How is it realistic for veteran RO players to play veteran soldiers?
I've played thousands of battles in Red Orchestra and I was in a grand total of 0 battles in World War 2.
Weapon levels, unlocks BAD IDEA
- Thread starter el_comandante
- Start date
How is it realistic for veteran RO players to play veteran soldiers?
I've played thousands of battles in Red Orchestra and I was in a grand total of 0 battles in World War 2.
There will be servers that restrict honor levels to newbie levels only, which means that your argument of higher ranking members crushing lower ranking members is slightly invalidated.
If you're talking about the MG42, please know what you're talking about because there are indications that the MG42 will see it's introduction in one of the free DLC's.
The unlocks for the guns are often alternative ways of playing the game, they are not straight up improvements all the time. I think you're just mad because you kind of were pissed off at all the 12 year olds kicking your *** because they had already unlocked pretty much every unbalanced and overpowered weapon in the game.
No need to nitpick on every little detail, Tripwire has done their best to ensure that everyone will have a fun time, even realism-addicts like you.
Aye, but respawning is a critical game mechanic. Doing something for no good reason that's unrealistic is utterly pointless, which is really my point at the end of the day.
No kidding, so at the point where it utterly destroys the videogame, your ability to play it, your life, your computer, your face, your family, and half a city block for the sake of realism is probably gone too far. That's a good reason to mitigate realism.
The above ^ are good reasons to mitigate realism. What's your reason for mitigating realism in this case?
Oh, look at that, here they are. >
Working in a videogame is just flat out wrong. Metagames are stupid. They are the most broken, pointless, meaningless game mechanics in the history of game design and they should die a thousand deaths in a million fires.
At the precise point at which the game transforms from fun to "work" is the point at which, for your own health and the sake of people around you, you should stop doing it. The fact that you even used the word "work," as though playing a videogame for digital breadcrumb rewards were real, constructive work, terrifies me. If you go do something in the real world and it produces a tangible reward, that is a thousand times more substantive and nourishing than any reward you will get in a videogame, I can assure you. Play videogames for their own sake and for nothing else, please, I beg of you.
I mean this is literally getting to the point where it's a health concern.
Sure, it's balanced, albeit poorly.
So the question now is whether the hit to game balanced caused by introducing this system is worth the advantage gained from getting a "simulation" type environment where progression is modeled.
Well first of all, we're getting into the territory of fabulously abstract ideas. We're literally transcending the concept of a game. We're not "simulating" the physical characteristics of weapons or corralling players into an artificial battle for dominance. Instead, what we're doing is roleplaying soldier. Yes, that's what you're suggesting, is something less along the lines of a first person shooter or a war sim and more along the lines of a roleplaying game. You want to feel like you're playing a role.
You seem to be arguing that the introduction of these roleplaying elements will have such a subtle effect on gameplay that they will be worth it to introduce some intangible "feeling" of being in war or being a soldier.
So that's not arguing from a realism perspective or a game balance perspective, or even a game design perspective in the traditional sense.
It's appealing to something that I know well, which is to roleplay a character in the hypothetical, which does tease my brain a little bit and stimulate my curiosity.
I will say I feel like the better option would be to drop the progression system and just make characters have randomized stat options and relegate this system to a side game mode for interested roleplayers, sort of in the same way that World of Warcraft has separate servers for roleplay and normal play. Or even for those that feel the progression system is worth it for the roleplay significance could have a game mode in which this progression system is included.
Approaching this from a pure game design or sim perspective, I still don't see the purpose of the system, but I see now I'm being a little hard lined when I do that.
In a real war the 10 year vet can get permanently disabled by a fragment from an artillery shell. He doesn't respawn with the same level of experience.
You can facilitate teamplay without a progression system. Like for instance, delegating certain specialized roles, or a class system like in Ost Front. The machine gunner, for instance, can't solo the team, and neither can a submachine gunner snipe at range.
The game doesn't have to be imbalanced in order to have teamplay, and I don't see how imbalances facilitate teamplay in the first place.
Balance can be asymmetric, and that's one of the easiest ways to make a game nuanced and interesting, with specialized roles, without becoming imbalanced.
For instance if you go play Warcraft 3, you can compose a team and delegate who trains the melee tanky units, who builds the nukers, and who builds the anti-aircraft units.
Last edited:
![2Lt.Horvath [6th AB]](/data/avatars/s/36/36264.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
I think the whole arguement for or against falls apart when it's simply up to the server owner to turn the system on and off. I suppose for quick gameplay it's a fun and enjoyable aspect. Unlocking weapons etc is a goal as many have pointed out, be thankful there's no super-human perks...
I for one am slightly against it, the CoD virus has evidentally spread to Tripwire like all other FPS makers. Thankfully it's not the strong strain seen everywhere else. It's a bit of a cop-out adding that and I think will break the teamplay and realism aspect loved by a huge percentage of the community BUT I have a feeling it'll simply be one of many gamemodes. Perhaps considered a more relaxed game mode that people can just chill and play.
Either way it has good and bad points to it and we can wait and see how it plays out in the beta...which incidentally is tomorrow I think.
I for one am slightly against it, the CoD virus has evidentally spread to Tripwire like all other FPS makers. Thankfully it's not the strong strain seen everywhere else. It's a bit of a cop-out adding that and I think will break the teamplay and realism aspect loved by a huge percentage of the community BUT I have a feeling it'll simply be one of many gamemodes. Perhaps considered a more relaxed game mode that people can just chill and play.
Either way it has good and bad points to it and we can wait and see how it plays out in the beta...which incidentally is tomorrow I think.
NO IT WONT, why dont people understand that TWI is not going to turn this into cod the upgrades will be minimal and realistic, lets say you use this particular weapon in real life, of course you are going to get a little better at it, thats the thing they are going for in the Ro2 level up system,and there will be class limits if you think a whole team is going to use a same gun.
that is your opinion, i personally love to have something to work for and achieve.
even though i have always been against them, they don't necessary have to have that dramatic an effect, particularly if they are sensible.
They suit a coop game like killing floor perfectly, and in ETQW your unlocks only apply to the campaign (3 maps) you are playing, before resetting - so they work really well and are always there to look forward to.
Nevertheless that said, i remember when you kept coming back to an online shooter simply because it was good.
You didn't need a progression incentive.
Sure visuals and and other improvements to our games are great but to me the latest trend in achievements and progressive unlocks are on the whole an unnecessary gimmick and the best games shouldn't need them.
Sadly it does not, because it doesen't work that way.
I allready wrote a long'ish post about this in another thread, so i'll just save us all some scrolling and link to that here: http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=804616&postcount=46[url]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=804616&postcount=46[/URL]
Read that post, then come back to this one.
Allright, so basically it doesen't matter if you play on ranked or unranked servers, you will be just as beholden to the ranking system either way, which means that participation on the ranked servers is mandatory if you want any kind of future playing this game, because only there will you earn the rank, unlocks and honour required to stay competitive on any server you join, be that server ranked or not.
It's not an option people, let's make that very clear, ranking up is an all pervasive and required part of this game, on all it's servers, and you must do it if you want to stay competitive and play with others on equal terms.
How is getting access to a 30 round Assault-rifle, that has both a bayonet and a scope, and that we know was not present in this battle, either subtle or realistic?
And i could keep going, with the AVT-40 and it getting 20 round AVS-36 magazines, with the MP-40/II prototype, the PPSh they are using beeing a late 1944 model, with everyone getting pistols, adding silencers to the game, and adding perks like faster reloading, faster aiming, faster running, less suppression, less recoil, and on and on, all things that fail to be subtle, realistic, or both.
Now you are most welcome to tell me that you personally enjoy such features, and wish to play with them. By all means, that is your right. But don't try to tell me it is subtle or even realistic in large angry font and a sardonic tone, because that is more than just debatable, and people have just as much a right to dislike thease changes to the game that they have loved for years as you do in liking them.
Even Tripwire has stopped pretending that it is, and now just outright say "we added them because we think it's fun, and we are trying to attract different players". I personally disagree, it's not my idea of "fun", but atleast that's an honest answer that i can respect, despite my personal opinion of the matter.
And with that, i bid you adieu.
The good reason is entertainment.... and since RO is still a video game, not a full-out simulator, some things are allowed to bend the rules on realism for the sake of fun and entertainment.
Since Fun and Entertainment is subjective to the indivudal in question, what they decide to put into their game for us to play will not please everybody. Some people will like something, while others will hate it, and a few people just won't care either way.
lol.... I said it caught on fire and burned into ashes, not explode into a mini-nuclear holocaust
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra..... Picard, his Face in his Palm
You took the word "Work" way too damn literally. I tend to take what people say pretty literally as well, but geez, that's just overboard.
It's not work as in an actual paying job..... it's work in that you have to put a little effort and thinking into the game, rather than something like Pong where you don't have to think and just slide a white bar up and down the screen as your eyes cross and drool oozes from your lip in utter boredom.
I enjoy playing video games for the sheer reason that there is something you get in the end of that game for the time you spent playing it.... be that points, unlocks or some sort of story, whatever.... if there isn't anything to strive for, then what's the point and is it even really a game?
In RO, you work towards winning an objective, you work with your team mates to beat the other team, you have to work and fight for almost every step in the game and it'll be much like that in RO2 for the most part. When someone says they're working for something or to something, that doesn't automatically mean it's mundane, not fun and there's no enjoyment at all.
For the most part, I actually enjoy my real job and the work I do..... if I didn't enjoy my job and there was little fun in it, I wouldn't be doing what I do and if you're working at a job where none of the above is true, then perhaps you're in the wrong line of work.
You say one should play video games for their own sake..... what exactly does that even mean? Why someone plays a game, or even enjoys a game is again, subjective to the individual, in that why I enjoy or like something will most likely be for different reasons than yourself or others.
Hardly...... I don't want a game that spoon feeds me kills or accomplishments with very little thinking involved, nor do I want a game that is so full of difficult ordeals, I have to jump through hoops to do the simplest thing and very little accomplished in the end.... I want something that's in between both of the above. I want a game that is engaging and actually requires some level of thought process in playing, but is also enjoyable and fun at the same time.Having weapon unlocks and other features given to you as you progress through the game is hardly a health concern and is hardly that complicated to achieve in the game.
Your arguments of a video game being a health concern for you and those around you and being some level of "Work" as you interpreted it is pretty baselss, ill-informed and supplies no additional logic towards supporting your position towards weapon unlocks in RO2, thus, this topic.
Well if you think you can do better, by all means, step up and put your money where your mouth is.
First Person Shooters, like any other type of video game, requires to evolve and advance in both gameplay and features for the player in order to keep players interested, otherwise we'd all still be playing Wolf3D and DooM-like games today.
After taking for granted all the video games you have been playing over the last 5-10 years, how about you do a little experiment and try playing some old Atari games like Pac-Man or Pong for as long as you can hold interest. Chances are, you'll find those games a little too basic and too easy in design to keep interest for more than 10 minutes..... let alone for a year of regular game play.
The point being is that after a while, the same old gameplay gets old and boring and people begin to lose interest..... players need new things, they want more to challenge themselves, they want something that keeps making them think, otherwise, what's the point?
There is none.
You may feel comfortable in just playing the original Donkey Kong until you die..... but most everyone else out there would get bored and want to do something a little more involving.
I know I would.
It's a bonus to the already existing gameplay.
As I see it, it's not exactly role playing a character in the game, as role playing games (RPG's) generally revolve around your character getting stronger and more powerful over other players. This system in RO is a method of giving you some level of identity in the game from others around you other than just a name above your head...... a very low-level sense of personality to your character relating to yourself, the player.
In most other games and in RO1 & the Mod, you were just another cookie-cutter soldier that was exactly the same as every other player in the game and when talking about realism, that's not realistic, as even in real wars and real militaries, sure most soldiers were a bunch of faceless, nameless foot soldiers, but they all looked different, they all have different achievements, they all specialized in certain weapons & equipment.... they weren't all clones of the same person.
These features added into RO2 are more of a superficial addition that give certain players something to play for, for personal gain, which has little gain to the overall action on a map.
If these features don't interest you and you don't like them, by all means, don't use them, keep your character set to the standard, basic, original layout. No skin off my back.
And sorry, but if you think everybody else should follow suit simply because you don't like these fatures..... too bad, majority rules.
I disagree... the easiest and best solution at this stage is for you to find a server that has an admin that set their server to the bare basics gameplay with no progression or features unlock-system.
There will be plenty of servers to choose from with plenty of options that will fit your needs, as well as everybody else's.... there is no logical need for anybody to go back and redo the entire game's structure over such a trivial gripe that is already addressed in the current game's deisgn.
Which is exactly why I was originally saying that with a video game, realism can only go so far before it's no longer a game and is no longer fun to play.
It turns into something more like a military flight simulator, where it's not about fun or enjoyment, it's about doing things right and taking it seriously.
And I don't see any imbalance in the first place. The kind of imbalance you're talking about already exists in RO:CA and RO:Ost, where a rifleman doesn't have the capping power as a squad leader or assault class.... certain classes and certain ranks have certain advantages & disadvantages over another class..... it never broke the game before and adding differences in individual players such as ranks and weapons progression won't break the game either.
I stopped playing Warcraft after the 2nd one and have no interest in playing anymore, especially World of Warcraft. My interest in RPG elements is limited and I am very critical towards RPG elements..... yet things like these type of progressions in FPS's, while having trace elements in RPG, it is still nowhere near a full-on RPG.
Back-tracking a bit, RO2 is balanced, these unlock/progression features are balanced, the classes on both teams are balanced, the weapons are balanced as accurately as possible, and the only thing that could even remotely be considered as not balanced is between brand new players vs. players who've been playing the game for a long time..... but even then, that too has existed in every FPS and video game since video games existed, via personal player experience in the game.
If you never played pool before and you go up against a pro, chances are you're going to get your arse served on a platter and lose pretty badly..... would you complain that the match wasn't fair? Life isn't always fair and you can't wipe people's memory or experience in a game to make it balanced.
And when it comes to someone having a 30 round mag compared to someone having a 70 round drum and that being somehow unfair.... it's not, especially in Red Orchestra, as all it takes to take out that person with the 70 round drum is one bullet.
Is it unfair when a rifleman rounds the corner and is face to face with someone with an MP40?
That depends on your own reaction time and if you're able to shove a bullet into his head or chest before he does..... one bullet makes all the difference, not how many bullets you have in a clip.
But comparing RO2's unlocking features and the lack of balance in this aspect to other competition like BF and CoD, RO2 is nowhere near as bad, there is no advantage to vet players like:
• Magnum Rounds (more damage given)
• Body Armour (less damage taken)
• AT Mines (New Engineer Classes don't get these)
• Mortar Strike Goggles (New Sniper Classes don't get these)
• Motion Sensors (New Snipers Classes don't get these)
• Med Kit (New Medic Classes don't get these)
• Revive Paddles (New Medic Classes don't get these)
• Ammo Resupply Packs (New Assault Classes don't get these)
and a slew of other things..... most new classes, at least in BC2, get squat at the start of playing and regardless of whatever class they pick, they're pretty well all the exact same (knife, pistol, main weapon) until they get a few levels up.... while everybody else runs around with crap to mow them down with little effort..... these are a huge disadvantage to new players as being a medic with no medical equipment makes them useless as a medic, an assault class that can't resupply their team mates is just as useless as the medic, and a sniper that can detect enemies nearby them and help spot enemies, is useless for close range and generally you're forced to stay way back from the fighting with a limited sniper rifle with a limited scope, which other higher level snipers can pick you off with bigger scopes and more powerful rounds before you even see them, because they spotted you.
^ None of this is going to happen in RO2.
Some players will get more powerful scopes for their rifles, but the rounds are the exact same and they still have to compensate for bullet drop like any new player.
This whole fear mongering over the game suddenly no longer being balanced are simply unfounded..... the devs and their closed door beta testers have been playing this game for quite some time now and if there was some level of unfair advantage to someone that made them play worse than most other players, I'm more than sure that they would have addressed this issue or just left this progression feature out of the game completely.
We all know how detailed and how picky Tripwire is when it comes to adding things to RO and I highly doubt they'd allow tossing something into their "baby" that would break the entire game and turn it into one big suck-fest that nobody would play.
Give it a try when the game comes out.... if it sucks that badly for you, then there will be servers that have those features turned off or limited or completely unlocked so that you have your desires and needs met, as well as everybody else's desires & needs.
It's really not that big of a deal.
Last edited:
Gratz praxius for longest post ever
I have to agree with Grobut.
Although I don't think it's all too bad and I like all the prototypes, calling it historical accurate is just wrong.
It's not perfectly accurate, that you're ok with it for the game is a whole other matter.
And I am afraid Grobut was indeed right all along with ranking being sort of mandatory, really hope thta gets changed. As logn as it isn't, ranking is sort of being an obstacle if people hate it.
I have to agree with Grobut.
Although I don't think it's all too bad and I like all the prototypes, calling it historical accurate is just wrong.
It's not perfectly accurate, that you're ok with it for the game is a whole other matter.
And I am afraid Grobut was indeed right all along with ranking being sort of mandatory, really hope thta gets changed. As logn as it isn't, ranking is sort of being an obstacle if people hate it.
It was either Ramm or Alan who wrote there will probably be a ppsh drum mag mutator out after a week. Which sounds like they wont actively stop any mutator like that, but if so, why force players to go trough the trouble circumventing it?
Challenging gameplay is what requires effort and thought. Unlocks and achievements have nothing to do with that. If anything games have gotten easier since the widespread adoption of the progress bar.
So basically, every game that came out before they started slapping progress bars and bad puns on everything is pointless and not really a game? I play for the moment to moment fun of the gameplay and just the basic experience of it. Never could have imagined points and unlocks as a reason to play - reminds me of those folks in WoW who repeat the same exact PvE raids a disgusting number of times so they can acquire a digital item that will be obsolete next content patch - but at least they can get real money for their work.
Evolve? How about degrade the essential gameplay for casual monkey thumb audiences and replace what used to be complexity with high skill ceilings with a bunch of casual-friendly instant gratification metagame mechanics, because that's what's been happening to the games industry lately with Bad Company 2 and Call of Duty 4. Give me Red Orchestra or Warsow or Quake 3 any day of the week over any of that tripe.
No one even asked for this progression system.
Apparently you and I have been looking at two different games industries, because from my vantage point, modern games have been appealing to lowest common denominator and nothing but at the expense of the integrity of the game design. Game mechanics in and of themselves are supposed to be complex and highly evolving, and actually, they were back in the day.
Compare some modern day tripe like Call of Duty to old school stuff like D&D or the oldschool adventure games like King's Quest or Space Quest that were, indeed, the very definition of thought provoking and involving experiences. Modern games can't even touch that level of complexity and depth inherent to the real, nuanced gameplay mechanics of ancient c-game design.
No, only shallow roleplaying games do that.
Compare the roleplaying inherent in a game like World of Warcraft to a game like Dungeons and Dragons. There is no comparison. Making your character stronger and more powerful is another one of those fabulous "innovations" of the modern game industry that revolve around marketing to LCD and low-intelligence markets so you can spoon feed them instant gratification.
Real roleplaying games involve just that, roleplaying, and they're more akin to realism units in Red Orchestra and the contrived awards ceremonies and training drills of those units. It's not really something you can artifice within the confines of traditional game design anyway.
That doesn't explain to me why it has to be a progression system. In fact, you just got done telling me that other RPG mechanics are shallow progression elements having to do with "becoming more powerful." A simple character customization system would suffice to that end.
Superficial indeed.
These features were never up for a vote and to my recollection none has ever been taken.
You don't speak for the majority.
I would have said that to you 8 months ago if anyone would have asked if we should add this "superficial" progression system to Red Orchestra Ost Front's classic game design.
TW even said the progression system was a boatload of work.
No they're not.
the bad idea was to continue using the roles system. there is nothing worse than being stuck using a bolt action rifle 90% of the time. this is a video game you should be able to use what ever weapon you want not stuck using some pos bolt action rifle that you dont like all of the time.
think a lot of people are still talking as if they believe HoS is solely aimed at us, the regular forum user and old RO player.
Polls on realism conducted here are irrelevant to the overall objective of the game - sure it will have a realistic mode and most are thankful for that, but TWi want this game to be as successful and bring in as much money as possible.
Indeed the first words i ever remember that hinted on what this game was to be came out of the blue one day from Alan-
...how about we create a similar game to RO, but at the same time make it more accessible to a wider audience?
(or words to that effect)
This also includes features that are going to initially attract this audience, one of which we have to accept is the unlock progression system, because it's clearly popular in today's FPS.
i have said my bit on unlocks already, and agree with many points made here, but realise trends and expectations have changed to a point where i am out of sync with the vast majority of PC gamers now.
I may not be in agreement but I believe any suggestion that tripwire are making a mistake with these unlocks is wrong.
Us forum regulars will become very diluted by an massive influx of new players on the servers, and this will render opinions as to who is speaking for the 'majority' - and what this majority want - pretty much moot.
Polls on realism conducted here are irrelevant to the overall objective of the game - sure it will have a realistic mode and most are thankful for that, but TWi want this game to be as successful and bring in as much money as possible.
Indeed the first words i ever remember that hinted on what this game was to be came out of the blue one day from Alan-
...how about we create a similar game to RO, but at the same time make it more accessible to a wider audience?
(or words to that effect)
This also includes features that are going to initially attract this audience, one of which we have to accept is the unlock progression system, because it's clearly popular in today's FPS.
i have said my bit on unlocks already, and agree with many points made here, but realise trends and expectations have changed to a point where i am out of sync with the vast majority of PC gamers now.
I may not be in agreement but I believe any suggestion that tripwire are making a mistake with these unlocks is wrong.
Us forum regulars will become very diluted by an massive influx of new players on the servers, and this will render opinions as to who is speaking for the 'majority' - and what this majority want - pretty much moot.
Wow Grobut I agree with all of your points. You have ownd this thread and the ppsh drum thread.
I hope we see this addressed, if not by TW then a community-created realism mod that tweaks this.
IMO, any experience you gain on any server should help your client level up, like Elder Scrolls-type thing: the more shots you've fired the better your marksmanship skills increase, etc. Your client should only keep track of experience/stats collected on any server.
But I see they went the America's Army way and honor is earned only on servers with honor enable kind of thing. This along with that horrible Punkbuster program used in the competetive TDM kids community which I hope RO doesnt turn in to or least drag us all in it.
I don't know. Something needs to change about this.
That is the most disturbing thing.
I hope we see this addressed, if not by TW then a community-created realism mod that tweaks this.
IMO, any experience you gain on any server should help your client level up, like Elder Scrolls-type thing: the more shots you've fired the better your marksmanship skills increase, etc. Your client should only keep track of experience/stats collected on any server.
But I see they went the America's Army way and honor is earned only on servers with honor enable kind of thing. This along with that horrible Punkbuster program used in the competetive TDM kids community which I hope RO doesnt turn in to or least drag us all in it.
I don't know. Something needs to change about this.