Gameplay has turned into a campfest...

  • 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/

Imaginary_Star

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 5, 2011
18
2
0
As for moi, I cannot relate. I play in any way I can to make it engaging. Plus I've seen scores of highly successful aggressive players. Plus I don't think camping is viable(as in excessively so) in the real team on team matches(non PUB).

For the life of me I cannot fathom any reason why would you consciously play a game in the way that makes you hate every minute of it.
If I am bored while playing anything - I stop. And do something more fulfilling.
Doing something while hating it all the while is the definition of misery.
 

LugNut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 12, 2011
2,288
117
0
There is equally too much camping and too much running around in general.

This

There's little communication, so most people just play as lone wolves. On emptier servers, people just sit and snipe and on 32/32 servers the maps are waaay too small for that many players and it's just a RNG zoo.

I'm disappointed in the gameplay to be honest, I'd like to see things that impose deliberate decisions on the part of the player and take away the incentive to blindly attack.
Longer spawn times
Much longer bandaging
Longer time to switch weapons
Longer to go to iron sights
Shorter sprint times
More sway when wounded (after bandaging)
More sway when stamina is lower.
Less damage from melee

If these were in place, you'd take care to plan and look for support from your teammmates before attempting a push. You'd only sprint when you had to or when you know that you'll be in cover at the end of it. You'd try harder to stay alive. It annoys me that you can Rambo around and be successful.
 

Nenjin

Grizzled Veteran
Apr 30, 2009
3,879
480
83
Sub-Level 12
I'm all for that stuff LN except longer spawn times. You cannot enforce player participation with others, you're just adding annoyances to the people who like the game. I'm ok with the ramping up of penalties for all sorts of associated stuff. I'm just not with the "gut everything we don't like" suggestions, because those are totally unreasonable.
 

stayBlind

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 4, 2011
159
45
0
34
Suwanee, GA
This

There's little communication, so most people just play as lone wolves. On emptier servers, people just sit and snipe and on 32/32 servers the maps are waaay too small for that many players and it's just a RNG zoo.

I'm disappointed in the gameplay to be honest, I'd like to see things that impose deliberate decisions on the part of the player and take away the incentive to blindly attack.
Longer spawn times
Much longer bandaging
Longer time to switch weapons
Longer to go to iron sights
Shorter sprint times
More sway when wounded (after bandaging)
More sway when stamina is lower.
Less damage from melee

If these were in place, you'd take care to plan and look for support from your teammmates before attempting a push. You'd only sprint when you had to or when you know that you'll be in cover at the end of it. You'd try harder to stay alive. It annoys me that you can Rambo around and be successful.

Exactly, all good points. But, if we actually had to sit back and plan, how would the attackers ever beat the lockdown?
 

Josef Nader

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
1,713
1,165
0
its red orchestra. hold the name with the reputation to be more towards the realism realm of fps. improvements on mg are acceptable. no more arm rest and a magic zoom with super stability while standing are not acceptable to me. your right, its a new game with new rules. but does it really represent what the name red orchestra was about. we can agree that people who played ro 1 probably liked it over cod for example. now the game is somewhat of a hybrid of cod/ro 1. UAV recon with no sway guns and a magic zoom mode like cod. mg was a improvement of ro 1.

they game is no long about red orchestra - realism as the main priority. its definitely something else now.

Heaven forbid the IP evolve over time.

Go play Halo: Combat Evolved, then play Halo: Reach. The number of changes from the first iteration to the final one are astronomical (as for the individual merits of each one, you be the judge). RO2 has evolved quite a bit from RO1, but it is still undoubtedly a Red Orchestra game worthy of the title. Punishing difficulty, strong focus on team play, and a learning curve like running full speed into the base of the Hoover Dam. There is nothing 'easy' about a game where you die in one shot and you aren't protected by gamey mechanics like sway or absurd bullet spread. There's nothing easy about trying to hit a target that is hunched over and sprinting for cover (and actually moving with expedience as opposed to plodding along).

Red Orchestra 2 is entirely unique from everything else on the market, and quite an impressive evolution from it's birth. Yes, the pace has increased a lot from the first Red Orchestra. Does that mean that it's any easier? Gods no. It's just a different set of skill than the vets are used to, and some of the less flexible vets are enraged that the muscle memory and twitch reflexes they spent so much time honing for RO1 are obsolete.

I'm not sure you've ever played Call of Duty, mate. I have. It's a terrible shooter. I feel like a camera on a hovercraft with a gun attached, whizzing around with my auto-lock and ducking behind cover to wipe my eyes every time an enemy hits me with his magic raspberry jam bullets. No weapon kills in one hit (unless it's a headshot) because that would be cheap and unbalanced. There is absolutely no method of team communication and strategy. There's no need for any sort of command structure, as even the lowest ranked player can summon artillery and bombers if he gets his K:D high enough, and everybody calls you a noob ****** and questions your sexual orientation and the promiscuity of your mother just because you out-twitched them. It's a godawful experience, and it is absolutely -nothing- like Red Orchestra 2.

Player error is the problem here, not the game. People want it to be identical to everything they've ever played before, yet they demand originality from the developer. When the developer tries to produce something new, the old fans recoil from it in fear and the new fans are so alienated by the mechanics that they flee back to whence they came. From this amalgamation of conflict, a new fanbase will build.

My question to you, then, is thus:

Are you willing to learn a new game with a new engine, or would you have more fun elsewhere? It's an entirely non-sarcastic question, I assure you.

I want to learn how to play the game TWI has presented with us. Their brain child and their baby. I want to see what they have to offer before I start trying to fix what might not be broken. But you folks don't want to see past that. You want what you had before, just with new paint. TWI wants to try and advance the formula into something new, to push the boundaries of what you can accomplish in an online FPS. Why is it so unreasonable to give the mechanics a chance before we start trying to dick them up?
 
Last edited:

Spacehogking

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 28, 2011
114
65
0
I feel like RO1 was more camp-oriented than RO2. With that said, it is true, and I lament, that it is ridiculously easy to kill people, the gameplay has turned more K:D based and less objective based. As OP said, kills aren't as gratifying as they were. I miss being shot in the arm, picking up my gun and my ammo, having decreased fatigue capacity, barely making it across the street, then being shot by some guy in a window. Because it was consistent. TWI's appeasement of both sides of the spectrum, in short, left it something of an abomination. It's like it's being tugged in both directions and doesn't know in which to go.
I think TWI should just do what they did in RO1. Do what works. We don't need changes for the sake of changes.
 

LugNut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 12, 2011
2,288
117
0
Nenjin,

I'm not suggesting that we force behavior, rather that the gameplay environment would reward those who work with their teammates and play like their life has value. Your teammates will keep you alive, so you quickly learn to play in a cooperative manner, helping them helps you. If you've ever played ARMA, it's amusing watching COD refugees run around lone wolfing and quickly dying over and over till they rage quit. I'm not suggesting that TWI turn HOS into ARMA, just trying to get it farther away from the simple minded FPS of the day.

I'm flexible on spawntimes, I just prefer longer to shorter. : )

I think TWI has done a great job with the engine and mechanics, I wouldn't suggest losing any of it. It's just a matter of fine tuning the gameplay IMO.

But, if we actually had to sit back and plan, how would the attackers ever beat the lockdown?

Make it longer, a lot longer. Who wants short rushing battles anyway? And/or have a short ready up time to plan an basic strategy, or just have enough time to grab a couple of squadmates and formulate a simple plan on the go.
 
Last edited:

KarmakazeNZ

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 23, 2010
352
249
0
This is it, two weeks of beta and few days after release I find my self with no better tactic than camping, either on defense or offense I can get about 30-40 kills every game just by finding a spot and camping the enemy till i get spot, I say it's not fun to me, there's no challenge, I've come to know all the spots on the most famous maps where you can just point your super accurate auto/semi-auto gun and get kills, one after the other. I'ts no that I didn't try to play differently, it's just not possible, I either camp and get on top of the leaderboard or get killed by campers.

Let me first try to figure out what you mean by camping. Camping isn't a bad thing if it is done for the right reason. If you are camping an objective (either in the zone or covering it) that is held by your team, then you are doing a good job if you are getting that many kills. If you are camping an enemy objective while your team assaults it, then you are still doing exactly what you are meant to be doing.

Not everyone is going to be good at run and gun type play, just like not everyone is going to be good at camp and snipe. Some people have quicker eyes, some have higher definition eyes, and the two types of play are optimised for one each. If it seems to be too quick for you, slow down and camp a little more, even further away from the battle. Spend more time watching than shooting. Try to figure out the flow of the battle and move somewhere you feel is safer.

Run and gun is about being proactive. You aren't running to meet them, you are running to bypass them. If you run towards the enemy spawn without seeing an enemy, you are in a very good position. Your are behind them and can start getting in amongst them while THEY are running straight into battle. "Rambo-fu" works by screwing with the enemy's mind more than anything.

You want him to look at you think "Why does this ally look like an enemy?" If you have done it well, he will be so surprised to see an enemy there, he may even act like he's pissed at the friendly who keeps trying to TK him rather than an enemy trying to get the kill. In his mind, only a friendly could be where you are.

But as I said, if you are really good at one style, then it's possible you will never be good at the other. Luckily both can work here. You get 30-40 kills by camp and snipe, I get that by run and gun. We're both doing well. What's the problem?

If what you are doing is working for you, but boring, do it most of the time but only run and gun when you feel you have the most advantage, either support from team mates or a superior position that allows you to move more freely.

I find it boring that I can stand still and have the same accuracy I have with the gun rested.

At what range? I could get standing unsupported shots on a head and shoulders target at 300m when I was in basic training. In fact I was required to. Are you sure you're not just thinking about how accurate GAME weapons usually are?

it's just not fun that I can run for miles and have no penalty while shooting.

The battle fitness test in basic training that I had to complete involved a 9KM run with full pack, webbing and weapon, immediately followed by jumping a 2m ditch with pack, then climbing a 5m rope in just the webbing. Finally you had to hit 10 out of 20 shots at a head and shoulders target at 50m.

You seem to think I should be able to run about 200m before collapsing in a panting pile of jello. I would have been kicked out of the army if I was that unfit. In fact, after a back injury, I was.

It's annoying that a guy shoots three bullets in my chest and I can kill him and bandage later on.

LOL bull****. If I was aiming at your chest, it would take one shot. Unless you have come across a bug, the game is not like that at all. You're just making **** up.

Or is this just a thinly veiled "why can they do this to me" post?

It's ridiculous that I can get 60 meters headshots while bleeding to death.

Why? Does your brain stop working if there is blood leaking out of you? How long does it take to "bleed out"? In the real world it can be seconds, minutes or even hours and days, depending on the wound. This mechanic is the best approximation of combat injuries that doesn't involve you ending up stuck at the bottom of a crater with no legs, trying to kill anyone who comes over the top for the rest of the round.

You think THIS is boring? Try that.

It's hilarious that I can sprint and zigzag while the enemy unloads a gun on me and stab him with the bayonet and then bandage as if nothing happened.

You're surprised that it is hard to shoot a moving target? Have you ever actually SHOT a moving target? Not in a game. A real one.

On most the maps is just that, a big campfest

Sure. Then again you talk about trying to do anything else and getting killed. Maybe you're just not very good?

first day I thought 'wow I am good at this',

You can do nothing but camp and snipe... and you thought you were good at the game? Ummmm.... OK... not my first thought, but sure, whatever.

Killing stuff is too easy that it's not even fun to me anymore

People saying stuff is TOO easy, should probably prove it. Show us a screenshot of your score on a map. I do well, and can prove it, but it's not EASY. It takes skill.


I remember RO where every kill felt like you really achieved something

Yes, you overcame a set of unrealistic game mechanics in an unrealistic way and thought that was indicative of anything other than you are good under those specific conditions. I can camp and snipe in RO2, AND I can run and gun. Nothing about the game stops me from doing well at either. So it must be something to do with you.

now it's just counting how many you can kill before they hunt you down.

Do you know what the life expectancy of the infantryman in Stalingrad was? It was measured in minutes, not hours. Welcome to the real world or as best we can simulate it without being totally boring. Soldiers always describe their war time experience as being "99% boredom and 1% sheer terror" We just leave out the "boredom".

Like 'we wanted the game to be like this, so live with it if you don't like it'...

Please keep it civil.

You know why I am struggling to keep it civil? Because it never once occurred to you that your FEELINGS about the game are anything other than SUBJECTIVE. You assume because YOU feel it's like that, it must BE like that.

You're wrong. Totally, utterly wrong. But you never even entertained the possibility.
 

Bear44

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 23, 2011
52
8
0
Heaven forbid the IP evolve over time.

Go play Halo: Combat Evolved, then play Halo: Reach. The number of changes from the first iteration to the final one are astronomical (as for the individual merits of each one, you be the judge). RO2 has evolved quite a bit from RO1, but it is still undoubtedly a Red Orchestra game worthy of the title. Punishing difficulty, strong focus on team play, and a learning curve like running full speed into the base of the Hoover Dam. There is nothing 'easy' about a game where you die in one shot and you aren't protected by gamey mechanics like sway or absurd bullet spread. There's nothing easy about trying to hit a target that is hunched over and sprinting for cover (and actually moving with expedience as opposed to plodding along).

Red Orchestra 2 is entirely unique from everything else on the market, and quite an impressive evolution from it's birth. Yes, the pace has increased a lot from the first Red Orchestra. Does that mean that it's any easier? Gods no. It's just a different set of skill than the vets are used to, and some of the less flexible vets are enraged that the muscle memory and twitch reflexes they spent so much time honing for RO1 are obsolete.

I'm not sure you've ever played Call of Duty, mate. I have. It's a terrible shooter. I feel like a camera on a hovercraft with a gun attached, whizzing around with my auto-lock and ducking behind cover to wipe my eyes every time an enemy hits me with his magic raspberry jam bullets. No weapon kills in one hit (unless it's a headshot) because that would be cheap and unbalanced. There is absolutely no method of team communication and strategy. There's no need for any sort of command structure, as even the lowest ranked player can summon artillery and bombers if he gets his K:D high enough, and everybody calls you a noob ****** and questions your sexual orientation and the promiscuity of your mother just because you out-twitched them. It's a godawful experience, and it is absolutely -nothing- like Red Orchestra 2.

Player error is the problem here, not the game. People want it to be identical to everything they've ever played before, yet they demand originality from the developer. When the developer tries to produce something new, the old fans recoil from it in fear and the new fans are so alienated by the mechanics that they flee back to whence they came. From this amalgamation of conflict, a new fanbase will build.

My question to you, then, is thus:

Are you willing to learn a new game with a new engine, or would you have more fun elsewhere? It's an entirely non-sarcastic question, I assure you.

I want to learn how to play the game TWI has presented with us. Their brain child and their baby. I want to see what they have to offer before I start trying to fix what might not be broken. But you folks don't want to see past that. You want what you had before, just with new paint. TWI wants to try and advance the formula into something new, to push the boundaries of what you can accomplish in an online FPS. Why is it so unreasonable to give the mechanics a chance before we start trying to dick them up?

P9200072.jpg

to me, it comes all down to realism. i will not change my mind and accept the new gun mechanics, i have given the game a chance and will say that many things have been enhanced and i like and some things have took a step in a different direction. bugs aside, how can one who comes from ro 1 say zoom is acceptable, say super gun stability is acceptable. those who come from ro 1 were there and not in bf/cod/css/cs 1.6 for a reason. i feel ro 2 is a MIX of ro and cod.

new MG mechanic +
new Tank mechanic +/-
new penetration +
zoom -
bandage +/-
gun stability +/-

i don't want ro 2 to be identical to ro 1, i want ro 2 to be elevated into a higher direction of REALISM. the realism for hence i joined and stayed in ro 1 and left the other fps behind for. what is ro mainly about for all these years, all the fans talk about REALISM. thats what the name red orchestra brings to mind. i feel that they have stepped off that path somewhat with some features.

as someone else stated, give relaxed realism to you guys.

just give realism mode with what we want to us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poerisija

KarmakazeNZ

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 23, 2010
352
249
0
to me, it comes all down to realism. i will not change my mind and accept the new gun mechanics,

I thought you wanted realism? What is unrealistic about the new "gun mechanics"?

how can one who comes from ro 1 say zoom is acceptable

Because they were after realism? I can do the damn MATHS for you if you want. The RO1 view was UNREALISTIC, the RO2 zoom-view is REALISTIC. The part YOU want, is FAKE.

I am using caps to emphasise those words for a reason. TWI has explained it, other people on the forum have explained it, this is the most realistic compromise between ability to aim and shoot, and ability to see a wide field of view when searching.

You said you wanted realism. You got it. Now you're complaining. It will not change.

say super gun stability is acceptable.

My uncle once used a Ruger 10/22 to headshot a sparrow at about 30m away from the standing unsupported position. It was a snapshot taken through a 2X scope. I picked up the body, sans head.

A very experience shooter can do things with a rifle that someone who has never or only ever fired a real rifle a few times would think is impossible. There is no physical basis at all for your argument. Real people CAN and DO do it. So why do you think it is unrealistic?

I haven't noticed the in-game guns being any more or less unstable than the weapons I fired in the army. Not outside realistic expectations, that is.

We were required to be able to shoot men at 300m, whether they be running, standing, or in a foxhole showing head and shoulders. We were required to be able to hit a head and shoulders target at 50m, 50% of the time, even after a 9KM run in full pack. I have not seen anything in the game that I couldn't do then. I could do a lot more in fact. I could make my own cover. I could camouflage a position. I could rely on there being more than 31 other friendlies in the entire world at any one time.

The odds are of surviving are realistic in RO2, what is missing is the number of people who were trying to beat the odds at the same time. There are fewer targets so you get shot at more. Otherwise, it feels pretty real to me, and I have done it in real world training.


i feel ro 2 is a MIX of ro and cod.

LOL. You think you just figured out the problem in RO2? That was what TWI SAID they were going to make before you ever had a chance to buy it. If you didn't know that, you're an idiot for buying something you didn't even know anything about.

i don't want ro 2 to be identical to ro 1, i want ro 2 to be elevated into a higher direction of REALISM.

No, you don't. You want it to more accurately adhere to your faulty idea of realism.

just give realism mode with what we want to us.

Not if you will make it the way YOU think the world works. You don't know what you're talking about.
 

Bear44

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 23, 2011
52
8
0
I thought you wanted realism? What is unrealistic about the new "gun mechanics"?



Because they were after realism? I can do the damn MATHS for you if you want. The RO1 view was UNREALISTIC, the RO2 zoom-view is REALISTIC. The part YOU want, is FAKE.

I am using caps to emphasise those words for a reason. TWI has explained it, other people on the forum have explained it, this is the most realistic compromise between ability to aim and shoot, and ability to see a wide field of view when searching.

You said you wanted realism. You got it. Now you're complaining. It will not change.



My uncle once used a Ruger 10/22 to headshot a sparrow at about 30m away from the standing unsupported position. It was a snapshot taken through a 2X scope. I picked up the body, sans head.

A very experience shooter can do things with a rifle that someone who has never or only ever fired a real rifle a few times would think is impossible. There is no physical basis at all for your argument. Real people CAN and DO do it. So why do you think it is unrealistic?

I haven't noticed the in-game guns being any more or less unstable than the weapons I fired in the army. Not outside realistic expectations, that is.

We were required to be able to shoot men at 300m, whether they be running, standing, or in a foxhole showing head and shoulders. We were required to be able to hit a head and shoulders target at 50m, 50% of the time, even after a 9KM run in full pack. I have not seen anything in the game that I couldn't do then. I could do a lot more in fact. I could make my own cover. I could camouflage a position. I could rely on there being more than 31 other friendlies in the entire world at any one time.

The odds are of surviving are realistic in RO2, what is missing is the number of people who were trying to beat the odds at the same time. There are fewer targets so you get shot at more. Otherwise, it feels pretty real to me, and I have done it in real world training.




LOL. You think you just figured out the problem in RO2? That was what TWI SAID they were going to make before you ever had a chance to buy it. If you didn't know that, you're an idiot for buying something you didn't even know anything about.



No, you don't. You want it to more accurately adhere to your faulty idea of realism.



Not if you will make it the way YOU think the world works. You don't know what you're talking about.

i can't seem to be able to make the vision zoom. care to show me how, i can however make the image blur if i want the sights clear or make the sights blur and the image clear but no way can it zoom.

your uncle shot a rifle at 30m standing unsupported, people can get that with 100 over like its nothing, no alignment issues at all.

your correct about the statement they made for zoom as what they believe to be realistic, but no where did they publishes with high intent for everyone to know was that they were to make the game share cod characteristics/mechanics.

take a photo of the medals you have. and make sure to right on a paper with your account name on it. by your account you guys should of won every war already with 300m kills like shoot fish in a bucket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poerisija

Gaizokubanou

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 5, 2011
525
76
0
View attachment 7125

to me, it comes all down to realism. i will not change my mind and accept the new gun mechanics, i have given the game a chance and will say that many things have been enhanced and i like and some things have took a step in a different direction. bugs aside, how can one who comes from ro 1 say zoom is acceptable, say super gun stability is acceptable. those who come from ro 1 were there and not in bf/cod/css/cs 1.6 for a reason. i feel ro 2 is a MIX of ro and cod.

new MG mechanic +
new Tank mechanic +/-
new penetration +
zoom -
bandage +/-
gun stability +/-

i don't want ro 2 to be identical to ro 1, i want ro 2 to be elevated into a higher direction of REALISM. the realism for hence i joined and stayed in ro 1 and left the other fps behind for. what is ro mainly about for all these years, all the fans talk about REALISM. thats what the name red orchestra brings to mind. i feel that they have stepped off that path somewhat with some features.

as someone else stated, give relaxed realism to you guys.

just give realism mode with what we want to us.

Well, without zoom we would either need super tunnel vision to have engagement at realistic range or retain peripheral vision and have unrealistically short shoot outs. It's pretty much the only solution of having both peripheral vision and having realistic shootout range.

This next part is not really directed at you since I think you and I are in agreement over many things about what I'm saying below, but I would just like to rant on a topic that you brought up.

I just find it hard to believe that RO1 fans are only mad about RO2 for lack of realism. RO1 had its share of unrealistic mechanics compared to RO2 with super sway, pixel hunting at 150m range and character movement as if your character had some sort of disability.

Not that RO2 is super realistic, with the immersion breaking bandage system, stamina having very little aiming, exaggerated weight system (12lbs extra from MG makes you run way too slow when compared to SMG).

But as a FPS, gun mechanism is good chunk of the game and RO2 has heads and shoulders above RO1 on realistic gun mechanics.
 

Nipper

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 9, 2011
123
15
0
Campers are fine, they are just playing the game the way that they want to.
Besides campers can be of great annoyance to the enemy and rack up some nice kills.
 

Herne

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 19, 2011
27
30
0
For me its frustrating to try to run across an open map just to get takked again and again by some loser proning in a building shell. Open areas need more cover to run between.
 

SSGermanOfficer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 15, 2011
43
115
0
Los Angeles, CA
I'm an aggressive player as well, but it takes away from the game when people rather sit in a nice hiding spot just to live and get kills. Can you blame them? not really, because I don't expect the average player to be capable of moving around out in the open and still able to kill people. Most players are either going to be able to move around but not kill much, or sit in one place and take several shots at a target just to kill it...for me I typically kill everything in the first shot no matter what so it kinda gives me the luxury of someone getting the jump on me or I can risk exposing myself If I know where the guy is and feel confident in taking him out even though he's behind cover.

And it's the same thing for all FPS, one main reason they are popular is that they are easy to get into and understand, they can do a variety of things and be effective to a reasonable agree so they don't rage every time they try and do something else....right now all those average players have to sit back and shoot at things if they want to stand any chance of surviving and or getting any kills, and lets face it this game isn't about elitist players running around claiming everything is easy like they do in every other game so they can just tell other players "L2Play" and guess what? the players saying those things are typically a fairly easy game or spending insane more amounts of time playing as others...so I don't care what I can do, i care what everyone can do to a reasonable level because that's what makes it enjoyable and brings the experience to life.

I'm tired of seeing people try and ignore obvious or legitimate issues in game play because they want to stroke their own ego when they likely aren't as good as they think they are playing against these people just trying to learn the game or never even played a red orchestra game before...it's rather selfish and self-centered imo.
 

flavin420

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 2, 2009
308
49
0
"I find it boring that I can stand still and have the same accuracy I have with the gun rested."

I find this ridiculous, the one thing that really made OST for me was this feature of resting your weapon on any sruface, and now its completely useless. I still love playing HOS.

And i think in time once the players really learn the game etc. things will get better, i hate fallen heroes for the one reason that you only see 5 guys from each team going into the middle.

PS. ISO A CLAN
 

Stormer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 10, 2008
302
438
0
So, KarmakazeNZ, tell us why RO2 is more realistic than CoD, surely no sway and recoil at all is exactly how it is in real life and CoD is the most realistic game ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poerisija

Bear44

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 23, 2011
52
8
0
Well, without zoom we would either need super tunnel vision to have engagement at realistic range or retain peripheral vision and have unrealistically short shoot outs. It's pretty much the only solution of having both peripheral vision and having realistic shootout range.

This next part is not really directed at you since I think you and I are in agreement over many things about what I'm saying below, but I would just like to rant on a topic that you brought up.

I just find it hard to believe that RO1 fans are only mad about RO2 for lack of realism. RO1 had its share of unrealistic mechanics compared to RO2 with super sway, pixel hunting at 150m range and character movement as if your character had some sort of disability.

Not that RO2 is super realistic, with the immersion breaking bandage system, stamina having very little aiming, exaggerated weight system (12lbs extra from MG makes you run way too slow when compared to SMG).

But as a FPS, gun mechanism is good chunk of the game and RO2 has heads and shoulders above RO1 on realistic gun mechanics.

yes, ro 1 was not 100% realistic, there were many problems like pixel hunt etc. but zooming, bandaging in 1.5-2secs, lack of need rest wrist on object to improve alignment really pisses me off. i was coming into the game with expectations towards what i assume is realistic so i might be wrong. so maybe i have **** eyes and i can't zoom and some people have awesome slow twitch muscles that are very efficient with oxygen and can do a decent run with heart rates higher and pull off a perfect alignment very quickly getting targets at 100m. well, atleast thats what some soldiers are claiming here that they can do. i just really want improvements towards this game like the MG. to me thats the best jump in the entire game for me. the bipods usage is much more realistic now. just in general its the most realistic improvement to that class/mechanics.
 
Last edited: