Fine. If you die once, the game deletes itself, your computer explodes and TWI dispatches the hit squad.
It's just a gameplay concept.
I'm in the "game balance" ideological camp.
Upvote
0
Do you want ROHOS to have DH's suppression system?
- Thread starter NoxNoctum
- Start date
I'm in the "game balance" ideological camp.
Various you're acting like every new player that joins is going to be under a constant hail of machinegun fire.
Take a moment and think of what has been said/revealed, these are all effects that make no difference to a person who would otherwise kill you if you were in their sights.
It's not like being a Hero is going to make your aim any better, or make your body sustain more damage. And the best part? IT'S ALL GOING TO BE CONFIGURABLE VIA SERVER SETTINGS! You can bet there will be purist servers which don't allow Hero bonuses.
Take a moment and think of what has been said/revealed, these are all effects that make no difference to a person who would otherwise kill you if you were in their sights.
It's not like being a Hero is going to make your aim any better, or make your body sustain more damage. And the best part? IT'S ALL GOING TO BE CONFIGURABLE VIA SERVER SETTINGS! You can bet there will be purist servers which don't allow Hero bonuses.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Ramm has pointed out that progression is realistic, I just pointed out what really would be realistic.
This doesn't mean I want this in the game.
I'm fine with weapon unlocks and, as long as it isn't really noticeable, player progression.
Weapon unlocks at last prevent a player who starts the game for the first time to pick the only MG spot on your team and start teamkilling.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
well, we all know there's only one thing left to do.....
BETA testing......confirm our fears are true (or false for that matter), and then spam TW with all of our feedback until they please us
btw redfingers, i'll seriously believe you won't buy ROHOS when brett favre finally retires for good
BETA testing......confirm our fears are true (or false for that matter), and then spam TW with all of our feedback until they please us
btw redfingers, i'll seriously believe you won't buy ROHOS when brett favre finally retires for good
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I get what you're saying LemoN, and I see your point.
The way I'm looking at it is that the most popular progression/unlocks systems we've seen so far have all been too aggressive, or don't require half as much effort to gain reward as they should. But I have faith that TWI will do a much better (more balanced/less intrusive) job with it.
The way I'm looking at it is that the most popular progression/unlocks systems we've seen so far have all been too aggressive, or don't require half as much effort to gain reward as they should. But I have faith that TWI will do a much better (more balanced/less intrusive) job with it.
Upvote
0
![[TW]Ramm-Jaeger](/data/avatars/s/0/2.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Like most things in the game, we designed the player progression system back in 2006 before CODMW or other games were doing stuff like this. We fund our own games these days, so we just make the games we want without any publisher interference. And just because other games have done things (even with a poor implementation) doesn't mean that they are bad ideas at the core. DODS has iron sights on some weapons (albeit terribly implemented), that doesn't mean iron sights are a bad idea.
Upvote
0
This. I don't know why everyone's getting so worked up, because a new player with a Mosin-Nagant can still easily kill a Hero with an MKb42. As Ramm said in the video, it's not like a green soldier can't aim for **** and a Hero is Vasily Zaiytzev
Upvote
0
A) not everyone's getting worked up, it's just me. That's why there are a half dozen people giving me a hard time, it's because they don't care.
B) No, it isn't a large margin. 10% (the figure Ramm probably made up to describe the possible retail version's diff between top and bot), or even 5% for that matter, isn't a large margin. But that's besides the critical points (both of which I've established without contest), which are:
1) it's unrealistic
2) it's unbalanced
Therefore, it fails from a sim and gameplay perspective. What are its redeeming qualities? Some people should feel special because they worked really hard at making their experience bar get bigger? Give me a break.
Upvote
0
ROHOS doesn't need a suppression system other than aesthetic effects. You know what the best suppression is? Having weapons that are actually accurate enough to kill the target at whatever range you need them to be "suppressed".
If the target has time to return fire and kill you while you are shooting at him, then either that target got lucky, is more skilled than you and deserves the kill, or your weapon was operating outside of its effective range.
The best compromise would be an idea that Bobdog stated in another thread I think, where suppression only affects the time it takes for your sights to align/weapon to become rested, but doesn't actually reduce the ability of the player to aim or the weapon to function.
If the target has time to return fire and kill you while you are shooting at him, then either that target got lucky, is more skilled than you and deserves the kill, or your weapon was operating outside of its effective range.
The best compromise would be an idea that Bobdog stated in another thread I think, where suppression only affects the time it takes for your sights to align/weapon to become rested, but doesn't actually reduce the ability of the player to aim or the weapon to function.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
His point is that it should be the players, not the avatars, that should be getting "desensitized" and becoming more experienced. This happens automatically through playing the game regularly. Your in game avatar however, dies about 20 times a round, so from a realism perspective, it doesn't make sense to say that your in game avatar is actually becoming more experienced.
Upvote
0
People also die.
But that was an idea nobody liked because it was inconvenient. Have you been following this conversation?
Matter of fact on the last page I suggested that people only obtain levelups for as long as their avatar stays alive, but this was confronted as being "too realistic."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Quite frankly it'd be the opposite. Sure we all know that people don't usually want to die and have hard time accepting death, while given such system in RO:HoS it would result into "I don't want to die because I lose all my rank and unlock progression." and we would have Camping unlockfest of Stalingrad at our hands and in sort of twisted way it would reduce the game's overall level of realism rather than increase it.
Extreme realism rarely works unless there is major effort done to make it work. They could add arbitary shoepolish feature in RO:HoS and polishing your shoes would improve their water repellancy and make your movement more fluid in some ditches\something like that with water (presuming it's not deep enough to sink your whole boot in it) to simulate the important benefits of taking care of leather has, but it would be very twisted in game's scale that half of the team are polishing their shoes under combat conditions just to get through some small ditch faster and once again as a result, it would reduce the overall level of realism.
Upvote
0
What exactly is realistic or beneficial about a global, persistent progression system that follows every single one of your avatars, as Bobdog suggested in the last page, as though you were a ghost reincarnating into different soldiers?
Is it, as I suggested a few posts ago, so that we can let a few people feel really nice about the work they put into to game and give them a reward? What is the purpose for this system, seeing as it's neither realistic, nor beneficial?
Upvote
0
You're as clueless about it as I am. We have no info about RO:HoS other than the devs tells us and we could only use RO:Ost as a base for what we might expect to be overall level of realism including features and immersion. Sure people would like to game be as realistic as possible with some relative sense for being a game, we already run to issues that you can't replicate fear of death by any real means, suppression question is problematic and there's plethora of some other things.
While some sort of perk progression (or whatever you wish to call it) or awards in some way are unrealistic in a game because some variables are missing that are very important for both things, the basic idea behind them is not. However the implementation of those aforementioned features is pretty huge paradox as the line must be drawn somewhere. Recon plane's invidual spotting is example of something that sure reconnaisance was used but on what level and target identification is another story. Rocket artillery was mostly high level artillery that rarely had any tactical presence on company\battalion sized units already due the notable inaccuracy, but it's also going to be in the game.
I am not really saying that "oh they're no big deals", but in this whole thread we've run into the problem that what can be defined as proper realism and how it should function. E.G. DH suppression does work to some degree, but it's mostly artificial yet it does give you remotedly realistic results but is it actually realistic when we look into it on diffrent point of views - other than if the end justifies the means which would open even more problems with the discussion. Only thing we have here is the term realism and it's very basic definition as a word, and ultimately we could call the game unrealistic already because real soldiers won't sit on some technological device to do firefights and think they're handling firearms, but that would also be very poor argument as how we could otherwise have any game (or simulation) on PC?
Upvote
0
I have always assumed it was to better distinguish between "veteran" and newbie players. We've always had problems with new people taking important roles, and while yes, everyone should get a chance to play them, there IS a much more fleshed-out single player campaign coming with the new game.
Since the benefits of being a Hero so far seem to be only just effective enough to make that distinction, I doubt it will have much impact other than serving that purpose. Tripwire knows not to make benefits that would essentially make a player "better" just because he's played longer. Lower suppression effects walks the line on that, but it's arguably less significant than say, having a faster reload or sight alignment.
Upvote
0
Real weapons aren't accurate enough to kill targets at ranges people want targets to be suppressed. The chance to kill someone in a bunker is really small, while you can actually suppress them.
Upvote
0
YouTube - Facing the German MG-42 Machine Gun!
I think this is enough evidence of how you would feel.
Any discussions of returning accurate rifle fire when a MG is shooting at you should hereby be settled.
I think this is enough evidence of how you would feel.
Any discussions of returning accurate rifle fire when a MG is shooting at you should hereby be settled.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Exactly. That is why something like the Resistance & Liberation suppression system would be ideal, IMO. It still allows you to return accurate fire if someone has just come around a corner two meters away from you and started spraying with a Tommy gun, but if anyone is putting sustained accurate fire on your position, you find it very difficult to return fire at a distance as your vision becomes blurred and cropped and your hands start shaking a bit, making it hard to take accurate shots at anything more than 5-7 meters away.
What bullets and gunfire sound like also has a huge part in making someone feel suppressed, IMO.
Upvote
0