RO2 no one is bothered that attack/attack maps are always biased against the russians?

[Jolly Jew]

very simple.

there are either 6 or 4 points in these maps (fallenfighters, pavlov's, barracks, etc.)

and when the timer finishes. in the russians have 3 objectives, they lose. if the nazis have 3 objectives, they win.

this means that the russians can only win they have 4 points and the enemy only 2.

same rule is applied to maps with 4 points.

how on earth is that fair? from the start of the game the nazis can just play defensivly and camp around their point never needing to attack and risk their lives once.
while the russians are forced to attack an incredibly difficult objective that is very easy to defend.

so how is that fair?

 

[Yoshiro]

That is not how the system works. On A/A maps where at the end both sides hold an event count of territory, it looks for who last held 4 territory I believe.

I'll get somebody from LD to verify me on this on Monday.

 

[Jank]

Do you really think any game developer would intentionally make unbalanced maps? Balancing is one of the steps in the development process ffs.

 

[Cwivey]

Most of the time, in cases where both teams hold the same number of objectives, the round then goes to the team with the most Team Points. So if your side throws its life away to get that one extra cap-point (and the guaranteed win) but fails to take it, you've essentially put yourself into a losing position because the enemy have most likely slaughtered you in terms of Team Points.

 

[Rattler]

Do you really think any game developer would intentionally make unbalanced maps? Balancing is one of the steps in the development process ffs.

Having unbalanced maps is something very good actually. It forces the players to master the terrain handicaps in order to win. The mirror like maps like in Team Fortress 2 are boring to play because they play the same as each team. Having unbalanced map is making the gameplay more random and open to various tactics. A mirrored map have just a bunch of attack and defend scenarios, because both teams are facing the same at any given moment. Thats boring

 

[Jpz38 Hetzer]

Having unbalanced maps is something very good actually. It forces the players to master the terrain handicaps in order to win. The mirror like maps like in Team Fortress 2 are boring to play because they play the same as each team. Having unbalanced map is making the gameplay more random and open to various tactics. A mirrored map have just a bunch of attack and defend scenarios, because both teams are facing the same at any given moment. Thats boring

I will give you this, a MIRRORED map like in Team Fortress 2 is boring. But i think both sides should have an equal chance of winning when both teams have equal number of players and equal skill.

As for the OP, I don't think Pavlov's house it self very unbalanced (maybe a little earlier for the Germans, but not by much), however, this game does have an issue with axis team stack, so this compounds the problem. So its not really the maps that are the problem. As for a solution to this, I don't think there is anything Tripwire can do about it :/

 

[Rattler]

There's no such thing as equal skilled teams. Yes, the teams can be very close as skill level, but this is what determines the final outcome. Having a unbalanced map is giving a chance to the less skillful team to turn the table upside down by using the terrain advantage/disadvantage for their good. If they can't make it, then it doesn't matter because they will lose anyway due to the other team being better overall. Having a mirror map is throwing your chance ONLY to the skill level of each team. Having unbalanced map is giving one more variable that gives a better chance for win if used right.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

What rattler said.
RO2 is the last game that needs perfectly balanced maps, nor even gameplay. Asymmetrical setting is one of the building blocks this game is built on; attacking and defending. Balance is what arena games like unreal tournament and TF are for.
Faction wise, the overral situation should be somehow balanced across the map pool, but I dont see even that as so critically important.
And don't get me wrong here, you do know what I mean.

I play one faction for months before switching to another so I get the ups and downs of them all. When you "have no choice" you have to go through them all. Some tougher shots and some "deserved" relief. I like the change.

 

[Buzzles]

What rattler said.
RO2 is the last game that needs perfectly balanced maps, nor even gameplay. Asymmetrical setting is one of the building blocks this game is built on; attacking and defending. Balance is what arena games like unreal tournament and TF are for.

Sorry, but that's a really naive viewpoint on what map and game balancing is.

Asymmetrical map/team design is not the same as unbalanced, far from it.
Balance is a much wider scope thing, and if you've made an unbalanced asymmetrical map, you've made a bad map.

All maps need to balanced from a gameplay perspective, and it's obviously easier for symmetrical maps. Asymmetrical maps require a much closer look at game mechanics and how the map plays out to achieve that balance. Sometimes it can be as easy as introducing choke points favouring the defenders, or giving the defenders better equipement, sometimes it's simply elevation and making the attackers have to attack across open routes...

RO2 has a number of asymmetical maps, but some of the balance is quite delicate and can easily be tipped by team stacking or just plain skills.

 

[onomatopeia]

In my experience all the maps are pretty well balanced - just depends who's playing, and if the experienced players are stacking one side (usually German?).

Playing on servers in Russia, seems like Soviets are constantly kicking butt - who'd a thunk it?

 

[[TW]DrGuppy]

From a Level Design perspective, we try very hard to balance the maps in a sense that each side has a roughly 50% chance of winning while still keeping asymmetric layouts. No official map in RO2/RS has ever purposely been created in favour of either side, although occasionally we like to give the illusion of imbalance for storytelling purposes. For example, any attack / defence map may seem hard for the attackers, but if you pay close enough attention the overall end result is that each side wins roughly half of the time if all other aspects are even.

Obviously, a better team will trump that balance, but we can't factor that into the equation (which makes team stacking quite frustrating to deal with). Another problem we sometimes run into is new systems being added into a map (eg. we want to add tanks / transports / whatever into an existing map) or changes to weapons or leveling.

We have ways of finding overall win / loss percentages and occasionally we will go in and tweak a map by adding or taking away time, reinforcements, cover positions, spawn time, etc.

And yes, we make balance mistakes, but TW continually strives for those mythical and illusive perfectly balanced asymmetric maps.

 

[oldsoldier173]

The primary balance issues are not the maps, but the skill set of the players on both sides. There is a tendency for experienced players to stack the German side, leaving more in-experienced troops on the Russians hence the performance difference, it is not the maps.


Too many see the lack of personal skills as the fault of the map, rather than the individual players. The attacker usually has more tickets, yet manages to waste a lot of them, and the defender in the usual totally wrong concept of 'attacking the attacker' with far fewer troops available, tend to bleed out tickets faster, it is not the maps.


May a point total experienced based team select process in needed so all the 'heros' are not on one side rather than a unneeded map rebuild.


There is not a map out there that if properly defended can not resist a German onslaught, no matter how good the German players are or how stacked the German team is. Find a 'hole' stay in cover and fight it, and it does work.

 

[G_Sajer]

The ALWAYS or NEVER assertions about RO2 have come non-stop over the years. Time and experience have always proven them nothing to worry about.
Relax.

 

[Tig Ol Bitties]

Fallen Fighters is an "attack/attack" map and the Russian spawn is way too close to objectives B and C.

Russians almost always win that map by simply waiting until the last minute and rushing C from spawn while the Germans get picked off trying to accomplish the same thing from their own spawn area.

 

[Russ Schulke]

Defense, basic combat skills and the

Defense, basic combat skills and the

oldsoldier173; Spot-on!

The majority (75-80% of players /especially younger ones) do not understand defense or even its basic principles like kill zones, cross fire, fire brigade, flank protection, rear guard, pockets of resistances or a fighting retreat!

Secondly, a large portion of that majority does now have basic combat skills and common sense like using cover, moving from cover to cover, not to shoot from the same position more than 3-4 rounds, camouflaging/masking yourself into the terrain, using your ears to assess the situation, when and when not to shoot and a half million other things.

Don’t even get me started on TL and SL, smoking friendly Maxim positions, throwing short smoke, throwing smoke in buildings, firing artillery on to closed top buildings, firing artillery into the front of the cap (where we are trying to cap) instead of firing and the back of the cap so it cuts off his reinforcements, Always making sure the enemy fires he artillery first so you can counter-fire on his ground units attack sector, mass commands like EVERYONE GO TO “E” and he does no leave a small holding force in the object just capped and so no, and so on.

It all really simple but the “lemmings” or “cat herd” make it so hard.

Russ “Panikakha”

http://www.fireonthevolga.com

 

[oldsoldier173]

I have called it 'Herding Cat's' for years. The Hollywood concepts rather than proven small unit Infantry tactics. Infantry for 23 years, and still having 'fun' going stealth and watching and listening to the 'experts' explain to the troops why everything is everyone else's fault. Leading by example, another foreign concept.