The other 80% of RO2 players dont want a "realism" mode.

[Apos]

No, I don't want a more accessible RO. TWI wanted that. They officially stated that aswell if I remember it correctly. They made the game more like any other mainstream game, with unlocks, perks, restricted maps, superhuman movements yadayadayada, and then basicly removed the HUD and labeled that as hardcore mode.

TWI can either make RO into a real arcade game and compete with the others (such as cod) or they can stay true to the niche audience they've got. Personally speaking, I want RO2 to remain a niche game, but not in the state it is now: RO OST was a niche game because it didn't taste well for the mainstream and that was about it. RO2 on the other hand is even more niche because it neither appeals to the mainstream or the old fanbase. So I rather see RO2 as more inaccessible than RO OST.

This is the result when you're trying to make a perfect game which genre is ''All'', a game that everyone is supposed to enjoy. Codemasters did the same thing with Dragon Rising. The Hardcore mode was by the way almost identical to the one found in RO2 - it was arcade/easy mode with no HUD labeled Hardcore mode. Bohemia Interactive does exactly the opposite and despite the fact their Arma-series is by no doubt A LOT more inaccessible to the mainstream than RO their community is at the same time A LOT bigger than RO's simply because the niche audience that arma cater to are happy with the game. If arma was made into an accessible mainstreamed 'tactical' shooter, with perks, unlocks, no perks, no unlocks, Relaxed Realism, Hardcore, no this, no that, some of this, more of this, less of that blablabla the community would fall apart; neither the mainstream or the old arma players would be intrested in the game anymore.


Personally speaking, I will ditch the game if it becomes another arcade game. In that way I may aswell play battlefield or cod. I will also ditch the game if it remains a bland between a tactical shooter and COD - like it is now. There is only one mode for me: Red Orchestra, not a carbon copy of ro ost, not ro ost mixed with cod, but an improved sequel with identical formula that aims at community, realism and freedom.

This post is full of win. I need to add that HoS isn't attractive to CoD/BF players because there is absolutely nothing interesting in RO2 for them, even when TWI crated game just for them.
They don't care about realism, but "balance" and leveling/unlocking (and game is balanced in many terms, not realistic)
They don't care about historical accuracy, but fun (Mkbs, AVT, winter trigger guard, fancy optics, do I need to say more?)

Other thing is graphic, I see no reason why Battlefield player would pick HoS over BF3, just compare screenshots. BF3 spent millions to develop such graphic and destruction engine and they did excellent job here. Regarding CoD players: I mostly hear opinion that HoS looks like CoD 2.


Maps: way too big for CoD players, way too small for Battlefield 3 players. In Battlefield 3 I can easily have a firefight at 500+ meters against tank, sniper or chopper, where average engagement range in RO2 is about 30 meters...BF3 offers various maps, from small and crowded Metro to huge open maps like Caspian Border. HoS has only CoD-a-like small, crowded urban maps.


HoS was designed to speed up gameplay because many said that RO:O is "slow paced game" and mostly they compared it to ArmA mil sim. TWI speeded up everything and almost all features added to game suppose to make game "fluid" and fast paced. CoD players think that gameplay is again: boring, too slow, so they prefer CoD over HoS. Battlefield players were looking for some epic gameplay, where choppers, planes, tanks, APC, etc can fight against each other. In HoS we have two tanks, that are disabled on most the servers because someone had great idea to put aimbotting MG into it...Also lockdown killed feeling of epic battles from RO:O (anyone remember Kriegstadt? that was hell of good map to play), when Battlefield 3 doesn't have such absurd. In BF3 server admins can change number of tickets and adjust how long battle will take (and they don't lose ranked status, when in RO2 you do).


Accessibility, we've heard about it many times. When new player joins game he still doesn't know what to do. I saw many times such questions like "how to bandage?", "how to use cover system?", "why did we lose?", "where is crosshair?", "how can I deploy my weapon", etc. RO:O had learning curve so with training players became good, "experienced" like real soldiers. In HoS there is nothing to learn, interesting and newcomers still have a problems to understand basics. Best example what should be done are Darkest Hour tutorials. DH team did excellent job in making tactical game by adding such elements like smokes, mortars, anti-tank weaponry that required teammates to be more effective, advanced tanking that many loved. HoS doesn't have anything like that, but still in eyes of newcomers it looks like difficult game. Accessibility = dumbing down game content and gameplay, nothing more.


Competitive scene is another disaster of HoS. There is less active clans few months after release HoS, than RO:O had after few years. CoD and BF3 players are not interested in such small clan community to play with. Why they would pick HoS over CoD/BF3 when they have like hundreds or thousand of active clans, dozens of tournaments, nations cups and leagues? TWI added team deathmatch and CS-like gamemode to pleased CounterStrike players, where are they? Personally instead of Firefight I'd like to see a working demorec 2.0 in release day, out from the box or multiplayer campaign mode.

Last but not least is TWI's ignorance to the old community. Today TWI said that they are going to add "classic" mode to the game someday, but they never wanted to do it before release. CoD crowd was their main priority, we were only a 0.001% of sales. Sad but true.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

more text

Sorry Cyper, was in a hurry reading your post and misread it.

 

[nebsif]

Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby ask Cyper to marry me and make me a baby for posting exactly what I think, not giving up (like I did), and all that in a much more civilized and mature way than i'll ever be capable of.

I bet most of TWI's sales came from pre-orders when people bought the game primarily on RO1's reputation and empty promises, and NOT a week or so after release.

 

[Zetsumei]

What makes me wonder is that most people want more realism and are refering to ostfront style. Besides bandaging, hip mg and maybe other small things, hos has more realistic gunplay imo. People can be almost invisible and due to zoom, such an 'invisible' player is far more dangerous than somebody would be in ostfront.

What made ostfront better is the visibility, the hipshooting which was far more effective and how iron sights worked. Slower transition into them, plus no ****ing free-aim which now totally favors the player who is already aiming, since fast snap shots are ruined by the inconsistent mouse speed.

I even thought about modding the game into a state closer to ostfront but a) most clanplayers wouldn't agree with my changes and b) it's really not worth it to invest the time.

Free aim in ironsight, Zoom, IS-speed are the main things for me that make me dislike HOS.

Zoom makes long range combat more hide and seek focussed and generally very campy with hardly anyone advancing rather taking potshots. Especially since the attackers are naturally at a disadvantage inability to zoom while moving brings another (unrealistic advantage on top). Sure its realistic to see things at a 1:1 size, but you should see things at a 1:1 size together with a 180 degree fov. I think fov zoom should be more of an aid to help you perhaps shoot someone, but not a requirement for scanning the surroundings and spotting people. Forcing people to look around with a small fov, and being unable to move while doing so, is exactly the same as in other games the sniper rifles function. In result the long range gameplay in hos is similar to other games where there are unlimited sniper rifle classes available, but now the sniper rifles are mostly fully automatic.

Ironsight speed, makes people run in a room and go to ironsight once they spot someone. In ost if you sprinted you needed some time before you could fire, and if you wanted to go into ironsights you needed some time. If you wanted to have a chance of killing in ironsights you needed to go in ironsight before entering the room or going for hipshooting. The fast speed of ironsights makes people act differently when entering rooms, and generally get people to run more indoors.

Free aim in ironsight, free aim got an important purpose when hipshooting as you cannot tag a dot on the centre of your screen. However in ironsights you already have a visual indication on your screen, in return all it does there, is make you act more clumsy with your mouse and basically just causes me to be annoyed. I don't mind if aiming is more difficult. But if someone touches the relation of how my mouse moves the aim point like mouse acceleration or anything else then I simply cannot like a game. With the high accuracy of all weaponry, and low recoil the bolt action rifle already feels like a bastard child, but the addition of free aim which makes your aiming inconsistent makes it even harder for weapons with a low fire rate.

 

[Schreq]

text

freeaim iron sights have the advantage of being able to simulate sway and recoil in a more realistic manner. That is the only argument for free aim in iron sights though, and the bad feeling of control totally out weights it's advantages imo.

 

[Zetsumei]

freeaim iron sights have the advantage of being able to simulate sway and recoil in a more realistic manner. That is the only argument for free aim in iron sights though, and the bad feeling of control totally out weights it's advantages imo.

The thing is even if it simulates sway in a realistic matter of having sway or recoil without your actual screen moving but rather the gun moving up.

When you pull your mouse down you both pull the gun and the screen down, as long as you cannot seperately control the gun movement and the screen movement (headtracking for instance), those things should never become uncoupled.

 

[wake_up]

TWI should add a poll function to the game, so ALL players could be
asked and can vote what they like.
I want to see if 80% vote for not add a realism mode.

 

[Grobut]

TWI should add a poll function to the game, so ALL players could be
asked and can vote what they like.
I want to see if 80% vote for not add a realism mode.

That's kinda missing the point..

The players of this game are the minority, go look at the steam stats, or just launch the server browser and watch the tumbleweeds drift by the 3 populated servers there are, and that my freinds is HoS's greatest problem, not enough people can be bothered to click the exicutable and actually play the sodding thing.

If you are playing this game, then you are the 20%, you are the minority, and i need only point to the steam stats to back up that claim, the player counts (and lack of same) speaks for itself.


The real question here is, who are the 80% then?

Well i can tell you one thing for a fact, it's not the mainstream, all thouse players out there who are addicted to their CoD, CS, BF, WOW or what have you, they aren't going to give a damn about a little game called HoS, they are not a viable target audience, they allready have a game they want to be playing, and they will continue to do so.

No, the 80% is to be found amongst players who would be interested in playing this game, but who for various reasons are choosing not to do so at this time.

They include RO players who thought the game would be more like RO, ARMA guys who heard the game would be a proper tactical shooter, aswell as oldschool shooter guys who thought the game would be like a return of classic PC games like CoD:UO or DoD v1.3.

Some want the game pulled more twords tactical and historical realism, others more twords the arcade action and gun-porn.

You cannot please both at the same time, ergo the need for two sepperate modes, the two just don't mix. And that is precisely why HoS has so few players in the first place, it tried to make us all share a mode, and it hasen't worked, it tries to have realism but at the same time it wants to force fast paced actiony gameplay, it tries to be a classic PC shooter but at the same time wants to be a modern one with a progression system aswell, it tries to incorporate a serious and historical view of the war with lovingly crafted weapons, tanks and maps, but at the same time tries to be a hip young gun-porn shooter with spiffy prototype weapons and attachable gadgets..

Either pick a sodding side and stick with it, or do both in sepperate modes, trying to do both at the same time doesen't work, and means only the few players of the two groups who overlap will even want the game, as indeed seems to be precisely what has happened, making HoS even more niche than Ost was.


And quite frankly, they should probably take the progression system out back and put both barrels through it's skull, because that is the only thing that both groups can agree on hating, the realism guys find it contrived and unrealistic, the classic shooters and competitive guys feel it compromises the purity of the gameplay. Only a tiny tiny tiny little group of players have ever wanted or defended it, and even most of thouse would admit the system is badly implimented.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Badly implemented designs won't be fixed regardless of what gameplay mode the server is running. Those need to get fixed before anything else.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

...Either pick a sodding side and stick with it, or do both in sepperate modes, trying to do both at the same time doesen't work, and means only the few players of the two groups who overlap will even want the game, as indeed seems to be precisely what has happened, making HoS even more niche than Ost was...

Unfortunately this really says a lot. ROHOS became even more niche than ROOST and that should not have been the case. Not by a long shot...

 

[Crusher]

I think RO1 never had alot of players because there was no commercial campaign for it like there was for RO2. If they had money back then and put the same effort in making adverts for RO1 as they did for RO2 it would've been alot more famous. I guess they figured RO1 wasn't all that popular because it was focused to a too specific group so they made RO2 appeal to a wider audience while the only thing they had to do was pretty much do an RO remake and start hyping it and make ads for it.

 

[Hells High]

Relaxed realism mode.
Imho the current Full realism mode is what I expected the Relaxed Realism mode to be like.

Also, I find the highlighted part to be pretty insulting.

Generally speaking, players of 'realism' based games tend to have much louder opinions about what they think is right and what should be. Having worked on a 'realism' based source mod for over a year, this is pretty well known fact at this point.

Correction

How do you know that the majority doesn't want changes, but don't want to be bothered to post?

Anyway, you have no facts one way or the other, except for your own opinion and those expressed by others here, same as I

I don't, I'm just spinning the hyperbole cannon the other way for a change. Despite the fact I was addressing the author of that post in their uninformed rambling, I netted me 2 dislikes as well; SCORE!

PS, I wasn't the one that down voted ya, I upvoted you for your comment about opinions.

 

[MagyarHonved]

Badly implemented designs won't be fixed regardless of what gameplay mode the server is running. Those need to get fixed before anything else.

Hi, I am the OP and I think the above statement pretty much sums up my post. Yes, throwing out irrelevant and complete BS percentage numbers was perhaps a little unnecessary and I see it caused many of you to simply hit reply in utter outrage or disgust before reading the rest of my post. Im sorry that it brought about so much hair pulling, teeth gnashing and just general ill-will from the majority of you.

Since my original post Ive logged in about 55 hours, 40 Honor, my MN9130 and KAR98 are hovering around 40ish and after many hours of getting shredded I finally hit 2.0 K/D, and about 1.1 W/L. Wish I could play more often but its tough with limited off-duty hours. Anyways, still enjoying the game and am looking forward to more basic gameplay fixes!

Oh, and on the topic of "realistic" sprinting - I can sprint for a hell of lot longer than 10 seconds IRL with full battle rattle and kit, full assualt pack while humping a 249 so yeah... :IS2:

 

[hockeywarrior]

That's kinda missing the point..

The players of this game are the minority, go look at the steam stats, or just launch the server browser and watch the tumbleweeds drift by the 3 populated servers there are, and that my freinds is HoS's greatest problem, not enough people can be bothered to click the exicutable and actually play the sodding thing.

If you are playing this game, then you are the 20%, you are the minority, and i need only point to the steam stats to back up that claim, the player counts (and lack of same) speaks for itself.


The real question here is, who are the 80% then?

Well i can tell you one thing for a fact, it's not the mainstream, all thouse players out there who are addicted to their CoD, CS, BF, WOW or what have you, they aren't going to give a damn about a little game called HoS, they are not a viable target audience, they allready have a game they want to be playing, and they will continue to do so.

No, the 80% is to be found amongst players who would be interested in playing this game, but who for various reasons are choosing not to do so at this time.

They include RO players who thought the game would be more like RO, ARMA guys who heard the game would be a proper tactical shooter, aswell as oldschool shooter guys who thought the game would be like a return of classic PC games like CoD:UO or DoD v1.3.

Some want the game pulled more twords tactical and historical realism, others more twords the arcade action and gun-porn.

You cannot please both at the same time, ergo the need for two sepperate modes, the two just don't mix. And that is precisely why HoS has so few players in the first place, it tried to make us all share a mode, and it hasen't worked, it tries to have realism but at the same time it wants to force fast paced actiony gameplay, it tries to be a classic PC shooter but at the same time wants to be a modern one with a progression system aswell, it tries to incorporate a serious and historical view of the war with lovingly crafted weapons, tanks and maps, but at the same time tries to be a hip young gun-porn shooter with spiffy prototype weapons and attachable gadgets..

Either pick a sodding side and stick with it, or do both in sepperate modes, trying to do both at the same time doesen't work, and means only the few players of the two groups who overlap will even want the game, as indeed seems to be precisely what has happened, making HoS even more niche than Ost was.


And quite frankly, they should probably take the progression system out back and put both barrels through it's skull, because that is the only thing that both groups can agree on hating, the realism guys find it contrived and unrealistic, the classic shooters and competitive guys feel it compromises the purity of the gameplay. Only a tiny tiny tiny little group of players have ever wanted or defended it, and even most of thouse would admit the system is badly implimented.

Another post that earns "Hockeywarrior's 110% Awesome No-Bull**** Seal of Approval."

Well done sir, an additional +:IS2: is your reward. I warn you that one unfortunate consequence of receiving this honor is to also possibly receive a dedicated troop of downvote-stalkers. Tis the price of greatness I'm afraid.

 

[The Commissar]

That's kinda missing the point..

The players of this game are the minority, go look at the steam stats, or just launch the server browser and watch the tumbleweeds drift by the 3 populated servers there are, and that my freinds is HoS's greatest problem, not enough people can be bothered to click the exicutable and actually play the sodding thing.

If you are playing this game, then you are the 20%, you are the minority, and i need only point to the steam stats to back up that claim, the player counts (and lack of same) speaks for itself.


The real question here is, who are the 80% then?

Well i can tell you one thing for a fact, it's not the mainstream, all thouse players out there who are addicted to their CoD, CS, BF, WOW or what have you, they aren't going to give a damn about a little game called HoS, they are not a viable target audience, they allready have a game they want to be playing, and they will continue to do so.

No, the 80% is to be found amongst players who would be interested in playing this game, but who for various reasons are choosing not to do so at this time.

They include RO players who thought the game would be more like RO, ARMA guys who heard the game would be a proper tactical shooter, aswell as oldschool shooter guys who thought the game would be like a return of classic PC games like CoD:UO or DoD v1.3.

Some want the game pulled more twords tactical and historical realism, others more twords the arcade action and gun-porn.

You cannot please both at the same time, ergo the need for two sepperate modes, the two just don't mix. And that is precisely why HoS has so few players in the first place, it tried to make us all share a mode, and it hasen't worked, it tries to have realism but at the same time it wants to force fast paced actiony gameplay, it tries to be a classic PC shooter but at the same time wants to be a modern one with a progression system aswell, it tries to incorporate a serious and historical view of the war with lovingly crafted weapons, tanks and maps, but at the same time tries to be a hip young gun-porn shooter with spiffy prototype weapons and attachable gadgets..

Either pick a sodding side and stick with it, or do both in sepperate modes, trying to do both at the same time doesen't work, and means only the few players of the two groups who overlap will even want the game, as indeed seems to be precisely what has happened, making HoS even more niche than Ost was.


And quite frankly, they should probably take the progression system out back and put both barrels through it's skull, because that is the only thing that both groups can agree on hating, the realism guys find it contrived and unrealistic, the classic shooters and competitive guys feel it compromises the purity of the gameplay. Only a tiny tiny tiny little group of players have ever wanted or defended it, and even most of thouse would admit the system is badly implimented.

Tip of my hat to you sir; if you lived near me, i'd buy you a drink...

 

[Sensemann]

Guys, I am curious: Do you really think the times of games with depth are completely over?

I think it's wrong thinking that RO 1 (yes, ONE) wasn't the commercial hit because it was too hardcore or too difficult to learn. Once RO 1 became retail it was simply too old and too ugly for the mainstream player. And how could it have been any different when RO 1 was in a market where its biggest competitors are introducing sequences and add-ons in a 12 month cycle?
I don't think that RO 1 failed commercial wise because it was too difficult and frustrating for too many players. Of course it had an impact when compared to COD and BF, but looking to the Arma series, there are hundreds of thousands of players that went from OFP all the way to today's Arma 2. Never heard them complaining that it's too difficult.

Whatever, coming to the 80% again, TWI advertized RO 2 much better than RO 1 and the audience for this title was much bigger, plus, the graphics are not as far off towards COD/BF than RO 1 was at its time of release to the COD/BF titles released simultaneously.

Where RO 2 seems to have failed is to convince the buyers on why to play it!

The error in this whole "80% of the audience" discussion is that the audience is not 80% of the players not sharing their opinion on the forum, but 80%, if not even 90% of the players that have bought the game, NOT PLAYING IT.

And if a guy like the OP thinks that this is because of the "oh-so-bad-RO-vets", then I can only say that he is not the brightest guy.

Yes, there is a group of vocal RO fans that want changes to the game. But the intention is not to make the game unenjoyable for the people that like the game as is. It's to make the game enjoyable for a wider audience. Options. Give us the option to play RO as it is and a hardcore version which takes more skill to master it. Most of the guys that I know who bought the game but are not playing it say that sth is missing or not the way they thought it would be. None wants to take sth away from the game, but rather, all of them want sth in the game that makes them play again.

And if you ask me, I am all in for a real realism/hardcore/traditional or whatever you like to call it mode. If that new mode enforces tactics and teamplay, I am sure that whole clans would come back and so would many other players. I assume that most of them bought RO 2 because it was different than COD and BF 3 gameplay wise. Not pure run'n'gun. Currently, RO 2 is trying to serve COD and BF 3 wants/needs and imho fails because 1st, these games do it better, it's their audience and 2nd, they have the better graphics.

I am not going out and try to beat Kobe Bryant on a basketball court. I would be stupid to bet money of me winning against him. However, if I pull him on a soccer field, the cards are mixed again

Looking back at how RO 2 was advertized, the spot with the grandpa having his flashbacks about how the war was fought stays in mind. If grandpa was thinking of the war, he wouldn't have had COD in mind, but rather RO 1 or OFP. I am assuming 80% of the audience thought RO 2 would be portraying the cruel battle of Stalingrad, not the perk collecting horde of Stalingrad. If you have a look at the game now, what do you think where the players are?

The arcade people are mostly at the AAA titles, the "RO vets" are left out, the huge amount of players that thought of RO 2 as an alternative to Arma and the like are back to their games and only a small proportion of players are playing RO 2. And to think that the current RO 2 player population is 80% of the community is pretty blind-sighted.

 

[Six_Ten]

Guys, I am curious: Do you really think the times of games with depth are completely over?

Of course not. You can make a game that appeals to 10,000 players like RO did and make a higher profit margin than a company with a multimillion dollar budget for a game that has to sell hundreds of thousands of copies to break even. If you make the niche game, don't try to take on the costs of a mass-appeal game.

 

[Private Who?]

If you make the niche game, don't try to take on the costs of a mass-appeal game.

Do you mean the in-game sound track that none of us listen to? Or the development costs of a stats/perk system that so many of us wish wasn't there?

And I nominate Sensemann for a Golden Puck. (That's what we're gonna start calling the HockeyWarrior No BS Award....somebody wanna come up with a gif for that?)

 

[hockeywarrior]

And I nominate Sensemann for a Golden Puck. (That's what we're gonna start calling the HockeyWarrior No BS Award....somebody wanna come up with a gif for that?)

Working on it

 

[Apos]

RO2's gameplay should be designed for RO playerbase + newcomers, not for CoD audience only.

Somebody said a valid point that RO2 is more niche than RO:O.
Commercial campaign + hype + TWI's false promises made game sale, but nothing more.