Is it a game design that russians are supposed to lose more ?
- Thread starter MadGelo
- Start date
Just had the worst round of Pavlovs House yet.
Germans had two tanks sitting 300m+ in the field. They both were focused on Spawn #1. They both had almost 100 kills after 1 round (ONE!)...Hull MG was mowing people down (I thought this was nerfed) and their HE shells were pumping into the wide open spawn. I had a direct line of sight on the tanks from the spawn. All the germans have to do is drive a short distance, knock out a couple T34s which isn't difficult and then they've got free reign to spawn camp...
Map design in regards to spawn protection has been a joke compared to RO1 maps. It always seems like it's the Russians who have the exposed spawns (Commissars House ring a bell?) I can't think of a single map where the Germans can be easily killed in their spawn from 100+ meters away.
Germans had two tanks sitting 300m+ in the field. They both were focused on Spawn #1. They both had almost 100 kills after 1 round (ONE!)...Hull MG was mowing people down (I thought this was nerfed) and their HE shells were pumping into the wide open spawn. I had a direct line of sight on the tanks from the spawn. All the germans have to do is drive a short distance, knock out a couple T34s which isn't difficult and then they've got free reign to spawn camp...
Map design in regards to spawn protection has been a joke compared to RO1 maps. It always seems like it's the Russians who have the exposed spawns (Commissars House ring a bell?) I can't think of a single map where the Germans can be easily killed in their spawn from 100+ meters away.
Thanks a lot for the feedback, sasquatch.
However, can we actually get some server stats to see what the win/loss ratios are? I really dont care about anecdotal gameplay, if you want to balance this thing, you need real hard stats.
Though you wanting to balance it is good! It makes me happy. I was honestly beggining to think the soviet side was supposed to be harder.
On the other hand, mkb availability is strongly disliked throughout the forums, i think you guys need to finally adress this.
Here are some wise words, i strongly agree with this guy:
Mkbs are great, they should be in the game, but if they are as ubiquitous as they are now, they are just a nuisance, something that frustrates you. This weapon can be a tactical hurdle, something cool to find on the battlefield and think as a team to get through it. Right now there are too many of them, too many.
One or two around the battlefield, maybe as an elite assault that chews into the given assault class would work. Did you playtest this? Is that the reason you are dismissing 15000+ views on those threads?
I'm not mad, i just want this game to be what it clearly can be. Thanks a LOT again for making it. It can only get better.
However, can we actually get some server stats to see what the win/loss ratios are? I really dont care about anecdotal gameplay, if you want to balance this thing, you need real hard stats.
Though you wanting to balance it is good! It makes me happy. I was honestly beggining to think the soviet side was supposed to be harder.
On the other hand, mkb availability is strongly disliked throughout the forums, i think you guys need to finally adress this.
Here are some wise words, i strongly agree with this guy:
Mkbs are great, they should be in the game, but if they are as ubiquitous as they are now, they are just a nuisance, something that frustrates you. This weapon can be a tactical hurdle, something cool to find on the battlefield and think as a team to get through it. Right now there are too many of them, too many.
One or two around the battlefield, maybe as an elite assault that chews into the given assault class would work. Did you playtest this? Is that the reason you are dismissing 15000+ views on those threads?
I'm not mad, i just want this game to be what it clearly can be. Thanks a LOT again for making it. It can only get better.
I play both sides but I also agree with his agreement...
I think it is a misperception that Allies win all the time.
The game is less than a month old. The regular player base hasn't even had time to come close to forming.
The bottom line as was discovered long ago in RO1 when these same issues came up in the first month or so and eventually became a non-issue; the team that talks the most (VOIP, or at least typing) wins.
Thats it, the team that can work together the best wins. 9 times out of 10 in RO1 it was the team that talked on VOIP the most that won...and I mean actual talk, communication not ranting and ordering around by players who seemed to lack the maturity to even understand the game.
Every time a new map came out, there were always the crowd that whined right off the bat for the first month that it was unbalanced somehow. A few times that was true, and those maps didn't really make it and were removed or they were improved. For the most part, the maps take a few months or a few dozen plays per player before enough of the core player base knows the capzones and strategies before anything can possibly be judged.
Give the maps a few months and THEN, if you can actually track the numbers of German vs. Russian wins, come back and make a thread. Keep in mind, just because you are Allied and lose for 3 days in a row on every map does not mean a map in unbalanced.
Yesterday I had a lot of victories with my comrades, but you must really persuade them to come with you to cap points or else it wont work.
How can you say that on fallen fighters the reds pretty much spawn on the cap they only have to make it edge of the wall and they are in the cap zones they don't even need to get into the park, when the axis have to push to the last cap there is little cover on the red side, but heaps of cover if your pushing the last axis cap.
i have to disagree whit you, ok the mp 40 is overpowered in game but ater all the mg 34 was better in real life than a dp (ffs the dp has got max 800 m effective range while mg 34 2km). Panzer 4 has got superior fire power like in real life (it can kill a t-34 araund 1200m from the front). Stielgranate is designed to be an attack granade while F-1 is a defend granade while Stile kills whit the exlosion the f-1 whit shrapnels, and also Stiel can be thrown much further (the record is 110m!!!!! in real life some SS guy threw it) Ok if the maxim have shield than the Mg 34 shuld have the optic for the tripod (just for example http://www.flickr.com/photos/macspite/2305076766/ )
somebody in the forums said: the problem is not the weapons becasue everyone shuld admit that russians win because they owerwhelmed the germans same number of enemies means german win because the german weapons are much better than russian.
This is the problem right now the weapons are realistic but russians havent got more men, both team include same number of soldiers and that is why russians always loose
Last edited:
Gonna reply to some stuff at the top of the thread.
I've _yet_ to have the AI in T34's take action. Compared to the Panzer where, when I'm driving, I can hear my main gun going off and my MGer firing. If this is a bug, it's a bug. But I hadn't heard differently about it from anyone until you.
The difference between the PPSh and the MP40 are meaningful. Now, when I say that, I don't mean imbalance. But there are intentional differences in how they handle that makes them different weapons.
Because there's no one, not even a dev, that will convince me the MP40 doesn't take less skill to wield to maximum effect. It's lack of recoil compare to the PPSh makes it a much more forgiving weapon that rarely needs to be braced.
The PPSh is a beast. It spits more rounds but it will climb straight to the ceiling without control. You cannot snipe effectively beyond a 100m with it, you've got to fire burst shots very low and hope one clips your target. While it may be a monster in CQC....it requires far more bracing to get decent accuracy over extended firing, which reduces your mobility compared to the MP40.
These are meaningful differences and they scattered throughout the game. They're never in numbers large enough to make me claim "OP!" (Not even the MKb42). And there is no equivalent to the some of the map that the Allies have to deal with. There is no equivalent to RO Factory as an assault map IMO, not even Grain Elevator, which used to be ugly for the Germans but after balancing has returned to the average difficulty for an A/D map.
I'm fine with asymmetrical balance decisions, I like contrast. (As opposed to BC2's idea of contrast, where the only real differences were in vehicles and American ones were patently better.) However, I think in people's rush to paint the game as completely balanced so other's aren't upset, they're downplaying some intentional choices.
No gun makes you a super hero. No gun makes you invincible. But some guys offer you way more flexibility by their very design, while others take away some flexibility and offer something up in return. The Bolt Actions are a perfect example. Under most circumstances, they're inferior weapons to other rifles at range, and SMGs up close. Yet with the bayonet, a rifleman actually gains a significant advantage over SMGs up close...to the point where I actually charge SMG held positions with a bayonet feeling like my odds of winning are at least 50%.
I've _yet_ to have the AI in T34's take action. Compared to the Panzer where, when I'm driving, I can hear my main gun going off and my MGer firing. If this is a bug, it's a bug. But I hadn't heard differently about it from anyone until you.
Really? So Russians having more reinforcements on Commissar's House now isn't a case of asymmetrical balance? The whole concept of attack and defense maps aren't based on asymmetrical balance? .
The difference between the PPSh and the MP40 are meaningful. Now, when I say that, I don't mean imbalance. But there are intentional differences in how they handle that makes them different weapons.
Because there's no one, not even a dev, that will convince me the MP40 doesn't take less skill to wield to maximum effect. It's lack of recoil compare to the PPSh makes it a much more forgiving weapon that rarely needs to be braced.
The PPSh is a beast. It spits more rounds but it will climb straight to the ceiling without control. You cannot snipe effectively beyond a 100m with it, you've got to fire burst shots very low and hope one clips your target. While it may be a monster in CQC....it requires far more bracing to get decent accuracy over extended firing, which reduces your mobility compared to the MP40.
These are meaningful differences and they scattered throughout the game. They're never in numbers large enough to make me claim "OP!" (Not even the MKb42). And there is no equivalent to the some of the map that the Allies have to deal with. There is no equivalent to RO Factory as an assault map IMO, not even Grain Elevator, which used to be ugly for the Germans but after balancing has returned to the average difficulty for an A/D map.
I'm fine with asymmetrical balance decisions, I like contrast. (As opposed to BC2's idea of contrast, where the only real differences were in vehicles and American ones were patently better.) However, I think in people's rush to paint the game as completely balanced so other's aren't upset, they're downplaying some intentional choices.
No gun makes you a super hero. No gun makes you invincible. But some guys offer you way more flexibility by their very design, while others take away some flexibility and offer something up in return. The Bolt Actions are a perfect example. Under most circumstances, they're inferior weapons to other rifles at range, and SMGs up close. Yet with the bayonet, a rifleman actually gains a significant advantage over SMGs up close...to the point where I actually charge SMG held positions with a bayonet feeling like my odds of winning are at least 50%.
Last edited:
With the risk of being pummeled to death by some of our forum regulars, I will question that last conclusion.
I sometimes am having a hard time trying to find feedback that isn't jumping a 'Germans are OP' bandwagon. Don't get me wrong; I'm reading most of it and take these comments as seriously as I can, but here is my problem:
I don't know why, I don't know how, but in my gaming hours so far I did not experience the German team as being the dominant team. I'm not sure why some of you have a different experience, but in the (european) servers I frequent (and i mix and match) I've seen many Allied victories on very different maps, maps that are said to be biased toward the Germans.
I just came from a totally Russian dominated Station (2 victories, Germans didn't get past the 2nd objective even). I've seen so many wins on PavlovsHouse, as gimped as it was, where Russians win twice in a row by pushing the Axis team back to their last spawn. On RedOctoberFactory I've seen many wins by the Allied team, just like tonight, capturing up to the last objective, and I could go on and on and on. Even on Commissarshouse, which can be extremely unforgiving for the Russian team in the first 10 minutes, I've witnessed plenty Russian victories on it when the Russian team actually made an intelligent effort. And by that I only mean have a half decent commander, use squad leaders and actually use the T34's. But that map does have issues that are being adressed. As is Pavlovs, which is funny, because [TW]Ohnein preceived it as balanced towards the germans, and I have yet to see a german win on it today!
I've also seen many T34's being evenly matched opponents to P4's on combined arms maps. Seen P4's being oneshotted plenty of times. I've seen T34's that seemed indestructable. I've even taken on 2 P4's by myself alone in a T34 and be successful at it. Granted the T34 has weaker turret armor, but it is not gimped to the point where it's impossible to smack P4's in the balls.
I've seen many Mkb wielding Germans get owned in the face. It is not a super weapon. Seriously. It isn't.
I've taken on many SMG wielding German opponents with a Mosin Nagant rifle and come out victorious, taking second place on the winning Russian team. And not because I killed almost as much Germans as number one, but because I killed smartly, went in to help capturing the objectives when it mattered, picked up a stray smg from a dead body when I knew I was going in close quarters frenzy style and accumulated dozens of team points next to my kills on Germans.
I'm not saying there are no balance issues, there are. I'm not saying the Russians never get pummeled by the Germans. I know it happens, I've been there. But you can see my problem when I am not constantly bulldozed by the German team as a Russian and see very simular things happen for both sides.
The Germans may have the upper hand on paper, but I yet have to see it unbalance our game as a whole.
------------------
Post scriptum
And you know whats funny? I think this bandwagon is exactly what the biased assumptions are about the eastern front: The Germans are the almighty superweapon wielding badass Tiger aces pouring death and destruction on the poorly equipped and unorganized Russian Army, owning them all the way to Stalingrad. Guess what happened next...
Oh PS: Yes that last bit was a joke.
Good post. I think the game overall is pretty balanced. What did unbalance it some were obvious flaws on a few maps (Commissars, Pavlovs) and when the MKB were handed out to 1/3 of the german team. These things are fixed now, which is nice.
There are still some things that screws up balance on some maps. Lockdown comes to mind... and I really think may maps still need an overhaul regarding protected area...
Last edited:
I think it's worth remembering....when people who are new to WW2 shooters, not from ROOST or whatever are coming to game, what do they see? How does the weapon balance immediately strike them?
This is why I think somewhere along the line, the Germans were given some slightly preferential treatment so they would appeal to players who were new, needed slightly more forgiving weapons, and needed a mentality that would get them playing the game long enough to figure things out (the perception bias of German Superiority.)
They're even the first group you play in the campaign, and their missions IMO are easier than the Russians (though not easy.)
To me it seems intentional, the idea that people would play Germans, get comfortable with the game....and then get slightly bored cutting people down with some of the best weapons in game. This desire to handicap themselves a little, and to play the underdogs and snarl definitely at smug German players....I think that was all intentional. And if it WASN'T......then I think by chance or luck, TWI arrived at an interesting dynamic to frame the faction differences in game.
Just look at the sheer amount of hate the MKb42 generated. After all that balancing...the hate remains, but now it's just kind of generally directed at the team, and that's all grist for people's immersion and for more intense efforts on their part as the game goes on.
This is why I think somewhere along the line, the Germans were given some slightly preferential treatment so they would appeal to players who were new, needed slightly more forgiving weapons, and needed a mentality that would get them playing the game long enough to figure things out (the perception bias of German Superiority.)
They're even the first group you play in the campaign, and their missions IMO are easier than the Russians (though not easy.)
To me it seems intentional, the idea that people would play Germans, get comfortable with the game....and then get slightly bored cutting people down with some of the best weapons in game. This desire to handicap themselves a little, and to play the underdogs and snarl definitely at smug German players....I think that was all intentional. And if it WASN'T......then I think by chance or luck, TWI arrived at an interesting dynamic to frame the faction differences in game.
Just look at the sheer amount of hate the MKb42 generated. After all that balancing...the hate remains, but now it's just kind of generally directed at the team, and that's all grist for people's immersion and for more intense efforts on their part as the game goes on.
You could always travel back in time and ask the weapon designers to change the design of those weapons so ro2 would be more balanced.
I wouldn't blame the weapon balance or game design that favours anyone. I think that they need more time to learn how adjust aim, bullet drop, lead target and get used to various weapon style.Nenjin said:
Last night - my second day at this game - I was on the Soviet's side (mostly to balance manpower in teams) and managed to kill many people as machinegunner, standard rifleman and engineer. For a man who day before that had no idea how to aim correctly placing headshots with machinegun (150 to 200 meters) is quite rewarding. Killing people from weapon I have to bolt also feels great.
Other problem than adopting to the game is lack of cooperation or clear tools to do so. Text chat is small, often obscured by various messages and you can't even tell friend from foe from it (brackets inform you if it is team, squad or message to all, but it ain't clear and you need extra effort for something that should be obvious). VOIP has problems, so it can be ruled out for now.
Unintuitive commands, which could be used as substitute of communication inside squads, doesn't help too. Most of the people don't commadeer. Some of them don't know they can, they will learn. The others find it too hard and often can take bullet for it (you need to see where the unit needs to go and that requires exposing yourself). You could use time you spent on giving commands no one respond to by shooting the bad guys. And that's probably the main reason why situation looks as it look.
When no one gives orders all comes down to personal contest and situation in the field. I didn't see more Nazis wining that Soviets. I find it pretty even and based on the situation.
Yesterday, on Fallen Fighters I was supporting the guy with bolt rifle and machinegun. He was crawling to take cover from the center of the park because of possible snipers. I was on his right, taking cover from the buildings. He crawls a few meters and scan the area for me. I run to next wall and cover him until he joins me. Thanks to our common sense we managed to reach far in the enemy territory and took out a couple of Nazis before being killed by Panzer IV. (Could I spot that Panzer for my team?)
We didn't need any tools or orders to communicate to each other. We're simply doing what each of us should. I think that with time and experience some people will play more teamplay without the need of a commander or squad leader.
I discovered that regular troops can request things! But I have no idea where is the man who ask for said request. Someone knows? Is that indicated on the map or with tactical display?
Last edited:
It's nice when you get to find an example that pretty much illustrates your point.
From the RPS RO2 Review that just got posted:
If the opinions of players on the forum here weren't enough, the professional media essentially comes to the same conclusion. This seems intentional.
BUT! The RPS article doesn't delve into an analysis that I will.
Anyone that has played 30 hours of RO2 and scored kills with a Bolt Action Rifle knows there are many, many factors that go into who wins in a confrontation between two different weapons. Knowing where your enemy is going to be while he doesn't know where you are, setting them up, skill, latency, luck, nerves and all sorts of other things adjust the final equation. The initial weapon balance is just the start of the equation.
So I do still think that, somewhere along the line, either for meta decisions like setting one team up as a starter team and the other as a "veteran'" team, or because of careful attention to the historical performance of these weapons...we've arrived at some slight asymmetry in design. It's obvious to most people playing the game, on some level. Now it becomes a question of how the players react to it, and how do you help encourage the reactions you want and dissuade the reactions you don't?
Because I think if people embraced the asymmetry a little more willingly, and saw it less as blatant imbalance, TWI could make even more interesting scenarios actively pursuing this asymmetry. I think time with the game and being successful with all roles and all weapons makes people a little more willing to accept asymmetry because they're confident in their own ability to make it work.
From the RPS RO2 Review that just got posted:
RPS said:
If the opinions of players on the forum here weren't enough, the professional media essentially comes to the same conclusion. This seems intentional.
BUT! The RPS article doesn't delve into an analysis that I will.
Anyone that has played 30 hours of RO2 and scored kills with a Bolt Action Rifle knows there are many, many factors that go into who wins in a confrontation between two different weapons. Knowing where your enemy is going to be while he doesn't know where you are, setting them up, skill, latency, luck, nerves and all sorts of other things adjust the final equation. The initial weapon balance is just the start of the equation.
So I do still think that, somewhere along the line, either for meta decisions like setting one team up as a starter team and the other as a "veteran'" team, or because of careful attention to the historical performance of these weapons...we've arrived at some slight asymmetry in design. It's obvious to most people playing the game, on some level. Now it becomes a question of how the players react to it, and how do you help encourage the reactions you want and dissuade the reactions you don't?
Because I think if people embraced the asymmetry a little more willingly, and saw it less as blatant imbalance, TWI could make even more interesting scenarios actively pursuing this asymmetry. I think time with the game and being successful with all roles and all weapons makes people a little more willing to accept asymmetry because they're confident in their own ability to make it work.
I believe it's a combination of weapons modelled as closely as possible to their real-world counterparts creating some percieved imbalance especially in those 1:1 encounters and a desire to create real-feeling ebb/flow on each map creating this asymmetry. I for one love it. I also believe these intentional game mechanics only serve to give the player more options while playing and keeps the game feeling fresh for longer.
For example, attacking with German side feels a lot different than attacking with the Russians, both of which feel different yet on different maps. Now start using different weapons and or tactics and you've got many different possible outcomes for each individual round played. In my opinion no FPS game-DEV can hope to do more and TWI have given this community a hell of a lot more for 39.99 than most (if not all) other FPS-DEVS give you for 59.99.
The bugs, performance issues and other niggling issues will be worked out. I have have faith in TWI (I just wish sometimes they'd communicate better but I guess one can't have everything )
With every hour that passes that I'm playing this game I'm simply reminded more and more why the 39.99 spent on this game will end up being the best 39.99 spent by me on a game this year.
For example, attacking with German side feels a lot different than attacking with the Russians, both of which feel different yet on different maps. Now start using different weapons and or tactics and you've got many different possible outcomes for each individual round played. In my opinion no FPS game-DEV can hope to do more and TWI have given this community a hell of a lot more for 39.99 than most (if not all) other FPS-DEVS give you for 59.99.
The bugs, performance issues and other niggling issues will be worked out. I have have faith in TWI (I just wish sometimes they'd communicate better but I guess one can't have everything
)With every hour that passes that I'm playing this game I'm simply reminded more and more why the 39.99 spent on this game will end up being the best 39.99 spent by me on a game this year.
We'll let's see.
Apartments - Russian Attack
Red Oktober Factory - Russian Attack
Commissar's House - Russian Attack
Fallen Fighters - Balanced
Gurmark - Balanced
Pavlov's - Balanced
Barracks -Balanced
Spartanovka - German Attack
Grain Elevator - German Attack
Station - German Attack
I think part of the issue is that Station and Spartanovka are NOT easy to defend in certain places. It is just as easy for Germans to exploit the defensive properties of the map as it is for the Russians. On Station, once the first trainyard falls and the Germans are into the Northhall, it's not defensible in the same way Red Oktober is defensible.
Spartanovka, between the Church and the Townhall, is the same story. You're just as vulnerable to the Germans as they are to you in those areas, and there's enough cover that if they advance smartly across both flanks, it can actually be much tougher to defend than attack.
Commissar's House, Red Oktober, Apartments....this are much more straight forward, defense-based maps with lots of open ground or perfect areas set up in favor of the defenders (The Propaganda House is the exception...it's a nightmare to defend sometimes.)
Apartments - Russian Attack
Red Oktober Factory - Russian Attack
Commissar's House - Russian Attack
Fallen Fighters - Balanced
Gurmark - Balanced
Pavlov's - Balanced
Barracks -Balanced
Spartanovka - German Attack
Grain Elevator - German Attack
Station - German Attack
I think part of the issue is that Station and Spartanovka are NOT easy to defend in certain places. It is just as easy for Germans to exploit the defensive properties of the map as it is for the Russians. On Station, once the first trainyard falls and the Germans are into the Northhall, it's not defensible in the same way Red Oktober is defensible.
Spartanovka, between the Church and the Townhall, is the same story. You're just as vulnerable to the Germans as they are to you in those areas, and there's enough cover that if they advance smartly across both flanks, it can actually be much tougher to defend than attack.
Commissar's House, Red Oktober, Apartments....this are much more straight forward, defense-based maps with lots of open ground or perfect areas set up in favor of the defenders (The Propaganda House is the exception...it's a nightmare to defend sometimes.)
A game like Heroes of Stalingrad can NEVER be balanced because it offers too many options and choices that affect the outcome of battle. This is not rock-paper-scissors kind of thing.
Even if weapons on both sides only had different skins people would still complain about balance.
Just learn to play and adapt.
If devs start to listen to these people who joined forums in september 2011, the game will go down the drain for sure.
I myself don't want balance but historical accuracy, as much of it as possible. When I play I feel that I am, to certain extent, giving respect to the real life soldiers who fought on the real battlefield of Stalingrad, and am glad that I can actually respawn once bullet catches my head.
Even if weapons on both sides only had different skins people would still complain about balance.
Just learn to play and adapt.
If devs start to listen to these people who joined forums in september 2011, the game will go down the drain for sure.
I myself don't want balance but historical accuracy, as much of it as possible. When I play I feel that I am, to certain extent, giving respect to the real life soldiers who fought on the real battlefield of Stalingrad, and am glad that I can actually respawn once bullet catches my head.
Nenjin - My main point was that the game is on the release and there are many factors that lead to one or the other outcome.
I agree with you, but to a point. If we want balanced weapons then we can as well give both sides the same gear. Or we keep realistic weapons. I don't mind realistic weapons because I know that the most important is the guy who holds said weapon, not the weapon itself.
I don't think we can rule out balance problems at all. What map would be perfectly balanced? Same as the weapons - the same conditions on both sides. But then it would be dull, at least for me, because everything will be reversed version of the other side of the map.
I agree with you, but to a point. If we want balanced weapons then we can as well give both sides the same gear. Or we keep realistic weapons. I don't mind realistic weapons because I know that the most important is the guy who holds said weapon, not the weapon itself.
I don't think we can rule out balance problems at all. What map would be perfectly balanced? Same as the weapons - the same conditions on both sides. But then it would be dull, at least for me, because everything will be reversed version of the other side of the map.
Last edited:
I don't want to give the impression I want balanced weapons. I don't. I really think the style and handling of the weapons goes to the identity of each team and that's actually more important in the long run for the fun of the game than equality. And I agree that it's more the guy behind the gun than the gun.
Honestly I just want to see how things shake out once performance and latency is really dialed in. That gets in the way of a good sense of the weapons 1v1 more than anything else.
Honestly I just want to see how things shake out once performance and latency is really dialed in. That gets in the way of a good sense of the weapons 1v1 more than anything else.
Last edited: