On Splitting The Community

[>< f4ct0r...13]

I disagree that content is the same. Context is the same.

For me, the different gaming modes are shocking in their ease of play. Classic included. Classic makes a fair try at being challenging, but still falls short due to the player aids. There is simply no Fog of War. AT ALL.

One doesn't need to cooperate when he knows where the good guy is, where the bad guys is, etc, ad infinitum. I was shocked to see the number of player aids, and this is a huge contributer to split in game, and out of game.

Training will only be good for those who are willing to be trained. Not too many gamers who play action mode (or who are attracted to any of the flashing light features) will want to know about WW2 infantry tactics tactics. Its simply the demographic.

It is also the squad load-out system. If the LMG were truly two or three per company (depending on company mission), then they may be used corerctly.

With that said, WW2 Infantry tactics are fascinating, and every RO palyer should know them.

A meaningful honor system and effective Fog of War have a chance to create squad cooperation. Do more things with squad, better situational awareness, better honor.

 

[Holy.Death]

There is simply no Fog of War. AT ALL.

If you refer to a recon plane I could agree that it should show results to be seen for squad leaders and commander only. Soldiers simply shouldn't have that level of knowledge.

One doesn't need to cooperate when he knows where the good guy is, where the bad guys is, etc, ad infinitum.

Perhaps, but you do need to cooperate to be more efficient in your tasks. Even if you know where the enemy might come from there is still a window that he'll do something that'll reduce your chances (like bring in smoke and grenades, have more assault units, sniper, etc.).

Training will only be good for those who are willing to be trained. Not too many gamers who play action mode (or who are attracted to any of the flashing light features) will want to know about WW2 infantry tactics tactics. Its simply the demographic.

Indeed, that's why I thought mainly about Classic and Realism - tactics are employed to increase effectiveness and survival rate of soldiers (it's one and the same, I guess...), so it won't serve much purpose in Action mode.

 

[ross]

The periphery indicators are a bit much as well - you can just sweep your view from side to side to spot people, even through bushes or smoke.

 

[EvilHobo]

Really?? What Game are you playing if at all. Perhaps all the Admins should take their servers down if its in such a state of shambles.... Go away with your NEGATIVE BS. We've had enough!

This is funny because it was your solution to Call of Duty 2. Just saying.

 

[Spacehogking]

What do you mean by that? I play Classic myself and except for hipfiring machine gunner I'd have quite a problem to make any more gameplay changes.

I also play Classic. Classic is nice, although as I said, it requires more attention and polish for it to feel like its own game, rather than the vanilla with all of the bad decisions TWI made covered up.
The problem is, TWI isn't supporting Classic. The gamemode itself is good, and I enjoy it. There are no official TWI Classic servers, only for Realism and Relaxed. So we have the same problem as before GOTY came out. TWI is marketing for a mainstream release, that's what they want RO2 to be. They created 'classic mode' to placate the original fans, because they knew they didn't want to actually change the base idea of the game itself, (boring) and the complaints were too glaring to ignore.

And now, these modes have made an example of what everyone was complaining about on LAUNCH, the fact that RO2 sits on the fence in terms of gameplay, trying to please everyone. TWI splitting the old and new gameplay outlook into separate modes doesn't please anybody, it just makes the game even more unsure of itself.

Really?? What Game are you playing if at all. Perhaps all the Admins should take their servers down if its in such a state of shambles.... Go away with your NEGATIVE BS. We've had enough!

You don't like any part of the game? Go play Chinese Checkers!

You are reading my words wrong, or perhaps you haven't read any of my posts past my OP. I want to enjoy the game, and I do on the occasion i can find a Classic server with under 250 ping. I want it to be improved, I'm not senselessly hacking at people.



What I can gather from the responses that actively refute my posts:

"The game is finally playable, stop whining."

The thing is, RO2 should be more than just barely playable. It should be great. GREAT, I say. But you people all seem contented with 'passable'.

 

[Holy.Death]

The problem is, TWI isn't supporting Classic. The gamemode itself is good, and I enjoy it. There are no official TWI Classic servers, only for Realism and Relaxed. So we have the same problem as before GOTY came out. TWI is marketing for a mainstream release, that's what they want RO2 to be. They created 'classic mode' to placate the original fans, because they knew they didn't want to actually change the base idea of the game itself, (boring) and the complaints were too glaring to ignore.

TWI made Classic mode. They changed it according to our feedback. They had official Classic server (I didn't check if it's still operational, but I'll do as soon as I will be able), so I don't quite agree that "TWI isn't supporting Classic".

Can you explain why the game itself is boring? I find it interesting.

And now, these modes have made an example of what everyone was complaining about on LAUNCH, the fact that RO2 sits on the fence in terms of gameplay, trying to please everyone. TWI splitting the old and new gameplay outlook into separate modes doesn't please anybody, it just makes the game even more unsure of itself.

I find such opinion rather baseless - don't take it as an offense, it's not meant to be that way - because you can't make a single game that will appeal to fans of realism and fans of classic. While they might split the community in terms of homogeneity (how the game is played) they make the player base as a whole to grow which is positive thing (more players - more money - more perspectives for the future).

Asking for a single game mode is like asking to cut a limb off, it won't make people like any remaining mode more than before, cutting the player base down without any real gain. That's why I am not really supportive to make a single game mode.

There also seems to be a problem with calculating how big player base of each mod really is - in my country a certain religion claims to consist of 90% of the population, but I estimate real population following said religion to be closer to 18-20% at best, because to calculate the overall population the biggest common denominator is used. From what I've seen here the most common arguments - that I personally find false - used to make classic the main mode is tradition (which is rather meaningless in gaming world as tradition is something people are just too much used to) and the will of the people (as far as I know we have more populated Realism servers, not Classic ones).

 

[ButchCassidy]

The thing is, RO2 should be more than just barely playable. It should be great. GREAT, I say. But you people all seem contented with 'passable'.

To be honest in my opinion and lots of others the game is "great" now.
Your looking for something that can't be achieved "the perfect game"

Because the perfect game is only an ideal based upon personal taste and opinion.
For every change you want to see 10 other people do not agree and want something else.

There is no other game that plays like RO2..Not BF or COD or Arma and it will continue to improve.
But I suppose the overwhelming truth is choice has not split the community, it has made it much clearer with regards to what type of RO2 people prefer but it has not split the community in any way at all.
Most of the complaints I now see on these forums are just nit picking or people wanting personal preference included.

The problem is, TWI isn't supporting Classic. The gamemode itself is good, and I enjoy it. There are no official TWI Classic servers, only for Realism and Relaxed. So we have the same problem as before GOTY came out. TWI is marketing for a mainstream release, that's what they want RO2 to be. They created 'classic mode' to placate the original fans, because they knew they didn't want to actually change the base idea of the game itself, (boring) and the complaints were too glaring to ignore.

I think TWI believed that with all the noise made regarding classic mode by a certain part of the community.
Then that part would be eager to provide Classic servers sadly that has not happened and further more Classic has not turned out to be as popular as many old players thought it would be.
The vast majority of players seem to prefer Realism or even Action mode.
Classic is an ok game for me but I feel its far to campy and slow for the majority of players which is probably why it will only ever appeal to a minority within the RO2 community.

 

[Spacehogking]

Can you explain why the game itself is boring? I find it interesting.

There is no tension. No gradual pull of the battle being felt by players, no feeling of victory or defeat hanging on the next life. The battle doesn't feel larger than the player. Classic mode re-introduced the RO1 feel of feeling the battle as a primary, and your interaction as a secondary. RO2 Realism mode has removed this, now there is just boring, senseless fighting.

Now I am done with all of this, goodbye.

 

[r5cya]

There is no tension. No gradual pull of the battle being felt by players, no feeling of victory or defeat hanging on the next life. The battle doesn't feel larger than the player. Classic mode re-introduced the RO1 feel of feeling the battle as a primary, and your interaction as a secondary. RO2 Realism mode has removed this, now there is just boring, senseless fighting.

Now I am done with all of this, goodbye.

goodbye? as in you're leaving and not coming back? or just done with this thread?

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

There is no tension. No gradual pull of the battle being felt by players, no feeling of victory or defeat hanging on the next life.

Those points you mentioned above are left up to the individual player and no game can make you feel this way unless you want it to.

There is a lot of tension in the game when you're down to one last objective and the clock is down to 1-2 minutes left in play..... or when lockdown is winding down to 1 minute left and you still need to capture 1-2 objectives to save yourself.

There's plenty of pull in the battle felt by myself, especially on maps like Fallen Fighters or Pavlov's House where the game bounces back and forth between the teams. When the Germans take the Square, the pressure turns onto the Russians and the Germans can give a little slack..... but when the Russians take the Square, the Germans get pressured to get it back..... the square is like a buffer zone where if you're holding that objective, you have 2-3 other objectives safe that you don't have to focus on.

In Fallen Fighters, once one team pushes past the middle of the square, the tide has turned and that team starts to push the other backwards, sending them in a panic to hold their remaining objectives and to take the centre back.

Victory & Defeat balancing on your next spawn happens often, especially when the timer is down to a minute or two left in play, or when there's only one objective remaining.

And if you don't feel that in the game, then you either don't care if you win or lose, or you're playing wrong.

The battle doesn't feel larger than the player.

Then again, you're either playing for yourself, playing wrong, or just don't care if you win or lose.

Classic mode re-introduced the RO1 feel of feeling the battle as a primary, and your interaction as a secondary.

For you perhaps.... not for I. It doesn't feel like a battle at all, and neither did most of RO1 for me due to the gameplay mechanics..... I felt like an invalid in the middle of a warzone filled with other invalids trying to shoot weapons being held by hooks where our hands used to be while hobbling around on a pirate-peg leg.

RO2 Realism mode has removed this, now there is just boring, senseless fighting.

..... As opposed to exciting, purposeful fighting?

War, HooRa.... What is it good for..... Absolutely Nothing..... but video game entertainment

Now I am done with all of this, goodbye.

Ok, well nice chatt'n with ya.... have a good day.

 

[Spacehogking]

Praxius, the tension in RO2 is set-up, provided, expected. It's another example of the devs thinking they're being helpful by providing a feature to service a need that players seemed to like, (CD mode to be Realism mod, player models randomly talking instead of voice commands which are now basically useless) etc. And yes, of course this is my opinion, but why talk on a forum if not to express opinions?

 

[>< f4ct0r...13]

If you refer to a recon plane I could agree that it should show results to be seen for squad leaders and commander only. Soldiers simply shouldn't have that level of knowledge.


Perhaps, but you do need to cooperate to be more efficient in your tasks. Even if you know where the enemy might come from there is still a window that he'll do something that'll reduce your chances (like bring in smoke and grenades, have more assault units, sniper, etc.).


Indeed, that's why I thought mainly about Classic and Realism - tactics are employed to increase effectiveness and survival rate of soldiers (it's one and the same, I guess...), so it won't serve much purpose in Action mode.

Even leaders shouldn't see exact location. It should be a general concentration indication. That is realistic.

When one knows where everyone is, there is no need to cooperate. I been playing PvP since MUDs. Men in combat stay together for many reasons, I don't need to tell you, I know, but one of them is so that they can efficiently deal with surprises. A meaningful honor system and fog of war would encourage people to work together more.

The main tactic in online play is to stay alive. The puzzle of combat is quite deadly. How boring can it be when a computer solves all the puzzles?

Anyway, I just got off the server list. Not one classic server worth playing in, the only one that doesn't have kill messaging has 3 people. I blame the people who thought classic should be like OST, and not an original work (or at least void of player aids).

The community is very split, and in a direction that very few OST fans expected, or like. This isn't bad for game makers though, because now I need to find a new one.

 

[>< f4ct0r...13]

Praxius, the tension in RO2 is set-up, provided, expected. It's another example of the devs thinking they're being helpful by providing a feature to service a need that players seemed to like, (CD mode to be Realism mod, player models randomly talking instead of voice commands which are now basically useless) etc. And yes, of course this is my opinion, but why talk on a forum if not to express opinions?

Make that two people's opinions.

Are you spacehog from SOW?

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

.... but why talk on a forum if not to express opinions?

I never said you couldn't.

Cripes, why do people keep thinking I'm trying to tell them not to post or say or express anything when I never do?

I'm just doing the same as you in regards to expressing myself, but because I'm countering some of the things you have said, I'm somehow telling you to not say or express anything?

Is it my accent??

.... The community is very split, and in a direction that very few OST fans expected, or like. This isn't bad for game makers though, because now I need to find a new one.

Why does it always have to end up being what the "Ost Fans" or the "RO1 Vets" think, believe and/or feel that somehow is the final answer to everything?

Players who first got into Red Orchestra via Ostfront are not the be all, end all rulers and dictators of Red Orchestra & how it should be or not be.... there were two previous versions of Red Orchestra prior to Ostfront.

Ostfront players are the 3rd Generation of RO players, not the first, thus they have no right to act like they rule the RO World and can dictate to the rest of us how things should and shouldn't be, nor should any of us feel obligated to pander to their demands & complaints any more than any other group.

Even if you played RO from the very start at the UT2k3 mod, even you don't have that right..... I don't have that right..... nobody has that right to dictate how the game should be.

There were disagreements back in the Mod days between various gameplay mechanics, vehicles, weapons, etc. but the community all loved the game and was a heck of a lot more united.

What's splitting the community is this 3rd Generation Player Base that continually thinks they're more important than everybody else and things should be "Their" way.

We all have our own opinions, and regardless if we got into RO from the UT2k3 mod, the UT2k4 mod (myself), RO1 or just got into RO through RO2 a few months ago..... all our opinions are as equal as the next persons.

Not all players who got into RO through Ostfront are like this, but those who continually try and back up their demands with "I'm an RO1 Vet and this is the way things should be" need to give their heads a damn shake and get a reality check.

If there's any split in the community, those that the above apply to have only themselves to blame due to their omnipotent attitudes.

 

[El Conejo Peligroso]

I don't like the tone of this thread. I would look at "spliting" the community, more like the division of a country into states. It works better so that each state can operate according to the need of its inhabitants, same goes for games in which the devs want to attract people with very different tastes.

You see, in the original RO, it was one game, with one style of gametype and a general appeal to historical accuracy(although not at all perfect and limited by the low technology of the years in which it was designed).

But in RO2, they had a "great" idea. To compete with other fps games. Not the evil idea some people say it is, but not a good one if you want one big happy family.

Interestingly, a certain group, those who want more "realism"; better said referred to in gaming as, historical accuracy/tactics, are critisized as being "elitist" (fitting that a class struggle should come out of a game where the Soviet party plays such a big part!). Why is this? It is because we, as a demographic, complain a lot. Why do we complain? Because, overall, in our earnest opinion, the Devs did in fact cater more to, I'll say it, COD players, instead of players at least as tactically and historically minded as the first. So yes, we felt let down, but yes, the Devs are doing a lot to make us happier, but we still dream and still, justifiablly, want more. Why because we do in fact, love RO, and our opinion of how it should develop into our idea of the definitive portayal(note that word, not fps, but portrayal, account you might say, of the soldiers of the ostfront in WWII.


So, in conclusion, I think it this point, it is best we all can get our niche, where we can play with our like minded buddies, and if not, maybe we will see some mods come out.

 

[>< f4ct0r...13]

Everyone has their ideas of a great game, and every single one is valid. Where the dollar is spent decides who is right.

Imagine being a marketing executive making a video game. What are some of the things you want to bring? I'm the exec on this post, so here we go:

Interesting Context
Originality/Innovation
Dollar Value/Marketability
Re-playability

Interesting context
Check. The GPW is pretty cool gaming-wise

Originality/Innovation
Here, the goal is obviously to be unlike other games out there, and bring an innovation to the market. Ya gotta be special, or no-one will care.

I don't see anything in RO2 that is new. All of the things that are presented as features are copies of other games.

Innovation can be a principle, it doesn't have to be a thing. Striving for a game that is control-simple (RO2 is), as true to the era as possible and making it as challenging as possible would be innovative, because no other game out there does that (please tell me which one does, I want it).

This means that all of the player aids are gone. WW2 soldiers didn't have them. This means having historically accurate weapon loadouts. This means that the honor system is meaningful, not a simple measure of one's time in game. This means real Fog of War exists.

By removing all the copied features, does one not also open up resources that can be spent on other things? Examples would be features of WW2 combat: Flamethrowers, Fires starting/spreading, all walls being demo-able, survivable mutilation, etc, etc, etc, may have been added instead of my computer battle-guide.

A meaningful hero system is innovative as well. Heroes are defined by their actions, not their time in game. I have shared my ideas about that here, but I don't think anyone understood.

Dollar Value/Marketability
Well, something with the above would offer such a unique experience, that my dollar would be happily spent, instead of post-warily spent.

This game had a lot of hype on Steam, and was really coming out of the blocks hard. It was plenty marketed. There was very little chance of RO2 coming out as a little-known niche game.

If the above two ideas are true, then why not take a chance and put out something that is truly original and innovative? Sure, some won't like it, but #1, their dollar is spent #2, you honor the horse you rode in, and provide an experience that the title suggests.

There was so much grassroots support for this game. Check on the Dolalr Value/Marketability.

Re-playability
What keeps you coming back to the game?
The leveling system? When you hit 99, it's meaningless.
The weapon stat buffs? When you hit the max, it's meaningless (and has to damage the soul when one knows their computer beat that guy, they didn't)
The puzzle of combat? Having to figure out a supremely deadly question with your mates? Radar, Recon, and all of that ruins the puzzle part of FPS.

How long does one play when the computer tells them where to run, where to shoot, where their friends are, where the enemies are, whether or not they made the kill, automatic voices, visibility to player tickets, kill messaging, exclamation marks at the top of one's screen, exaggerated prone deaths, etc. The computer plays for ya. Straight up.

Not having a challenge doesn't interest me. Not having a meaningful representation of my play doesn't interest me. Not having REAL LIFE features of WW2 combat represented doesn't interest me, because there is no need for friends.

I stick around, I love the game, it has a LOAD of potential. Which way it goes is up to the people who do the work. It will be interesting to see how the Pacific game comes out. Original/Innovative, or copy? The dollars may very well decide it on that one.

 

[El Conejo Peligroso]

It looks like you and me are on the same boat, factor 13. Its nice too see somebody with like minded views on the General Chat section of this forum!

 

[CocaineInMyBrain]

Well unfourtunately the price of the authentic and realistic gameplay that factor14 suggests (assuming it is forced upon the audience as the only game mode, which if i read his and Cyper's previous posts correct is what they wanted anyways) is that the player numbers would dwindle into an all time low and stay there, even factoring in the supposed returning RO vets. At the end of the day very few are as masochistic as we are here on the RO forums, and generally depise overty difficulty plainly for the sake of realism. So in short yes if TWI did implement these changes it might make a portion of these forums happy, but RO2 will be subjected to a obscurity even worse than that of OSTFront.

 

[Sarkis.]

A new mode is needed, maybe the One mode is needed, but if ever comes to that, it will and should come by general appreciation, not by throwing away the other modes and forcing us to only play the new one.

 

[r5cya]

goodbye? as in you're leaving and not coming back? or just done with this thread?

i guess it meant neither. lol.
as much as it pains me to say it, i agree with cocaine on his post.