I remember the FK server. I used to play on there all the time back in the Darkest Hour days. Then I was banned 
Upvote
0
Declining number of populated Classic servers. Bots everywhere.. What now?
- Thread starter zeep
- Start date
1) The broken sprint physics are exactly why we're stuck with a piss poor choice Realism's arcade movement vs. Classic's asmatic lung cancer movement. Under the present physics, the faster you go, the more capable you are of making break-neck turns on a dime, completing ridiculous zigzag manuevers, and defying gravity with superhuman speed up staircases and inclines. If the sprint physics were correct, then we could have 1 sprint speed which is both reasonably fast AND realistic, and half the conflict between realism and classic players would be gone.
2) The failure of the squad system is so obvious it's hilarious. No one uses the squad system, due to the overcomplicated GUI. There are at least 3-4 different screens dedicated to tasks which could all be completed by a single squad screen. There should be no "role selection screen" because it's redundant and counterproductive; when you enter a server it should send you straight to a revised squad screen. Your weapon is dictated by your role on the squad, so you just double click the slot on the squad you want, and you're off.
The squad screen should also double as the scoreboard; it displays everyone's score next to their name and position on the squad. This way you only need one key and one GUI screen for the majority of common gameplay functions, and all info is constantly presented in a way which encourages thinking about your squadmates and teamwork, rather than which weapon you're using and how many kills you're racking up.
This sort of implementation is not new; Americas Army did it over a decade ago, which is why it's so frustrating that TWI dropped the ball. The solution is obvious, yet TWI is so obsessed with upholding its vision of "realistic COD" that they persisted in structuring the entire "role selection" process around weapons and XP system rather than squads and teamwork.
3) The zoom system is pretty much the worst of all worlds. It doesn't accurately reflect human distance vision, because you can only use it while standing still and using ADS. This grants an unrealistic advantage to players who are camping vs. players who are manuevering. Since there is an everpresent forced ADS zoom, you also don't have proper peripheral vision for CQB combat even when zoom is disabled.
Furthermore, since ballistics are not properly calibrated when zoom is disabled, to produce 200 meter ballistics for distances that actually appear 200 meters on-screen, riflemen cannot see properly at the distances their weapons are supposed to beat out SMG's, and SMG's receive an unrealistic "buff" which is in turn countered with unrealistic damage and recoil adjustments.
This is all easily fixed by replacing the RO2 zoom system with a simple, instant zoom toggle key that works anywhere on zoom-enabled servers, and an adjusted ballistics system which provides view scale-accurate ballistics on zoom-disabled servers.
...........
These are just 3 examples where RO2's broken features produce stupid cyclical arguments between realism and classic players over and over again, when the reality is that both modes do it wrong and the best solution was always to fix the broken features with easy and obvious corrections, rather than split the game's flaws across two different equally-broken and divisive modes.
If all you can do is point out that it's "just my opinion", you need to pull your head out of TWI's ***, and look at things from an outside perspective, rather than a perspective that's spent so much time drowned in the midst of a moot realism-vs-classic debate that it's impossible to see the forest from the trees.
Exactly, the damage is done, it's too late. Maybe RS could have been treated as a "reboot" of sorts, discarding RO2's flawed way of doing things, wiping the slate clean, and implementing everything with a revised approach. But that didn't happen.
Maybe a new expansion in the future could focus on Germany vs Russia late war, stripping unrealistic prototypes like the Mkb42 out of Stalingrad maps in favor of weapons like the Stg-44 provided only on late war maps where it's realistic. This expansion could also provide a overhaul of fixes across all RO2 theaters, using the new release as a turning point to roll things over and merge the 2 broken modes into one fixed mode. Anyone who didn't like the changes could uninstall or disable the expansion to go back to the old system on the Stalingrad and RS maps, and this would require a lot less development than doing with an RO3 made from scratch.
If the 3rd expansion was successful, a 4th US. vs Germany expansion could bring in a horde of new players into the new and improved system, making up for whatever player losses were incurred from the HOS>RS>Expansion3 transition.
I'm not holding my breath though, that's all a great fantasy. As far as we can tell now, TWI is insistent on repeating and continuing the mistake of its "realistic COD" approach, rather than admit that it didn't work. Life it too short, I've got better things to do than keep playing a broken game in a vein hope that things will change.
Upvote
0
Sounds like ARMA 3 is the right game for you...
Agreed about the Squad system though- the Squad GUI needs to be improved in the way you described. Even AA 1.5 did it.
As for me, I am quite happy with Realism.
Agreed about the Squad system though- the Squad GUI needs to be improved in the way you described. Even AA 1.5 did it.
As for me, I am quite happy with Realism.
Upvote
0
ARMA 3* is over the top in trying to portray 'Realism' and in its clunkiness, not to mention it isn't World War 2. 2 1/2 strikes against it from the start.
* (disclaimer) If its anything like its predecessor, I have not personally played it and am going partially on here-say
Upvote
0
* (disclaimer) If its anything like its predecessor, I have not personally played it and am going partially on here-say
It's much better now in the Clunkiness aspect, aiming doesn't feel terrible and the animations are a little more fluid (altho you still have to stand still to change weapon). :>
As for you GnAm.
1) I'll give you that one, but the mechanics still aren't broken, just basic (and whether you think that means its Broken is your opinion).
2) By having a Scoreboard, Role Selection screen (or squad selection) and Team Selection screen, you reason that things are TOO complicated, and want to put EVERYTHING into a single jam-packed, information over-loaded screen? People with smaller monitors are not going to be happy with that idea of yours.
There are two differences between the Role Select menu from RO:OST and the one in RO2 (barring overall look), the little descriptions for class and the fact that there are small icons for choosing the weapon level.
3) You don't have to be aiming to use it.
You can disable the forced zoom (there was even sliders for it way back-when).
So...across the FallenFighters park would no longer be 250 metres, it'd be 400 metres just because I can't see as well and need to wear my glasses? The whole idea of not zooming is to make things harder to see and make gunshots more rewarding (for some folk), not to funk up the ballistics so things change massively from server to server.
As for the debate in which I apparently have my head up TWI's butt, I can and do play both modes, I'm more inclined to chime in with FACTS or corrections to things people post, rather than swaying my opinion into things.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
1 - True, it's my biggest issue with Realism. However, Dibblers mod has terrain dependent speed modifiers, while not perfect, it's a huge improvement.
2 - True. The squad system is a complete fail, I've yet to see a squad form up let alone act as a cohesive unit.
3 - True, its a mess. I'm a fan of zoom, I like it in ARMA, it's both needed and well done. But in ARMA, you can often see >1000m. The maps are too small in RO2 and the view distances too short to even need zoom. Most engagements are well under 200m, view distances due to obstructions or fog/haze are rarely up to 300m. I've played without any zoom and I think it promotes more exciting gameplay.
I don't expect TWI to make any changes to the game in these areas, they obviously could have and haven't. And they have said they are happy with the direction the game has taken. It's up to the community to change it.
Upvote
0
I bought RS during the Steam Summer Sale for $10. At this point, I feel I've gotten about $5 of entertainment out of it, and have no real desire to do anything other than plink at bots when I'm bored.
Too much changed between RO:Ost and the subsequent games to keep me interested beyond that. The goofy unlock system, and the absolutely moronic class progression system where your avatar gets better at the game over time just continuously remind me that the game is not what it should be.
I hadn't noticed the physics, mostly because I hadn't bothered playing long enough to notice it. RS itself just ain't that much fun, since it seems to balance out along lines that are basically just frustrating. Either you feel overwhelmed as the Japanese by superior firepower and unbalanced classes, or you feel like you never stood a chance even with your superior firepower because the enemy had all the tactical advantages.
I expect the maps are actually balanced better than that, but the end result in most of the rounds I've played has been those two general feelings. You're either kicking *** because of the cool toys you have, or you're kicking *** because the enemy is the proverbial fish in the proverbial barrel.
At this point, based on not merely RO2 but also RS, i can safely say I won't be buying another game in this series. Y'all got me for a preorder on RO2 based on the strength of RO:Ost. you got my $10 on a "What the hell. Maybe it got better" purchase with RS. It didn't, really. I'd play on classic servers, but no one else really is. And apparently the avatar improvement bullsh*t carries over into that mode?
TWI built its brand on a particular product, and then dramatically shifted gears. Maybe they gained new customers, but I know they lost old ones, too. Hope it was worth it, fellas.
Too much changed between RO:Ost and the subsequent games to keep me interested beyond that. The goofy unlock system, and the absolutely moronic class progression system where your avatar gets better at the game over time just continuously remind me that the game is not what it should be.
I hadn't noticed the physics, mostly because I hadn't bothered playing long enough to notice it. RS itself just ain't that much fun, since it seems to balance out along lines that are basically just frustrating. Either you feel overwhelmed as the Japanese by superior firepower and unbalanced classes, or you feel like you never stood a chance even with your superior firepower because the enemy had all the tactical advantages.
I expect the maps are actually balanced better than that, but the end result in most of the rounds I've played has been those two general feelings. You're either kicking *** because of the cool toys you have, or you're kicking *** because the enemy is the proverbial fish in the proverbial barrel.
At this point, based on not merely RO2 but also RS, i can safely say I won't be buying another game in this series. Y'all got me for a preorder on RO2 based on the strength of RO:Ost. you got my $10 on a "What the hell. Maybe it got better" purchase with RS. It didn't, really. I'd play on classic servers, but no one else really is. And apparently the avatar improvement bullsh*t carries over into that mode?
TWI built its brand on a particular product, and then dramatically shifted gears. Maybe they gained new customers, but I know they lost old ones, too. Hope it was worth it, fellas.
Upvote
0
Apparently they "added" those features as an "improvement" but as you said to me it feels more like the game is lacking many things because of these features. It took away the heart and soul what of made RO Ost so great. For me it feels now like a 08/15 shooter. Not much left to let it stand out. Rather poor player retention is the result.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It's really not that hard. I did a quick mockup in photoshop and had space to spare!
http://i1288.photobucket.com/albums/b500/Gnalvl/squadmockup2_zpsac902b3a.jpg~original
(I recommend clicking the magnifying glass in the bottom right twice till you get to the "original", then right click and "open in new tab" to get a good view)
When you start getting rid of useless BS like the weapon/character levels, weapon select (real soldiers use what they're issued) etc. things get much easier to lay out.
You're assuming here that being similar to the RO1 role select screen is a good thing, which is not necessarily the case. Many of us bought RO2 expecting an improved iteration of RO gameplay design; not just RO1 with better graphics.
The point of disabling zoom is also not to turn SMG's into assault rifles, but in practice it does, because without ballistics adjustments, preventing zoom effectiveless removes all the ranges from the game where an SMG would be less accurate than a rifle. Rifleman can no longer see and hit as effectively at the distances they should beat out SMG's, so an assault troop becomes a jack of all trades that can hit anything the naked eye can see - that is until you start adding unrealistic recoil exagerations and damage nerfs, so that someone can survive an infinite number of pistol caliber hits as long as they take 3 seconds to bandage between injuries.
The truth is that TV's and computer monitors require compromises no matter what, because they can't support real life human 180 degree FOV without fisheyeing. You have to choose between either providing both a zoomed-out peripheral view and a zoomed-in distance view, or only allowing one view and adjusting ballistics accordingly, or else you're just going to wind up pumping a bunch of extra arcade BS into your mechanics needlessly trying to reconcile the mess you made for yourself.
------------------
Some facts:
- einstein says real people can't move like that
- everything RO2 does in 3 screens is possible with 1, and this would aid squad cohesion
- the recoil of a WWII era rifle is ~15 ft-lbs and not 3 ft-lbs
- squishing 90 degrees fov on a screen that takes up 30 degrees of your real fov does not produce true-to-scale distance vision
- if you shout "bad 'nade!" on an RO2 server, no one knows who you're talking to cause everyone can hear it
- there's no XP in real life
Sure, it's opinion whether RO2's lack of adherence to these facts is good or bad, but given this is a community generally focused on realistic gameplay, do we really need to play with kid's gloves here?
Virtually all of these issues would have been easy to avoid with a well-directed design document, and most could be fixed with common sense and a few lines of uscript, but instead TWI chose to throw the community into months of pointless, cyclical debate by splitting the flaws across two different broken modes, neither of which offer the optimal solution.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Our only hope for a better and more simplified squad screen is if a modder does it. Even if someone figured out how to make the squad select screen the default one would be a great help.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I think that is already possible however no servers I know use it. Not sure though.
Like many things with RO that bug me it seems that a lot more is possible but TWI and the players prefer the easy "default" option. New custom maps empty servers, mods are generally not accepted (Dibbler's mod looks so sweet but I think it is doomed by the current playerbase not being open for changes). I know you guys here on the forums are open to that but we are not enough.
Then again I played Coldsteel last night on a Realism server and that is just awful with spawn on SL as you tend to respawn on the wrong side of cover often behind enemies or right in front of them. Just awful. Clearly a map that shows how spawn on SL can ruin everything that is good.
Really like the map in Classic but in Realism it is taking the piss.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You'd be surprised at how easily swayed your average pubber is. We've had custom maps on 2.FJg for a long time now and they don't kill the server. You might get a few of the really, really new guys leaving, but within 2 or 3 minutes the server fills up.
We had Thors HUD mutator running on there which again, either went unnoticed or was well received by the community. Sadly, its been making our server crash and we really aren't sure why... which is a shame because I loved that thing.
People are here to blow off some steam. They will generally play what you give them play (as an admin). The few that choose to leave because it isn't the easy default option? Good for them. If they're too impatient to download or try something new then there are slots for people who are.
edit: we also have a lot of people interested in Dibblers sound mod.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I know there is always a few good servers that have a dedicated population. And I know there is interest in Dibbler's mod. But will it be enough people or will it kill population? I hope it will be successful and I would not have doubted it back in RO Ost or DH days. RO2 seems to be different though.
Upvote
0
As long as everything remains configurable, then I don't see why not. The new artillery, grenade and weapons sounds are killer.. I don't see how anyone couldn't like them, unless they have a phobia of loud noises.
The dynamic movement feature might not be everyone's cup of tea... but apart from that, whats not to like? Everything he has put into that mutator adds to the immersion.
Either way, I hope it gets released soon. If it attracts enough attention maybe TWI will start implementing some of Dibblers changes into the vanilla game itself.
Upvote
0
Agreed. Admins can toggle off most of it I believe, I can see this being everywhere once it's whitelisted. I think the dynamic movement won't be much of an issue, it's not overdone IMO.
I'm sure most servers will leave zoom on though unfortunately.
I'm sure most servers will leave zoom on though unfortunately.
Upvote
0
I like the idea of dynamic movement, but personally I think admins should be allowed to change the speed.
If it were up to me, I'd make it a tiny bit faster.
Upvote
0
I fear this topic is entirely academic now. It is either "realism" or moving on to something else at this point.
Upvote
0
Sadly that seems to be the truth. Changes to Classic will now surely come too late.
So I played a few rounds of Realism lately and though I enjoy it a lot less than Classic I can play a round or two. It has become a casual shooter to me.
But why for the love of :IS2: does turning off spawn on SL unrank the server? TWI any comment or reason for this? It is so broken especially on the new map contest maps. Bridges of Druzinha for example, I respawned twice on the wrong side of the fence and was trapped. Suicide the only answer. On Coldsteel I respawned repeatedly directly 3 m behind enemies or right in front of them. Who enjoys that? Seriously who thinks that is good to materialize out of thin air right next to the enemy? So TWI please fix this horrible feature or at least give the server admins the option to turn this gamebreaker off without unranking the server.
It says the game uses waves of reinforcements to "simulate" the arrival of new troops on the battlefield. With spawn on SL enabled this becomes a joke!
Last edited:
Upvote
0