• 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/

Campaign sucks because...

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
K

Kowalczyk

Grizzled Veteran
Sep 9, 2011
484
25
#1
You can be doing alright, winning some territories from the enemy, then suddenly an inexperienced fart-bag jumps into TL position, and you end up being pushed back and sometimes even losing.

I wish that somehow TL Honor level could be limited just for Campaign mode, because it really sucks! It sucks on normal mode too, but I detest it happening on Campaign much more because there is a lot more progression to the game.

I am being pulled in two directions now, between Campaign mode, where I see more custom maps being fed in little by little (Thanks 40-1!) and other servers where custom maps are something that hasn't been discovered yet.

Damn, I got my Monday rant out of the way, thanks guys!
 
#4
Yes, i worded it exactly as you said. You know i do those things out of chivlary. I need to get it off my chest before it starts to eat away on my concioussness. You know, i spare the others the embarresment and anger of not knowing WHO farted and the false accusation of that they did it ( altho only through eye contact of other passangers ) .

So yeah...i though i just dumb this here and see where it goes..:IS2:

Damn, I got my Monday fart out of the way, thanks guys!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#5
Mostly is the campaign mode better than the normal online matches.
Because players wants to attack and defend better.

But the last couple of days it was a disaster. 2x the attacking team where most of us was camping and 1x defending in which the enemy was overwhelming us and most forgot to stay in the cap to defend.

I think that this is by too many new players.
 
Upvote 0
#6
The problems you see in single TE matches are exaggerated in Campaign. If teams are out of balance, they stay out of balance longer, if you have no decent players in TL/SL roles, it can stay that way through several maps. On the flipside, if you have two evenly matched teams, it can be a more fulfilling experience and players will attack and defend with more gusto.

It's just the nature of it.

My main gripe with Campaign is that there aren't enough maps and especially customs per sector so you play many of the same stock maps over and over. And, the same sides tend to dominate (stacking) which pushes the sector selections into the same sectors.

I'd love to see modifications where once you play a map in a sector, it's greyed out until the others in that sector have been played, eliminating back to back maps. As well as a more random start point when the Campaign reboots. Either end or the middle perhaps. This would also push the battle through more sectors.
 
Upvote 0
#12
Kowalczyk said:
Got to say it, but I just don't understand the idea a lot of people in this community have that 'losing is fun'. Playing is fun, but losing sucks!!
Click to expand...

I'm usually the same way. However in some games, your personal achievement that round can outweigh the failure of your team as a whole. Whenever I'm first or second on the scoreboard, the team usually loses but I'm okay with it. Only very rarely do we win when I'm playing that well relative to the rest of the team. This is distinctly different from games like Left 4 Dead and Dota 2 where your individual achievements mean nothing if your team loses.
 
Upvote 0
#13
Kowalczyk said:
Got to say it, but I just don't understand the idea a lot of people in this community have that 'losing is fun'. Playing is fun, but losing sucks!!
Click to expand...

You can also try "playing is fun" + "winning/losing is something I'm apathetic about." Considering I have about 100 wins and 1000 defeats in my stats (pretty sure it was a glitch, anyway I hope it was), I kind of had to let it go.

I'm not a huge fan of campaign, but my problem with it is that it's just so impersonal. Unless the teams are the same the whole way through, I'm just not invested in the territory when most of the game will have been played when I wasn't even there. Just feels like extra down time waiting for map and territory votes. Oh well, some people seem to enjoy it, good for them.

Anyway, the TL solution isn't at all exclusive to campaign, bad TLs ruin stock games too. My favs are the "I'm TL because it was the last spot with a sword." But yeah, minimum honor would be nice. At least 20, that's about a week's worth of playing I reckon.
 
Upvote 0
#14
Clowndoe said:
I'm not a huge fan of campaign, but my problem with it is that it's just so impersonal. Unless the teams are the same the whole way through, I'm just not invested in the territory when most of the game will have been played when I wasn't even there. Just feels like extra down time waiting for map and territory votes. Oh well, some people seem to enjoy it, good for them.
Click to expand...

Clowndoe,
- Campaign makes result of the fight has directly an effect on the pursuit of the battles. TL act directly on the lead of the campaign. Soldiers act indirectly on the lead of the campaign. You fight to give TL initiative. Soldiers is linked with the lead of the campaign. When you are fighting on territory, you are already "invested in the territory"...and also ( and mainly ) in the next territory of the battle.
Even in teams unbalanced you can change a battle and a campaign.

example :
If the Team A is outnumbered the Team B, you can change a battle and a campaign if you win with Team B outnumbered by Team A. More difficult to perform, but still possible with good players. Even without TL a team can win : it's more difficult but possible.

Clowndoe said:
Anyway, the TL solution isn't at all exclusive to campaign, bad TLs ruin stock games too. My favs are the "I'm TL because it was the last spot with a sword." But yeah, minimum honor would be nice. At least 20, that's about a week's worth of playing I reckon.
Click to expand...

Clowndoe,
- with campaign TL has a opportunity "in more" to be a bad TL or a good TL. More difficult it is to be TL. Bad TL ruins more dangerously a campaign than a game. A defeat give lead of teh campaign to the enemy team. A normal game is just a dual between TL. Campaign is a dual of initiative between the two TL. (Initiative is if you want ability to choice the map inside the campaign)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#19
It is strange, that some people still think everyone has to win for it to be fun, but forget in a two TEAM game one TEAM usually loses, nature of the game. Even in checkers


As usually there can be LT's(TL) that can not find his arse with both hands, nor have the communication skills to order cookies from a girl scout. Nature of the beast and some Sergeant (TL) usually has to step forward and make the best of it. Soldiers do not usually get to pick their leaders, just gravitate to those who can lead.


The Campaign game replicates the whole picture of combat from inept leadership, the usual lack of teamwork from the professional individual(s), and then those who mold into an effective team. Reality bites even in the game world.
 
Upvote 0
#20
I feel it has to be said that Campaign mode is still superior to the rudimentary, disjointed RO2 experience. I hope RO3 extends this concept further.

And isn't there a sever setting that restricts roles based on Honor? That seems like such an obvious option that should be included.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu