• 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/

Into The Jungle

Yoshiro

Senior Community Manager
Staff member
  • Oct 10, 2005
    14,495
    1
    4,490
    East Coast
    Welcome to what is the start of many community focused updates to come. Today I want to start going into detail about just what is Rising Storm 2: Vietnam. Vietnam will be a standalone game in the Red Orchestra/Rising Storm franchise. We are bringing the series forward into a new era of warfare as well as emphasising the core elements and experiences of the franchise that our fans love and have come to expect.

    Building off our experience with the first Rising Storm (winner of PC Gamer
     
    This, if done correctly, is much needed. One of the many things that annoyed me about RO2 from a design perspective was how little it made you think about squad composition / sticking with your squad. Sure, there were bonus points for "Protecting Squad Leader" but that was kind of a small perk rather than a good incentive. The number of times I would play on a 64 player server and note, looking at the map "Oh look, green and blue dots spread about EVERYWHERE!"

    The system we designed in RO 2 was built around "what a WWII squad would look like". Now we've learned lessons about what works in actual gameplay.
     
    Upvote 0
    I hope RS2 falls more in line with ROOST. RO2/RS was a very big let down for me. I haven't touched it in a long time.

    I have an itch for Vietnam though. I still play BFV on single player and bot farm the **** out of it. I also still play Vietcong's single player. I am excited for this project, but I will need to see a lot of gameplay videos to determine if it is for me. I know it won't be a day one buy.

    I am not expecting it to be like Squad, which I love. I just want it to return to the ROOST roots. This announcement fills me with some hope.

    Does RS2:V have a mission statement, vision, or strategy that is written down anywhere for developers about what is trying to be achieved? Could that be posted on the forums? It would give me, and others, greater insight on what the game will be like.
     
    Upvote 0
    As an idea for this one, could I encourage a change in how hip-fired MGs work? One of the big complaints a lot of people had (especially with the MG42) was that the hip fire was a ridiculously good in CQB. Obviously, most of these guns were actually relatively easy to fire from the hip.

    One way to balance would be to have stamina reduced whilst firing from the hip with an MG, potentially whilst making consecutive shots during fatigue have significantly more recoil (as well as sway during ironsights, obviously).
     
    Upvote 0
    3D VOIP is something we'd all like to have, but while it is technically possible on UE3, it's a performance hit and a half that we're not sure is acceptable. That's not to say that it might not still happen (if for example, someone came up with a novel way of reducing the performance overhead), but I don't think I can get into any trouble by saying that it's not currently a thing at the time of writing.

    Regarding the comment about RS2 being more ROOST than RO2 - for my own curiosity's sake, could you list some examples of items/features/whatevers that help illustrate why RO2 was a letdown (to you) compared to ROOST? I'm also interested to know whether you felt that RS addressed any of your issues with RO2, or if it made things (in your eyes) worse. I've seen many people over the years complaining in servers that "RS sucks compared to RO2 vanilla" but when I ask why, I never get a straight answer. Which naturally isn't too useful when we're trying to work out which things to change for a sequel!
     
    Upvote 0
    Regarding the comment about RS2 being more ROOST than RO2 - for my own curiosity's sake, could you list some examples of items/features/whatevers that help illustrate why RO2 was a letdown (to you) compared to ROOST? I'm also interested to know whether you felt that RS addressed any of your issues with RO2, or if it made things (in your eyes) worse. I've seen many people over the years complaining in servers that "RS sucks compared to RO2 vanilla" but when I ask why, I never get a straight answer. Which naturally isn't too useful when we're trying to work out which things to change for a sequel!


    The maps needs to be larger so that there is more freedom of movement and the gameplay is less linear. It adds replayability because you can win from different angles and no two rounds will be the same. The smaller maps in RO2/RS impedes gameplay because it focuses on short distance firefights instead of long distance firefights which in turn makes RO2/RS a COD variant. I will say that Fallen Heroes, Mamayev Kurgan, Winterwald, and Bridges are the only maps the attempt to have the RO feel.

    I also feel like the gameplay is WAY too fast in RO2/RS. The normal run speed seems faster in RO2/RS than in ROOST; the sprint speed seems faster in RO2/RS; the reload/rebolting animations/times seem faster than in ROOST. It just makes it seem like I am playing an arcade shooter. RO2/RS doesn
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0
    Would dynamic maps at all be a possibility for campaign mode? What I mean by this is that when an attacking team is assaulting a map they usually defend on, will the environment change when they attack? Instead of US flags will there be NVA flags everywhere, will the deployed M60's be replaced with RPDs/Dshk's?

    One of the main reasons I stopped RO2/RS was because of campaign mode, but it has grown on me. I just can't stand rushing a Jap position that has .30 cals and American flags/equipment everywhere.

    Also, what are the odds of Urban maps such as the Tet offensive?

    Regarding the comment about RS2 being more ROOST than RO2 - for my own curiosity's sake, could you list some examples of items/features/whatevers that help illustrate why RO2 was a letdown (to you) compared to ROOST?

    For me personally (and I loved RO2/RS), it was;
    -Speed was too fast and the maps ended way too quick
    -Not a great variety in vehicles (maybe take it down a notch for the vehicle insides)
    -Maps felt very restricted, like they were very narrow in some cases, especially for 64 players (looking at you apartments)
    -Targets were too easy to hit, the suppression/aiming systems in ROOST were better IMO. One of the reasons I hate playing as an MG is because you get taken out so quick. Some may not agree with me, but I liked the way your sights swayed in the Brothers in Arms series
     
    Upvote 0
    3D VOIP is something we'd all like to have, but while it is technically possible on UE3, it's a performance hit and a half that we're not sure is acceptable.

    Thank you for the answer. I think it is a simple feature (not in coding, I don't know about that), but simple in that in is a very intuitive way to keep people together and working together. Even without a formal squad system, you can easily get a fireteam sort of group working together on an objective. Not to mention filter out from team chat all the stuff that only applies to those next to you. "grenade!" "Gimmie some ammo!" Those sort of things.

    Maybe incorporate a third party app like Mumble?

    My list of things to leave out or change would be fairly detailed and tedious. Generally, I like the gameplay experience that IOM gives to player movement and weapons handling in RO2. Zoom if you must, but less, the same for all weapons and please make it independent of ADS.

    These things lead to more cautious movement, a slightly slower pace and people relying on their brains and teammates more and not simply sprinting through fire and outshooting everyone in their way.

    For gods sake, no leveling......:eek:

    I'd love to see a dynamic cap system, to increase the replayability of maps.

    A deployable squad specific rally point type system instead of spawn on SL, with less fixed spawns. This alone provides incentive for squads to stick together. Now, it's often the correct tactic for the SL to hide and spawn out his squadmates who run off ahead on their own. With a rally, the SL is free to lead.

    If there are transports, keep the distances between spawns large so people will value and use them. I've yet to see a transport in RO2 full.
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0
    Honesty the only thing that really bugged (besides actual bugs) me in ro2/rs was. Stat bonuses and unlocks... I don't mind cosmetic changes or even player lvls/rank. I just don't want it to give you ANY in game bonus.

    Looking forward seeing more about the squad system. Tactical squad based gameplay was one of the most enjoyable things in RO2/RS. Without spawn on SL the game loses it entirely. So I hope it either stays or a another system is used to keep squads together.
     
    Upvote 0
    I just want to comment on the above users rant -

    That entire post is obviously coming from someone who din't play the game for a long time and simply doesnt understand that there is a fundamental difference between original RO and RS. He can't seem to understand that you can't use the same tactics as RO in RS and that's why he was turned off from the game. It is HIS OWN FAULT that he's unable to adjust to a new type of gameplay.


    I have hundreds of hours in RS and yes while I think some things can be changed for the better his rant answered absolutely no questions that the devs want to hear. His only arguments are essentially "its too much like COD" as if we haven't heard that about literally every single shooter that comes out these days and "The maps are too small".


    The majority of his complaints exist in original RO and have nothing to do with RS.


    The user needs to realize that this is RISING STORM - an off shoot of RED ORCHESTRA and NOT RED ORCHESTRA 3. His complaints would be better suited for RO3 launch threads.
     
    Upvote 0