Realism in maps?
- Thread starter 4th Reich
- Start date
![[TW]DrGuppy](/data/avatars/s/0/171.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Rak said:
All they need is larger maps. I find that upping the spawn time doesn't discourage suicide tactics - for example, in Counter Strike, depending on how the round goes, you might have to wait over 4 minutes for the next round in order to respawn.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That is a great suggestion!
A large map like Bondarevo or even twice that without tanks, or panzerfasts. Germans could have there halftrack, the russians there clown car.
In the small maps there is and can be alot of run and gunning and with a large map like that it will most likely inforce more teamwork and many of the counterstrike survivors who decided to tough the game out will have to raise the ironsights to fire.
A large map like Bondarevo or even twice that without tanks, or panzerfasts. Germans could have there halftrack, the russians there clown car.
In the small maps there is and can be alot of run and gunning and with a large map like that it will most likely inforce more teamwork and many of the counterstrike survivors who decided to tough the game out will have to raise the ironsights to fire.
Upvote
0
You would like the map Basovka_Tank then. Search for it in the level design part of the forum or try MapOrchestra or failing that keep an eye out for a server running it and download it straight from there.
Ta
Chi
Upvote
0
Large infantry maps = boring.
Go play WWIIOL and then you'll see why. And that game has 1000's of players online at one time.
Even if someone created a really fantastic spawning sytem that kept the action going, that would simply mean that large parts of the map go unused. (Just like in WWIIOL)
I always love the mentality that players have that they should be able to stealth around the map and cap objectives. This is supposed to be a WAR sim, and in no way during WWII did one or two guys sneak into enemy territory and CAPTURE IT.
In short, there were NO NINJA's in WWII.
And you can still set up ambushes on smaller maps. It's called camping...
Go play WWIIOL and then you'll see why. And that game has 1000's of players online at one time.
Even if someone created a really fantastic spawning sytem that kept the action going, that would simply mean that large parts of the map go unused. (Just like in WWIIOL)
I always love the mentality that players have that they should be able to stealth around the map and cap objectives. This is supposed to be a WAR sim, and in no way during WWII did one or two guys sneak into enemy territory and CAPTURE IT.
In short, there were NO NINJA's in WWII.
And you can still set up ambushes on smaller maps. It's called camping...
Upvote
0
Rameusb5 said:Large infantry maps = boring.
Go play WWIIOL and then you'll see why. And that game has 1000's of players online at one time.
Even if someone created a really fantastic spawning sytem that kept the action going, that would simply mean that large parts of the map go unused. (Just like in WWIIOL)
I always love the mentality that players have that they should be able to stealth around the map and cap objectives. This is supposed to be a WAR sim, and in no way during WWII did one or two guys sneak into enemy territory and CAPTURE IT.
In short, there were NO NINJA's in WWII.
And you can still set up ambushes on smaller maps. It's called camping...
Large infantry maps, lets say Bondarevo without tanks has alot more and better feautures for infantry and can improve team tactics because in smaller maps people think there isnt enough time so they say to themselves or there team, sorry guys not enough time to plan, im going to go and run and gun the battle.
Upvote
0
Rameusb5 said:Large infantry maps = boring.
Go play WWIIOL and then you'll see why. And that game has 1000's of players online at one time.
Even if someone created a really fantastic spawning sytem that kept the action going, that would simply mean that large parts of the map go unused. (Just like in WWIIOL)
I always love the mentality that players have that they should be able to stealth around the map and cap objectives. This is supposed to be a WAR sim, and in no way during WWII did one or two guys sneak into enemy territory and CAPTURE IT.
In short, there were NO NINJA's in WWII.
And you can still set up ambushes on smaller maps. It's called camping...
*Sigh* I bet you played WWIIOL about 3 years ago, before depot spawning, before MSes and UMSes, before any of that. Back in the fun days of bunker rushes with Opels of Death.
WWIIOL is an intense game, both in the furious town and city fighting, and in long-range combat.
Upvote
0
Rameusb5 said:Large infantry maps = boring.
Go play WWIIOL and then you'll see why. And that game has 1000's of players online at one time.
Even if someone created a really fantastic spawning sytem that kept the action going, that would simply mean that large parts of the map go unused. (Just like in WWIIOL)
I always love the mentality that players have that they should be able to stealth around the map and cap objectives. This is supposed to be a WAR sim, and in no way during WWII did one or two guys sneak into enemy territory and CAPTURE IT.
In short, there were NO NINJA's in WWII.
And you can still set up ambushes on smaller maps. It's called camping...
Small infantry maps = BORING.
And frankly, I don't see how you can compare WWIIOL to Red Orchestra.
In WW2, territory was captured utilizing stealth, but it usually involved more than 32 men. However, making the Infantry maps larger would enhance the combat more than anything. Instead of just running and gunning in small maps, having larger maps would allow for actual ambushes, and vantage points offering supportive fire would be more valuable over long distances. In small maps, you really can't make a group effort to out flank your enemy, much less do anything other than run and gun.
Rameusb5, go play Serious Sam, it suits your taste better.
Upvote
0
blitze said:What, the Clown Car ain't good enough for ya?
Yes, the Reds need something, even the old truck was better than the current troop transport options (feet).
Also, can we get ski's for winter combat? Yes I know, the Russians usually only wore them on their backs but for the Axis it was an effective means for getting around, at least in Finland and Lapp Land
lol tribes vengeance
Upvote
0
Deathsai said:
I played WWIIOL from August 2002 to June 2006. I still visit their forums, but I was getting tired of playing a game that was still 50% "in development." MSP's and some of the other stuff you mentioned did resolve the time to combat factor in the game to some degree, but the infantry play became so antiquated, combined with the fact that it is now clear to me that they have NO intentions of ever giving infantry any post 1940 weapons that I gave up in frustration.
Here's the major problem with extremely large maps and a game with only 32 players. You spend most of your time travelling TO the combat. Not only that, but because the space is so open, you're not even exactly sure where the enemy is. Now combine that with the fact that MOST infantry players tend to run off by themselves.
This means your map has an extremely low population density. Now it feels a lot less like a "battle" and a lot more like you're hunting. Pixel-hunting.
And by the way, Bonderevo isn't really that big of a map. I think it's about 3 or 4 km square at most. So while Bonderevo might be acceptable to use for infantry play, larger maps like Orel certainly would be a total snoozefest.
Upvote
0
4th ReichHowever said:
No flanking my ass. Its EASIER to flank in small maps; I did it tonight in the new map. Blew away three defenders with a nade, shot another, then moved up a little and knocked off a MG as well. Amazing how much easier that is to do from behind.
The size of the map only affects tactics a little. More important is the respawn timer vs. distance to objectives, and that still doesn't do all that much.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Rameusb5 said:
Small maps = monotonous combat. By making the maps larger, you have more variety and surprises in each battle. This is why small maps are uninteresting, because the fighting is repetitive. It's very boring when you always know where your enemy is.
You also don't understand how team work works. The reason why people tend to run off by themselves is because the maps they are playing on are too small for team work and tactical planning to be of much use. An example of this is team work in a map like Orel vs. Arad, In Orel you see much more of an effort for players to work together.
Also, forcing players to travel some distance before they encounter the enemy has advantages. The first advantage is that you have a chance to discuss your tactics and make plans before the battle, the other advantage is that people in the game will value their lives more, because it took them so long to cross the map.
Rameusb5 said:
What's wrong with hunting? You have to hunt the enemy anyway, if you take away the hunt then you aren't having a battle with the enemy. War is large scale hunting.
Also, Whether you like it or not, in real wars, people have to shoot at very small targets at very long distances. This is something that we want to see more of, we want more realism. Perhaps in the future they should improve upon the current system graphically so it doesn't feel like pixel hunting.
Despite the fact that I think you're being silly, I do agree with you that RO needs a much higher player cap, 32 is not enough. I also agree with you that Bonderevo isn't a big map, rather small.
Upvote
0
He did, I was in there when he did it too (on odessa ya?).Phoenix-D said:No flanking my ass. Its EASIER to flank in small maps; I did it tonight in the new map. Blew away three defenders with a nade, shot another, then moved up a little and knocked off a MG as well. Amazing how much easier that is to do from behind.
The size of the map only affects tactics a little. More important is the respawn timer vs. distance to objectives, and that still doesn't do all that much.
Even odessa is to big for a map with no transport because players really dont use the vast majority of the space in the map and just go straight for the capzones.
The way to fix that of course is to have a min number of players for capping to start (can be scaled to player numbers), that way defenders can be free to move out of the cap zone to defend since there would be no unrealistic lamer sneeking into a capzone, IRL it would be suicide to leave your squad, so by not rewarding running off to the capzone without your team you would get more realistic play.
Making bigger maps without addressing this problem would lead to even LESS realistic gameplay because people would sneek into capzones that 1 person would never be able to cap IRL just because the other team doesnt have enough players to be in every square inch of the territory they would be in IRL.
Upvote
0
Phoenix-D said:No flanking my ass. Its EASIER to flank in small maps; I did it tonight in the new map. Blew away three defenders with a nade, shot another, then moved up a little and knocked off a MG as well. Amazing how much easier that is to do from behind.
The size of the map only affects tactics a little. More important is the respawn timer vs. distance to objectives, and that still doesn't do all that much.
Ok Rambo, that's not what I meant by out flanking. When I mentioned out flanking, it was within the context of teamwork; because by definition, a flank is a body of troops rather than one troop. Think of out flanking as as a combined effort of soldiers to surprise the enemy. This is the opposite of what you did, which is really just sneak behind some enemies and throw a grenade, and that gets old fast.
Sneaking behind the enemy flanks yourself isn't out flanking, it's just sneaking. Instead, try making a team effort to out flank your enemy (real out flanking) and you'll see that 95 percent of the time you'll have a huge advantage over those who don't use such team work.
Upvote
0
Hyperion2010 said:
I think they should get rid of the cap zones altogether, on every map. Instead, vantage points and places with real tactic value should be the points of interest on a map. Cap zones are just a very artificial and contrived way of creating objectives that are strategically useless.
Upvote
0
Well I proposed a new system awhile back, but it would require a TON of scripting and it would just be easier to make a new system entirely when they make their next game :/
I dont like cap zones either, but since communication isnt exactly at an all time high in ROO there needs to be some visible objective for players to aim for.
Its not perfect, but it works, and trying to figure out how to make the current maps work better with a few changes to the mechanics is a whole lot more productive at this point in time.
I dont like cap zones either, but since communication isnt exactly at an all time high in ROO there needs to be some visible objective for players to aim for.
Its not perfect, but it works, and trying to figure out how to make the current maps work better with a few changes to the mechanics is a whole lot more productive at this point in time.
Upvote
0
Hyperion2010 said:
The maps work fine, they just need to be larger.
Also, in order to have more communication and teamwork, you have to have incentive for it! This is where larger maps come in. It brings us incentive because larger maps aren't as friendly to Rambo tactics.
Oh Joy, let me remind you that the magic word today is Incentive!Smaller maps = No incentive.
Bigger maps = Incentive!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hyperion2010 said:Well, as much as I wish people could be incintivised that easily I'm a cynic
Ah well!
Certain maps encourage more suicidal lone wolf tactics, whereas, in Orel, you do see a lot more teamwork.
Upvote
0