• 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/

Why does Territories not "switch sides" like Countdown?

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.

I would have preferred if you had cherry-picked and bolded one of the 12 or so times that I said that ALL MAPS IN WHICH TWO TEAMS PLAY BY DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES ARE IMBALANCED. RO is not special because you've played it a lot and like it a lot. Nice evidence though.

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,

Jesus ****ing christ take a science class. Hypothetical, again.

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.

Uh, no? You have next to no information before you do this? You can't possibly know how either team has performed until you do this? Why am I repeating myself?

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.

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.

Oh, ok. This is why. Finally a paragraph that isn't entirely grounded in ignorance. You like it because that's the way it's always been, regardless of the competitive inadequacy of the gametype.

Unfortunately, maps are not "balanced until proven otherwise" because a guy on the forums likes tripwire a whole lot.

Just to be clear so you don't confuse people into being as ignorant as yourself, the Russians will always do what they do (offense/defense) and the Germans will always do what they do (offense/defense). No one's talking about changing any of the historical accuracy. The first round your team plays offense, the second round they play the other side as defense. That way you know who actually won, because both sides get a crack at both sets of rules. Not that hard to figure out.

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.

LOL. That old argument. Suddenly let's disregard balance entirely because "war isn't balanced." And by the way, IRL, when one army is "trying to take territory from the enemy," they don't have a lockdown timer, and they don't capture a point by standing on it. The 5 Russians on the 2nd floor don't get evicted because there are 7 Germans on the bottom floor and they "win." Territories isn't realistic, and never has been. It's always been about balancing the maps over making them historically accurate.

But here's the thing- my system supports historical accuracy more than the current one. Say there's a map where the Russians win 90% of the time. The community would ***** about it constantly and it would need to be balanced- the re-enactment crowd would claim that it's historically accurate and that any changes would compromise that. If you switch sides it doesn't matter! Let the Russians win every time- as long as both teams get a chance to play Russians it's irrelevant!

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.

Two teams. Different sets of rules. etc, etc...

It does create a single decisive victor..... Either the Russian Team win the best 2 out of 3 matches or the Germans do.

Doesn't prove anything, they played the same team the entire time. Repeat ad nauseum.

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.

Name a sport in which the two teams follow two different sets of rules.

Pretty sure there isn't one, but if you're American then surely you thought of Baseball- a game where one team is permanently batting and one team is permanently fielding and no one ever wins and it sucks but it's been that way forever so go back to CoD.

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.

Why is it always "rolled over"? Regardless, I wish it were that simple, but they follow two completely different sets of rules. The defenders are trying to hold the line and wait it out. Fundamentally, all the attackers have to do is kill most of the defenders at once in order to take the next pair of points and move it forward. Beyond that they're just racing the clock.

And it doesn't matter- they follow two sets of rules, therefore the maps are imbalanced. This is not "my problem," it is not "my opinion," it is a fact relevant to all games that have ever existed. RO is not special.

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.

The only common feature I claimed that they had is that they have two different teams playing by two sets of rules. The thing is, in BC2 (conquest, which is the only gametype as far as I'm concerned) the teams play by exactly the same rules. Meaning the balance is just there to alleviate any concerns over map balance. In RO2 it's much more necessary, since the teams play by very different rules.

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.

So your trust in the maps being balanced is based on the "fact" that you've played it and RO1 a lot? Sounds a lot like faith to me...

So I lost two rounds as the Germans once on Apartments. I also lost two rounds as the Russians once on Apartments. What now? The fact that this is considered "evidence" to you and everything that I've presented isn't is pretty baffling. But I guess not surprising when you seem to think that your RO1 experience outweighs my logic.

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

If only that made you right somehow.

A hypothetical created on assumptions that the maps are not balanced.

...No. It's a hypothetical. The hypothetical was that the maps aren't balanced. If it were based on an assumption it wouldn't be a hypothetical.

Seriously spend a little less time with RO and more time in remedial science class. The words you use don't mean what you think they mean.

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.

No. It. Doesn't. That's. The. Whole. Point.

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.

Then what would have happened if the winning team and losing team had switched sides? If you can't say, then you don't know who won...

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.

This again? Why do you keep asking me for "proof" of the map imbalance if it seems like you're ok with any imbalances? It seems like no matter what TWI does, you're just going to assume it's "historically accurate" and therefore "balanced." Like I said- switching sides merits historical accuracy more because you can focus on accuracy instead of balance. You'll never please everybody trying to do both.

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.

I really don't see the point of playing the game if I'm not going to stay on the same team. If that were the solution then it sounds like more of an ego thing. I want to know which team won, not whether or not I won.

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

Go back to _________. Argument of champions. It's like rock in rock paper scissors- it refutes everything in video game arguments.

It has nothing to do with RO1 Nostalgia....

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.....

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.

Clearly you're open to logic and reason, and this has nothing to do with you being an ignorant pathetic fanboy. Nothing to do with R01 Nostalgia.
 
Upvote 0
Man, you're lucky I have time to kill......

I would have preferred if you had cherry-picked and bolded one of the 12 or so times that I said that ALL MAPS IN WHICH TWO TEAMS PLAY BY DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES ARE IMBALANCED. RO is not special because you've played it a lot and like it a lot. Nice evidence though.

I didn't say RO was "special"..... I said this is what RO is, this is the Game Mode that made it what it is today. You don't go out and try to change how one plays Checkers because you don't like something about it, because then it's no longer Checkers.

You don't go into BFBC2 and change around Conquest to something completely different and then expect to be able to still call it Conquest.

And it doesn't matter how you twist your words or how you word yourself.... it all still means the same thing.

Jesus ****ing christ take a science class. Hypothetical, again.

Already took science classes in school years ago, thanks..... how about you look for a common sense class.

Hypotheticals don't really support an argument, let alone win one. Anybody and their dog can invent any hypothetical they can imagine, regardless of how ridiculous it is.

Uh, no? You have next to no information before you do this? You can't possibly know how either team has performed until you do this? Why am I repeating myself?

Repeating yourself doesn't suddenly make you anymore right than you were before. There is plenty of information available for everybody. For Each Team and Each Player, You have scores, you have cap points, you have stats, you have the final round win points out of 3 games.

How each round ends tells you even more information. If one team won due to capping all objectives, or if one team won due to defending until lockdown, or if one team defends until the round time is over, or if one team won due to completely wiping out the other team and their reinforcements...... All Tell You Plenty of Information.

And if you can't derive information out of all of the above on who won overall, then I'm certainly not the one who needs to go back to school.

Oh, ok. This is why. Finally a paragraph that isn't entirely grounded in ignorance. You like it because that's the way it's always been, regardless of the competitive inadequacy of the gametype.

Oh my..... :rolleyes: Speaking of Cherry Picking.

Unfortunately, maps are not "balanced until proven otherwise" because a guy on the forums likes tripwire a whole lot.

I just gave you plenty of reasons why they are balanced until proven otherwise and not simply because "I like Tripwire a Whole Lot"

Cherry Picking again..... way to be a hypocrite.

I see you still have yet to properly refute anything I or anybody else has said...... now you're just resorting to trivial trolling and snipe attacks without actually addressing anything presented to you.

Just to be clear so you don't confuse people into being as ignorant as yourself, the Russians will always do what they do (offense/defense) and the Germans will always do what they do (offense/defense).

Depending on the map and the battle in question, yes...... doesn't seem that difficult to grasp.

And obviously I'm not the ignorant one here.

No one's talking about changing any of the historical accuracy. The first round your team plays offense, the second round they play the other side as defense. That way you know who actually won, because both sides get a crack at both sets of rules. Not that hard to figure out.

No it's not that hard to figure out.... and I figured this out from your first post...... It still won't work in Territory Mode as its currently designed due to the many reasons I have already explained, which you continually ignore or refuse to address.

And if you can't figure that out, than that's your problem, not mine.

LOL. That old argument. Suddenly let's disregard balance entirely because "war isn't balanced." And by the way, IRL, when one army is "trying to take territory from the enemy," they don't have a lockdown timer, and they don't capture a point by standing on it. The 5 Russians on the 2nd floor don't get evicted because there are 7 Germans on the bottom floor and they "win." Territories isn't realistic, and never has been. It's always been about balancing the maps over making them historically accurate.

Yeah and in real life, people don't have minimaps floating around the bottom corner of their view..... your point?

It's still a game, and it needs to be balanced towards being a game, while still referencing historical battles.

Again, this isn't CoD or BF with imaginary battles fought 5-10 years in the future where you can make up anything you want.

But here's the thing- my system supports historical accuracy more than the current one. Say there's a map where the Russians win 90% of the time. The community would ***** about it constantly and it would need to be balanced- the re-enactment crowd would claim that it's historically accurate and that any changes would compromise that. If you switch sides it doesn't matter! Let the Russians win every time- as long as both teams get a chance to play Russians it's irrelevant!

Then nobody would bother to pick the losing team because they'd lose 90% of the time.... the current Territory mode allows the chance for either team to win the battle, thus there's no disadvantage in picking either team.

With your idea, it is based around changing the parameters of Territory to the point where the team that historically won that battle will pretty much win every time, thus again, nobody would want to pick the team that always lost..... and therefore, it would make sense to have the players switch teams each round.

But since that's not the case in Territory, your idea is pointless.

Two teams. Different sets of rules. etc, etc...

Those rules are equal to both teams when you switch to a different map that switches the teams in defence/offence. One round of 3 matches has one team defend while the other attacks, then when you switch maps for the next 3 rounds, the teams can switch roles and if they don't, you still have the opportunity to pick the team that defends or attacks.

Doesn't prove anything, they played the same team the entire time. Repeat ad nauseum.

Again, your point? That's how it works. It allows the players the chance to do better the next time around if they were crappy the first round and weren't playing their A-Game.

Name a sport in which the two teams follow two different sets of rules.

Irrelevant, sports is not a video game, but the process of both teams playing multiple games against each other to determine who won the majority of matches to be titled the better team still applies.

Adding your idea into the mix ruins the whole multiple round win determination because the point the other team won in the last round then goes to your team, unless one revamps the entire Territory design..... which I don't see anybody else in here suggesting they do.

Pretty sure there isn't one, but if you're American then surely you thought of Baseball- a game where one team is permanently batting and one team is permanently fielding and no one ever wins and it sucks but it's been that way forever so go back to CoD.

:rolleyes: No, I'm Canadian living in Australia..... but even I know that in Baseball, what you stated above is totally wrong and again shows what you don't know.

Both teams in Baseball switch between roles. One team bats and runs the diamonds while the other team tries to get three of their players out. When that happens, the teams switch roles and the other team tries to get three of their players out..... usually making it 9 innings for a typical game (1 inning is a round each for each team to bat and pitch)

And one team does indeed win at the end of the game, otherwise, what's the point in playing if there isn't a final outcome?

It's pretty bad when you use an example to back your argument up when you don't even know the basics of the example you're using.

Why is it always "rolled over"?

It's not always rolled over, I was trying to simplify what I was explaining so I didn't have to end up using more words. Many matches I play are usually pretty close and either determined by a timer, by one team running out of reinforcements, or one team capping the final objective before the timer runs out..... among many other parameters that can determine the final outcome, including one team dominating the other & rolling over them due to better team work & communication vs. the other team.

Regardless, I wish it were that simple, but they follow two completely different sets of rules.

Both teams shoot at the other with bullets.... the only trivial difference is that one team holds their ground in one location while the other makes their way to that location and shoot each other with bullets. If one team kills more of the other team than they do of them, than it's easier for them to either cap the objective or defend it..... either a successful cap or defend is the teams reward for doing a good job. The differences in each teams' objectives, when you break it down to their simplest forms, are extremely small.

Also, keep in mind that there are many maps in Territory, such as Pavlov's House, where it's much like your BFBC2 Conquest mode, where each team has one or two caps of their own from the start and there are empty caps in the middle for both to capture.... and then both teams are attacking and defending at the same time...... and due to the design/layout of the maps, neither team is at a disadvantage & therefore, changing teams is not required.

The defenders are trying to hold the line and wait it out.

On most maps, but not all.

Fundamentally, all the attackers have to do is kill most of the defenders at once in order to take the next pair of points and move it forward. Beyond that they're just racing the clock.

And all the defenders have to do is kill most of the attackers at once to hold the cap..... what's the big deal?

And it doesn't matter- they follow two sets of rules, therefore the maps are imbalanced. This is not "my problem," it is not "my opinion," it is a fact relevant to all games that have ever existed. RO is not special.

The two sets of "Rules" are not the same for every single map, in that one team on all maps is always capping and the other team is always defending..... as the maps change, so too do the roles each team plays.

Territory has worked just fine since its original incarnation as a mod...... it's what made RO so popular in the first place, in that it's not the same cookie cutter gameplay as every other MP FPS out there...... so in a sense, RO is special.

Changing things around to be exactly like every other MP FPS out there just makes RO another Battlefield or Call of Duty or Medal of Honor.... which then begs the question: What's the point?

If I wanted that type of gameplay, I'd play CoD or BF.... but I don't and it's why I don't play those games today.... and if RO decided to do the exact same thing, chances are I wouldn't play RO as often as I do now, because the thing I like the most about RO (Territory) would no longer exist..... and your little idea would have not just completely ruined RO for me, but for many other people who enjoy Territory.

It is not "Conquest" it's called "Territory" in that one team has the Territory and the other tries to take it from them.

The only common feature I claimed that they had is that they have two different teams playing by two sets of rules. The thing is, in BC2 (conquest, which is the only gametype as far as I'm concerned) the teams play by exactly the same rules. Meaning the balance is just there to alleviate any concerns over map balance. In RO2 it's much more necessary, since the teams play by very different rules.

But that's the thing.... both teams in BC2 play by the exact same rules, both teams have to capture the most objectives with very little incentive to defend, since they can just re-capture the cap zone later..... which leads to a big mess of a game, where players are running around all over the place, aimlessly capping objectives over and over again until one team runs out of tickets or the round timer ends.

Even if one team has all the objectives, the game still doesn't end..... and when the round does end, switching sides makes no difference because both teams just end up doing the exact same thing.

BF Conquest plays on the basis that both military forces seem to arrive at the battlefield at the same time and have to race to control it..... which to me seems kinda stupid and very unrealistic.

So your trust in the maps being balanced is based on the "fact" that you've played it and RO1 a lot? Sounds a lot like faith to me...

Again you cherry pick over information provided to you. That is only one of many reasons why they are balanced. I played the RO games a lot and seen first hand what it's like in-game and in these forums when a map is not balanced and gives a clear advantage to one team.

Another fact is that there's nobody in here actually agreeing with what you're saying about Territory being so broken and needs to be completely changed. Some have agreed that it would be ok as an option..... but until someone can show how they can impliment this option so that it would actually work, without completely changing how Territory works overall, it isn't really an option at all and would ruin the game mode completely due to the many reasons I have already provided.

Give me solutions to fixing those concerns & problems and I can start to possibly see this option being a good idea.

But until then.....

So I lost two rounds as the Germans once on Apartments. I also lost two rounds as the Russians once on Apartments. What now? The fact that this is considered "evidence" to you and everything that I've presented isn't is pretty baffling. But I guess not surprising when you seem to think that your RO1 experience outweighs my logic.

You forget again, that it's not just RO1 experience I'm basing my reasoning on.

And since you continue to ignore the problems I present that will come from implimenting your idea into Territory, your "Logic" is flawed.

In comparison:
spock_scotty_meld.jpg

My logic is substantial

If only that made you right somehow.

But it does.

...No. It's a hypothetical. The hypothetical was that the maps aren't balanced. If it were based on an assumption it wouldn't be a hypothetical.

So then if the maps are not officially unbalanced and there isn't any real evidence showing there is a chance that they are..... why are you making such a huge argument to change things based on a problem that doesn't even exist?

Seriously spend a little less time with RO and more time in remedial science class. The words you use don't mean what you think they mean.

You are trying to formulate some "Hypothesis" based on so-called "Evidence" you've collected from other video games & game modes that you "Assume" have any relation to what exists in RO..... which as already explained to you, have zero relation to what exists in RO, thus making your "Hypothesis" not a Hypothesis, but flawed "Speculation" based on unrelated evidence & assumptions.

Which is no different than me making some speculation that a Bumble Bee is equally aggressive as a Hornet because they're both insects and are yellow & black. Both are similar in many ways, but completely different in many more ways..... but using that reasoning above to formulate a so-called hypothisis based on the above assumptions is utterly flawed.

Besides..... a hypothesis is something you can test, so unless you can actually put your so-called hypothesis into a testing exercise to prove it to be true or false, it's not really a hypothesis.

Maybe you should get out of your remedial science class and get into a science class that actually teaches you something right for once.

Then again, it also depends on what kind of "Hypothesis" you're trying to express, as there are different kinds of Hypothesis.

You can call whatever you're talking about a hypothesis..... I call it an ignorant assumption based on flawed examples from unrelated material you're trying to use to make yourself sound smart.

Which leads to an Epic Fail on your part.

No. It. Doesn't. That's. The. Whole. Point.

Why doesn't it?

By all means, explain why..... or are you going to run off and use examples of other unrelated games again?

Then what would have happened if the winning team and losing team had switched sides? If you can't say, then you don't know who won...

If both teams switched sides, then no, neither you or I could say who would win, because switching them to the other side completely changes the parameters of what we're all talking about here..... it would no longer be Territory but some other incarnation of a game mode, and what the outcome of that game mode is unknown because all anybody could do is assume what the outcome would be, until someone can actually test that type of game mode.

I can tell you exactly what it would do to Territory.... which is what I have been doing all along..... what it would do to the game mode you propose is unknown and all speculation, simply because there is no game mode out there that exists that meets your parameters.

BF Conquest is not the same as RO Territory, so you can not refer back to BF Conquest & what happens in that game mode to determine the outcome.

If you don't get it by now, you never will.

This again? Why do you keep asking me for "proof" of the map imbalance if it seems like you're ok with any imbalances?

Because there isn't any real imbalance in the game and whatever imbalance you can dig up is absolutely trivial and has no actual impact on the game overall.

It seems like no matter what TWI does, you're just going to assume it's "historically accurate" and therefore "balanced."

I have disagreed with some of the things Trip has done in the past, but I don't get butthurt over those things. I either live with them & adapt or I go play another game.

And while I have many other resources, experience and education at my fingertips over the years and close ties to military life, having many in my family in the military, etc. etc..... I'd put more faith in Tripwire knowing wtf they're doing than you.

You've already shown your ignorance on Red Orchestra, Territory Gameplay, Baseball, the Basics of an actual military conflict and what a Hypothesis is..... It'd be pretty foolish for me to take your word over Trips in regards to how to design a game to be fun and enjoyable...... Oh, and balanced. :rolleyes:

Like I said- switching sides merits historical accuracy more because you can focus on accuracy instead of balance.

That makes no sense at all.... you go on about the maps and game mode not being balanced and switching sides will fix the imaginary balance issues you're concerned about due to historical accuracy of one team attacking and the other defending.... and now here you are flipping sides and trying to use your silly idea to fix historical accuracy instead of balance.

So which is it?

Is it supposed to fix Balance or Historical Accuracy?

Or does it fix everything??

I doubt it

You'll never please everybody trying to do both.

You'll never please everybody trying to do both or neither or just one of the two as everybody will always have something to gripe about..... since you won't please everybody doing what you suggest, why bother doing it and why not just leave everything well enough alone as it is?

I'd rather deal with coming into these forums to see one person griping over something they don't like, than to come in here and see piles more people griping over something that was changed to please one person.

I really don't see the point of playing the game if I'm not going to stay on the same team. If that were the solution then it sounds like more of an ego thing. I want to know which team won, not whether or not I won.

The team that won 2 matches out of 3 won.... why is that so hard to grasp for you?

An outcome is reached, there is enough information provided within the game and at the end of the game to know who won and by how much.

Again, if that information is too complicated for you that you can't understand who really won, then stick to something a little more simple, like Countdown.

Go back to _________. Argument of champions. It's like rock in rock paper scissors- it refutes everything in video game arguments.

Since everything else has refuted what you have been saying and isn't good enough for you, then yes.... Go back to ___________ and give up.

Clearly you're open to logic and reason, and this has nothing to do with you being an ignorant pathetic fanboy. Nothing to do with R01 Nostalgia.

Oh so I'm the ignorant, pathetic fanboy?

I'm not the one coming into these forums and preaching about how wonderful and great Battlefield is and how they apparently "Got it Right" with a game mode that doesn't even relate to anything that's in Red Orchestra.

You might as well try and compare Super Mario Bros. to Solitare..... they're both games and that's all the similarity you need to be right apparently. :rolleyes:

..... Well that was a fun waste of time. I believe everything that needs to be said for both sides of the argument have been said. Good luck with your crusade against Territory. I wouldn't hold your breath on it being completely revamped to suit your unusual tastes for a "BF Conquest Run&Gun Cluster F."

The main point to be taken out of all of this, is that there is no logical need to make every video game out there to be carbon copies of one another. If you like a game style in a specific game, go and play it... and have fun.

You like BF Conquest?

Sure, fine..... play it and enjoy it.

You don't like RO Territory?

Sure, fine..... don't play it and stick to Countdown or play something else.

I like RO Territory, so I play it and enjoy it.

I don't like BF Conquest, so I don't play it and let those who enjoy it, enjoy it.

Why you have to suddenly make it more complicated than it needs to be, I have no idea, other to impress yourself.

Thanks for playing..... time for me to move onto more interesting threads.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Would be fun to see soviets/axis retake the objective (like taking the church with soviets on spartanovka, having mansion as their 1st/2nd objective). It had happened a lot in Stalingrad, so why not?

I'd have no problem with it, but the realism crowd might. There's a difference between "It happened a lot" and "It happened."

However, I'd still like a server option to switch which team is playing Axis and which team is playing allies, playing 2 rounds every map instead of the normal 3.

Careful though... Here there be elitist fanboys...
 
Upvote 0
It is not done and should not be done in RO2. The maps in Territory mode are supposed to represent historical circumstances. The Germans and Russians didn't get to the end of a hard days battle and clock out, then re-clock in on the other side of the map to do it all over again the other way like some Loony Toons charactars do.

There is discussion about map balance etc. Keep in mind there will be many hundreds of maps coming in the next few years. Many will be great, some will be unbalanced. The unbalanced ones usually get fixed or don't get played. It has been my experience that the good maps stick around in some sort of "natural selection" and it comes down to the skill and communication of the teams that determines the win.

It would be far too arbitrary, artificial and ahistorical to do a switch. My opinion of course, which is why I don't play Countdown mode; it just seems too CoD'ish and silly.
 
Upvote 0
The Germans and Russians didn't get to the end of a hard days battle and clock out, then re-clock in on the other side of the map to do it all over again the other way like some Loony Toons charactars do.

Not sure about the Looney Tunes reference, but just to be clear, I don't want the factions to switch like they do in Countdown. It does feel very wrong to be defending the Grain Elevator as the Germans. If you were Russian in round 1, you're German in round 2. The historical accuracy hasn't changed- just your role in the battle.

And I'd only like it to be a server option anyway. I'm sure they will do a good job to balance the maps as best they can- but as I've explained in this thread, a game in which two teams adhere to different sets of rules is inherently unbalanced. So, for servers that want to play "competitively," as opposed to "realistically", it would be nice to have the option.
 
Upvote 0
Because territory is the "real war" gametype, which simulates a real battle.

Lol as if TWI is pushing hard these days for realism.

...I don't want the factions to switch like they do in Countdown. It does feel very wrong to be defending the Grain Elevator as the Germans. If you were Russian in round 1, you're German in round 2. The historical accuracy hasn't changed- just your role in the battle.

And I'd only like it to be a server option anyway. I'm sure they will do a good job to balance the maps as best they can- but as I've explained in this thread, a game in which two teams adhere to different sets of rules is inherently unbalanced. So, for servers that want to play "competitively," as opposed to "realistically", it would be nice to have the option.
I think as a server option this would be a good idea.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dwhee
Upvote 0
i agree with the op completely.... it is impossible for a map with different variable for both sides to be balanced.

checkers and chess are balanced 100%

that being said.... the gamemode the op is looking for, is what is needed for "competetive gameplay".

i would love to see a mode that is exactly the same as territory, but with these changes.

1. attacking team must take objectives in order...first A, then B, then C, etc.... until all objectives are capped.

2. no lockdown, and max time limit of 30 minutes (server adjustable as far as max time limit) for attackers to successfully take all objectives.

3. when all objectives are taken, the time at which the last objective was taken is the "cap time". lets say they cap all obj in 15:13

now, after the round, the teams switch factions. the team that is now attacking starts off with 15:13 (because 15:13 was the cap time set by their opponent) to capture all objective...if they dont cap in that amount of time, they lose. game over.

this is a clear and decisive victory as both teams were given a 100% same chance as the other team (because both teams have played both sides of the coin as att and def), and it doesnt matter how balanced each individual map is because the gameplay mode is 100% balanced.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dwhee
Upvote 0
Because territory is the "real war" gametype, which simulates a real battle.

The maps are based on real WWII situations, switching teams is just
another idea that **** up RO.

It is not done and should not be done in RO2. The maps in Territory mode are supposed to represent historical circumstances. The Germans and Russians didn't get to the end of a hard days battle and clock out, then re-clock in on the other side of the map to do it all over again the other way like some Loony Toons charactars do.

It would be far too arbitrary, artificial and ahistorical to do a switch. My opinion of course, which is why I don't play Countdown mode; it just seems too CoD'ish and silly.

I was going to keep it quiet, but by the third time the same idea popped up my blood was getting pumped up.
1. If any of you have played single player... or at least glanced at what's there to play in SP, you will know that in SP you play as both attacker AND defender on most of the maps.
2. MOST IMPORTANTLY Most of these buildings, recreated in Red Orchestra Heroes of Stalingrad in real life, in real history have exchanged hands back and fourth over the course of the siege.

Historical events set as examples:
Example 1: Pavlovs house, you know why it is known to us as Pavlovs in first place? Because it was taken from Germans by certain Sgt. Pavlov. And later it was Germans who were attempting to take it away from Russians for period of the siege. Does this mean we need to remap the map completely? Because we'll make the actual house in question being THE number one spawn for Allies? Or perhaps should we talk about how there were tunnels in real life connecting Pavlovs and the connecting house of Lieutenant Zabolotny's, and the mill?

Example 2: Map know to us as the Grain elevator, based on real Grain Silo, has been taken at first (after a fight) by Germans, and few days later at night, Russians have taken it back over from them.

Example 3: Station - Real Rail road station, known for the fact that the station exchanged hands if i'm not mistaken 5 or 6 times in as short of a time as 14 hours...

Shall i continue, or is my point clear enough? Stop claiming it's because it's the way it was historically, because you're not exactly correct. If you want to make it all historically correct it'll take much more than just implementing back and fourth team swapping.
And while for most part i dont particularly care much for team switching, sometimes, in the moments of deep internal rage, i would like to see how the other team would enjoy being camped while they have to attack. (I play 100% Russians)

If you'd have a desire, i suggest watching following:
Great War series (Audio in Russian, but with English subtitles) - Great War. Series 4 - Stalingrad. part 1of 5 - YouTube
Stalingrad battle (all in English) - Stalingrad 1 of 5 - YouTube
Stalingrad documentary (all in English) - Stalingrad Documentary I - YouTube
Stalingrad: The Attack (all in English ) - Stalingrad - Pt.1 - The Attack (1/4) - YouTube
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vesper11
Upvote 0
i agree with the op completely.... it is impossible for a map with different variable for both sides to be balanced.

checkers and chess are balanced 100%

that being said.... the gamemode the op is looking for, is what is needed for "competetive gameplay".

i would love to see a mode that is exactly the same as territory, but with these changes.

1. attacking team must take objectives in order...first A, then B, then C, etc.... until all objectives are capped.

2. no lockdown, and max time limit of 30 minutes (server adjustable as far as max time limit) for attackers to successfully take all objectives.

3. when all objectives are taken, the time at which the last objective was taken is the "cap time". lets say they cap all obj in 15:13

now, after the round, the teams switch factions. the team that is now attacking starts off with 15:13 (because 15:13 was the cap time set by their opponent) to capture all objective...if they dont cap in that amount of time, they lose. game over.

this is a clear and decisive victory as both teams were given a 100% same chance as the other team (because both teams have played both sides of the coin as att and def), and it doesnt matter how balanced each individual map is because the gameplay mode is 100% balanced.

That as an additional game mode, I would certainly play.

But I still loves me Territory :cool:

..... Shall i continue, or is my point clear enough? Stop claiming it's because it's the way it was historically, because you're not exactly correct. If you want to make it all historically correct it'll take much more than just implementing back and fourth team swapping.

Not sure what your point is exactly..... So because Tripwire didn't make a map that is 100% historically accurate, down to how long the tunnel is in a certain area of a map, or is missing a brick that you clearly see in an old photo.... there's no point in having any accuracy at all, and they should just change the whole game around to be another mindless cookie-cutter FPS, with little effort or thought process in map design or gameplay tactics? :confused:

Or are you saying to leave things just as they are?

And while for most part i dont particularly care much for team switching, sometimes, in the moments of deep internal rage, i would like to see how the other team would enjoy being camped while they have to attack. (I play 100% Russians)

The Russians, even by your own words, get to attack quite often as well as they defend, sometimes even on the same map and in the same round (Pavlov's House, for reasons mentioned in a previous post).... thus besides the above, there's also switching teams yourself, so you have many options already at your disposal to switch from attacker or defender.

Some people, such as yourself, like to pick one particular team..... the Russians. Others pick the Germans all the time.

But there are also players who want to play as an attacker 100% of the time, and others who want to play as a defender 100% of the time, which many seem to forget...... should they be forced to switch their preferences to suit your own preferences?

Because forcing teams to switch after a round of three, forces them from being attacker to defender.... so they either lose their preferences and enjoyment in the game, or leave for another server and lose any real stats they gained in that previous round, and quite possibly never really leveling up unless they're forced to play the way you want to play.

Sorry, but that seems a little contradictory.

So Trip either leaves the game mode as it is, because the majority of players enjoy this game mode, it's been like this for 8 years, and it's the easiest solution.....

.... Trip adds what has been suggested as an additional game mode.....

.... or Trip tears Territory apart, adds this round switch idea into the mix and then they have to spend the next 3-6 months trying to fix all the gameplay problems & conflicts that will arise from this idea, unload piles of more patches until it's all ironed out and they also end up having to PR a bunch of people raging on the forums about how they no longer enjoy Territory, it's not the same anymore, the game has a bunch of new bugs & glitches because of it, they want a refund, they caught their wife cheat'n with their brother, she ran off with the pickup, ran over the dog and drank the last of tha Whiskey......

Country Blues...... Do you want to turn these forums into a Country Music Festival?

I don't.....

... and that's why I think if you want this idea in the game.... make it another game mode.

Otherwise, grab your hat, get a beer and sit down to listen to some Billy Ray..... cuz there's going to be a whole lot of tears in people's beers in these forums......

Crying_beer.jpg

"This sucks man.... *sniff*..... wtf did they take her awaaaaay from meeeee.... eh'heerrrrrr heerrrrrrrr Heerrrrrrr*snort/sniff/swallowsnot*..... *sniff*.... it's NOT FAIR! Gimmie my REFOUND!!!"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Bad idea.
I'd rather twi spend their time on something productive like more content. Rather than regurgitating a 'competative' game mode that is already redundant to the original TE.

Why the hell would i want the game to kick me from the side i wanted to play when i started the game?

NO.

If i joined russians. I want to damn well play russians.

It would be as annoying to play as it was when the team balancer was broken in the beta, and it switched your team whether you were winning or losing.

Territory is Territory, if you don't like it or don't think its 'balanced' enough, then its your problem. It's the original game mode, and how this game i supposed to be played.

Get over it.
 
Upvote 0
I have to say that switching side in Territory mode would be good ONLY for balance tests of the maps. To check out if one side has the upper hand or not and what should be changed if anything.

I made a topic myself, "Why the Soviets are losing - analysis". First reason, above all else, is lack of teamplay or/and communication. Doing individual things. I've seen winning/losing certain maps on both sides with both outcomes.

However, it's important how the maps are constructed, because it might influence the outcome. While I do agree that people should be checked first it doesn't change that maps - the way they are constructed - are part of the game balancing. They might be fine. Or not.

I am glad that soon stats should be fine and we'll know for certain if all that inbalance is only imaginary or real, because I am not sure now.
 
Upvote 0
Not sure what your point is exactly..... So because Tripwire didn't make a map that is 100% historically accurate, down to how long the tunnel is in a certain area of a map, or is missing a brick that you clearly see in an old photo.... there's no point in having any accuracy at all, and they should just change the whole game around to be another mindless cookie-cutter FPS, with little effort or thought process in map design or gameplay tactics? :confused:

Or are you saying to leave things just as they are?

My point is: people need to stop claiming that "real battle" is being simulated. Look at the three quotes i had in beginning of my post. I'm merely stating that all three of those posts are incorrect in some way.
The real reason is because that is the way RO is meant to be played, thats the 'fingerprint of Territory mode' if you will.

I dont care for switching, though i do agree with Holy.Death in his statement that its a good way to check the "balance of the map". BUT that isnt a game mode then, it's just a quality assurance check :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dwhee
Upvote 0
I have to say that switching side in Territory mode would be good ONLY for balance tests of the maps. To check out if one side has the upper hand or not and what should be changed if anything.

TBH, this is the real reason I want it. The only really usable data for balancing the maps comes from team A attacking team B, then team B attacking team A. Any data they get now is influenced by the ability of people to choose their faction, not to mention autobalance.

I could deal with Territories as is if there was some reliable data out there that suggested that the maps were balanced.

As I've stated in this thread, right now, under the current rules, Territories is a game type in which balance is "impossible" and "essential." As in, it's theoretically impossible for the gametype to be balanced with two teams playing by two permanently different sets of rules- as it would be with any game. However, for that reason, it's essential that the maps be as balanced as possible in order for both teams to start at a level playing field on the maps. Of course, you don't have to worry about any of this if the teams switch sides every round.

And how on earth are they going to balance the maps effectively if pretty much every game of territories gives them half the necessary data? There'd be a lot of data, but it might only be telling them that good players prefer playingRussians. Or that crappy players prefer playing defense. It would be impossible to differentiate between those variables and actual map imbalances without having both teams play both sides.

So yeah, if anything for the sake of testing make it a server option. I demand data.
 
Upvote 0
There is no purpose for a "TE" switch in the name of competitive gameplay, at least from the perspective of competition existing outside of a PUB--and if it's in a PUB, scores are not being tallied, so who cares? Clans can load the map again and switch sides if they want. It is completely unrealistic to have two versions of TE. That combined with the premise of spending four rounds on the same map, granted half of the time being with a different team, is not very enticing to me personally.
 
Upvote 0
My point is: people need to stop claiming that "real battle" is being simulated. Look at the three quotes i had in beginning of my post. I'm merely stating that all three of those posts are incorrect in some way.
The real reason is because that is the way RO is meant to be played, thats the 'fingerprint of Territory mode' if you will.

I dont care for switching, though i do agree with Holy.Death in his statement that its a good way to check the "balance of the map". BUT that isnt a game mode then, it's just a quality assurance check :)

Ah fair enough.... yes, it could be a good option for balance test purposes.... perhaps something added into the RO2 Beta when a new map is released. Release it on the Beta, load up this switching idea, and it'd give a better understanding of how the map flows for both teams before releasing it officially to the full game.... but leave it out of Territory itself on the full version game.

^ I think that'd make everybody happy.

When I mentioned that the maps are designed to simulate the actual battle they represent, I meant more in the means that on the date that battle took place, one team defended and the other attacked..... they didn't often switch roles until a few days later when they got the chance to regroup.

Sure in some battles, the territory switched hands multiple times within a day or less..... which to me is represented in maps like Pavlov's House, where both teams have a cap of their own and the rest of the caps are blank for anybody to cap.... both teams are attacking, defending, taking caps, losing caps, going back and forth, much like what you were describing in your previous post.

I don't think anybody is expecting the maps and gameplay to be 100% accurate to what truly happened, as there's still limitations in what can and can't be done with todays games..... but when it comes to simulating a real battle of attack/defend, compared to your typical FPS Team Deathmatch Cluster F'k with cappable objectives..... Territory to me is the best representation in a video game of what a battle should feel like.

I have the time to focus on the first round to get into the right train of thought for defending or attacking, the second round is usually when everybody has their A-Game on and becomes more of a challenge, and the third round is the deciding tie breaker if it gets that far.

I'd personally hate having just gotten used to defending on a map and getting a good tactical plan setup, only to be tossed on the other team and having to do it all over again & re-learn the best approach to attack.....

just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
and if it's in a PUB, scores are not being tallied, so who cares?

Whose Stalingrad is it Anyway, the game where everything's imbalanced and the points don't matter.

That's right, the points are like the upcoming optimizations to Fallen Fighters- they don't matter. :D

Seriously, it's not like I plan on playing competitively. Obviously clans don't need a server option to play competitive matches- they can do it themselves. It's the PUB games that do need an option- for weirdos like me who want to know who won for some reason.
 
Upvote 0