• 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/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

Why does Territories not "switch sides" like Countdown?

dwhee

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 13, 2011
113
24
0
I prefer a fast-paced Territories game, but right now Countdown seems like the most balanced gametype. It seems this way because the Russians and Germans alternate offense and defense, eliminating the need for balance in the maps at least, never mind the balance of the armies. Both sides get a chance at both roles, and the winning team is determined decisively.

In a territories game, it's impossible to say who is the better team based on the result. Doing so assumes the maps are balanced, and they aren't. It makes the whole gametype immensely unsatisfying right now. Why play two rounds if you're not going to switch sides?

Even if the maps are balanced, any changes made to the game from that point have to be accommodated by new balance changes. So why not eliminate the need for map balance and focus on faction balance? Who cares if the attackers win 90% of the time if both sides get to attack?

I understand Countdown is a new gametype. I didn't play RO1. My question is, would it be too much of a drastic change to RO to have the sides switch offense/defense every round by default?
 

Nezzer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 3, 2010
2,334
1,021
0
28
Porto Alegre, RS
I repeat: Territory is the game mode that reproduces a real battle that happened in real life in a real location. What would be the point of attacking the Reichstag as a German or attacking Pavlov's House as a Russian?
 

Gaizokubanou

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 5, 2011
525
76
0
I repeat: Territory is the game mode that reproduces a real battle that happened in real life in a real location. What would be the point of attacking the Reichstag as a German or attacking Pavlov's House as a Russian?
Or you could simply switch players to different faction? :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: dwhee and dsi1

Jammybee

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 25, 2006
112
41
0
I repeat: Territory is the game mode that reproduces a real battle that happened in real life in a real location. What would be the point of attacking the Reichstag as a German or attacking Pavlov's House as a Russian?
Strange, I don't recall the Russians having to sally out of Pavlovs house or 'lose'. The Germans attacked the ROF first. Any battle on RO2 is small enough to be a localised counter-attack.
 

Nezzer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 3, 2010
2,334
1,021
0
28
Porto Alegre, RS
Strange, I don't recall the Russians having to sally out of Pavlovs house or 'lose'. The Germans attacked the ROF first. Any battle on RO2 is small enough to be a localised counter-attack.
For some maps I agree, but in others like Grain Elevator it wouldn't be historically accurate.
 

dwhee

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 13, 2011
113
24
0
I would support switching sides altogether as well. I see no reason for it not to be included as an option, but that's true of a lot of potential features.

The only complication I see is people who are really passionate about one side or the other.

But it seems quite silly to play two rounds and not switch teams. In the maybe 20% of games where one team doesn't win both rounds, it just gives it an excuse to come down to a stupid arbitrary tie-breaker. If they switched sides instead the tie-breaker would be decisive, like it is in Countdown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dsi1

Cpt-Praxius

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 12, 2005
3,303
1,667
0
Canadian in Australia
I prefer a fast-paced Territories game, but right now Countdown seems like the most balanced gametype. It seems this way because the Russians and Germans alternate offense and defense, eliminating the need for balance in the maps at least, never mind the balance of the armies. Both sides get a chance at both roles, and the winning team is determined decisively.
No it's not, as a Terriitory plays a best 2 out of 3 match between the Germans and Russians, which ensures one match won wasn't just dumb luck.... you can't have a best 2 out of 3 situation when you keep switching the sides of the teams, because the parameters of the match have changed when doing this.

In a territories game, it's impossible to say who is the better team based on the result.
It's very possible. Round 1 would be the Germans kicking the Russian's butts and they win..... Round 2 could have the Russians adapting to the tactics used by the Germans and could end up winning that round.... Round 3 is the deciding factor after both teams had a chance to see how each team plays and their tactics, thus usually a more intensive & tactical battle against two teams that now have a decent level of experience against one another.

Having to suddenly be switched to the other team means you then have to relearn your tactics and your roles in the game (Both Teams Do) and thus, you don't get to see the full potential of either team because they're forced to switch between defence and offence which then continually resets the parameters of the match..... which then means a best 2 out of 3 round matchup becomes pointless.

That and you will always have one team who plays Germans twice and Russians once, while the other team plays the Russians twice and the Germans once, which again, defeats the purpose of your suggestion since one team, based on your reasoning, would still have the advantage overall.

Doing so assumes the maps are balanced, and they aren't.
That's your opinion.

It makes the whole gametype immensely unsatisfying right now.
Well I'm not very satisfied with Countdown and having to wait 10 minutes for campers to finish the match..... everybody has their preferences.

Why play two rounds if you're not going to switch sides?
See above for those reasons.

Many people sometimes prefer to go online and either play defensive or offensive, it depends on their mood...... and don't care to be suddenly switched to play something they don't want to. To me when it comes to playing TE maps, I join in and pick a side and stick to it until the match is over.

It's a best 2 out of 3, kind of like the NHL Playoffs being the best 4 games out of 7..... what sense does it make for players to suddenly switch teams halfway through??

Even if the maps are balanced, any changes made to the game from that point have to be accommodated by new balance changes. So why not eliminate the need for map balance and focus on faction balance? Who cares if the attackers win 90% of the time if both sides get to attack?
Because it's not balanced and in my experience playing TE, the attackers don't always win and the defenders don't always win and most matches I'm on, it's usually very close and the winner is decided in the 3rd round.

Doing what you suggest doesn't make any sense and is based on the assumption that on every map, one team wins every single time due to some magical advantage they have due to the map, which isn't the case.

And the Territory style gameplay has been like this since the mod days. There has never been an issue with this game mode before, I never seen many people complain about this game mode in the past.... if ever.

Besides, when the next map loads up and the next round begins, everybody has the chance to switch sides (attackers/defenders/Russian/German) and change things up if they want to.... and if the teams are forced into balance, many have no choice but to change roles.

Myself, I pick the team with the least amount of players on it for balance purposes, which means I'm either defender or attacker, German or Russian.

What you propose isn't needed.

I understand Countdown is a new gametype. I didn't play RO1. My question is, would it be too much of a drastic change to RO to have the sides switch offense/defense every round by default?
Yes it would be and I wouldn't like it. If I wanted to play a countdown-style game mode, I'd play Countdown. If Territory was more like Countdown, then what would be the point of having the two game modes in the first place & why not just have one or the other?

You could make it into an option for some servers to switch all the Russian players to German and vice versa after each round, but leave TE as it is overall so that those who don't want this option don't have to be forced into it..... but it still creates the problem that switching players to the other team completely makes the best 2 out of 3 completely pointless since it's based on the German/Russian Teams..... The Germans could win the first round, then are thrown into the Russian team and if the former Russians win as Germans, than the original Germans' win counts to the new German's win and they win the 2 out of three matches and thus, ruins the entire thing.
 
Last edited:

dwhee

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 13, 2011
113
24
0
No it's not, as a Terriitory plays a best 2 out of 3 match between the Germans and Russians, which ensures one match won wasn't just dumb luck.... you can't have a best 2 out of 3 situation when you keep switching the sides of the teams, because the parameters of the match have changed when doing this.
It doesn't need to be a best 2 out of 3, which is another bonus I didn't mention. If you switch sides after the first round, the 2nd round produces a winner no matter what. If both teams attacked successfully, the faster team wins. If neither team did, then it's whichever team got farthest.

It's very possible. Round 1 would be the Germans kicking the Russian's butts and they win..... Round 2 could have the Russians adapting to the tactics used by the Germans and could end up winning that round.... Round 3 is the deciding factor after both teams had a chance to see how each team plays and their tactics, thus usually a more intensive & tactical battle against two teams that now have a decent level of experience against one another.
That doesn't change anything. Suppose we're playing on a server that plays 100 rounds before switching maps. The Germans win 99 straight rounds, and they squeeze out a victory in round 100. Are they decisively the better team? No. There isn't enough information because they played one side the whole time. You can hypothesize all you want, this is true of any game of Territories. And it's not "my opinion."

Doing what you suggest doesn't make any sense and is based on the assumption that on every map, one team wins every single time due to some magical advantage they have due to the map, which isn't the case.
If the statistics said that the Germans won competitive matches on TE-Apartments 51% of the time, then no one would ever play Russians. Or they would, and would blame their loss on TWI's failure to balance their maps. It's not that I'm saying from experience that the maps aren't balanced, I'm saying that it's impossible for them to be balanced in a gametype where the different teams are governed by different sets of rules. RO2 isn't special- this is true of any game.

And the Territory style gameplay has been like this since the mod days. There has never been an issue with this game mode before, I never seen many people complain about this game mode in the past.... if ever.
Well consider me the first! Seriously though, I find it hard to believe that no one has complained that the Territory game type has not generated a single decisive winner since it's creation.
 
Last edited:

Cpt-Praxius

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 12, 2005
3,303
1,667
0
Canadian in Australia
It doesn't need to be a best 2 out of 3, which is another bonus I didn't mention. If you switch sides after the first round, the 2nd round produces a winner no matter what. If both teams attacked successfully, the faster team wins. If neither team did, then it's whichever team got farthest.
I could see that being an additional game mode, but I'd still want Territory to remain exactly as it is.

Call me old skool, but I've played and enjoyed this type of gameplay in RO since 2004 and to modify it or remove it completely from what it always was would no longer make RO.... RO.

That doesn't change anything. Suppose we're playing on a server that plays 100 rounds before switching maps. The Germans win 99 straight rounds, and they squeeze out a victory in round 100. Are they decisively the better team? No. There isn't enough information because they played one side the whole time. You can hypothesize all you want, this is true of any game of Territories. And it's not "my opinion."
It is only your opinion unless you can prove your claim that the maps are unbalanced towards one team to the point that one side wins on a map 100 times out of 100.

I have yet to encounter one single map in RO2 that is clearly giving an advantage to one team or another. The only time a team can really dominate the other is when they actually communicate with each other. Communication and Teamwork is the key to winning any RO match..... this has been true since the mod days.

An example of this would be the map Karlovka from RO:CA. Many people complained that it favored the defending Russians and it was impossible for the Germans to win.

I played both sides all the time on that map and it was my favorite. The trick was with communication. If the Russians know what they're doing, know how to communicate with their team and organize a good defence, than it was almost impossible for the Germans to win if they weren't working together and just doing their own individual thing. The Germans simply couldn't get beyond the bridges.

But if the Germans communicated with one another and setup a decent strategy & the Russians didn't, then the Germans could roll over them easily and take the match within a few minutes.

If both teams communicated and coordinated good tactics, you had some very impressive, very heated matches that were neck and neck and usually decided within the last seconds of the round..... and even if your team lost, everybody was hyped and had an awsome time.

The same thing applies in RO1 and in RO2 with many of the maps. None of the maps are unbalanced. The only time it's unbalanced is when one team doesn't work together and doesn't bother to tell each other where enemies are located, when they're capping, when you're capping, when you need to defend, etc.

Another case in point would be RO2's TE-Apartments.

If the Russians don't push and use good tactics, the Germans can keep them all beyond the bridge until lockdown and win easily..... but if the Russians work together and push hard on the first two caps, they can easily capture both caps at the same time and then roll over the germans & take the last two caps within minutes.

But if the Germans work together, shift their forces to defend each remaining cap when needed, and communicate when and where enemies are located, they can hold off the Russians and win.

Last night I played TE-Apts and joined the Germans because they were out numbered (which was rare to see) ..... I also picked the commander because nobody else did. The Germans lost the first match before I joined and the Russians had all but one cap taken when I spawned. I dished out orders to defend and hold off the final cap, which nobody was doing until I popped smoke and got into the cap zone myself & then requested reinforcements to back me up. Seconds later, dozens of team mates came into the cap zone and we not only prevented the Russians from capping, but cleared them all out of the cap zone. I then ordered the team to attack the propaganda house and headed off with them. We then cleared out the House and re-capped it. I then jumped back to the other cap and kept that area secured while the rest of my team held the house. When I needed support, I called for it and people came.

We kept this up and won the round.... and then the next round.

Most other times I play the Russians on Apartments and I do the exact same thing with communication. And if nobody picks the Commander, I do and pop the smoke, dish out orders and get into the cap zone. And if you work together, it's very easy to roll over the other team within a few minutes.

If you don't communicate with your team, if you don't tell them where the enemy is and if you don't tell them when you need help..... your team won't help you and they'll just wander around doing their own thing until the end of the round.

The problem is not in the maps, it's in the players..... it has always been this way.

If the statistics said that the Germans won competitive matches on TE-Apartments 51% of the time, then no one would ever play Russians. Or they would, and would blame their loss on TWI's failure to balance their maps. It's not that I'm saying from experience that the maps aren't balanced, I'm saying that it's impossible for them to be balanced in a gametype where the different teams are governed by different sets of rules. RO2 isn't special- this is true of any game.
You say "IF" the statistics say the Germans win 51% of the time..... which is again another assumption, not evidence or proof supporting your claim.

Even if it was and the Germans won 51% of the time, a 1% difference wouldn't be enough for me to suddenly never join the Russians again.

And even then, if the Germans won 51% of the matches, that could be attributed to a number of issues beyond just map design.

• Maybe half your team is camping and not doing what they should be.

• Maybe the other team is communicating with each other and your team isn't doing a single thing together.

• Maybe they have a commander who knows what they're doing and your team doesn't.

• Maybe the teams are stacked in the German's favor, which is almost always the case as most times when I join in a match, there are usually more people choosing German over Russian (in any given map)

• Maybe there are more experienced players on the other team than there are on your team.

Among other possibilities..... either way, none of the above is attributed to map design, yet all can be a factor in the outcome of any given match.

Well consider me the first! Seriously though, I find it hard to believe that no one has complained that the Territory game type has not generated a single decisive winner since it's creation.
That's because it does generate a decisive winner each time. One team wins 2 out of 3 of the matches due to either capping all the objectives, defending until lockdown is reached, the other team ran out of reinforcements or the time for that round has run out & decided on the final outcome of the match at that time.

Call me bias, but I enjoy the Territory game play, I always enjoyed it and was one of the reasons why I was sucked into RO in the first place..... and I most certainly would object to Territory being screwed around with or being removed completely with what you suggest.

Add your suggestion as another game mode, fine, I could live with that and might even try it from time to time..... but Territory isn't broke, so don't fix it :cool:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gerhard Schiller

wake_up

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 12, 2008
215
81
0
MerKozy Land
For COD kiddies that want it quick and dirty, there is the fire fight
and the countdown mode.

You love team swap then better dont play TE or go back to BC2/COD
and don
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cpt-Praxius

Ivan1944

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 23, 2011
13
3
0
i agree with switching sides in TE mode, but what is the exist meaning of CD?
 

dwhee

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 13, 2011
113
24
0
It is only your opinion unless you can prove your claim that the maps are unbalanced towards one team to the point that one side wins on a map 100 times out of 100.
Where did you get that I was trying to "prove" some glaring imbalance in the maps?? Ok, let me phrase this in a way that you can't possibly blatantly miss the point.

A server has settings where they play infinite maps. The Germans on offense win infinte minus one games, the Russians manage to squeeze out a single victory. It's the same as the last example- there's not enough info to determine a victory. The same as if you saw the Germans win 3,141,592 rounds while the Russians only win a measly 2,718,281 rounds. There isn't enough information. And there never is.

It is your opinion that the maps are balanced. It is a fact that the maps are not balanced because both sides abide by different rules. The burden of proof is on you sir, not me. I've made it clear that it's impossible for the maps to be balanced in this fashion, which is why I've proposed measures to make it irrelevant.

Since you go on to talk about a game I've never played and don't care about, I'll do the same. Left 4 Dead is an awesome game, but it would be utterly ****ing ridiculous if they forced one side to play humans and one to play zombies, and at the end when the humans escape the zombies just sit around and say "well hey, guess they won." Bad Company 2's a decent game, and very balanced- much more so than R02. It would still be ridiculous if their default server setting was to keep people on the same team the whole time. It would not create a single decisive victor- much like Territories. I'm pretty sure I first understood this concept at age 8 when my brother and I switched off as Oddjob in Goldeneye 007 on the N64.

And then there's TE, where the teams abide by completely different sets of rules and we're still expected to take it on faith that the maps are balanced. And that's what you're really good at doing- assuming that the maps are balanced even when there's no reason they would be. And then telling me to prove they aren't.

You say "IF" the statistics say the Germans win 51% of the time..... which is again another assumption, not evidence or proof supporting your claim.
It wasn't an assumption, it was a hypothetical. Hence the "IF"

Even if it was and the Germans won 51% of the time, a 1% difference wouldn't be enough for me to suddenly never join the Russians again.
You think two different competitive teams would be content playing "the crappy team" because, what, they lost a coin toss? Again, nothing is decided when the teams play by different rules. The map could go 50.00000000000000001% in the Germans favor and still be technically imbalanced, so we still have a problem. And no, I'm not positing that Apartments is 50.00000000000000001% balanced.

That's because it does generate a decisive winner each time. One team wins 2 out of 3 of the matches due to either capping all the objectives, defending until lockdown is reached, the other team ran out of reinforcements or the time for that round has run out & decided on the final outcome of the match at that time.
And yet, the defender team never got a chance to attack, so once again there is no winner. It's your opinion that the 2 out of 3 team was the winner.

Call me bias, but I enjoy the Territory game play, I always enjoyed it and was one of the reasons why I was sucked into RO in the first place..... and I most certainly would object to Territory being screwed around with or being removed completely with what you suggest.

Add your suggestion as another game mode, fine, I could live with that and might even try it from time to time..... but Territory isn't broke, so don't fix it :cool:
I'll be honest- I don't like territory. I find it appalling that you keep coming up with "examples" defending it when my whole point is that there isn't a single example that makes a difference- a gametype where two sides abide by different sets of rules is fundamentally flawed in that it doesn't generate a winner- unless the two teams switch sides.

I wouldn't have any problem with it being replaced by something that makes competitive sense. But since a lot of people who continue to play this game do so out of RO1 nostalgia, I'd be more than content with a simple server setting- a "switch sides" option for number of rounds or something. No need for a new gametype altogether.

Wake_Up said:
kiddie features
Real men play games non-competitively? Just to be clear, TE doesn't work competitively. It never did, and never will- not with default server settings.

I love how when there's a thread like this everyone's like "GO BACK TO COD." This isn't a CoD feature, for one. It is a feature of the Battlefield series, and lots of other series that don't want to have their main gametype be completely unsuitable for competitive play.

Sorry that you're too stupid to get a basic concept about team-based games with different sets of rules. You'd better shrug it off and blame CoD noobs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cpt-Praxius

Mumbling Ketchup

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 28, 2011
2
1
0
Why would it? its a different mode. It specifically says that countdown is all about switching sides.

I'm more disturbed that on some maps when you're on defence you can't take objectives back that you just lost. I'm not talking about the ones across the map (which become protected zones which doesnt make any friggin sense). I'm talking about the house I just lost, why can't it be taken back on some maps? It doesnt make any sense?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cpt-Praxius

Cpt-Praxius

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 12, 2005
3,303
1,667
0
Canadian in Australia
Where did you get that I was trying to "prove" some glaring imbalance in the maps??
"In a territories game, it's impossible to say who is the better team based on the result. Doing so assumes the maps are balanced, and they aren't."

Your entire argument thus far seems to be revolving around the maps being unbalanced and that one team or the other generally has an advantage over the other in almost every situation and in every round.

I don't see any of the maps being unbalanced and I don't hear many others complaining about map imbalance. The Devs have been very particular with their map designs and making sure they're balanced for both teams as much as reasonably possible.

So unless you can prove that the maps are imbalanced, using this as some means to justify your argument makes no sense and ruins your entire argument.

Ok, let me phrase this in a way that you can't possibly blatantly miss the point.

A server has settings where they play infinite maps. The Germans on offense win infinte minus one games, the Russians manage to squeeze out a single victory. It's the same as the last example- there's not enough info to determine a victory. The same as if you saw the Germans win 3,141,592 rounds while the Russians only win a measly 2,718,281 rounds. There isn't enough information. And there never is.
The above is extremely hypothetical & this example and your last one seem to continue to be biased towards the Russians as if they're disadvantaged in someway, which they're not, other than players seemingly choosing the Germans over the Russians most times, which doesn't have anything to do with maps or the TE Game Mode.

And even if one looks into your above examples, suddenly switching the players to the other team won't give you anymore information in a TE map.

It is your opinion that the maps are balanced.
It's a fact unless you can prove it otherwise. It's a fact due to past experience in previous RO's. It's a fact due to the history Tripwire has with working extensively in making the maps as balanced as possible for gameplay reasons. It's a fact due to nobody else in these forums seem to have an issue with TE Maps other than yourself.

It is a fact that the maps are not balanced because both sides abide by different rules.
That has nothing to do with the maps, that's the game mode itself..... that's how it works. Change the game mode and it no longer works.... it is no longer TE.

In this game mode, one team defends, the other attacks. This is based on what happened in the actual battle the match is based on in real life. Either the Germans or the Russians held a position and the other tried to take it from them.

And if you don't think that's balanced, then I don't know what to tell you, because that's how it was.... that's how it is in war when someone is trying to take territory from the enemy.

And if you don't like that type of gameplay, go back to FF or CD, or play another game that focuses on Team Deathmatch.... leave TE alone.

The burden of proof is on you sir, not me.
No, the burden of proof is on you.... you made the claim the maps are unbalanced, you made the claim that TE is unbalanced..... you need to prove it.

Don't try and hand ball problems you invent onto me.

I've made it clear that it's impossible for the maps to be balanced in this fashion, which is why I've proposed measures to make it irrelevant.
Which as already explained, will not solve anything, would only create more problems and ruin TE completely.

Since you go on to talk about a game I've never played and don't care about, I'll do the same.
I started talking about the first Red Orchestra (the mod) which directly relates to what we're talking about here.... and if you never played it and you don't care, then you already lost the argument because you just want to continue to ignore factual and logical points you don't like so you can continue to think you're right.

I hate to be one of "Those Guys", but I've been playing RO since 2004, I've played three different incarnations of RO, which all had Territory/Objective style game modes.... before RO2, it was the only game mode there was and clearly everybody else enjoys it and likes it.

Then suddenly you come along out of nowhere to tell us all that it's all wrong and the Devs should bastardize Territory because you don't like it.

Good luck with that.

Left 4 Dead is an awesome game, but it would be utterly ****ing ridiculous if they forced one side to play humans and one to play zombies, and at the end when the humans escape the zombies just sit around and say "well hey, guess they won."
Again, I was relating previous Red Orchestras to RO2.... which actually makes sense. Left 4 Dead is not the same as RO2, or any RO for that matter and the gameplay in L4D is nowhere near what's in RO, so your above example makes no sense and doesn't help your argument.

Bad Company 2's a decent game, and very balanced- much more so than R02. It would still be ridiculous if their default server setting was to keep people on the same team the whole time.
Again, this is RO, not Battlefield..... I related to previous RO's that all used Territory as it currently is and always was.

I also own BC2 just as I also own L4D, and personally speaking, I don't think BC2 is a decent game and I stopped playing it about three weeks after I bought it...... and I hate that stupid team switching after each round in BC2.

If I wanted that in a game, I'd continue to play BC2..... if you want that kind of game, go play BC2. You may like it, but I don't.... you may think it works for BC2 (and maybe it does), but it doesn't belong in RO.

It would not create a single decisive victor- much like Territories.
It does create a single decisive victor..... Either the Russian Team win the best 2 out of 3 matches or the Germans do.

If this didn't work, many sports wouldn't bother with a best 2 out of 3 or best 5 out of 7 games to decide who's the decisive winner..... and players would be jumping benches to play on the other team after each game.... which is stupid.

I'm pretty sure I first understood this concept at age 8 when my brother and I switched off as Oddjob in Goldeneye 007 on the N64.
And I was 17 when that game came out & I skooled everybody in college playing that game a year later..... your point?

You're still basing your entire argument on some mythical concept that one team or the other is at an unfair advantage, which they are not unless one team has more players. Just because one team Defends and the other Attacks does not mean one or the other is disadvantaged. Either the Defenders will win or get rolled over.... either the attackers will win or get rolled over.

In a game like BC2, in their similar game mode, both teams cap, attack and defend various objectives at the same time.... you don't have one team defending and the other attacking the whole time unless you count those MCom matches, which suck since the enemy just has to drive a helicopter into the building and they destroy it.... or some recon plant a pile of C4 on them..... in the MCom game modes, the attackers are always at an advantage due to exploits in the game.

The other "Conquest" game mode BC2 has, both teams try to capture the same amount of objectives and basically just switch from one end of the map to the other and just end up doing the exact same thing. One team does not just attack and the other defends, both attack and defend at the same time.... thus switching teams and starting on the opposite end of the map doesn't make much difference.

In RO.... the above will not work because the game mode is not the same, not even in the slightest.

And then there's TE, where the teams abide by completely different sets of rules and we're still expected to take it on faith that the maps are balanced.
It's not faith, it's fact.

A simple test you can try yourself is to play 2/3 rounds of one map as a Russian and then play the exact same map as the Germans for 2/3 rounds and tell me what the end results are. Just to make sure your wins/loses are not attributed to the specific players on your team, make the second match as the Germans be on a different server with different players.

Did you lose two rounds against the Germans without one single win and did you win two rounds against the Russians without losing one single round?

If that's the case, then you finally begin to gather some evidence to back up your claims about it being imbalanced. Since I never experienced the above situation happening, nor do I hear of anybody else complaining about them constantly losing playing a specific team on a specific map.... there simply is no balance issues, map-wise.

Back in the Mod and even back in RO1 when they started out, people had complaints about a map being inbalanced towards one team or the other, and the mods revised those maps..... it has happened in the past and chances are it might happen with a map later on that comes out...... but this isn't the case in any of the current maps.

And that's what you're really good at doing- assuming that the maps are balanced even when there's no reason they would be. And then telling me to prove they aren't.
I'm not the one doing the assuming.... my views on this subject are based on experience and actually following RO almost since the begining..... I've been listening and interacting with the community for years. I've heard many complaints and many issues people have had about various issues with RO.... some legit and others just moaning because they don't "Get" something.

You're the only person I recall ever complaining about the Territory game mode.

You admit you never played RO1.... you admit you never played the Mod, and yet here you come along and start telling the rest of us that Territory is all fk'd up.

Sorry to say, but you're the odd one out and all alone in your thinking.

It wasn't an assumption, it was a hypothetical. Hence the "IF"
A hypothetical created on assumptions that the maps are not balanced.

You think two different competitive teams would be content playing "the crappy team" because, what, they lost a coin toss?
A team being crappy is determined by the players on that team.... switching all the exact same crappy players to the other team just means those crappy players will lose as the other team.

Again, nothing is decided when the teams play by different rules.
Yes it is decided that one team did a better job at defending or the other team did a better job in attacking.

RO is based on having battles designed to be as close to what really happened.... soldiers in WWII didn't just run & gun all deathmatch style around the battlefield..... one team attacked, the other defended and vice versa later on in a completely different battle. History shows how the battle in question actually ended, where one force won and the other lost, but in the game, it is designed in such a way that it's possible to re-write that history and win or lose.

That's how it works.

The map could go 50.00000000000000001% in the Germans favor and still be technically imbalanced, so we still have a problem. And no, I'm not positing that Apartments is 50.00000000000000001% balanced.
Whether it is or isn't 50.0000001% balanced one way or another, you first have to prove it is.... otherwise you're trying to make a problem out of something that doesn't exist & based on assumptions that it is.

And nobody in their right mind would decide to change the entire game structure based on one person's assumptions and baseless accusations over something they just don't like and never bothered to play in the past.

It's not me who needs to prove his case.... mine's already proven by years of examples of RO simply existing and it's player base enjoying TE more than the other game modes overall.

And yet, the defender team never got a chance to attack, so once again there is no winner. It's your opinion that the 2 out of 3 team was the winner.
It's not opinion, that's how it is.... they won. And on many of the maps, the defenders have the opportunity to recapture/attack certain caps back that they lost.

I'll be honest- I don't like territory.
Then there's the problem..... I don't really care much for Countdown, but you don't see me coming all up in here and saying that it needs to be changed to something I want.

I find it appalling that you keep coming up with "examples" defending it when my whole point is that there isn't a single example that makes a difference-
You can find it anyway you please.... it doesn't make a difference because no matter what anybody tells you about Territory, no matter what anybody tells you about it's history, or the history of RO itself, let alone what the far greater majority of the community likes, you're obviously set in your ways and just want something to complain about.

a gametype where two sides abide by different sets of rules is fundamentally flawed in that it doesn't generate a winner- unless the two teams switch sides.
Based on your odd logic, that's correct..... but since this game mode is designed to simulate a real combat situation and using real combat tactics.... which is generally not always "Fair" & "Equal"..... what you think is flawed is irrelevant.

If you play one round of Territory as the Russians and win or lose.... guess what?

You can switch to the other team yourself whenever you please (ie: the next round)

Problem solved.

And if it isn't solved, then again, go back to countdown.

I wouldn't have any problem with it being replaced by something that makes competitive sense.
Just because Territory doesn't make sense to you, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to everybody else.

But since a lot of people who continue to play this game do so out of RO1 nostalgia, I'd be more than content with a simple server setting- a "switch sides" option for number of rounds or something. No need for a new gametype altogether.
It has nothing to do with RO1 Nostalgia.... Territory IS a part of Red Orchestra. It always has been, it always will be... and if people are allowed to screw around with the settings and switch people around in Territory, there will be hell to pay and these forums will be flooded while piles of rage..... because it's dumb.

It simply will not work due to many reasons I already explained, such as switching players to the other team will only mean the other teams round-win will count to the new team taking their place.

Territory will require a complete overhaul on how it works in order to do what you want and no mere server setting will simply fix things. You will either need to design a whole new game mode based on some of the parameters of Territory..... or don't do anything at all and leave things as they are, as they should be.

Real men play games non-competitively? Just to be clear, TE doesn't work competitively. It never did, and never will- not with default server settings.
Seriously, how the fk do you know?

You hardly played Territory enough to actually know what it's all about, you haven't bothered to play RO1, let alone either of the Mods..... yet you come in here and act like you're some expert on how things work in the game, which you clearly know nothing about.

I love how when there's a thread like this everyone's like "GO BACK TO COD." This isn't a CoD feature, for one. It is a feature of the Battlefield series, and lots of other series that don't want to have their main gametype be completely unsuitable for competitive play.
Then go back to Battlefield then..... oh and BF uses "Conquest" which isn't the same as "Territory" due to differences I noted above.

Sorry that you're too stupid to get a basic concept about team-based games with different sets of rules. You'd better shrug it off and blame CoD noobs.
Ah and there's the insults replacing reason..... you can't actually refute logical and factual information given to you in a debate, have no resources to back up your claims or to justify why Territory should be changed, other than trying to use other games as examples (which have zero relation to RO and how it plays)...... then try and claim I'm doing the exact same thing by using previous RO's as real examples, which they are.

Wake_Up probably didn't put things as nicely as I have been putting things, but his and my points still stand.

This is Not Call of Duty, it is Not Left 4 Dead and it certainly isn't Battlefield.... this is Red Orchestra. This is how it is.... this is how it always has been and this is exactly how it should remain.

There's all sorts of things I don't like about BFBC2, CoD and L4D, but you don't see me going on their forums and dictating how the game's structure should be completely changed to how I think it should as opposed to what 98% of the rest of their communities like..... You don't see me going into the BF forums and telling them to make it more like RO.

If I don't find them fun, I just don't play those games anymore.... I move on.

Now either you can learn more about Territory and grow to like it like everybody else, you can stick to Countdown, or you can go play some other game.

Those are your choices..... pick one.
 
Last edited: