HC FPS gamer here, a few suggestions.

Snuffeldjuret said:

I'm a "having a realistic feeling while playing competitively" nut. So there are more types here at the forum than the so called "realism freaks".

Click to expand...

Exactly. I play games of varying levels of realism, from RO all the way to Pirates Vikings and Knights 2. But no, if I want actual gameplay that rewards tactical and team playing instead of idiot "1337 snipers" who only care about their personal "k/d" and e-peen, I'm a "realism freak."

Knighted said:

You don't need to do much to draw the CoD community, but I can tell you this. If the game has no weapon balance, it won't be taking anyone from any game. This hilarious little niche group that worships sim shooters that has entrenched itself here represents nothing.

I love some of the realism, but I don't give a flying **** if the k98 bolt action takes .2 seconds longer than it should. Overpowered classes and weapons are the bane of any game design, realistic or not.

As for the OP wahoo, the entire community that is growing in excitement for RO2 isn't represented by this forum, most of the RO2 fans don't even bother registering here because it's a small group of like minded sim nuts who flame everything and everyone.

Click to expand...

Weapon balance is not game balance. You don't need balanced weapons to have a balanced game.

There is 1 main element to balancing RO.
1) Maps

Within this balance element, there are 4 primary areas where balance is "made".
1) Feature design within the map (terrain etc)
2) Class limits (making it so not everyone has an MG)
3) Reinforcements (one team might be able to kill the enemy twice as much, but the enemy might have twice as many reinforcements)
4) Map time limit

You don't need to balance the weapons, because the game is designed to be balanced in other ways. This isn't a TDM game, it's objective based, and hence the maps are balanced around the objectives, and instead of having the game designers balance classes etc, it's the mappers who make the game balanced, because it's supposed to be (typically) played as an attack/defend gametype. Weapon balance is meaningless for such a game type, and doubly so in a game designed to be broadly historically accurate rather than a typical shooter.

Oh, and it's a team game. That means you are part of a team. If one class is OP and you're not it, don't be a baby. All classes have uses, and you need to work together to win.

If they design the game like that, RO2 will appeal to a handful of people and won't ever go anywhere. There are so many ways to maintain realism and balance the weapons, why not balance the weaponry and the maps, and have an incredible experience.

In my opinion having balanced maps isn't a feature, it's a requirement. It's like saying the game should have guns.

Did BF2 or DOD:S ship with an FFA gametype? Those games are built around capturing objectives and did just fine.

I know we all want this game to do well and succeed, but do we really need to be making all this effort to take gamers away from other games? Honestly, for the tiny, minuscule amount of advertising and promoting they have been doing (compared to many other major game companies atleast. I mean I haven't see a ROHOS commercial with neckties running through stalingrad with PPSh's and Mosin's yet.) I believe it's gotten a TON of support. As long as the game stays true to ROOST, it will obviously have all of it's original fans, not to mention a ton gained along the way. Anybody else in the "other gaming communities" that feels like playing this along with whatever the hell they are currently playing are welcome to join us.

red orchestra 2 isn't just a game anymore, it's the counter-culture of fps.

Click to expand...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24898223&postcount=6[url]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24898223&postcount=6[/URL]


How true...:troll:

Knighted said:

There are so many ways to maintain realism and balance the weapons, why not balance the weaponry and the maps, and have an incredible experience.

Click to expand...

That relies on the wild presumption that balancing game by making weapons identical clones which are not infact balanced, but only about finding which one fits best for twitchreactions or is an all-arounder and stick with it. Everything else can be declared obsolete after that. This on the other hand easily results into situation where the so-called weapon balance is constantly shifted with patches and community made modifications because X needs a nerf, Y is too strong etc etc, and drama ensures. Look at BC2 before M60 got the big stick, and easily makes it so that people are lobbying for their favorite weapons rather because the only point is to keep things "balanced", and subjectivity of what can be considered balanced or not becomes pretty twisted.

Now things which are intensionally not equal, comparable or even balanced can lead paradoxically to beter results gameplay-wise. Looking at TF2 (before they added some of the weapon unlocks though), the game was unbalanced as far as you can consider weapon vs weapon or class vs class situation. If you got surprised by a spy you were in unbalanced situation, if you were a medic and you ran into enemy heavy you were also in heavily unbalanced situation. These examples are just tip of the iceberg, but why does everyone then keep calling how well balanced that game is? Because the overall gameplay balance leans more toward team- and mapbased balance instead of weapon based. Darthmod for Rome Total War (and even the vanilla game, but just to put emphasis on it) is also heavily unbalanced in several ways, as desert infantry can't beat spartan hoplites under fair situations no matter what you do, yet it was pretty popular mod because it... balanced things to be more reasonable.

Considering you haven't even played RO and you're doing pretty good job dodging almost every counterargument thrown at you, it would be far more pragmatic solution to wait and see RO2 crash and burn, as it obviously can't sell or appeal to more than handful of people because it defies the logic that balanced weapons = balanced game, and then you can come here and say "I told you so", while on the other hand if RO2 ends up being a success on multiple departments beter to prepare your diapers, because after all, how come such unbalanced can even be played or sell more than few copies?

You STILL haven't installed it? Get a life dude!

lol

wahoo4 said:

I have a life, that's why it's not installed yet.

Click to expand...

And none of us have, since we are the small niche clique of pathetic gamers living in our mothers basements...

wahoo4 said:

The guy told me to get a life. lol I respect every one's game, but I don't understand why some of you guys are fighting so hard to keep out a game type that does not affect what you play. It will bring more noobs for you to mow down when they step into your arena. I understand people hate change. Besides there's no definite answer from TripWire anyway. I think whatever they decide to do will be good for everyone. If there is no FFA or TDM I can always go back to COD when I need to vent.

Click to expand...

Once you lay your hands on RO will be hard to go back to COD iven to vent around,trust me once you go RO,there aint trurning back to COD.

wahoo4 said:

The guy told me to get a life. lol I respect every one's game, but I don't understand why some of you guys are fighting so hard to keep out a game type that does not affect what you play. It will bring more noobs for you to mow down when they step into your arena. I understand people hate change. Besides there's no definite answer from TripWire anyway. I think whatever they decide to do will be good for everyone. If there is no FFA or TDM I can always go back to COD when I need to vent.

Click to expand...

His comment was aimed at that Knighted troll.

Knighted said:

If they design the game like that, RO2 will appeal to a handful of people and won't ever go anywhere. There are so many ways to maintain realism and balance the weapons, why not balance the weaponry and the maps, and have an incredible experience.

In my opinion having balanced maps isn't a feature, it's a requirement. It's like saying the game should have guns.

Click to expand...

What bothers me is not your opposing views but the fact that, even after more than 15 courteous replies from RO fans explaining what RO is all about and why certain cookie-cutter FPS features don't belong in the game, you STILL refuse to understand. Either that, or you don't read any of our posts. You even have the nerve to call us "sim-nuts who represent nothing and flame everything and everyone". No wonder your reputation says 'Knighted sucks'.

Like I said, I'm all for welcoming new guys, but at least try to understand what Red Orchestra is about before criticizing something you know nothing about. At least wahoo4 is going to try RO:O, which is admirable.

Although RO has changed a lot over the years, especially RO2 will improve in many different ways, it's still the same concept; a realism-based Eastern Front first person shooter. Not sim-level, but still realistic. It has been since the release of the very first mod version in 2003. RO is RO is RO. If you can't accept that, why are you even here? Do you see me posting on the CoD forums urging the devs to get rid of the crosshairs, regenerative health, one-man-army gameplay and peashooting guns? Because that's what you're doing, except you turn it around and urge TWI to turn RO into another thirteen-in-a-dozen CoD clone.

I'm not buying your notion that it would increase TWI's number of customers either. If anything, they'd lose customers, especially the loyal fans who have been playing RO since the release of Ostfront or even since the mod days.

No offense, but judging your inability to accept other views, you are very closed-minded.

wahoo4 said:

Nimsky how will adding two game types lose customers? If anything you will gain customers. You tell me people are going to drop RO2 because TW added a few game types? lol That don't make sense. People will continue to play what they play and more people will drift into your game type. I understand you want to be your own, the proud, the glory, but come on now. Just embrace it, there will be clans that pick what they play on their servers regardless. If they don't have it, in my network, you can say goodbye to at least 15 casual clans of 1000+

Click to expand...

More game modes = more people spread out among the game modes.

This means less players playing your preferred game mode. Just because you add deathmatch doesn't mean you will automatically get more players who only play deathmatch... some of the other players will play deathmatch to.

You're also implying not a single member of those 1000+ clans will play HoS if it doesn't sport Deathmatch. This makes the clan sound like some grotesque, collective conscience that can only make one choice on any given manner.