Individual reinforcements

[LionbI4]

Killing enemies is just the method to achieve the control of the objective.

Finally you got it.
And you know, sometimes, NOT KILLING the enemy is the method to achive an objective. Sometimes in RL as well as in some games you have to sneak to enemy positions to do your job.
But in RO every player is a rambo and trying to kill as much as possible, not depending on how often he dies.

Try to read your post again.
You say:
Idea is bad, because this game is trying to be realistic, and in reality you don't have to kill all enemies to win. (I have to say, you don't have to kill all enemies in suggested idea).
Now you say: Killing enemies is just the method to achieve the control of the objective.
Somehow these points are not corresponding to each other.

But at the end, we realized, that killing enemies is a way to capture the objective, and win the battle. And it is NOT the only way.
You have to look at Americas Army 2/3 to see how it works. The rule set is very nice there: you work as a team, and round in 95% cases is finished by capturing objective (not destroying all enemies).
Although gun fire, damage system, movements, weapon handling - all is better in RO.

I always wonder, why you use "Realism" as excuse for much unrealistic things, which happen now.

 

[RedGuardist]

Finally you got it.
sometimes, NOT KILLING the enemy is the method to achive an objective.

I got it already way, way back. This is what I have meant all the time. Is my output so unreadable?

Try to read your post again.
You say:
Idea is bad, because this game is trying to be realistic, and in reality you don't have to kill all enemies to win. (I have to say, you don't have to kill all enemies in suggested idea).
Now you say: Killing enemies is just the method to achieve the control of the objective.
Somehow these points are not corresponding to each other.

How so? I meant all the time that killing enemies is just one way to achieve the control to the objective IRL. And that

 

[LemoN]

It

 

[LionbI4]

I meant all the time that killing enemies is just one way to achieve the control to the objective IRL. And that

 

[Zetsumei]

The idea is not to give players fear as nobody will truly fear anything. But to atleast show players the influence of their individual actions, and having a system appraising him from his actions. There is a reason why companies and businesses use managers and are supposed to give feedback to their workers.

If you want shared reinforcement and more rare weapons to deplete over time then the best solution is simply making those weapons only able to spawn x times. Rather than having things mixed like your team can spawn 3 times with a rifle or you can spawn 1 time with a sniper, nobody as sniper will care that they will deplete the reinforcements of their teams heavier.

The thing that i want is that people get a real incidentive to care about reinforcements or have it removed all together. Even in a game a player should see and get responsibility for how he helps or ****s up the team.

 

[RedGuardist]

Meaning is to capture/defend the objective, not ramboing near enemy positions.

Here we absolutely agree.

I think that we have been talking around and not even talked about the same subject.

What I originally meant, when I commented Tiger2

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

..... Explanation why i suggest this.
1. Servers are not always full, while currently reinforcement amounts are based on the server slots. So if you play on a 50 player server with only 30 people you pretty much wont ever run out of reinforcements.

Which is why the maps have time limits and at the end one team or the other usually wins.... or is a draw..... or you complete the objectives to win the match..... those have always been the main goals of the map designs, reinforcements was more of a minor issue imo and if it was far easier to beat the game by killing every enemy reinforcement, then all you'd have is a deathmatch game and nobody would bother with objectives.

2. Players don't care for the global team reinforcement pool and just keep on dying in exactly the same way untill the reinf are depleted and then start playing cautiously. If people know they manage their own reinf then they will play more cautiously.

An inacurate generalization of players and assumption on what you think may happen with your above plans, which I doubt would make much of a difference.

Perhaps why many of those players keep dying in much the same way as they did before, is because they're still learning the game or trying to figure out how to beat a tactic that keeps killing them.... I know I ended up doing this on occasion because one person kept killing me and I wanted to know how so I could prevent it from happening in the future.

Making people have to be concerned more about dying then they already have to with 20-45 second spawn waits, various point additions or deductions and an eventual running out of general reinforcements, wouldn't make the game play any better, but would probably make more players stay behind, hide, let others do the hard work or generally make the gameplay even more slower then it already is.

3. By making some classes cost more reinforcement points you must make sure that you stay alive long enough. This will most likely rotate classes around a little more as people cannot afford to play sniper all the time unless they are doing really well.

Question: Why does the rifleman take two points and no class takes just one point in your above scheme?

This falls right in line with my objections to people being able to vote-kick players out of classes they're not good at so that the already experienced/better players can take those classes all they want..... this compromises the player's ability to play the game as they paid for, as they want. How do you expect someone to get better with a class when they're limited on how long they can play the class based on their talents or how many spawn lives they have?

Besides me not being a fan of waiting to spawn for almost a damn minute, I'm also not a big fan of limits in online play and how long you can play..... and if I ran out of lives because someone keeps spawn killing my team or dropping arty on our heads in a bottle neck area and I'm stuck there watching a black screen with a thumb up my arse for the next half hour until the game is done..... I just won't be, because I'd log out shortly after I could no longer play.

And that's the point..... I want to play the game, I don't want to sit there watching a black screen doing nothing for a half hour or more waiting for people to die or beat the level..... I could be cleaning up my home or doing something else for that half hour..... and my time for playing games these days is quite limited.... I simply do not need delays in the game I want to play, or else I'll just buy another that doesn't.

4. People if they have plenty of money or respawns often don't mind sharing them with others. Allowing worse players to continue playing if there is plenty of reinf to go around.

Sorry, I don't want to start relying on the charity of other players. I already know it's like pulling teeth just to get MG ammo resupply with most players, I'd hate to see what it'd be like to get someone to give you their reinforcements at the risk of them being sooner out of the game.

And if you're really that bad of a player to need someone else to give you their lives, do you seriously think that person is really going to give you their lives, rather then just let you die so you're out of the way of their game and class?

Now next to this some special additions could be made to make the system friendlier for newer players.

Reinforcements don't get all handed out early, but get distributed over time or get distributed at certain events like capping, losing a cap or holding a cap for a while. This allows someone that is out of reinforcement to play again after a little while, without having to wait for the entire round to end.

So what is preventing each team from re-capping the same spot over and over again to get their reinforcements back up for all their players?

The team can vote to surrender, so incase 2 or 3 people with loads of reinf left are the only guys playing and not willing to share their reinforcements. The team can vote to give up and end the match early. So strong people need to keep an eye out and share their reinf points.

Once again, don't like it. All that does is once again put the control of the game you play in the hands of other players and compromises your abilities to play the game as it's meant to be played. With the current system in place, everybody knocks down the reinforcements equally, which means those three really good players will eventually only have the one life they currently have and will either win the match soon or be killed soon.... either way the game ends and nobody has to wait there forever for three people to run down their 30-40 some odd respawns.

Now I would have added some improvements or suggestions to this plan of yours as you requested, however, there is nothing I like about this system and would cause more problems then solve..... thus I felt it was my responsibility to share my honest opinion on such a plan, or else it might seem everybody is all up for this plan, which not everybody is, and then be in the game.

I'm personally voicing myself against such a plan and hope it is never implimented in the game.... it's just unessicary.

If you're worried about really crappy players slowly killing off your team or class, then get off yer butt and help them out, tell them how to do things, give them tips..... stick around them and back them up until they're better and know how to play the game better.

Or just ignore them if they just want to play as jerks and enjoy the game..... no matter what system you put in place, no matter how many restrictions or silly gimmicks are tossed into a game, you will never always get every player to play the game as it's supposed to be played and there will always be twits.

Eventually if you put too many policing systems in place of the game to force people to act and play a certain way, even when they are actually playing the game, it's no longer a game and you take a good chunk of the fun out of things.​

 

[Zetsumei]

The thing is red guardist is that suggestion is not about making reinforcements lower its about making people care for reinforcements.

A mapper would still just like now have the option to give loads of reinforcements, or lower reinforcements. The difference is that the player would see a more individual feedback on what his actions actually cause for the team, making them actually see the impact of dying on the reinforcements.

People care so little about reinforcements that they suicide to save a short walk. People care so little about reinforcements that if they got killed by teh same guy 4 times in a row they try it again to get vengeance. Nobody ever thinks on what for effect their actions cause for the entire team, thats why i feel that for public play a player should get appraised for his actions.

This means that a player sees for himself he gets low and knows for himself i should perhaps go and pick rifle and stay a bit more safe for a while. By making the reinforcements infinite you get the same gameplay as you now have in maps pretty much.

 

[Tiger2]

Zets, firstly I assume you want to combine two modes in one. The first is a form of deathmatch where you can kill off enemy reinforcements to win. The second is control of objectives where each team is rewarded for the length of time that they hold the positions.

My opinion is that limited reinforcements should only be in one type of game. That game is Bad Company's gold rush where the attackers and defenders pursue entirely different aims to win.

If you have RO:OST's objective control combined with individual reinforcements, you will have problems that were mentioned over and over again in this thread. Games will end prematurely where one team has more people playing on the field (but not necessarily more reinforcements) and be unfair to players who are doing exceptionally well at the time.

As to the "fear of death" arguement I do not think that this suggestion will make anyone more cautious. Players will just disconnect and join new matches that are in progress. The 20-30 second respawn limit is somewhat good at making players cautious, but that is as far as you can go.

EDIT: If RO:HOS is to have Attack and Defend similar to Bad Company's gold rush, then one way to penalise those who die excessively is to increase their respawn time (for example from 10 to 20 seconds). This will protect the global pool of reinforcements.

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

.... I always wonder, why you use "Realism" as excuse for much unrealistic things, which happen now.

Kinda contradictory statement coming from you and what you are supporting, considering that in "Real Life" you only have one life and zero respawns to begin with.

You're arguing realism with an unrealistic system, against another unrealistic system, claiming one is more realistic over the other, which neither are and only change the game play to something more restricting.

I'm not a rambo run and gunner, yeah depending on the situation, it might be a wise idea in close quarters.... I usually follow my team mates and help them out anyway I can, and usually when I play, 98% of every other player is playing the game exactly as it should be.... I just don't see any logic in trying to make this game into Counter Strike (Another game I avoid and don't like)

I don't like BF2, I don't care for any of the Call of Duty's except for single play, and I have always lothed Counter Strike...... I bought RO:Ost and played the Mod since 3.1 because I loved the gameplay and style. If RO starts becoming more like Counter Strike and Battlefield 2, then I simply will not buy the new game.... it's as simple as that, because I just wouldn't have any interest in playing the game.

 

[Zetsumei]

I'm not making any fear of death argument players don't fear death but players do adapt their play style. I don't see what is so restrictive about giving mappers a tool to change gameplay.

Players do not just run out of reinforcements halfway when they play with limited individual reinforcements atleast they havent in the games i played with those abilities. Like quake3, unreal tournament, Return to castle Wolfenstein (So the crowd wasn't really what you call the type to play more safe).

Games i've seen where people can quickly run out of their reinforcement pool, almost always consisted of shared reinforcements. The battlefield series for one and Red Orchestra for the other.

I've spend loads of time with trying to help newer players both ingame as with technical issues. And i want to give new players all the room to learn, but new players wont be hurt really by limited reinforcements. When i started playing RO in 2.0 it felt revolutionary how the systems worked compared to all other games, but after 5 years some things simply show their age.

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

The thing is red guardist is that suggestion is not about making reinforcements lower its about making people care for reinforcements.

A mapper would still just like now have the option to give loads of reinforcements, or lower reinforcements. The difference is that the player would see a more individual feedback on what his actions actually cause for the team, making them actually see the impact of dying on the reinforcements.

People care so little about reinforcements that they suicide to save a short walk. People care so little about reinforcements that if they got killed by teh same guy 4 times in a row they try it again to get vengeance. Nobody ever thinks on what for effect their actions cause for the entire team, thats why i feel that for public play a player should get appraised for his actions.

This means that a player sees for himself he gets low and knows for himself i should perhaps go and pick rifle and stay a bit more safe for a while. By making the reinforcements infinite you get the same gameplay as you now have in maps pretty much.

I like variety myself.... sometimes there's not enough players to have a decent match.... sometimes everybody on the server is tired of playing the map exactly as it's supposed to and just want to have a round of picking one another off for a bit before they finish it off. I like going for cap zones, taking out the enemy, and completing the objectives, but I can't stand matches that are all just straight line, cap and run to beat the game and done in 3 minutes.... a little fire fight here and there is nice, and sometimes covert operations of one or two team mates to flank the enemy or take something out while everybody else fights the main front can be a good thing.

These reinforcement plans do nothing to change any of this and will not force people to change their tactics in the slighest. If a player is that stupid and talentless to clue in that they're being killed left right and centre and have no idea how to put up a fight, I highly doubt they'd even have a clue on what's going on with their reinforcements and will still fight in very much the same way.

In regards to the experienced players, They won't change tactics very much either and this will just be an annoyance more then a benefit for gameplay.

I know when I am playing I do my very best not to get killed and I don't like being killed because I not only have to wait 20-45 seconds to spawn, but I also have to walk all the way from spawn for like 3-5 minutes to where the action is.... and if I die again, I have to do that all over again, which is why I do not like to just run/gun and be killed, because it's a waste of game time and enjoyment as it is..... AKA: more then enough of a deterrent from goofing around.

To me there comes a point where a game no longer is a game and thus, no longer fun.

If I wanted 100% realism, I'd join the military.

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

..... EDIT: If RO:HOS is to have Attack and Defend similar to Bad Company's gold rush, then one way to penalise those who die excessively is to increase their respawn time (for example from 10 to 20 seconds). This will protect the global pool of reinforcements.

Now see I could perhaps support something like this, even though I hate waiting forever to play, it's still better imo then the alternative being presented in this thread.

(Oops, back to back post, thought someone else would have posted by now.)

Added:

I'm not making any fear of death argument players don't fear death but players do adapt their play style. I don't see what is so restrictive about giving mappers a tool to change gameplay.

Simply because it's not needed for the mapper and the change in gameplay would create more problems then it would solve.

Players do not just run out of reinforcements halfway when they play with limited individual reinforcements atleast they havent in the games i played with those abilities. Like quake3, unreal tournament, Return to castle Wolfenstein (So the crowd wasn't really what you call the type to play more safe).

All of which are arcade-based gamestyles of running and gunning.... and from my experience in Unreal Tournament and Quake III which I played a lot of during college, is that there were never any spawn limits, unless you're talking about some mod someone made.

Games i've seen where people can quickly run out of their reinforcement pool, almost always consisted of shared reinforcements. The battlefield series for one and Red Orchestra for the other.

I have never seen this style of spawn points in Battlefield either.... at least not in BF2 that is.

The only time one team ran out of spawns was either by the current % system that's in RO, or the team has no cap zones to spawn from.... I saw no limit in the sense you speak of... but then again, I don't like BF2 nor play it very often, so perhaps I missed something.

I've spend loads of time with trying to help newer players both ingame as with technical issues. And i want to give new players all the room to learn, but new players wont be hurt really by limited reinforcements. When i started playing RO in 2.0 it felt revolutionary how the systems worked compared to all other games, but after 5 years some things simply show their age.

True, I never liked Day of Defeats Flag capping and I enjoyed the fact that in RO you have to cap actual buildings, locations, ammo caches, etc.... ie: no big flag sticking out in the open for all to wrap around to cap and then be targeted with a spam load of grenades.

But when it comes to the reinforcements in RO, I don't think it's broke and thus, I don't think it needs fixing.

 

[Zetsumei]

All kinds of doom scenarios

So if suddenly the reinforcements rather than being in one big shared pool being divided equally among the player slots.

* suddenly the teams will run halfway out of reinforcements.
* you wont be able to mess around at all anymore
* the game will be as realistic as featuring a dysentry simulator

In pretty much all infantry maps you can run from one end of the map to the other in about 2 minutes. Spawntimes set in maps are often 15 or 20 seconds. The only map ever in ro to have a 45 second spawn time was warsaw in the mod. I cared about dying in the first few weeks or so i played (note i came from ut2k4) the game, then i found out that there is no need to care.

The exact reason why i posted games like Quake3, Unreal Tournament and RTCW is if the server option to limit lives actually changes how people play there. Why would it not work in an environment such as ro that is supposed to have less frantic gameplay in the first place.

The reason why you pretty much never run out of reinforcements pretty much in ro and their maps is because mappers can't really make gameplay based on it unless its team deathmatch. If the reinforcement system was removed the game wouldnt play any different on any of those maps. A system that would say stop a teams reinforcements after the enemy defends capX for X minutes would bring exactly the reaction.

 

[LionbI4]

Kinda contradictory statement coming from you and what you are supporting, considering that in "Real Life" you only have one life and zero respawns to begin with.

Do you really think limited respawn is not more realistic than unlimited respawn? Broken logic detected..
Anyway, I'm not arguing "Make it, since it is more realistically". Thats a dumb reason, but I'm forced to answer using "realism" word because too much people using it to protect their ideas.

I explain every single reason, WHY this leads to more REALISTICAL GAMEPLAY. How should I react, if you just don't want to understand that reasons?

Read this:

The exact reason why i posted games like Quake3, Unreal Tournament and RTCW is if the server option to limit lives actually changes how people play there. Why would it not work in an environment such as ro that is supposed to have less frantic gameplay in the first place.

If you don't like that style of play - whats your choice, we always should have an option to play unlimited respawn (arcade?) maps.

Also, arcade games like Tactical Ops or even Quake3 could have more realistic gameplay than RO because of spawn system. People just play more carefully, if death means something.
Noone is suiciding to teleport to spawn.
Noone is doing suicide runs, since its not fun to wait for entire round beeing idle.

Edited: wrong name in quote

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

So if suddenly the reinforcements rather than being in one big shared pool being divided equally among the player slots.

* suddenly the teams will run halfway out of reinforcements.
* you wont be able to mess around at all anymore
* the game will be as realistic as featuring a dysentry simulator

In pretty much all infantry maps you can run from one end of the map to the other in about 2 minutes. Spawntimes set in maps are often 15 or 20 seconds. The only map ever in ro to have a 45 second spawn time was warsaw in the mod. I cared about dying in the first few weeks or so i played (note i came from ut2k4) the game, then i found out that there is no need to care.

The exact reason why i posted games like Quake3, Unreal Tournament and RTCW is if the server option to limit lives actually changes how people play there. Why would it not work in an environment such as ro that is supposed to have less frantic gameplay in the first place.

The reason why you pretty much never run out of reinforcements pretty much in ro and their maps is because mappers can't really make gameplay based on it unless its team deathmatch. If the reinforcement system was removed the game wouldnt play any different on any of those maps. A system that would say stop a teams reinforcements after the enemy defends capX for X minutes would bring exactly the reaction.

Or perhaps the most simple solution is to remove reinforcements all together and just leave it up to cap objectives and time limits.

Don't forget that the amount of reinforcements is supposed to be based on how many were really available during the real battle. Adjusting it so that each person has about 30 or so respawns (give or take) would increase the overall amount of reinforcements that were actually available and ruin the original point of reinforcements being added to the game in the first place.

Also in real battles it's not all about exterminating the enemy down to the last guy, as sometimes after a period of time real reinforcements come in to back up one side and the other retreats to fight another day, or one side runs out of supplies and has no choice but to withdraw. Capping all zones in the map, thus gaining all the supplies and resources would be a loss/retreat/withdraw for the other team..... and in many cases in history, the side that took over an area usually end up facing a counter attack the next day or a few days later on. (Next Map Round)

The point is that completely wiping out the other team isn't the most common way a battle was won and probably happened as much as it does in RO today because, esspecially with the German forces, they would withdraw or retreat when they knew they lost a battle. There would be POW's and so on.

To make it like BF2 where even after you control all the cap zones, the game doesn't end until you kill every last enemy on the map that's hiding.... just isn't realistic.

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

Do you really think limited respawn is not more realistic than unlimited respawn? Broken logic detected..

No broken logic at all considering both types of respawn are limited, just in different ways.

Anyway, I'm not arguing "Make it, since it is more realistically". Thats a dumb reason, but I'm forced to answer using "realism" word because too much people using it to protect their ideas.

Indeed, so if it's not about realism, then it's about making the game more arcadish. If it's neither, then what's you point?

I'm just trying to understand why you believe this would be a good thing and I do not see how this system will solve any of the playing-style problems you mentioned.

You mentioned in some of your first posts about Counter-Strike's buying feature.

I always hated that feature because last I checked, police don't have to purchase their own weapons/ammo.... and having to wait out the entire round is a waste of time.

You mention Battlefield's game style (another arcade-style FPS) which is a style I don't believe is realistic either.

I use the term "Realism/Realistic" because that's what made this game unique in the first place, and the reinforcements as they currently are designed is about as close as one can get to realism in such a game as RO, without compromising their known reinforcement numbers that existed in the real battle and balancing the fact that this is still a video game.

I own both BF2 and original Counter Strike and I regret buying/owning both games because they use features I detest with a passion, and to bring these game fetures or similar to RO would be blasphemy and just give us more crap video games like those mentioned.... if I wanted to play those game styles, I'd be playing those games still today and might have gotten more into Counter Strike Source.

I explain every single reason, WHY this leads to more REALISTICAL GAMEPLAY. How should I react, if you just don't want to understand that reasons?

Oh I read every reason and justification you posted and understand exactly how you came to your conclusions, and I still think they're flawed/wrong, based on generalizations of a few players that I rarely see online and not worth the trouble or worth the amount of drastic adjustments this will do to the overall feel of the game that I do not believe will improve much.

Read this:

"The exact reason why i posted games like Quake3, Unreal Tournament and RTCW is if the server option to limit lives actually changes how people play there. Why would it not work in an environment such as ro that is supposed to have less frantic gameplay in the first place."

You should fix your quote codes, as you said that, not I, and I already did read this before and changes nothing.

If you don't like that style of play - whats your choice, we always should have an option to play unlimited respawn (arcade?) maps.

First of all, the current Respawn system in RO is not Unlimited.

Second, When one thinks Arcade, the first thing that comes to my mind in regards to lives/respawns in an arcade game, is a limited amount of lives for your individual self (ie: 3 lives, then Game Over.... AKA: The system you are promoting) Not the limited team based respawn we currently have in RO that has set amounts based on the real amount of reinforcements that were in the real battle.

My choice is to leave it as it currently is..... nothing more, nothng less.

Also, arcade games like Tactical Ops or even Quake3 could have more realistic gameplay than RO because of spawn system. People just play more carefully, if death means something.

If you are basing Quake III Arena's realism compared to RO's merely on the Spawn system, then your perspective is more off base then I originally thought. Besides gameplay, weapons and characters being totally unrealistic in Q3A, I have never once seen people play that game in any realistic fashion that would relate to any realistic tactics used in the real world to save your life.

And once again, there is already more then enough death deterrants in Red Orchestra compared to other mentioned games..... and you will never remove all the players in any game who don't want to play the game your way unless you own your own server, have your own clan and can set up your own rules.

Until then, I see no logical point in forcing people to play the game as you see fit outside of the game's already existing parameters and limitations.

Noone is suiciding to teleport to spawn.

Who cares if they do? They got like 20-30 seconds to wait before they spawn so they best better time it right.

Noone is doing suicide runs, since its not fun to wait for entire round beeing idle.

And the amount of people I ever see doing that in RO is trivial and far less then what I see in BF2, where someone will hop into a Helicopter and crash 30 seconds later, only to hop in again and do it again, and again and again, continually hogging the heli from other decent players and knocking down the reinforcements... so clearly that system doesn't work either for BF2.

You can repeat your reasons as much as you want, but you are not answering some of the problems I am presenting and just blanketing with the same responses as before that do not answer the issues at hand.

Also, by the time you finally figure out a system that mostly everybody would agree on, it will be so complicated and twisted that it'd defeat the whole purpose of the plan in the first place and thus the only logical conclusion is to leave it as is.

Most other games that continue from previous versions of the said game (Unreal, Call of Duty, Day of Defeat, Counter Strike) they all keep the same scoring and spawn systems that they pretty well had since the start. RO should do the same and keep it's same well known feel and flow to this.... it's part of it's identity and the moment it's all switched around with restrictions and punishments (on top of the already existing deterrents/punishments) will only hinder the gameplay and enjoyment of more players, thus reduce the amount of players even more.

The funny thing is that all the games already mentioned, like Counter Strike, BF2, America's Army, Quake III, etc.... are all games I actually hate or lost interest in within a week of playing.

 

[Zetsumei]

I thought in bf once you controlled all points the reinf counter quickly went to 0.

In its current state having unlimited reinforcements is in 90% of the maps the same as they play now (a few maps are tweaked so that 1 team or both teams pretty much run out of reinf in the last cap). But a change in the system would allow mappers to get different playstyles for more variety and some additional effects that can have good effects.

If you adjust the respawns to give every person 30 respawns, and that would be too much for a map then you could set it to 20 or 10 or whatever. All up to the mapper.

Tbh in case of recappable capzones, in maps i wouldnt mind to have some time left like 1 or 2 minutes to cap something back. Because plenty of times you would have capped an other capzone within 10 seconds. I think after all caps have been capped a short time where the defenders must hold the caps and defend it can be pretty fun (although it should be definable by a mapper).

The focus shouldnt be on wiping everybody out together, the game should be focused mostly on objectives, hardly anything would change concerning that if reinforcements were given to everybody individually instead of to the team as a big group. But if mappers like to use the reinforcements for a special scenario they should be able to do it in a way that the team doesn't run out halfway of all reinforcements, and thats why individual reinforcements are nice.

Just as i think it could be nice to have unbalanced maps where the game balancer puts teams in a 2:1 ratio for instance so 20 allies play against 10 germans.

And in the same way i think it could be fun to make a gamemode where one team got half the reinforcements as the other team, but in order for that to work the team must actually keep an eye on the reinf which currently hardly ever happens (although often enough you have people screaming that people should watchout for reinforcements).

Some gameplay parts of a game no matter how unrealistic could just be more realistic than RO, doesnt mean the game is more realistic. But it can make a player to react more realistically in one way.

 

[Zetsumei]

Praxius as well since you only play ostfront for a few days:
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=39222

It makes me wonder if you know exactly what i was talking about, and wether you actually know the issue on the maps i gave as examples. As in the mod you would never even run out of reinforcements afaik. Sure you could run out but it simply never happened, or atleast i cannot recall it happening on the core 32 player server (biggest server at the time).

And from RO 2.0 till ROOST i player 3+ hours a day of this game :X

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

Praxius as well since you only play ostfront for a few days:
[URL]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=39222[/URL]

It makes me wonder if you know exactly what i was talking about...

Irrelevant towards your argument and now you're just grasping.

I've played the mod non stop right up to and beyond when Ostfront was released and if you read through more of my posts, you'll find that I also played Ostfront a few times online on a friend's computer. The gameplay/style in Ostfront is very much the same as it was in the Mod, and through my experience of last night alone on a couple of maps to make sure the game worked, I still saw nothing that supports your arguments in any manner that would deem any of your complaints as being anything worth concern.

The problems that do exist that you brought up have existed forever in the mod and in the game, as well as in every other game you used as a reference where such an approach has not solved the problem overall and I have also used many alternative tactics in game against the enemy and with my team mates that 90% of the time, ensured that most of the players on the map played the game as it should be played.

I also spent a few months in the old mod forums making up a Maya tutorial on how to model a Stug III, Sten MKII, Sten MKV, Panzerschreck and have been involved in one fashion or another in the RO community since the mod for UT2k4 came out and when the full game came out.

So on the contrary, I know exactly what I am talking about. Just because I haven't bought the game up until now doesn't equate to me not knowing what I am talking about, nor does it disqualify any of my counter arguments towards your porposal..... nor does it address any of my concerns towards your proposal.

Edited Due to Additional Text added to Post:

..... and wether you actually know the issue on the maps i gave as examples. As in the mod you would never even run out of reinforcements afaik.

It has occured plenty during the mod and was a focal point, perhaps not at the begining of the round, but once you got closer to the 50% mark, people were a little more frantic.... certainly not cautious though.

Sure you could run out but it simply never happened,

It did happen a lot actually and from my experience, usually about 1/4, maybe 1/3 of the maps I played ended from the other team running out. Most of the maps that this was easily done on were mainly in the stock maps that didn't have a short time period like Karlovka or long spawn wait times like Warsaw.

or atleast i cannot recall it happening on the core 32 player server (biggest server at the time).

Well I didn't stick to one paticular server and I went on whichever had the best ping, decent amount of players and a good map to play that I liked..... but I wouldn't base my conclusions on what happened on just one server.

And from RO 2.0 till ROOST i player 3+ hours a day of this game :X

I was a constant player since.... oh wait, geez it has been a while, 2.0.

I was mistaken in my original claim I played since 3.0/3.1, as for some reason I kept thinking 2.0 was on UT2k3, but that was version 1. I've played it since the RO Beta came out for UT2k4 and before there were any decent vehicles to use.... not to mention back when the tanks had some kick to them and would flip at the slightest turn.

Regardless, I've played it for just about as long as you have, and while I didn't spend 3+ hours a day playing it, my weekends were deep into the game and have always been one of the best

Not that any of that matters anyways, nor do I see a point for having a p*ssing match..... you're saying things have always been like this or that.... I am countering with what I have seen as this or that.

Thus a stand still.