No, just checked cause I was certain this was wrong. It's 5 assault on combined arms and 6 on infantry maps (for Germans).
EDIT: After some checking your numbers seem to be for 32 players.
Fixed as in 4 and 3 instead of 6 and 5?Actually, it was only Commissar's House that had 5 Assault classes for the Germans. This will be fixed.
Yeah, but few were the maps with the STG44, and its presence and number could be historically accurate. There could have been MKBs on Stalingrad, but their numbers were nowhere near STG's ones and having more than two MKBs on the map kill immersion for history buff like myself. Anyway it's good to hear the devs' feedback to our feedback againGiven that Ostfront used STG44's in a similar amount (or more) I'm quite surprised at the outcry. There weren't any 100 page threads in Ostfront with tons of people in an uproar over having "too many assault rifles" in Danzig and similar maps.
Actually, it was only Commissar's House that had 5 Assault classes for the Germans. This will be fixed.
Would it be a sensible thing to ask, if you could discuss internally about the removal of MkBs/AVTs from "early Stalingrad" Maps ?
To mirror the distribution of the Stg44 in Ostfront.
P.S.
I have come to favour the PPSh over the Mkb on most Maps. You can't go wrong with 71 Bullets in a Clip .
Eh?
Fixed as is in now 3 instead of 5.
Yea that.Thanks for the post Ramm. On the STG's implementation in RO1 you have to consider the additional gameplay changes rather than just look at the number of units available in the war.
Increased accuracy and damage
Vastly reduced sway and recoil
Zoom
Suppression
Speed of iron sights, especially while sprinting (instantly stop and bullets shoot centre of the screen)
These elements marginalize the strength of the standard bolt action rifle. The semis and even the SMGs now fill the same role as the bolt and are yet 10x easier to use and more versatile
There are other gameplay elements, but thats how I see it atm. The realism side of it is the presumption of the rarity of Mkb's in stalingrad compared to STG44 later on in the war. The mp41 was simply a different stock so you didn't see everyone taking it. I don't know how rare the ppd was.
I would much rather play an RO game with hard gun control OR bolt action rifles as standard issue weapons. I would like to maintain the atmosphere of the period too
Please tell us WHY they decided that.2)
They changed their minds fairly late in development in the weeks running up to release on the system. As some of you have noticed we used to have an elite assault role as well as an elite rifleman role. The design team decided to remove this.
Also, the ability for server owners to lock down these weapons/roles was not finished for launch and is high on our list of things to get implemented in game. This way server admins can choose to not have these except in Hero roles (or not even have hero roles at all). We feel this will go a long way to address this.
The PPD40 behaved like a PPSh with a slightly lower rate of fire, the MP41 was also pretty damn close if not identical to the MP40 in performance. That's quite a difference compared to things like an MP-40 with double mags, a fully automatic SVT, a scoped prototype assault rifle or indeed a PPSh-41 with the drum mags and fire selector removed just for the sake of unlocking.As Jared has said regarding the weapon loadouts, we changed our mind during the course of the development. The original way that we were planning to do it wasn't looking like it was going to fit in as well as we'd like. So we implemented it a different way. Given that Ostfront used STG44's in a similar amount (or more) I'm quite surprised at the outcry. There weren't any 100 page threads in Ostfront with tons of people in an uproar over having "too many assault rifles" in Danzig and similar maps. We designed RO2 with pretty close to the same realism measures that we did in RO1. We've always had some odd weapons in the game, and we've always done things where we abstracted functionality to make it fun to play. The question we always asked was "can this weapon have possibly been there". If the answer was yes, it was fair game to put it in there. Remember the PPD40 and the MP41? They were rare weapons, but were featured in almost every map. And yet there was almost never a mention of the PPD40, and just only a slight murmur over the use of the MP41.
Look, we didn't get the game we expected, and that means that our friends who's first RO game is HOS were sorely disappointed when they expected a solid, realistic shooter and instead they got wacky prototypes, no sway and a ridiculous and buggy unlock system. That's why the game's player numbers have dropped, and we who pitched RO2 to them look pretty silly in their eyes now.Of course what is really funny is the cries of "RO2 is already dying", "look at the Steam stats, the player counts have dropped off". This is really funny for a few reasons. First off, it is the natural cycle of EVERY game to have a big peak around launch, and then the player counts taper off until they stabilize. Where was RO1 at this point after launch - about 1000-1200 players at peak. Where was Killing Floor at this point - less than 3,000 players at peak. So for RO2 to be at 3,000 players a few weeks after launch, with 10% less of a drop off than Killing Floor and 3x what RO1 had - I'd call that a good thing. KF actually dropped off down to 800-1000 a couple months after launch before the TWI free content cycle kicked in. After that the player counts climbed and never went back down to the same place after the updates. This summer KF was averaging peaks of 4000-5000 players. And of course right now EVERY game on Steam has taken a player count hit while everyone checks out the BF3 beta. So before everyone starts shouting "look RO2 is dying" you need to realize this is just part of the normal life cycle of the game.
I'm not sure if you really have the first bit of that. I'm still thinking that the future size of the game's playerbase is uncertain at best. With BF3 around the corner it'll certainly take more to get those numbers up.We'll do the same thing we always do, grab a good core group of players at the outset.
Then continue to build on that core group of players by supporting the game, adding free content, doing Steam promotions, etc. See it is a long cycle plan - not like the big publishers that spend a $100 million on marketing to get everyone to jump into the game at launch then burn them a year later with releasing next years version of the same game (or burn them every two months with $15 2 map DLC). Every game for us is a long term thing.
Please at least give us something to look forward to involving a way to completely bypass the unlock system. Many (if not most) of us don't want that thing interfering with our gameplay experience.So in summary, I would like to ask you guys, especially you guys that have been around for a long time to try and be civil. We're never going to please EVERYONE, but polite, well thought out suggestions are a lot more likely to get our attention than flaming and dev bashing. If there are changes people want we'll look into them. But you're not going to get them "tommorow", so have some patience
Exactly. It's an important difference that the STG 44 was widely distributed (compared to the Mkb42 and AVT 40 ) at the end of the war, and thus I didn't have any issues with it appearing commonly in late-war maps from the game.Yeah, but few were the maps with the STG44, and its presence and number could be historically accurate. There could have been MKBs on Stalingrad, but their numbers were nowhere near STG's ones and having more than two MKBs on the map kill immersion for history buff like myself. Anyway it's good to hear the devs' feedback to our feedback again