Into The Jungle
- Thread starter Yoshiro
- Start date
No map restrictions work best when there are no fixed spawns, if they are player deployed and can be destroyed by a player being within a certain range. Then there is no spawn killing, just spawn destroying.
If RS2 moves in that direction as I hope it does, then movement and battles will be more fluid and flanking the best tactic. If it doesn't, then open maps would be a mess since everyone will know where every spawn is, and where best to sit and camp it.
If RS2 moves in that direction as I hope it does, then movement and battles will be more fluid and flanking the best tactic. If it doesn't, then open maps would be a mess since everyone will know where every spawn is, and where best to sit and camp it.
Upvote
0
Here's my vote on no progression bonuses (visual ones are fine but not worth the dev effort, imo. That's not to say there shouldn't be visual variations in the game).
Also,regarding red zones: the situation can already be improved by having more gradually progressing spawn points. Example:
- current situation:
team A captures point X -> spawn of team A is immediately moved close to point X, and a redzone is placed around point X for team B (the latter is an understandable consequence of the former, so let's deal with the former).
- to-be situation:
team A captures point X -> initially, the spawn of team A is not moved and no redzone is placed around point X. (spawn of team B already pushed back at this moment). Only after <T> minutes, or when all team B players have been cleared out of the zone around point X, will the spawn of team A be moved close to point X, and a redzone is placed around point X for team B.
Also,regarding red zones: the situation can already be improved by having more gradually progressing spawn points. Example:
- current situation:
team A captures point X -> spawn of team A is immediately moved close to point X, and a redzone is placed around point X for team B (the latter is an understandable consequence of the former, so let's deal with the former).
- to-be situation:
team A captures point X -> initially, the spawn of team A is not moved and no redzone is placed around point X. (spawn of team B already pushed back at this moment). Only after <T> minutes, or when all team B players have been cleared out of the zone around point X, will the spawn of team A be moved close to point X, and a redzone is placed around point X for team B.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Interesting discussions going on here. I really, really want to be able to reply to many of your posts, but I can't yet. There's a lot of things that we will be discussing more openly in due time.
What I will say though, is that RS2 is not just another RS1. i.e. It's not just RO2 in a different set of clothes. I mean, the core systems that hold the game together will still be the same, but I think a lot of you may be (pleasantly) surprised at some of the changes that are coming. Or at least, we hope you will be!
What I will say though, is that RS2 is not just another RS1. i.e. It's not just RO2 in a different set of clothes. I mean, the core systems that hold the game together will still be the same, but I think a lot of you may be (pleasantly) surprised at some of the changes that are coming. Or at least, we hope you will be!
Upvote
0
Really looking forward for the twitch stream, cant wait for it!
But if there will be RS2 presentation on it, it will blow my mind.
But if there will be RS2 presentation on it, it will blow my mind.
Upvote
0
On the 6 pillars:
I hope "satisfaction denial" made the shortlist.
(Not letting the opposition gain some form of real life satisfaction from doing something to you in game).
Its actually a huge factor in my opinion. Being able to deprive someone of something is almost as satisfying as being able to do the same thing to someone.
They also re-enforce each other. Doing something to someone they could have avoided is very satisfying indeed. Just as it burns into memory when it happens to you.
Cue killing a flamethrower with a katana
.
I hope "satisfaction denial" made the shortlist.
(Not letting the opposition gain some form of real life satisfaction from doing something to you in game).
Its actually a huge factor in my opinion. Being able to deprive someone of something is almost as satisfying as being able to do the same thing to someone.
They also re-enforce each other. Doing something to someone they could have avoided is very satisfying indeed. Just as it burns into memory when it happens to you.
Cue killing a flamethrower with a katana
.
Upvote
0
The one thing that bugs me in RO2/RS (besides actual bugs) are the kill widgets in the top right corner. They are on by default on 99% of all servers. Please remove these completely or keep them for just the players kills. They spam the HUD with unimportant information and doesn't belong in realistic shooter where you would want the HUD as minimal as possible. It also adds of sort of cheat where you could see that snipers name on the killist and be like "ah, now it is safe to move on". Things like this should be shared through communications.
If you want to keep them, please make them very minimal and not in gigantic red and green text.
Thanks!
If you want to keep them, please make them very minimal and not in gigantic red and green text.
Thanks!
Upvote
0
Personally I enjoy the situational awareness they add. Letting you know how the team is going, if the guys guarding the door are dead and so on.
If most people didn't want it I'm sure more servers would disable it.
I like servers that have it on a short delay, to me it adds some suspense.
I would be nice to have client side option to disable or show only your kills.
The server I play on has this running.
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=90991 Something like this as part of the base game would be fantastic.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That's what I mean. Cheating. Should be communicated instead.
But yes, an option to turn them on or off for the players themselves would be the best. Then everyone gets what they want. Actually, more HUD options in general would be good. To be able to turn off as much as possible. For me that adds a lot of immersion (to use that stupid word) As of now one can go to the console and type in showhud but then you lose the chat and stuff.
Upvote
0
Just my two cents on map size being he key: One of the mods most played maps was RO_Berlin. I was basically on long corridor down multiple streets, around some corners leading to a bridge that needed to be taken. Infantry could take cover in the ruins on both sides of the street. Allies got a tank that would support the advance. Round time was one hour. The map was ugly compared to some other maps, but it was one of the most played maps because of the intensity of the firefights. Advancing even a couple of meters down the road was a tough and gruesome battle. Flanking obviously wasn't an option except for a couple of spots.
Then you have maps like TE-MyshkovaRiver, which is pretty open and has plenty of cap points, where it is basically impossible to put up a meaningful defense. Germans can just rush up to the next cap point and start to cap it 10 seconds after the last one has fallen. That is IMHO bad map design.
I think the most important aspect of a good map design (for RO) is to channel the firefights and discourage run'n'gun and encourage cohesion. I think maps, where a couple of players "flank" way off from the objectives (usually running around and fighting the couple of enemies that do the same pointless thing) aren't well made.
There are some custom maps, where the mappers just want to do too much, play mostly bad. They put up too many houses, and too many things. There's a forest, a base, a beach, a river, and so on, all on the same map. And often, there are also too many parallel objectives and options. This often leads to a mess off a firefight and undefendable positions.
Then you have maps like TE-MyshkovaRiver, which is pretty open and has plenty of cap points, where it is basically impossible to put up a meaningful defense. Germans can just rush up to the next cap point and start to cap it 10 seconds after the last one has fallen. That is IMHO bad map design.
I think the most important aspect of a good map design (for RO) is to channel the firefights and discourage run'n'gun and encourage cohesion. I think maps, where a couple of players "flank" way off from the objectives (usually running around and fighting the couple of enemies that do the same pointless thing) aren't well made.
There are some custom maps, where the mappers just want to do too much, play mostly bad. They put up too many houses, and too many things. There's a forest, a base, a beach, a river, and so on, all on the same map. And often, there are also too many parallel objectives and options. This often leads to a mess off a firefight and undefendable positions.
Upvote
0
I can't agree with you, mate. Open maps (such as: Bridges over Druzhina, Barashka, Univermag etc) give us more options for maneuvering around a flank, makings ambushes and strong firing points. Well, personally, I'm tired of "box-maps" or "head-on attack maps". But, nevertheless, your opinion has brought up a painful subject of squad's regulation and the whole teamplay as well.
Upvote
0
First off: Go 64-bit! If you already are good, if you don't you better.
With 64-bit, everything that we saw in the trailer is possible and needs to stay in the game. RO2's trailer with all the additional animations and effects was false advertisement when comparing the trailer to the actual game.
Don't do that again. People will sue you this time.
Concerning weapon upgrades and unlocks, don't weld bayonets to the guns' muzzle. Make them de-/attachable during the game and not just selectable on/off in class menu.
Dual magazines like Call of Duty Black Ops did might be okay in my eyes as it's also seen on some wartime footage.
Full-scale destruction is a must in my eyes. If a US commander drops Napalm on the NVA's jungle hideout, the jungle needs to be gone. If you can't manage this: Don't bother adding fire weapons at all.
Full Body 1st person: Already been throwing in dozens of times in RO2/RS and again: RS2, you want realism? You want next-gen (as you advertised RO2)? Get that in! Too many last-gen games already had that to make it optional. It's standard already, better call the others or fold right away.
Aircraft. We have seen helicopters in the trailer. If they are just eye candy for the trailer, you better stop development right away as people won't accept this **** no more.
You wanna compete against Call of Duty, the big boss of FPS, you better stay true to what you show case.
No pre-order only beta bs, I did so with RO2 and quite frankly, I would rather wish I had not, as the beta I experienced was better in many ways as the actual game was. What a nightmare.
With 64-bit, everything that we saw in the trailer is possible and needs to stay in the game. RO2's trailer with all the additional animations and effects was false advertisement when comparing the trailer to the actual game.
Don't do that again. People will sue you this time.
Concerning weapon upgrades and unlocks, don't weld bayonets to the guns' muzzle. Make them de-/attachable during the game and not just selectable on/off in class menu.
Dual magazines like Call of Duty Black Ops did might be okay in my eyes as it's also seen on some wartime footage.
Full-scale destruction is a must in my eyes. If a US commander drops Napalm on the NVA's jungle hideout, the jungle needs to be gone. If you can't manage this: Don't bother adding fire weapons at all.
Full Body 1st person: Already been throwing in dozens of times in RO2/RS and again: RS2, you want realism? You want next-gen (as you advertised RO2)? Get that in! Too many last-gen games already had that to make it optional. It's standard already, better call the others or fold right away.
Aircraft. We have seen helicopters in the trailer. If they are just eye candy for the trailer, you better stop development right away as people won't accept this **** no more.
You wanna compete against Call of Duty, the big boss of FPS, you better stay true to what you show case.
No pre-order only beta bs, I did so with RO2 and quite frankly, I would rather wish I had not, as the beta I experienced was better in many ways as the actual game was. What a nightmare.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
You can't mention important stuff like this often enough.
RO2 trailer featured facial animations and gestures, where the hell were they in the final game?
Upvote
0
Jesus Christ, if I had a dime for every time you mentioned ****ing facial animations and gestures on these forums I could fund half of RS2's projected development costs. Do you have OCD or something or are you REALLY that bothered by not seeing a guy open his mouth for half a milisecond it takes him to fall down on the ground after being shot??
Upvote
0
It seems you'd still play the game if it was balls, cubes and cylinders moving across the battlefield. I'm sorry, but it's 2016 I can expect more than stone faces in an MP game.
They invested time to animate it, why not put it in the actual game?
Upvote
0
Half the animations from the trailers looked like they were made just for the trailer. I imagine there are quite a few reasons they are not included. Its like the capes you see on loading screens etc... they look nice there but when they are in game (like when they were put back in with IOM) they are weird and buggy.
Also, I'm not defending what people do with trailers here as it is a bit dubious, but who the hell takes E3 reveal trailers serious as being indicative of the final product? If it is an E3 EXCLUSIVE REVEAL then that usually means its probably proof of concept more than anything.
Also, I'm not defending what people do with trailers here as it is a bit dubious, but who the hell takes E3 reveal trailers serious as being indicative of the final product? If it is an E3 EXCLUSIVE REVEAL then that usually means its probably proof of concept more than anything.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0