About "RO2 Dying"

[GRIZZLY]

This game doesnt need 10.000 of players, this game needs only a handfull players who care about teamplay not less not more. If you think Ro2 will die in a few month youre a troll. Ro1 has less than 100 players since years, and it istn dead already. Im sure, when new maps and new content will be released some players come back.

One thing's for sure - the 300 people playing Ro2 are NOT the same 300 guys who were playing Ostfront in August. THAT handful of players actually did use teamplay.


And six ten - you just gave me hard nostalgia.... maybe TWB EU server is full because it's friday!

 

[PsychoPigeon]

Teamwork in roost? that'd be a first. Most of the time it was just lone wolf walking in poridge gameplay. Luckily the maps in RO2 are much more objective based

 

[RJ_MacReady]

(...)Seriously that video fits perfect for how the BF, COD , Rainbow Six etc franchises has turned out (...)

I think it's sad.

 

[Rakosnicek]

What is sad that Tripwire ****ed up this bad and actually killed the community with their own hands and doing.

Tripwire will end in flames and tbh I think of them as of EA and Activision. They decided for the same tactics. I for one am not agianst good marketing and bringing more players into the game. However, Tripwire had this one chance, the launch, which they totaly ****ed up, the game was half done, so most of the new players realized what a big rip off this game was for them so they will never ever come back. When you add all these vet folks that cannot even run this POS than you might realize why there are only like 150 people playing, which means the game is dead and Tripwire killed it before it was born. They have their sales so they can laught their *** off now.

This is their last game ever. Tripwire will die the same fast dead as their child. I have no pitty for them at all since it is their and only their own fault.

Now they could refund my 35 euros ****ers.

 

[Stahlhelmii]

I tried logging in last night, just to see if there really WAS such a small (or any) choice of servers. Under 300 ping, there was ONE 64 player server showing 65 people logged on to it, a server with 1 player, and another with 2 people present. That was IT.

 

[aceshot]

maybe having an off line mode will help the game without doing the F 3 menu thing.

 

[barakas]

I think that gameplay wise RO2:HOS can be one of the greatest games ever made and a lot of the things needed are probably not more than changing some numbers in the config files. But at the moment how everything plays together just hasn't gotten "it". Initially I liked the additional speed to go to iron sight, but that is a first impression, and I think that a lot of RO2's settings are features are set so that as individual features they feel the best, but things just don't work together in the same magical way as in the mod or roost.

Zets has nailed it, as always.

What made RO:OST work was a very fine balance between lots of different mechanics. There was no one thing that made RO work.

However while RO:OSTs was missing many useful features (mantling, breaking reloads etc), the core gameplay and balance (asymmetrical balance i might add) was sound.

RO2 has the reverse problem. Most of the features are inherently better (weapon collision, mantling, weapon breaks, fluid movement), however, lots of little details have been changed, that when combine together simply don't form the same gameplay experience.

RO2 simply feels less real, less immersive, less intense than RO1, which is what I played it for. Death has little meaning in RO2, but RO1 produced fear of death like no other game (partly due to immersion, partly due to slower pace of game).

For all its faults, RO was always eminently playable, and "RO moments" where frequent due to the fine gameplay balance. In RO2 I have only had 1 such moment in all my playing, and the balance and reduced immersion is a big part of it.

Many decisions have been made to make the game more fluid and accessible, at the expense of experience. Some of the most intense moments I had in RO1 where when my weapon was shot out of hand (a feature now sadly gone). Suddenly your whole game changes, in a second you go from fighting to running and hiding, looking to get your hands on a weapon.

There are many other such changes that on the face of it simply make the game more "fun" and accessible, but a really removing important gameplay experiences.

 

[barakas]

That's a pathetic reason to not play the game anymore. Enjoy the game, the stats will come. It will come even faster since there has been double exp still going since the reset.

You can blame TWI for this kind of thinking.

They thought unlocks and achievements and such are what the "mainstream" of gaming want. Regardless of the fact they turn games into grinds.

Anyone who actually cares about unlocks is not in RO's core audience, and as such they will care about little else in RO2 besides how easy it is to get kill streaks and how much of a dopamine hit they can get from player "progression", from the looks of it, nearly all those people have now left, with only RO's core remaining audience hanging on in hope things get better.

In RO1 you had player progression. You started off getting ****** every which way by superior players. But there was a level playing field in load outs. Eventually you start getting to the point where you're not killed instantly in every engagement. Soon you get a couple kills of your own. Soon after that you're getting the hang of hipshooting, managing your stamina, running from cover to cover, learning how to control where engagements happen.

You'd progress by learning the nuances of the game, of learning a whole new way to play FPSs, in RO2 you progress by spending more time than the other person does, or playing against bots on rank up servers.

For shame TWI.

 

[GRIZZLY]

...truthspeak....

I think a lot of gamers, regardless of age or how hardcore FPS realism they are, would agree with me that player progression is one of the most fun aspects of playing games - if said game is single player only.

In regard to competition? Well, let's just say I've gotten into an unfair fight in real life and it's not fun.

 

[triple25mm]

Well, seeing the state of the game, it is apparent to me why it only cost

 

[amdr]

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2017/mohaa2011111920452621.jpg

check playercount

 

[Cyper]

You can blame TWI for this kind of thinking.

They thought unlocks and achievements and such are what the "mainstream" of gaming want. Regardless of the fact they turn games into grinds.

Anyone who actually cares about unlocks is not in RO's core audience, and as such they will care about little else in RO2 besides how easy it is to get kill streaks and how much of a dopamine hit they can get from player "progression", from the looks of it, nearly all those people have now left, with only RO's core remaining audience hanging on in hope things get better.

In RO1 you had player progression. You started off getting ****** every which way by superior players. But there was a level playing field in load outs. Eventually you start getting to the point where you're not killed instantly in every engagement. Soon you get a couple kills of your own. Soon after that you're getting the hang of hipshooting, managing your stamina, running from cover to cover, learning how to control where engagements happen.

You'd progress by learning the nuances of the game, of learning a whole new way to play FPSs, in RO2 you progress by spending more time than the other person does, or playing against bots on rank up servers.

For shame TWI.

Great post.

The 'funny' thing is that I don't believe that RO2 cater to a wider audience at all. It's just to bloody damn hard and unforgiving for casual gamers despite the perks, skillpoints, unlocks, and in overall dumbed down gameplay. At the same time It's to arcade for hardcore gamers. So it becomes quite obvious that these people will leave the game sooner or later (hence the player drop). This leaves RO2 with a completely new niche audience, e.i people that find the current 'balance' between realism and arcade fun. This makes the game less accessible than what it was before. If RO2 was an improved version of RO OST the game wouldn't just make the Roosters intrested about it. It would also cater the lost people that played the cancelled 2011 game Operation Flashpoint: Red River, but most of all - the Arma audience. This niche audience is bigger than we tend to think and it's certainly big enough for a company like TWI unless they want to go full out which can only be done by a proper arcade game.

 

[LugNut]

check playercount

LOL - MOHAA is outgunning HOS, haven't touched that game in 5 years. Wait, that's not funny, that's sad.....

If RO2 was an improved version of RO OST the game wouldn't just make the Roosters intrested about it. It would also cater the lost people that played the cancelled 2011 game Operation Flashpoint: Red River, but most of all - the Arma audience.

This is the audience that they had, lots of players who enjoy realism in gaming and were new to RO or coming back to RO after time away. I know several clans who were all in with servers and enthusiastic players who have all turned out the lights and left. Gamepay issues being the deal breaker.

 

[Crazyeyes24]

This is the audience that they had, lots of players who enjoy realism in gaming and were new to RO or coming back to RO after time away. I know several clans who were all in with servers and enthusiastic players who have all turned out the lights and left. Gamepay issues being the deal breaker.

We just dropped ours, it just costs too much to run a server when there aren't people to fill it.

 

[HLudwig]

We've should have all learned from OFP: DR that if you try and make a game for both the COD/MW2/CSS:S gamer and the realism seeking gamer, that you will end up making a game that neither group likes. This is what has happened to RO2.

However, RO2 does have an SDK that is supposed to be released in the not-so-distant-future. Hopefully the modding community can do what we want from the game that the developers are unwilling to or incapable of doing.

But yes, I have a bad case of buyer's remorse.

 

[Rak]

We've closed our Turkish community server last week. It never saw playercounts above 20, and that only once. %99 of the time it was empty no matter how we tried to fill it.

 

[dogbadger]

Sooo... despite the gameplay changes does the game still feel like a tripwire product?
Or does it feel like another company has bought up the rights to the Red orchestra name, and produced this game off the back of it?
I'm just wondering if things get exaggerated or the HoS experience is genuinely alien to the RO player.

I hate to say it but i can't remember a game ever recovering numbers online - things are so competitive nowadays you have to hit the ground running and keep the momentum up.

I did worry that HoS could potentially suffer a similar fate as Vietcong 2 - which in the case of that game - even as a VC1 fanatic - I actually thought was unfair.

 

[LugNut]

Best case scenario that I see.

TWI polishes up the game, continues to fix bugs and gets it running well. Free weekends builds back some of the "Relaxed Realism" crowd who like the game as it is, but just couldn't play it. Unless gameplay is changed pretty drastically, I don't see the realism/RO vets coming back and embracing it.

Hopefully, some modders will still have the enthusiasm to build mods for that crowd, which could lead to a slow buildup for that community. After the damage though, I can't see it ever being that big or vibrant, most people will move on. I hope to be surprised though.....

 

[defektive]

Anything short of adding the Realism mode that we thought we were getting in the first place probably isn't going to draw any of the RO vets back.

TWI have variously suggested that server settings will solve the Realism issue. Protip: server settings alone aren't going to accomplish this task. With no solid, out-of-the-box realism foundation for these tweaks to build upon the results will be far too random between servers, which combined with a player count that is already on life support will not equal a recovery. RO2 needs standardisation, not more chaotic and disconnected thinking.

The design philosophies behind RO2 have been proven to be seriously flawed and I doubt that TWI have the resources or in some cases even the inclination to turn this around. I do expect that TWI will leave fixing this to the modders via server settings, which will most likely turn out to be another example of flawed thinking (see above).

It worries me that RO2 is pushed as being a success based on sales figures alone, because that suggests to me that no other measure really matters and that no-one within the higher echelons of TWI genuinely believes that anything is wrong with the game design choices. Low player counts have been blamed on everything but the game itself; one can only go so far with that kind of spin.

The number of fingers on buttons is the only true measure of a good game and a generally satisfied player base. A good game survives rival releases and (transitory) bugginess if the game play is there. A good game carves out its own niche then guards it jealously. A good game doesn

 

[Keyser_Söze]

defekt, very good post. I believe those hoping the SDK will save the game are misguided. For starters, mutators might improve the game but will further fragment an already tiny community. Gameplay changes have to be made standard by TWI as part of a realism mode with some actual thought put into it for it to have any effect on player counts.

Also, I know several mappers from Ostfront who have abandoned their RO2 projects because they either don't like the game or don't want to spend a large amount of time on something that only a few will play. If one were to make a map or mutator right now it would be difficult to even get it in use in North America considering there is only 1 populated server.