"Relaxed" realism....

[Nicholas]

I dunno Reise, the unlocks system sounds a bit more important to performance than just for appearance sakes (from the Voodoo Extreme Interview):

This doesn't mean everyone will be a muscled Rambo, but instead a more grizzled veteran in which your experience shows on your face and your clothes. Steiner, from the old film Cross of Iron, was their prototype Hero. But unlike the recruit's clunky, used weapon, the Hero gets a sharp, clean piece of machinery that will reign terror on their enemies (that's the aim, anyway).

Maybe the description is a bit more hyped than what's actually going into the game, but what would make a recruit's used rifle any more clunky than a new weapon "that will reign terror on their enemies". So is the recruit's weapon tied together by rope with a worn out barrel?

Btw, for the record BC2 Vitenam is doing worn weapons also.

Maybe he means recruits get old surplus rifles while higher ranks get new guns? But I know that Mosin Nagants made before WW2 are slightly more desirable....

 

[FlyXwire]

Could just as easily pick up newer weapons from the dead or from a fallen Hero.

Next issue, can we relax player progressions?

Maybe I don't want to look like a Hero, because I can't think of a bigger sign that says:

PLACE BULLET (HERE)

 

[SS-Kommando]

I have to partially agree with you. TWI doesn't prioritize realism over everything. They prioritize fun / game play. Remember, RO2 is not a military simulator, it's a game. It'll likely be more realistic than any other WWII FPS game out there, but it's still a game. We'll have to live with abstractions, like the arty system, etc.

Yeah. I don't think that absolute realism is possible or desirable in the first place, although when it comes to equipment, I tend to prefer everything 100% accurate.

true but this is an inherent difficulty, particularly with limited numbers of tanks.
to supplement a long 60 P3 with say a short L24 stug or P4f to give inf support capability means an overall disadvantage against the versatile t34, using equal numbers.

That's true. I think that mappers could adjust for this in numerous way, though. For instance, by giving the Germans a Panzer IIIJ that spawns throughout the game and a Panzer IVF that spawns 1-3 times, while the Russians are granted a T-34 that spawns throughout the game.

Naturally, it wouldn't be 100% balanced, but then I don't care if one side -whether it be Germans or Russians- have a slight advantage over the other one some maps.

1: Its only available to heroes, and there can probably only be 1 per team as hero (hero as elite assault), and to become a hero you'd have to be really into Red Orchestra, and really into realism, so I doubt they'd use it much in the first place....

I'm sure that eventually, there will be plenty of players qualified to use the MBk 42, and I'd likely use it myself given the opportunity if it provides me with a solid advantage, despite me not liking its inclusion.

2: It can be a model for the MP44 when later war maps are released.

I like this part, since it will be an available resource for mods, but that's about it.

I think you are completely mixing up the terms "realism" and "historical accuracy." All of the things you mentioned in your post are issues with historical details, not realism.

...

So while historical details are very important towards "getting it right" when it comes to telling the story of Stalingrad, they are the icing on the cake that make the experience complete, and can't be compared side-by-side with criticisms of realism in the game's mechanics.

I think that both fall under the realism category, but debating semantics is arbitrary. I see what you mean, and naturally there's a difference between the addition of ahistorical equipment and ahistorical values for said piece of equipment.

Well, I find amusing to see you complaining here about realism, while in another thread, you're asking for the option to "keep tank for oneself, to avoid sharing it with an incompetent teammate". That's pretty realistic too, isn't it?

To be technical, I wasn't asking for the option; I was asking if it was there. But yes, I'm relieved that tanking without other human players will be a possibility. This doesn't really belong here, though, since I will like that feature for gameplay reasons, not realism. Although one can argue that it is more realistic to have an AI crew that listens to its commander, rather than a public player that spins the tank in circles, backs it up against enemy tanks and other stupid things that occur 90% of the time.

 

[trench]

Same here.

:IS2::IS2:

TW needs cash to keep functioning. Most kiddies like the less realistic and just dont have the patience it can take to play RO as is it currently. It is matter of money and how to include players without alienating the base.


Servers options will be surely be there are for who want as much realism as a PC game can have and that would be most of the forum members here, thank goodness.

I dont think you will split the community. The less realistic servers will have people that would have never played RO otherwise.

 

[Nicholas]

To be technical, I wasn't asking for the option; I was asking if it was there. But yes, I'm relieved that tanking without other human players will be a possibility. This doesn't really belong here, though, since I will like that feature for gameplay reasons, not realism. Although one can argue that it is more realistic to have an AI crew that listens to its commander, rather than a public player that spins the tank in circles, backs it up against enemy tanks and other stupid things that occur 90% of the time.

They said that on a tank only map they can have up to 64 tanks, I'd like to see one team with say 8 tanks with full human crews vs a team with 32 tanks with 1 human member and AI teams.

 

[Moyako]

They said that on a tank only map they can have up to 64 tanks, I'd like to see one team with say 8 tanks with full human crews vs a team with 32 tanks with 1 human member and AI teams.

Agreed

 

[Hans Ludwig]

TW needs cash to keep functioning. Most kiddies like the less realistic and just dont have the patience it can take to play RO as is it currently. It is matter of money and how to include players without alienating the base.

Way to go with the stereotypes that aren't backed up with any research data. It's like saying all Mexicans like eating beans and all Brits have bad teeth.

I can tell you when OFP DR was about to be released, there were A LOT of console and COD4 PCers that wanted something more realistic to play. This was just from reading the endless amounts of threads being posted by them on the Consolemaster's forum.

 

[Flogger23m]

I will say that hopefully more players decide that "Realism" mode is the way to go.

I'd hope so as well.

But lets just take a look at other games that attempted realism - Insurgency and RO OST for examples.

Try playing either one. Most of the servers play with the less realistic settings for both games.

Just something to think about.

 

[hockeywarrior]

I'd hope so as well.

But lets just take a look at other games that attempted realism - Insurgency and RO OST for examples.

Try playing either one. Most of the servers play with the less realistic settings for both games.

Just something to think about.

HAHA except RO:OST is actually FUN to play, unlike INS. Sorry, but that game is a mess.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say most servers play with less realistic settings for RO: the vast majority of RO servers that are populated are running the game at default realistic settings. This is NOT true in INS where tons of servers have added crosshairs, death messages, and silly ULTRA KILL type things like we see in CS.

 

[dogbadger]

HAHA except RO:OST is actually FUN to play, unlike INS. Sorry, but that game is a mess.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say most servers play with less realistic settings for RO: the vast majority of RO servers that are populated are running the game at default realistic settings. This is NOT true in INS where tons of servers have added crosshairs, death messages, and silly ULTRA KILL type things like we see in CS.

i've never seen a ins server like that.
i'll have a look tonight.

 

[Flogger23m]

HAHA except RO:OST is actually FUN to play, unlike INS. Sorry, but that game is a mess.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say most servers play with less realistic settings for RO: the vast majority of RO servers that are populated are running the game at default realistic settings. This is NOT true in INS where tons of servers have added crosshairs, death messages, and silly ULTRA KILL type things like we see in CS.

Being fun never had anything to do with my point.

Never seen the crosshair thing in INS. The game had a lot of potential, but it seems like they changed focus after the first release.

As for OST, I will disagree. Most servers seem to have the instant kill/death message on.

I can point to the ArmA series as another game to illustrate my point.


If the player base (especially the mainstream base they seem to be marketing to) of HoS is similar to almost every other FPS game out there, the more realistic options will be turned off for most of the servers.

 

[hockeywarrior]

Being fun never had anything to do with my point.

Never seen the crosshair thing in INS. The game had a lot of potential, but it seems like they changed focus after the first release.

As for OST, I will disagree. Most servers seem to have the instant kill/death message on.

I can point to the ArmA series as another game to illustrate my point.


If the player base (especially the mainstream base they seem to be marketing to) of HoS is similar to almost every other FPS game out there, the more realistic options will be turned off for most of the servers.

I wouldn't call instant death messages a huge red flag for an realistic game. Seems pretty minor to me when compared to other things that could totally destroy realism like adding cross hairs, making guns take many bullets to kill people, and having a big HUD all over the place.

Even with death messages, theres nothing really "relaxed" about RO's gameplay ...

 

[213]

Way to go with the stereotypes that aren't backed up with any research data. It's like saying all Mexicans like eating beans and all Brits have bad teeth.

I can tell you when OFP DR was about to be released, there were A LOT of console and COD4 PCers that wanted something more realistic to play. This was just from reading the endless amounts of threads being posted by them on the Consolemaster's forum.

and when the turd finally came flopping out of the oven, what did they do? cry for joy. they don't know what the hell actual realism is.

but if you weren't fooled by the ridiculous trick codemaster was trying to pull, you'd know their promise of realism is just ridiculous. how do we know it's ridiculous? the game was designed for consoles. bottom line.

consoles are incapable of complex control schemes, sorry.

 

[Hans Ludwig]

and when the turd finally came flopping out of the oven, what did they do? cry for joy. they don't know what the hell actual realism is.

but if you weren't fooled by the ridiculous trick codemaster was trying to pull, you'd know their promise of realism is just ridiculous. how do we know it's ridiculous? the game was designed for consoles. bottom line.

consoles are incapable of complex control schemes, sorry.

The point is that there were a significant amount of people looking for realism. While the console section and PC section differed on how they defined realism on the Consolemaster's forum, the theme was still based on realism. So to say that gamers only want run-in-gun (COD/CSS) crap is false.

 

[Yoshiro]

Just to clarify, there won't be any gameplay differences between Relaxed realism and normal play. The changes will be cosmetic and mostly HUD based on what information is presented to the player.

 

[otester]

People seem to be forgetting that new vehicles, weapons etc. can be added with mods and tank realism can be fixed (ROOST had AB mod - modified version used in DH mod).

Also balance and realism don't have to be enemies, I believe balance is a numbers and map issue.

 

[Poerisija]

I would honestly be surprised if Hero status unlocks weapons or other similar special privileges.

I wouldn't.

 

[WiFiDi]

yea crosshairs whahoo

 

[LJFHutch]

As for OST, I will disagree. Most servers seem to have the instant kill/death message on.

I can point to the ArmA series as another game to illustrate my point.


If the player base (especially the mainstream base they seem to be marketing to) of HoS is similar to almost every other FPS game out there, the more realistic options will be turned off for most of the servers.

Yup, that's what worries me, especially being in Australia where there are much smaller numbers of people and they tend to also play on much lower realism settings. There is ONE (!) server for RO in aus and it has death-messages and who knows what else turned on. As such I cannot play the game with full realism unless I'm playing against the bots in SP. I don't care what anybody says, relaxed realism in any game will be more popular than full - and the larger the audience the more this will be the case.

As to the other issue:

HOS doesn't look realistic enough, I want to be on gaurd duty for 6 hours then die of Typhoid fever.

That would be "authenticity". You could have a super realistic game where all the "germans" were actually pink space aliens so long as it got the equipment/speeds/etc etc right. Same you could have a super authentic game where the tigers and T-34's had health-bars and were equal in terms of performance .... well, second example slightly less so: I imagine that would somewhat affect the authenticity of the battle results .....

Edit: Also, RO "simulates" combat, guard duty is not combat and so has absolutely no bearing on it's level of "authenticity".

Just to clarify, there won't be any gameplay differences between Relaxed realism and normal play. The changes will be cosmetic and mostly HUD based on what information is presented to the player.

The problem is that those things do affect gameplay a little bit: at the moment I throw grenades into a room until I get a kill message, then I know the room is clear when in reality I wouldn't. I can also spray machine gun fire into a bush if I saw an enemy soldier run behind it until I get said kill message.

 

[Amerikaner]

Yup, that's what worries me, especially being in Australia where there are much smaller numbers of people and they tend to also play on much lower realism settings. There is ONE (!) server for RO in aus and it has death-messages and who knows what else turned on. As such I cannot play the game with full realism unless I'm playing against the bots in SP. I don't care what anybody says, relaxed realism in any game will be more popular than full - and the larger the audience the more this will be the case.

As to the other issue:


That would be "authenticity". You could have a super realistic game where all the "germans" were actually pink space aliens so long as it got the equipment/speeds/etc etc right. Same you could have a super authentic game where the tigers and T-34's had health-bars and were equal in terms of performance .... well, second example slightly less so: I imagine that would somewhat affect the authenticity of the battle results .....

Edit: Also, RO "simulates" combat, guard duty is not combat and so has absolutely no bearing on it's level of "authenticity".



The problem is that those things do affect gameplay a little bit: at the moment I throw grenades into a room until I get a kill message, then I know the room is clear when in reality I wouldn't. I can also spray machine gun fire into a bush if I saw an enemy soldier run behind it until I get said kill message.

Well the reason for relaxed realism is to attract and keep new players playing. The hope then is that these new players will get into the "hardcore" realism style servers.

I see your point about dealing with a majority of relaxed realism servers but what's better: empty realism servers or full relaxed realism servers? You have to keep in mind it's not necessarily true that players who play relaxed realism would stick around when forced into hardcore realism.