TWI, you remind me of Bungie.

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

melipone

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 22, 2006
1,672
259
0
As to the "lazer" guns, you can't have this both ways. Either people want weapons that behave realistically, or they don't. We got yelled at for years about inaccuracies in RO 1, so we fixed them in RO 2. Every weapon in game behaves very close to their real life counterparts in the hands of a soldier.

Assuming you aren't going to discuss it, but anyway..a small percentage wanted reduced recoil, sure. But no one wanted reduced sway, instant iron sights, hardly any sprinting effects, hardly any difference between standing and crouched, unrealistic class limits (1/3 bolts at best), unrealistic weapon types, bandaging (really it was discussed and it was always concluded that it wasn't needed in a realistic game), zoom etc.

Don't make out RO1 players wanted a game that feels like a generic run&gun fps. If you have to make the guns easier to control for "realism" then why not put realism in were it makes the gameplay harder in other ways?
 

OnCrack

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 15, 2009
159
100
0
Assuming you aren't going to discuss it, but anyway..a small percentage wanted reduced recoil, sure. But no one wanted reduced sway, instant iron sights, hardly any sprinting effects, hardly any difference between standing and crouched, unrealistic class limits (1/3 bolts at best), unrealistic weapon types, bandaging (really it was discussed and it was always concluded that it wasn't needed in a realistic game), zoom etc.

Don't make out RO1 players wanted a game that feels like a generic run&gun fps. If you have to make the guns easier to control for "realism" then why not put realism in were it makes the gameplay harder in other ways?
You and I pretty much think alike, I agree 100%, but I too fear nobody is going to answer to those fragile points, but I still hope they will.
 

bobsynergy

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 8, 2010
607
118
0
it's not impossible to kill anyone who uses it, and I perform better than most even when being forced to deal with it. But to have a single weapon, that wasn't even supposed to be in Stalingrad (to the best of my knowledge), that dominates combat at all ranges, that multiple people have, ruins the balance of any firefight.

I'm not talking about everyone and I do agree that it needs to be lowered in how many people have it but I was mainly talking about the people who over exaggerate on it.
 

Thaelyn

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 19, 2011
298
97
0
Tulsa, Ok
Yoshi, by your logic in this post, TWI could insert an M16 into the game, and as long as that weapon performed the same in game as it does in real life, it would be "realistic" to have it RO2.

Wow. Way to put 2 and 2 together and come up with "fire truck" there. I understand you're not happy with the game but putting words into the deva mouths like that, especially when they've said nothing even remotely like you're claiming, detracts from your credibility a great deal.
 

Yoshiro

In Soviet Russia, Yoshiro is a cake
Staff member
Oct 10, 2005
12,887
3,864
113
Anything is open to discussion. And we are apt to change things. But we won't always agree with you.

Assuming you aren't going to discuss it, but anyway..a small percentage wanted reduced recoil, sure. But no one wanted reduced sway, instant iron sights, hardly any sprinting effects, hardly any difference between standing and crouched, unrealistic class limits (1/3 bolts at best), unrealistic weapon types, bandaging (really it was discussed and it was always concluded that it wasn't needed in a realistic game), zoom etc.

Don't make out RO1 players wanted a game that feels like a generic run&gun fps. If you have to make the guns easier to control for "realism" then why not put realism in were it makes the gameplay harder in other ways?
 

melipone

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 22, 2006
1,672
259
0
Anything is open to discussion. And we are apt to change things. But we won't always agree with you.

I wouldn't ask you to agree with me or others on everything, but some feedback on what you've seen so far from the community would be great. There are specific areas that TWI won't touch with a 10 foot pole atm like rare unlocks, sway, ease of use of weapons etc. If you guys don't want to discuss it, then how would you feel to answering a Q&A sometime if someone draws one up
 

Kerc Kasha

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 11, 2011
293
162
0
Anything is open to discussion. And we are apt to change things. But we won't always agree with you.
Is there any chance of lowering the amount of automatic weapons to RO1 levels? I think you guys had it spot on there but the inclusion of Squad Leaders has made the amount of semi/full auto weapons out weigh the humble bolt action
 

Stahlhelmii

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 16, 2011
721
401
0
Wow. Way to put 2 and 2 together and come up with "fire truck" there. I understand you're not happy with the game but putting words into the deva mouths like that, especially when they've said nothing even remotely like you're claiming, detracts from your credibility a great deal.

Actually, I think you don't understand logic at all ... I think you've come up with 2+2=22 on that one. The logic is extremely valid, you're just reading everything literally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiennes

CaptHawkeye

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 23, 2009
131
93
0
Like Ubisoft? Yeah, they're so successful and make the greatest games... oh wait

Non sequitor. Also retarded. Can you name a single game that has been beneficially impacted by the input of random forumites? I'm sure their are plenty of posters who would genuinely like to help. The reality is many more of them would rather shove their agenda down the developer's throat.
 

Rumpullpus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
329
70
0
We repeatedly inform the community on what we are working on.

Right now our primary focus is on stats, voip, optimizations and crashes.

As to the "lazer" guns, you can't have this both ways. Either people want weapons that behave realistically, or they don't. We got yelled at for years about inaccuracies in RO 1, so we fixed them in RO 2. Every weapon in game behaves very close to their real life counterparts in the hands of a soldier.

i think hes askin to "reduce the number" not nurff the GUNZ.......
 

JimHatama

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 22, 2011
6
0
0
Assuming you aren't going to discuss it, but anyway..a small percentage wanted reduced recoil, sure. But no one wanted reduced sway, instant iron sights, hardly any sprinting effects, hardly any difference between standing and crouched, unrealistic class limits (1/3 bolts at best), unrealistic weapon types, bandaging (really it was discussed and it was always concluded that it wasn't needed in a realistic game), zoom etc.

Don't make out RO1 players wanted a game that feels like a generic run&gun fps. If you have to make the guns easier to control for "realism" then why not put realism in were it makes the gameplay harder in other ways?

agree
 

Kashash

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 27, 2008
503
637
0
We repeatedly inform the community on what we are working on.

Right now our primary focus is on stats, voip, optimizations and crashes.

As to the "lazer" guns, you can't have this both ways. Either people want weapons that behave realistically, or they don't. We got yelled at for years about inaccuracies in RO 1, so we fixed them in RO 2. Every weapon in game behaves very close to their real life counterparts in the hands of a soldier.

Is the running speed going to be toned down? Beacuse the way is right now is extremely unrealistic, there's no way you could run that fast. And it makes the game very fast paced and arcadish.

You can see it there for instance.
Stalingrad movie - Storming the Factory - YouTube
 
Last edited:

nebsif

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 12, 2011
371
298
0
Assuming you aren't going to discuss it, but anyway..a small percentage wanted reduced recoil, sure. But no one wanted reduced sway, instant iron sights, hardly any sprinting effects, hardly any difference between standing and crouched, unrealistic class limits (1/3 bolts at best), unrealistic weapon types, bandaging (really it was discussed and it was always concluded that it wasn't needed in a realistic game), zoom etc.

Don't make out RO1 players wanted a game that feels like a generic run&gun fps. If you have to make the guns easier to control for "realism" then why not put realism in were it makes the gameplay harder in other ways?
except the zoom, I like it. +1
 

Kerc Kasha

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 11, 2011
293
162
0
Is there any chance of lowering the amount of automatic weapons to RO1 levels? I think you guys had it spot on there but the inclusion of Squad Leaders has made the amount of semi/full auto weapons out weigh the humble bolt action

I'm not even asking this due to 'oh ma gawd I NEED REALISM' crap i've known for ages RO has always been about gameplay >realism but realistic than most. and I think that having this many automatic is bad for not only gameplay and the general feel of combat but bad for balance. the maps have combat at around 300m but most fighting is done at <100m, a place where a SMG shines. Having far too many of them makes anyone 'stuck' with a bolt feel like a second class citizen
 

LeopoldStotch

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 27, 2009
310
146
0
assuming you aren't going to discuss it, but anyway..a small percentage wanted reduced recoil, sure. But no one wanted reduced sway, instant iron sights, hardly any sprinting effects, hardly any difference between standing and crouched, unrealistic class limits (1/3 bolts at best), unrealistic weapon types, bandaging (really it was discussed and it was always concluded that it wasn't needed in a realistic game), zoom etc.

Don't make out ro1 players wanted a game that feels like a generic run&gun fps. If you have to make the guns easier to control for "realism" then why not put realism in were it makes the gameplay harder in other ways?
qft
 

AntiCitizenJuan

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 15, 2011
91
56
0
Non sequitor. Also retarded. Can you name a single game that has been beneficially impacted by the input of random forumites? I'm sure their are plenty of posters who would genuinely like to help. The reality is many more of them would rather shove their agenda down the developer's throat.

Well the reality is that there are people who are COMPLETE IDIOTS who somehow managed to find their way to a games forums just so they can sackride the developers into keeping the game they want it to be.

i.e. Reloladins from WoW, Armor Lock fanboys in Halo: Reach

The reality is that the majority of intelligent posters on the site really care about the game, and that's why they post here.
 

5thSSDW.KGW~CO

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 19, 2011
256
346
0
We repeatedly inform the community on what we are working on.

Right now our primary focus is on stats, voip, optimizations and crashes.

As to the "lazer" guns, you can't have this both ways. Either people want weapons that behave realistically, or they don't. We got yelled at for years about inaccuracies in RO 1, so we fixed them in RO 2. Every weapon in game behaves very close to their real life counterparts in the hands of a soldier.

You may have made the firearms realistic but you haven't taken any account of what's required to be accurate with a real one, which is why the death-rate/incapacitation in the game massively exceeds that of a real battle.