other kills.
If deathmessages are delayed or disabled its important that somehow you delay the scoreboard, or only allow it being showcased when you're dead or the match is over.
Without changing the scoreboard together with deathmessages, you loose all the fun of deathmessages, yet can still verify you made the kill.
That is why i hate the deathmessages in the rohos gametrailers video,
it doesnt have the social aspect of deathmessages (that you can see who you got killed by and take revenge, and the social aspect of seeing kill strickes).
All it does show is the exact thing i hate of deathmessages, that you can see you killed someone, although adding the distance next to it. Personally i would then prefer to just have all deathmessages as long as the distance is not showed for other kills.
Upvote
0
I personally don't have an issue with the death messages and don't mind if they stay in.
And the whole fake your death thing doesn't work very well against those who know better, with or without death messages..... as the player who was just killed almost always uses a distinct scream, while other impacts just give a bit of a grunt or different type of scream. If I don't hear this paticular scream, I keep shooting until I do.
If the player is off in the distance that you wouldn't hear them, then I keep shooting until their body shrinks in size (equates to falling or going prone), them shooting back stops, and they don't move for a few second in any direction.
If even then they're still alive, then they're too far away and being too passive to be of any concern, so I will either move off to do something else, letting some other team mate finish them off later, or I'll come in wide and flank the area to confirm the character is dead.
For me, I just use the death messages to know "Who" I killed, rather then "If" i killed.
Upvote
0
the difference for me is that mostly when i dont know if i kill somoene is when hes behind a window especially long range. It could be that he just went back to cover to strike back later, or that he fell down dead.
You cant hear them scream at those times and cant see blood splatters at the wall. If know you killed somoene you know he isnt where he was so you can pass the street. Thats why i myself would prefer a 4 second delay in displaying the deathmessages.
You cant hear them scream at those times and cant see blood splatters at the wall. If know you killed somoene you know he isnt where he was so you can pass the street. Thats why i myself would prefer a 4 second delay in displaying the deathmessages.
Upvote
0
After thinking about it, if I could post this over again, I would have changed the names of the modes to Easy, Veteran and Expert. I think that this would better describe the purpose of each game mode. Expert would, of course, be the most realistic.
Upvote
0
And that is why RO is different from "Most if not all games" and what makes it unique.
Now people want to nerf it to be more main stream.... ie: a clone of all the other games out there that use this less realistic and far easier approach to game play.... sorry, correction:
People want to add the option of nerfing the game and to be able to make it more arcade-like in overall gameplay like all the other previously mentioned games out there, so that while others cane still play the game as it should be, these people can play the same game, but with Call of Duty, Battlefield 2, Counter-Strike gameplay......
Question:
If you guys like the style and such of those games, why don't you play those games? Or better yet, if you like some of the features from RO that you'd like to have in those games, how about you make your own Mod for those above games that features many of these things you want, but with a small dash of RO features?
Why suddenly come all up in here and trying to take the direction of the game 180 degrees in the opposite direction, towards the already beaten path of all these other overglorified crap games?
The only two reasons why I like RO is because of how unique it's game style is compared to other games, and their focus on realism without totatlly destroying the actual "Fun" of the game. They figured out a decent balance in my view.... and the more it starts to shift towards the way these other games play and unfold, then the things that made it unique for me are gone..... thus, where's the logic in me spending money on yet another game that's pretty much the same as 85% of the other games I already have?
And for the record, I don't mind fun, entertaining, silly FPS's, in fact I enjoy some of them as much as I do RO.
Team Fortress 2 is a perfect example of this and a FPS I consider was done very well for it's gameplay, overall feel and style. It's unique in it's own way compared to other main stream FPS's out there..... just as RO is unique.
If I want a realistic game I have to think and take time doing things, I play RO. If I want to just have a silly old time running and gunning, I'll play TF2.
But the thing each has going for them is how far off the beaten path they went to achieve their current positions.
Sure CoD and BF are popular..... but that's mainly to do with marketing, being on the PC, XBox, PS2/3, Wii and other consoles, thus more of an open population to play the game.
But that doesn't mean they're actually great.
A lot of people back in the day also liked the Bee Gees.
RO shouldn't start ripping off features and game styles from other games, they should forge ahead with their current path and add onto what they already started from..... improve on it.... not think what they have already done is some sort of handicap that needs to be fixed by being more like other FPS's.
I mean to each their own, and everybody has their own opinions.... this is just mine.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Dude, you and all the other guys who keep on repeating this platitude are pissing me off.
Go back and read my multiple responses to this question; I'm not going to repeat myself again because you didn't read or understand my reasoning in the original post or when I clarified the second time.
If you don't like it...fine, but don't keep on saying the same crap, as in:
"If you don't like the game as it is, then go play X"
This is the "Ideas and Suggestions" thread. Stating your opinion is fine, but you're just trolling by saying this over and over again and not contributing anything to the conversation.
Upvote
0
Good, then you know how I feel about you.... let's move on.
I stated my views on the post quoted in my response, and those views/comments are directed generally at said quoted text.... if and when I want to quote something in specific of what you said, I'll do so.
I didn't call you out, I didn't make you into an example, and my response you quoted was directed towards what Flogger23m said.... not you.
It would appear that it is not I who has the problem with reading.
Actually I said, "If you guys like the style and such of those games, why don't you play those games?" ~ I don't remember saying anything about what you don't like about RO.
Once again, learn to read.
Regardless, I'll state what I want, when I want and how I want in these topics within the known forum rules and conduct, and if you don't like what I have to say, there's this fancy thing called a mouse wheel.... scroll past my posts.
Oh I'm contributing more then you apparently realize.
This is indeed the Ideas and Suggestions thread, it's a section where people can share their ideas and suggestions of what they'd like to see in a game, removed in a game, or tweaked in a game..... it is also a place to get decent feedback on those ideas and suggestions from other members on if they're good ideas and suggestions or not.
You toss out an idea to see if people like it or to theorize on it's practicality in the game. You take in other people's suggestions, and at the same time, it'd be also quite wise to look at the faults, problems and issues that can/could come from mentioned idea/suggestion.
If you're going to just toss out every random idea you have in your head, expecting everybody to just bow to your greatness, but then stomp around and moan when people don't like your idea or point out the flaws in your idea..... then maybe you need to grow a thicker skin or just not post your ideas.
I have continually shared my own ideas and suggestions, I have accepted flaws in my own views and ideas, I have also modified those ideas to what others have suggested.... I even scrapped some ideas that most didn't like.
..... And I'll also say when I think something is a bad idea, and quite frankly, many of the ideas I see you supporting are bad.
In the end, the developers have the final say in what all happens in the final product, and what I or you say in the long run has no real effect.
All one can do is voice their opinions on something, which I did.
But for some reason you can't hack it and want to stomp around calling my posts trolling as if that will make you win the argument.
The reality is that I, among many other people who play this game, and whom I have personally talked to outside of this thread, don't like the idea.
They and I are well within our rights to voice our views and explain why we have those views.
And considering the post of mine you quoted wasn't even directed at you in the first place.... get over yourself.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
lol, I like the backhanded way in which you call me a "noob". Can we please keep the conversation somewhat mature?
Despite what you thought about my response, I wasn't trying to be an *** and I did understand your metaphor. "Vanilla RO" means the exact style of play that is reflected by the current game according to your comparison; I get that part. What I was trying to do was take the metaphor and change it in a way that represents not only RO players, but the whole population of gamers. In my modified metaphor, I was comparing the flavor of vanilla as the most popular flavor for all people/gamers, and that "flavor" isn't being offered by RO, but is (or was) being offered by COD4MW. The proof of that is in the sales. Perhaps I should have just used another comparison altogether. I just thought it more accurately represented the situation in an understandable way.
Upvote
0
Your proof is flawed, as I already stated in a previous post, sales mean squat, since Call of Duty 4 is on many gaming consoles (XBox, PS3, etc.) not just PC's, thus of course their sales are going to be larger then Red Orchestra's because they have a larger population of players they can market to.
Not to mention CoD saga has been around a lot longer in the main stream then RO, has a larger company backing it's development and marketing..... there's a lot more at play then your basic sales comparison.
None of this is proof that the system you are suggesting is attributed to their sales, nor proof that this idea would improve RO2's sales and player base.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time on purpose here, but these are important things you need to understand and factor in if you want to actually get people on board with an idea. Think of it as trying to pitch a sale or trying to argue why you should be given a contract. You have to tell the people giving you the money why you should get the contract, or why you should be hired and you need to sound like you know what you're talking about.... or else they're going to chew you up and spit you out.
Your CoD sales "As Proof" claim is a perfect example of this flaw in your argument and is another example why I don't have much faith in your idea, merely because you are attributing certain successes of one game due to one or two things you like about said game, when in reality, if you knew anything about the industry, you'd know there's more to factor in and certain things are responsible for certain gains/loses.
An idea may sound like a great idea.... and maybe it is a good idea, a great idea in fact. Maybe this is a great idea and should be in the game. The thing is, you can't just look at it with rose coloured glasses simply because it was your idea. You have to look at it objectively, you have to consider every possible problem or issue that may come from said idea and then think of ways to solve those problems/issues. Even if you think a problem is trivial or would rarely happen, you never know until it's all developed and thousands of people are playing it..... at that time something you may have thought was just a trivial/small problem, could very well end up being very serious and crippling to the overall game play, depending on how the majority of players use that idea, or exploit it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I don't care who you directed the response to, you're still saying the same old crap (perhaps worded slightly differently) as some of the others. Besides which, I was the one who posted this.
Okaaay buddy, I'll learn to read when you do. LoL, stop nitpicking just for the sake of trying to prove me wrong. Your statement is essentially the same thing as what I said people keep repeating. Here, I'll clarify for you:
"If you like the style of X, or if you don't like RO because it's not like X, then why don't you go play X?"
I have considered good points and criticism, I just don't consider crap - which are posts that ask the same basic question as about 3 other posters before him, even though the question was already answered. Did you address someone specifically with your question? I don't think you did, and now I think you're just trying to make it seem like you were in an effort to make me look like an ***. Maybe I missed something and I'm the ***, but I don't think so.
As have I.
And considering the post of mine you quoted wasn't even directed at you in the first place.... get over yourself.
Does this mean that we're not friends anymore?!
Upvote
0
blah, blah and blah....
Now that that is out of the way
I'm a bit afraid that everyone expecting RO:HoS to come out of the box looking like "default" RO is going to be in for a bit of a surprise. Perhaps I'm mis-interpreting the trailers and interviews, but that is the way it would appear to me. TWI is looking to lesson the learning curve for the novice and at the same time trying not to lose its appeal. An example would be the objective icons. <blech> Personally, not something I care to see.
I have argued and continue to argue that, as server admins, we need the option to remove the "candy" if that provides a more meaningful game experience for our players. I haven't gone back and re-read the OP, but with the assumption that the game will (by default) be watered down from what ROOST players are used to, my assumption about his post is that he has been argueing for more levels of difficulty.
Am I wrong?
Floyd
Now that that is out of the way
I'm a bit afraid that everyone expecting RO:HoS to come out of the box looking like "default" RO is going to be in for a bit of a surprise. Perhaps I'm mis-interpreting the trailers and interviews, but that is the way it would appear to me. TWI is looking to lesson the learning curve for the novice and at the same time trying not to lose its appeal. An example would be the objective icons. <blech> Personally, not something I care to see.
I have argued and continue to argue that, as server admins, we need the option to remove the "candy" if that provides a more meaningful game experience for our players. I haven't gone back and re-read the OP, but with the assumption that the game will (by default) be watered down from what ROOST players are used to, my assumption about his post is that he has been argueing for more levels of difficulty.
Am I wrong?
Floyd
Last edited:
Upvote
0
NOW you're starting to make some good points with sound arguments.
You're right that sales isn't proof, so I take that back, but you can't deny that COD4MW has/had many more players in general than RO did/does. I'm sure TI would like to convert some new (or bring back) PC players from the console.
You are right about the difference in marketing, too. I hadn't considered that.
Upvote
0
I'd honestly prefer if console players played console games and PC-gamers played PC-games. But I understand that IW is a company and companies are there to make money. I do not blame them, however I am a bit sad that there's a "relaxed realism" mode.
Upvote
0
Funny, because I agree with you.
You go on and post a large worthless post about people not reading, yet your grasp of the English language is piss poor. This is evident about how you misinterpreted my entire post.
At that point, I stopped reading your post.
This forum is full of ****ing dumbasses. Not talking to anyone in particular here.
I agree with this.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Then chalk me up as one more person opposed to your idea, that's why i voiced myself and my view. There's no logic in getting upset that more people are not agreeing with you and it makes no sense to complain about other people stating their views being similar to anybody else's just because you don't like them.
Maybe I am repeating the "same old crap", but so are you, and so long as you keep repeating your "same old crap" thinking and acting like it's the best idea in the world, has no flaws and everybody likes your idea, I will keep repeating my "same old crap" stating otherwise.
And regardless if my reasons for liking various ideas you make up are the same each time, it doesn't matter, because the reasons are still valid.
Then start getting your facts straight.
It wasn't the same thing and both mean two different things..... and you know this or else the above sentence wouldn't make sense and only one term would work for both, which neither does alone. Regardless, just because you invent another quote that nobody actually said through a combination of two different comments, doesn't mean the above is what I believe, let alone said.
If you can't stick to what is said, and stick to the facts, then you'll never win this debate.
But ok, I'll play along.... if you like those features in those games, or there's things you don't like about RO that these features would make better..... then see my previous remarks.
Problem with that view? Sick of seeing that view?
Too bad, that's how I see it, that's apparently how you want me to see it via your inventing of other quotes never actually said, so it's your own fault.
Non of this has anything to do with the topic at hand however.
Maybe the answer wasn't good enough.
Well considering we're supposed to be debating the topic and not the poster, and considering how I didn't come in here telling you to shut up and not to post because I don't like what you have to say..... you tell me.
Good, then actually address what was said, stop ranting off about the poster and complaining about how/what they posted.... last I checked, that's against the rules and unless you want someone to come along and lock the thread because it degraded into some childish crap flinging fest, try and actually explain your solutions to some of my concerns and stick to the topic.
Since you just jumped in with a random rant that didn't address any of my concerns, I don't take your response seriously and I still focus it towards the original poster I was responding to until you actually respond in a constructive manner.
Last edited:
Upvote
0