One-shot kills make every weapon lethal, so I really cannot see unlocks making much of a difference. Still, I look forward to picking up all those shiny weapons off your corpse and trying them out 
Upvote
0
At this part I can't see how the unlock system is supposed to be a good thing.
- Thread starter Scarf Ace
- Start date
Now imagine a clan or a group of players organizing a 2 hour stats lifting session simply butchering the other team using weapons they would like to upgrade and being butchered by them in the next round/match to allow their friends to upgrade their stats/weapons
Looks like an idea, huh?
Looks like an idea, huh?
Upvote
0
One-shot kills make every weapon lethal, so I really cannot see unlocks making much of a difference. Still, I look forward to picking up all those shiny weapons off your corpse and trying them out
The main problem most people have with the unlocks is when they start giving out ahistorical weapons.
Upvote
0
Oh please, if you were all about historical accuracy this game wouldn't be 'fair and balanced'
Upvote
0
Let me try this again, since the forum sorta disappeared while I typed it out last time.
I will not comment on whether or not the progression system should be in the game. As it stands right now it is in the game and, in my opinion, is unlikely to be removed given the current stage of development.
That said, I don't think it's the least bit unfair. For starters, the word "fair" means without bias. In terms of the progression and unlock system in RO2 that means that each player must put forth an identical effort to achieve the benefits of available upgrades, no matter when they begin. Fair doesn't mean that everyone has the same toys, it simply means that all toys are available to everyone for the same "price" (said price being the required weapon/class/honor xp required to unlock them). That is the system in RO2 and it is the very definition of "fair".
More important, however, is the fact that the benefits of weapon and stat upgrades do not imbalance the game play in RO2. If this game were centered around the Hollywood style western shootout, I could see an argument for imbalance. If a "leveled up" Axis soldier and a "noob" Allied soldier were to face off in the middle of the street and shout "Draw!" then there might be an argument to be made for imbalance. This is not, thankfully, the way this game plays. Here, tactics trump all. What does faster ADS, reduced sway, and reduced recoil benefit that veteran player when the newbie flanks around him and puts a bullet in the back of his head? When a single shot from a level 0 weapon has the same killing power as a single shot from a maxed out weapon, tactics and reflexes decide the outcome of the engagement, not the size of the magazine.
I will not comment on whether or not the progression system should be in the game. As it stands right now it is in the game and, in my opinion, is unlikely to be removed given the current stage of development.
That said, I don't think it's the least bit unfair. For starters, the word "fair" means without bias. In terms of the progression and unlock system in RO2 that means that each player must put forth an identical effort to achieve the benefits of available upgrades, no matter when they begin. Fair doesn't mean that everyone has the same toys, it simply means that all toys are available to everyone for the same "price" (said price being the required weapon/class/honor xp required to unlock them). That is the system in RO2 and it is the very definition of "fair".
More important, however, is the fact that the benefits of weapon and stat upgrades do not imbalance the game play in RO2. If this game were centered around the Hollywood style western shootout, I could see an argument for imbalance. If a "leveled up" Axis soldier and a "noob" Allied soldier were to face off in the middle of the street and shout "Draw!" then there might be an argument to be made for imbalance. This is not, thankfully, the way this game plays. Here, tactics trump all. What does faster ADS, reduced sway, and reduced recoil benefit that veteran player when the newbie flanks around him and puts a bullet in the back of his head? When a single shot from a level 0 weapon has the same killing power as a single shot from a maxed out weapon, tactics and reflexes decide the outcome of the engagement, not the size of the magazine.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
progression system...is that what all that crap is that pops up on the screen at the end of a match?
i just ignore it and keep choosing rifleman.
i just ignore it and keep choosing rifleman.
Upvote
0
It's all about how the "unlock/upgrade" systems work.
In the $ per month kind of games they are supposed to make you better then newer players. Period the end. The games then also divide up the world so that lower rank players do not generally fight against higher rank players.
This makes being better then some players just fine as you do not go head to head with them anyway.
Also those games tend to be "role play" games.The in game character's ability is supposed to be determined more by their "skills" and less by the player's dexterity with a controller.
In most of the FPS/non role play based games the system is simply there to help keep (some)players interest over a longer time.
The system generally will not provide such a serious advantage over new players that it throws off the game balance. It will still be a game of your personal reaction time/dexterity with the controller, and not the in game character abilities that win the day.
Yes such a system when done poorly can throw off game balance, but lets not call foul on TWI before we even see where the ball gets hit to shall we. And i would suggest that that will not really be known until after release and not even until many players have had a chance to lvl up a lot anyway.
I have noticed they have a built in system for servers to set level requirements which can be used if we find the unlock character skills start to off set player skills.
So they are probably aware of these things already.
In the $ per month kind of games they are supposed to make you better then newer players. Period the end. The games then also divide up the world so that lower rank players do not generally fight against higher rank players.
This makes being better then some players just fine as you do not go head to head with them anyway.
Also those games tend to be "role play" games.The in game character's ability is supposed to be determined more by their "skills" and less by the player's dexterity with a controller.
In most of the FPS/non role play based games the system is simply there to help keep (some)players interest over a longer time.
The system generally will not provide such a serious advantage over new players that it throws off the game balance. It will still be a game of your personal reaction time/dexterity with the controller, and not the in game character abilities that win the day.
Yes such a system when done poorly can throw off game balance, but lets not call foul on TWI before we even see where the ball gets hit to shall we. And i would suggest that that will not really be known until after release and not even until many players have had a chance to lvl up a lot anyway.
I have noticed they have a built in system for servers to set level requirements which can be used if we find the unlock character skills start to off set player skills.
So they are probably aware of these things already.
Upvote
0
I'm with you on this myself. I like that that kind of game forces team play and tactics over player controller skills.
However i am not upset about the way RO2 has been made. I understand it's just the way things work in our world.
It's this thing: $
They want more people to play(spend $).
The more you add to a group the closer to the average you approach.
So they have to make appeal to more people, and most people don't like to think too much.
I just figure if it wasn't this way, there would simply be no RO2 in the first place.
As i put it in another post:
One day your a starving artist making art from inspiration, the next day your a sell out making products because being poor sucks.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
A shotgun as an assault class unlock would be pretty neat. Not sure how historically accurate it is, but I know the Americans had the trench gun. I'm sure the Germans and the Ruskies could dig up a break-action hunting shotgun...
Upvote
0
Thats EXACTLY what we want, for the game to NOT be 'fair and balanced'. And for people to say that the stat progression is trivial, an extra 15% boost to aim speed, reload speed, recoil reduction, melee strength, and whatever other gun attributes there are by the time you get to level 25 is anything but trivial. I don't know what the max level for each gun is, but imagine the max is 100, and that the boost scales perfectly with what you have after level 25, that would be a massive increase to the effectiveness of a player.
Sure, the stats reflect the player's character becoming more experienced. I'm mostly fine with that. I would prefer that the player's actual skill improved over time, not the in-game character, but I'll concede that point.
I do still take issue with silly unlocks like the MP40/2. Some users posts here lead me to believe they don't fully understand where we are coming from. It isn't that we think a 64 round MP40 will be OP. It is the fact that rare weapons, especially the ones that were failures, are going to be so prominant in the game.
There were indeed rare weapons in RO1, the G41 for example, but it was limited in its use and effectiveness. The flaws of the design were incorporated into the game (ie stripper clips and internal magazine). But for such a joke of a gun as the MP40/2 to be given to every single class that uses the MP40, and on every map none-the-less is a different matter.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This is coming from someone who is not a ROOST vet and has less than 10 hours into beta.
Every time I play this game, I get killed like 20 times while gaining only 2~3 kills for myself with my bolt action rifle. Since every kill grants you your weapon proficiency, my rifle
Every time I play this game, I get killed like 20 times while gaining only 2~3 kills for myself with my bolt action rifle. Since every kill grants you your weapon proficiency, my rifle
Upvote
0
Exactly. You say this like its a bad thing. You have a bolt action rifle with a maximum of five rounds. You're supposed to shoot people at long range. Leave the assaulting to the assault class. Stay back a bit and shoot people who are entering the cap zone.
So many complaints by people about this game's gameplay can be answered simply with "you're not playing to your weapon's strengths".
Upvote
0
This is very true.
However, I'd like to make an unrelated point about weapon upgrades. Those of you saying that "one bullet is lethal, so upgrades really don't matter" don't know that much about weapon development. One bullet has been lethal since the muzzle-loading musket days, so why do we keep designing new ones? Simple, so we can get more lead in the air farther and faster than the other guy. Sure, one bullet from a PPSh is all you need, but who has more chance of hitting you with that one bullet, a guy with a 32 round mag or a guy with a 72 round drum? Bigger ammo capacity = more lead in the air = more chances to hit the other guy. Any sort of magazine or RoF upgrade is going to cause this. The simple fact of the matter is that if a German with an unmodified MP40 and a Russian with a drum mag PPSh get into a fight at range, the German no longer has the advantage, as the Russian has a buttload more rounds he can put in the air than the German greatly increasing his chances of landing a lucky killshot. It's just the law of averages.
I digress.
Upvote
0
This is perfectly true, sir. Once again, though, Red Orchestra isn't about facing off in the middle of the street. It's about tactics. One must know the limitations of his weapon system and maneuver to maximize it's strengths while minimizing it's weaknesses. I'll ask again, what benefit does the wielder of that PPSH with a drum magazine gain when he never even sees the unmodified MP40 coming? There are a great many routes to take in order to get from point A to point B in this game, so it's rarely (at least in my, admittedly, limited experience in this beta) a matter of two guys spotting each other and engaging at the same moment. Most every kill I've gotten has been on a target that wasn't aware of my presence and most every death was from someone I didn't know was there. Given the lethality of a single shot, combined with the opportunity to take careful aim on an unsuspecting target, I still fail to see how these upgrades imbalance anything.
Upvote
0
I have noticed this as well, though that's not to say that I haven't had stand-up fights.
I'm not saying that it IS going to imbalance the gameplay. I'm saying it MAY unbalance the gameplay. I trust TWI, but I just don't see it at the moment.
Upvote
0