• 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/

RO:HOS multi-play max player

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#62
Right - well here's the deal with the realism thing, as I see it....

There were enough interesting encounters in the largest battle in the war, Stalingrad, that there is absolutely no need to shoehorn in a 'Saving Private Ryan'-style amphibious assault.

To do so shows a) a lack of imagination and b) a lack of respect to the facts.

A good LD can take an actual historical situation and make something eminently playable and, just importantly, unique from it.

For example - the German assault on the 'Kommissarhaus' in the lower settlement of Barrikady was a great set-piece involving pioniers and stugs. These were used in an assault on a big brick fortress defended by PTRDs and troops with bags of nades. This battle involved all elements that RO players love (satchels for taking out walls, bounding overwatch across cover and PTRD sniping) and, best of all, it actually happened.

Another example - As the ice on the Volga started to freeze over and there were drifting ice floes causing problems for boats, the Russians took a couple of boats full of supplies across at night. The lead boat was an armoured cutter with a t-34 turret. It fought against shore-based AT guns whilst a fight between infantry took place on the shore around the landing area. What do you reckon - some nice gameplay elements there?

To expect nothing more of TW than to produce some cookie-cutter maps that could just as easily appear in CoD or something 'because it will please the masses' underestimates both TW and the masses.

I sincerely hope that RO:HoS is a unique and memorable game because it finds NEW ways of pleasing players rather than ploughing a tired old furrow.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#63
Indeed. Also while trying to portray something acurate you constantly have to ask yourself "is this really fun to play ?" if not tweak or scrap it. Its like with some of the first DH maps. So much work went into them but for big parts they where just not fun to play. It dosent help if you try to portray something in 1:1 size and than the player feels lost because, to polulate a bigger scenario, you whould need a higher playercount than the 50x that ro can support at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#64
Nestor Makhno said:
Right - well here's the deal with the realism thing, as I see it....

There were enough interesting encounters in the largest battle in the war, Stalingrad, that there is absolutely no need to shoehorn in a 'Saving Private Ryan'-style amphibious assault.

To do so shows a) a lack of imagination and b) a lack of respect to the facts.

A good LD can take an actual historical situation and make something eminently playable and, just importantly, unique from it.

For example - the German assault on the 'Kommissarhaus' in the lower settlement of Barrikady was a great set-piece involving pioniers and stugs. These were used in an assault on a big brick fortress defended by PTRDs and troops with bags of nades. This battle involved all elements that RO players love (satchels for taking out walls, bounding overwatch across cover and PTRD sniping) and, best of all, it actually happened.

Another example - As the ice on the Volga started to freeze over and there were drifting ice floes causing problems for boats, the Russians took a couple of boats full of supplies across at night. The lead boat was an armoured cutter with a t-34 turret. It fought against shore-based AT guns whilst a fight between infantry took place on the shore around the landing area. What do you reckon - some nice gameplay elements there?

To expect nothing more of TW than to produce some cookie-cutter maps that could just as easily appear in CoD or something 'because it will please the masses' underestimates both TW and the masses.

I sincerely hope that RO:HoS is a unique and memorable game because it finds NEW ways of pleasing players rather than ploughing a tired old furrow.
Click to expand...

I have not suggested that TWI either make cod like maps or sacrifice the realistic element of the game.
All i have suggested is that they make it more accessible to beginners and there by bring in more players and probably in turn make more money..lol

By contrast you seem to be suggesting that the only maps ever to be made for RO:HOS should be based upon actual events?
Now I agree that your two suggestions are worthy of a mappers interest but to limit mappers and modders to real events only would seem a little restrictive for those people with imagination beyond historical events.

I for one can't see whats wrong with someone wanting to make a map that takes an element from a film or creating a map with nothing but tunnels.
If people like it they'll play it and if they don't then they won't..

I hope that TWI will introduce some new elements into RO:HOS that will entice more players into the community and make the game a step up from ROOst...I believe that evolution rather than revolution is called for in this instance..
 
Upvote 0
#65
butchcassidy said:
mmmm well a good idea is a good idea..i think we have to look beyond the realism to what the vast majority of gamers want to play and that's interesting and exciting maps.
I think that the ro community tends to replace gameplay for realism sometimes and that is a shame.
Afterall ro is a game first and foremost and was designed to be enjoyed at all levels.
The first ro had a learning curve with realism aspects that were set too steep..in my humble opinion..i sincerely hope that twi reduce these dramatically to make the game much more accessible to beginners.
Of course the game is a realistic shooter and that should continue to be the case but let's give beginners a chance to grow into the game by not forcing the realism issues on them at the very first stage..;)
Click to expand...

no.

no no no.

 
Upvote 0
#66
Nestor Makhno said:
Right - well here's the deal with the realism thing, as I see it....

There were enough interesting encounters in the largest battle in the war, Stalingrad, that there is absolutely no need to shoehorn in a 'Saving Private Ryan'-style amphibious assault.

To do so shows a) a lack of imagination and b) a lack of respect to the facts.

A good LD can take an actual historical situation and make something eminently playable and, just importantly, unique from it.

For example - the German assault on the 'Kommissarhaus' in the lower settlement of Barrikady was a great set-piece involving pioniers and stugs. These were used in an assault on a big brick fortress defended by PTRDs and troops with bags of nades. This battle involved all elements that RO players love (satchels for taking out walls, bounding overwatch across cover and PTRD sniping) and, best of all, it actually happened.

Another example - As the ice on the Volga started to freeze over and there were drifting ice floes causing problems for boats, the Russians took a couple of boats full of supplies across at night. The lead boat was an armoured cutter with a t-34 turret. It fought against shore-based AT guns whilst a fight between infantry took place on the shore around the landing area. What do you reckon - some nice gameplay elements there?

To expect nothing more of TW than to produce some cookie-cutter maps that could just as easily appear in CoD or something 'because it will please the masses' underestimates both TW and the masses.

I sincerely hope that RO:HoS is a unique and memorable game because it finds NEW ways of pleasing players rather than ploughing a tired old furrow.
Click to expand...

yes.

yes yes YES
 
Upvote 0
#70
The issue about reality and accessibility is an interesting one.

The game needs to be accessible enough to gain acceptance. The original RO showed that accessibility does not necessarily mean it has to be easy.

While it did have a significant learning curve, IMO this provided one of the great benefits of the game. It meant that people who wanted to play were the ones playing. Those who were not prepared to invest in learning the game didn't. I think RO was the better for this.

From a developer perspective it may mean that the sales are not as high as they could. But from a longevity perspective, I think that RO has achieved what very few FPS games have done. Survived for a long time.

I am hoping that realism is not sacrificed for accessibility in the new game. There are enough "accessible" FPS WWII games out there, and looking at how well they have survived in recent times, I hope that RO-HOS takes this into account.
 
Upvote 0
#72
ButchCassidy said:
I have not suggested that TWI either make cod like maps or sacrifice the realistic element of the game.
All i have suggested is that they make it more accessible to beginners and there by bring in more players and probably in turn make more money..lol

By contrast you seem to be suggesting that the only maps ever to be made for RO:HOS should be based upon actual events?
Now I agree that your two suggestions are worthy of a mappers interest but to limit mappers and modders to real events only would seem a little restrictive for those people with imagination beyond historical events.

I for one can't see whats wrong with someone wanting to make a map that takes an element from a film or creating a map with nothing but tunnels.
If people like it they'll play it and if they don't then they won't..

I hope that TWI will introduce some new elements into RO:HOS that will entice more players into the community and make the game a step up from ROOst...I believe that evolution rather than revolution is called for in this instance..
Click to expand...

I agree with him.:)
 
Upvote 0
#73
iluvyaman said:
Every battle scene in that movie is from real story as I heard.
Click to expand...

it's a wide interpretation of a book, wich itself is an even more wide interpretation of the reality.

the big, huge, GIGANTIC advantage i see in high player counts (64 vs 64???) is not to have the same gameplay and maps as in RO with just a bigger scale. Because what RO does well is simulate real battles through respawning and objectives. but with huge player numbers you don't need to simulate anything, you can just recreate it! put the same numbers of soldiers on the ground, as there would have been in reality and let them fight! no respawn, maybe even no objectives. all about territory and keeping the most men alive. those who die can spectate, or be redirected automatically to a coop, DM or TDM server untill the battle is over.

plus if the game is only about this one stalingrad battle, then chances are that you can fight map after map in a dynamic campaign style, as you could with kriegstadt-konigsplatz and pariserplatz.
 
Upvote 0
#77
AXEL said:
you are wrong, it is a realism based game. Without reality the game wouldn't exist, so shouldn't the game follow reality as closely as possible?
Click to expand...

Well last time I checked RO:HOS was being advertised as a game...And not a simulation...A fine point but a distinctive one..Many games are based on real world weapons and hardware...If we are looking for total realism then should we not insist on a one player life per map gametype so once your dead your out of the game?

Should we not be insisting on players training to use vehicles or training to use weapons of any sort before they are allowed to use them in game?

I'm sure many exisisting RO players would love that idea...

But TWI decided that in RO we would not because that would not be much fun and that would probably push the game into the simulation type genre i.e. OPF and ARMA etc.....
This could limit RO:HOS's commercial appeal to the great majority of the fps game buying public.
Afterall TWI have got to make money or they simply won't be able to pay the staff let alone make another game so commercial success is the reality they have to work with.
My suggestion was not that the game would need to lose its realistic feel but that it would help beginners if the game was not as realistic as RO.Ost from day one...Many players from my own clan found the game too slow and too difficult to make them want to stick with it but many more like myself absolutely loved it once we had got used to it..So maybe another game mode for beginners..so new players can work there way upto another mode that would offer a tougher challenge.
This could be done server side maybe...It's only a suggestion nothing more..;)
 
Upvote 0
#79
SchutzeSepp said:
it's a wide interpretation of a book, wich itself is an even more wide interpretation of the reality.

the big, huge, GIGANTIC advantage i see in high player counts (64 vs 64???) is not to have the same gameplay and maps as in RO with just a bigger scale. Because what RO does well is simulate real battles through respawning and objectives. but with huge player numbers you don't need to simulate anything, you can just recreate it! put the same numbers of soldiers on the ground, as there would have been in reality and let them fight! no respawn, maybe even no objectives. all about territory and keeping the most men alive. those who die can spectate, or be redirected automatically to a coop, DM or TDM server untill the battle is over.

plus if the game is only about this one stalingrad battle, then chances are that you can fight map after map in a dynamic campaign style, as you could with kriegstadt-konigsplatz and pariserplatz.
Click to expand...
Ya, pretty much.

Either that or REALLY long respawn times.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu