By Celestia I'm sick and tired of this thread.
Common sense aside when it comes to things like the ridiculous speed and precision you bring your 8 pound weapon's iron-sights up with, Ive had two iraq vets tell me pretty much the opposite of your post.
One of which refuses to buy RO2 outright because he thinks it looks like an arcade shooter.
So wait, one of the guys hasn't even -played- the game and he's passing judgement on the mechanics? Eight pounds is NOT BLOODY HEAVY. The average human head weighs eight pounds.
Rifles are -designed- to be easy to handle and quick to bring to bear. If they're too heavy, or too cumbersome, they are hard for the user to aim properly. This is in the bloody design docs. Rifles have to be lightweight and accurate, and they are.
When it comes down to it, a lot of these inherit accuracy issues come down to map design. If you were to give soldiers guns and pit them up in the same, small, relatively linear fighting locale time and time again, they'd eventually have shooting people down to an art.
RO2 has weapon mechanics designed to be relatively realistic, but the maps are far more linear and predictable than anything you would have actually encountered in a place like Stalingrad, or any possible battle locale for that matter. Had there been more large CA maps with multiple spawnpoints, I think you'd probably see some more realistic gun battles... but when it comes down to it, every map in RO is just an infantry rush, and thus stems in the constant "sniping" and "ramboing" because people know exactly where their enemies are and are going to be at all times.
This is a valid point, and an inherent problem with design limitations. Level design is a long, complex process if you're going to do it right. Anyone can throw a level together, but you have to study the flow, balance, and dynamics of the map if you want to make it fun. The bigger the maps, the harder it is to accomplish this. Given RO2s limited design team and the ambition of the project, we were bound to have some runtier maps to start off with. Give the community and the devs some time, and we'll have some maps that really take advantage of the new weapon dynamics.
Yeah, fire exchanges are quite rare in RO2, which is the opposite of how it was in world war 2.
In any given battle you'd probably find that only like .1% to .5% of bullets fired actually killed somebody, wheras, like you said almost every time you hear a shot in RO2, somebody dies. Clearly something is off.
*Facedesk*
Rehashed this a thousand times already, one of the largest factors behind all that wasted ammunition when it comes down to killing a single soldier is the rate of fire of the big HMGs, LMGs, and the SMGs. These weapons chew through bullets at a ridiculous rate. The MG-42 alone (1200 rpm) could eat through 20 rounds in a single second of fire.
Not only that, but you have to remember that every time you discharged your firearm you were giving away your location and letting the enemy figure out where you were. This is, of course, a very bad thing. If they know where you are, they can shoot you, or throw a grenade at you, or stab you. If I had a bolt action rifle, and I was engaging multiple attackers, I certainly wouldn't be shooting unless I had an excellent chance of hitting one of them.
But all of this is irrelevant, as there -are- fire exchanges in RO2. They only occur between experienced players, who know better than to waste ammunition plinking at each other and giving away their position and who know to keep moving around in cover rather than playing pop-goes-the-weasel, but they happen quite a lot for me. It becomes a matter of who can predict who's next move and cut it off with a bullet which is a lot more relevant to real life combat than wrestling a RNG.
Lack of player skill isn't the fault of the game engine.
)
