About RO Ladder Closing
- Thread starter [TW]Ramm-Jaeger
- Start date
- Status
Despite the early and even ongoing issues, I'd say it is. Keep in mind that "better" is purely subjective, obviously people are not all going to agree that something is better, but for many people, it is better.
Upvote
0
If bswearer wants to believe it's him, so be it. I'm sure a lot of assumptions are being made from all persons involved that aren't true but hey, whatever, believe what you want to. I'm sure there are better ideas out there as to whom that person (or persons) actually is but martyrdom apparently has its perks.
On Steam? I've never seen any such group. I'm sure they exist though and if they do, I'm sure it's for plenty of other reasons than anything specifically related to RO Ladder.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
To get this right. We never wanted to start a flamewar but state the reasons why we closed this website after 8 years of support. So long!
https://twitter.com/#!/ROLadder/status/173098597779382273
https://twitter.com/#!/ROLadder/status/173098597779382273
Upvote
0
Hate to wade into this, but it doesn
Upvote
0
Hillstorm, You said exactly what I've been thinking a long time now.
Thank you, Lettland, for saying that. Looking forward to seeing you in-game again soon! (just look for the guy with the low score, an you'll find me).
Upvote
0
I've always considered certain ROL staffers to be among the most important contributors to Red Orchestra. This statement may very well be more insightful on the state of RO2 than the hundreds of pages in this board.
Despite the use of the Latin singular instead of 'personae non gratae'
Despite the use of the Latin singular instead of 'personae non gratae'
Upvote
0
Yep , Hilltop you've hit the nail on the head ...well balanced comment , RO will be fine .
Upvote
0
Thanks. RO2 is the only game I play right now (I'm not a huge gamer overall), and I really, really enjoy it. I'm not experiencing any big problems, either technically or in gameplay. I purposely tried to balance my comments as much as possible because I don't know what other people are experiencing, exactly. I haven't played clan games, and also, I know some people have detailed problems they are having and I have no reason not to believe them. I hope the game experience is improved for them because I can imagine how frustrating that could be.
But when a few people say the game is just profoundly flawed or broken, gameplay is terrible, or whatever, I just don't get it. I don't get where they are coming from. Unplayable? I wish they could sit next to me on a Saturday when I play an "unplayable" game for hours. They could see me die a lot
I think a lot of people have hard feelings that the game wasn't in the "formula" of sorts that they expected or wanted, and so they've focused on every negative aspect of it ever since. A few people, anyway. I'll try to leave it at that, I know this will offend some people but obviously, the offense and wounded feelings is cutting both ways lately. Ok. That is all.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I can totally confirm that the competitive gaming introduced all the bugs, broken promises and it was personally chasing the people away from game.
The competitive gaming was NEVER supporting RO since first version of the mod!
The random COD pubbie is the real backbone of the RO community!
Oh Wait-
Upvote
0
Honestly, I didn't read all your posts and I'm not here to start a flamewar.
I started playing Ostfront years ago. I was a betatester of another mod of ut2004, Deathball, during the contest "make something unreal". Ostfront won that contest and I decided to give it a try... That mod was brilliant, awesome even if it still had some bugs, but I had not enough time to play 'till late 2007. I joined a Clan and found a great community, the ro:ladder.
RO was good enough to have fun on public servers but competitive gaming was really something else, something more intense. Since those days, I started enjoying RO even more due to ladder, skilled players and a real cooperation to reach the victory. RO:ladder community kept that game alive even when the game lost many players and public servers were almost empty... RO:ladder was full of members who LOVED this game, and some of them still do. This new RO brought new players but made this community lose many of the hardcore ones... It's not a matter of bugs, missin campaign, it's all about choices: you think that you made the best ones, that's your opinion. I have just a simple question.
The most of the betatesters said that you didn't listen to their first opinions, is it true? You must admit that gameplay changed really too much from what we were used to, some of us didn't really like it the way it should be to enjoy it. Total amount of active players confirms this.
Maybe some of the reasons why people still play this is that there's nothing new closer to "realism" based on WW2 online... Infact, I still like the game, but I wished I loved it.
I started playing Ostfront years ago. I was a betatester of another mod of ut2004, Deathball, during the contest "make something unreal". Ostfront won that contest and I decided to give it a try... That mod was brilliant, awesome even if it still had some bugs, but I had not enough time to play 'till late 2007. I joined a Clan and found a great community, the ro:ladder.
RO was good enough to have fun on public servers but competitive gaming was really something else, something more intense. Since those days, I started enjoying RO even more due to ladder, skilled players and a real cooperation to reach the victory. RO:ladder community kept that game alive even when the game lost many players and public servers were almost empty... RO:ladder was full of members who LOVED this game, and some of them still do. This new RO brought new players but made this community lose many of the hardcore ones... It's not a matter of bugs, missin campaign, it's all about choices: you think that you made the best ones, that's your opinion. I have just a simple question.
The most of the betatesters said that you didn't listen to their first opinions, is it true? You must admit that gameplay changed really too much from what we were used to, some of us didn't really like it the way it should be to enjoy it. Total amount of active players confirms this.
Maybe some of the reasons why people still play this is that there's nothing new closer to "realism" based on WW2 online... Infact, I still like the game, but I wished I loved it.
Upvote
0
If there is a market for another RO Ladder, then I am sure we'll see something pop up; if not, then life goes on.
Upvote
0
![[-project.rattus-]](/data/avatars/s/0/161.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
I think you mixed up the cause and the symptom. The game isn't failing because people are leaving, it's the other way round. People are not playing the game because it's not that good to begin with.
Well, you're spot on there, even though you make it out to seem like it's the communities fault. From the beginning, RO2 was advertised as a more polished, more realistic and prettier version of Ostfront. But it didn't turn out to be that.
Now I'm not going to critizise TWI for wanting to innovate and to expand the target audience. That's always bold and risky. Sadly though, taking the risk didn't pay off, and were left with a product that isn't inferior per se, but that does neither cater to the old time fan's tastes nor to the mainstream gamer.
Also, I have followed TWI's work from way before they even were TWI. And they always managed to struck the fine balance between following their own vision and listening to player feedback. But as of late, while still proclaiming to listen, they don't heed the feedback anymore. More often than not, well put criticism has been shot down with a "working as intended" or "you got the sdk, fix it yourself."
And lastly, much of the criticism we can read in these forums today is nothing new. Most things were stated well before release when those features were announced. We were always told to relax, because it would turn out to be good, and back then I even defended TWI against such naysayers. Too bad that in most cases, the sceptics were right.
So it doesn't come as a surprise that many of the old community have become bitter.
Now there's an interesting paradoxon. I too think that for RO in general, the Classic mode will be "too little, too late" because most buyers hav given RO it's chance and won't come back. I personally though have high hopes for it, because Ro2 is a raw diamond. It's potential to be a truly great game can be seen everywhere, and the classic mode might be the polish it needs to really shine. So I stay until it's released and will judge it then.
Also, I am part of this community since 2003, so many people (allthough that number is dwindling) I know and talk to online are here. thus, even when I'm not actively playing RO, I still hang out on the forums.
The only way I see for RO2 to generate a community large enough to sustain it is to release the classic mode with a huge sale and a free weekend.
Well, again you're right. The game isn't worthless, nor is it unplayable publicly. I would be glad if it was, because then I would've shrugged and moved on. But as I said, there's so much potential. Thus, it's even more aggreviating that there are so many things like questionably successful design decisions, bugs and missing features holding it back.
Well, we were a spoiled bunch, because TWI spoiled us with great games and great community involvement. When they stopped doing both at the same time it sure felt hurtful to many of us old-timers.
I'm the first to admit that much of the backlash was exagerated. But still, beyond the grief and bitterness, there's truth in it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
-project.rattus-:
I appreciate your response, and without any flaming. That's really the only way to move the discussion forward productively. You present the frustration/disappointment side of the community reasonably. I think I still disagree with a premise that at its essence, RO2 moved in such a wrong direction (perhaps to appeal to a larger audience) but I did feel that way initially. There are still some aspects of that position that I agree with (while enjoying some other things about the game more than I thought I would).
If/when I have more time I'll try to write more. (However, I do realize that since I haven't played in the competitive format, some of what I say isn't totally relevant to the thread). Thanks.
I appreciate your response, and without any flaming. That's really the only way to move the discussion forward productively. You present the frustration/disappointment side of the community reasonably. I think I still disagree with a premise that at its essence, RO2 moved in such a wrong direction (perhaps to appeal to a larger audience) but I did feel that way initially. There are still some aspects of that position that I agree with (while enjoying some other things about the game more than I thought I would).
If/when I have more time I'll try to write more. (However, I do realize that since I haven't played in the competitive format, some of what I say isn't totally relevant to the thread). Thanks.
Upvote
0
For me this sums up your posts, that were pretty insightful, but totally not competent to comment anything related to competitive gaming (and this thread is about competitive gaming, or the stage of it). As the amount of public gamers, like you, go down, then there's much less clans can do in terms of reinforcing themselves to stay alive or to form new clans. Old school clan players hoped for a reasonably 'big' public scene so there could be a potentially medium sized clan scene. This dream faded 1 month after the launch.
The clan scene is now even more dead than it was in RO: ost last spring. Then RO: ost was nearly 5 years old or so.That speaks volumes for me. Some may have hopes for RO: classic. Those some should be the public players. For clans the train left the station many months ago and it won't come back.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
And to add to what suugi said:
A healthy competitive scene is needed to keep a multiplayer focused game like RO alive for several reasons:
1) Clanplayers play public. If you play a game competitively, you play it also when you don't scrim, to keep practicing the basics of gameplay. So the more clans, the more players are online for public matches.
2) Clans host AND admin servers. Not much to explain here. Many clans host one or two servers, one to public server hang out and one password protected to train and have matches on. And they actively admin their servers to keep the game enjoyable for most people who join them, and keep griefers, cheaters, exploiters and other dickheads out. Developer sponsored servers in comparison are rarely admined enough to have a nice gaming environment.
3) Clans add longevity. Again, as long as there are clans playing actively, there will be a scene that play publicly. Thus, players who joined late, still find enough populated servers to play on.
Additionally, mod teams are often formed out of clans, as it's competitive players that think about the game more in depth and have ideas how to improve on it.
No conclusively, I have to add that one of RO's best points is that it wasn't explicitly made for a competitive crowd, so perfect balancing was never a core goal. And that's actually the charm of ROs competitive play: you have to be tactically flexible and make do with what you got. Thus, balancing matches was the job of tournament and ladder rulesets, and I wouldn't want it any other way.
Still, RO needs some basic tools and features to be taken seriously enough as a competitve game, because elsewise it's not fun to scrim. And to repeat myself, this isn't about perfectly balanced weapons or mirrored maps, but about following features:
- working demorecording tools, so cheaters can be found out and tournaments can be better adminned.
- working tools to remove the artificial benefits of the abysmal levelling system: right now you can set all palyers to level 0 for matches, but that causes some problems, like the PaPaSha not having the drum mag, and more greviously, making only pre-orderes having access to bayonets.
- removing of freeroam so dead players can't recon for the living
- and many more things.
Sadly, those things were and still are not very high on TWIs priorities from what I can gather.
And another thing I don't understand is why they did not embrace the great competitive community they had. Many devs spend real money to ignite a competitve scene but they fail. TWI had one already, and free of charge to boot. But that's gone now.
A healthy competitive scene is needed to keep a multiplayer focused game like RO alive for several reasons:
1) Clanplayers play public. If you play a game competitively, you play it also when you don't scrim, to keep practicing the basics of gameplay. So the more clans, the more players are online for public matches.
2) Clans host AND admin servers. Not much to explain here. Many clans host one or two servers, one to public server hang out and one password protected to train and have matches on. And they actively admin their servers to keep the game enjoyable for most people who join them, and keep griefers, cheaters, exploiters and other dickheads out. Developer sponsored servers in comparison are rarely admined enough to have a nice gaming environment.
3) Clans add longevity. Again, as long as there are clans playing actively, there will be a scene that play publicly. Thus, players who joined late, still find enough populated servers to play on.
Additionally, mod teams are often formed out of clans, as it's competitive players that think about the game more in depth and have ideas how to improve on it.
No conclusively, I have to add that one of RO's best points is that it wasn't explicitly made for a competitive crowd, so perfect balancing was never a core goal. And that's actually the charm of ROs competitive play: you have to be tactically flexible and make do with what you got. Thus, balancing matches was the job of tournament and ladder rulesets, and I wouldn't want it any other way.
Still, RO needs some basic tools and features to be taken seriously enough as a competitve game, because elsewise it's not fun to scrim. And to repeat myself, this isn't about perfectly balanced weapons or mirrored maps, but about following features:
- working demorecording tools, so cheaters can be found out and tournaments can be better adminned.
- working tools to remove the artificial benefits of the abysmal levelling system: right now you can set all palyers to level 0 for matches, but that causes some problems, like the PaPaSha not having the drum mag, and more greviously, making only pre-orderes having access to bayonets.
- removing of freeroam so dead players can't recon for the living
- and many more things.
Sadly, those things were and still are not very high on TWIs priorities from what I can gather.
And another thing I don't understand is why they did not embrace the great competitive community they had. Many devs spend real money to ignite a competitve scene but they fail. TWI had one already, and free of charge to boot. But that's gone now.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Thats good to hear but I must say I dont understand that business model, you could have a bigger fan base with a game that didnt have such a rough start.
Why collect the money first and then fix the game?
Its understandable that some people wont trust you that the game will be fixed at all.
Upvote
0
What would you have them do, turn back time and change the launch to make it smoother? Do you think their business model had a section in there titled "rough start" and that's the way they planned it?
What's done is done. The key phrase in Ramm's post is "moving forward." This hindsight stuff doesn't really accomplish anything, imho.
Upvote
0
- Status