Unrealistically poor vision will not lead to more realistic combat.
There's a thread in the Ideas and Suggestions forums about this idea, and why it would need a lot of changes to possibly work in RO2.
January, 30, 2012
- Thread starter Cyper
- Start date
Unrealistically poor vision will not lead to more realistic combat.
There's a thread in the Ideas and Suggestions forums about this idea, and why it would need a lot of changes to possibly work in RO2.
I don`t agree with you. In ROost we hadn`t poor vision without zoom and radar.
It`s now an adhd game with no teamwork tactics.
I give my opinion from the beginning with this game and i haven`t to ask you for a permission to give my opion what can be made better.
Calm down! He did not deny you the right to opine at all.
Phoenix is undeniably right. In RO1 we were pretty much blind. It was a pixel hunting war, despite the fact that graphics were simpler, and enemies stood out a lot more from their backgrounds. You simply can't go against that.
Things like army uniform camouflaging on the background as they should, (white on winter maps for instance) and fog also made everything much worse depending on the situation.
The introduction of zoom in RO2 made the sighting and observing part of combat much more realistic.
I don't know what is you mean with radar as there are some 3 different things labeled as radar at this point. Radar is radar, radio waves... Are we talking about the Mini map? Tactical view? or Peripheral indicators?
It was Soooooooo much easier to spot an enemy in ROOST than it is in ROHOS. Because of that, you could get away with no zoom in ROOST.
Yet zoom should not be a method used to spot an enemy because then you're forced to spot enemies with 40 degree fov. Zoom in my opinion should be an aid to make it that once you see someone you can get a quick closer look. Although in that sense i feel you should be able to zoom while running.
40 degrees isn't that terrible, you only need to sweep your view to both sides to have covered 120 degrees. If things are very close, you'll be able to hear, if they are farther out, the peripheral indicators should help, or in the very extreme cases, a friendly using the spotting system...
And then again, the guy who is zoomed in pays in the form of a lower FOV, while the guy who is not gains in the greater FOV. And both of them can zoom in or zoom out at will, adapting to their needs.
Lowering maximum zoom would have a cost, as human sight is already much superior in detail to the 1:1 view achieved by the 2.3x zoom.
The problem of not being able to choose a middle ground FOV can and should be solved, as it is in ARMA, where you have great control of the zoom level you want, when you want it. ARMA's peripheral indicators also put RO2's to shambles in the realism department.
Lowering maximum zoom level is hardly kosher.
The bad thing about zooming is, it puts the "mobile" players at an immediate disadvantage, as you have to be still to take advantage of zoom.
So on one hand you get punished for going for the caps and on the other hand get rewarded for finding a camping spot and staying there. This makes the difficulty of attacking/defending immensely disproportional at a personal level. I will even go as far as to say the team which "camps", ignoring objectives, has a more chance of winning a RO2 round just because they can deplete other team's reinforcements faster.
It's a big factor about why I don't like RO2 firefights.
So on one hand you get punished for going for the caps and on the other hand get rewarded for finding a camping spot and staying there. This makes the difficulty of attacking/defending immensely disproportional at a personal level. I will even go as far as to say the team which "camps", ignoring objectives, has a more chance of winning a RO2 round just because they can deplete other team's reinforcements faster.
It's a big factor about why I don't like RO2 firefights.
Really, if there was a separate key to zoom in and not have it automatic with iron sights, it would eliminate half the arguments people have on the forums here 
Really, if there was a separate key to zoom in and not have it automatic with iron sights, it would eliminate half the arguments people have on the forums here
There is, only not in Classic Mode. And obviously it is tied to controlled breathing. An people don't get when we say that ARMA II is much more sophisticated.
Well, yeah, but you still have automatic zoom going into iron sights. I would prefer if the two were totally separate; zoom key 'zooms only' and iron sights key 'goes into iron sights no zoom only'
I agree that a system like arma where you can zoom at any time you want, would much improve the game.
Looking around is something very natural you do it the entire day, your eyes can rotate with a speed of 900 degrees per second and you still see things sharp. If in game you have to replace your eye muscles for looking around by your arm muscles then at least to me it feels extremely restricted.
Low fov high magnification is much more advantageous than wide fov low magnification when its regarding spotting or killing enemies at a distance. Thats why the sniper scope was invented. However personally I do not enjoy it at all to have to play as if I'm a sniper. However as it is more advantageous to use it I have to use it as otherwise I simply get killed. To me every map at the moment feels like a sniper only map.
Irregardless of it being more realistic or not (its realistic in that you get vision closer to realism, its unrealistic due to having a zoom transition and limited fov). Personally I never liked sniping in games, one of the things I always liked about RO was that classes like the sniper were limited. I simply don't like playing as a sniper. Which is why for me zoom is the biggest issue for the firefights in RO2.
Especially since you can only zoom when still (which is why again an ArmA2 type implementation would in my opinion be far less clunky than it is in RO2, I personally find ArmA 2 an extremely clunky game but in the zoom department RO2 is the worst game i know in terms of clunkyness
)
Last edited:
Well, yeah, but you still have automatic zoom going into iron sights. I would prefer if the two were totally separate; zoom key 'zooms only' and iron sights key 'goes into iron sights no zoom only'
ROGame.ini
IronSightZoomScaleSMG=0.000000
IronSightZoomScaleRifle=0.000000
IronSightZoomScaleBipod=0.000000
previously, back when the game launched, it was in the Main Menu.
Well at least he's trying to make helpful suggestions as to the direction of the game, instead of just spouting pure negativity and whining - unlike some others here, who have already stated that they won't play the game period and hate TWI, yet still feel the need to piss in everyone else's cereal
RO:O had the questionable "advantage" of simpler terrain and graphics, making it effectively impossible (Outside a few limited areas) to blend in. Someone prone at 200 meters might be only 2x2 pixels, but when he's 2x2 gray pixels on a uniform, faded-green background, he's pretty obvious. In RO2, the maps are much more complex and detailed, leading to a lot of clutter to lose people in, which makes it harder to see people at long range. There's also the fog effect that makes distant targets even harder to see (There are maps where, even with full scope zoom, there is almost no difference in color between a soldier and the wall he's shooting over, at not even 200 meters). The fog produces the same kind of color-fading/blending at 200-400 meters as we would get at 1-2km in real-life.
Unzoomed, our vision range in RO2 is, in general, less than it was in RO:O. Even with a scope, you're unlikely to see someone past 200m in most maps. The only map I'm aware of (Other than the new one, which I haven't tested) where you can even get 400m distance is Spartanovka, if both soldiers run back from their spawn. At that point, unzoomed, a soldier standing in the open, viewed on a good-sized monitor, is only 3 pixels tall, and nearly blends into his background. I've posted comparison pics before; standing in the open, he's nearly invisible. In real-life, he'd not only be visible, but you'd be able to tell many things about him (Facing, is he carrying a longarm, what color is his uniform, etc). In RO:O, you see three pixels. Even in RO2, with full focus-zoom, he's only 7 pixels tall, and still only 1 wide. You can't discern any details about him, except possibly that he's standing. It's still well below real-life human vision.
That said, even in RO:O, I doubt you could even detect a human in the open at 1km, which is certainly possible in real-life (Potentially much further, if it's a high-contrast background). In RO:O, that person would be barely 1 pixel tall and half a pixel wide, meaning he may not even be rendered due to aliasing.
So yeah, you had poor vision in RO:O, compared to real-life. Due to the simpler graphics, you could detect a person at a fair distance (Not real-world distances, but still fairly good), but you couldn't discern a realistic level of details, and the pixel precision made aiming increasingly granular (Shooting at a 200m-distant target, and each pixel is a foot across, you literally could not aim any more precisely than this).
And what is this "radar" you talk about? Do you mean the peripheral contacts? There's certainly an argument to be made that they need a lot of tweaking and refining, but the basic concept (Being able to detect people, particularly moving people, outside the narrow cone of vision we get in-game) is a good one.
You should really try comparing RO2 to other multiplayer FPS games, to see how ridiculous this looks in comparison. The pacing is sedate compared to something like CoD, and you see a lot more coordination of people. Of course you're going to see the lone-wolf types running off, and generally getting mulched in the process, that's kind of what you get in online games. It's generally the people playing more tactically that end up doing well, however.
Besides, what does zoom even have to do with tactical play? It makes firefights take place at longer ranges (We're almost halfway to realistic engagement ranges, even!), but it doesn't negate tactics, it just makes the distances further. What you would normally do at 1X meters, you now do at 2.1X meters. Better yet, since defensive fire is so deadly, and you have a much longer engagement range to get through, you're far less likely to get away with sprinting across an open area than you were in RO:O.
I never said or implied anything like this. Disagreeing with your opinion does not equate to saying you can't post that opinion, and I have to wonder how you can use the line you did to criticize me for voicing my own opinion. Implied accusations are bad enough coming from normal posters, I expect better behavior from someone who managed to get on the moderator staff.
I would think ranges would be the biggest issue, then. Most of the fighting is under 100 meters, and virtually none of it is over 200 meters. At those ranges, riflemen should be incredibly accurate and deadly. We simply don't have sniper ranges in-game, and would need to at least double potential engagement ranges (Probably even more than that) for snipers to start to become more relevant. Right now they're only really notable at the longest ranges (They start becoming better than riflemen somewhere past 100m, with the difference only becoming clear once you're getting up to 200m and past).
Being able to hit a man-sized target, with aimed fire, at <200m, with a ~2-3 MoA rifle, is not being a sniper. It's being a typical rifleman.
I'm not making a comparison to a real sniper but to snipers in other games from ro1 to quake to cod. Those indeed aren't real snipers either if anything at most scoped marksman. But my point remains that I never likedthe sniper classes in other games whether they were real snipers or not making ro2 feel similar to an ro1 sniper only maps. Fun for a bit with fighting but generally more solo play and less teamwork with people taking potshots instead of trying to attack.
The solo-play is always going to be an issue so long as we have random individuals thrown together into the game.
It sounds like your issue isn't that the rifles are accurate (They really should be, and reducing their usefulness at range serves as a serious buff to assault weapons and such), but that people hang back and plink with them rather than pushing forward. I still see plenty of riflemen pushing forward, but having a stable base of rifle-fire is very good, tactically speaking. It gives some protection to those attacking, making it easier for those with SMGs and semi-autos to get to where they need to be.
Compared to CoD, sure, they're comparable to sniper weapons (Due entirely to how unrealistic CoD's weapons are...). Compared to Quake, hell, the SMGs are sniper weapons. But the thing is, real weapons are like sniper weapons compared to those games. It strikes me as particularly strange to take a game with fairly realistic shooting and calling the standard rifle a "sniper" weapon, only in comparison to unrealistic games. If the point is to have a game with more realistic combat, it seems strange that the complaint would be that an aspect of it is more realistic.
The zoom isn't hurting tactics by pushing out engagement ranges. It doesn't even change the way the rifles are employed, it simply alters the range at which they're effective. If there's anything hurting tactics, it's the fact that it's a fairly fast-paced game with little consequence for death; spending the time to coordinate tactics is not just typically useless, it often punishes you by wasting that time while the enemy is acting. The closest we get is someone making a decision themselves ("I'm going to smoke this area" or "I'm going to arty this location"), but there's rarely any coordination or teamwork going into it. At most, there is a consideration as to whether an action might help others on the team, but that's hardly any different than shooting an enemy so they can't shoot anyone on your team.
Weapon accuracy is one thing; avatar stability is another.
The basic principles of marksmanship which allow a firer to accurately place a bullet are:
1 - The position and hold must be firm enough to support the weapon
2 - The weapon must point naturally at the target without any undue physical effort
3 - Alignment and sight picture must be correct
4 - The shot must be released and followed through without any undue physical effort
RO2 largely abstracts these by ignoring them. Instead (at least in 'Realism' mode) the avatar always has position and hold correct (except when exhausted), always has the weapon pointing naturally at the target (even when snap-engaging an off-axis target when coming of a sprint), generally aligns the sights perfectly within a few moments of aiming and does not allow them to drift out of alignment once it's achieved, and doesn't even penalise the most rapid mouse-clicking (which in real marksmanship would pull the sights well off-target even if dry-firing).
The result is that we see accuracy rates in RO2 that far exceed anything I would expect from real-life shooting under anything less than ideal range conditions.
The basic principles of marksmanship which allow a firer to accurately place a bullet are:
1 - The position and hold must be firm enough to support the weapon
2 - The weapon must point naturally at the target without any undue physical effort
3 - Alignment and sight picture must be correct
4 - The shot must be released and followed through without any undue physical effort
RO2 largely abstracts these by ignoring them. Instead (at least in 'Realism' mode) the avatar always has position and hold correct (except when exhausted), always has the weapon pointing naturally at the target (even when snap-engaging an off-axis target when coming of a sprint), generally aligns the sights perfectly within a few moments of aiming and does not allow them to drift out of alignment once it's achieved, and doesn't even penalise the most rapid mouse-clicking (which in real marksmanship would pull the sights well off-target even if dry-firing).
The result is that we see accuracy rates in RO2 that far exceed anything I would expect from real-life shooting under anything less than ideal range conditions.