• 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/

The silence is deafening.

Scarf Ace

Grizzled Veteran
Jul 16, 2011
265
282
RO2 has potential like no other game right now. It has magnificent gun controls, an unmatched movement system, mod tools, free DLC and many other fantastic features. I think TWI has done a fantastic job in many areas, and they did it like nobody else could.
Sadly, I'm afraid it simply has too many problems right now, just flat out gameplay flaws. Most of the problems in this game actually were foreseen by people way before the DDE beta. There are too many things about this game that just make me wonder why these things are in.

Why did you force unlocking down our throats? Why didn't you give us a proper alternative?
Why did you add lockdown? Why is there no option to turn it off?
Why did you make such tiny maps?
Why did you make bolt action rifles a small minority?
Why did you add all these "cool" prototype weapons that have caused so many problems?
I guess the main answer would be "to attract new players", but all the people who I know that are new to RO wish all of those features weren't there.
These are questions that I'm sure many of us wish we could get an answer for.
 
Last edited:
Why did you force unlocking down our throats? Why didn't you give us a proper alternative?
Because maybe they actually like them and just never had the time or the skill to implement them into RO. Your "proper" alternative will come in time with mutators, mods and the SDK. In the mean time you'll just have to be a big boy and take it.

Why did you add lockdown?
So one-sided stomp-fests on attack/defense maps would end. The winning team seriously does not need all 20 minutes of the round to pillage the defenders. People will just quit the server and find anew game if they have to sit through that. I also believe it gives people a reason to assault with a sense of urgency.

Why did you make such tiny maps?
They're huge to me. If they were any bigger this game wouldn't look half as nice, and would run even worse.

Why did you make bolt action rifles a tiny minority?
Jury is still out on this one.

Why did you add all these "cool" prototype weapons that have caused countless problems?
By all these, you mean one. One weapon people have flipped **** over.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Because maybe they actually like them and just never had the time or the skill to implement them into RO. Your "proper" alternative will come in time with mutators, mods and the SDK. In the mean time you'll just have to be a big boy and take it.
Yeah, great. Let the players search through countless servers with all kinds of silly mutators just to find a server that has settings that always should've been in the game.
So one-sided stomp-fests on attack/defense maps would end. The winning team seriously does not need all 20 minutes of the round to pillage the defenders. People will just quit the server and find anew game if they have to sit through that. I also believe it gives people a reason to assault with a sense of urgency.
The only stomp-fests I'm seeing are when the attackers get hosed down because the lockdown timer has removed pretty much every option that isn't bum-rushing. RO1 had balanced win/loss ratios without it.
They're huge to me. If they were any bigger this game wouldn't look half as nice, and would run even worse.
200m engagement ranges are NOT far.
By all these, you mean one. One weapon people have flipped **** over.
The MkB is obvious BS
so is the saddle drum MG34 (as if the DP28 wasn't inferior enough)
as is the MP40/II (because clearly, standard issue Russian magazines were as rare as a failed German prototype. Also, there goes the only weaponry advantage on the Russian side)
The AVT is just plain silly, especially if it's supposed to be some sort of counter balance for the MkB.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Yeah, great. Let the players search through countless servers with all kinds of silly mutators just to find a server that has settings that always should've been in the game.

Maybe they could have built the game from the ground up with the entire unlock/stats system with an on/off switch. Since they didn't, presumably, it's not easy. I'm not opposed to people having a server option to turn it off. But if they make it their prerogative not to work on it because modders can and will do it....that's their right. I wouldn't build a game with a dozen features then make it possible to opt out of them either. I'd make a game for the people that will play the game I made. I think they did the same.

The only stomp-fests I'm seeing are when the attackers get hosed down because the lockdown timer has removed pretty much every option that isn't bum-rushing.

You've never been a Russian with a team of gutless weaklings on Red October then. Lockdown timers could be less excessive. But not every match should last 40 minutes (the default time per round x2 to win.)

200m engagement ranges are NOT far.

For a standard riflemen in this game, yeah, they are. It's silver by TWI's estimation, and I trust their's more than John Q. Public's. 200m is where you actually start to miss, and where hitting moving targets actually gets hard. This game just has much shorter engagement ranges that RO and many of its fan-made maps. There will be those maps again at some point, either by TWI or fans.

so is the saddle drum MG34 (as if the DP28 wasn't inferior enough)
as is the MP40/II (because clearly, standard issue Russian magazines were as rare as a failed German prototype. Also, there goes the only weaponry advantage on the Russian side)
The AVT is just plain silly, especially if it's supposed to be some sort of counter balance for the MkB.

I disagree with the AVT. I like it as an option to the PPSh. It's more of a side-grade than an upgrade, although it's a direct upgrade to the SVT.

The Germans got it good. Maybe too good. But I'm never going to be that bothered by the unlock system or the fact they had to pick semi-rare stuff to fill it out. I like it. RO2 ain't a war simulation, it's a game.
 
Upvote 0
Nothing to back it up? Did you read anything in these forums?

Yes i do try and keep track of these forums. some people like these features some don't. There are two sides to every argument, but you just stamp your feet with a self righteous post.

IMO you should state why you think these things should not be in the game in such a thread.
 
Upvote 0
Damn it; I posted up a long reply but hit refresh by accident.
I'll condense the lengthiest portion of my reply into this:

Did TWI consider what would happen to the 'end-game' (lulz) when the majority of players are sporting MP40/II, saddle drums on the MG34 and bayonets on sniper rifles? Either they lacked the foresight to see this or they're in full admittance that the unlock system was // is simply a lure for new players unfamiliar with RO, AKA CASH COW.

((Also; are ye' the Scarf Ace from Vikingr over at TaleWorlds? If so, this is Eirikur here!))
 
Upvote 0
Because this is the direction they wanted RO2 to go, basically. Not sure what answer you expect, it has a lot of changes but you can't argue it's similar enough to be a sequel.
I don't like it either, just waiting for mods to fix it personally.
Remember when they used to show lots of relaxed realism footage, and when people asked, they said "because we already know the RO1 crowd will buy and enjoy RO2, so we're trying to market to new players". Turns out that they didn't only not bother with marketing towards our crowd, they seem to have forgotten to develop for it too. That's just plain wrong considering that they very clearly wanted us to buy RO2.
((Also; are ye' the Scarf Ace from Vikingr over at TaleWorlds? If so, this is Eirikur here!))
DAMN RIGHT! ((glad to hear 0.84 is on the way. I can has Gaels?))
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
they cant please everybody and tailor the game to individuals or whole groups of people. they need to make a experience that would be enjoyable to the wider audience, in Tripwires terms is that there wider audience includes Multiplayer WW2 shooter audience not the smaller Multiplayer Hardcore Hyper realistic WW2 Simulation Audience.

While games can be made for this crowd, RO2 is too big of a game, and too big of a cost in today modern graphics, in which gamers DEMAND! be implemented or gtfo to target such a small crowd over targeting a large crowd.

While none of this may be right in terms of RO2 the logic remains the same over many games for Medium -> large budget games, to make back a return the studio must target the largest possible audience as they can, this may include pissing off the small group of people who wanted the game to be their way, but losing a few to gain more is the only way they are going to get food on the table and have a job in the future.
 
Upvote 0
Maybe that's why I feel like I've been having better games lately. The people that are still here are the ones that like something about the game and are learning to play it to the most it's capable of. I mean, I'll not be happy for TWI if this really does not turn out well for them....but if this game ends up with RO1 numbers, that's fine by me. I'll still play it as faithfully as some people played RO1.

For some of my friends who up until now have done mostly modern shooters....RO2 has kind of killed our desire for BF3. We're still looking forward to it for the jets and and the destructible buildings....but intensity? RO2 is giving me a mainline of that and then some.

I'm not craving another shooter any more and have already decided I can wait for BF3 to launch and get under way before I buy it. I like RO2 that much. If there's less servers out there because it didn't take with more people...it's a pity, but I'm pretty sure there will be enough folks around to enjoy, and TWI certainly isn't going to stop working on it.
 
Upvote 0
Now ive had time to reflect a bit i think alot of the complaints about lockdown in particular come from either long time RO players or players who are naturally team minded.When its actively discouraging even decent players then its not good

It seems a no brainer to me to push aggressively onto the objectives as a team as thats the way to play the game best.

However from the point of view of a new player for example, i guess lockdown would seem like a blessing if they are getting stomped.

Although that still doesnt explain why we were never given the option to switch it off if we wanted.
 
Upvote 0
Personally? With 3 different game types per map already, and what? A dozen different sever side options and two dozen more on people's wishlists? Finding a consistent game of RO2 between two rounds on a server is damn near impossible. I know I've said mutators are an answer for people, and they are, but on reflection, the array of choices and variation between servers is already kind of mind-boggling.

I mean...

Delayed Kills?
Teammate names?
Kill Cam?
Honor Level?
Territory 24/7?
Countdown 24/7?
Firefight 24/7?
Map 24/7?
All maps all modes?
Everything listed in the server browser config list?
Realism vs. Custom vs. Relaxed?

Finding a server that's got good ping and enough players?

That's a crap load of variation between games and it is already pretty hard to find the server you want. I like variety but at some point TWI has to say "this is our game and this is what we want in it, no exception." If they were to make lockdown one of those things, I could live with it. If they made it an adjustable serverside setting, that'd be ok with me too, so admins could tweak the time, rather than just removing it.
 
Upvote 0
I really don't see their "target" audience. The game is still to hardcore to get into for casual gamers and riddled with poor design choices for the royal audience. Steam stats page shows max. players are dropping everyday and I think that says something about the current state of the game.

I actually wonder how well RO2 is selling. It'll probably break 1mi in the long run, but I wonder how strong its launch sales were.

---
 
Upvote 0
KF overshot their expectations by a good margin.

If it sells better than KF in the same time span they measure, it's a success. If it ultimately pulls in less than KF in a few years...it'll have been a failure.

I don't really see how it won't outsell KF by a large margin though. It's going to improve in ways that KF was never going to.
 
Upvote 0
I'm more interested in how many people keep playing than in how many people buy the game. I've played the game all of once since last friday and I noticed that less and less people are playing than before. I'm sure there will be infusions of players with sales and mods and such, but there will also be plenty of defections. A game like BF3 will be much prettier and more polished, and both games are very unrealistic so why not pick it instead? I was a big RO1 fan because it was so much different than all the other fps offerings, but I don't feel this game does anything particularly unique compared to future competitors. It's like a political candidate who has all sorts of new, fresh ideas but as soon as the election gets close starts pandering to more and more people and is eventually just bleating the party line like all the other candidates.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
KF overshot their expectations by a good margin.

If it sells better than KF in the same time span they measure, it's a success. If it ultimately pulls in less than KF in a few years...it'll have been a failure.

I don't really see how it won't outsell KF by a large margin though. It's going to improve in ways that KF was never going to.

Well, KF caters to a much broader audience, was 19.99$ at release and had a bazillion sales
 
Upvote 0
True. On the other hand, with the power of Steam sales, a $35 or $30 RO2 might entice half a zillion people.

I'd say good word of mouth would help too, but I'm not getting my hopes up about what the community is going to say about RO in the weeks to come. Its unhappiness is drowning out a lot of the great things about the game. Then again, so did the KF community when it released.
 
Upvote 0