• 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/

Discussion on Heroes/Leveling Cont

cod:uo.......i....love...every...aspect...of....that...game!

the ballance, the non-noobs, the tank combat is even and fair....but the ranking up system was great.

sure, ballance is NOT ro. and RO NEEDS to be imballanced. the mg 42 should ROCK the DP. a tiger should rock a t-34.

but, dotn make it like dawn of war or coh, where the brits are good at defending, the USA good at attacking, the guard good at dieing, but having mass numbers (liek the russians)..

in cod :uo the mroe kills you would get the mroe stuff you would get.

0- stock..limited ammo. about 24 extra rounds for a m1 garand
1- mroe ammo
2- binos + more pistol ammo
3- satchel charge
4- use binos to call in arty

after that map ends, you lose your rank. this is not the best thing for RO, every oen having arty strikes is kinda...dumb.

the best option would be a combination between MW2 and cod:uo (anythign past cod 4:mw 1 does not deserve COD in front of it..) you get rank ups, but you start with a rifle. a botl rifle.

once you hit liek 2 kills, you get a limited class. sniper, MG, SMG, semi auto...they all need 2 kills to unlock.

this sloves the "noob with sniper cant **** ****" problem, and the "i spent 5 grand on a computer and loaded first" problem. the players with skill, or just pure luck (tossign gernade in house...kill 10 people) will get the limited classes.

idk, if i cna figure out how to mod this game, that is what i would do. and i think what the devs SHOULD do.

you still have your 100 round drum for the mp-40, but you need to use skill, and not your "whoreing for upgrades" abilitys to get your mp-40 with teh 100 rounder.

as for heroes, if a limited class....same system (the one i cmae up with), if its a unlock/upgrade....then whatever class you pick you become a hero, limited or bolt rifle. i dotn know what the RO2 system the devs have right now, so i really dont know.

idk, the 2 kill systme soudns liek a "kill 2 things with one rock" idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LJFHutch
Upvote 0
the whole fun in getting the reward is having to work towards it

Red Orchestra 3: Heroes of the Siberian Gulags
stalin_gulag.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: CopperHead
Upvote 0
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-11-red-orchestra/711637

Pause at 4:28 for assault class progression screen

As of alpha or closed beta or whatever it is they're at right now:

49fxghf


4sw7hlv


Looks like there are two progression sets, one for classes and one for weapons, in addition to weapon unlocks from these screens. The presenter notes that these lists are tentative going into beta phase, and what they are playing with, but boy friggin howdy is that list extensive, and far, far more of a developed and imbalanced progression system than Call of Duty. If these attributes, which are certainly broad, can be progressed in any substantive way, this will create ridiculous gameplay imbalances in the servers that host this progression system.

I greatly disagree with your tentative progression system, TW.

And for those of you that criticized me for not having any details, here you go. The system in a nutshell, enjoy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snuffeldjuret
Upvote 0
the whole fun in getting the reward is having to work towards it

I'd rather have players play the game than play to win unlocks.

I'll use BFBC2 as an example. When I wanted to gain points, I would do silly things just to gain points. For example, the other day I was defending a position. I had a Carl Gustav when an enemy tank and soldier came around the building and started attacking me. Rather than shooting at the tank, which I won't be able to kill in one shot, I decided to shoot at the soldier instead. This way I got 50 points rather than 0.

The logical thing to do was shoot at the tank, even if I would not have been able to kill it. But I didn't because I wanted to get points. You can see other players doing this all the time in the various classes. Medics will follow people around and not help return fire to let their teammates die so they can revive them and get 50-60 points. It becomes boring because you're playing to win points rather than win/play the game. It does not fit in a realism game at all, IMO.

RO2 will likely have a similar problem now that the upgrade system is rather indepth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I think your logic is a bit flawed. If they have a big list of different bonuses they can keep the percentage bonus in each category down and people will still feel like they have gotten more.

I hope each bonus is limited so they are barely noticeable. So for example if you run beside someone who is lower lvl you will slowly gain distance.
 
Upvote 0
I think your logic is a bit flawed. If they have a big list of different bonuses they can keep the percentage bonus in each category down and people will still feel like they have gotten more.

No it isn't. I included the qualifier "in any substantive way," which negates your objection.

I hope each bonus is limited so they are barely noticeable. So for example if you run beside someone who is lower lvl you will slowly gain distance.

The presenter said they will be small bonuses, but the issue is that their being cumulative across different categories means the overall difference will be greater than the margin on any single category.

Say, you fully upgrade the stamina modifier and it results in a margin of 5% reduced stamina depletion. Not much. But add that to a 5% margin in stamina amount and now you have a 10% margin of effective sprint distance over a raw recruit. And so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snuffeldjuret
Upvote 0
When it comes to "perks" in game, I'd much rather them be fully cosmetic or just not there at all. Any sort of system that throws one player over another by statistic bonuses or gameplay bonuses is really sour. It's not fun anymore when you have a game full of supersoldiers or one side being annihilated by the other side just because of the different levels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flogger23m
Upvote 0
When it comes to "perks" in game, I'd much rather them be fully cosmetic or just not there at all. Any sort of system that throws one player over another by statistic bonuses or gameplay bonuses is really sour. It's not fun anymore when you have a game full of supersoldiers or one side being annihilated by the other side just because of the different levels.

So much for the supersoldier blabbering.
 
Upvote 0
That is a tremendous strawman.

No it is not. You argue that a leveling mechanic is no fun, and cite Killzone as an example of the reason why: because the game restricts your gameplay options (and by extension, the player's fun) greatly until you achieve the requisite levels.

I argue that RO2 will NOT restrict your gameplay options to the same extent that Killzone does. Therefore, if a leveling mechanic is no fun in RO2, it will NOT be for the same reasons as Killzone.

Riddle me this, what about this leveling system makes the game more fun to play? In fact, what about leveling is fun?

If you can't grant me an answer, then I submit that leveling is superfluous and pointless at best, and that's if you can manage to debunk the issues I raise below.
Well the first question is easy. Some players enjoy some sense of avatar progression. It's why MMO's are so popular. And since one of the objectives of RO2 is to draw in more players, it makes sense to implement a limited form of avatar progression that is unintrusive to the gameplay experience of players who don't like avatar progression.

As for the second question, you are still missing the point. We aren't playing the game FOR the leveling system. We are playing the game for ALL of the gameplay elements combined that make the game enjoyable, like shooting and capping.

Using your rationale, I could make the argument against capping as follows: whats so fun about waiting for a bar to fill up? I could make the argument against dying as follows: what's so fun about not being able to play for several seconds?

Unlike MMO's or Killzone, leveling is not an integral part of RO2's gameplay (as far as we know). So why is leveling there in the first place? Well again, an obvious reason that the devs won't admit is to draw in a larger playerbase, but it doubly serves the purpose of administering class privileges. A critical part of this argument is that the effects of leveling will be minimal, such that the game WON'T be about grinding to unlock new weapons and abilities.

Well this one is easy.

Giving the players who perform the best the best weapons and giving the worst players the worst weapons (e.g. CSS) means:

A) you make the game more difficult for new players and people who just join the server

B) you give the best players an obscene and totally unnecessary advantage they clearly didn't need by the fact that they had to dominate in order to unlock the AWP, etc

In a nutshell, it is one of the most nonsensical, evidently intentionally imbalanced systems in competitive games and should be killed with fire.

By "limited to select players," you literally mean the best players, who have an advantage already in that they are already the most skilled players. The advantage is unnecessary and compounds the problem of skill gaps even further. Competitive games should be based on skill, and tactics can be explored by offering different, but balanced weapons, to all players.
This is a problem assuming the game is meant to be balanced on a player-by-player basis, i.e., all players should have an equal chance against each other. It's obvious that this isn't the case. Even RO/RO2 does not subscribe to this philosophy.

Whether giving the winning player ever increasing returns (that is, the better they do, the greater their advantage) is a good gameplay concept or not is debatable, but not the point of this thread, so I won't go there.

[Bold], ergo it will not be abused. I've not seen a voting system of any kind abused in 5 years.

I was playing a game of Warsow the other day and it took 5 minutes of continuous kick votes being drawn before we could get a voice chat spammer out of the game.
Actually, you're right. There should be a voting system in any case. But a voting system doesn't solve the problem of class preferences. And yes, it is an issue.

[Bold] is not an issue, ergo you have no point here. Describe to me how it's an issue and maybe I'll follow along.

In fact, I've raised the issue that better players having preference over others creates gameplay imbalance, and thus is undesirable and pointless in a competitive game.
RO2 will have class limits in 2 of 3 of its gamemodes. Currently in RO, whoever has the fastest computer on the team has first picks of what class to play, which is unfair for obvious reasons. A waiting period that waits for all players to load the game would just result in a "who can click fastest" war, which is not only annoying, but still unfair for players with higher latencies. The point is that certain players will always have some unfair advantage over others when it comes to picking classes, unless you introduce some kind of ranking mechanism.

Suppose in a running competition, last year's gold medalist had access to all running shoes, whereas newcomers did not. That is absurd and anti-competitive. The point of a running competition is running. It is finding out the best runner, not finding out who is the best runner with the best shoes. The best way to do this is to control for all variables, namely shoes, clothing, position, track, start and end times so that the competition best reflects genuine gaps in ability instead of artifice.
So what is your solution? The fact is that the variables in RO2 are not all equal. Out of 32 pairs of shoes, some are better than others. How do you decide who gets the best pair?

This does not support your point at all. I don't care whether AA has a leveling system, that is irrelevant. I obviously have the same issues with it that I have with any leveling system and I think it should be scrapped.
I'm supporting my point by defeating yours. You cited AA as an example of a system that is superior to experience based leveling systems, yet AA itself uses an experience based system. Therefore, your example is moot, and therefore you have no valid proposal for a superior alternative to what is currently implemented for RO2.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
For the record, I don't advocate a ranking system that gives players unlockables and benefits for RO2, but I don't agree with your opinion that a ranking and leveling system is somehow fundamentally flawed, and I believe I can probably live with the minimal implementation that RO2 will be using.
 
Upvote 0
I argue that RO2 will NOT restrict your gameplay options to the same extent that Killzone does. Therefore, if a leveling mechanic is no fun in RO2, it will NOT be for the same reasons as Killzone.

I agree, ergo why I said you're attacking a strawman.

Well the first question is easy. Some players enjoy some sense of avatar progression. It's why MMO's are so popular. And since one of the objectives of RO2 is to draw in more players, it makes sense to implement a limited form of avatar progression that is unintrusive to the gameplay experience of players who don't like avatar progression.
Then limit it to cosmetic/non-gameplay and I'll be peachy keen on that idea.

As it stands, the leveling system in the beta as it was shown at GDC looks like a +1 Rifleman thing and an unlockables maze. "Elite Rifleman." Really? You really think when I'm looking at an "Elite Rifleman" I'm not going to be seething over this whole "character progression" system?

Character progression is superficial and pales in comparison to the depth of legitimately balanced gameplay, which is why it should not exist in competitive games....it stymies the competitive aspect and shifts the focus from uncovering the depth of gameplay to getting +10 XP points. It turns it into bean counting, and that's stupid.

And if someone seriously enjoys that, I would relish the opportunity to pee in their milkshake because it's simply poor taste.
As for the second question, you are still missing the point. We aren't playing the game FOR the leveling system. We are playing the game for ALL of the gameplay elements combined that make the game enjoyable, like shooting and capping.
Then what's this business about leveling systems? I think we should let this line of argument go and focus on "character progression" and whatever else you can muster as a justification for leveling systems generally.

Using your rationale, I could make the argument against capping as follows: whats so fun about waiting for a bar to fill up? I could make the argument against dying as follows: what's so fun about not being able to play for several seconds?

No, you can't, because that's a false equivalency.

Capping is a gameplay mechanic, levelups are not. If they were, they would ruin gameplay, and the extent to which levelup rewards affect gameplay is the extent to which it damages the quality of the gameplay experience irrespective of any quality they may have in and of themselves.

Whether giving the winning player ever increasing returns (that is, the better they do, the greater their advantage) is a good gameplay concept or not is debatable, but not the point of this thread, so I won't go there.
No, it isn't debatable. It is not a good gameplay concept, period.

If we're talking about someone in a match gaining experience, e.g. the heroes in Warcraft 3, that's different. The XP wipes after the match and each player starts out with a level 1 hero at the start of each match. That's fun, that's a progression system that transcends a bunch of 12 year olds sitting around in their underpants playing 40 hours of a game per week to accumulate experience points and romp players far more skilled than they are.
Actually, you're right. There should be a voting system in any case. But a voting system doesn't solve the problem of class preferences. And yes, it is an issue.
I didn't say that it did, I said that an America's Army style training course would teach noobs how to play classes that are important to teamplay.

The lack of class preferences isn't a problem.

You must be this special to play this class? You must have played 30 hours this weekend for you to play machine gunner?

RO2 will have class limits in 2 of 3 of its gamemodes. Currently in RO, whoever has the fastest computer on the team has first picks of what class to play, which is unfair for obvious reasons. A waiting period that waits for all players to load the game would just result in a "who can click fastest" war, which is not only annoying, but still unfair for players with higher latencies. The point is that certain players will always have some unfair advantage over others when it comes to picking classes, unless you introduce some kind of ranking mechanism.
Oh god unfair advantages what will we do?

If that's your criterion, you've already failed to meet it when you ignored what class preferences, weapon and class unlocks, and class/weapon upgrades do to game balance.
So what is your solution? The fact is that the variables in RO2 are not all equal. Out of 32 pairs of shoes, some are better than others. How do you decide who gets the best pair?
You don't decide, you let the players decide using the mechanics I brought up earlier. I already made the case for this.

I'm supporting my point by defeating yours. You cited AA as an example of a system that is superior to experience based leveling systems, yet AA itself uses an experience based system. Therefore, your example is moot, and therefore you have no valid proposal for a superior alternative to what is currently implemented for RO2.
Baloney. I said that AA-style training courses are superior to leveling systems, and I maintain that AA would be better off without the leveling system.

You can take the two a la carte, believe it or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snuffeldjuret
Upvote 0
When will Tripwire show Variousnames that this system can be played with or without so he can stop going bonkers over it?

The issue is finding such a server in the first place, especially 2-3 years down the line. ;)

If it is hard to find normal realism, unranked servers 2-3 years after release, you can bet that I won't pay over $30 for this game. If a game will only last me a few months to a year, I'll pay $20 or less for it.

Considering how many variable server options that will be present in RO2 that can drastically change the gameplay it is no surprise that many people are a little worried. If I am going to be stuck in servers with cluttered HUDs, unlocks and rank progression, I will get BF3 instead (or stick to BFBC2). At least this way I also get a SP experience.
 
Upvote 0
Riddle me this, what about this leveling system makes the game more fun to play? In fact, what about leveling is fun?.

In a single player or campaign enviroment, leveling is fun.

And this is why....

In multiplayer when you are respawning away very few seconds and game is representing a battle in which thousands will die....

Who cares?

But in singleplayer, in a campaign when the game is being played at a different pace and the lone decisions of a single player can shape the outcome of every skirmish....if not history itself!

You can choose a different game stiyle.

The realism game. The type of game in which each player is not Jesus rising from the grave to fight again, but where if he dies he dies and that's it.
Game Over.



Which takes us on to leveling.
It's a reward for keeping your men alive.
Because of that reward... your are motivated by the game mechanic to adopt a certain play style. To set yourself additional objectives, such as keep my guys alive.

And if they learn new skills or become better warriors or get less affected by suppression as the war progrsses then this is realism too, because that happens to real people.

Choosing which upgrades compliment each other yor your tactical preferences is also fun.
It's a nice little way to relax between game maps.



In a PvP only enviroment, levelling is a useful tool by which to judge other players.
For example, I could use the honour system in America's army or the level system in Company of Heroes by which to match players of mutual ability, so that they all had rewarding and challenging games. ratyher than just bored pros' pwning noobs until the noobs demoralise and launch a game that they can win at instead.

As boon for that you could offer little perks for leveling up. Uniform customisations for example. Or a spot on your shirt to add custom clan logos.

You know, vanity items that in no way undermione the balance of the game or it's realism but reward players or allow them to display their prowess visually as achievements, kudos and bragging rights.




Equally you could do it the Enemy Territory way, so that as the campaign progress all players upgrade at a relatively steady rate, with upgrades auto assigned to the skills or play styles that they used.

The rewards people for playing out the whole game (not just discoing because they aren't going to win this round.
And it provides a little intrest for the actually players as the game continues. A bit of fun in the debrief to see which ones you got awarded.
At the end of the campaign, it resets.
This adds to replayability as you get to try them all out if you wish.



As a game mechanic, levelling works. That's why so many games adopt this method.
Does a game like RO need it? No.

Can a game like RO benefit from it? Yes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
And if they learn new skills or become better warriors or get less affected by suppression as the war progrsses then this is realism too, because that happens to real people.

Real people die. They accumulate experience and then they die. I can safely say that I have never, in 900 hours, made it through a single round of Red Orchestra Ost Front without dying at least once. Has anybody managed to do that?

In a PvP only enviroment, levelling is a useful tool by which to judge other players.
For example, I could use the honour system in America's army or the level system in Company of Heroes by which to match players of mutual ability, so that they all had rewarding and challenging games. ratyher than just bored pros' pwning noobs until the noobs demoralise and launch a game that they can win at instead.
The leveling system in CoH is not the same. It is cosmetic, and does not unlock anything. I would not object to a cosmetic leveling system, and I would not be offended by stat tracking. In an RTS, stat tracking counts.

But then again, in Warcraft 3, Blizzard eventually did away with matching players based on levels because of all the smurfing.

[url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smurf[/URL]

People know who the quality players are. By and large it's the people with these clan tags: [url]http://roladder.net/index.php?sub=ladders&site=rankings[/URL]

And I could pick you out a bunch of quality RO players from a single round of pubbing. It's called an in-match scoreboard....

PS, if you're tired of pwning nubs and scrubs, go join ROladder and get beat up on by alc.

Matchmaking has been tried in competitive FPS before, and as someone who owns a Playstation 3 where matchmaking is the norm, I can tell you that it is absolutely the worst thing to hit competitive FPS of all time. Matchmaking is the reason I play Red Orchestra. Server browers and ladders are the only way to play competitive FPS in my opinion...

As boon for that you could offer little perks for leveling up. Uniform customisations for example. Or a spot on your shirt to add custom clan logos.

You know, vanity items that in no way undermione the balance of the game or it's realism but reward players or allow them to display their prowess visually as achievements, kudos and bragging rights.

Which is why I don't object to them at all.


As a game mechanic, levelling works. That's why so many games adopt this method.
Does a game like RO need it? No.

Can a game like RO benefit from it? Yes.

Partially because I can't entirely understand your english, I don't see how "leveling works."

For instance, I did not understand your reference to Enemy Territory...are you referring to incentives for playing through a match? I just need clarification.

Thanks.
 
Upvote 0
If these attributes, which are certainly broad, can be progressed in any substantive way, this will create ridiculous gameplay imbalances in the servers that host this progression system.

That's a big if, they said it would not be over the top in the video and they have said before that it will not be like in killing floor, So I don't see what the problem is.

one could argue that its more realistic over time because you you would get better at those things over time.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0