Alright you got me there, I think, but detachable bayonets? Special thing for RO? No other games have? Unique is whats needed right now.
Upvote
0
The problem isn't in the bugs - it's in the design
- Thread starter DingDong09
- Start date
- Status
Alright you got me there, I think, but detachable bayonets? Special thing for RO? No other games have? Unique is whats needed right now.
You make it sound like people have so many spazzms that they can't aim a gun.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind seeing detachable bayonets, but is it really the most important feature that you want the devs to work on?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yus.
Seriously though not immediate but I would like to see it as a "whoops we're sorry here you go" after the big stuff like the elite assault and bugs are ironed out.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The amount of additional weight it would cause to screw up your aim is so little, it's not really worth taking the time to code, let alone taking it on and off.
I don't think I've seen a whole heck of a lot of people in either of the previous RO's run around without putting their bayonet on the rifle. As soon as I spawned, I always put it on and left it there. I don't use the Bayo often, but when I do, it's for a good reason, and more effective than clubbing people.... so if it doesn't screw with your aim that much in real life (soldiers would have already been fully trained to compensate for the additional 1-2 pounds anyways) and if most people run around with it on anyways.... why bother with it?
Now I do understand it's more about the principle of the whole thing and perhaps some people, such as yourself, do want that little feature and do want to be able to take the bayo on and off.....
.... and Myself, being a left handed person, have been wanting left handed weapon holding to help with my left eye dominance & perspective. I'm used to seeing the weapon in my left hand, even if it's a right handed weapon. When I hip shoot with the right handed models, in RO2, RO1 and RO:CA, I continually shoot too far to the left due to trying to compensate for where I think my arms are positioning..... I'm still not entirely used to it.
My eye is used to the weapon being in the bottom left corner of my vision, and has the ability to tell the line & direction the weapon is generally pointing compared to where I'm looking, however I can no longer go that as well when it's not all to the bottom right corner of my vision.... my right eye, let alone my left eye, which I still aim with, isn't trained in that perspective.
Sure I might be able to train my eye to be better at it, but considering I play the game a hour or two a day with a right handed body in front of me, the rest of my day is with me doing things in real life with my left.
In RO:CA, they did have left handed models, which were just mirrored right handed models, but they never really coded it in, as it was a leftover from the UT2k4 mod. It had mirrored textures, which made the writing on the weapons go backwards..... and the sniper scope reversed in how you move it in iron sights. Right went left, and left went right, so if I wanted to use the sniper class, I had to switch to the right handed models.
But despite all of that, my gameplay was improved tremendously from using the left handed models. Iron Sights in either hand mode worked the same way, but hip shooting when I really needed it was always spot on where I wanted to aim..... but in RO1 and 2, I'm still having the same problems.
My point is, is that I fought long and hard to keep and improve on the left handed option for left handed players, but it was never done and always dismissed due to the majority of players are right handed so it's not worth the time and effort to do it.
Mainly because of two issues that justifies it..... well for some
#1 - Most of the weapons in WWII were designed right handed, and troops were trained to fire them right handed (even though a great majority of the left handers would have switched left handed as soon as they got on the battlefield, due to wanting a better chance at living)
and #2 - Since most weapons in WWII were right handed, they'd have to take the time to design new animations for when they're being held left handed-like, which animates completely different of course.....
All of this is much like bringing back the bayonet being able to remove (Additional animation which isn't worth the time due to the above mentioned) and coding in additional sway with the bayo on, regardless of how minuscule that difference might be (additional time used up by the designers/coders that they could be using for more pressing issues in the game)
So to say it in few words, I wouldn't hold your breath on them going for the above.... if they do, I would be sad and probably cry a little....
..... Because it's NOT FAIR! *Stomps foot*
Last edited:
Upvote
0
im left handed. have been me whole life. i always got mad because all the kids beat me to the left handed scissors when we did class projects. but it didn't matter because my fingers were bigger than theirs and the left handed scissors had this green rubberized coating on the holes to distinguish them that made it really hard to put my fingers in. you think right-handed RO2 is hard? ****. You don't know tough times breh. I basically had to tear my paper. I still wake up in cold sweats. and i will never EVER go back to that elementary school. **** that.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I agree, TW have always sucked at designing maps. The best maps and gameplay modes have always come from the community. I'd say that Darkest Hour is a better game then the original RO purely because it has better maps and gamemodes. TW should make the engine and the community the maps. These Urban maps are like big TDM's, they get boring super fast.
Upvote
0
I know something isn't right the Axis win the majority of the time and this is down to the design be it either weapons or maps. At first I thought it was just the servers I was playing in but it's all the time and it's getting boring either being beaten all the time or winning constantly. I want close games with excitement but the majority of the time it's a foregone conclusion.
Upvote
0
Before we go any further, I am going to tell you that I am assuming that you believe you are trying to be fair to the game, but that you won't be, because you won't be able to separate "bad design decisions for the game" from "bad design decisions for DingDong".
It's human nature that if you try to do something well, and in the past have been successful doing it, you will resist accepting that it is your style that is the problem rather than game mechanics. I may be wrong, but I bet most of your complaints have nothing to do with bad design decisions and everything to do with you not being able to adapt to them, regardless of whether they are good, bad or indifferent.
We shall see.
A realistic game doesn't control the game play... the players do. If the game is controlling stuff like that, it is doing it by artificially limiting good players, and artificially helping bad players, so that the skill level of the players has less effect on the game and more people have fun with it.
It's more fun, but then it is no better than playing dice. You are relying on random number generators to save you, and to be kind to you when you are shooting. I like games of skill, not games of chance. People who don't have a lot of skill are usually the opposite. The believe it is more skilful to try and beat a random number generator, than a human being.
Yes, it does, but none of them are fatal to the game itself. The battles are faster simply because you start the round at the "jumping off" point where you start the final assault, rather than further back so that you can choose how you approach the enemy.
Your strategy is essentially pre-chosen for you, but that doesn't mean it should be harder to carry it out. In the real world you don't get to do just whatever you want, you are told where to go and when and that is what you do. So here you are being told what to do and being expected to carry it out. Not given a scenario and then told to plan how you would win it. How is already decided. Cap the points in order, kill more of them, than you. No need to think about the bigger picture, just do it.
This is why you never assume how you perceive something is how it actually is. Being close like this is what makes it hard on the attackers too. You are sitting well within MG range no matter where you are on the map, so every time you spawn, you are at risk of coming immediately under fire.
The spawn points are limited, so I know where and when you will be coming and I am in a prepared position waiting for you. Small maps are better for the defending team because they are closer to the cap too, and they don't have to try and push forward if they don't want to. They can choose how much of the map they will hold and how much they will give up. The defender wins by not being moved unless he wants to move, and tight maps make that easier.
Stop camping then. It's that simple. In a world that has artillery and air power, static defence is asking to be killed. Neither the Germans or the Russians really would have sat on a cap zone and waited. If the enemy isn't attacking me, then I will be attacking the enemy.
If he isn't pushing out of his spawn into the cap, then I will be pushing out of the cap into his spawn. Your goal is to drive the attackers back, not just stop them at the gate.
The ultimate defence is to push so far forward that the enemy can't even leave his spawn. He's so busy trying to survive, he hasn't got time to attack the cap. Just like camping the cap zone is a valid tactic, so is eventually trapping and camping the enemy in spawn. It's simply an indication that the defenders have overwhelmed the attackers, and they are very close to losing the round.
So if all you do is sit at the cap and "defend" it, you are not doing anything but give the enemy free kills, either from sniping or artillery. If you are in the cap and there are no enemies in sight, push forward. Set up where he would normally set up to assault the cap. Now he has to assault THAT position first. If you push him back from there, push forward again. Keep doing it.
You can always go back to the cap if it is directly threatened, AND you will be coming from behind the enemy who is threatening it, from between him and his reinforcements. So by being in that position you are defending the cap in depth. You are not giving up an inch of ground if you can help it, and you are dominating more of the battlefield by positioning rather than by fire.
You have learned that heavy weapons can smash through most defensive positions. If they know where you are, they will kill you. The cap zone is marked on the map, and the enemy knows you want to keep it. So why be surprised that you get hit with artillery or that the arty is effective? That is EXACTLY what it is designed to do.
'You' (generalisation) run into the middle of ground zero, crouch, and then wait to die, then you complain that the enemy's weapons were too effective. It wasn't the weapons that got you killed, it was your tactics.
Not so. You have simply become too used to bad game mechanics compensating for bad tactics. You have come to expect the game to protect you from your own mistakes. You never bunch up in the real world because that allows artillery etc to kill more of you at once, easier. In the game it works the same way. You are dying because you are bunching up, not because the artillery is too powerful. That is YOUR fault, not the game's.
This is what I meant when I started. YOU SUCK, SO YOU BLAME THE GAME. I know it sounds insulting, but it's true. You are doing the wrong things then complaining when they go wrong. You aren't just saying the game is harder, you are saying the game is BROKEN because YOU can't do something. That is a childish attitude, and I expected it before I even read what you had to say.
Let me put it this way: You are obviously having problems, or you wouldn't be complaining. So something is wrong, either the game is broken, or your tactics are broken.
Which one can YOU control? Moaning at the devs does nothing because even if the devs agree with you, they have to get the game bug free before they start trying to address subtle balance issues. The ONLY thing YOU can control is how you play the game.
So stop blaming the game and learn to play it. Even if it is totally unrealistic, you CAN learn to deal with the quirks of THIS game, if you stop trying to force the game to be ANOTHER game. It's the only practical thing to do.
Bollocks. There you go again. Nothing in the game stops me from running and gunning with the bolt action, and I do it VERY well. I run into rooms full of automatic riflemen and SMGers and kill them all one by one simply by using movement to throw off their aim when they are shooting and to confuse them and maybe even get them shooting at each other. That was BEFORE I got the bayonet.
YOU are the problem, not the GAME. It's that simple.
Even in CoD style games I am trying to fire no more than 1 shot at a time from anything but the gun. 1 aimed shot ALWAYS beats 10 unaimed shots. So it doesn't matter what weapon I have in my hands. My tactics work for EVERY weapon. Yours don't work period.
You know how you feel like you are getting owned all the time? The people doing that to you have EXACTLY THE SAME RULES. How come they were able to beat you under the same conditions you weren't able to beat them?
Artists never blame their tools. If that is your attitude, then I know I can beat you no matter what weapons we are carrying. I adapt to the weapon rather than demanding the weapon be adapted to me.
I have stood upright in the open and taken 3 aimed shots at deployed MG's or hiding riflemen or running SMGers or... it doesn;t matter. They all die the same way... they are spraying and ducking and diving and getting absolutely NOWHERE near me. And I am just calmly standing there adjusting my aim until you die. Usually it's no more than 3 shots.
Most people die because they simply have no idea about the basics. When you are sitting dead still, your rifle is a laser beam. Move it, even to track a running target, and the sights get misaligned. If you are paying attention you can adjust for it, but it is a LOT harder.
The CoD style players are used to beating a random number generator. You do that by moving constantly, reducing the chance for the random number generator to decide on a "kill". So they think that there is something wrong with this game because they can't hit anything, while the other guy hits them easily. There is nothing wrong with the game. One person just used superior skill, and his knowledge of the game, to beat you. He knew that 1 aimed shot is better than 10 unaimed shots, and he won.
He adopted a stable firing position, calculated the correct lead and drop, waited for his breathing to be right, then fired. Good players can do that while you're still trying to tell if he's a friendly or an enemy. If they miss, they take another shot or two (depending on the situation) and then they move to a new stable firing position. He moves when he isn't shooting and shoots when he isn't moving.
Remember even sitting still and traversing your weapon causes the sights to misalign while the weapon is moving, unless it is moving slow and steady enough. This is probably 50% of the camper's problem. They think "don't move" and let go of the WASD keys. I think "don't move" and let go of the WASD keys AND the mouse (figuratively speaking).
This is also why people complain about sway. They are used to game "sway" which is simply a random number generator that makes the gun less accurate. Most games totally fake an unsteady firing position by showing an animation of the gun swaying and by adding a random deviation to the trajectory of the bullet, but very few games tie them together. So you have been trained to think that you can not compensate for sway. You've come to believe sway should make you less accurate no matter what you do.
In RO2, the sway is not fake. It's really modelled in, and the bullet flies exactly where the muzzle is pointing... it's just that it is a lot harder to point the muzzle at the target properly.
Most NOOBS will, but then they will come here and complain about how the game is broken. The auto rifles suck balls. Especially on full auto. Total waste of ammo. Hell, with the bolt action and manual bolting, I can fire just as many bullets as them, but mine are much more accurate.
I'm pretty sure you must have heard the phrase "counter attack"... right? You do know that is perfectly realistic, don't you? Artillery barrages are meant to break open fixed fortifications. If you are attacking a strong point you hammer it with arty, then run your men in there to grab it once they are dead or otherwise rendered ineffective.
How you deal with this possibility in the real world is defence in depth. You have some troops out front of the objective, some inside, and some even behind. When artillery starts falling, you move forward or backward to get out of the kill zone, then as soon as it stops, you go back to your position because now you know the actual assault is about to happen and no more artillery or other long range support will be used there.
If you push forward when the artillery drops, you end up doing a spoiling attack. While their artillery is bouncing rubble behind you, you're killing the men who were supposed to run in after it. When the artillery stops, you can give ground until you are back in the objective, making the enemy pay for every inch of ground, or you can hold where you are, having GAINED ground defensively.
As I said. It's not the game that is broken, it is how YOU (and most people at the moment, sadly) play it.
Funny. In the real world I was taught that the defender ALWAYS has an advantage. Not just a slight one, but at LEAST 3 to 1. For every one of them you kill, you will lose three men. A heavily fortified position might even be 10 to 1.
What you are asking for is the game mechanics to be made totally unrealistic so that you don't feel like you are so bad at it. You are essentially asking the devs to make the game easier for you, and they will not. You will lose that battle. So instead, adapt and overcome. Learn to play THIS GAME, rather than trying to turn it into ANOTHER GAME.
I have it and have never used it. The guys that do are no better than the guys that don't. I kill them just as easily. It doesn't matter WHAT weapon you have - you are losing gun fights because you don't know how to win a gun fight. All you know how to do is to beat a random number generator.
You began deluding yourself before you even began typing. What you think SHOULD happen is wrong, so when it DOESN'T happen, you don't know why, and your best guess as to the cause is usually wrong.
The MP40 is an effective weapon not because it is automatic or powerful, it is because it is shorter and more easily controlled when turning. You don't have to worry about keeping enough clearance so that you can aim the weapon effectively. The MkB42 is a COMPROMISE weapon. Compromise weapons are jacks of all trades, but masters of none. It's bigger than an SMG so it's less manoeuvrable, but it is less powerful and accurate than a standard rifle.
So it is both better and worse than the weapons it is designed to replace. It does everything OK, instead of one thing GREAT. Bad players need it. They can't adapt their style to suit the weapon, so they need the weapon that is most generalised so that it works for them in close and out far without them changing their tactics.
So, what little advantage they may have because of the weapon, is usually counteracted by the lack of skill that lead them to choose that weapon in the first place.
I could tell.
Because EVERY weapon is borked so that there is no difference between them. The only skill that game requires is a good reaction time. The rest is random number generators.
They don't here, either. As I noted above, you simply have an incorrect idea of what should and should not be possible and so you THINK you are at a disadvantage.
You mean, no skill. The game doesn't require it. When you hit a target, it's not because you aimed well, or predicted where he was going or any other SKILL. It's because the random number generator came up in your favour. THAT IS ALL.
There is NO SKILL in CoD. It's that simple.
No the guns weren't BALANCED at all. They were ALL THE SAME. There might be slight differences in their appearance or how quick the guy died, or how MUCH deviation the game randomly added to your shot, but at the core, if you fire one round through ANY of those guns, it's pretty much exactly the same as one round fired through ANY other gun.
That is boring and stupid. There is no depth there. I don't have to learn which weapons I can use well and which to avoid. I don't have to learn proper small unit tactics.. Hell in most games you can't even go prone! No wonder you think you're a better shot than you are!
It's not a fact. Actually its utter fiction. EVERY weapon has its weak and strong points and every weapon will be better than another weapon for the task it was specifically designed for. You simply have no idea why weapons are designed the way they are, nor what tasks they are designed to accomplish. That makes playing the game less fun for you, because it seems that no matter what you do you lose. It's simply because those other games have trained you to think all weapons ARE or SHOULD be exactly the same, and you should be able to do everything, with them. They aren't all the same, but you can do all the same things, if you adapt your tactics to suit the weapon.
No it doesn't. What you're seeing at the moment is the result of people who don't know tactics coming up against something they've never faced before - a realistic weapon. Unrealistic tactics don't work against realistic weapons. So players who don't really know how to handle it think it is the weapon that is at fault.
Get lost. That isn't even a remotely accurate description of those games. The difference in capability between a beginner and a high ranked players is VAST. Utter silence? Invisible to radar? Able to run twice as fast as everyone else?
Dilute amounts? Are you nuts? Seriously.
Who cares? People are dying because they are using bad tactics, not because the weapon is somehow special. It doesn't matter if your bullets hit harder than an SMG, if you don't hit. It doesn't matter if you can fire more bullets, if you don't hit. I find that most people who think it's all about the guns, hit far less often than the people who know the guns have nothing to do with it.
You lost the battle before it even began, regardless of what weapon you chose.
Bollocks. I was playing grain elevator last night, the perfect map for the MkB42, and the Russians won easily over and over again. The MkB42's didn't help the Germans because they had no clue what they were doing, while we seemed to know exactly what we were doing.
A CoD player would say that, because their SKILLS are garbage. You marked yourself as a CoD player before you even said it, simply because all your complaints are the same ones EVERY CoD player has. You can't play THIS GAME. So you think the game sucks.
Those of us who know what we're doing know the truth. YOU suck, not the GAME.
Because of below average players like you.
If TWI changes ANYTHING based on the opinion of people like you, they will ruin the game. You simply have no idea how to play THIS kind of game, so you're trying to change it into a game you CAN play: CoD.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
OP, ur full of crap...The map sizes as far as im concerned are BIGGER than RO1, if not just as big. Every single map in this game is bigger than most RO1 maps besides apartments. Give me an example of an basic unmodded RO1 map that is bigger. The RO1 maps, Konigsplatz,Danzig,Tula Outskirts,Tcherkassy,Stalingrad Kessel,and that snowy map with the little church in the middle (forgot name) just to name a few that pop up in my head, are ALL SMALLER than the average RO2 map. The only big maps on RO1 were the community made maps/tank maps. its just that RO2 is alot MORE intense than RO1, because there are more players(64) so u feel more fast paced. IMO, the map designs in this game are AMAZING. I feel like im in Stalingrad when i play this game. Everyone is forced to take cover,play smart,flank,take up good positions,use tactics etc. RAMBO doesnt work AT ALL. I've tried it and failed miserably so idk why ur comparing to RAMBO COD with this game. Only thing i agree with you on is the rare weapons being everywhere, but personally it isnt a game breaker at all.
Upvote
0
THIS doesn't make MY elitist views more VALID? You're terrible. You're terrible because I say you're terrible and because I capitalized all of the words I would like to emphasize in an effort to prove you're terrible. You're terrible and I totally ignore the fact that italicizing words instead of capitalizing them would make the emphasis much more manageable and less obnoxious.
People like you are KILLING the online experience for ME. I just wish there was some way that I could feel as though my opinion MATTERS.
What are you NOW, a psychiatrist? See what I did here? I'm angrily sitting behind my computer raging through the keyboard. I'm going to type things that are condescending and harsh because I am obviously more intelligent and I would like to prove it.
YOU'RE the ELITIST, not me. In an effort to further this rage-induced quest for approval from my online peers who mostly agree with me, I'm going to continuously pick apart everything you say instead of addressing the issue as a whole. By quoting single sentences and even a few words at a time and critiquing them, I give the unknowing observer the impression that your argument is flawed to the extent that it is no longer readable.
lol
Upvote
0
A game about Stalingrad is going to have city maps. Deal with it until community maps are out.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I think a lot of people are having trouble realizing this. The historical scale of RO1 was a lot greater than RO2. If you're going to have a lot of maps within Stalingrad, it's no doubt going to be small.
Upvote
0
OP has good points. well done.
RO2 does have an identity crisis; it is unsure of what it wants to be. And in the process it has alienated both its core fans (for being to unauthentic) as well as the casual players (for being too difficult).
Seriously TW, do pick a side. If you want to lean towards realism ill stay, otherwise let me know so i can move on to something else. Because at the moment i'm just kinda of standing here with my d*** in my hands
And thats an excuse for them to suck? For a game based on stalingrad, the maps really do lack the intensity of the actual battles.
As in there is no struggle for anything. You never have to fight tooth and nail for your objectives or to capture a building; you just kind of stroll in, kill 2 guys and then thats it. Lets remember that stalingrad was the kind of battle where you'd fight 2 hours to capture the livingroom, and another 2 hours to capture the kitchen.
RO2 does have an identity crisis; it is unsure of what it wants to be. And in the process it has alienated both its core fans (for being to unauthentic) as well as the casual players (for being too difficult).
Seriously TW, do pick a side. If you want to lean towards realism ill stay, otherwise let me know so i can move on to something else. Because at the moment i'm just kinda of standing here with my d*** in my hands
And thats an excuse for them to suck? For a game based on stalingrad, the maps really do lack the intensity of the actual battles.
As in there is no struggle for anything. You never have to fight tooth and nail for your objectives or to capture a building; you just kind of stroll in, kill 2 guys and then thats it. Lets remember that stalingrad was the kind of battle where you'd fight 2 hours to capture the livingroom, and another 2 hours to capture the kitchen.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I have to agree with the OP on map size and map design.
Every map I've played so far is of a Slippery-Slope gameplay design, where taking of one or two objectives in the center are relatively easy, but anything past that typically ends the game in a landslide of artillery, spawncamp, baserape, what have you.
Take Barracks, which is a fantastic map by the way. Very fun to play as Axis Rifleman up on second floor of the Infirmary, sniping at the enemies in the windows across the way and the occasional automatic-toting invader.
But once you capture both middle buildings, you have almost nothing to stop you, and hell rains down on the enemy spawn. Whether Axis or Allies, it's very bad news to lose that precious central defensive point. Your spawn also is terribly far away, a long run after losing mid. Enemy can snipe you at your spawn point from safety as well, and artillery can keep you prone as soon as you spawn. There's almost no way to come back.
So it's a cap area and spawn point problem IMO. Adjust the cap points so they aren't linear, and move the original spawn back some. Move the secondary/fallback spawn a tad closer and hide it from enemy fire. Provide no axis for players to waltz into the corner of the map and snipe at their spawning enemies.
Just needs some balance tweaking.
CoH is four years old and they're still tweaking maps for similar issues, as a reference. I don't think these first maps are set in stone, they can be changed intelligently to prevent the problems the OP pointed out.
Every map I've played so far is of a Slippery-Slope gameplay design, where taking of one or two objectives in the center are relatively easy, but anything past that typically ends the game in a landslide of artillery, spawncamp, baserape, what have you.
Take Barracks, which is a fantastic map by the way. Very fun to play as Axis Rifleman up on second floor of the Infirmary, sniping at the enemies in the windows across the way and the occasional automatic-toting invader.
But once you capture both middle buildings, you have almost nothing to stop you, and hell rains down on the enemy spawn. Whether Axis or Allies, it's very bad news to lose that precious central defensive point. Your spawn also is terribly far away, a long run after losing mid. Enemy can snipe you at your spawn point from safety as well, and artillery can keep you prone as soon as you spawn. There's almost no way to come back.
So it's a cap area and spawn point problem IMO. Adjust the cap points so they aren't linear, and move the original spawn back some. Move the secondary/fallback spawn a tad closer and hide it from enemy fire. Provide no axis for players to waltz into the corner of the map and snipe at their spawning enemies.
Just needs some balance tweaking.
CoH is four years old and they're still tweaking maps for similar issues, as a reference. I don't think these first maps are set in stone, they can be changed intelligently to prevent the problems the OP pointed out.
Upvote
0
Honestly, I agree. The reason RO itself was as popular as it was was due to the large scale varied combat, where there were many ways to achieve an objective.
The current map design - and scrap that - general game design seems to be pointed in the completely wrong direction.
Small maps are fine, and help vary the game. But this game desperately needs larger maps, allowing for actual proper tactical combat instead of something like Spartanovka, which as awesome a map as it is, there is almost literally no room for any real flanking. Both sides spawn a short distance away from each other, and you just shoot each other ad nauseum. This sort of gameplay isnt what made people like RO.
With no room to flank, tanks also suffer. Theres no real room for manouverment or tactical play. Look at Fallen Fighters - what can you do there as a tank? There are literally only two routes you can take as either side. It just isnt interesting or challenging.
I think the only properly large map we have is Gumrak, and im not just being critical for the sake of it here, but that is one awful map. It looks and feels as though someone spent thirty minutes making that during their coffee break.
Which brings me to my next point. We need bigger maps, but we also need a different approach to vehicle combat. We need transport vehicles, light armor (halftracks, tankettes, etc) and perhaps even planes to do paradrops from.
We need varied gameplay, not what we have now, which is a glorified TDM game. A great TDM game, with amazing gunplay, but still a game which ultimately fails to be anything but "Call of Duty" on steroids.
I guess im just slightly disappointed the devs didnt bother looking at what made RO popular. Modders can and will rescue this game by overhauling it, but I still feel things couldve been done differently.
/two cents
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Status