I honestly think it's the maps.

[Extension7]

With the many fixes TWI has put for performance, and Semi-Auto/SMG balancing, I really think the game is pretty nice now, but there are still at least 2 key features that are holding the game back from being a open game with variety, creativity, and of course, fun. I'm only going to talk about 1, the maps. The other one is tank, but I know TWI is working on that...

THE MAPS

They sure do look nice, they look damn nice, compared to the photos especially. But in reality, they are too small, have some lame camping spots, and have short distances of common engagement.

The usual engagement distance for most of my kills are below or about 100 meters. This is sad to me. Barracks, Apartments, Grain Elevator, Station, and Red October. All these maps just feel pretty crammed. I feel like me and my team are just moving forward, and forward only, about 80-100 meters spread apart, sprinting for 6 seconds to get into the general zone of combat.

Using my rifle at 40-80 meters too often. Barely any space for tanks. This is all a bad thing.

Now I'm sure TWI, RO1 vets, and RO2 players know of the map Ogledow. Now this map, while not the best RO1 map, sure does change the feel of the entire game in RO2. Tanks have freedom, infantry using caution and take their time reaching an objective, no secondary spawn points or squad spawning, 100-300m engagments. It's all so nice, to breath open air, and still be playing RO2.

I hope you release the SDK soon enough, we need more maps like Spartanovka, Ogledow, and Commisars.

 

[GRIZZLY]

I've preferred large maps in every multiplayer FPS I've ever played (Unless it was 2v2 Goldeneye or something). That being said, I don't think it's the maps alone. I, for one, look forward to the gameplay, unlock, and loadout changes TWI is introducing. According to their poll well over half the people on here are also looking forward to those changes.

 

[NikolaiLev]

Many folks have mentioned experiencing Mystical Visions of Euphoria when they played Ogledow. Don't forget, RO2 focuses on Stalingrad because TWI specifically wanted to deliver the tense, up-close and personal combat that happened there.

I bet many of the future maps will focus on RO1 style open maps, as well as maps that don't have to do with Stalingrad. However, keep in mind that RO2's experience is different from RO1, and deliberately so. Whether or not this is a good thing depends on just how steeped you are in nostalgia.

 

[Six_Ten]

It has nothing to do with nostalgia, it is about freedom of movement and imagination. Half the fun in RO was figuring out a new way to take an objective you'd fought over many times before, but against an enemy who was doing the same, so every game was different even on the same maps.

In RO2 we cannot get out of our tanks, we cannot deviate from the preset assault paths, and we cannot stretch the clock. Most of the decisions that I enjoyed making for myself in-game have already been made for us. If there's no room for my imagination there's no fun in it for me.

 

[defektive]

Sorry to bleat on like a rooster but RO gave us the freedom to craft many and varied tactics for taking an objective, there was more than one way to skin a Kraut; whereas in RO2 it's all so very, very single-minded and utterly without tactical challenge. RO2 seems to be all about blindly bashing skulls until someone passes out; there is no opportunity to out wit the enemy. It's like the RO2 maps were designed, nay, forced to herd angry cats and do nothing more complicated than that.

The beta release of Ogledow has helped to prove this. It isn't even a particularly great map (game play is very often the same and it wasn't on that many roosters' top 3 maps list) but it has been welcomed with rapture into the RO2 map roster due to claustrophobic RO2 players so desperately needing some time outside of the box. This is not to take anything away from Six_Ten; I think his decision to port Ogle has done far more for the future of RO2 than for its present.

EDIT: Yes, it's all about the maps.

 

[Graphic]

Most of the maps play like **** because they're modeled too closely off of real locations. While that sounds awesome on paper (especially for a realistic game) it doesn't translate into good gameplay. Good multiplayer maps have a perceptible flow that focuses things and makes it fun.

When you have a facsimile of a real life location, it's just an ugly, uninteresting looking mess of random crap all around the map with 500 entrances into every building which leads to messy, unfocused, slow, and boring gameplay.

Basically since 95% of the time pubbers don't play as a team, you need maps designed to herd the masses together and MAKE them play as a team and keep the game intense.

ROOST Danzig is a good example of a map with good flow and focused gameplay, and sadly ROHOS' Apartments is a perfect of example of what you can do wrong to ruin it. With all the extra windows on both sides of the stream the map entices players to camp in them, whereas before there were only room for 6 or less guys in the windows, so everyone else had nothing else to do but capture the objective. Even emptying out the river was a bad decision; the chokepoints on the ROOST version forced squad leaders to deploy smoke.

 

[Extension7]

Yes freedom was a very amazing thing in ROOST and was why I never got as pissed going 4 and 30 as other games.

Honestly, after Ogledow came out, I really didn't want to play anymore RO2. I couldn't play the other maps (cept maybe Commisars, and Red October) I just felt like everyone already knew the 2 or 3 key paths to the objectives making it hard to get to where you need to go.

I know RO2 focuses on the CQC and all, but I guess I'm just getting tired of it :/

 

[MarioBava]

It has nothing to do with nostalgia, it is about freedom of movement and imagination. Half the fun in RO was figuring out a new way to take an objective you'd fought over many times before, but against an enemy who was doing the same, so every game was different even on the same maps.

In RO2 we cannot get out of our tanks, we cannot deviate from the preset assault paths, and we cannot stretch the clock. Most of the decisions that I enjoyed making for myself in-game have already been made for us. If there's no room for my imagination there's no fun in it for me.

Sorry to bleat on like a rooster but RO gave us the freedom to craft many and varied tactics for taking an objective, there was more than one way to skin a Kraut; whereas in RO2 it's all so very, very single-minded and utterly without tactical challenge.

While I agree that Ogledow is a breath of fresh air (literally!) in terms of engagement ranges, and I heartily welcome the variety it promises for the future of RO2 map rotations, I simply could not agree with the above two comparative statements particularly with regard to "freedom of movement". RO2 has freedom of movement that RO1 never had, and the map design of RO2 stock maps afford plenty of opportunity to use it, and plenty of RO1 maps had less opportunities than the RO2 maps have. The difference is that for RO1 to have freedom of movement there had to be very few obstacles in the terrain, a wiiiiiide (seeming...150m was "sniping" in RO1) space where the enemy could either not see you or had to hit a pixel to kill you, and forget about entering a building by a ground floor window unless the mapper decided to put a ramp, some small crates, or a rubble pile to help you. In RO2 maps it is urban combat so there is a ton of obstacles but if you don't perceive that there are myriad multiple ways to get into and around the objectives, you haven't been playing the same game I have.

Ogledow is not better than the RO2 maps in terms of freedom of movement. It has longer engagement ranges, that's it. And humorously enough there's only 1 spawn per side and no spawn on squad leader (yea, real "freedom" there).

 

[>< f4ct0r...13]

You may have a new found respect for the maps after you learn them better.

Also, remember, no one player is the team.

I too look forward to the great maps of RO1, but am enjoying all the RO2 maps also.

I also wonder about the ranges being shown to us in game. Hard to see how a bayo kill is at 4 meters (12 feet).

 

[amdr]

Bigger maps will surely make the leading for ping a lot more fun

 

[Extension7]

You may have a new found respect for the maps after you learn them better.

Also, remember, no one player is the team.

I too look forward to the great maps of RO1, but am enjoying all the RO2 maps also.

I also wonder about the ranges being shown to us in game. Hard to see how a bayo kill is at 4 meters (12 feet).

I know the layouts by heart, I've been playing since beta, not that it matters.

The maps do seem kind of cramped and limited time to time, especially Grain Elevator. The paths to attack an objectives are so linear. I just get a bit angry/bored of them honestly. Team work or no teamwork.

 

[nebsif]

I too hate the maps.. I can easily enjoy arcade games likes BF3 (unless I was promised sth else), but then its all about how repetitive or not the gameplay & maps are.
Current RO2 maps play exactly the same every single time, I mean even BF3 has much much bigger & less repetitive maps that offer freedom & reward thought, need I say more?

"oh its commisar's house and im russian --> camp NCO racks or cross the street to attack that broken building thing? so much choice!"
Thats about all the freedom you'll ever get in RO, stay/camp or go forward.

What was the point of creating tiny, but very realistic maps when the gameplay is completely different anyway?

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I have always prefered the larger maps myself.

That said, I don't really think it is the stock maps and their size and engagement ranges that are the problem. I think many of us are aware that they offer more close up firefights that tend to highlight assault and run-n-gun methods.

It is some of the gameplay that needs tweaking and it is just exagerated in the stock maps. Rambo'ing with mg's, MKb's, Lockdown, stamina sway etc have all been discussed to death. You can make bigger maps where you don't notice those decisions as much, but they will still be there.

 

[ARMY guy]

While I agree that Ogledow is a breath of fresh air (literally!) in terms of engagement ranges, and I heartily welcome the variety it promises for the future of RO2 map rotations, I simply could not agree with the above two comparative statements particularly with regard to "freedom of movement". RO2 has freedom of movement that RO1 never had, and the map design of RO2 stock maps afford plenty of opportunity to use it, and plenty of RO1 maps had less opportunities than the RO2 maps have. The difference is that for RO1 to have freedom of movement there had to be very few obstacles in the terrain, a wiiiiiide (seeming...150m was "sniping" in RO1) space where the enemy could either not see you or had to hit a pixel to kill you, and forget about entering a building by a ground floor window unless the mapper decided to put a ramp, some small crates, or a rubble pile to help you. In RO2 maps it is urban combat so there is a ton of obstacles but if you don't perceive that there are myriad multiple ways to get into and around the objectives, you haven't been playing the same game I have.

Ogledow is not better than the RO2 maps in terms of freedom of movement. It has longer engagement ranges, that's it. And humorously enough there's only 1 spawn per side and no spawn on squad leader (yea, real "freedom" there).

This man speaks the truth.

 

[Goten]

RO2 has good sized maps, they are just very badly balanced. This is Heroes of Stalingrad so expect smaller and crowded maps - it's an urban conflict.

 

[Six_Ten]

Most of the maps play like **** because they're modeled too closely off of real locations. While that sounds awesome on paper (especially for a realistic game) it doesn't translate into good gameplay. Good multiplayer maps have a perceptible flow that focuses things and makes it fun.

When you have a facsimile of a real life location, it's just an ugly, uninteresting looking mess of random crap all around the map with 500 entrances into every building which leads to messy, unfocused, slow, and boring gameplay.

I completely disagree with this. The fact that the RO2 maps are so close to the real locations is wonderful. The problem is in the game-map design, where those great recreations are cordoned off so we are restricted to one predetermined attack. All of the maps based on real locations are beautiful and it is a real education for me, never having been to Stalingrad.

Basically since 95% of the time pubbers don't play as a team, you need maps designed to herd the masses together and MAKE them play as a team and keep the game intense.

Far from being a solution, this is exactly what is wrong with the maps. We have these gorgeous locations, but the real life opportunities to flank and get creative are all shut down to channel us into the kind of "intense" play you argue for. If all the decisions have been made for me why do I need to be here?

RO2 has freedom of movement that RO1 never had, and the map design of RO2 stock maps afford plenty of opportunity to use it, and plenty of RO1 maps had less opportunities than the RO2 maps have. The difference is that for RO1 to have freedom of movement there had to be very few obstacles in the terrain, a wiiiiiide (seeming...150m was "sniping" in RO1) space where the enemy could either not see you or had to hit a pixel to kill you, and forget about entering a building by a ground floor window unless the mapper decided to put a ramp, some small crates, or a rubble pile to help you.

You mean Apartments, Grain Elevator, Fallen Fighters, or some other RO map? The improvement you're talking about is mantling, which I happen to think is an awesome addition to the gameplay. It isn't the size of the map, it is how its used. Any one of the maps in RO2 could have the kind of freedom of creativity with changes to the under-the-hood stuff. They just don't.

 

[>< f4ct0r...13]

I too hate the maps.. I can easily enjoy arcade games likes BF3 (unless I was promised sth else), but then its all about how repetitive or not the gameplay & maps are.
Current RO2 maps play exactly the same every single time, I mean even BF3 has much much bigger & less repetitive maps that offer freedom & reward thought, need I say more?

"oh its commisar's house and im russian --> camp NCO racks or cross the street to attack that broken building thing? so much choice!"
Thats about all the freedom you'll ever get in RO, stay/camp or go forward.

What was the point of creating tiny, but very realistic maps when the gameplay is completely different anyway?

You got your maps mixed. Play much?

 

[>< f4ct0r...13]

I know the layouts by heart, I've been playing since beta, not that it matters.

The maps do seem kind of cramped and limited time to time, especially Grain Elevator. The paths to attack an objectives are so linear. I just get a bit angry/bored of them honestly. Team work or no teamwork.

I won't argue that some of the maps feel contrived. I'm not sure Grain Elevator is one of them, at least not to the extent Barracks and Apartments are.

Your OP read to me as if you were making a point about no room being allowed for good rifle combat. IMHO, Commisar's House and Red October Factory are WIDE OPEN for good rifle combat, and intelligent movment, combined with many opportunities for rewarding team play.

My opinion (and counterpoint) is that given proper execution, and good support from teammates (as required in rl), the rifle can be extremely effective.

While we can certainly say that gameplay changes can be made by developers, we can also say that gameplay changes can be made by players too.

The rifle is not the weapon that is committing close range assaults/engagements by choice. Keep the weapon in its envelope, and it will be wildly effective.

It should be maintaining position, and supporting. Lending it's weight (per se) to an assault only when needed.

It also occurs to me that it is not the game's fault that the other team is kicking one's butt. Once one's weapon is taken out of it's envelope, it is essentially worthless. This is true of all weapon systems, but perhaps even more true for a rifle designed in 1895/1930 entering the era of automatic weapons.

 

[Extension7]

I do hope some of the newer maps will be more like ROOST maps, along with the gameplay changes we are going to see soon. I know Stalingrad was a urban conflict with CQB and all but then that puts into question "Why Stalingrad?"

I don't know, I just loved the feeling of being in a halftrack with my crew talking about where to go, and getting there takes effort, and time. It made your life purposeful cause getting into that cap zone so far away took time, and if you couldn't take control of it the enemy would be able to set up more positions by the time it takes for you to get back.

Directing tanks over fields to watch certain choke points, spotting out tanks to the team so everyone can be aware. And when caught in urban combat, being able to constantly supress fire with your rifle to make sure the enemy doesn't stick his head out the window while having decent sight of whats going on.

That said, I hope TWI can make better gameplay changes, and weapons. And I hope there is still a willful community of mappers to help out with Re-makes and amazing new maps.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I do think it is meant to be the whole Stalingrad campaign and that has to include all the areas in the path of the German Army's advance up to and including the city itself.

No need to limit your imagination as far as map types