Decision not to go Combined Arms- TWIlight
- Thread starter Sullumvoe
- Start date
Not sure I agree with the total assessment. Combined arms works rather well if tanks rather than infantry predominate. Those of us that are fond of tanks remember how thrilling and competitive the "Black day July" map was in RO1. I'd give anything to see something like that again. The long range duels were outrageously fun and realistic.
In open area maps, the tanks must be accompanied by twice as many armored halftracks as infantry spawn points. Otherwise, the infantry would have to jog..
Great debate, and glad we are maintaining a civil discourse- for the most part. I will admit that I understand the argument for excluding the combined arms, and it is mainly to do with the engine. However, there is evidence from other games that UDK can do the job- to what degree, well I am sure there has been some testing and the difficulty rating as suggested is higher. However, look at the history of these pacific battles, combined arms played a rather large role in some very small island and jungle settings. Look at many of the island battles they were small and confined for example in the extreme of the atoll Tarawa- where even there it was the LVTs, Higgins boats and a handful of tanks (combined arms) that figured in the causality for winning the battle and might I say minimizing life loss on one side. So yes balance could be a problem, but I am not sure what the objectives are anymore. When we talk about game balance, do we mean, that we want to defy history and pretend that the despite the level of entrenchment that the Japanese encased themselves in, the technologically advanced and better equipped US could overcome these obstacles and win. Why would we need to worry too much about balance when history did not. It is a matter of level design that will ensure the balance and the nature of the scenario and equipment allocation. Mines and At guns will take care of things. Really though- lvts and a light tank would have pushed this game into a whole new space that would have held more potential.
My reason for raising the issue "again" as some have stated, is despite what the claims are that the game sold well, it surely is not being played- which to me is problematic for this genre- which personally semi-realism not COD and not Arma is my space and I do like a lot. We need to be sure the gate keepers of this genre are well aware of their responsibilities. If it did sell well, why is it not being played. And if it did sell well then money should not be an issue (like it usually is as we do live within a space that has finite resources and profits do dictate deterministically) potentially that is more grist for our cause to ensure the content is developed as that would mean the hired help should be abounding.
If the UE3 engine is that difficult, and I am merely a level designer by night and a statistician by day, then potentially a move to a new engine in future will be needed. Can UE4 handle it. Maybe the Cry engine or an alternative is something to be considering.
My reason for raising the issue "again" as some have stated, is despite what the claims are that the game sold well, it surely is not being played- which to me is problematic for this genre- which personally semi-realism not COD and not Arma is my space and I do like a lot. We need to be sure the gate keepers of this genre are well aware of their responsibilities. If it did sell well, why is it not being played. And if it did sell well then money should not be an issue (like it usually is as we do live within a space that has finite resources and profits do dictate deterministically) potentially that is more grist for our cause to ensure the content is developed as that would mean the hired help should be abounding.
If the UE3 engine is that difficult, and I am merely a level designer by night and a statistician by day, then potentially a move to a new engine in future will be needed. Can UE4 handle it. Maybe the Cry engine or an alternative is something to be considering.
Last edited:
Hmm. Thief 4 (a little out of topic) is on Unreal Engine 3.
Dev team said that there is no substantial difference, moreover UE3 has everything they need, which is why UE4 was not necesarry to wait for....
Interesting bit of detail eh?
Well considering the assets for (2?) RS tanks are already there in SDK I find it hard to believe that some enterprising individual/team won't eventually get around to fully realizing it.
However official vehicles on the other hand..
However official vehicles on the other hand..
RO2RS is an excellent infantry game. I've seen no one use the vehicles in RO2 to any particular effect since I started playing. I've never been killed by one, or even shot at by one. I've never needed to avoid one. If someone told me RO2 was based on vehicular combat, I'd laugh at them. The Battlefield series is what vehicular combat is about.
I personally find vehicular combat in my shooters to be very tedious so I've generally avoided games that focused on it in any way. I would not have bought RO2/RS had it focused on vehicles; I was very pleased to read, when I researched the game, that vehicle involvement in the game was minimal-to-none and I've been satisfied that my experience so far has upheld my research. So the argument that they would have generated more sales by introducing vehicles with RS, or making the maps more vehicular based, is a cloudy one at best.
I like my shooters infantry based. And RO2 does that better than a lot that I've played. That's enough for me and, I suspect, a large portion of the people I've played with.
That said, if vehicles were introduced to the level they exist in RO2, then I'd not be unhappy. But it's been stated that the existing maps don't particularly support land-based vehicles and I really like the RS maps very much. So, for me, any addition of vehicles now would be a token gesture and would be a waste of development time. Yes, that is my own opinion and my own desires, however I'd prefer Tripwire to focus on map balance and sorting out some of the bugs in the game (there are few bugs that truly annoy me, to be honest, except the spawning system in Firefight, which renders some maps unplayable).
I personally find vehicular combat in my shooters to be very tedious so I've generally avoided games that focused on it in any way. I would not have bought RO2/RS had it focused on vehicles; I was very pleased to read, when I researched the game, that vehicle involvement in the game was minimal-to-none and I've been satisfied that my experience so far has upheld my research. So the argument that they would have generated more sales by introducing vehicles with RS, or making the maps more vehicular based, is a cloudy one at best.
I like my shooters infantry based. And RO2 does that better than a lot that I've played. That's enough for me and, I suspect, a large portion of the people I've played with.
That said, if vehicles were introduced to the level they exist in RO2, then I'd not be unhappy. But it's been stated that the existing maps don't particularly support land-based vehicles and I really like the RS maps very much. So, for me, any addition of vehicles now would be a token gesture and would be a waste of development time. Yes, that is my own opinion and my own desires, however I'd prefer Tripwire to focus on map balance and sorting out some of the bugs in the game (there are few bugs that truly annoy me, to be honest, except the spawning system in Firefight, which renders some maps unplayable).
Last edited:
I just want to say I think it's a damn shame that engine limitations stunt the creativity and spectrum of what was capable with RO2. I feel like they spent a lot of time and effort on coding and animating and stuff that could have been spent on content and breadth. Not blaming TWI - just the times and technology we live with.
This has happened in the gaming world a lot. I think just now we are on the edge of a paradigm shift... especially with the rise of indie games (the common gamer embraced minecraft, entirely based on freedom and content as opposed to new graphical developments) and the fact that good graphics are becoming easier and easier to come by.
I'd love to see TWI immediately refocus their efforts to RO3... this time focusing on entirely content and maps and weapons and vehicles - and also revisiting the 41-45 concept but try to include more historical unit names/badges+patches+uniforms/weapon limitations (It's obvious the Germans and Russians around here are very interested in these very specific events of the war and the units who participated - I also find it cool, and if there's a focus on content why not?). With RO2 they kind of had to reinvent the wheel and THEN work on content. Obviously in 2016 there are going to be that handful of games that look freaking incredible... I mean hell look at Arma 3.... but as I said with my minecraft example - I think if RO3 retained RO2's graphics, they would be a bit outdated yes, but still entirely sufficient ... and there IS a trend of compromise emerging in the average gamer world!! Every day, average 6-pack joe gamer is willing to compromise his cutting edge tech for quality content! It's happening on iPones, it's happening on steam, it's happening on PC, and it will even seep into the console world. GTA5 is gonna blow people's minds, not because of it's graphics (GTA4 tried to do that and ended up being quite mundane) - but because of the sheer scale of it's world and content. I also predict that developers will be focusing more on this digital world immersion aspect on XBOX one and PS4 - look at the success of far cry 3, GTA 5 will be successful, MGS5 is going open world, the people of the world are growing weary of the corridor experience - young and old alike.
IIRC they said they're been working on KF2 - and that there is a section of TWI that only works on the KF franchise.... but again I think it would be great to refocus their efforts and make RO3 the ultimate WW2 game. RO2 and RS did well, we can either keep throwing around the hot potato of development and get a few cool free things in RO2 over the next year or two, but I highly doubt it's going to ever be the combined arms game that Berezina and Hedgehog and Kongisplatz players remember... or we could be patient little boys and girls, pay TWI for RO3, and have a vastly superior game.
That's just me though, I know a lot of people disagree because they want more now and they want it free now. I, for one, would rather enjoy the intense infantry experience of RO2/RS right now without the size and vehicles etc and get a sick CA RO3:41-45 game in 3 or 4 years.
This has happened in the gaming world a lot. I think just now we are on the edge of a paradigm shift... especially with the rise of indie games (the common gamer embraced minecraft, entirely based on freedom and content as opposed to new graphical developments) and the fact that good graphics are becoming easier and easier to come by.
I'd love to see TWI immediately refocus their efforts to RO3... this time focusing on entirely content and maps and weapons and vehicles - and also revisiting the 41-45 concept but try to include more historical unit names/badges+patches+uniforms/weapon limitations (It's obvious the Germans and Russians around here are very interested in these very specific events of the war and the units who participated - I also find it cool, and if there's a focus on content why not?). With RO2 they kind of had to reinvent the wheel and THEN work on content. Obviously in 2016 there are going to be that handful of games that look freaking incredible... I mean hell look at Arma 3.... but as I said with my minecraft example - I think if RO3 retained RO2's graphics, they would be a bit outdated yes, but still entirely sufficient ... and there IS a trend of compromise emerging in the average gamer world!! Every day, average 6-pack joe gamer is willing to compromise his cutting edge tech for quality content! It's happening on iPones, it's happening on steam, it's happening on PC, and it will even seep into the console world. GTA5 is gonna blow people's minds, not because of it's graphics (GTA4 tried to do that and ended up being quite mundane) - but because of the sheer scale of it's world and content. I also predict that developers will be focusing more on this digital world immersion aspect on XBOX one and PS4 - look at the success of far cry 3, GTA 5 will be successful, MGS5 is going open world, the people of the world are growing weary of the corridor experience - young and old alike.
IIRC they said they're been working on KF2 - and that there is a section of TWI that only works on the KF franchise.... but again I think it would be great to refocus their efforts and make RO3 the ultimate WW2 game. RO2 and RS did well, we can either keep throwing around the hot potato of development and get a few cool free things in RO2 over the next year or two, but I highly doubt it's going to ever be the combined arms game that Berezina and Hedgehog and Kongisplatz players remember... or we could be patient little boys and girls, pay TWI for RO3, and have a vastly superior game.
That's just me though, I know a lot of people disagree because they want more now and they want it free now. I, for one, would rather enjoy the intense infantry experience of RO2/RS right now without the size and vehicles etc and get a sick CA RO3:41-45 game in 3 or 4 years.
Last edited:
I don't want sequels personally.
It's not wise to make them now... The community will lash out, just like when Empire Total War was released in a buggy, unplayable state...
"Dev team making a **** casualised console game that's been in development hell for years say UE3 is alright".
How do you know it's bad and strictly a console game?
After all, they are a respectable developer.
Anyway that was just an example...
I do not see how people think that the engine limits vehicles and combined arms.
I only see that the design decisions to make the current vehicles more complex has made the whole deal take longer and less likely to happen.
Maybe someone can explain it better because I have seen decent tank maps and decent infantry maps.
I only see that the design decisions to make the current vehicles more complex has made the whole deal take longer and less likely to happen.
Maybe someone can explain it better because I have seen decent tank maps and decent infantry maps.
I just found this little gem in there in case anyone missed it.
A statement like that is just so ludicrous...it beggars belief.
Last edited:
Solution to "long walks" is to allow spawning "on command vehicle" instead of spawning on SL...
Better yet, let us parachute wherever we want
Um.... RO:CA.... The CA stands for "COMBINED ARMS" it was a pretty big part of the mod, it was in the name, jeez....
It was a big part of why the mod won Epic's contest.... it was a big part of RO1 as well..... it was a big part of why I got into RO in the first place.
From my memory, the very first version of the UT2004 RO had PIV's, T34's, Half-Tracks and Trucks..... all of which moved very very fast and all were very prone to flipping if you turned at full speed.
The only version of RO that didn't have vehicles was the UT2003 version, which is understandable considering
#1 - UT2003 didn't have vehicle support
#2 - RO was originally planned as an espionage type game
#3 - RO was still early in development and basic functionality was being worked on.
Maybe you need to dig a little deeper for those "Roots" you speak of.
From my memory, the early versions of UT2k4 did not have vehicles. Are you sure? RO did not have vehicles when I started playing. By the time it won the contest, it was RO:CA, yes.
The best RO maps, though, have always been infantry, but that's just personal opinion. Black Day in July for RO1 gets an honourable mention and so does Leningrad (we can do that in RO2 though- we have T34's and PIV's).
The classics like Jucha, Rostov, Moscow Highway, Tula Outskirts, Kurland Kessel, Basovka, Stalingrad Kessel, Kaukasus, Danzig, Ponyri, Sevastopol, etc have been ALL INFANTRY.
The amount of vehicle maps that are any good have always been few and far between- Arad, etc.
There have been some good combined arms maps- Barashka (in RO2), Black Day in July, Ogledow (in RO2 but no halftracks), Rakowice (same deal), Leningrad (which as mentioned can be replicated in RO2).......I am struggling here.
So yes Praxius, the roots of RO are infantry. To deny that fact is....beyond stupid. Surely you are smarter than that...
Last edited:
Quite a Chicken & Egg situation.... with only two types of tanks, no leveling for the tank classes like every other class that has leveling & unlocks, and players having a long time of gameplay with crewmember spawn bugs, there has been very little incentive for players to choose the tanks and play with them, especially when they can focus their playing time more on other classes that have leveling and unlocks (gives you an impression that your time could be better used unlocking and leveling then to play in tanks)
For myself, I play them as often as I can as I have pretty much everything unlocked and leveled up now.... especially when a server has a lot of players on it..... when there are only a few real players on the server, I think it's a bit unfair to use a tank, so I don't.
If the tank classes were level'able, if there were more maps for tanks and combined arms, if there were more variety in the vehicles/tanks for players to pick from... the demand for them would be there and the resources put into getting all of this into the game would certainly not go to waste.
The tanks & vehicles certainly didn't go to waste in previous RO's.... it's just right now, there's little incentive for players to jump into tanks, especially when you are lower in level and have plenty of things to grind...... playing two full matches in a tank gives the impression of punishment to your progression. Nobody should care that much about the leveling system, but it does have that affect on players, which also is why some players will stick to specific classes for a long time, rather than branching out to other classes.
I've maxed out my Rifleman Class, MG and Commander classes first.... and even though I was great at those classes, I hardly touched them in a long time after I maxed them, because I had all sorts of other classes and weapons to grind on..... the same effect happens with the tanks.... not being able to level them up equates to already having it maxed in leveling.... there is nothing to progress or grind on compared to all the other classes, so people switch off from tank combat.
You haven't played in a match with me obviously, lol.
Since the ROCA days, I was always one of the first to jump into a tank to play the support role for my team, holding objectives while mowing down the enemy, blowing up enemy tanks and deflecting shots from them..... I've road blocked the Germans on Karlovka so many times with just my tank alone with my team covering my flanks, I can't even count.
In RO2, recently I have been playing more and more with the tanks due to having almost everything unlocked now (as noted previously)
Now that I have the progression system in RO2 pretty much behind me, I've gotten back to my roots of hopping into the tanks and blowing the be'slithering snot out of the enemy with HE rounds, MG fire and AP'ing the enemy tank as soon as I see a flake of metal come around the corner.
Last edited: