Fewer SMGs please!
- Thread starter Bennanteno
- Start date
If folks don't like the ratio and simply want there to be more rifles, I'd like to point out two things:
1.) You can't make people play the way you want to. Accept that some folks will play the game differently from you and adjust your tactics and expectations accordingly.
2.) If it really is something you can't get past, make a mutator that servers can run which either reduces or somehow caps the number of SMGs, semi autos, and pretty much anything that goes >bang< in rapid succession.
By the way, I expect that people would still find time to complain about "Ridiculous hipshooters" with even the bolt action rifles and how these idiot rambos are ruining the game with their spray and pray tactics. There's always gonna be people who play the game the way you don't want them to. Welcome to the internet.
1.) You can't make people play the way you want to. Accept that some folks will play the game differently from you and adjust your tactics and expectations accordingly.
2.) If it really is something you can't get past, make a mutator that servers can run which either reduces or somehow caps the number of SMGs, semi autos, and pretty much anything that goes >bang< in rapid succession.
By the way, I expect that people would still find time to complain about "Ridiculous hipshooters" with even the bolt action rifles and how these idiot rambos are ruining the game with their spray and pray tactics. There's always gonna be people who play the game the way you don't want them to. Welcome to the internet.
It seems that alot of people are missing the point here. The complaint isn't really about hip shooting or spray-and-pray players, it's about the over-abundance of the SMG (and semi-auto) classes.
Lets take a look at a 50 player server. 25 players maximum per team:
1 commander likely with an SMG
5-7 (somtimes more) assault troopers with SMGs
2-3 (possibly) engineers with SMGs
~5 troopers with semi-autos.
Then you've got sniper, LMG, AT, etc.
So, on a team of 25 players, you've got anywhere from 10-15 or more SMGs and semi-autos running around. That's about half the team. Then, factoring in the otehr support classes, the good majority of the time, the strong MINORITY of the team is bolt-action riflemen. If the server isn't full, this problem exacerbates itself. Even on the large TWB servers there's often only six or so bolters on each team. Is this realistic at all for a game that depicts squad level combat?
EDIT: In response to above, the ratio seemed to change drastically on larger servers. On a 32 player server you might see two or three slots. But on he 50 player ones, you can see up to 8. The servers didn't increase the number of players by 400%, so why did the number of SMGs suddenly jump up?
Lets take a look at a 50 player server. 25 players maximum per team:
1 commander likely with an SMG
5-7 (somtimes more) assault troopers with SMGs
2-3 (possibly) engineers with SMGs
~5 troopers with semi-autos.
Then you've got sniper, LMG, AT, etc.
So, on a team of 25 players, you've got anywhere from 10-15 or more SMGs and semi-autos running around. That's about half the team. Then, factoring in the otehr support classes, the good majority of the time, the strong MINORITY of the team is bolt-action riflemen. If the server isn't full, this problem exacerbates itself. Even on the large TWB servers there's often only six or so bolters on each team. Is this realistic at all for a game that depicts squad level combat?
EDIT: In response to above, the ratio seemed to change drastically on larger servers. On a 32 player server you might see two or three slots. But on he 50 player ones, you can see up to 8. The servers didn't increase the number of players by 400%, so why did the number of SMGs suddenly jump up?
There was already a huge post about this in the General forum. And the argument about "Too many SMGs/Semi Autos" still boils down to a matter of one grou preferring one playstyle and not liking dealing with another playstyle.
Ask yourself this question: why does the ratio even matter? So the ratio is high? Big deal. It's the EFFECT of the ratio that people have a problem with, not the raw number itself. And that effect -- as folks are often happy to point out -- is a prevalence of run 'n' gunners, hipshooters, spray-n-prayers, etc., etc. Basically, people who don't play the game as if they're using a bolt action rifle because.....well....they aren't.
Most of the time the people complaining are folks who really dig the rifles and bolt action rifles at that. I love rifle combat, but I don't have a problem with the SMGs. I think they're pretty well balanced against the Rifles and if you see people taking a lot of SMGs instead of rifles, maybe that's because the SMG is the better tool for the map.
Ask yourself this question: why does the ratio even matter? So the ratio is high? Big deal. It's the EFFECT of the ratio that people have a problem with, not the raw number itself. And that effect -- as folks are often happy to point out -- is a prevalence of run 'n' gunners, hipshooters, spray-n-prayers, etc., etc. Basically, people who don't play the game as if they're using a bolt action rifle because.....well....they aren't.
Most of the time the people complaining are folks who really dig the rifles and bolt action rifles at that. I love rifle combat, but I don't have a problem with the SMGs. I think they're pretty well balanced against the Rifles and if you see people taking a lot of SMGs instead of rifles, maybe that's because the SMG is the better tool for the map.
I'm not some rifle nut, and as you said I generally choose the best tool for the map. However, the thing is, as your average foot soldier, you didn't often have a whole arsenal you could chose from. You had to work with what you had. And the rifles can work wonders in close quarter combat, if you take the time to learn them. I get really frustated when my teamates start doing nothing but ***** about how "I can't do anything with this stupid deer rifle".
Your right, the ratio affects the way people play, and in a game that's somewhat based around hardcore infantry combat, having this overabundance of SMGs is counter-productive. It's not about having too many rambos. When I have an SMG I'm usually hipshooting and being really bold also. But I think this overabundance of SMGs in some ways breeds lazy players.
Another thing that doesnt really help with the 'spray and pray'-feeling, is the fact that it looks ****ty as well. (IMHO)
If the animation would show a soldier holding his weapon shouldered, it wouldnt look nearly as bad as when he is jogging with the thing just on or below his hip (at wich place, at a normal jog, would have your hip pretty much bounce the weapon all around, and you cant really see where your aiming).
If the animation would show a soldier holding his weapon shouldered, it wouldnt look nearly as bad as when he is jogging with the thing just on or below his hip (at wich place, at a normal jog, would have your hip pretty much bounce the weapon all around, and you cant really see where your aiming).
AFAIK the SMG should NOT be shouldered. The whole idea of hip shooting is that the gun is held so that when it's fired it's supported by right hand just behind the receiver and therefore compensating climb. If the weapon is shouldered there isn't much anything you can do to stop the weapon from climbing.
Depends on the weapon. For pistol grips like the MP40, it's much easier to fire it shouldered. You control muzzle climb just like any othe weapon. With non-pistol grips like the PPsh, contoling automatic fire is probably easier from the hip.
100% agree with you one of the main reasons i bought these game was when i learn that enphasis was put in bolt action rifles and limited smgs/autos (because rifle was the main weapon in ww2, every old movies of ww2 i see on youtube, most of the soldiers are packing bolt rifles) now i must confess im a bit dissapointed with this game, because is turning in cod style more and more, if a game that claims to be realistic has so many smgs amd autos i think they are lying to the customers because this is not how it was back in ww2.
They're not lying to the customers, and the game isn't an exact historical recreation nor, I believe, does it claim to be. You personally may be disappointed that there are more SMGs than rifles, but to me, this simply belies your preference for the rifle. If you weren't a rifle fan, you wouldn't care. Likewise, due to your preference, you see to want others to have to play the same way. Again, if this wasn't the case, you just wouldn't care.
Personally, while I really like the bolt action rifles, I don't see any change in the game, and certainly no change for the worse due to there being more SMGs or semi-autos available. The rambo/COD style players still play the same way and will pretty much always play the same way, even if you stick them with a boltie. That or they'll cower in the corner and plink with said boltie. Don't believe me? Play a round or two of Kaukasus or Basovka with these guys. They're either charging around AS IF they're using an SMG, or they're huddling in the darkest corner they can find, plinking away and not getting into the cap zone.
That's just how some people play and it doesn't matter what weapon you give them. The only impact that giving them an SMG has is that it makes them more effective when they finally do get into range. The trick, then, is to not let them get into effective range, or to simply be a better shot than them.
Another simple fact is that many of the RO official maps (and unofficial ones) are close combat affairs where you'd WANT an SMG handy. All the urban maps are ones where an SMG is the weapon of choice simply because it's the most effective. While most soldiers might've been equipped with a longarm throughout the course of the war, there's nothing to suggest that they couldn't have been issued an SMG for an assault mission like street fighting in an urban environment.
Regardless, to me, the "it ruins historical accuracy" claims are a smokescreen for the "I just like the way you have to play when you use a rifle" claims. Historical accuracy is a lot more flexible, I think, than many people seem to believe, especially when we're talking about aggregate numbers like "Total number of rifles issued vs. total number of SMGs issued" in comparison with specific engagements where you'd really need to know the order of battle for the listed units to raise claims of improper historical accuracy.
By the way, there's nothing really wrong with saying "I just like rifle combat better and wish more people dug it the way I do". I understand that. But (a) I'd advise you to play on those maps where a rifle really is the weapon of choice, and (b) to accept the fact that you can't make people play the way you want 'em to, even when your way is more effective and even when they'd find it more fun if they only gave it a chance. All you can do is encourage them to give it a shot and hope they try it and ignore them when they refuse.
Personally, while I really like the bolt action rifles, I don't see any change in the game, and certainly no change for the worse due to there being more SMGs or semi-autos available. The rambo/COD style players still play the same way and will pretty much always play the same way, even if you stick them with a boltie. That or they'll cower in the corner and plink with said boltie. Don't believe me? Play a round or two of Kaukasus or Basovka with these guys. They're either charging around AS IF they're using an SMG, or they're huddling in the darkest corner they can find, plinking away and not getting into the cap zone.
That's just how some people play and it doesn't matter what weapon you give them. The only impact that giving them an SMG has is that it makes them more effective when they finally do get into range. The trick, then, is to not let them get into effective range, or to simply be a better shot than them.
Another simple fact is that many of the RO official maps (and unofficial ones) are close combat affairs where you'd WANT an SMG handy. All the urban maps are ones where an SMG is the weapon of choice simply because it's the most effective. While most soldiers might've been equipped with a longarm throughout the course of the war, there's nothing to suggest that they couldn't have been issued an SMG for an assault mission like street fighting in an urban environment.
Regardless, to me, the "it ruins historical accuracy" claims are a smokescreen for the "I just like the way you have to play when you use a rifle" claims. Historical accuracy is a lot more flexible, I think, than many people seem to believe, especially when we're talking about aggregate numbers like "Total number of rifles issued vs. total number of SMGs issued" in comparison with specific engagements where you'd really need to know the order of battle for the listed units to raise claims of improper historical accuracy.
By the way, there's nothing really wrong with saying "I just like rifle combat better and wish more people dug it the way I do". I understand that. But (a) I'd advise you to play on those maps where a rifle really is the weapon of choice, and (b) to accept the fact that you can't make people play the way you want 'em to, even when your way is more effective and even when they'd find it more fun if they only gave it a chance. All you can do is encourage them to give it a shot and hope they try it and ignore them when they refuse.
Not to mention some other facts; sure total SMGs vs total rifle standard can be quite accurate in the very beginning of scenario A, when it turns out to be scenario A goes urban unit X gets issued with more SMGs since it's urban area. Or get's supply priority.
Or we have historical unit Y (which is often used as reference sources for SMG-fest) which is SMG only (Soviet SMG unitsE.G.) - it means SMG only. Maybe few LMGs, but no fancy riflemen or any snipers (or sharpshooters) or any fancy class mixes. That's big ****ing SMG-fest.
As mentioned before using standards can be quite funny. Sure we know that generally rifle squads were not armed with many SMGs (one or two approximitely), but E.G. Germans were real pros when it came to non-standardity with their gear or usage of weapons - and especially their squad organisation. It was possible to have a squad with twenty riflemen, or squad with few LMGs and they all were entirely combat affective.
The big known fact for this crap is class-scaling being bit FUBARed on larger servers. And I kinda agree that lowering SMG classes might be the best choice overall for many reasons. But for some buffs - even if we want Ze-sovietzz-papashkatz0r-company ingame with dual-drums, special night vision scopes and wakizazhi attached as bayonet a unit means a unit - something you can't truly portray ingame without having LOTS of dedicated people to do it.
The point of this thread really wasn't really to bash smgs and autorifles, im sorry for the confusion. I'm not trying to change the game in a huge way, I just want people to remember back before the 50 player servers when the rifle had majority. Back then it seemed smgs and rifles could co-exist peacefully. The smg spammer would be rifled away, and tthe smg would have close combat power beyond the rifles. This ballance still exists, but has been warped greatly thanks to the unpreportional increase of assault troops. If there was a way to have the special classes and still have bolts outnumber them, that would be great, but that just isn't possible at the current class ratios. And don't confuse me with a rifle nut, I just want the good old RO back.
![[TW]DrGuppy](/data/avatars/s/0/171.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
I think this is definitely a valid issue that people should be bringing up.
The biggest problem for me is that one day I was playing in 32 player servers with a good balance of bolts and specialty classes, then all of a sudden these great big 50 player battles (which I always wanted) came into play with hardly anyone having to choose a rifle. If RO was specialty class heavy from the start this wouldn't have bothered me at all (probably wouldn't have played it for long though), but to have this changed so suddenly upsets myself and many other players.
I'm all for player choice but where does it end? Half the server can choose SMGs? Maybe everyone can choose an SMG? Why not just have unlimited classes for everyone so they can all play how they like? This is fine for many shooters, but is this what RO is all about? I thought it was about realism, the one thing very few shooters have, or do well. I've played RO for years because of this realism, because I can't drive and shoot a tank all at the same time, or always get the Tiger tank, or always get a specialty class. I love how RO stood out from the rest and I see this slowly slipping away.
The biggest problem for me is that one day I was playing in 32 player servers with a good balance of bolts and specialty classes, then all of a sudden these great big 50 player battles (which I always wanted) came into play with hardly anyone having to choose a rifle. If RO was specialty class heavy from the start this wouldn't have bothered me at all (probably wouldn't have played it for long though), but to have this changed so suddenly upsets myself and many other players.
I'm all for player choice but where does it end? Half the server can choose SMGs? Maybe everyone can choose an SMG? Why not just have unlimited classes for everyone so they can all play how they like? This is fine for many shooters, but is this what RO is all about? I thought it was about realism, the one thing very few shooters have, or do well. I've played RO for years because of this realism, because I can't drive and shoot a tank all at the same time, or always get the Tiger tank, or always get a specialty class. I love how RO stood out from the rest and I see this slowly slipping away.
Agreed with all of Guppy's post.
RO was special because usually more than or at least half of the team had bolt action rifles unlike all of the other mundane,run-of-the-mill WW2 FPSs available today.It's what drew me to RO and I am indeed very sad to see that go.
RO was special because usually more than or at least half of the team had bolt action rifles unlike all of the other mundane,run-of-the-mill WW2 FPSs available today.It's what drew me to RO and I am indeed very sad to see that go.
how is it the devs and not the mappers doing? Don't like rifles, remap it and call it "Map_Realloadout" and tweak it to your hearts' content.
This is partially true, but most people stick with the stock settings whenever they can. Just think of how many death message off servers are out there compared to ones that have them on. If the default setting for them was off we would see a lot more servers like that than we do now. The developers shape the game into what they want, and the majority of players will follow, even if they don't like the changes. If too many of those changes negatively effect the player, they will most likely leave the game instead of taking it upon themselves to modify it.
Getting people to download your modified map pack of all the stock maps and actually use them in a server rotation never works. The huge downloads for a relatively small change will not be used by anyone, even if the experience is better.
This reminds me of a weird fact about frogs. If you put them into boiling water they will immediately try to escape. However, if you put them in lukewarm water and slowly turn up the temperature gradually they will stay in the water and eventually die.
Speaking of realism, one reason modern armies have de-emphasized the rifle is that it turns out that in battles people armed with rifles will tend to hide rather than shoot. The theory of the rifle is that you are motivatived enough to expose yourself to pick out a long-range target, but your average soldier judges correctly that he's just as likely to be hit as to hit and so he stays under cover if he has a rifle. Automatic and crew served weapons are more likely to actually be used since armies tend to train their automatic and crew soldiers and pick more highly-motivated solders for those weapons.
The fact that autmatic and MG weapons are more heavily represented in firefights in RO is very realistic since in the reality of WWII people armed only with rifles tended to lie low and not call attention to themselves by shooting.
You could simulate the reality of rifle use by having dozens of riflemen cowering in various places waiting to surrender.