• 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/

What game types will RO have?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
I agree totally with S&D be zzzZZ, but if you want to sell a game and attract lots of customers you gotta appeal to widest audiance possible. And as much as I hate S&D, it has a HUGE following = potential customers.

If this game offers just one game type (however good it is) its going to limit its appeal. How hard can it be to add the likes of S&D and CTF to this game? I don't of course know what I'm talking about technically, but on the face of it, it can't be too much effort for the chance to pull in more players/customers.

This is not an SP game with MP added on that people can take or leave. People will buy this game only if the gameplay appeals, will it appeal to the tens of thousands of SD, CTF, TDM, OBJ players out there?

I'm playing devils Advocate to a point as I'll be buying this and I'm really looking forward to it - so no hot heads please.
 
Upvote 0
#22
RedDwarf said:
This is not an SP game with MP added on that people can take or leave. People will buy this game only if the gameplay appeals, will it appeal to the tens of thousands of SD, CTF, TDM, OBJ players out there?
Click to expand...

Obviously, BF2 sells quite well with one single game mode (even though it is labelled as 3...)

And, TBH, I usually find a game outstanding because of one single game mode. DM, TDM, CTF are all so common and overplayed, that I usually ignore them. I may add a list:

In UT/UT2k4 I play aussault almost exclusively.
Vietcong/OFP/H&D2 SS are reserved for Coop.
My favourite CoD mode was behind enemy lines (a pitty that this mode is not existant in CoD2 anymore :( )
S&D are covered by CS:S and AA...

So I say, RO should concentrate on the things that make it unique. For the standard suff there are lot's of alternatives to chose from, so why even bother with it? Rather spend the time to polish the existing things and add new maps, weapons and vehicles (in this priority :D)
 
Upvote 0
#23
[-project.rattus-] said:
Obviously, BF2 sells quite well with one single game mode (even though it is labelled as 3...)

So I say, RO should concentrate on the things that make it unique. For the standard suff there are lot's of alternatives to chose from, so why even bother with it? Rather spend the time to polish the existing things and add new maps, weapons and vehicles (in this priority :D)
Click to expand...

Unique can equal, stay small and don't sell by the bucket load. I'm a noob in here and not played the Mod but looking objectlively I see a single obvious community that this game would appeal to and that is of course the BF boys and Girls. Move from 1942 for a fresh WWII dose, minus aircraft or grab the BF2 people who want WWII but moved on from an old game. The developers could have their work cut out of if they target a minority part of the WWII and FPS customer base.

Plenty alternatives???? Go tell that to the people who might lose money developing this game. Valve/Css Activision/CoD etc would just love to have you as competition ;)

RO is attempting to move from a Mod into the mainstream, take the best of what got it off the ground, improve it, add to it and unleash it.
 
Upvote 0
#24
RedDwarf said:
I agree totally with S&D be zzzZZ, but if you want to sell a game and attract lots of customers you gotta appeal to widest audiance possible. And as much as I hate S&D, it has a HUGE following = potential customers.
Click to expand...

It would be very easy for map developers to implement a S&D map.

Put in an objective, and set the level of reinforcements very low.

Could actually be fun. :)

CS-type gameplay with just a few respawns insted of instant death.
 
Upvote 0
#25
RedDwarf said:
RO is attempting to move from a Mod into the mainstream, take the best of what got it off the ground, improve it, add to it and unleash it.
Click to expand...

I don't think that RO will be "mainstream", as much as I whish it will be a huge success. If you browse the gaming forums here, you see that most of the players come from the simulation faction, or are interested in highly accurate and difficult strategy games like HoI or CC. And I suppose this is the type of players which will mainly be attracted to ro and willing to stay. To this audience, gametypes like DM, TDM and CTF have no meaningo, or outright alienate them, and even a somewhat realistic CS like S&D clone would not be a selling argument.

And I am glad you brought up Valve, and Activision (EA would come into my mind too): They produce immensely succesfull games, but this success is not because they are outrageously fun or innovative, but becasue they have a huge marketing budget and had a fun and innovative original game, from which they spawn mere graphical updates with a higher number behind their name very regularly. But nowadays, I think that the trend is starting that the broad audience won't accept these faceless clones of games anymore and long for a unique experience. And I sure don't want RO to be one of those clones...


and @ Ghadafi: yupp, possible. even TDM would be mappable, just be not making any cappoints and a relaively small number of reinforcements (as reinforcements are basically nothing other than "Kills of the Team needed to win")
 
Upvote 0
#26
[-project.rattus-] said:
and @ Ghadafi: yupp, possible. even TDM would be mappable, just be not making any cappoints and a relaively small number of reinforcements (as reinforcements are basically nothing other than "Kills of the Team needed to win")
Click to expand...
The more I think about it, the more I think that maps with very low levels of reinforcements could actually be a very interesting additon, as it would mean that just staying alive would be much more important than in many maps now, where one is willing to expend a lot of soldiers to cap those points

To me, the level of reinforcements is the size of the units which is opposing each other.

Examples:
10 reinforcements for each team: squad skirmish
50 reinforcements - platoon engagement
300 reinforcements - company full on combat

and so on.
 
Upvote 0
#27
The best map for combined objective and uniqueness has to be the map stalingrad kessel, as others have noted maps are essentially gametypes unto themselves.

IN stalingradkessel you can capture 4 total objectives, the first 3 being primary and as long as only 2 of the first 3 are captured, they can be re-captured by the germans. Once all 3 of the first 3 objectives are taken it is impossble for the germans to re-capture and they have to defend (desperately often) the last objective.

All of this is mixed in with the fact that 2 of the objectives are very difficult to capture without use of the 10lb satchel to blow up certain obstacles, this makes it interesting as some of the strategy is to kill the guys that generally carry the satchels to further delay and make it more difficult for the Russians to win.

Very fun map and it has multiple objective types and scenarios that play out over the 30 minute time period.

Then you have a map like Jucha which is almost a deathmatch map, it is very tight and small and has 4 objectives. A primary objective (88 guns) that has to be taken first, and then 3 other objectives that can be taken in any order.

The low amount of reinforcements on this map generally mean that the two teams often BEAT THE LIVING SNOT OUT OF EACH OTHER IN GRUESOME FIGHTING, eventually leaving one team broken battered, and defeated before the time is up and or all of the objectives are taken.

My favorite win on Jucha involved being Russian and only have 4% reinforcements and winning against a 20% reinforced Germans in the final 2 minutes by capturing all of the objectives.

The other night we had a fun one were both sides had no reinforcements left and the germans defeated us in the end.

Another fun one was as Germans we had 6 guys hold out in the villiage square house for 2 minutes with no reinforcements and get victory.

Its all of these little things that make RO fun, and Unique.
 
Upvote 0
#29
RO only needs one type of game mode because that is truly the only type that is realistic. CTF and TDM are not very realistic frames to put WWII infantry combat in.


As an aside, I hope in ROOST we will see the return of the old cap system, where you have to have a certain number of people to cap. As it is now, one guy can cap an objective, albeit slowly. Of course, with enemies around, the cap doesn't happen, but that also means no one knows he is there if he hides, and when the enemy leaves, this same lone wolf can grab the objective in the rear while the rest of the teams are actually fighting at the "front" area.

I have always argued that it is unrealistic to have single guys capping areas: the alternative is more realistic as a "squad" has to grab an objective, and this in turn also forces people to stick together to be successful, not all run off to the objective they think is best. It also prevents "suprise victories" where a team is heavily engaged defending a crucial objective, only to have the two behind them capped at the same time by two lone enemies that snuck in behind them (I am thinking of Koitos here).
 
Upvote 0
#31
Jack said:
RO only needs one type of game mode because that is truly the only type that is realistic. CTF and TDM are not very realistic frames to put WWII infantry combat in.


As an aside, I hope in ROOST we will see the return of the old cap system, where you have to have a certain number of people to cap. As it is now, one guy can cap an objective, albeit slowly. Of course, with enemies around, the cap doesn't happen, but that also means no one knows he is there if he hides, and when the enemy leaves, this same lone wolf can grab the objective in the rear while the rest of the teams are actually fighting at the "front" area.

I have always argued that it is unrealistic to have single guys capping areas: the alternative is more realistic as a "squad" has to grab an objective, and this in turn also forces people to stick together to be successful, not all run off to the objective they think is best. It also prevents "suprise victories" where a team is heavily engaged defending a crucial objective, only to have the two behind them capped at the same time by two lone enemies that snuck in behind them (I am thinking of Koitos here).
Click to expand...

Only realistic? Uhh....no.
 
Upvote 0
#32
Well I cannot think of any other game types besides the basic "capture and hold the objectives," or its variation, "destroy these objectives", that are realistic.

CTD and DM are not for obvious reasons. TDM might at first appear to be, as you got the two sides in opposition to one another...but they are killing each other without any real reason. In real life there is always an objective, some place that needs to be taken from the enemy: in TDM the places don't matter, you just run around till you find someone to kill that isn't a team mate.


Retrieval and Search and Destroy type of modes actually could be realistic, but when placed within the appropriate context. What I mean by this is that retrieval of certain intelligence items, or destruction of a certain piece of equipment like you see in CoD2 would be the types of missions undertaken by specialized troops against an unaware enemy force, usually behind lines.

These were not the type of missions conducted on the front of the battle zone by regular troops operating en masse.

Of course, you do have potential historical examples, such as the famous Fallshirmjager assault on the static French defenses in 1940, or the Ranger assault at Point Du Hoc, but because of the scale of these operations, and the breadth, I would consider them more along the lines of "Destroy these objectives" as oppossed to "Search for and destroy this particular item."

So what does that really leave besides "capture and hold?" Anything that might be thought of like "you have to survive in this area for such and such time" or similar is really just a variation of "capture and hold" (perhaps more appropriatley, "you already have it, just hold it").
 
Upvote 0
#33
Protect the convoy.

Where you have a few tanks/misc vehicles with infrantry.

The Convoy has to reach "x" area.

The other people have to try to destroy the convoy while the others try to keep them at bay until the convoy reaches it's point.


Hold "area," Like say a bride. You're meant to hold the bride for the round, the other troops are meant to destroy it.

It could even be more dynamic. Where you only have to hold the bride until the "halfway" point of the round and then your reinforcements arrive with some tanks. Since you held the bridge they are able to cross and then help you fight off the enemy.

However if your enemy destroys the bridge they couldn't cross and they'd win the round.
 
Upvote 0
#34
Stiler said:
Protect the convoy.

Where you have a few tanks/misc vehicles with infrantry.

The Convoy has to reach "x" area.

The other people have to try to destroy the convoy while the others try to keep them at bay until the convoy reaches it's point.


Hold "area," Like say a bride. You're meant to hold the bride for the round, the other troops are meant to destroy it.

It could even be more dynamic. Where you only have to hold the bride until the "halfway" point of the round and then your reinforcements arrive with some tanks. Since you held the bridge they are able to cross and then help you fight off the enemy.

However if your enemy destroys the bridge they couldn't cross and they'd win the round.
Click to expand...

So you go more for Rubens-style women, if you call a bride an "area"? :p

The hold the area is basically the existing game mode, just with a single (or two) cappoints.

The problem with convoy maps and/or scripted events like the tank reinforcements is that they would work only once. Every time after the first time you'd play it, it would not only be repetetive, but also pointless, as all players would know what would happen beforehand, and would play and set up in a way that the reinforcements/passage for a convoy would be pointless.

Also, due to the relatively small maps, the options for the convoy would be very limited. Still would work an a OFP scale map, where the ambushers would just know where the convoy was headed, and from witch general direction it would come, allowing lots of different ambush points and evasion routes... But on a UT2k4 scale map, there would be 2-3 diffeent routes whith 1-2 different ambush points, which would make it quite dull...
 
Upvote 0
#36
what could be done is to have an outdoor map with the various objectives. The last obj to cap could be a bunker. When all other objs are capped, you'd have to reach the bunker. when you do a map loads where you have to clear and hold the bunker. Renicforcements could be very low (1 to 5 lives)
This would greatly encourge teamwork e.g if theres a long corridor round the corner, the riflemen cover it while the smgs move up. etc
So we have the obj based gameplay and the squad tdm gameplay which should keep most people happy (since the lives are so low no ppsh'ers will rambo cleraing it out
 
Upvote 0
#38
While I agree RO has its own unique style ( which i love ) I agree that SD is something that needs sorting. My clan have played MOHAA to death for years, other games have come along which offered better graphics etc but none offered the same gameplay. COD,COD UO and COD 2 were all tried and discarded.Now I can see a game which ticks practically all the boxes as a replacement BUT in order to 'sell' it to guys who are used to Objective or SD games you need to offer that. I appreciate we are at the stage where you can say "This is the way we like it, take it or leave it" but think of all the people out there who if they had a way to gradually get into this great game would come here and STAY. Just a thought.....thats all, just a thought
 
Upvote 0
#39
well for example doing an S&D gametype would be easy for a mapper.

a: dont give any reinforcements to either side.
b: once the objective is destroyed or captured game over.

its easy as that, the current "game type" woud easily be converted.

imo this isn't a tdm type game, there are plenty of other games that offer that kind of play, i dont see why ostfront (being a realism based shooter) should have to have it, but again just set it up for no reinforcement time and no objectives for either side...easy peasy for a mapper i imagine. Just have to recode the spawning.
 
Last edited:
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