Comparing a way (that you happent to not like) to play a game to an actual crime of killing a person?
Way to go.
Games lately...
- Thread starter Poerisija
- Start date
Comparing a way (that you happent to not like) to play a game to an actual crime of killing a person?
Way to go.
Yeah, comparing the matter of adapting to run-and-gun style gameplay because you can to killing someone is an incredible exaggeration and not an apt comparison.
I understand what the point is, though. Running and gunning is a route towards which many players adapted because the game allows and rewards it. Sure, some run-and-gun players die quite often and quickly, but a lot of them are incredibly quick and hard to kill, and this is completely justified due to the game mechanics.
Ramm-Jaeger himself did say on at least one occasion that Ostfront was too slow and clunky for him and he's more into fast-paced, run-and-gun gameplay. And TWI made it rather clear that this is incorporated into the design of RO2. While I don't like run-and-gun tactics, I can't really argue against people using them because the game was intentionally designed to foster that kind of speed. I would certainly prefer a game where people don't get continuously mowed down by hip-firing machine gunners charging around like assault troopers, and I criticize this aspect of it on the forums, but it's a design feature - not the player's fault for taking the tools given to him and using them to great effect.
I understand what the point is, though. Running and gunning is a route towards which many players adapted because the game allows and rewards it. Sure, some run-and-gun players die quite often and quickly, but a lot of them are incredibly quick and hard to kill, and this is completely justified due to the game mechanics.
Ramm-Jaeger himself did say on at least one occasion that Ostfront was too slow and clunky for him and he's more into fast-paced, run-and-gun gameplay. And TWI made it rather clear that this is incorporated into the design of RO2. While I don't like run-and-gun tactics, I can't really argue against people using them because the game was intentionally designed to foster that kind of speed. I would certainly prefer a game where people don't get continuously mowed down by hip-firing machine gunners charging around like assault troopers, and I criticize this aspect of it on the forums, but it's a design feature - not the player's fault for taking the tools given to him and using them to great effect.
Except run and gunning doesn't really work apart from apartments/barracks.
Rest of the maps have too open spaces where you're easy to pick off and kill by anyone.
Rest of the maps have too open spaces where you're easy to pick off and kill by anyone.
Run n' gun is not the do all end all. It's very situational and doesn't always work. Like someone said earlier, if playing against a competent tactical team you are going to get mowed down. Ultimately, because they are going to have all the avenues of approach covered. Good teams will have guys watching the backs of people that are defending from window positions instead of three guys looking out a single window. If you are spotted, a team will report you, and you will be hunted down like a dog.
If people use real world tactics and have situational awareness it's very hard to fail in this game. There are some things that you have no control over and that is server lag. Sometimes you just can't hit a moving target. At times, I hit a guy with at least half of my 9mm clip and it didn't faze him at all with no hits detected. So basically, this guy was impervious to incoming fire and deadly accurate with a PPsh. The 3D sound sucks in this game. You have no idea what direction sound is coming from. There is no advanced echo effects so youcan't say that sound is bouncing off walls.
If people use real world tactics and have situational awareness it's very hard to fail in this game. There are some things that you have no control over and that is server lag. Sometimes you just can't hit a moving target. At times, I hit a guy with at least half of my 9mm clip and it didn't faze him at all with no hits detected. So basically, this guy was impervious to incoming fire and deadly accurate with a PPsh. The 3D sound sucks in this game. You have no idea what direction sound is coming from. There is no advanced echo effects so youcan't say that sound is bouncing off walls.
Last edited:
It also works fairly well in Grain Elevator, as Soviet assault troopers realize they can easily run around the German spawn mowing down players as soon as they respawn.
Open spaces do work against the run-and-gunners, but this is also somewhat negated due to the accuracy and lethality of assault weapons being scarcely diminished over those ranges, and for reasons discussed in your post regarding realism in RO2 versus its predecessor. I often find - and maybe it's just me not being great at the game mechanics - that a submachine gunner across the map has accuracy on par with my bolt-action rifle and can easily kill me in a short burst. I feel it diminishes the advantage of having a weapon of larger calibre for longer-range engagement when submachine guns firing pistol rounds seem to afflict the same damage regardless of the range.
Edit: Regarding what Squad Leader said, the hit detection issues also kind of plague bolt-action riflemen in the aforementioned situations.
Though, in response to your comment regarding covering the avenues of approach, SL: Most public servers seldom have this, and I can't count the amount of times I see someone covering something, and I go to cover the other avenue that they're not watching, only for them to silently desert their position and for me to be killed by the assault troopers who just waltzed in through the opening my teammate abandoned.
While you sometimes do get teamwork, I still find that you need considerable amounts of people working in unison to hold down a building due to the sheer amount of open flanks and avenues through which the enemy can infiltrate.
Last edited:
Why does it feel like Cypher's arguments are utterly one sided devoid of any genuine thought?
He shows a video and says "Look, here you can run and gun" and similarly other people have posted a video with a person ramboing with a MG34 on Station, granted that one is a bit amusing and has merit to it, but the problem is this. Who are they fighting against? Would it be viable against higher tier players?
I am going to bet no.
He then questions what 'proper' is. That's pretty ironic since he makes a stance against empty rhetoric. But let me point out that 'running and gunning' will probably not be any of the recyclable tactics people will use in say tournament settings or with certain custom settings since that will be throwing away a victory deliberately.
There is also no FPS that forces you to be tactical. You are punished relative to the skill of the other team. RO1 forces you to be as tactical as Quake Live does, and if you ever watch or play Quake Live at the highest levels you will know there's plenty of tactics involving map control and positioning. What it takes to be successful always fluctuates and varies depending on your opponents and what rule settings you operate under.
Outside of bugs it's pretty hard to find legitimate complaints because most of them claim to be laws written by the universe rather than a preference or emotional, irrational, attachment to certain elements. No, they always claim that the game is 'dumbed down' or 'less tactical' etc. etc. which leads to an endless mudslinging contest.
He shows a video and says "Look, here you can run and gun" and similarly other people have posted a video with a person ramboing with a MG34 on Station, granted that one is a bit amusing and has merit to it, but the problem is this. Who are they fighting against? Would it be viable against higher tier players?
I am going to bet no.
He then questions what 'proper' is. That's pretty ironic since he makes a stance against empty rhetoric. But let me point out that 'running and gunning' will probably not be any of the recyclable tactics people will use in say tournament settings or with certain custom settings since that will be throwing away a victory deliberately.
There is also no FPS that forces you to be tactical. You are punished relative to the skill of the other team. RO1 forces you to be as tactical as Quake Live does, and if you ever watch or play Quake Live at the highest levels you will know there's plenty of tactics involving map control and positioning. What it takes to be successful always fluctuates and varies depending on your opponents and what rule settings you operate under.
Outside of bugs it's pretty hard to find legitimate complaints because most of them claim to be laws written by the universe rather than a preference or emotional, irrational, attachment to certain elements. No, they always claim that the game is 'dumbed down' or 'less tactical' etc. etc. which leads to an endless mudslinging contest.
I think you need to learn how to play.
If open spaces are a disadvantage then that's all there is to say about it. There isn't room for 'but it is negated' primarily because the other faction has automatics and semis as well. If you say it comes down to who sees who first, then positioning is pretty much going to be king with the queen being of how aware are you (and how well your game senses are). If you're having trouble with a bolt, then I suggest you stay away from it and stop deriving conclusions from your poor usage. For every second that you experience there will be contrary ones.
Overall, I would say your issue is a learn2play issue more than anything else.
Also, secure territory by being proactive, let the other fodder and lemmings sit in an area while you attempt to spawn kill. That's how you should play pubs because that's what they're there for ... for you to stomp.
I think Stahlgeist is too used to Ostfront's SMG's. I can hit a target further away with an airsoft gun than those things. 100 meters doesn't make you impervious to SMG fire. 200 meters nearly already does and that's not a very long distance. Maps are close-up and claustrophobic, because, well, it's Stalingrad. Rifles have their place, but that's not a close range firefight.
Wow. 'The other fodder and lemmings.' I'm going to do my own thing while my team mates die. Nice attitude. Thanks though for showing us what is really wrong with this game, and not the game itself which is what all this crowing about boils down to.
So you're saying RO1 vets are the ones run and gunning and not teamplaying?
Who's flaming here, you or me?
I think many ro1 vets already abandoned the game long ago, I haven't seen those GOOD player IDs from the past for a good long time, tbh.
Only clans that have peer support? peer pressure.. still play it good.
I just don't see the point of the original post.
I think pretty much things have settled down after Ramm posted on the forums regarding the game. I stopped voicing my discontent with the game as well, and servers dead threads are shut down.
Yet you feel the need to say: "Maybe it's because all those complaining about too fast gameplay and no teamwork quit the game and we're left with the people who don't run and gun and use teamwork"
I think pretty much things have settled down after Ramm posted on the forums regarding the game. I stopped voicing my discontent with the game as well, and servers dead threads are shut down.
Yet you feel the need to say: "Maybe it's because all those complaining about too fast gameplay and no teamwork quit the game and we're left with the people who don't run and gun and use teamwork"
I'm usually one of the first people in an objective, and I'm well aware that the rifle is going to be disadvantaged as a result of me being in close quarters with the enemy. My score consists almost entirely of getting into or trying to defend objectives. I've read about the experiences of other rifle-players, and I've played the game with the weapons for a considerable amount of time. Before I move on to playing more with the other weapons, I want to master the rifle.
What I'm actually trying to say is that, in terms of firepower, I feel the rifle doesn't really have a discernible advantage over other weapons over open distances. It's a matter of the ballistics that I'm concerned about.
While you will dismiss me as a whiny Ostfront veteran who doesn't want to learn to play, it's not connected to being too used to the recoil-heavy, unrealistic SMGs in RO1. In terms of handling, the RO2 submachine guns seem pretty realistic - though I think the PPSh might have too much recoil. That's not what I have a problem with.
I can shoot somebody in this game with a rifle round, in the arm, leg, chest, whatever, and I see them simply bandage it in the time it takes to re-bolt and line up my next shot. That's assuming my round even hits the target, with questionable hit detection. Meanwhile, at distances ranging 150 meters or more, the submachine gun rounds seem to be just as pinpoint and deadly as they are in close range, in spite of being pistol rounds. The effective range as I know it is up to 200 meters, but I would expect a tapering off in killing power and more apparent bullet drop as you near and surpass that mark.
Also, while Stalingrad was basically one gigantic urban mess of close quarters combat, the distribution of some of the assault weapons is questionable. The MP40 was vastly outnumbered by PPShs to the degree that German assault teams used captured Soviet weapons to make up for the fact that German infantry had shortages of automatic weapons. In this game, on the other hand, I see more Russians using captured German assault rifles and MP40s than vice-versa.
My point was that when you do things you shouldn't be upset and complain when other people do the same things too. Reproaching of run and gun in the mouth of somebody who admitted that he did run and gun doesn't fit. I don't do things that I think I shouldn't do and I don't talk after that about it on forums, saying that isn't correct.Cypher said:
Fact that the game allows it or it can be sometimes used with greater effect rather than slower paced approach is another thing to dicuss.
Not really comparing. Not in the sense you speak of. I mean - it is possible. You really can go and kill somebody. What is limiting you? Rules? And if we throw the rules out (like server rules)? What is left? A possibility.Poerisija said:
If somebody wants to jump out of the roof the let him do so. As far as I know people in the game doesn't jump from high places. Why? Because they don't have any reason to do so.
Give people reason and they will jump.
There are reasons why we don't go out and kill random people. There also are the reasons not to run and gun both in real life and in the game. Problem is that we have just wait a couple of seconds to get back into action and repeat our actions. Death is not a problem and we can't change that element too much without punishing players a bit too much. Maybe make ADS less perfect after moving/running? Just a few seconds?
There are reasons why people lay down covering fire - or just try to shoot the bad people to death - to give advancing units time to get close. Why? Because people who run can't rapidly stop, ADS and shoot a perfect shoot and/or they are too afraid about their lives to exchange shoots when caught on the move and would look for cover instead. They need support and people willing to give it to them.
If we change the game a bit - not too much - then the people would be more willing support each other instead of running and gunning if they want to win the match. Because running and gunning doesn't require teammates (anyone can run and gun). Taking a well defended objectives does. Running and gunning would still be possible. Everybody happy?
Give people reason and they will follow.
Last edited:
Whenever topics such as this get started in forums I frequent I find several things always seem to get ignored.
Games of today are being compared to games from years ago in terms of realism. That simply cannot work since in many cases what we might deem "realism" in older games was just a limitation in the old game engines. For instance the original Rainbow Six and Rogue Spear etc. Much of what one could label "realism" really was just game-engine limitation. You sprinted? Your crosshairs bloomed to fill 2/3 of the screen. Was that really realistic or just a mechanic used to force slower gameplay? Newer game engines introduced on-screen weapons with visible sway and "breathing" mechanics.
Ballistics, round lethality, penetration, environmental effects, positional sound-mapping have all been added to games lately and yet we argue new games aren't as realistic? Is that because we feel the artificial punishment imposed upon us by the older game's limited mechanics really was more realistic or just because the artificial punishment was more likely to force players to play each game a certain way?
In my opinion games just keep getting "better". That doesn't necessarily coincide with "realism" but it also doesn't mean the opposite. After everything is said and done however, they are all still games, even the new ones. Realism (the idea thereof) therefore must always be kept in perspective and fun factor (the reason so many of us actually play games) not ignored as a factor in new game design.
Games of today are being compared to games from years ago in terms of realism. That simply cannot work since in many cases what we might deem "realism" in older games was just a limitation in the old game engines. For instance the original Rainbow Six and Rogue Spear etc. Much of what one could label "realism" really was just game-engine limitation. You sprinted? Your crosshairs bloomed to fill 2/3 of the screen. Was that really realistic or just a mechanic used to force slower gameplay? Newer game engines introduced on-screen weapons with visible sway and "breathing" mechanics.
Ballistics, round lethality, penetration, environmental effects, positional sound-mapping have all been added to games lately and yet we argue new games aren't as realistic? Is that because we feel the artificial punishment imposed upon us by the older game's limited mechanics really was more realistic or just because the artificial punishment was more likely to force players to play each game a certain way?
In my opinion games just keep getting "better". That doesn't necessarily coincide with "realism" but it also doesn't mean the opposite. After everything is said and done however, they are all still games, even the new ones. Realism (the idea thereof) therefore must always be kept in perspective and fun factor (the reason so many of us actually play games) not ignored as a factor in new game design.
Yeah, it's not too effective in general. About 4 or 5 games in a row last night I saw thrown away because the offense was just fanatical about doing the run & gun thing. A handful of self-appointed generals screaming on voice chat endlessly to "Just charge the cap! GO! GO!" and verbally abusing anyone who wasn't rushing straight ahead. The enemy was doing a good job of digging in tight all along the map, so the rushing worked as well as could be expected. One round, offense reinforcements ran out so fast that there was still 10 minutes left on the timer when it happened. I've never seen reinforcements just vanish at that kind of rate. Reckless abandon just doesn't get you very far on Station, Spartanovka, Grain Elevator...really, most of the maps.
Heck, as an experiment I spent a whole round of Grain Elevator on the German side just charging ahead, seeing if I could ever make it into the main building without clearing flanks or setting up a lane of approach or generally doing anything but engaging the people in my direct path. I didn't make it inside even once. Pretty disastrous results for such a run & gun oriented game, eh
Last edited:
Yeah those guys are annoying. A guy with an MKB constantly nagging into the voice command that you can't win unless you charge and take the cap point. Good for him. I'm not doing any running into the open with a bolt to be sniped down by:
Snipers, semi auto's, MGs, PPSHs, enemy bolts.
And once I do make it in the close quarters:
Snipers (pistol), semi auto's, MGs, PPSHs