• 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/

Would Free For All (FFA) or Death-Match (DM) be good in RO2?

Would Free For All (FFA) or Death-Match (DM) be good in RO2?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 22.2%
  • No

    Votes: 84 77.8%

  • Total voters
    108
Status
Not open for further replies.
INS is indeed Insurgency: Modern Infantry Combat
As said, worth checking out as it is free =). http://store.steampowered.com/app/17700/

INS was way better 1+ year ago though, when there were better administrated servers and more teamplay oriented regulars. Also Death messages off was a more common server settings.

INS won the mod of the year award 2007 at the moddb.com, that RO won in 2004. Many HL2 mods have been able to download and play via steam, but INS was and is the second most popular one in numbers and have had quite similar player numbers as RO.
 
Upvote 0
While I voted 'no', if TW puts it in, it won't be a deal breaker for me.
I'll still buy the game. I just won't play the gametype.

And in all probability I won't play Firerfight.
Sure I'll try it to see TW's interpretation of the game, but I doubt seriously I'll spend much time with it.

So, where is the S&D poll? :troll:
Thats the other gametype floating around these forums now.
Personally, I despise that gametype worse than DM. I had my fill of it before I quit playing CoD2. Boring.... With the larger maps of RO, it might be slightly more tactical that CoD (ie require more than one or two 'plans of attack/defense') , but not nearly as much as RO's default gametype. (As we've yet to play countdown, can't comment or compare the two at this point.)
 
Upvote 0
also mormegil acting as if it was his own idea (for all the people who didnt read the original post).. really a move that makes you giggle.

oh, and :IS2:

Oops, didn't mean to make it sound like my idea. The poll was my idea, that I suggested to Wahoo4 to make, and he replied back that I should go ahead and make one. So voila!
 
Upvote 0
While I voted 'no', if TW puts it in, it won't be a deal breaker for me.
I'll still buy the game. I just won't play the gametype.

And in all probability I won't play Firerfight.
Sure I'll try it to see TW's interpretation of the game, but I doubt seriously I'll spend much time with it.

So, where is the S&D poll? :troll:
Thats the other gametype floating around these forums now.
Personally, I despise that gametype worse than DM. I had my fill of it before I quit playing CoD2. Boring.... With the larger maps of RO, it might be slightly more tactical that CoD (ie require more than one or two 'plans of attack/defense') , but not nearly as much as RO's default gametype. (As we've yet to play countdown, can't comment or compare the two at this point.)

People want S&D for RO2? Really? This game is not about super ninja tactical ops with heartbeat sensors attached to their guns and on the dot airstrikes trying to destroy some super secret doomsday machine.... Its about illiterate peasant conscripts being thrown into epic battles of attrition, using anything from bolt action rifles to caustrophobic tanks.
 
Upvote 0
I don't think it was pointless (otherwise, I wouldn't have made it). It was an experiment to see if Wahoo4 was right, and turns out to be evidence for him to "digress," as per his statement in the original thread. Instead, he's "moving the goal post" by now saying the majority isn't voting, because they're not registered on the forum.

Even the results are interesting, as 20% of the voters are in favor of DM (as of writing this post, 49 votes, 9 yays, 40 nays). I'm surprised it was that high.

Honestly, DM may seem like fun, until you realize it won't work unless the weapons are balanced, like what Knighted wants. That's not gonna happen. The closest I could see is something like squad deathmatch, where you have 4 or 8 squads of 4. That might be an interesting mutator.

For the record I voted "no" and have been against the DM/FFA idea from the start.

I just think this whole thread is an underhanded sucker-punch toward an argument that ended more than a week ago. An argument which ended with both sides conceding (what I thought was) peacefully.

You aren't going to get a silent majority vote here, that's the whole point of a "silent majority." The phrase itself is a poor debate tool and doesn't need testing or a poll to determine if it really exists.

Meanwhile you have people posting here in a thread that is basically a troll/flame-bait reply to someone else's suggestion. People who don't even realize they are potentially helping to damage that person's reputation. And the worst part is, this whole fiasco may have hurt the RO community's image because of how it treats people who don't agree with them. By mocking people with senseless polls about topics which were already raised and put to rest when they were relevant.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I do not believe realism shooters have a team deathmatch game mode.

I guess it kinda helps get use to the combat system, but Red Orchestra is an epic battle for a territory, not a Execute Everyone sorta thing. In Red Orchestra you don't kill everyone, you kill to secure a territory. Unless Red Orchestra is turning into Call of Duty or some other arcade "realism" shooter, then I say HELL NO to this.
 
Upvote 0
For the record I voted "no" and have been against the DM/FFA idea from the start.

I just think this whole thread is an underhanded sucker-punch toward an argument that ended more than a week ago. An argument which ended with both sides conceding (what I thought was) peacefully.

You aren't going to get a silent majority vote here, that's the whole point of a "silent majority." The phrase itself is a poor debate tool and doesn't need testing or a poll to determine if it really exists.

Meanwhile you have people posting here in a thread that is basically a troll/flame-bait reply to someone else's suggestion. People who don't even realize they are potentially helping to damage that person's reputation. And the worst part is, this whole fiasco may have hurt the RO community's image because of how it treats people who don't agree with them. By mocking people with senseless polls about topics which were already raised and put to rest when they were relevant.

Actually, Nixon's "Silent Majority" speech was based on the idea a vocal minority was getting all the attention, and a silent majority would vote his way. So one could expect the silent majority to vote in a poll.

This was my experiment to see if this majority really existed, as mentioned by Wahoo4.

You may feel the debate was over, but posts continued, and Wahoo4 stated he would stop if shown to be wrong about his silent majority.

As far as the arguments for and against, I agree they've been hashed and rehashed, so I'm all for locking this thread. I would have made a poll without a thread if it were possible.

Anyway, I apologize for reopening any wounds. I was just too curious to see where things would poll.
 
Upvote 0
No, it would hurt the game in the reviews because it would undoubtedly suck. RO is not made for DM. Quake, UT, and Tribes are (and yes I love Tribes soooo much :)). The FFA in COD sucks hard compared to those 3 games... (but COD's FFA wouldn't be near as crappy as RO2's)

Plus it's a waste of valuable resources that TWI could spend giving us new maps/weapons/tanks/patches.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.