Questions about features.

[Krobar]

New Recoil Model: The recoil model is more realistic than that of Ostfront. SMG's have had their recoil lowered and MG's have more recoil.

SMG recoil is now correct but the MG recoil is much less than Ostfront's while hip firing and much more than Ostfront's when set up on the bi-pod. Problem? I think so.

Bandaging: Players can bandage minor wounds to stop themselves from bleeding to death. Non-critical hits will cause half the damage instantly, with the other half occurring over bleed out time. Prompt bandaging can stop the second half of the damage from occurring.

You lose half your health in the current state much too fast. And the damage isn't slowly effecting its just about instant, as you don't suffer bodily effects while bleeding. Will this be looked into?

Destructable Buildings: Any and all buildings are destructible if the mapper wants. Buildings can be destroyed partially, and piece by piece but will still leave ruins behind, so the battlefield isn't bombed flat.

So it was TWI's mapper's decision not to make every building destructible in some way? Not the design team? If so that's relieving, waiting impatiently for that SDK!

The main question really is, how come these features don't work or appear to work as advertised? (There's others I didn't list too, feel free to list them)


All from the Fact Thread.

 

[otaviN]

Where are the questions?

 

[Krobar]

Do I need to highlight them and put them in bold? Every sentence with a question mark at the end of it is a question.

 

[otaviN]

Do I need to highlight them and put them in bold? Every sentence with a question mark at the end of it is a question.

Nice one - you've edited them in. First there wasn't anything but your personal opinion as an immediate response.

//Edit:
Also, it would help to elaborate on things such as this:
" SMG recoil is now correct but the MG recoil is much less than Ostfront's while hip firing and much more than Ostfront's when set up on the bi-pod. Problem? I think so. "

 

[Krobar]

Nice one - you've edited them in. First there wasn't anything but your personal opinion as an immediate response.

Alright, I'm not known for my writing skills so I didn't type it how I wanted it to come out, but there was at least 2 questions in there before I fixed it. Besides that the point stills stands.

 

[otaviN]

Alright, I'm not known for my writing skills so I didn't type it how I wanted it to come out, but there was at least 2 questions in there before I fixed it. Besides that the point stills stands.

Wrong. Go Google the page's snapshot from a few minutes ago - the only question that was in there you've immediately answered with your personal opinion and left any sort of elaboration out.

 

[Krobar]

Also, it would help to elaborate on things such as this:
" SMG recoil is now correct but the MG recoil is much less than Ostfront's while hip firing and much more than Ostfront's when set up on the bi-pod. Problem? I think so. "

If I had video or the means to make video footage of both I would of posted it, but alas I do not. If you are aware of how it works in both games RO1's MG recoil is much more powerful, while firing from the hip, than RO2's. While RO2 has some weird powerful upwards recoil while firing MGs when they are set on their bi-pods.

 

[otaviN]

If I had video or the means to make video footage of both I would of posted it, but alas I do not. If you are aware of how it works in both games RO1's MG recoil is much more powerful, while firing from the hip, than RO2's. While RO2 has some weird powerful upwards recoil while firing MGs when they are set on their bi-pods.

The hidden premise here is that RO2 is meant to be very similar to RO1, I presume - which was not the aim of the developers, hence it is not an issue and is a matter of preference. As to how far this will be looked into at the moment: I can honestly say that this 'issue' is going to be back-ended, if not overlooked entirely, at the moment due to the more severe issues plaguing this game.

 

[Icey_Pain]

SMG recoil is now correct but the MG recoil is much less than Ostfront's while hip firing and much more than Ostfront's when set up on the bi-pod. Problem? I think so.

Stop comparing it to Ostfront thank you. There is no problem, besides the clumsy cover system concerning bipod placement.

You lose half your health in the current state much too fast. And the damage isn't slowly effecting its just about instant, as you don't suffer bodily effects while bleeding. Will this be looked into?

If you had searched, you would have found that the developers already looked into this. And they concluded that bodily effects were motivations to suicide.

So it was TWI's mapper's decision not to make every building destructible in some way? Not the design team? If so that's relieving, waiting impatiently for that SDK!

I don't think you've got an idea what impact destruction has on both gameplay and performance do you?

The main question really is, how come these features don't work or appear to work as advertised? (There's others I didn't list too, feel free to list them)

Deadline...

 

[Krobar]

Stop comparing it to Ostfront thank you. There is no problem, besides the clumsy cover system concerning bipod placement.

It was compared to Ostfront as it was advertised.

If you had searched, you would have found that the developers already looked into this. And they concluded that bodily effects were motivations to suicide.

Why couldn't it be like Ostfront where the crippling effects went away? (Possibly now by being bandaged?)

I don't think you've got an idea what impact destruction has on both gameplay and performance do you?

I believe I do, but the question was more or less asked if destruction of every designed building would be possible.

Deadline...

Yea, they poorly estimated how long it would take them I guess.

 

[otaviN]

" It was compared to Ostfront as it was advertised. "
And it is indeed comparable to Ostfront.

 

[Krobar]

" It was compared to Ostfront as it was advertised. "
And it is indeed comparable to Ostfront.

Yes but the feature being "more realistic than Ostfront" still isn't correct due to the upwards recoil from MGs while set up with their bi-pods.

 

[otaviN]

Yes but the feature being "more realistic than Ostfront" still isn't correct due to the upwards recoil from MGs while set up with their bi-pods.

Overall one could say it to be more realistic than Ostfront.

 

[Filo90]

apparently you can no longer make qestions in this forum

 

[mattg]

-1 to the two of u dumba$$'s for going on this long losers go play the game and an extra -4 to you otavin for bit&^*&^ about this loser get a life

 

[Icey_Pain]

It was compared to Ostfront as it was advertised.

They shouldn't have, there's little that actually makes the gameplay feel the same.

Why couldn't it be like Ostfront where the crippling effects went away? (Possibly now by being bandaged?)

Although the current bleeding system is odd in itself. Self-healing crippling effects would cause a rain of complaints by realism fans as well. Americas Army has a pretty good bleeding system.

I believe I do, but the question was more or less asked if destruction of every designed building would be possible.

[url]http://www.unrealengine.com/features/physics/[/URL]

It's certainly possible, it's just not practical however.

Yea, they poorly estimated how long it would take them I guess.

I think that the decision to release the game in the state it was in, was not a poor estimation. But rather the boa constrictor that's called money. The release date is a strict date for various reasons.
One of the more obvious reasons would be that Red Orchestra 2 is a game that can't quite compete in marketing against the triple A titles such Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3.

Releasing Red Orchestra 2 in the same time as those 2 games would result into many people not having enough money to buy more than 1 game. And most people simply go for the game that's advertised the best. Thus they would lose sales trying to compete.

 

[Thaelyn]

Releasing Red Orchestra 2 in the same time as those 2 games would result into many people not having enough money to buy more than 1 game. And most people simply go for the game that's advertised the best. Thus they would lose sales trying to compete.

I don't think it would, ultimately, come down to the biggest advertising budget. I think it's more a "known quantity" thing. Call of Duty, for example, hasn't changed appreciably since Modern Warfare 1. If you've played any of four CoD titles, you know exactly what you're going to get with MW3. Battlefield 3, as well, is an established franchise with a loyal following and the more recent entries follow the same basic gameplay (I must admit, I've no experience with the older BF titles, so this may or may not hold true over the long term history of the franchise).

Both of these series have had very broad user bases so they are the "known quantity". Red Orchestra, on the other hand, played to a niche market outside the "mainstream". This fact is often lauded by RO vets as they lament the direction of RO2. Many people in the target audience of HoS (myself included) never even heard of Red Orchestra prior to learning of the upcoming sequel.

Were I in the position of having to choose one of 3 titles it wouldn't be the advertising that swayed me, but the "safer bet" approach that influenced my purchasing decision.

 

[Icey_Pain]

Choosing the safer bet certainly has a priority. But for a game to even enter the list of possible candidates, there has to be significant advertising.

Red Orchestra 2 reminds me a lot of S

 

[Thaelyn]

Very true.