You should have played RO the mod when it first got momentum in. It felt like walking on ice
Upvote
0
What we are up to - Jan 13th "The Pacific Front" Edition
- Thread starter Yoshiro
- Start date
You should have played RO the mod when it first got momentum in. It felt like walking on ice
Im afraid that this will make the game feel less responsive thats what I wanted to say.
When you start to run it could feel allright but Im not sure how that is when you stop and you need to take an extra step to break. (or lets say 3)
And then if there are G powers preventing you from making narrow turns this will 100% feel strange ingame.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Please don't add any more momentum. Hate it when in ROOST you miss a doorway by 10cm, and it takes you 20 seconds to move backward, stop, move forward. Feels like you're driving a car.
Upvote
0
Everything doesn't have to be EXACTLY the way it was in Ostfront, what I'm sure people want is a matured evolved version (natural progression utilizing today's mechanics). Just like what we thought we we're going to get with RO2.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Jup the main thing for most people is to have the game give the same overall feeling as ostfront. Not making it a carbon copy, people want innovation but the spirit of the game should be the same.
Basically the overal flow of gameplay should be the same. With changes in features, abilities, graphics, and smoothness.
Upvote
0
My most fondly remembered take on this is with the DH spawn rooms - playing "you first. No honestly, you first!" for 20 seconds on almost every spawn
It wasn't that people were terrible at getting through doors - well, some of them might have been lol. But the momentum present and just the lightest latency created the kind of mess that wouldn't really happen in real life, real people being far more agile in general.I like to have some momentum, but I'm not really sure I want it as high as RO1/DH seemed to be.
Upvote
0
I have like RO1 because it gave a feeling of more realism than the other shooter. RO2 improved on this and that is good. From what I read I am afraid TWI might goes backward and implement less realism because it is more Classic RO1 like. I would hate that the most. I hope that TWI will keep the sway, and all this kind of thing true to there testing and not the undocumented opinion expressed here. Bottom line I look for a historical simulation not a simple FPS (there are other for that).
Now, the point that could be gotten rid off to be more RO1 like is the ranking system. It does not seem historic or useful from my experience.
Just expressing my opinion.
Now, the point that could be gotten rid off to be more RO1 like is the ranking system. It does not seem historic or useful from my experience.
Just expressing my opinion.
Upvote
0
What exactly makes RO2 more realistic than RO OST?
I have never understood this. People seems to claim it but no one explains it.
Upvote
0
Well, in RO2 there are more things that you're allowed to do that you'd be able to do in RL, like carrying multiple weapons, controlling your breath, crouching behind the MG, adjusting sights. I also consider the movement speed and the momentum more realistic.
What I think is less realistic is the weapon sway. In real life it's not affected only by breath, but also by small muscle contractions, which a person can hardly control.
Upvote
0
Well, I will take a stab at that question but from a person wanting more realism from ROHOS.
- I actually think the running speed is good for ROHOS... on flat surfaces. It is not too fast in my opinion. However, running up hills/steps or sudden direction changes leave a bit to be desired. In ROOST, the speed was fine if a bit slow.
- The movement options and animations are better in ROHOS. You can certainly do more in comparison to ROOST.
- Overall, the feeling of the weapons/weapon handling are nice and I imagine accurate (since I haven't actually fired them), certainly in comparison to other games like COD etc. Other games the guns just feel... fake. Still, ROOST was good in this regard as well.
- Although I was initially against it, zoom is fine. It actually allows you to focus and see things in a more realistic perspective. How it is implemented, hard to say.
-----------
Now with that said, I agree with alot of the other proposals for implementing better realism such as:
- More weapon sway after stamina reduction.
- No unlock/leveling system.
- Better bandaging system with longer bleedout time and a performance reduction to go along with it, also longer bandaging time.
- No Hero weapons or severly limited and only within the time frame they may have been available.
- Better squad loadout/less squad leaders so on average more rifleman... although there may be times you encounter whole russian squads with ppsh's on select maps perhaps (as I'm sure happened on occasion).
- and I am sure some other stuff as well that others have mentioned. This excludes things that may be bug or optimization fixes of course.
Upvote
0
The problem I have with movement / inertia is that making sharp corners at a full sprint is just not realistic.
Try the following experiment. Grab a 1m length of broom handle and duct-tape three 1kg hand weights to it. Put on a backpack with a couple of house bricks in it, and tire some more weights to your belt. Put on a pair of work boots.
Niue sprint up and down your hallway, making sure to turn into doorways without slowing down. Soon around on the spot a few times.
How many times did you put your broom-handle rifle through the wall? How many bruises do you have on your shoulders and shins from barging into doorways?
Perhaps even more importantly, were you able to turn into a doorway at full speed even once?
The answer of course is never. In reality you will have to slow down from a sprint to enter a doorway. In fact if you are honest you will admit that it's almost impossible to run at a flat sprint indoors - you will instinctively slow down just a bit as your body doesn't want to get slammed into walls, doors etc.
There are a few ways to deal with this in a game.
One is to apply inertia to player movement. Players will just have to learn to let go of the sprint key when they want to go through a doorway.
Another is to have the game reduce the player's speed when they are sprinting and perform certain actions. Turning sharply would be one. Going through a doorway or up or down stairs or onto broken ground or being in a corridor would be others.
Some combination of the two is probably best. Anything would be more realistic than the instant-response anti-grav motion we currently have.
Try the following experiment. Grab a 1m length of broom handle and duct-tape three 1kg hand weights to it. Put on a backpack with a couple of house bricks in it, and tire some more weights to your belt. Put on a pair of work boots.
Niue sprint up and down your hallway, making sure to turn into doorways without slowing down. Soon around on the spot a few times.
How many times did you put your broom-handle rifle through the wall? How many bruises do you have on your shoulders and shins from barging into doorways?
Perhaps even more importantly, were you able to turn into a doorway at full speed even once?
The answer of course is never. In reality you will have to slow down from a sprint to enter a doorway. In fact if you are honest you will admit that it's almost impossible to run at a flat sprint indoors - you will instinctively slow down just a bit as your body doesn't want to get slammed into walls, doors etc.
There are a few ways to deal with this in a game.
One is to apply inertia to player movement. Players will just have to learn to let go of the sprint key when they want to go through a doorway.
Another is to have the game reduce the player's speed when they are sprinting and perform certain actions. Turning sharply would be one. Going through a doorway or up or down stairs or onto broken ground or being in a corridor would be others.
Some combination of the two is probably best. Anything would be more realistic than the instant-response anti-grav motion we currently have.
Upvote
0
I don't mind the game altering the maximum turning speed when sprinting.
However what I do not want to see is the game, altering my mouse speed when sprinting. As my mouse speed is already ridiculously low.
However what I do not want to see is the game, altering my mouse speed when sprinting. As my mouse speed is already ridiculously low.
Upvote
0
You mean like a sort of limited free-look when you move the mouse faster than your avatar can turn for its current speed? Your view shifts at full speed but your avatar's movement follows a curve rather than a sharp right-angle?
That would work. In fact it'd be a good example of what I mean. Stalker does it like this and it works really well. One caveat is that if you go to ironsights half-way through a turn, when your view is out of synch with the direction your avatar is facing, it should take longer for you to bring up the weapon and align the sights as your torso needs to catch up to your head.
That would work. In fact it'd be a good example of what I mean. Stalker does it like this and it works really well. One caveat is that if you go to ironsights half-way through a turn, when your view is out of synch with the direction your avatar is facing, it should take longer for you to bring up the weapon and align the sights as your torso needs to catch up to your head.
Upvote
0
While both RO2 and RO OST have their own levels of realism I would say that RO OST win in that case. The weaponhandling has no learning curve (increased accessibility I guess). Its simplified in order to make every person be able to handle the weapons without many hours of practicing. The maps are more tunnelshooter like; restricted, more forbidden areas, obvious places to take cover. The cover system compared to no coversystem ads more arcade than realism. Its to fast. To fluid. To practical. You can take cover and bounce up and down shooting enemies. The aiming down the sight is away to fast and precise. You can quickaim and shoot enemies because I have done it myself. The game mechanics also allows players to play the game more as a pure entertainment product by 'running and gunning', sprinting through rooms and such. It gives oppertunities to play the game as you wish rather than forcing you to play it more slowly. Movements has No momentum at all. While Roost didn't have this either it felt like you were walking and running in porridge which decreased the amount of run-and-gun gameplay. The HUD is increased which makes its more accessible since you can see things without using your map that covers up 80% of the screen. Practical - yes - but more realistic, no. You can spawn close to your squad leader - practical - yes, more realistic, no. You can also use bandage. While this idea itself is good it just doesn't work. Its practical to use it but to bandage yourself in that speed in a efficient way is not even physically possible. Practical - yes - but not more realistic.
The weapon unlocks, the perks, skillpoints, is probably the features that makes less sense in this area. They're there to increase the entertainment not to increase the realism. Its the same thing with many of the features I mentioned above. I don't count graphical improvements as a big step in terms of realism. Its just eyecandy that makes the game more authentic.
I know that there are people who enjoy the game as it is. Nothing wrong with that. But its very important to stress that entertainment doesn't equal realism. Just because the game may be more fun doesn't mean its more realistic. Fun is highly personal, while realism is a comparison to real-life, e.i. what is closer to facts about the reality and whats further away from it. This can't be judged by how fun a game is. People tend to think that if a game becomes to realistic its not fun. That's certainly one of the reasons why the majority don't like Arma 2. This is the reason why you always see gaming companies make their games more accessible. This is often a way to dumb it down. This was one of the goals with BF3 for instance. They only added the amount of realism into the game that would keep it an entertaining product and not a strict, tactical shooter. TWI tried to do this with RO2 aswell. Make it more about entertainment than tactical combat. While both ROOST and RO2 have their + and - in terms of realism I would say that RO2 certainly and in general is far more arcade than RO OST.
The weapon unlocks, the perks, skillpoints, is probably the features that makes less sense in this area. They're there to increase the entertainment not to increase the realism. Its the same thing with many of the features I mentioned above. I don't count graphical improvements as a big step in terms of realism. Its just eyecandy that makes the game more authentic.
I know that there are people who enjoy the game as it is. Nothing wrong with that. But its very important to stress that entertainment doesn't equal realism. Just because the game may be more fun doesn't mean its more realistic. Fun is highly personal, while realism is a comparison to real-life, e.i. what is closer to facts about the reality and whats further away from it. This can't be judged by how fun a game is. People tend to think that if a game becomes to realistic its not fun. That's certainly one of the reasons why the majority don't like Arma 2. This is the reason why you always see gaming companies make their games more accessible. This is often a way to dumb it down. This was one of the goals with BF3 for instance. They only added the amount of realism into the game that would keep it an entertaining product and not a strict, tactical shooter. TWI tried to do this with RO2 aswell. Make it more about entertainment than tactical combat. While both ROOST and RO2 have their + and - in terms of realism I would say that RO2 certainly and in general is far more arcade than RO OST.
Upvote
0
Well ideally you would have something that depends on angle of rotation as well. Humans are very bad in coping with delays in control. So ideally in the vicinity of your view (for instance when aiming and moving a few cm on your screen) it should be fast. But when making big rotations so that your entire body starts to turn things will start lagging behind somewhat.
So beside that addition it would be like how you stated or how the tanks function when rotating the turret (move your mouse too quickly and the turret will follow at its own max speed).
Upvote
0
ROP Classic- No secondary zoom
all guns aren't lazer beams (in part made worse by the secondary zoom)
you can't run through enemies (seriously what were you thinking?)
LARGER MAPS!! As in RO1 Scale. Not the small crap you've given us, lets get he ro1 scale back. If you make a new game that has smaller maps, it's a step back, not forward I'm sorry. The point of gave dev is to raise the bar each time.
MORE/BETTER TANK MAPS - You really did throw them under the bus. Thanks
MAKE A DAMN COMPASS... PLEASE - Why isn't this in the game? Honestly tell me.It's such a simple yet immensely important thing. It can help you point out where enemies are and everything. You know, team work! What this game is about.
SOLDIERS DONT SHUT UP - I'm working on a flanking attack, I'm right by them "HELP ME BROTHERS!" This does way more harm then good, please take this out. Oh... wait... why listen to what your core audience has complained about non stop.
It's funny how you ask for what we liked about ro1, yet we've been telling you what we hated about RO2. THATS WHAT WE LIKED ABOUT RO1. IT DIDN'T HAVE BS. It was your gun, ballistics, and a large *** map. Purity. Bring that back. Ramm has to be the most stubborn person on earth to the point where it is bad for business, he just can't let go of his precious ideas, and with out a doubt the employees under him have noticed.
all guns aren't lazer beams (in part made worse by the secondary zoom)
you can't run through enemies (seriously what were you thinking?)
LARGER MAPS!! As in RO1 Scale. Not the small crap you've given us, lets get he ro1 scale back. If you make a new game that has smaller maps, it's a step back, not forward I'm sorry. The point of gave dev is to raise the bar each time.
MORE/BETTER TANK MAPS - You really did throw them under the bus. Thanks
MAKE A DAMN COMPASS... PLEASE - Why isn't this in the game? Honestly tell me.It's such a simple yet immensely important thing. It can help you point out where enemies are and everything. You know, team work! What this game is about.
SOLDIERS DONT SHUT UP - I'm working on a flanking attack, I'm right by them "HELP ME BROTHERS!" This does way more harm then good, please take this out. Oh... wait... why listen to what your core audience has complained about non stop.
It's funny how you ask for what we liked about ro1, yet we've been telling you what we hated about RO2. THATS WHAT WE LIKED ABOUT RO1. IT DIDN'T HAVE BS. It was your gun, ballistics, and a large *** map. Purity. Bring that back. Ramm has to be the most stubborn person on earth to the point where it is bad for business, he just can't let go of his precious ideas, and with out a doubt the employees under him have noticed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This is one of the most annoying things in RO2! Oh... And again: pls let the Germans speak German and the Russians Russian... I currently feel like playing in some sort of 80's action B-movie.
Edit: Oh... The "cannot prone here" message and prone block is HAIR TEARING!!! AaAaaArGGh!
This happens to me serveral times during a round because I play DP/MG gunner most of the time. For me the most annoying thing of RO2!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'd say change the max zoom of the secondary zoom, don't remove the ability to zoom at the press of a button.
Personally I have the zoom disabled for all the weapons when in the ironsight so I keep a wide fov in cqc. Meaning the only way for me to zoom is pressing the zoom button.
Currently the zoom button gives a 2.2x zoom it would be nice if the max zoom for all weaponry would be decreased to something 1.8x.
2.2x2.2 = 4.8 times easier to see enemies when zoomed in. 1.8x1.8 = 3.2 times easier to see enemies when zoomed in. Making 1.8 a much nicer amount for zoom overall.
Upvote
0