Petition to restore Realism and Authenticity

[Cyper]

The discussion about Realism in videogames is sujective and boils down to two things in my opinion: realistic features VS realistic outcome.

Two very different views. As an example, there is no doubt that the recoil, sway, running speed, and distance in OST is unrealistically portrayed. The outcome is however that the games is played in a far more realistic fashion than RO2. One could argue that it is unrealistic to switch to 3rd person in Arma because you can see things that you normally wouldn't see, while it also - in fact - is realistic because you get a better connection with your environment, since you become more aware of your position in the space.

In order to improve Realism in RO2, one must start small, ironing it all out on a long list discussing features after feature and its effect on gameplay. There is a lot of more work behind this than one might think.

As I have said before, as long as the progression system is in the game, people will prefer Realism Mode. Especially if it is called Realism Mode. The problem here now is that the progression system and many things that the ''realism'' niche likes about RO2 will come in conflict with a proper realism mode - for instance, the whole progression system, with the unlocks, skillpoints, perks, etc. will come in conflict if we're speaking about realism.

As long as there is no clear points on how to improve realism then there is no point to have this thread. Because then it is all up to TWI anyway.


Personally, I am working on a small list for RO3. I say RO3 because it is simply not realistic to believe that TWI will release a brand new, breaking-awesome mode for a game that have a peak of roughly ~2000 players, a game that already have to many modes, and a game that was released back in 2011. Not to mention the fact that they are working on Rising Storm, but maybe most obviously, other games.

Personally, I am soon going to leave the RO2 chapter behind me. People barely play Classic Mode. Neither do I, since it feels like a mode for a game rather than a proper game. I am confident that Rising Storm wont bring much new to the table more than the settings. Not very interesting for a person that does really enjoy RO2 as a game.

I can see RO3 in the horizon and that is why I am going to give suggestions for that game instead. Those who wish to spend time doing otherwise is free to do so but I am not interested in that anymore. At least that is my conclusion right now.


I hope you all find the answers you're looking for in this thread and good luck to those who enjoy RO2.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Seems that small changes are more popular than just one big change of the game. I'd say some ideas of this thread maybe quite many ideas would be taken a bit more serious if you'd just post them single, each idea one topic. Since the game is quite nice and I'd say better than RO1 people don't want to change it completely.

Yes, I agree.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

There is a lot more agreement than disagreement. What is more realistic/authentic?

And I could come up with just as many examples and more of disagreements here on these forums about realism. You've even participated in many of them, you should remember.

However, this one did amuse me:

10 people spawning on their regular spawnpoint or 40 meters behind enemy lines on the top of a tower?

You are aware that neither of those are realistic, right? In fact, they're one of those elements I mentioned as being unrealistic, but necessary for the type of game.

It is not vague as you seem to portray it. The petition doesn't ask for TWI to make the game better nor to improve it as they see fit. It asks for them to make it better and improve on the grounds of realism and authenticity, as they see fit.

And that makes the petition completely pointless. They're quite well aware that realism is a major concern. The entire design focus of the game has been a more-realistic multiplayer shooter of a continuous battle, with the necessary breaks from reality to support that kind of game (Respawning, for instance). The trick isn't knowing that realism is desirable, it's knowing how to address that, while also keeping sight of what is needed to make a multiplayer shooter of this type work. Your proposals in the past have been questionable on the former, and completely lacking on the later.

This petition doesn't even go that far. It doesn't offer any useful direction, it just says to take a vague course of action that they are already well aware of, while doing nothing to actually help.

...And that's on top of being an online petition, which is generally useless, anyway. Do you really think that they're unaware that some people would like realism? Do you really think that this petition would actually produce any meaningful change? It'd be an amazing clash of optimism and pessimism if you could actually answer "yes" to both of those...

As for people not agreeing on what is or isn't realistic:

If TWI says: ''The game will have realistic weapon handling'' And all of the sudden weapons are recoiling for the sky, like in RO1.

Wouldn't we say: ''Oh that's completely unrealistic.'' ?

Have you been paying attention to other people on these forums? There are people who greatly preferred RO1's handling of many things, that included, and would claim the exact opposite of what you say.

 

[Sarkis.]

And I could come up with just as many examples and more of disagreements here on these forums about realism. You've even participated in many of them, you should remember.

Where there is disagreement we can't really do much. I am asking for TWI to work on the realism. Not on what is arguably realistic. That's why they are the judges.

We agree that a authentic loadout would be authentic. ''Well duh'' as you would say. And yet, we have failed to put this piece of consensus into the game. Why? I don't know, is not really the point. But we should in someway, even it optional. What I want TWI to consider is to give more freedom to server admins to change small things on their official modes, without disqualifying them as official.

We also agree that weapon stoppages would be more realistic than not having them. But obviously not everyone wants that. There isn't a disagreements on whether that is realistic or not, but rather if that would be good for the game or not, and if people want that or not. Those are valid concerns, and since we have a 3 modes, it would be best to dedicate one of them for things of that sort, instead of sticking with 2 modes with a mandate to be a little mainstream in nature and another with a mandate to be reminiscent of RO1.

However, this one did amuse me:

You are aware that neither of those are realistic, right? In fact, they're one of those elements I mentioned as being unrealistic, but necessary for the type of game.

Neither are realistic aye, but nothing else we do in game is terribly realistic, things can be more realistic or less, however. Soldiers in a battle have to come and reinforce their comrades from somewhere, and that somewhere is generally not magically behind enemy lines in an not very accessible place. Specially not popping from nowhere amongst the enemy soldiers.

Spawning for it self isn't very realistic, but we can agree that in the context of the game, it is realistic enough. Spawning in the squad leader is pure magic in comparison.

With me this time: ''Well duh!''

Do you really think that they're unaware that some people would like realism? Do you really think that this petition would actually produce any meaningful change? It'd be an amazing clash of optimism and pessimism if you could actually answer "yes" to both of those...

They are aware, but they have done little to address that until now. We have a mode that's called ''Realism'' where the default is to have Mkb42's, MP40/IIs, rock solid aim when controlling breath, and spawning on the squad leader. My gripe here is that opting out of some of these things fails the ''realism'' requirement of the mode, making it custom and unranked.

And yes, I do think that the discourse can produce very meaningful changes some way or another. The petition however seems to have gone south for various surprising reasons. But the message has gotten across very effectively.

So no, but they chose not to act on it, and no, but the debate just might.

I think TWI thinks people are satisfied or should be satisfied with Classic to answer all the their own promises and people's requests. But that's just unreal, Classic failed, and I'd hope they'd realize that.

As for people not agreeing on what is or isn't realistic:

Have you been paying attention to other people on these forums? There are people who greatly preferred RO1's handling of many things, that included, and would claim the exact opposite of what you say.

I have been paying attention, and the people who preferred RO1's weapon handling also acknowledge that it was unrealistic. Some will claim that it achieved more realistic results, but outside some very rare cases, they are generally absolutely terribly mistakenly wrong.

 

[Luknron]

I voted yes because I'd enjoy more realism in the game. I don't expect this to change anything, but it isn't harmful either.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

We agree that a authentic loadout would be authentic.

Heh. Okay, this here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Let's make it simple: There is no such thing as one "authentic" loadout. Anyone who knows about warfare, knows that what a soldier is issued on paper is rarely what they actually have in the field. Look at the pictures from Stalingrad. You've got soldiers armed with one to half a dozen grenades, captured weapons, varying amounts of ammo and equipment, and PPShs, PPShs everywhere, on both sides of the conflict.

So, what are you defining as "authentic?" Because that's pretty vague. Vague enough that some might define it as "more or less what we have right now."

People might want "more authentic" loadouts, but I guarantee you that this consensus you imagine doesn't exist, as there's going to be a lot of disagreement about what is or is not "authentic."

 

[kathmandu]

Heh. Okay, this here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Let's make it simple: There is no such thing as one "authentic" loadout. Anyone who knows about warfare, knows that what a soldier is issued on paper is rarely what they actually have in the field. Look at the pictures from Stalingrad. You've got soldiers armed with one to half a dozen grenades, captured weapons, varying amounts of ammo and equipment, and PPShs, PPShs everywhere, on both sides of the conflict.

yes.. this is the authencity tha we need ! The actual situation during the war.

 

[Sarkis.]

Heh. Okay, this here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Let's make it simple: There is no such thing as one "authentic" loadout. Anyone who knows about warfare, knows that what a soldier is issued on paper is rarely what they actually have in the field. Look at the pictures from Stalingrad. You've got soldiers armed with one to half a dozen grenades, captured weapons, varying amounts of ammo and equipment, and PPShs, PPShs everywhere, on both sides of the conflict.

So, what are you defining as "authentic?" Because that's pretty vague. Vague enough that some might define it as "more or less what we have right now."

People might want "more authentic" loadouts, but I guarantee you that this consensus you imagine doesn't exist, as there's going to be a lot of disagreement about what is or is not "authentic."

Your ''perfect'' example sucks. Classic Loadouts are more authentic than Realism Loadouts. And to make Classic Loadouts even more authentic would be very easy:

Add what is authentic, take out what is not. If someone doesn't know what were the authentic weapons during the battle of Stalingrad that's a problem on their end.

Everyone can disagree as much as they want. That doesn't make authenticity a vague idea, nor does it make a weapon authentic or not.

yes.. this is the authencity tha we need ! The actual situation during the war.

The actual situation during the war indeed. With germans having a few PPShs, SVT-40s, or anything else that was documented as a common thing.

I'd argue that MKb42's and specially Russians spawning with MKb42's fails that criteria.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

yes.. this is the authencity tha we need ! The actual situation during the war.

True.

If you are doing authentic loadouts, they should be map specific. This is for the units, the situation, and the time frame. What that means is that there most likely won't be the same loadouts across the board.

 

[Sarkis.]

True.

If you are doing authentic loadouts, they should be map specific. This is for the units, the situation, and the time frame. What that means is that there most likely won't be the same loadouts across the board.

Wow.. he did not mean any of that. Don't put words in others person's mouth.

What he meant, as far as it can be interpreted, is to make the loadouts more authentic, closer to how it was back on the day in the Battle of Stalingrad. And we can surely do that, without having to portray exactly how each unit was armed at each battle. Not even RO1 did that, it would have been absurd! No one is even close to be asking that!

Your rejection at the sight of more authenticity really shows.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Wow.. he did not mean any of that. Don't put words in others person's mouth.

What he meant, as far as it can be interpreted, is to make the loadouts more authentic, closer to how it was back on the day in the Battle of Stalingrad. And we can surely do that, without having to portray exactly how each unit was armed at each battle. Not even RO1 did that, it would have been absurd! No one is even close to be asking that!

Your rejection at the sight of more authenticity really shows.

I imagine there is a chance I misunderstood, but what I said stands anyways.

What is interesting:

"Wow.. he did not mean any of that. Don't put words in others person's mouth.
What he meant, as far as it can be interpreted..."

You make it sound like you don't know what he said either, so how can you be sure???

Now, as far as this:

"And we can surely do that, without having to portray exactly how each unit was armed at each battle. Not even RO1 did that, it would have been absurd! No one is even close to be asking that!"

You are very very wrong there. In ROOST you could make the loadouts exactly as you wanted them, it was ENTIRELY up to the mapper. There was much more flexibility with the SDK. How do you think the early war maps didn't have the assualt weapons etc? I and many others know, because we actually made maps and did that!!!

As far as no one asking, I certainly would and I imagine others wouldn't mind either...

 

[Luknron]

I really like it how there's not even nearly as much ammo in classic mode as in realism, sadly classic is not so played.

Edit: This was to the "authentic loadout" thing.

 

[Sarkis.]

I imagine there is a chance I misunderstood, but what I said stands anyways.

What is interesting:

"Wow.. he did not mean any of that. Don't put words in others person's mouth.
What he meant, as far as it can be interpreted..."

You make it sound like you don't know what he said either, so how can you be sure???

Because I asked him what he meant, and because your interpretation really came out of somewhere else, and not anything he said.

Now, as far as this:

"And we can surely do that, without having to portray exactly how each unit was armed at each battle. Not even RO1 did that, it would have been absurd! No one is even close to be asking that!"

You are very very wrong there. In ROOST you could make the loadouts exactly as you wanted them, it was ENTIRELY up to the mapper. There was much more flexibility with the SDK. How do you think the early war maps didn't have the assualt weapons etc? I and many others know, because we actually made maps and did that!!!

As far as no one asking, I certainly would and I imagine others wouldn't mind either...

What!? I am wrong!? TWI can't make changes to the loadout? Of course they can, and they well should make a third optional loadout, and make it free for use via the webadmin for Realism and even Classic Mode. As well as allow the Classic Loadout to be used freely in Realism.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Let me clarify, you said: "Not even RO1 did that, it would have been absurd! No one is even close to be asking that!"

and I said, yes you could in ROOST, meaning of course, RO1.

 

[Sarkis.]

Let me clarify, you said: "Not even RO1 did that, it would have been absurd! No one is even close to be asking that!"

and I said, yes you could in ROOST, meaning of course, RO1.

RO1 featured the battles of Berlin, Odessa, Stalingrad, Leningrad, etc. And each battle had it's loadout.

In RO2 we only deal with the Battle of Stalingrad. And our Stalingrad loadout could be made more authentic. Be it a new optional ''authentic'' loadout or the classic loadout.

Would you not agree?

 

[Drecks]

Sarkis, if only 50% of the time you spend writing posts and arguing about the game and its lack of authenticity and realism was spend on modding your desired game or gamemode would have been here around September 2012.

In case you didn't know how you could have spend 25 % on learning how and the 25% on playing your mode. Life can be so simple.

Really amazing how you manage to write about it the entire day. Can we have a contest on that ?

 

[Giuliano]

If this is just about the Stalingrad maps, what exactly would qualify as an authentic loadout?


I'd love to see something as close to what was actually there.

 

[Sarkis.]

If this is just about the Stalingrad maps, what exactly would qualify as an authentic loadout?

I'd love to see something as close to what was actually there.

Wouldn't we all?

When I don't mention the LVL is because all 3 are good.

Allies

PPSh41 LVL 3
91/30
SVT-40
DP-28
91/30 Sniper LVL 2,3 (bayonet is only ok if detachable or you could opt it out)
SVT-40 Sniper LVL 1 (the bayonet is ok, but the 6x experimental PU scope is not)
PTRS-1941
TT-33
M1895 LVL 1


Axis

MP40 LVL 1
K98k
G41
MG34 LVL 1,3
K98k Sniper LVL 1 (bayonet is only ok if detachable or you could opt it out)
G41 Sniper LVL 1
Pzb-784(r)
P 38
C96 LVL 1

That is the most vanilla setting that would not hurt the eyes of a history buff. But, we can spice it up with a few harmless unlocks, that were rare, and could have been at Stalingrad in very few numbers:

PPSh41 selective fire with the box mag; 91/30 Sniper LVL 1 PU scope; MG34 LVL 2 saddledrum; K98k Sniper LVL 2 6x zielsechs scope; C96 LVL 2,3 detachable mag and full blown M712 Schnellfeuer.

These variations do hurt authenticity a bit even if made rare in game, but are a possible optional trade off in the name of a bit more of variety.

These variations even if at Stalingrad would be terribly rare, so not to hurt too much, I'd advise giving only one of each kind. So no 2 full auto C96s leave the spawn together. Or even rarer by means of the promotion system, randomly or etc.

Weapons that could not possibly have been at Stalingrad or didn't exist or never left the prototype stage are left out. And there, much more authentic than both Realism Loadouts or Classic Loadouts. Not pure fantasy nor needlessly boring and limited.

Class slots (assault, elite rifleman, etc) could also see some tweaks, so as the number of grenades. Now imagine having an option inside the web admin to play Realism or Classic Mode, without going Custom let alone Unranked, with such a loadout!

 

[Giuliano]

I'm guessing both team will have access to certain enemy weapons at one point or another right?

A few Russians spawning with MP40s, or Germans with SVT's and PPSHs?

 

[Sarkis.]

I'm guessing both team will have access to certain enemy weapons at one point or another right?

Arg.. forget to mention that. Yes, an authentic loadout should allow for certain enemy weapons to be available, even if somewhat limited. So that the Germans get PPSh41's but not as many as the Russians.

Captured weapons: PPSh41 LVL 3, MP40 LVL 1, SVT-40, few DP-28s and few MG-34s (but not LVL 2 MG34, as that was terribly rare)