Axis / Allies balance ?

[Actin]

I play strictly rifleman and it was frustrating to start with but I'm starting to get a hang of the Mosin Nagant. Last night I camped (inb4 camper) in the very top of the Grain Tower by myself and picked off 33 Germans while they ran for the points. It was a great feeling, all alone in this tower with enemies swarming all over.

This is a nice example how you should adapt to your weapon.
When smg's rip you apart in close combat, then go sit in the tower.

Then those mp40 wielding people will say the mosin is overpowered and too easy to aim with.

Don't balance the weapons, learn to play with them

 

[Josef Nader]

Don't balance the weapons, learn to play with them

Someone else gets it. Thank goodness.

 

[Gergination]

You're not even gonna read whatever I write, pointless.

And anyways, if in your head your playing a true to life war experience, all power to you, I'll just have to ignore your blabber on the forums.

A game where death means it uninstalls itself isn't exactly a good business model now is it?

 

[Keith Moons Liver]

All guns should be exactly the same with different models and sounds, and all maps should be perfectly symmetric.

 

[Josef Nader]

All guns should be exactly the same with different models and sounds, and all maps should be perfectly symmetric.

Oh and the Russians and Germans need to use the same player models with a Red/Blue color scheme, so I can be sure that the hitboxes are the same and so that it's easy to tell from a distance which team they're on.

 

[Shritish]

Alright, I'll bite. If we're not going to nerf weapons to be balanced out then give Allies 10 times the reinforcements that Axis have.. you know.. just to be "realistic".

 

[the_Monk]

My thoughts on this subject are as follows:

1. Symmetrical map-balance makes for boring gameplay. Allowing for multiple and different avenues of approach/defense for each side is what keeps gameplay and tactics fresh and exciting. Maps need to be as asymmetrical as possible and need only to be balanced using class-restrictions and number of reinforcements.

2. Symmetrical weapon-balance nerfs tactics and is the single biggest teamwork-killer out there. Make every weapon as effective as the next in any given situation and you'll have a bunch of lone-wolves running around spawning-running/killing-dying over and over the entire round. Weapons need to be balanced in the sense that each team has a counterpart to the other. The individual properties of the weapons need to be balanced by gameplay descisions and tactics of the individual player and NOT artificial stat equality.


When game DEVS make maps symmetrical what happens? Both teams rush to the centre of the map, duke it out for a few minutes (sometimes seconds), rinse and repeat. Maps in RO2 cause a natural "ebb/flow" of the action by NOT being symmetrical. This allows for intense firefights to start ANYWHERE on the map and not become focused on any one part of the map time and again. Absoultely each map should favour one or the other side which would have the pleasant side-effect of providing a huge sense of accomplishment to the side not favoured on said map having just pulled off a victory!

When game DEVS make weapons artificially stat-balanced you see spreadsheets about weapon stats and soon only certain weapons ever see any use because since every weapon is equally effective no matter which team you play for or which area of the map you're in why would you use a weapon with "inferior" stats? Having weapons that have different individual characteristics and stats means each individual needs to employ varied tactics and weapons to best move the team forward depending on the map area and type of weapons being faced in order to be successful. Of course one can always opt for an even greater challenge and take a bolt-action into CQB (I love doing that) to experience the thrill of knowing you really only have that 1 shot if you make contact with an enemy.

EDIT:
At the end of the day RO2 is about constant adjustment of playstyle and weapon choice if you want to get the most (and help the team) out of it. The maps and weapon classes in RO2 demand things of the player. Something not seen in other FPS's where the player customizes the game (ie. their character and weapon) to their whim and enters a symmetrical shooting gallery.

 

[FBOTheLiuetenant]

Alright, I'll bite. If we're not going to nerf weapons to be balanced out then give Allies 10 times the reinforcements that Axis have.. you know.. just to be "realistic".

Having asymmetrical weapon balance isn't simply a matter of realism, it makes the gameplay much more interesting than having every weapon balanced by artificial means.

This "realism" thing is starting to piss me off, too many people are focused on the reality arguement, when there are already aspects of the game that are designed with gameplay > realism in mind. So why shouldn't this work the other way around, I love how unrealistically difficult RO1 is, and would like to be able to run a server with similarly unrealistically difficult server settings.

 

[LordKhaine]

Personally I think the balance is better than it was in RO1 in a sense. In RO1 I preferred the MP40 over the ppsh for almost everything because the recoil levels made it almost usable for semi-distant aimed fire. And in RO1... I found the DP easily the equal of the MG34/42 as well. Good accuracy and low recoil meant it was often the better MG. Germans with the better smg, russians with the better (well, at least equal) mg? Balanced yes, but the opposite of real life.

It's nice to see that in RO2 things are just as balanced, but switched round the realistic way. I find the MG34 far better than the DP in RO2, and equally much prefer the ppsh over the mp40.

 

[Nikita]

MP40 I agree with now

MP40 I agree with now

After doing some testing in a full server, I agree with the OP on one point and one point only: the MP40 does have too little recoil.

Playing against the MP40, I don't really notice this problem, generally because I usually play Allied Rifleman, MG, or SL, and I consequently have a very conservative play style.

Today I tried Axis Assault for the first time, however, and...

Two kills from the NCO Barracks at 90+m on Russians running from spawn. I actually felt guilty about that one. (See first screenshot)

One kill at 45m on the very top of a Russian's head through a window, using fully automatic fire.

Two headshots on Russian riflemen at the sandbags behind the Admin building from the long red building near the Propaganda House using seven-eight round bursts (!). Range: 60m!!! (see second screenshot)

I didn't want to believe it--I always test every online assertion on these forums before I make a decision, but after making 22 kills without using a fraction of the concentration I'd needed to make 28 the other night with the DP28, I have to conclude that the MP40 has too little recoil. Outshooting two enemy riflemen at 60 meters with one-second bursts should be the result of pure luck, a once-in-a-hundred result. That by no means indicates any conspiracy or double-dealing by developers, , it's just a small oversight. If you look at the second screenshot, I don't think I should be able to rely on a headshot using automatic bursts at that range. Tweaking the recoil upwards just a tiny bit would mandate that the soldier use short bursts or single shots to consistently hit at that range, making long bursts unproductive as they should be.

In all other respects, the MP40 handles quite realistically. The low ROF makes hitting moving targets traveling 90 degrees to your point of view very difficult, and makes engaging a PPSh in close quarters extremely risky. Penetration is about what is expected of an SMG. Bullet spread at longer ranges also seems reasonable.

The true-to-life MP40 was accurate out to 55m and effective to about 100m. Therefore, I have no qualms about the current MP40's accuracy in single shots or very short bursts. Five to seven round bursts or fully automatic fire, however, should be thrown off target by recoil.

ROHOS Beta, however, seems to be fairly balanced in most other respects. More reinforcements and time could be given to the Germans on Grain Elevator and to the Russians on Red October, but besides that the maps themselves give both teams an equal opportunity to win. All other weapons are exquisitely modeled in my opinion.

Considering that this, recoil, and MG deployment issues are my only qualms about the weapons and maps in-game, I'm actually very satisfied with the beta overall so far. I don't know if the recoil will be different in the final release, but correcting this small issue would make RO2 a near-perfect game in my book. I trust Tripwire fully, and have no doubt that the reinforcements issue has already been addressed.

 

[FBOTheLiuetenant]

It isn't that there is too little recoil. I think the recoil is fine, especially since it is more realistic than RO1, and realistic weapon handling was one of TW's project goals. Those kills are well within the range that an SMG should be effective.

The issue with SMGs should be solved not by nerfing the SMGs, but by making larger maps where rifleman actually have an opportunity to dominate. My favorite RO1 maps where designed to have specific areas in which eash weapon could shine, room to room fighting for SMGs, long range kill zones for rifleman and MGs. So far the maps are either small enough for practically any firefight to be within and SMGs effective range, or have ungodly amounts of dust/snow so rifleman are hindered.

Please for the love of :IS2: don't force weapons into artificial constraints for the sake of "balance". The way it was done in RO1 was the best example I had to give people of how having realistic weapons can be done in a balanced way via map deisgn.

 

[Nikita]

It isn't that there is too little recoil. I think the recoil is fine, especially since it is more realistic than RO1, and realistic weapon handling was one of TW's project goals. Those kills are well within the range that an SMG should be effective.

The issue with SMGs should be solved not by nerfing the SMGs, but by making larger maps where rifleman actually have an opportunity to dominate. My favorite RO1 maps where designed to have specific areas in which eash weapon could shine, room to room fighting for SMGs, long range kill zones for rifleman and MGs. So far the maps are either small enough for practically any firefight to be within and SMGs effective range, or have ungodly amounts of dust/snow so rifleman are hindered.

Please for the love of :IS2: don't force weapons into artificial constraints for the sake of "balance". The way it was done in RO1 was the best example I had to give people of how having realistic weapons can be done in a balanced way via map deisgn.

My mistake--my above post was poorly worded.

I concur that kills within 100m are completely possible with a submachine gun when using single shots or very short bursts. That is both realistic AND gameplay-friendly.

All those kills, however, were obtained using long bursts, no support, and only minimal mouse effort to control the weapon, with the hit often coming on the fourth or fifth round. I feel that such kills would require much more fire control to pull off in real life due to greater actual recoil. That would result in a realistic outcome as well as a good gameplay outcome.

In the screenshots below, I'm dragging my mouse downwards at a rate of perhaps 15mm/sec, and I am firing from a supported position only when prone. Keep in mind I am shooting an entire magazine at once, making no other mouse movement other than the aforementioned one.

The first screenshot shows the result from a standing, unsupported position: a group slightly larger than that of a man's torso at a range of 15-20m (a short estimate).

The second shows the results when crouched and unsupported: a similarly sized group at about 30m, again being generous.

The third screenshot and fourth, respectively, show the distance I was firing at (about 80m) and the grouping--slightly larger, but still far too tight for fully automatic fire without letting off the trigger, even with support in this case.

I've heard anecdotal accounts of German soldiers picking off advancing enemy infantry at Monte Cassino with submachine guns at 110 yards--but I'm assuming they weren't firing off an entire clip at once. Again, I agree that a group like that is possible up to 100m with single shots or 3 round bursts. The fact that it is still possible with fully automatic fire naturally implies that the recoil currently present is slightly unrealistic. Increasing it is not a nerf, just a needed tweak in a more reasonable, accurate direction.

On a different note, I must say that Fallen Fighters and Red October are quite outspokenly rifle-friendly, with only a few close-in areas for SMGs to haunt. The right tool for the right job, indeed.

 

[atomMan]

Don't balance the weapons, learn to play with them

Because it needs to be repeated

You can one shot anything with any weapon, side arms including, and people still scream IMBALANCE like it's a Word of fvcking Warcraft, and demand generic RED vs BLUE shooter with 100% simetry.

 

[Porta]

I mostly play the russians and I didnt think the MP40 had to little recoil/spread until recently. I got picked of form 80-90 meters lots of times by some MP40-dude in a window (I know because I've shot an enemy from the same position before). And it wasnt like they had to empty a full clip to get me. One or two bursts and I was gone.

Frrrt! Frrrrrt! I'm dead.

 

[TheGoden]

and demand generic RED vs BLUE shooter with 100% simetry.

Is there something I'm missing? I don't see anyone requesting this. I've looked and looked and I cannot see it.

What I do see, however, is people requesting some more sane balance so that the game is actually enjoyable. Red Orchestra 2 is a video game. People usually play video games for enjoyment and fun. Hopping on a server in any game and having your *** handed to you because it's unbalanced is not fun. It does not matter how good the game looks, how well it runs, how it sounds, or even how hard/easy it is. The entirety of a multiplayer experience is on how balanced it is. People do not like going against ridiculous odds or vice versa. They want a balanced experience where the victor is the most skillful and/or utilizes teamwork.

If you want RO2 to be 100000% realistic than you might as well have the game end the moment it starts because the Russians actually won the battle for Stalingrad. You might as well have your character have to stop and take a piss, eat food, or have a drink. In video games there are some things you have to sacrifice SO THAT IT STAYS FUN. I think people can agree that the reason they spend up to $60 (or even $100 if you're in places like Australia) is because they want to have fun. People are going to get upset when that product that was supposed to be fun turns around and screws them over.

 

[atomMan]

I mostly play the russians and I didnt think the MP40 had to little recoil/spread until recently. I got picked of form 80-90 meters lots of times by some MP40-dude in a window (I know because I've shot an enemy from the same position before). And it wasnt like they had to empty a full clip to get me. One or two bursts and I was gone.

Frrrt! Frrrrrt! I'm dead.

So how many bullets Frrrt! Frrrrrt and bursts should you be able to eat before dropping dead

What I do see, however, is people requesting some more sane balance so that the game is actually enjoyable. Red Orchestra 2 is a video game. People usually play video games for enjoyment and fun. Hopping on a server in any game and having your *** handed to you because it's unbalanced is not fun.

So...
Not only it's not perfectly balanced, but it's so SKEWED and BIASED - it's not even fun playing Russian side?

You guys serious?

Amongst all the opened issues of BETA, this is the one you picked to fight for?


PS
Just noticed they pushed an update

 

[TheGoden]

You guys serious?

Amongst all the opened issues of BETA, this is the one you picked to fight for?

So you're admitting it is an issue?

People can live with bugs and the odd crash. The game is still playable. However if there is balance problems, then people don't want to play at all. People get upset, frustrated, and concerned.

I'm not trying to sound like a whiny child or whatever, but I have played every one of the available maps on BOTH sides and I have noticed significant balancing problems in both the maps and the weapons. Realism or not, balance makes or breaks a game, and isn't the point of a game to have fun?

 

[atomMan]

Honestly... I don't see the issue with balance.

I also play both sides, and it's pretty much 50% : 50% odds.
I play all the classes, and can't say I noticed there's a winning gun.
Maybe there is... it's just I didn't notice it.


But... I do feel that MG's should get some more love.

 

[TheGoden]

Honestly... I don't see the issue with balance.

I also play both sides, and it's pretty much 50% : 50% odds.
I play all the classes, and can't say I noticed there's a winning gun.
Maybe there is... it's just I didn't notice it.


But... I do feel that MG's should get some more love.

I see posts such as the one you made yourself here all the time, but every time I play I never see what you speak of. And I'm obviously not the only one considering there are other people with similar concerns.

 

[atomMan]

And I'm obviously not the only one considering there are other people with similar concerns.

You and OP... at least

TBH E-sport prospects of RO2 is the least of my concerns.
And no, I am not admitting an INBALANCE... just saying

PS
I hope they made some super sweet client optimizations, though I wouldnt bet xD