Bridges Of Druzhina - totally epic, but...

[Randy Newman]

I played 2 rounds of Bridges on the attack:

- In Round 1, the attackers got all the way to the last bridge and were then defeated.

- In Round 2, the attackers won with 30 reinforcements to spare while the other side was driven to 0 on the last objective.

Both very close games. I'm going to give it some time, but my gut instinct says that TWI got it right this time.

Haven't tried Coldsteel yet.

On recapping objectives:

I think that recapping objectives has a time and place. On Commissar's house, A should not be recappable. However, on a map like say Peleliu, you need objective D/E to be recappable by the Japanese.

Same goes for Saipan and StalingradKessel (where the B/C recaps are a big part of map design). Red October Factory has this in the D/E objective as well which I think is fine. RO Factory is a map that I have come to appreciate- its not that unbalanced. At times, if the defenders don't play their cards right, they get rolled. ROFactory is I would say 50/50 on a good server (all skilled players) and 60/40 on a newbie server. That is acceptable.

On Rakowice, I haven't made up my mind whether B/C should be recappable. Its a tough call. I'm leaning no though.

 

[Flashburn]

I think is was on one of those with you Randy Newman That was the 3rd time on the new one

 

[IncubusDragon]

First evening of playing new versions... only played Cold Steel once, but as Axis and we walked through it. Still to play as defender, but probably not the best bunch of players to get much of a decent impression from.

Bridges is better now, albeit I did find the initial cap zones to be massive (I was in the ditch I normally throw smoke from for final storming of trench in A and it turned out I was capping zone where I was).

I had a couple of frustrating games that were shameful displays, but that was due to other players in a full game I joined, had no choice but to go as rifleman and was mostly storming capzones on my own (not easy with a bolt action!) - engineers never cleared all traps from bridge, SL's didn't seem to understand the concept of smoke grenades etc etc.

On the flip side, played two rounds of 7 vs 7 plus bots making up the rest of the teams. We won both rounds of match - once momentum started, the victories felt inevitable, but I think there weren't enough human players to put up a stiff enough resistance (their two machine gunners were pretty good, but I kept smoke on them as much as I could).

[url]http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=169887965[/URL]
There is just one thing though, I'm not sure if there was a cheater or not on my team, as I can't work out how he got so many kills (he wasn't TL or Tanker and I was the only SL)... but if he's just so damn awesome, then that would explain why victory felt inevitable.

Even so, and while the momentum felt real good, there was still plenty of tough fighting. It should still be hell on full servers, but at least now both sides can get a taste of the pain, hehehe.

 

[IncubusDragon]

Oh, thought it was worth adding that even if the new Bridges isn't 100% perfect, it does seem to give impressions battle can go either way rather than 'join Axis for an easy ride' the previous version was.

 

[skate]

This patch has now been released.

Thank you, but still would like to hear from TWI why they made the last minute changes to already perfectly balanced final beta for both the Bridges and Cold Steel...

 

[nymets1104]

....
On recapping objectives:

I think that recapping objectives has a time and place. On Commissar's house, A should not be recappable. However, on a map like say Peleliu, you need objective D/E to be recappable by the Japanese.

Same goes for Saipan and StalingradKessel (where the B/C recaps are a big part of map design). Red October Factory has this in the D/E objective as well which I think is fine. RO Factory is a map that I have come to appreciate- its not that unbalanced. At times, if the defenders don't play their cards right, they get rolled. ROFactory is I would say 50/50 on a good server (all skilled players) and 60/40 on a newbie server. That is acceptable.

On Rakowice, I haven't made up my mind whether B/C should be recappable. Its a tough call. I'm leaning no though.

I think a large difference in re-capability has to do with how far the objectives are from eachother that must be mutually held. In Racowice, B and C are a huge distance from eachother and if a few men are not left behind in the captured objective then it is easily retaken when the the everyone floods the un-captured point. With the Kessel the distance is much closer and it becomes easier to defend against re-capture. This doesn't seem to be nearly of an issue on Bridges as it is on Rackowice, especially with the larger A/B zones. It is definitely are part of the game that needs to stay. It just seems to be more of a factor on some maps than others.

 

[11_HARLEY_11]

Things are better TW but the trenches caps are way too big. It's lost the tension.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

Things are better TW but the trenches caps are way too big. It's lost the tension.

Agreed...... and far too much Allied bias.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I can't think of an official version of a custom map that I liked better than the actual mapper's version in ROHOS or ROOST.

Quite honestly the only real reason to tweak a custom map for official release would be obvious 'Bugs' or optimization. Messing with how the map plays is almost never a good idea.

To think, all that time the mapper spent working hard on their maps and then getting feedback from testers out the window...

 

[Mike_Nomad]

I can't think of an official version of a custom map that I liked better than the actual mapper's version in ROHOS or ROOST.

Quite honestly the only real reason to tweak a custom map for official release would be obvious 'Bugs' or optimization. Messing with how the map plays is almost never a good idea.

To think, all that time the mapper spent working hard on their maps and then getting feedback from testers out the window...

Agreed!

So much said in so few words.....

 

[TrOOper]

I can't think of an official version of a custom map that I liked better than the actual mapper's version in ROHOS or ROOST.

Quite honestly the only real reason to tweak a custom map for official release would be obvious 'Bugs' or optimization. Messing with how the map plays is almost never a good idea.

To think, all that time the mapper spent working hard on their maps and then getting feedback from testers out the window...

Agreed!

 

[Mormegil]

I can't think of an official version of a custom map that I liked better than the actual mapper's version in ROHOS or ROOST.

Quite honestly the only real reason to tweak a custom map for official release would be obvious 'Bugs' or optimization. Messing with how the map plays is almost never a good idea.

To think, all that time the mapper spent working hard on their maps and then getting feedback from testers out the window...

While I tend to agree, I wonder how much of the feel / play of the map is affected by the change in the players. Before a map goes official, only the players willing to either download and install the map, or willing to wait for a server redirect download will ever play it. Those players are likely minority of the RO2 player base, and probably a more dedicated set.

Additionally, people getting the custom maps usually come in as a trickle, and can "learn the ropes" from the map vets, who are the majority of the players on a given server.

Once the map is official, everybody has access to it all at once. Their play style likely differs from the more dedicated set, and the lack of "trickling in" doesn't allow them to learn it from a majority of seasoned players.


I guess if TWI released a custom map with no changes, we could see if it played differently or not. As always, it's probably a combination of both.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

So that translates to:

Mappers work hard on map potentially see the end product changed from their vision and all the players and server admins who willingly download beta updates of maps and offer feedback on play and bugs have their gameplay opinions thrown aside so the map can be changed for the mindless mass of other players who can't even be bothered to register on the forums or even download and play the map unless it is official?

So the mapping/modding community that works hardest and the players in the community that contributes the most to the game actually get the shaft so to speak, because sometimes, that is how it looks. Shame

 

[Mike_Nomad]

So that translates to:

Mappers work hard on map potentially see the end product changed from their vision and all the players and server admins who willingly download beta updates of maps and offer feedback on play and bugs have their gameplay opinions thrown aside so the map can be changed for the mindless mass of other players who can't even be bothered to register on the forums or even download and play the map unless it is official?

So the mapping/modding community that works hardest and the players in the community that contributes the most to the game actually get the shaft so to speak, because sometimes, that is how it looks. Shame

The map was good enough to WIN the contest. That says it all.

In plain language....... HANDS OFF!!

The old expression comes to mind; "Don't fix wot ain't broken!"

 

[ro2player]

Things are better TW but the trenches caps are way too big. It's lost the tension.

Agreed...... and far too much Allied bias.

11_HARLEY_11 and Mike Nomad,
Creator of map wanted willingly to create this effect of long distance in map betwen zone of objective. We can see it in the first parts of the map (until the bridge sector), because in the urban part of the map long distance become more little.
Sector is more hard to join. Reduce the distance will reduce the interest of the map.
(if i understand well the map)

 

[Mormegil]

11_HARLEY_11 and Mike Nomad,
Creator of map wanted willingly to create this effect of long distance in map betwen zone of objective. We can see it in the first parts of the map (until the bridge sector), because in the urban part of the map long distance become more little.
Sector is more hard to join. Reduce the distance will reduce the interest of the map.
(if i understand well the map)

11_HARLEY_11 created the map. I think he should know what he intended.

As for Mike Nomad, we just humor him


In all seriousness, if TWI doesn't ever tweak the map to the point it feels more like the beta 5 map, I'd like to see some admins put up beta 5, or if Harley makes it available, whichever was his last version he sent to TWI. This would have the benefit of getting back the feel of the original, while filtering for players willing to download the map.

 

[Jank]

Judging by the clammer before the changes, it would seem they were called for. If more tweaking is appropriate, then it can still be done.

Myself, if anything one of the only things I would change is to return the initial axis spawn, which got moved back for some reason.

Since there are no trenches to speak of (Just a couple large foxholes), unlike the ROOST version, it reduces the logical certainty of where the capzone boundaries should be IMO. I for one would like the actual A/B trenches back, can't understand why they were excluded.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

11_HARLEY_11 created the map. I think he should know what he intended.

As for Mike Nomad, we just humor him


In all seriousness, if TWI doesn't ever tweak the map to the point it feels more like the beta 5 map, I'd like to see some admins put up beta 5, or if Harley makes it available, whichever was his last version he sent to TWI. This would have the benefit of getting back the feel of the original, while filtering for players willing to download the map.

We have a good version up and running..... Humor me all you wish. ... If TWI has the time to muddle in other people's work, that time could be put to better use fixing the glaring problems in RO2/RS that are sending players out the door.

Go ahead, humor me some more....

 

[G_Sajer]

I've lost track just how old the "Russians can't win on Bridges of Druzhina" assertion is. It may have to be carbon-dated. Meantime, those of us that have experienced numerous Russian wins on the map and know the proper way to deal with the last bridge will continue to employ the strategy.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

I've lost track just how old the "Russians can't win on Bridges of Druzhina" assertion is. It may have to be carbon-dated. Meantime, those of us that have experienced numerous Russian wins on the map and know the proper way to deal with the last bridge will continue to employ the strategy.

SHHHH!! Don't tell them.... they'll humor you.