• 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/

An Appeal for the success of classic mode.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Colt .45 killer

Grizzled Veteran
May 19, 2006
3,987
775
Lots of people seem to be mis interpreting what this post was meant for, and I guess I can't blame them. The OP remains underneath inside the spoiler tags un edited. The intent of this was to foster greater co-operation in the development of ro2 classic. I have elaborated on this in the link provided beneath the spoiler.


Spoiler!

Please read this post to understand what I am getting at before posting.
 
Last edited:
I personally don't want RO Classic to be a carbon copy of RO1 -- as I've stated previously, RO2 brings plenty of improvements that I want to see carried over. Here's a link to that post, so you know I'm not lying (or trolling?):

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=1019821&postcount=420

That said, I'd also like to see the game not include any super rare weapons like the Mkb42 or AVT 40 in RO Classic mode either, not only because they weren't in RO1, but also because we were told by Yoshiro that equipment in RO Classic would match that of what was available in RO1. I took his word in confidence, too.

There may be some people out there who do want RO1 with better graphics, and to those people I tell them to play RO1 and ask someone to make some texture mods or something. The rest of us (what I believe to be the majority of RO Classic supporters on this forum) want essentially what we hoped RO2 would be -- a realistic, gritty, slower paced tactical WWII shooter that takes most of its cues from RO1 in terms of style, but with refinements and mechanics additions. No unlocks systems, no super fast paced gameplay, no gamey bandaging mechanics, etc.

According to Yoshiro's last post, it looks like that's what we're getting, and I'm excited, but also a little nervous, to see if he's right! Hopefully the beta will come soon and we'll be able to test and give feedback.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I thought the MKb and AVT would be OFF by default in Classic Mode, but available should a mapper wish to include them in a custom map. This is just fine with me.

Otherwise, I too don't want to see a graphically updated ROOST. I like many of the improvements in ROHOS and hope they are kept. I won't get into all the likes/dislikes again that I have stated in the past.
 
Upvote 0
I think the name RO1 classic mode is more about appealing to the Ro player than literally emulating the orgional game par ce (or at least IMO it should be)
In light of this, i find it strange to include the controversial weapons as these seemed to be a bone of contention with this target group.
Phaps an obvious statment, but that's why I find it strange.
 
Upvote 0
I thought the MKb and AVT would be OFF by default in Classic Mode, but available should a mapper wish to include them in a custom map. This is just fine with me.

Otherwise, I too don't want to see a graphically updated ROOST. I like many of the improvements in ROHOS and hope they are kept. I won't get into all the likes/dislikes again that I have stated in the past.

The problem with that is the game is already setup so you can have the MKB off if the mapper chooses(by simply not adding an Assault class). None of the default tripwire maps have assault classes turned off so it's best to assume they will be on and the MKB will be in classic mode.

I agree with the op and I don't want a remake of RO1 I want an improved RO1 with realistic tactical gameplay - RO1 had its fair share of problems and RO2 did fix quite a few of them but brought even more problems to the table.
 
Upvote 0
I'm in favor of reducing the amount of assault weapons (mkb, avt). But honestly I don't care if it stays in. I liked the STG in RO1, it fit in, I felt it was rare. I believe a reduced number of mkb's would fit in too. Or maybe do it like we got the impression first, only heroes get it. I don't feel theyre overpowered, I would choose a ppsh over an mkb any day. Just posting this to show not everyone inherently hates the mkb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrossTrain
Upvote 0
And John isn't going to step back any more than any other member of the design team. We built the original mod, the original Ostfront... Yoshi has made your case and I'd say we're answering it fairly well. But to ask a senior member of the team to "step back" because you disagree with a decision he was party to (i.e. was agreed within the team), is fairly unlikely (to be polite about it).

We design as a team, work as a team. The "Classic" mode is a team effort. That's just the way we work.
 
Upvote 0
I'm in favor of reducing the amount of assault weapons (mkb, avt). But honestly I don't care if it stays in. I liked the STG in RO1, it fit in, I felt it was rare. I believe a reduced number of mkb's would fit in too. Or maybe do it like we got the impression first, only heroes get it. I don't feel theyre overpowered, I would choose a ppsh over an mkb any day. Just posting this to show not everyone inherently hates the mkb.
The STG in RO1 made much more sense historically. While those rifles weren't super common, there were thousands of them built in the final two years of the war. Anyway, that's kind of missing the point anyhow.
 
Upvote 0
And John isn't going to step back any more than any other member of the design team.
I would say he needs to refrain from responding to the MKb/AVT debate. His answer is the equivalent of someone sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "Lalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU lalala".
 
Upvote 0
The problem is, the OP seeks to judge Ramm's worth based on a single design choice.

Granted, it's a controversial design choice, one that many of us disagree with including me, but without taking into account other choices he's made that we take for granted. For instance, he was an advocate for less stamina, but was outvoted by the rest of the team. There may be other features, for all we know, that were developed due to his input and that we enjoy in-game currently. He might have made some constructive contributions to the upcoming Classic Mode that we haven't even seen yet.

We're all human, and we all err. He made a bad call on the Mkb in my opinion, but that does not remotely make him a poor developer.

Colt .45, I respect you greatly, but I'm not behind you on this one. Let's give Ramm a chance at redemption, eh? ;)
 
Upvote 0
Yes i agree.

I think Ramm's flaw is that he constantly appears to agree with what he on a personal level likes; he needs to understand that he is not making the game for himself alone.

Look I just want the controversial issues to be solved in RO Classic mode.

I mean really, if you (including Ramm) like the MKB go play the realism/standard servers; but in the mean time, why cant we have our own mode that doesnt include that gun? Same goes with things like slowing down the speed of the ironsights coming up. If like the game the way it is then, great go play the modes that already exist...
 
Upvote 0
There should not be any MKB/soviet equivalent at all for Stalingrad. It's anti-historical.

There isn't any evidence that any unit had the MKB. I would like to see TWs evidence. Even if there were (in a few specialists) , there is no room for the MKB in the game.

The MKB on the squad level presented is absurd. May as well just give the German team the M16.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Olivier
Upvote 0
Personally I'm glad we are seeing more Dev posts from the top on down. Doesn't matter if I agree with them or not, it feels like the doors of communication are more open.

As far as leaving the Hero weapons in (off by default mind you for RO-Classic) is that someone creating a map may wish to make a map based on a later time period and include them. You don't have to play a custom map if you don't want to, and beside, why would you want to limit the resources to the community that are already there?

Seriously, they are going to be off.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VyvyanBasterd
Upvote 0
A huge problem as far as loadouts go is that the mappers can control what classes are in the map but not what weapons they get. This was a great thing about Ostfront and it allowed the mapper to create interesting scenarios. What we have now is dictated by character/weapon rank, and these assignments are handled by the code. Insofar as I can tell, mappers may not get away with the sort of things we were able to in Ostfront.

Providing limited captured weapons was a thing we could do. We had the ability to change the time period by changing the loadouts: Axis get StG44, G43, et al for late war maps, but are stuck with things like G41s (sometimes not even for really early maps!), MG34s, and MP40s. The Russians can have the PPD40 and PPSh41 for early war maps, and then the PPS43 and PPSh41 for the later ones. We could mix and match as we pleased. But that control has been deprived from us insofar as I can tell. If I want to make a 1941 period map (which I do), I'd be stuck with guys running around with Mkb42s. But hey, I guess it was on the drawing board at the time so it's possible that somebody put one together in their spare time and it got mysteriously shipped off to the front so that's good enough.

Anyway, that's my take on it.
 
Upvote 0
Tripwire and good decision making are unpredictable like the weather.

For RO1 and the mod it seemed like they were a lot more cautious or at least moderate so things worked out well enough.

RO2 is just filled with bad ideas or good ideas with weird nonsensical implementation. It takes a whole team to do things like that though not one person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cucamonster
Upvote 0
I think Ramm's flaw is that he constantly appears to agree with what he on a personal level likes

Uh... what else is he supposed to do, go on the forum whenever he needs to make an opinion on something and conduct a poll to determine it? This sounds a demand to kick the guy out of the development process simply because you disagree with his opinion. Honestly, I disagree with it too, but I'd rather argue the case of the opposing side rather than simply demand that the guy I disagree with be censored.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.