• 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/

A Focus On Asymmetry

In the mortar clip you can cleary see how the weapon is always centered while aiming even when he aimed to the left. This would look different in RO2/RS.
As it currently stands in dev, freeaim in ironsights is a player option. We have people who prefer it both ways, so the compromise was to allow people to choose the one they liked more. Generally speaking, there's a lot more player choice available this time around.

To people concerned that this will be another knee mortar, it won't. We allow far fewer M79s than we did knee mortars in RS. In addition, the M79 is a lot harder to use at long range and it's also useless up close. There is a minimum arming distance on the projectiles, so if you're too close, you'd better hope that a) you hit the person directly and b) you're lucky enough to kill them, because that's not guaranteed. That said, I won't lie - this is a powerful weapon and people who are skilled with it do very well. They also run out of ammunition very quickly and are very vulnerable once they've fired. But hey, you know what else is powerful? The RPG... :p

And lastly, on the topic of destruction, it's fairly unlikely guys. Maybe we can look at some items in maps being "destructible" but it'd only be in the most simplistic sense. I'll raise it internally. Large scale persistent destruction though is murder on the server and network and unless the engine is designed with that in mind (Unreal definitely isn't) then it's a good way to kill the game's performance fast.
 
Upvote 0
As it currently stands in dev, freeaim in ironsights is a player option. We have people who prefer it both ways, so the compromise was to allow people to choose the one they liked more. Generally speaking, there's a lot more player choice available this time around.

To people concerned that this will be another knee mortar, it won't. We allow far fewer M79s than we did knee mortars in RS. In addition, the M79 is a lot harder to use at long range and it's also useless up close. There is a minimum arming distance on the projectiles, so if you're too close, you'd better hope that a) you hit the person directly and b) you're lucky enough to kill them, because that's not guaranteed. That said, I won't lie - this is a powerful weapon and people who are skilled with it do very well. They also run out of ammunition very quickly and are very vulnerable once they've fired. But hey, you know what else is powerful? The RPG... :p

And lastly, on the topic of destruction, it's fairly unlikely guys. Maybe we can look at some items in maps being "destructible" but it'd only be in the most simplistic sense. I'll raise it internally. Large scale persistent destruction though is murder on the server and network and unless the engine is designed with that in mind (Unreal definitely isn't) then it's a good way to kill the game's performance fast.

Yeah I know, I was just joking!:D But it'd be nice to have more of a "dynamic" feel, for instance on StalingradKessel the metal doors are destroyable (ROSMO's) , which offer a new route. (first cap, I think, on the left flank? I play RS more...) Like not every building or every tree being destructible, but for example it'd be cool if you experimented with alternate "dynamic" routes, like a few places were a sapper can blow a hole in the wall to offer a new route that can be exploited to get past that pesky M60 laying down fire on the road. Or an ammo caches being destroyable (resupply points). Stuff like this would give a more interesting and alternative route or option than charging the same alleyway over and over again on RO2. ( this is specifically for urban areas.)
P.S. I know I'm not talking about dynamic meshes. But it'd give players the feel of impacting the environment with negligible performance drop, and a less monotonous feel to the map. I can attest to the fact that playing a map over and over again burns each possible route into one's memory, not mention getting boring. Spicing things up a bit would be nice. Might also be nice to not have a HUD icon for some, making it more discrete would allow for some exploration and new surprises, making it so each player isn't like oh this map, been there done that. Like this example for me on a daily occurrence on any public server: let's vote for ****ing bridges! ( had to put that in, that map should be banned from voting...)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Us players need to have a more realistic, sane perspective on near-term game development. In terms of the engine and backend of the game, RS2 seems more like a point release than a major revision. In some ways, I would compare it to BFBC2's subsequent release of BFBC2: Vietnam, which, although the engine didn't change much, the visuals were overhauled. I'm sure RS2 is changing the engine in some ways, so the aforementioned analogy is not perfect. Realistically, I do not expect a major change to the "feel" of the game from vanilla RS, but rather some noticeable minor changes to the feel and an overhauled visual environment and possibly gameplay style.

I try to focus my suggests and comments on what made my love of RS waver from time to time, rather than what new systems can completely revamp the old formula. Trying to force new, complex features into an aging engine is just asking for bugs, glitches, and exploits. That is not to say that new additions to the engine/backend would not be welcome, but rather it would be a surprise to me if the extent of revision to the game is as grandiose as some players seem to be hoping.

On the topic of asymmetry, will maps be inherently asymmetric as well? In RS, maps like Peleliu were hated by many since it favored the defending side. I realize it is easy for some to win as attackers on Peleliu, but that demands some skilled players, coordination, or a really bad defense. Regardless, I enjoy playing maps that demand more coordination or skill to win, so I'm wondering if the map formula will be changing to remedy the hate of Peleliu while still showing an advantage to prepared defenders? For instance, more players (and many more tickets) can be given to one side if the map is inherently against one side or the other.

Perhaps there can be multiple objectives of different types and consequences. For instance, if your team as a whole is deciding to be cannon fodder, there's no way you can win by tickets or clearing an objective of enemies and holding it off until you capture it. However, if there is a secondary objective that just requires the intervention of one player, like blowing up the AA guns in Iwo Jima, it would be more feasible for one player to help change the course of the game for his team. These secondary objectives can be random in number, location, type (calling in on a hidden radio, blowing up a cache) and consequence (increasing the enemy spawn timers for 5 minutes, decreasing your own spawn timers, spawning a helicopter...). The enemy may not know the exact location so they can't camp it, and it would behoove the losing team not to reveal the location of the objective so as not to lose the chance to take it. For anyone else who can continue with this thought, I'm looking at ways to allow a team stuck in a bad position to be able to push beyond the location or situation they are in.
 
Upvote 0
In addition, the M79 is a lot harder to use at long range and it's also useless up close. There is a minimum arming distance on the projectiles, so if you're too close, you'd better hope that a) you hit the person directly and b) you're lucky enough to kill them, because that's not guaranteed. That said, I won't lie - this is a powerful weapon and people who are skilled with it do very well. They also run out of ammunition very quickly and are very vulnerable once they've fired. But hey, you know what else is powerful? The RPG... :p
hard to use and even harder to master,...i like that,keep the learning curve steep :)
 
Upvote 0