Oh my god, why the map changes?

[mattlach]

Originally Posted by Holy.Death

I fail to see the problem.

Before the changes attackers were effortlessly killed (on certain maps, like Grain Elevator, Red October Factory) once everybody has got used to the maps. Cover was needed, because no amount of teamwork and smoke could move defenders on some maps (Commissar's House being prime example of really unfavorable map design for the attackers, with plenty of cover for the defenders). Yes, attacking shouldn't be effortless, so should be defending. On Mamayev Kurgan it really matters how well you defend starting point with a bit of silent agreement who's doing what.

I find it amusing that the OP is outraged, because cover allows people who move smart across the battlefield the ability to not relay on smoke grenades alone, which weren't 100% effective either. Now it takes some effort to defend and it's good. I often, as a defender, am forced to wait until my target will move out of cover and then I strike. Having open line of fire almost to an enemy spawn from the objective itself is ridiculus from the attacker's point of view. It should be challenging for both sides. I'll have to play maps longer before I'll make more solid opinion on them, but so far it isn't terrible as the OP is suggesting.

The problem is this.

The maps are starting to look more and more like they were designed to be a game. One of the refreshing differences about the RO series has always been the lack of this aspect.

Having trouble advancing? Wouldn't it be nice if there were some cover there? Oh wait there is a random truck cracass RIGHT in the perfect spot where you needed it? What are the chances of that...

RO has been different in that these "too good to be true" elements have been missing, instead showcasing the true challenges of infantry warfare, forcing teamwork on the teams, and making it interesting, and also, because of the massive casualties on the attacking side, helps reinforce the notion that any war, but particularly the war on the eastern front in Europe is absolute hell.

As someone else said earlier in this thread, it bit by bit just turns into a corridor shooter. Something that feels and looks like it was meant to be a game. As soon as a game feels like a game, like things were put in a certain place to improve game dynamics, not just because they happened to be there before the battle - IMHO - then it has failed.

The more the game moves in this direction, the less interesting it is, and the more like some Call of Duty garbage it feels.

The best thing would be if every map were created using a random terrain generator, so that every time it is played, it is a different map. That way everyone would come in, not knowing the map or its best spots, and things would not be placed in "sweet spots" either for their cover, or defensive angles.

Every aspect of every part of the game should reinforce the "war is hell" feeling, not the "oh I've got everything I need, including exactly the cover I want, and this is just a challenge of mouse skill" feeling.

These new map updates move in the completely wrong direction, almost to the point where I'd consider quitting playing the game all together. (I almost did this when Classic mode failed to take off)

The world already has enough Call of Modern Battlefield games. If that's what I wanted, I would be playing it instead. I played Red Orchestra because I HATE those games, and I wanted an experience as different from them as possible. RO2 had so much promise if they had just made it a graphical update of the original with new maps. Instead they had to go mess with the formula, and now every incremental update is moving it in the wrong direction.

I am disgusted.

(I should add that these opinions are my own, and don't necessarily reflect those of anyone else in the 2.FJg clan or any kind of official opinion of the clan.)

[TheRealGunther]

Personally I had no problem with the maps before both sides had their equal share of challenging maps and a few balanced maps for good measure.

I have always said that perfectly balanced maps has no place in a tactical fps as long as both sides gets their equal share of easy/hard maps in the rotation.The problem is the mainstream TWI listens to players feedback and many complaints have been about balance.Many people expect RO to play like the arcade shooter and would be perfectly happy if it was a pure CoD clone with death match style game play.

My mom has an old saying the wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the most grease.This is what has happened with the recent map changes while I am grateful the devs listen.I just am saddened the mainstream squeaks the loudest and are pushing for more arcade like design.

IMO what we needed was more maps instead of revised current ones.Even if it was "revenge" type Ost maps say grain elevator favoring the Germans maybe starting inside the elevator.Or just reverse the positions we could say the Germans are holding off a counter attack after taking the elevator.For me two Grains would be better than one that gets revised constantly.

Its just times has changed many gamers don't want a challenge or even to play tactically.In alot of ways it isn't TWI that's changing the game its the players.I'm just grateful that RO still retains its hardcore elements like one shot kills and tactical game play.Something that's missing from pretty much all fps nowadays I just can't believe so many people want all games to be the same.

More custom maps and even official ones will help as long as they don't go full arcade I will be happy.All of this is just my opinion of course and I'm not even disgruntled ...yet.Just giving some reasons why I think all these changes are taken place.I just wished more people embraced tactical game play and the reasons why it should play different.

Being different is RO's greatest advantage

[WombatNinja]

Originally Posted by mattlach

The problem is this.

The maps are starting to look more and more like they were designed to be a game. One of the refreshing differences about the RO series has always been the lack of this aspect.

Having trouble advancing? Wouldn't it be nice if there were some cover there? Oh wait there is a random truck cracass RIGHT in the perfect spot where you needed it? What are the chances of that...

RO has been different in that these "too good to be true" elements have been missing, instead showcasing the true challenges of infantry warfare, forcing teamwork on the teams, and making it interesting, and also, because of the massive casualties on the attacking side, helps reinforce the notion that any war, but particularly the war on the eastern front in Europe is absolute hell.

As someone else said earlier in this thread, it bit by bit just turns into a corridor shooter. Something that feels and looks like it was meant to be a game. As soon as a game feels like a game, like things were put in a certain place to improve game dynamics, not just because they happened to be there before the battle - IMHO - then it has failed.

The more the game moves in this direction, the less interesting it is, and the more like some Call of Duty garbage it feels.

The best thing would be if every map were created using a random terrain generator, so that every time it is played, it is a different map. That way everyone would come in, not knowing the map or its best spots, and things would not be placed in "sweet spots" either for their cover, or defensive angles.

Every aspect of every part of the game should reinforce the "war is hell" feeling, not the "oh I've got everything I need, including exactly the cover I want, and this is just a challenge of mouse skill" feeling.

These new map updates move in the completely wrong direction, almost to the point where I'd consider quitting playing the game all together. (I almost did this when Classic mode failed to take off)

The world already has enough Call of Modern Battlefield games. If that's what I wanted, I would be playing it instead. I played Red Orchestra because I HATE those games, and I wanted an experience as different from them as possible. RO2 had so much promise if they had just made it a graphical update of the original with new maps. Instead they had to go mess with the formula, and now every incremental update is moving it in the wrong direction.

I am disgusted.

(I should add that these opinions are my own, and don't necessarily reflect those of anyone else in the 2.FJg clan or any kind of official opinion of the clan.)

Agree totally with this.

[Sensemann]

Like this, Commissar's House is ruined. I think all that was needed was slightly more cover at the Russian 1st spawn to avoid the spawn-exit-camping and maybe moving back the Axis spawns slightly to make defending/recapping the Water Refinery a bit more difficult.

As with the current map changes, you might as well not even spawn the Axis side and let the Russians cap the whole map and move on.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous.

[Randy Newman]

Originally Posted by mattlach

The problem is this.

The maps are starting to look more and more like they were designed to be a game. One of the refreshing differences about the RO series has always been the lack of this aspect.

RO is a game. I've been playing RO since the mod and I'm not entirely sure what you're on about.

Everything is relative. You think RO is gamey? When was the last time you played COD? When was the last time you played Medal of Honour? Everything is relative my friend.

Go play those games and then come back and tell me that RO is gamey.

I await your response.

RO has been different in that these "too good to be true" elements have been missing, instead showcasing the true challenges of infantry warfare, forcing teamwork on the teams, and making it interesting, and also, because of the massive casualties on the attacking side, helps reinforce the notion that any war, but particularly the war on the eastern front in Europe is absolute hell.

Your idea of fun might be dying endlessly and failing to take Objective C in Commissar's house. Your idea of fun might also be dying endlessly while trying to take Objective B in Grain Elevator.

That is not my idea of fun.

Luckily, most of us are not masochists. This perverse fetish (and yes, it is a fetish) you seem to have for making the game unplayable for 32 out of 64 people in a game is thankfully an opinion not shared by TWI.

The game is better for these changes.

As someone else said earlier in this thread, it bit by bit just turns into a corridor shooter. Something that feels and looks like it was meant to be a game. As soon as a game feels like a game, like things were put in a certain place to improve game dynamics, not just because they happened to be there before the battle - IMHO - then it has failed.

Ok...again, let me say this. Commissar's House, Grain Elevator and Red October Factory were NOT FUN before these balancing changes were made. They were an exercise in frustration for 32 out of 64 players in the server.

I'm...surprised you do not see it that way. Those maps were unplayable.

And Mamayev? For pete's sake how many times have you been utterly frustrated with Allied reinforcements running out at C or D while the Germans have over a 100 men left?

The more the game moves in this direction, the less interesting it is, and the more like some Call of Duty garbage it feels.

The best thing would be if every map were created using a random terrain generator, so that every time it is played, it is a different map. That way everyone would come in, not knowing the map or its best spots, and things would not be placed in "sweet spots" either for their cover, or defensive angles.

Every aspect of every part of the game should reinforce the "war is hell" feeling, not the "oh I've got everything I need, including exactly the cover I want, and this is just a challenge of mouse skill" feeling.

These new map updates move in the completely wrong direction, almost to the point where I'd consider quitting playing the game all together. (I almost did this when Classic mode failed to take off)

You seem to want to endure pain and suffering to fulfill some puritanical sense of what is right and proper.

I think the series for you might be ARMA. That game and its community share your views on "gaming as simulation" and the notion that "war is hell, so anyone playing a game should also be made to endure it."

RO was never ARMA. RO is a compromise between the two extremes of COD and ARMA.

In your view, if an allied team failed to take Commissar's House, well, it was their fault. Obviously the attackers did not work together as a team well enough to deserve victory.

You know what? No. I refuse to subscribe to that view. The game does not NEED to turn into punishment for 50% of the server population because you think "war is hell."

The world already has enough Call of Modern Battlefield games. If that's what I wanted, I would be playing it instead. I played Red Orchestra because I HATE those games, and I wanted an experience as different from them as possible. RO2 had so much promise if they had just made it a graphical update of the original with new maps. Instead they had to go mess with the formula, and now every incremental update is moving it in the wrong direction.

I am disgusted.

Enough with the "I've been playing since RO1 and I think I know whats best for the game. RO2 should just be RO1 with better graphics."

I've been playing since the mod and we clearly have different views. I really dislike BF3 and COD. I own them both, but, I barely touch them.

I think you might need a refresher on BF3 and COD to realise how different RO2 really is from those games.

I'm sorry if my words seem harsh. I really am.

I hope I haven't offended anyone.

[tolas]

i have to agree with op on the choke points, as in, there isnt any.

every major fps game lately seems to be lacking these. a specific area of conflict where people struggle for dominance , and i dont mean forced or artificial areas like what the cap zones are, the cap point should be the reward after an attacking team breaks past the blockade to get to the point

and honestly, why would any of these maps be fought over? i see no strategic value that any commander would use to fight over these points, maybe the fallen fighters zone because that open area can be a killing a field for one side if they blow up the remaining buildings on one side.

But i see no value to the others, it dosnt even look like the defensive maps were set up to be defensible, thats what i missed about older games, you could actually look at the maps and say, yes, this looks like something an military would set up to thwart an assault. But look at the maps now, every single position is one that you can get raped by a single target in multiple different angles, and guess what, when you actually do find a position that IS strategically valid, they go and patch them so they cant be used in that method, like a "sorry good sir but thats too good a spot for you, your too easily able to kill the enemy."

i mean wtf, usually in those situations the players would step in and their thought process would kick in and tell them "you know what, we keep getting raped in that area, maybe would should try to counter it, or just stop going there."

maybe the mappers should get a few soldiers into the office to rework some of the maps in an actual strategic way. this way, it'll be even more satisfying to win on the maps as well.

[Coopsta]

All the naysayers are overreacting. If you take a step back and look, the balance changes are not major. They address the most frustrating maps. Defending was way too easy on Commissar's, Red October, and Grain Elevator. In my experience, even teams always led to defenders winning. I hope now they will be more balanced.

Before the patch, defenders were not favored only on Mamayev and (arguably) Apartments. In Mamayev, this discrepancy was addressed by adding reinforcements and in Apartments defenders got buffed in the GOTY patch. All is good with the universe. Map changes call for a change in tactics. People will adapt to the new play style and the changes will seem quite insignificant in the big picture.

[Shadrach]

Great post mr. Newman.

The map changes were much needed - the axis were basically dominating many of the maps, and it was frustrating for the allies. Now from playing yesterday, possibly allies have an advantage, but I think axis will just have to adjust their play style; focus on defending the cap zones instead of ignoring them and going for the flanks or 'counter-attacking'. They've had it easy on these maps, maybe they got too used to it and got lazy

I tend to stick to playing allies exclusively, only because I want a challenge and they always seemed to lose. Now if it is reversed on some maps, I might join the axis side for a bit.

My definition of great TE balance is a map where there's a "flow" - where it ends on a tough fight for the last objective, ending with 10 seconds left on the clock or the defenders barely holding on. A map where there's a tough fight over each objective, not attackers steamrolling the other or defenders not having to think about getting in cap. This means all the map is fought over, not just getting bogged down on the first cap zone which is boring for both teams.

[Buzzles]

I only played for a couple of hours last night but from what I've played of a few rounds of each:

Mamayev

This map plays a lot better. I think the cover changes are subtle with some snow mounds increasing in height, but the tickets have made a decent difference.
No longer a cakewalk for the Germans, although truth be told, I was playing on a team where all but about 4 players (myself included) actually either sat back and plinked or charged into and through the cap point resulting in their death.
It was only the 4 of us that actually sat in the trenches capping, probably why we where the top 4 on the server by a large margin but also why we lost a round by running out of time.

That's probably a good indicator of it being better actually, as before even a terrible German team had it pretty easy unless they were up against a very good set of Russians.


Grain Elevator

Better. Still some issues with Russians being able to fire directly into the German spawns, but nowhere near as a bad as it was and with a bit of smoke and/or luck and cover hopping, Germans can now actually make it over to B without being outright slaughtered thanks to the extra cover.

Station

Only had a single round on the map so take this with a pinch of salt, but the changes don't seem to have made much difference with regards to capping the halls, although the extra bit of cover outside certainly helped to move up.

[Holy.Death]

The maps are starting to look more and more like they were designed to be a game.

It's a game. It always was and it will always be. And in a game both sides should be given means to play their parts with some degree of challenge.

Having trouble advancing? Wouldn't it be nice if there were some cover there? Oh wait there is a random truck cracass RIGHT in the perfect spot where you needed it? What are the chances of that...

You want to tell me that in a ruined city there is no holes, no debris, no tank wrecks that could provide at least some cover?

RO has been different in that these "too good to be true" elements have been missing, instead showcasing the true challenges of infantry warfare, forcing teamwork on the teams, and making it interesting, and also, because of the massive casualties on the attacking side, helps reinforce the notion that any war, but particularly the war on the eastern front in Europe is absolute hell.

I played "true casualties scenario". It's simply not rewarding, because even when the attackers managed to bleed the defenders out they were out of time to take all remaining objectives on time. In another attempt they simply couldn't breach the enemy defensive lines. Part of "people camping" was done because attacking was extremely hard and frustrating when you died over and over again. It's not fair and - more importantly - it's not fun. Games should be both fair (by that I don't mean symmetrical maps) and fun.

I'll give one example of real teamwork (before the patch) that will prove my point it wasn't about teamwork. Red October Factory. We took A with heavy casualties, nothing unusual. Then I asked the tank commander to send some HE presents into the inside of that building on the right side just past A. By moving slowly, carefully and together we cleared it out of the Germans and managed to set our MG's on position to overlook incoming Germans. When my placed my MG and saw large number of guys ready just a few meters behind us I told them: "Go guys, use cover to get into C, MG team will cover you". So they went. I had a lot of work shooting down incoming targets and died after a long fight, but we took C. Point is we didn't have enough time to take the rest of the map (well, I was still proud of what our guys managed to achieve). Slow, methodical progress (with taking the map design into the consideration) is a fine thing. Teamwork is a fine thing. But there isn't enough time for that. That's why the attackers needed more time and more cover - to make taking control over the map less troublesome, because if tank commander wouldn't listen I am not sure if we could take building past A and without it the Soviets are always bogged down.

The best thing would be if every map were created using a random terrain generator, so that every time it is played, it is a different map. That way everyone would come in, not knowing the map or its best spots, and things would not be placed in "sweet spots" either for their cover, or defensive angles.

That would be great. I think the biggest weakness of Red Orchestra 2 is Stalingrad setting. It's simply not the kind of warfare people would like. The game in itself is solid, but the choice of a place creates large amounts of problems: zoom feeling too big for maps that are too small, lack of transport vehicles that make large maps not viable for infantry at this points and so on.

As with the current map changes, you might as well not even spawn the Axis side and let the Russians cap the whole map and move on.

To be honest I didn't even notice these changes as an attacker. I don't know what I am missing, but when I try to check the map out it doesn't look too different... In Classic maps seems to play rather well. It make defending harder than it was, but it's still a challenge to win for the attackers (played on Red October Factory).

[Cyper]

Stating that RO2 is like CoD because the maps are more streamlined is like saying that Ostfront is like ArmA because the maps are less streamlined. Keen point to press is: The maps in RO2 is more like CoD (not like CoD) and the maps in Ostfront is more like ArmA (not like ArmA).

I do not agree with Randy Newman. He's basically saying that fun is subjective (true) and that he's happy with the changes. What's also true is that the maps have become more streamlined (dumbed down) than before. This makes the game takes another step towards CoD. People who like that should get their own mode - or even their own game - red orchestra: the streamlined version, or something. It's funny that these people always ruin every game in some way. Their latest thing was destroy RO, resulting in a huge player loss. Now they want to take that a step forward.

It's not about perverse fetish; It's about gamers who want a game where tactical thinking and an open-ended map design is more important than an accessible, corridoor shooter-like experience.

Hopefully, future actions will put the last nail in the coffin for this game: the future is Rising Storm and it would become a standalone expansionpack.

What's the point for RO to live if it does not hold on to its original formula?

No point at all.

[Cristo]

The maps have changed, and now the strategies that used to dominate don't work so well anymore.

So that magic spot you used to run to which was invisible and invincible doesn't exist anymore. Oh well. It will take time for people to figure out the new ways.

There were certainly changes needed in places where one team just machine guns people right as they come out of spawn. That is ridiculous.

It is certainly possible that maps have been ruined, but I'd say it is too early to tell. There's no way the community has already absorbed and processed all the impacts of the changes yet.

[TrOOper]

Originally Posted by Cyper

Stating that RO2 is like CoD because the maps are more streamlined is like saying that Ostfront is like ArmA because the maps are less streamlined. Keen point to press is: The maps in RO2 is more like CoD (not like CoD) and the maps in Ostfront is more like ArmA (not like ArmA).

I do not agree with Randy Newman. He's basically saying that fun is subjective (true) and that he's happy with the changes. What's also true is that the maps have become more streamlined (dumbed down) than before. This makes the game takes another step towards CoD. People who like that should get their own mode - or even their own game - red orchestra: the streamlined version, or something. It's funny that these people always ruin every game in some way. Their latest thing was destroy RO, resulting in a huge player loss. Now they want to take that a step forward.

It's not about perverse fetish; It's about gamers who want a game where tactical thinking and an open-ended map design is more important than an accessible, corridoor shooter-like experience.

Hopefully, future actions will put the last nail in the coffin for this game: the future is Rising Storm and it would become a standalone expansionpack.

What's the point for RO to live if it does not hold on to its original formula?

No point at all.

Oh my! more steaming heaps of total B/S!
Only the elites know what is good for RO2 according to you!
If the game is not like i wanted, if TWI refused to listen to me, then it deserves to die.....Please....just move on...All this from your 10 hours or so in the game...

[Cwivey]

Commissars' house is actually winable by the Allies in Classic, it's still a damned tough battle, often going down to the last minute. We had a fair amount of AT and tank co-ordination so we managed to keep the PzIV off D while troops took C. I've also noticed that the Germans don't seem to know that B is available to take right off the bat, could be new map people getting used to it etc, but three times in a row, B was taken before A (This actually helps, fire from B clears off those pesky walls behind A). If the German team would've taken some of it's troops to B, the battle would have probably ended in a loss due to time.

Pavlov's, seems similar to what it once was. Although, the trench system from Zab's House to the area East of E has been extended, making it a little bit easier to avoid MG fire from E. The spawn point at the very north of the map for the Russians also has much more cover, not once was I spawn killed by the German tank.

So far, I'm liking these changes, makes things less frustrating, while still giving a challenge.

[Cpt-Praxius]

Originally Posted by Cyper

Stating that RO2 is like CoD because the maps are more streamlined is like saying that Ostfront is like ArmA because the maps are less streamlined. Keen point to press is: The maps in RO2 is more like CoD (not like CoD) and the maps in Ostfront is more like ArmA (not like ArmA).

I do not agree with Randy Newman. He's basically saying that fun is subjective (true) and that he's happy with the changes. What's also true is that the maps have become more streamlined (dumbed down) than before. This makes the game takes another step towards CoD. People who like that should get their own mode - or even their own game - red orchestra: the streamlined version, or something. It's funny that these people always ruin every game in some way. Their latest thing was destroy RO, resulting in a huge player loss. Now they want to take that a step forward.

You do realize that the same process of somewhat balancing the maps in RO has been done in Ostfront and in Combined Arms a number of times?

Adjusting the maps in RO2 is nothing new, so trying to make it sound like it was never done in Ostfront or any of the previous RO's is a bit short sighted.

It's not about perverse fetish; It's about gamers who want a game where tactical thinking and an open-ended map design is more important than an accessible, corridoor shooter-like experience.

Hopefully, future actions will put the last nail in the coffin for this game: the future is Rising Storm and it would become a standalone expansionpack.

Yes, let's just hope RO2 tanks and TW goes out of business in the process so that a mod will eventually be made for a dead game that nobody plays or purchase any more.... cuz that makes so much sense.

What's the point for RO to live if it does not hold on to its original formula?

No point at all.

Guess you know nothing about that original formula you speak of as they have always tweaked and modified the maps in RO based on community feed back and tracked gameplay stats.

Various objects were removed/added to maps

Reinforcement tweaks occurred for each team on various maps

Objectives have been moved this way or that on various maps

Spawn locations have been modified on various maps

Available Classes have been tweaked on different maps as well

I know for a fact that this occurred in Combined Arms and I know it occurred in Ostfront from time to time, though not as often because most of the tweaks to the maps were already done in Combined Arms, which were ported to Ostfront.

Now you're acting like TW is doing something sacrilegious to Red Orchestra by modifying their own maps they created.... as if they or any other developer has never done this before???

Just makes me continually doubt your knowledge in these things.

[Moyako]

I'd give my daughter in marriage to the player who ports RO-Leningrad into RO2.

[redbeard]

Given that the there isn't much closely co-ordinated teamwork on public servers, I quite like the recent changes.

Up until recently I was playing red 95%. IMO Commissar's house needed adjusting... Specifically the entry to the water refinery. I didn't have a problem with Red October Factory though.
I didn't / don't know what to think of Grain Elevator due to cut-off of allied reinforcements.

[rancenstein]

Originally Posted by Cyper

What's the point for RO to live if it does not hold on to its original formula?

No point at all.

"STOP ENJOYING THINGS I DON'T LIKE"

[Holy.Death]

I played a bit and I have to say that maps changes aren't game breaking. In Realism they must be far better than they are in Classic (spawn points for the Soviets should be moved forward in Classic due to less stamina or Germans pushed back, it's far easier to reinforce defense than the attack), but even so they doesn't make defense obsolete.

On Commissar's House it seems to be easier to take D (probably due to lack of large part of the white wall just before D), but now it's harder to take A so often map seems to be decided there. On Realism it's surely not that problematic as it's on Classic. It's strange to say, though, that map is ruined for the defenders.

Same thing with Red October Factory - Germans have one tank, but I didn't notice changes from point A to C and taking C is as hard as before. Plus side is that A can be taken a little bit easier, making win on the map for the Soviet more likely due to more time and less casualties. Still, good German team can win the map.

What's also true is that the maps have become more streamlined (dumbed down) than before.

I don't understand this statement. Maps stayed the way they were in most cases. Changes are often so subtle people don't notice them (me included).

Probably the defenders had some problems in the first hours post patch due to changes on maps and that's the main reason why it looked like the attackers have the upper hand. It's not true. After learning the changes I think some maps will still be really hard for the attackers (to the point of being ridiculus): Commissar's House for one.

[Rabid Penguin]

Originally Posted by rancenstein

"STOP ENJOYING THINGS I DON'T LIKE"

+1, lol