Listen to your fanbase
- Thread starter Ranger21
- Start date
- Status
I'm well aware of that he has pulled the "holier than thou thing" and that is rather uncalled for even if I agree with his basic point. But the answer to that is not to fight fire with fire, but to simply point out his flawed reasoning/lack of evidence; which you did but you also again pulled the same thing he did in the process.
I think this nicely summarize the basic attitude that I hold when it comes to the whole Classic v Realism thing. There is literally no reason for either side attempting to flat out remove the other game mode they don't ever play. I realize that many, dare I say most, Classic fans (my self included) lean more towards either a hybrid of Classic/Realism or to improve both game modes on its own merits, but there are more than a few "Death to Realism, Fight the Casual meance" type preachers around still. You can tell such people just can't stand the thought of not being able to brag that they are playing the most hardcore thing out there, and this is a rather absurd way of lengthening your e-peen
That being said, I think that although TWI definitely put in a sincere effort to appease fans with Classic, they did little to give it exposure. Every free weekend or sale the official TWI severs (which many many new players funnel into by default) have been Action or Realism, and I feel that Classic has been kind of unfairly shafted in that regard.
Also there is a strong argument that the name "Classic" it self however appropriate, is not a very appealing name, and this definitely contributes to its less than spectacular player numbers.
So I say next sale/ free weekend with the release of RS, TWI should equally promote all game modes instead of pushing just one.
Last edited:
This is partly because I play RO2 and am tabbed out while typing this paragraph. I now play the game for the atmosphere and sounds. The gameplay is PASSABLE to me, so overall I have no problem with the game as a whole.
However, the gun-play is a HUGE reason why people are so angry. It is now possible to land a head shot on a target through a window 200 meters away, after I just sprinted 150 meters and have a bullet in my arm. This is the casualization people are moaning about. It turns this game into what I call "pseudo-realism" where 99% of the game is realistic, but the 1% of things they casualized cause an avalanche effect, like in my example above.
"A game we don't have any concrete info on"
The example in one of my original post about there being "more than sufficient cover" on Iwo Jima to "prevent people from being mowed down by the Type-92" sounds like some pretty concrete information since the developers said it themselves.
Also, I'll just leave an updated version of that top comment to prove that a LOT of people are feeling the same way as some of us.
Attachments
On a certain level.
Getting killed for 30 mins with ~5 kills isn't as funny as it might sound, atleast not for the attacking team. Guess why so many russians hate Appartments/Comms/RedOc.
And I'm pretty sure you won't rush the bunkers in less than 8-12min with equal teams. But hey, we don't know!
Last edited:
Concrete: Adjective.
characterized by or belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events .
I can't believe you are using a Youtube comment as a basis for your argument.
Let me quote my previous post so you may reread it:
A game that hasn't even entered Beta is already being assaulted by the forum gestapo.
A game you haven't even tried yet. A game that we don't even have concrete info on.
Grow up.
If you want to make meaningful/constructive suggestions about things that are known to be fact, that is one thing.
Now can we just give the friggin' mod team a chance before we bring out the razorblades and cyanide?
On a related topic, I have made a comment on the BF4 TV trailer demanding that the devs include unicorns. It shouldn't be too hard to get 82 likes, even from people that don't especially want unicorns.
Vote away please, the future of BF4 is in your hands:
Battlefield 4: 60 Second TV Spot - YouTube
Vote away please, the future of BF4 is in your hands:
Battlefield 4: 60 Second TV Spot - YouTube
Last edited:
Interestingly enough, we (TWI & RS team) noticed some undesigned function when we went thru the RO2 code that seems to apply in this case - I am guessing you have a reasonable level with the rifle? It has now been fixed for RS (and for base RO2 when RS comes out). I guess we will probably include a list of fixes on release.
Last edited:
Not sure if this is sarcasm, but if it isn't, I would love more detail on this.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sarcasm - detail will be in the release notes once some poor bugger has compiled them.
Last edited:
It isn't the basis of my argument. The basis of my argument came directly out of the mouths of the lead developers...
The comment is nearing 100 likes, which is actually a pretty large amount considering it is on a video with not a huge sample size.
You on the other hand post troll comments on a video, then TELL people to go thumbs it up. There is quite a huge difference between the two, surely.
You should realise that it was a troll comment precisely to demonstrate that it is not even necessary to put up a valid point to get it liked on YT.
So we are to believe that 82 out of the 87 people prepared to like anything (at time of counting) - that's 94% - actually cared enough about DH to like that comment without prompting from you? It's a youtube - you could not get 94% of people to agree that having their hands cut off is a bad thing, unless you prime the vote. DH was good, I enjoyed my time working on it, but what you want can not happen in the release version of RS.
You ought to understand the danger that any valid points you make, like the point about the lack of sway, will be missed because they are buried in such arrant BS.
If you want to make out that you represent anything but the interest of yourself and one or two mates; avoid transparent stunts like that one, as they just detract from, rather than support, any argument you might make.
Incidentally, you did not respond to my question about the sway.
Stop Press - seems the unicorn comment on the BF4 video did prompt some action. They removed the 'most liked comments at the top' feature from that one - success!
So we are to believe that 82 out of the 87 people prepared to like anything (at time of counting) - that's 94% - actually cared enough about DH to like that comment without prompting from you? It's a youtube - you could not get 94% of people to agree that having their hands cut off is a bad thing, unless you prime the vote. DH was good, I enjoyed my time working on it, but what you want can not happen in the release version of RS.
You ought to understand the danger that any valid points you make, like the point about the lack of sway, will be missed because they are buried in such arrant BS.
If you want to make out that you represent anything but the interest of yourself and one or two mates; avoid transparent stunts like that one, as they just detract from, rather than support, any argument you might make.
Incidentally, you did not respond to my question about the sway.
Stop Press - seems the unicorn comment on the BF4 video did prompt some action. They removed the 'most liked comments at the top' feature from that one - success!
Last edited:
The fact that you don't believe the likes on my comment are legitimate only encourages me even more to get my point across. Only I will ever know that I didn't "prime" the vote, but step back and consider the possibility that it IS true (it really is). If you're that astonished by my comment raising that much attention, you should consider the possibilities of it being legitimate.
Also, most people looking forward to Rising Storm that I have seen are DH players. It only makes sense that they would be watching that video...
Regarding the sway: It's hard to notice fine details of a thread when a big embedded BF4 trailer takes up half the page. My rifle is a pretty high level but this is also a problem with many of the weapons. The MKB, for instance, feels like an automatic Mauser in that you can shoot the apple off someone's head at astonishing ranges. I really think this is largely due to the "zoom" feature more than anything else. This is also another reason why I see the sniper class un-manned so often.
I understand that you shouldn't leave your head exposed for long periods of time, but it's hard to notice that a lot of people don't play certain roles anymore because they are overshadowed by weird features such as "weapon level-ups" or "zoom"
Last edited:
OK - this thread has gone on long enough. If you want to open a thread about making more open or 'meat-grinder-y' maps, please feel free to do so.
You should, by now, have realised that none of the maps we have set for initial release are going to change substantially at this stage of development; but it is a debate that could be had for future maps or even custom content. Bridges of Druzhina and Winterwald demonstrated that there is a market for larger, long-haul style maps in RO2.
Just don't claim that you represent the fanbase for a game that does not yet exist.
You should, by now, have realised that none of the maps we have set for initial release are going to change substantially at this stage of development; but it is a debate that could be had for future maps or even custom content. Bridges of Druzhina and Winterwald demonstrated that there is a market for larger, long-haul style maps in RO2.
Just don't claim that you represent the fanbase for a game that does not yet exist.
Last edited:
You can get 100 thumbs up just for typing "penis" or "I like trains". YT/FB "voting" is bs and should never be taken serious.
Last edited:
There's nothing inflammatory about it, it's pretty matter-of-fact. My main issue with your attitude in this thread has been the insinuation that to avoid appealing to the COD/BF crowd is commercial suicide and that anyone who thinks otherwise is being unreasonable. Clearly, there have been projects which have avoided it and succeeded.
If you have these titles pointed out to you, and persist in the simple outlook that RO2's direction was the "only option" then you are, by definition, pretending; because other options are clearly out there. If you've ceded the assertion that it's the only option, then you aren't pretending. It's really up to you.
Arma 2 was more realistic than RO2 out of the box, before any additional input from fans. There was no progression system. The game did not depict a specific historic battle in which many of the in-game weapons were never issued. You can point at random disagreements in the community all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the Arma devs have produced 3 games without COD/BF-style compromises, have yet to go out of business, and sell at least comparably to RO2.
Yes, in a perfect world, the realism fans could just play Classic, and the casual fans could play Realistic, and everyone would be happy. In practice, the reality doesn't measure up to that ideal.
Unfortunately, the more modes you have, the more you split your player base, and the more confusing it becomes for new players to navigate. RO2's modes were not available from the start, slowly rolled out in a haphazard manner, and once added, players were discouraged from joining them via a warning message in the GUI. The differences between the modes are not made sufficiently clear - basically unless you actually come to forums and do a ton of searching, the most you are likely to know is that in Action Mode you have crosshairs, and in classic mode, you run preposterously slow.
In practice, the names of the modes themselves, and their expressed intent, does not align with what they deliver. Based on the names, one would assume that Standard Mode is the original version of RO2, which is more realistic than Action, but retains the progression system and other compromises. One would assume that Realism mode drops all the compromises in favor of realism, and that Classic is a straight port of RO1's gameplay into RO2, favoring slow-paced gameplay over realism.
Instead, Realism Mode is just "Standard Mode 2.0"; it delivers a few minor improvements to the base game, but retains most of the same unrealistic features. Classic mode is like "Realism Mode 2.0"; it strips out the progression system and features a retarded sprint, but is otherwise almost identical to Realism Mode and plays nothing like RO1.
Personally, as someone who only bought RO2 in December 2012, I assumed in the beginning that Classic mode would include all the features which made me quit RO1; horribly exaggerated SMG/LMG recoil, horribly exaggerated sway, and lung cancer stamina. I basically just went on Realism servers because I assumed it was the most realistic mode available. It took a few months before I actually gave Classic a chance and realized that it lacked the RO1 elements I was avoiding, and that its main purpose was instead to drop the progression system. Now that I know that, I play Classic when it's available, but much of the time, I'm still forced to play Realistic, because the few Classic servers around are empty, full, or high ping.
I'm sure you'd prefer to believe that Classic mode is only unpopular because no one wants to play without a progression or unlocks system, but I'd argue it's unpopular due to the haphazard way it was introduced. You cannot put a number on how many people would be playing Classic now if it'd been available from the beginning, or free from the distraction of other misguided bandaid-fix modes, or had a better sprint solution, or if it were called "Realistic" instead of "Classic".
Really, since the modes are not named in representation of what they actually deliver, their server populations are not an accurate "vote" or depiction of what players actually want from the game. A lot of people only play Realism because they've assumed it's the most realistic, or because they've assumed Classic is a straight port of RO1, or because Classic's sprint is broken. The number of people with the patience to come to the forums and research these details is relatively tiny.
Due to all these factors, players who would prefer no progression system have not been given a fair shake; Classic's botched introduction has hurt server populations. We don't really know how many people would prefer a progression-less game if it were actually done properly. We also don't really know how many players would be willing to adapt to a progression-less mode if it were the only option.
Right now, you've got a group of casual players who get to play the way they want, a group of hardcore players who have to adapt to the casual play style in order to play at all, and a nebulous group in the middle who aren't as aware of the differences or may not care either way. How is it so much less fair if the hardcore and casual players swap places, so the hardcore get to play the way they want, and the casuals just have to adapt?
If it were a majority of people who absolutely hated playing without a progression system and could/would not adapt, that'd be one thing, but I doubt the real numbers are cut that way. Currently, a lot of people play Realism mode just because it's there. If they argue against removing the unlocks or progression system or weapons like the AVT and MKB, it's often just because they are used to it. Now that the progression system was [unwisely] included in the base game, and some are used to it, taking it away makes people feel like they're being robbed a bit.
That doesn't necessarily mean that if it were never in the game in the first place, that a lot of people would have missed it. Many of these people are not that picky; if the game were made "classic only" even today, a few might quit, some would complain, but most would probably just adapt, because not playing at all is less fun than merely playing a slightly different version of the game.
Plus, there are so many games out there targeting fans of psuedorealism, it's not like the people who quit would be left out in the cold with nothing to play. From angle of "fairness" which you have brought up, it seems most fair to cede the game to the group which has the least number of viable alternatives.
In development terms, maybe it's too late to reverse things which have been coded out already, but I'd like to point out that there was really nothing conceptually stopping you from developing RS as a "classic-only" expansion if you wanted to. Franchises reinvent themselves all the time, and expansions are created to deliberately put a new spin on their parent title.
As I pointed out in another thread, today you've got games like Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, which features an entirely different theme and atmosphere than the base game, omits the co-op play the game was partially sold on, and doesn't even require owning the base game in order to play it. In light of expansions like this, releasing RS with only one updated mode would be more than reasonable. Since it's an expansion, you could use the excuse that it didn't seem worthwhile to put the resources into building out the other modes if the expansion follows a specific direction which favors on mode over the other.
So I get that you guys may not want to, but I don't buy the insinuation that it'd have been practically impossible to do so, or entirely unreasonable, if this had been decided early enough in RS' development cycle.
Your attitude and the gamasutra link earlier in the thread were more than enough of an implication - essentially implying that no one in the thread could possibly have anything reasonable to say and that if anyone had any criticisms of the direction TWI has chosen, it had to be due to pure ignorance. If that's not inflammatory, I don't know what is. As a developer, if you're only going to go on your forums to make fun of your fans rather than answer their questions or explain the decisions behind your product, then you're really just trolling your own audience.
You are implying that he is implying that you were implying that...... C'mon you can keep it moving.
- Status