• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Realism in maps?

4th Reich

Grizzled Veteran
Jul 11, 2006
124
0
Maryland, US
Although RO:O is the most realistic FPS game with the most intelligent FPS community, it bothers me that people here assume that infantry maps are supposed to be small. Even though it does make sense for tank maps to be large by default, I still feel this idea that Infantry maps are supposed to be smaller is limiting. This is not to say that all small maps are bad, but rather, I'm trying to posit the fact that larger maps can greatly enhance infantry combat in ways that smaller maps can not - for example, more opportunities to surprise and ambush your enemies as a team, and more suspense all around. I want the maps to be so huge, that the players MUST communicate with their team mates just to find the enemy! And this will encourage them to work together.

Now I'm sure all of you understand this already, so I'm certainly not trying to beat a dead horse, but I felt I had to say something after reading an interview with Tripwire.

I truly believe that larger maps make the gameplay more realistic, so I hope to see more large infantry only maps.
 
Last edited:
angelangel said:
Russians need a APC. End of story.

What, the Clown Car ain't good enough for ya? :p

Yes, the Reds need something, even the old truck was better than the current troop transport options (feet).

Also, can we get ski's for winter combat? Yes I know, the Russians usually only wore them on their backs but for the Axis it was an effective means for getting around, at least in Finland and Lapp Land :)
 
Upvote 0
4th Reich said:

I truly believe that larger maps make the gameplay more realistic, so I hope to see more large infantry only maps.

Problem is that RO can currently handle 32 players and "battles" are like company vs company (total count of soldiers thrown in battle).

Making inf. maps larger without bf or JO:TR/E like "choose your spawn" and without support for larger amount of players makes bigger maps quite useless. .. Battlefield can't be "empty" in WORLD WAR.

With dynamic spawning, mappers can make maps last longer and this is imo. best way to make larger maps.

In urban maps every visible building should be accessible.
 
Upvote 0
kabex said:
Agreed. I want Orel-sized infantry maps.

dont think this is a good idea you would walk more than an hour from spawn to last objective :D


but i would like to see some big infantry maps, too. i would like to see a large version of the mod map Ambush, which was really great. wide open field, mg's sitting everywhere, snipers waitig for someone to walk by and several routes to your target. with the smoke grenades this would be even better.

another thing i miss are nice combined arms maps. we need to get these tanks inside of the cities. i really liked kharkov, though it wasnt perfect. i would like to break through the enemy lines in a city with tanks and infantry together.

what we see now are else large tank maps or small infantry maps. try out something new and do it the other way around.

my karabiner is waiting
 
Upvote 0
If mappers use clever spawning techniques they can offset the need for trucks and halftracks. Trucks/halftracks in the mod were often used to rush around the battlefield, going right up to capzones, tanks, etc. which is unrealistic. Even on maps like Makhnovo Germans often use the halftracks to rush right up to the front doors of the Poshta instead of trying to flank and dismount behind cover. If trucks are added I would like to see them get taken out by small arms or a quick burst of a machine gun so players will only use them for transport in "safe" areas.

[quote=D.a.L-mistk
 
Upvote 0
Drude said:
Making inf. maps larger without bf or JO:TR/E like "choose your spawn" and without support for larger amount of players makes bigger maps quite useless. .. Battlefield can't be "empty" in WORLD WAR.

With dynamic spawning, mappers can make maps last longer and this is imo. best way to make larger maps.


I don't think the players should be allowed to choose where they spawn, that would defeat the whole purpose of having a larger map. By forcing players to spawn at one end of the map - which should be a good distance away from the objectives and combat zone - we will see a decrease in suicide/rambo tactics and an increase in team play.

However, I definitely agree that RO:O needs to allow for far more than 32 players at once. I think at least 80 per server is fair, but the more the merrier, as long as the map is HUGE.

Just imagine Orel with over 80, 120, or 200 players? Fantastic gaming!
 
Upvote 0
I agree too. Current maps are nothing but a mayhem with 32 players. No tactics, because there are no time to think tactics. Spawn, shoot ,die.

Also spawn times have effect in this too. Most maps are ported from RO mod and, RO mod had 2x spawn times than this. Add the 32 players and you have a non stop arena style shooting in small stock maps. Maybe that's why I'm starting to love large tank maps because of this. Play the same maps with 24 good players, and you'll understand what I mean.

First thing should be upping the spawn times a bit more, the rest is up to devs and community about the size of maps.
 
Upvote 0
@Guppy: very very interesting, looking forward to this. when you think will it be finished? does it take some more month or will you be released soon? good luck for this project

@4th Reich: you wont hardly find a server that could handle 40 guys. i know it would be cool to play orel with 100 ppl more than now, but thats not possible with UE2

@paulus: with UE3 destructible houses etc. could be implemented. as far as i know it will be possible in stranglehold wich uses UE3, too.
 
Upvote 0