Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[BigDick]

I did not played much yet only a couple of minutes MP and some of the german campaign

i still tweaking my settings and trying to get used to the movement and weapon usage

but i can't say i dislike it

i got RO1 when it was released and i even played the RO ut2k4 mod
tripwire never disappointed me and i know when there are imbalances or weird game behavior they will fix it

RO was the only shooter i still enjoyed after years of playing...but i have to say i never played a shooter 60 hours in 2 weeks like skaffa  

so im looking forward to community content and additional content by tripwire

ps: and sorry cod is like quake in slow motion for me 

[PonySlaystation]

the semi automatic is far superior to the bolt.

Which is why the weapon is limited to the players who actually teamwork, ie the squadleaders. On realism servers there are a maximum of 4 semi auto rifles for each team. It's also not that superior, if you had played RO1 then you'd know it's always the first shot that matters. If you miss the first shot you're pretty much dead anyways.

The mp40 is way too good, atleast in cod its balanced, atleast there its bad at long range.
With my bolt i need to peek around a corner, aim for some1 and hit him, which is pretty random, while with mp40 its just spray infront of them and long range it will  still hit, so why bother with the bolt.

I can agree with this even though it sounds like you're overreacting a little, ragepost?

The bullet drop should be more punishing for the Mp40.

Atleast in cod1, from 10 years ago, you could kill moving people with proper aim, here its pretty much luck based. So you have to wait for enemy to be stationary, yawn, or pop his head out of a window.

You can kill enemies that are moving, it's not an easy shot, if players move like they should, from cover to cover small distances between each piece of cover then yes it should be difficult to kill them. But not all players do this of course. They run in to the open or take cover behind a wooden table, so killing them moving or not is pretty easy. Yes you have to aim slightly in front of them. It's realistic, skillbased and balanced, I dunno why think this is a negative thing.

What about spawning on squadleader

They will improve the squad system of course.

bandaging urself

You can only do this if you get shot in the foot or hand, it will stop you from bleeding to death but it won't heal you. This is quite realistic.

weapon dissapearing on your shoulder

What are you talking about? Weapons don't disappear on your shoulder.

BC2 even has better combat system, on long range you aim a bit higher, if you have good aim you can kill running people with the Garand which is so awsm to do, its pretty hard but it can be done with skill, weapons are balanced, it all works.

It's the same thing in RO2. On long range you aim higher or you adjust your weapon. If you have good aim you can kill running people.

The maps are full of windows, everyone is just camping in a window, waiting for people.

Yes but windows are also deathspots.

[Audemed]

WHOA. Look, most weapons have muzzle velocities of +800m/s Which means at 400m you'd need a half second of lead to target.
Most kills in RO2 occur at under 100m which means it would take a eighth of a second to hit, that's virtually no lead. You would miss your aim point on a target moving left to right at ~3km/h by about 10-15cm.

The velocity speeds in the game are INCORRECT which results in needing an inordinate amount of lead to hit a moving target at range. Shit you even have to lead a target at 20m or you'll miss.

LOL?! Who SPRINTS at 3km/h? Hell, a leisurely walking pace is still ~5-6km/h. Also, what is the dimension of your body, front to back? (as if you were running @ 90 degrees to the viewer) 15cm would be a pretty decent miss if they shot center mass, no?

In all honestly, the bullet speeds here feel perfectly real. I own both of the bolt action rifles represented in game, and without any sort of scientific evidence, that it FEELS perfectly fine.

[brn4meplz]

The Kar98k has a velocity of 755m/s. Shooting someone under 100m would be near instantaneous. The in game speeds are off.

[Rahx]

I like countdown the most.

All in all, the game was fun in the start, but after all the 'new stuff' it boils down to unbalanced weapons, bad/useless squad system, near impossibility to hit people on the move, a halfass attempt to promote teamwork etc. So therefor I think cod1 is prolly better than RO2, because even tho that game is 10 years old it doesnt have those negative aspects and RO2 is nothing new, atleast BC2 has awsm gameplay AND awsm teamwork possiblities, RO2 has neither.

yes yes yes, I agree

[Audemed]

The Kar98k has a velocity of 755m/s. Shooting someone under 100m would be near instantaneous. The in game speeds are off.

So, you just got your little math bits there, then i proved to you they were wrong, so you just say "nuh uh"? CLEVER.

Have you ever fired a REAL firearm at a REAL moving target?

[Smokaz]

- I've shot something I'd classify as a firearm at a target, but your mom wasnt moving.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

LOL?! Who SPRINTS at 3km/h? Hell, a leisurely walking pace is still ~5-6km/h. Also, what is the dimension of your body, front to back? (as if you were running @ 90 degrees to the viewer) 15cm would be a pretty decent miss if they shot center mass, no?

In all honestly, the bullet speeds here feel perfectly real. I own both of the bolt action rifles represented in game, and without any sort of scientific evidence,

End of your argument there.

[Audemed]

Actually, it's not. Do you need scientific evidence to prove that a quarterback can throw a 50 yard pass? Of course not. Do you need scientific evidence to see that it's possible for a goalie to block a puck shot at him, despite the speed? Although the design and implementation of firearms and the projectiles DOES require scientific work, the use of them does not.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

When comparing projectiles in real life to projectiles modeled on a math based physics engine, yes, you do need scientific evidence. Also your sports analogies are poor at best.

[AmPM]

Actually, it's not. Do you need scientific evidence to prove that a quarterback can throw a 50 yard pass? Of course not. Do you need scientific evidence to see that it's possible for a goalie to block a puck shot at him, despite the speed? Although the design and implementation of firearms and the projectiles DOES require scientific work, the use of them does not.

Actually, having video proof of that Quaterback throwing a 50 yard pass is scientific evidence....so yes!

If some guy wanders up to you on the street and says, "I can throw a 50yd pass no problem and be on target" are you going to believe him without proof? No.

You are the guy on the street.

[Audemed]

Eh, I wouldn't necessarily call that "scientific" evidence, although it certainly is "proof" that it can be done. Next time I go out, I'll be sure to get video of firing both my mosin and mauser against metal plates (so you hear the impact) at pre-measured distances.

In any case, having experience both with shooting at moving, man sized targets (as well the real thing), and shooting the guns in game (although not both at the same time), I can tell you that it feels exactly right.

[EIRRMod]

Eh, I wouldn't necessarily call that "scientific" evidence, although it certainly is "proof" that it can be done. Next time I go out, I'll be sure to get video of firing both my mosin and mauser against metal plates (so you hear the impact) at pre-measured distances.

Dont forget to account for the speed of sound!

[brn4meplz]

So, you just got your little math bits there, then i proved to you they were wrong, so you just say "nuh uh"? CLEVER.

Have you ever fired a REAL firearm at a REAL moving target?

Multiple Times. I have incredibly high accuracy rates on long distance stationary and moving targets.

Your argument that you own the guns and that "It feels good" is even more absurd. I'm giving you the actual physical velocity of a bullet from the end of a Kar98k. That isn't willy-nilly personal conjecture.

[Audemed]

Right. You pointed out that, at 100 meters, someone moving at 3kph would be 10-15 cm off target if fired at center mass. I pointed out that,  not only do people run significantly faster (average running speed of a man = 20-22 KPH), even at 3 KPH, there's a good chance that you would miss a typical man's silhouette.

So, if a bullet is fired 100 meters, it would take, as you said, 1/8 second to get there. If a man is sprinting at "average" speed, he will have gone .6 meters in that time. What this means, simply, is that if you don't aim about half a meter in front of him, YOU WILL MISS. Now, it is a game. Visual/game ranges might not add up exactly. Individual running speeds might not be exactly "IRL", but it's pretty damn close.

[brn4meplz]

At Roughly 100m you'd have to lead .7m on a target running at 22km/h. Right now you have to lead that in RO2 at 30-40m

[AmPM]

Nah, its more like 3-4m lead. It's kinda retarded tbh.

Overall, game feels unfinished. Too much time spent making fucking tank interiors nobody cares about and too little time making it a great shooter.

[PonySlaystation]

Overall, game feels unfinished. Too much time spent making fucking tank interiors nobody cares about and too little time making it a great shooter.

I have to agree with this. Two months to create a tank? wtf, just focus on the part that made the first game great: infantry combat.

[LeoPhone]

anyway, putting bullet speed in your game doesn't make any sense at all since the player is watching a 2D flat screen. He can't estimate how far away an enemy soldier is. It just makes for bad gameplay.

[Rahx]

This thread is now called:

Brown Shit: Dumb fucks of Planet Earth

congratulations