Yes, that's perfectly fine, so make it where a 10 year old can tug on the mouse to keep it straight and an adult with better motor skills will be able to control sway and recoil. Again, I'm not saying make these things DH level, which had crazy recoil, or RO1 sway when standing, as it was just all over the place, but the CoD like weapon handling is too much. Stamina has barely and effect, as well as posture and combat situation. Arma2 is closer to what I want. I was playing with the PPSH41 just now and I feel like it could use a bit more recoil, I was easily and instinctively tugging down on the mouse to reduce recoil. After a while, you naturally learn to control your weapon. Don't see what's wrong with that.
Accuracy needs to be reduced on ALL the weapons ingame
- Thread starter MadGelo
- Start date
Yes, that's perfectly fine, so make it where a 10 year old can tug on the mouse to keep it straight and an adult with better motor skills will be able to control sway and recoil. Again, I'm not saying make these things DH level, which had crazy recoil, or RO1 sway when standing, as it was just all over the place, but the CoD like weapon handling is too much. Stamina has barely and effect, as well as posture and combat situation. Arma2 is closer to what I want. I was playing with the PPSH41 just now and I feel like it could use a bit more recoil, I was easily and instinctively tugging down on the mouse to reduce recoil. After a while, you naturally learn to control your weapon. Don't see what's wrong with that.
Great argument, you proved nothing. The difference here is that I want to mod my own gameplay, so don't go to a server with a realism mod. Case settled. You think it's bull****, you don't provide any valid reasons why it's bull****, but I don't think it's bull**** at all.
IRL recoil control is about using a recoil absorbing stance, not pulling the gun down.
@Rrralphster
I will be the judge.
1st Video:
Notice how long it took her to get her sights adjusted, it didn't happen near as quickly as it takes RO2 players get their shots off. That is because if you notice, her weapon is swaying, and she has to try to adjust. She then shoots at that one precise moment where her sway veered into the target then pulled the trigger. I'm glad she got it, but again, she's not being shot at, she's not cold, wet, hungry, and tired. Also, it's just one shot. Saying "oh this is possible cause this one chick this one time hit it". The other guy did it from a supported position and took a while as well.
2nd Video:
Same thing again, he is completely rested, in ideal conditions, and he still takes a long time to fire.
3rd Video:
Notice how when he stops shooting the SMG, he noticeably falls forward on his weight, that's because he was putting his weight on the weapon so as to keep it steady. That can easily be simulated with the mouse provided it's not a super exaggerated recoil like that seen in Darkest Hour. This will reduce the crazy accuracy some people are showing and actually require some skill on the part of the user to wield his weapon.
I will be the judge.
1st Video:
Notice how long it took her to get her sights adjusted, it didn't happen near as quickly as it takes RO2 players get their shots off. That is because if you notice, her weapon is swaying, and she has to try to adjust. She then shoots at that one precise moment where her sway veered into the target then pulled the trigger. I'm glad she got it, but again, she's not being shot at, she's not cold, wet, hungry, and tired. Also, it's just one shot. Saying "oh this is possible cause this one chick this one time hit it". The other guy did it from a supported position and took a while as well.
2nd Video:
Same thing again, he is completely rested, in ideal conditions, and he still takes a long time to fire.
3rd Video:
Notice how when he stops shooting the SMG, he noticeably falls forward on his weight, that's because he was putting his weight on the weapon so as to keep it steady. That can easily be simulated with the mouse provided it's not a super exaggerated recoil like that seen in Darkest Hour. This will reduce the crazy accuracy some people are showing and actually require some skill on the part of the user to wield his weapon.
How do you propose we simulate a recoil absorbing stance? Oh wait, I know, make the weapon have more sway so the player is forced to think about getting into a recoil absorbing stance. Tugging down is perfectly viable because it's as close as you get. You want to get technical? Pressing the mouse button is not the same as pulling a trigger so PC gaming is unrealistic. So is pressing a button to reload, instead of manually simulating some sort of ammo cartridge exchange. Really bad argument dude, the PC controls already fake a lot of stuff, controlling recoil wouldn't be any different, and it would help make this game more enjoyable since people would then need to stop running and gunning and getting into some supported cover.
So you want to add more unrealistic stuff to make up for some other unrealistic features? I bet you have played a lot of RO1 and prefer it's unrealistic gameplay features over RO2...
edit: To any experienced shooter stance is automatic, you don't have to think about it, just like driving a bike.
Last edited:
Of course I do, because people like you look at the realism in terms of game mechanics but never stop to think about how it impacts a game that doesn't perfectly simulate real combat. I am someone who has researched a lot about WW2 tactics and combat, and I know how these people faught. You just said it yourself, this game has unrealistic features.
Stop to think for a moment about the difference between realistic game mechanics and realistic gameplay. The former means that the game, through code and level design, try to achieve realism in a technical manner (getting recoil done right, balancing maps, squad system, etc
. The latter is about how these game mechanics were implemented and what effects it has on the rules of the simulation, what puzzles do I need to solve, and how much fun I'm going to have in the game.You like to judge realism based on the former, I judge it based on the latter. It took many bullets to kill your enemy. Fire superiority was the determening factor in firefights. Artillery was the biggest killer. Veterans took less risks and rookies were almost suicidal at times. Fire and maneuver baby.
What's the use of having all these great realistic features if in the end, you don't simulate anything close to what WW2 combat was really like?
I want whatever gameplay mechanics achieve this historical period.
Last edited:
I see your point but personally I can't stand shooters that claim to be realistic and mess with weapon performance to achieve gameplay balance. Balance and gameplay mechanics should come from map design, not from making weapons perform better or worse than they do IRL. Currently we have 64 players (reinforcements every 20 seconds) crammed in rather small maps (usually the combat takes place inside 200m*200m square or even smaller) and with realistic weapon handling it results in bloodbath.Of course I do, because people like you look at the realism in terms of game mechanics but never stop to think about how it impacts a game that doesn't perfectly simulate real combat. I am someone who has researched a lot about WW2 tactics and combat, and I know how these people faught. You just said it yourself, this game has unrealistic features.
Stop to think for a moment about the difference between realistic game mechanics and realistic gameplay. The former means that the game, through code and level design, try to achieve realism in a technical manner (getting recoil done right, balancing maps, squad system, etc
You like to judge realism based on the former, I judge it based on the latter. It took many bullets to kill your enemy. Fire superiority was the determening factor in firefights. Artillery was the biggest killer. Veterans took less risks and rookies were almost suicidal at times. Fire and maneuver baby.
I want whatever gameplay mechanics achieve these historical factors.
You should have played WW2OL 7 years ago, you would have loved it. Single infantry man missions could last for hours. I remember one sortie where I was a machine gunner and our attack failed and I was cut off behind enemy lines. I spent all my ammo killing 13 enemies, couple of them with a pistol and managed to hike back to nearest friendly town 10km away. That sortie took something like 130 minutes of IRL time. Too bad that game is in ruins now.
I totally understand how it's hard to accept the unrealistic stuff sometimes, and I agree, I wish it wouldn't come down to that. What you just said sounds like tons of fun. Arma2 was really fun for me but I prefer WW2 combat and I'm really not enjoying the WW2 mods at the moment, I don't know, I can check it out again see if it has improved, but Arma2 also lacks in a lot of things. No QCQ is a glaring issue for me and the community is not big enough to the point where you can play vs humans which is what realism should be about. I may need to check to see if there are any new WW2 units in that game.
My proof is in the books I read, the info on the net etc. with serveral references.
"too many SMG's/semi-auto's"
Whole units were equiped with PPsH's/SVT's
These guys took part in the defense of the Grainelevator (together with 35th Guard Rifles). Do you see more bolts or auto's and semi-auto's???
http://holyraven.livejournal.com/101697.html
Anyway, scores of pictures with auto's/semi auto's. All staged pictures I guess.
"no realistic firefights"
Chuikov's order 166 demanded that lines were moved towards the German lines, as close as a grenades throw distance. <---Descisive tactical descission. This made sure that the Germans wouldn't dare to use close-air-support because they would hit their own men.
This order was issued on 28th of Sept. 2 weeks into the battle.
A grenade's throw distance is 30-40 meters tops. That is why you don't see many 100-150+ meters engagements.
Just like it really was in stalingrad. Trainstation 1 was 450 meters from Fallen Fighters square, and about the same from Pavlov's house. But still they are seen as seperate battles.
"Too many grenades"
The Russian army used more grenades in Stalingrad then in the rest of the war.
"Russians were poorly trained kids"
I can't find many pictures of units filled with kids. Most men in those pictures are in their 30's or even older.
"supplies were short"
One of the main feats was the Russian supply line. The Russian started with something like 300.000 men in Stalingrad, total fighting strength over the whole battle was 1.100.000 (did they teleport into Stalingrad?)
24th of Oktober, winter came and a few days later the Volga was frozen.
Supplies would come in more easily then before
This munitions factory in Stalingrad was operational untill the Germans captured it on 16th of NOVEMBER
http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=9166
So they had an operational munitions factory even when supplies were coming in on a regular basis.
They even managed to sneak in a 203mm gun, in parts, and assembled it right where they needed it. Germans must have slept.
"semi-automatic rifles are too accurate"
Then why the hell do they keep turning up, on foto's, with scopes on?
Why put a scope on a "hopelessly inaccurate" weapon. People claim they are inaccurate because of all the moving parts. B.S.
Just read some of this and you know I'm not making things up
Last edited:
First, I appreciate you bringing evidence to the table, that helps the conversation. Some of the points you have made I have never really argued for or against. While this initial offering is about Stalingrad, the community will make it where it won't be the only style of combat you can play. The stuff I'm asking for is totally realistic and would benefit any style of combat. All I'm asking is that we stop making games easier to play and make players actually have to use skill to wield weapons.
I think that what RO2 is currently doing is really trying the limits of Unreal Engine 3. I think that implementing realistic squad level tactics isn't possible with the scale of the maps. The thing I most enjoy in RO2 is the gunplay, it's so close to how using a real firearm feels, if that was taken away it would ruin the game for me. Also trying to force historical tactics on players won't work because of lack of communication. I played RO2 with some friends with TeamSpeak and it was totally different experience, we pretty much ruled a 64 player server with just 6 of us. Too bad ingame communication methods don't allow for that type of co-operation.
My point is that breaking the near excellent gunplay mechanics in order to force players to adopt different gameplay tactics would likely backfire.
There is a WW2 game with ArmA2 engine coming, you might be interested about it:
http://ironfront.deepsilver.com/en/
Well that's the beauty of Unreal Engine 3, I can make a mod that has the type of gameplay I'm interested in and then you can keep playing your stock RO2. I'm amazed more people don't realize we can do this. We have the technology
The game looks interesting, I kinda like it, but again, it looks like it's going to have limited urban combat and it's not going to be infantry friendly. The community size will also be a problem.
Seriously, at this point, with a little elbow grease, RO2 can be modded and maps can be made to fit the style of combat some of us are looking for, those long intense firefights and maneuvering. I'm debating here because I want ideas for the mod I'm going to make.
This post is dedicated to so called run'n'gun gameplay. Some peope are blaming the gunplay mechanics for this. I think the main factors enforcing run'n'gun gameplay are these:
1. Maps. 64 players on smallish maps (huge compared to CoD but tiny compared to ArmA2). Objective zones are even smaller. Cramming 64 players with constant reinforcements to small zone results in bloodbath, especially when there are not many flanking options between objective zones.
2. Timers. 20 minute timer for locations that were fought over for days IRL. Add 4 minute Lockdown timers to this. How can you expect team of 32 random players who don't know each other to start working together as squads, have some plan of attack and succeed taking their objective in just 4 minutes!?
IMHO gunplay mechanics are fine and the real culprit to run'n'gun gameplay are those two above. I expect this to change with larger community made maps and combined arms maps.
1. Maps. 64 players on smallish maps (huge compared to CoD but tiny compared to ArmA2). Objective zones are even smaller. Cramming 64 players with constant reinforcements to small zone results in bloodbath, especially when there are not many flanking options between objective zones.
2. Timers. 20 minute timer for locations that were fought over for days IRL. Add 4 minute Lockdown timers to this. How can you expect team of 32 random players who don't know each other to start working together as squads, have some plan of attack and succeed taking their objective in just 4 minutes!?
IMHO gunplay mechanics are fine and the real culprit to run'n'gun gameplay are those two above. I expect this to change with larger community made maps and combined arms maps.
Yeah, those are valid observations, the gameplay mechanics basically make the gameplay a huge pile of death. I would like to see however a little more sway when not supported so as to encourage players to get into cover and use the resting features a bit more. You know what's really sad is that I used this in DH constantly, this was probably the most important thing that contributed to my success. In RO2, it's an afterthought, I barely think of needing to support my weapon. I'm just so accurate and the recoil is barely there, I just think penalizing players a bit more and rewarding them for properly getting into cover can't be a bad thing.
I think this "problem" is more with the maps too. Most engagement ranges in this game are below 100m so hitting a man sized target from standing unsupported is pretty much guaranteed. But even then cover has it's advantages like the fact that only small part of you is visible when you shoot at the enemy and some cover is bulletproof.
But why are you wasting bullets when there's no chance of a kill? That's horribly unrealistic tactics. I mean, I can understand spraying at flimsy cover to try and take advantage of bullet penetration, but if they're behind a thick stone or earth wall all you're doing is making it so you have to reload sooner. This is -exactly- what I mean by bad tactics. You're expending ammunition and all you'd be doing in real life is giving away your position and letting them count the bullets till your next reload.
But hoss, the good aiming in this game is -exactly- what makes realistic suppression works, and it's far more realistic than blurry screen filters or slowed movement. You know that if you were to expose yourself, even partly, to an enemy less than 100m away you're likely to get killed. They know that too. If random sway patterns and bullet spread were introduced, suddenly they'd have to up the suppression effect, and we're rolling on down arcadey road again. It's precisely because a rifleman doesn't struggle to hit a target under 100m that you feel suppressed, and that you think twice about charging their position head on.
No, of course wanting to return fire isn't unrealistic, and you should always attempt to return fire. "Returning fire" is not plinking bullets off their cover, though. You need to learn how to return fire properly, like real soldiers would.
For example, the first thing I learned is never pop out of the same place you took cover. They'll be waiting for you, and they'll kill you. It's the same in real life. Soldiers are trained to crawl as far as they can, hidden from enemy view, behind their cover before popping out several meters from where they took cover. This was unnecessary in RO1, as you were protected by sway and spread, so you could rely on unrealistic, bad tactics to survive. Now, you need to out-think your enemy. You can't rely on practiced marksmanship to win your firefights.
And the best part is, if you can get the drop on your enemy and engage him while he's framed in his nice little window aiming at where you -were-, you don't need to be a twitch shooter. He's wasn't expecting you to return fire, so you have a perfect opportunity to kill him.
There are a myriad of other things you can use. For example, never pop over cover, as it skylines you and makes you easy to spot. Prone is your best friend, even if you're behind cover, as it minimizes your silhouette and provides the most stable firing platform.
Depends, how many people are you suppressing? Volume of fire is designed to cover multiple openings and angles, not expend dozens of bullets to kill one guy. If you're assaulting a house with several enemies holed up inside, yes, you need a pretty decent volume of accurate fire. Volume isn't just plinking MORE bullets off their cover, it's being able to shoot at more than one target.
Than shame on him. He's being predictable, and you have every right to punish him for his bad tactics.
But if you're suppressing him, shouldn't he be taking cover? I've shot plenty of chuckleheads who stood out in the open and bounced bullets off of my brick wall trying to "suppress" me. It didn't make me want to take cover, it only had me counting the shots till they had to reload and I could kill them at my leisure.
Now if I popped out and took a bullet to the arm, and had to retreat to bandage, I'd be a bit more careful about popping out. THAT'S suppression.
My friend mister statistics would like a word with you:
World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed. The tables below give a detailed country-by-country count of human losses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
How in the world do you think they captured territory from their enemies? By killing all of the defenders!
I absolutely agree. RO1/DH was -far- more realistic than anything else that was out at the time. Using realistic strategies paid off and it rewarded thinking. RO2 is like that, but better. It relies less on gamey mechanics to achieve an artificial effect, and it works quite well. The problem is that most people weren't expecting a learning curve like what they got. The RO1 people were expecting to be able to slide into RO2 like a comfortable pair of pants. Never once did it cross their mind that they might have to un-learn some of their bad habits from RO1.
TWI took a big risk and greatly changed a lot of the game mechanics. The problem that the community is having is that it's run headlong into a learning curve they didn't expect. The RO1 guys figured that all their pixel hunting, suppressing skills would help them in RO2, but they don't.
My best advice, honestly, is to stop trying to use RO1 tactics in RO2. Take a step back, read up on honest-to-goodness infantry tactics, and apply those. It works quite well.
Before you invest all your time and effort into a realism mod, perhaps you'd like to talk tactics? I'd be glad to demonstrate the things I've learned in-game and share them with others. The tactical level is there, and it's mind-blowingly deep. I think I'm at an advantage because I never invested tons of time into RO1, so I don't have all the bad habits that a lot of RO1 players would have.
If you'd like, I can try to put together a guide demonstrating some simple things you can do to greatly increase your survivability and effectiveness, and that will let you get all that delicious tactical action you want.
It seems to me like 90% of the game's maps are all less than 400m from one end to the other. Meaning that all of the combat occurs in around 100m and in area. Easy shooting is honestly pretty reasonable at those ranges. If we were to up the map sizes to Arad levels, I think we'd see a lot of these complaints disappear.
On the topic of maps by the way, I don't understand where people get off comparing the game to CoD. Train-station just screams "Gears of War" to me.
On the topic of maps by the way, I don't understand where people get off comparing the game to CoD. Train-station just screams "Gears of War" to me.
To all,
Don't get carried away and stay to the topic.
Fact is, every soldier in RO2 is a robot and every gun is too accurate.
Now one thing that is not completely covered in this already extensive thread is gun accuracy (minus the aiming!). EVERY rifle in the game except SMGs, MGs and pistols shoots like a bench rest gun.
Consider this IRL scenario; weapon wear, production quality (especially for soviet guns), completely stock ammo, also consider that soviet ammo had steel casings and other shortcuts.
Yet every gun, both semi and bolt, shoots like a benchrest gun with match-grade handloaded ammo!
One good example of IRL actual precision is this:
Mosin nagant sniper > Regular mosin nagant > SVT/AVT
The first had tighter tolerances and had hand-picked chromed barrels, second had looser tolerances and regular barrels, and the third actually WARPS (the barrel) when fired in slo-mo video due to gas piston position and barrel thickness.
That does not exist in game!
Remember that in RO there was bullet spread for S/A sniper rifles? Now where is that now? Where is bullet spread for ANY rifles?
As far as I know the only thing we have atm is some sway depending on positions.
Some people say here "hit a guy at 200 is easy both in game and IRL" well how about me picking HALF a helmet barely visible over a wall at over 200m with a Mosin? Is that realistic in any way? Probably possible, but not again and again.
Don't get carried away and stay to the topic.
Fact is, every soldier in RO2 is a robot and every gun is too accurate.
Now one thing that is not completely covered in this already extensive thread is gun accuracy (minus the aiming!). EVERY rifle in the game except SMGs, MGs and pistols shoots like a bench rest gun.
Consider this IRL scenario; weapon wear, production quality (especially for soviet guns), completely stock ammo, also consider that soviet ammo had steel casings and other shortcuts.
Yet every gun, both semi and bolt, shoots like a benchrest gun with match-grade handloaded ammo!
One good example of IRL actual precision is this:
Mosin nagant sniper > Regular mosin nagant > SVT/AVT
The first had tighter tolerances and had hand-picked chromed barrels, second had looser tolerances and regular barrels, and the third actually WARPS (the barrel) when fired in slo-mo video due to gas piston position and barrel thickness.
That does not exist in game!
Remember that in RO there was bullet spread for S/A sniper rifles? Now where is that now? Where is bullet spread for ANY rifles?
As far as I know the only thing we have atm is some sway depending on positions.
Some people say here "hit a guy at 200 is easy both in game and IRL" well how about me picking HALF a helmet barely visible over a wall at over 200m with a Mosin? Is that realistic in any way? Probably possible, but not again and again.