I'm a ROOST player, and what the hell is RO2?

[Field Marshal Rommel]

YET MN and CC were much better,more polished,more interesting(due to the different weapons/vehicles and ideas(like on map mortars and breaking vision slits on the tanks))

Wait, what? Darkest Hour has different weapons/vehicles, map mortars, and breaking vision optics on the tanks...

In the many years the game's been out, 25% of the people with 100 kills have still never made a single 100 meter rifle kill in RO1.

The achievements are buggy/broken in RO I. You would know that if you actually played RO I. Hint: The Excellent Sniper in Bronze achievement: 0.1%

RO1, where a 100m distant person was 4 pixels tall standing in the open. If they turn sideways you could well lose them to subpixel culling

Bullsh*t. If you played DH 4.0's Doggreen map you would know better. The waterline is about 200 meters away from the German positions. A good Kar 98k guy could consistantly pick off the allies from their landing craft as soon as it lowered its ramp. Sideways, rearways, headlesschickenrunningaroundways, whateverways...

Edit: Also try the old Hill 108 map.

 

[Cyper]

I don't know why not more people agree with OP.

Is it because we have stinking arcade people in here? No offense, but RO2 should be all about realism and teamwork, and shouldn't be playable for anyone that doesn't apply just that. Just like RO ost and DH.

 

[Machete234]

But I got to say that I've liked RO2 very much. I did play RO:Ost a lot and in my opinion the RO2 is better. I don't really understand comparing RO2 to COD, because I think RO2 is pretty far from CODs gameplay. I'm playing BF3 too (hardcore/rush), but I prefer RO2. The fundamental problem with BF series is unlimited classes (too many snipers).

Thats because you know the other games and their problems, most of the whiners here havent played COD or BF since part 2.

 

[Mekhazzio]

Arad - wide open fields, no limits where you wanna go, except of course the map border on the sides
...

Well, sure, if you want to take the position that a wide open field counts as some infinite number of routes. The problem is that a wide open field is just that: wide open. The entire area can be covered from any one of a large number of positions, boiling it all down to the same results. Using Arad as an example, sure, there's a fair amount of empty territory on the sides, but all of it was so exposed to so many angles that it didn't matter what position you took in it, they all had identical lines of sight as any other position, dropping the map down to a choice of just west, center, east. You couldn't move between those routes once you left the starting area, and the infantry were stuck with just the center. Arad was so poorly designed that despite being fairly sizable, the space severely limited your options. It's a common theme in RO1 maps - Barashka's frozen river would, indeed, have made it a playable map: except that your odds of actually getting across the river alive were poor in a halftrack and vanishingly small on foot.

If you played DH 4.0's Doggreen map you would know better. The waterline is about 200 meters away from the German positions. A good Kar 98k guy could consistantly pick off the allies from their landing craft as soon as it lowered its ramp.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to aim at a giant boat, but if they actually made it to the beach and had something to break up their silhouette, like one of the hedgehogs, they'd be able to lay there forever, virtually invisible to everyone without a scope as long as they didn't move or fire. It's also not 200 meters: I've plinked from there and still don't have the 225m achievement.

Also, that is quite possibly the worst map I've ever played in 20 years of FPS games. You'd get more interactive gameplay from watching a documentary.

 

[Animal_Mother]

My 2 cents--if RO3 came out today what I would do is watch the forums to see what game features were/what people complained about. And if I didn't like what I saw then guess what, TWI? No money from me.

But my guess is there won't be an RO3.

 

[Holy.Death]

I don't know why not more people agree with OP.

Is it because we have stinking arcade people in here? No offense, but RO2 should be all about realism and teamwork, and shouldn't be playable for anyone that doesn't apply just that. Just like RO ost and DH.

Because people are capable of their own thoughts. Even the ROOsters are divided when it comes to discuss about RO2 and RO1.

It's kind of sad to see that for some people having different opinion than their own - which is considered to be the one and only truth worth spreading - are stupid, stinking arcaders. I don't treat people like trash just because they see things in a different way. Elitists.

 

[illinifan]

Because people are capable of their own thoughts. Even the ROOsters are divided when it comes to discuss about RO2 and RO1.

It's kind of sad to see that for some people having different opinion than their own - which is considered to be the one and only truth worth spreading - are stupid, stinking arcaders. I don't treat people like trash just because they see things in a different way. Elitists.

the large majority of ostfront veterans (im talking about clans and certain pubbers) feel that ro2 is a step down, gameplay wise, from ro1

 

[SeppLainer]

Well, sure, if you want to take the position that a wide open field counts as some infinite number of routes. The problem is that a wide open field is just that: wide open. The entire area can be covered from any one of a large number of positions, boiling it all down to the same results. Using Arad as an example, sure, there's a fair amount of empty territory on the sides, but all of it was so exposed to so many angles that it didn't matter what position you took in it, they all had identical lines of sight as any other position, dropping the map down to a choice of just west, center, east. You couldn't move between those routes once you left the starting area, and the infantry were stuck with just the center.

Arad, as open as it was, had numerous areas to conceal movement. A tactic that I used with every unit I was in, as infantry, was to ditch the hannomag, and move along the river on the left, behind the town, then deploy smoke to the road north of the bridge, and run up to the left side of the russian village. It worked...every...single...time. We'd also go to the right of the axis town, use the forrest and numerous rocks for cover, deploy smoke, and rush. While more susceptible to fire, usually most of the team made it. Bear in mind, this was a tank map, also clown cars.
But we must remember, these maps were ancient technology.

Also, most of the map list above, actually have more cover, concealment, and routes of approach than you remember, or used. A lot of pubbies didn't care much for anything other than rushing head on into fire. My units did.

Also, in that list of maps, you don't include such open and large maps made by mappers that were BIG HITS precisely because of the ability to move about using real tactics and not simply rushing into death. There were hundreds of community maps that clearly were more friendly than Danzig and the like. The fact I can't remember most of their names is only proof of their numerous existence.


This is why I think the SDK will save this game.

 

[MarioBava]

Too clever by half. The post I quoted didn't use stats to refute any point of mine. Beyond that, he hardly "roundly refuted" anything.

Honest apologies for the misattribution, that happens on occasion and I should've been more attentive!

To me RO2 maps offer way more options, partly through map design and partly through new game mechanics than a lot of people are admitting because their experience hasn't, for whatever reason (one thing is team dynamics), given them that impression. I would maintain that RO1 does not have the jump in this category, but is at best nearly comparable in terms of raw layouts but then falls behind because of new mechanics in RO2.

To me the problem is broader and even though I take a side, my point is not meant to. Problem is that what seems to matter, ultimately, are people's impressions and opinions rather than an analytical approach. And the problem is you really can't substantively argue with impressions and opinions. Even if an impression is wrong (such as when people call 150 meters "sniping"), it remains.

 

[SeppLainer]

Now I don't disagree with the fact that many maps had some choke points. But usually, people could use their brain after getting killed 5 times in a row without reaching the capzone. There were alternatives.

If you are trying to tell us that the battlefields of RO were smaller than the ones in RO2, then you should give me the number of your dealer. Good stuff...

This. All the RO2 maps are very small in terms of actual playing area. Even Pavs, and Commies are little different than Danzig/Apt, and barracks in this regard. The only true medium size map in terms of engagement ranges, is Fallen Fighters, which is an OK map, but totally **** sometimes thanks to spawn buildings having so much weight on the fighting. Could you imagine FF if both spawn building blocks could not so easily cover every capzone?

FF is my favourite map an a Machine gunner precisely because I can mow down anyone, anywhere, with relative ease. Thanks to the spawn buildings being so dominant over the map. My only fear is the occasionally sniper hiding the opposite building....I bet my K/D on FF against real players, is 10 to 1, easily. It's too easy to sit upstairs... The map should be more open to players.

 

[Holy.Death]

the large majority of ostfront veterans (im talking about clans and certain pubbers) feel that ro2 is a step down, gameplay wise, from ro1

Can you share how you determined this? I was trying to find the biggest playercount ROOst has in comparision to HOS as well as number of former ROOsters who like and dislike the game but I couldn't find anything.

 

[Six_Ten]

Honest apologies for the misattribution, that happens on occasion and I should've been more attentive!

To me RO2 maps offer way more options, partly through map design and partly through new game mechanics than a lot of people are admitting because their experience hasn't, for whatever reason (one thing is team dynamics), given them that impression. I would maintain that RO1 does not have the jump in this category, but is at best nearly comparable in terms of raw layouts but then falls behind because of new mechanics in RO2.

To me the problem is broader and even though I take a side, my point is not meant to. Problem is that what seems to matter, ultimately, are people's impressions and opinions rather than an analytical approach. And the problem is you really can't substantively argue with impressions and opinions. Even if an impression is wrong (such as when people call 150 meters "sniping"), it remains.

None of my problems with RO2 are due to the mapping or modeling. The maps are great, some are ported from Ostfront with new models, so the layout is the same and the beauty is improved, some are new but modeled to a new better standard.

The gameplay ruins the experience for me. That is a subjective, opinion-based observation. You are correct to say that "you really can't substantively argue with impressions and opinions." You can measure the effect of those impressions by looking at the precipitous drop in playercount and server availability.

I posted this anecdote before but it bears repeating in this context.

"Once upon a time there was a CEO of a pet food company who wanted to increase his profits from making dog food. So he consulted the wisest men in his company, who knew all about developing computer programs that would analyze the nutritional content of various grains and food supplements. Eager to please the CEO, the wise men programed their computers to come up with the optimum combination of grains and supplements that would meet the nutrition needs of man

 

[MarioBava]

None of my problems with RO2 are due to the mapping or modeling. The maps are great, some are ported from Ostfront with new models, so the layout is the same and the beauty is improved, some are new but modeled to a new better standard.

The gameplay ruins the experience for me. That is a subjective, opinion-based observation. You are correct to say that "you really can't substantively argue with impressions and opinions." You can measure the effect of those impressions by looking at the precipitous drop in playercount and server availability.

I posted this anecdote before but it bears repeating in this context.

"Once upon a time there was a CEO of a pet food company who wanted to increase his profits from making dog food. So he consulted the wisest men in his company, who knew all about developing computer programs that would analyze the nutritional content of various grains and food supplements. Eager to please the CEO, the wise men programed their computers to come up with the optimum combination of grains and supplements that would meet the nutrition needs of man’s best friend at the lowest price.

But a strange thing happened. During the first six months of selling the optimum mix at the lowest price, profit margins of the company declined. The next quarter, profits dived once more. “What’s going on?” the CEO demanded.

Since his wise men didn’t have an answer, the CEO consulted the greatest expert in the land, who know all about the mysterious science of systems analysis and who conducted an extensive study (at considerable expense.) When he was finished, the expert appeared before the CEO.

“Have you discovered why our profits are declining?” the CEO demanded.
“I have,” said the expert, leaning on a thick report. “The dogs don’t like it.”

I know. Great story, made me smile. As one of the dogs that like the new dog food as well or more than the old, I'm sad about the exodus. It's not to the point where it's ruined or killed the game for me (I can still reliably find a good experience), but it's clearly precarious...that "good experience" is only replicated on a handful --the only-- servers that are often populated. One or two good servers don't allow you much flexibility if one or both of them go south on game night. Just like the dogs are dependent on their masters buying the food they like or the local store stocking it, and this is dependent on enough other dogs liking the food, I'm dependent on enough other players liking the game enough to keep good servers populated.

 

[TT33]

RO1, where a 100m distant person was 4 pixels tall standing in the open. If they turn sideways you could well lose them to subpixel culling

Keeping with the DH-Doggreen example the terrain on that map is sloping has craters, hedgehogs , broken boats, live boats, Belgian gates, fog, & dark lighting all of which provide some cover however as far as I can tell on my screen the only time the enemy "disappears" is when the are directly behind a Hedgehog support, in a terrain depression, or behind a boat. A better map example was the old Hill 108 (4.0 version) in which a player in the bunker could pick the enemy off at 300 meters on the right side hill from the German prospective and 150+ meters from the little mount in front of the bunker to the left trenches.

It's also not 200 meters: I've plinked from there and still don't have the 225m achievement.

Of course not DH does not have any kind of achievements so your out of luck. In DH-Dogreen 5.0 (the older version was bit bigger) from the wall to the landing zone cap is 200 meters exactly and as you stated its more than possible to see the enemy and to hit him with a Kar 98k or M1 Garand at that distance.

due to the different weapons/vehicles and ideas(like on map mortars and breaking vision slits on the tanks))

Yes, I very much liked MN and CC but as someone else pointed out the features and weapons you mentioned, breakable optics, Mortars, vehicle variety (36 vehicles to choose from), etc. are actually in DH:

I'd look through this threads/ forums:
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=14024&page=41http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=14024&page=87
http://forums.jackbootgames.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8145&sid=b2031aef805e4e6593b9f8af081bac30http://forums.jackbootgames.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8145&sid=b2031aef805e4e6593b9f8af081bac30

 

[Welcome_To_Hell]

I agree with OP!

 

[Sensemann]

Well, sure, if you want to take the position that a wide open field counts as some infinite number of routes. The problem is that a wide open field is just that: wide open. The entire area can be covered from any one of a large number of positions, boiling it all down to the same results. Using Arad as an example, sure, there's a fair amount of empty territory on the sides, but all of it was so exposed to so many angles that it didn't matter what position you took in it, they all had identical lines of sight as any other position, dropping the map down to a choice of just west, center, east. You couldn't move between those routes once you left the starting area, and the infantry were stuck with just the center. Arad was so poorly designed that despite being fairly sizable, the space severely limited your options. It's a common theme in RO1 maps - Barashka's frozen river would, indeed, have made it a playable map: except that your odds of actually getting across the river alive were poor in a halftrack and vanishingly small on foot.

Arad was widely open, but river banks, houses, forests, different highs and lows of the map offered huge areas of movement without being seen by the enemy.

Of course, you could be seen if the enemy is covering this exact area that you were using for approaches, but basically, both teams could even move their tanks out of spawn into a river bank and then move quite some distance without opposing their tank over the whole battlefield. The same goes for infantry.

And as SeppLainer said: Infantry could always find cover such as: walls, stones, trees, river banks, buildings, grass, smoke etc.

And I liked Arad while knowing that many didn't, because if you see the landscape of Eastern Europe, you will see that Arad actually looks like a pretty good draw of a village in Eastern Europe.

Now I am not arguing that the map itself had some balancing problems, favoring the Russians, but "Six_Ten" was saying that it was one of the "Channelized" maps, which I don't agree with.

 

[illinifan]

Can you share how you determined this? I was trying to find the biggest playercount ROOst has in comparision to HOS as well as number of former ROOsters who like and dislike the game but I couldn't find anything.

i think it's safe to say, just based off talking to some of the main NA clan guys, that most clanners (as in over 75%, easily) haven't warmed to this game yet. the latest patch limiting the semis and autos is certainly a step in the right direction in making the gameplay more like ostfront

 

[Six_Ten]

Now I am not arguing that the map itself had some balancing problems, favoring the Russians, but "Six_Ten" was saying that it was one of the "Channelized" maps, which I don't agree with.

I said no such thing.

 

[WingmanSR]

i think it's safe to say, just based off talking to some of the main NA clan guys, that most clanners (as in over 75%, easily) haven't warmed to this game yet. the latest patch limiting the semis and autos is certainly a step in the right direction in making the gameplay more like ostfront

In other words, you are making a generalization based on anecdotal evidence.
I see...

 

[Holy.Death]

i think it's safe to say, just based off talking to some of the main NA clan guys, that most clanners (as in over 75%, easily) haven't warmed to this game yet.

Problem is that it doesn't mean anything else than that some of clansmen you speak of don't play the game. I asked about numbers from ROOst to have something to compare HOS numbers with. You know what? I've found that ROOst had far less players than HOS have when some of the people claimed it to be dead. Problem is I can't get numbers from the very start to its end. That's why I doubt people who tell the game is dead and worse than ROOst - HOS being worse is just a matter of opinion. HOS being dead needs serious numbers to confirm. These do drop, sure, but each game has big drop of players and it's hard to judge it as dead. We need someone who can prove his statement about DOD. That's why regular, random people can't confirm someone's death.