No amount of bug fixing can fix the progression system.
- Thread starter Scarf Ace
- Start date
This system is to reward players who spend time actually playing the game and accomplishing goals. Anyone can have these 'advantages' if they spend some time learning and playing. "you don't just simply walk into mordor" sacrifices must be made, i.e. time. Once you get enough hours logged and get a feel for the game, one can learn to appreciate it. 
I don't get this stupid "reward for playing" crap. Your reward should be having fun playing the damn game, if you need an artificial "reward" to enjoy it, you know you're playing something boring.This system is to reward players who spend time actually playing the game and accomplishing goals. Anyone can have these 'advantages' if they spend some time learning and playing. "you don't just simply walk into mordor" sacrifices must be made, i.e. time. Once you get enough hours logged and get a feel for the game, one can learn to appreciate it.
This system is to reward players who spend time actually playing the game and accomplishing goals. Anyone can have these 'advantages' if they spend some time learning and playing. "you don't just simply walk into mordor" sacrifices must be made, i.e. time. Once you get enough hours logged and get a feel for the game, one can learn to appreciate it.
The best advantage is real skills. Not false skills that are rather cheats the game awards you with for playing it. I bet videogames will be playing by themself in the future while we sit like a dead horse in front of our screen in kilts sipping at whisky.
Last edited:
I'm just trying to help, so don't get mad.
I don't know what server you were on or much about your playing style in the match because you didn't describe it, but some of these tactical clan servers have clear rules about trying to play for objectives, and, depending on factors other than the amount of kills you had, decided to ban you for consistently not being part of the objectives effort. Maybe they were watching you, and since the number of rifle kills is obviously a concern and a point of pride for you, you were spending less time in objectives than their rules require. Maybe you had lots of kills but dismally low team points (this can happen legitimately; for example the sniper, MG and AT classes virtually require it) for a standard rifleman. So while you think they banned you because you were owning the clannies, some clans just want to discourage TDM-style play, that's all. Obviously that's speculation on my part because you didn't discuss that aspect. Just mentioning it as a clear possibility.
Last edited:
In theory I could almost agree with the OP, but in reality there's another side to it that isn't much being defended, and on reflection I think there's more to this issue that sides me in favor of the progression system than opposed.
Bottom line, I've found myself enjoying the fact of there being players on the battlefield who are not only good at the game but also have the advantages earned from their stats. I Just find it an engaging challenge, and rewarding when I manage to defeat them. The battlefield gets more deadly, which for me makes it more addictive fun. To me one principle at work is, the deadlier the enemy, the more tactically-minded you have to be against them to succeed. And once they get to the most dramatic level of progression (which is at a debatable level: 30%? I don't know I think it strikes a fairly difficult bargain between ridiculous and too low to notice), the tactical thinking will have been learned. If the progression starts to discourage that mindset at that level, they will only get worse than better, so they still should realize that tactical play yields a better result and play accordingly if it isn't already their habit. If it never was their habit, it never will be and I don't think any presence or lack of a progression system encourages or discourages that for that person.
Bottom line, I've found myself enjoying the fact of there being players on the battlefield who are not only good at the game but also have the advantages earned from their stats. I Just find it an engaging challenge, and rewarding when I manage to defeat them. The battlefield gets more deadly, which for me makes it more addictive fun. To me one principle at work is, the deadlier the enemy, the more tactically-minded you have to be against them to succeed. And once they get to the most dramatic level of progression (which is at a debatable level: 30%? I don't know I think it strikes a fairly difficult bargain between ridiculous and too low to notice), the tactical thinking will have been learned. If the progression starts to discourage that mindset at that level, they will only get worse than better, so they still should realize that tactical play yields a better result and play accordingly if it isn't already their habit. If it never was their habit, it never will be and I don't think any presence or lack of a progression system encourages or discourages that for that person.
well if your soo keen on REAL skills go back to counter strike and/or make a game/mod that you can appreciate. Don't come in here and think that your opinion is the only one that matters. sheesh, kids these days.
Good thing you (as so many before you) fell for this neet tactic to get people playing without actually having to deliver a proper game.This system is to reward players who spend time actually playing the game and accomplishing goals. Anyone can have these 'advantages' if they spend some time learning and playing. "you don't just simply walk into mordor" sacrifices must be made, i.e. time. Once you get enough hours logged and get a feel for the game, one can learn to appreciate it.
Statwhores just care about levels & xp.
I wonder how for instance Counter-Strike survived this long while not having this stuff in it for the first +10years of his existance? Right, rock solid gameplay
Same for Project Reality and RO1, a good game doesnt need unlocks to keep people playing.
Unlocks can also complement a good game, or screw up a not bad game like RO2 and make it worse, too.
I'm going to have to agree. I don't mind progression in a game like Battlefield 3, since the guns you unlock are not any more lethal than the ones you start with, they are just different. With the RO2 unlocks, you are literally getting better stuff that just gives you a pure advantage, not more options.
I'm soo glad you have an open mind to the gaming community. I get it. you dont like this game and to get your moneys worth, you are gonna rage hate until you feel better. That's cool. I am by no means a stats whore. I am however, a gamer who likes the extra dimension to games. I enjoy a whole gambit of games and genres, and appreciate what each one brings to the table. You, however want them to all be clones, with the same principal repeated game after game just re-textured, with a different storyline. Stop me if I'm wrong please, but did you just buy this game without reading what it was about. Did you just see a picture with cool graphics and say that looks neat and buy it? Do your research holmes, and read up on the gaming industry to find companies that have game styles that you like and support those. If you likes RO OST then by all means go back and have fun with that.
Final note, im sure TWI/steam will refund your money if you so hate this game.
This system is to reward players who spend time actually playing the game and accomplishing goals. Anyone can have these 'advantages' if they spend some time learning and playing. "you don't just simply walk into mordor" sacrifices must be made, i.e. time. Once you get enough hours logged and get a feel for the game, one can learn to appreciate it.
No need to get cocky and holier than thou. I simply disected your post which literally said: "This system is to reward players who spend time actually playing the game and accomplishing goals."
Hence, it doesn't reward people for playing well or have any skill at all, it's all about "time" (a.k.a. grinding) being spent to get that newest upgrade.
A lot of very much played games in the past had to need to do that and winning a match in those games was all the "reward" someone needed to enjoy it, combined with offcourse the good game mechanics etc etc.
Most games lately just focus on the rewards instead of having decent gameplay going for just those people who takeover servers to get that specific achievement where "you need to jump 5 times while throwing a grenade while sticking a bajonet up the enemies *** while a teammate is licking his own balls".
And as most of us know by know (and it's noticeable simply by looking at some of the game mechanics, another example is perfectly shown in this thread: http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=70282 . Don't give me the bull**** that this is supposed to be a realistic game when you can unlock to be spawned with enemy loadouts :/ ), TWI had definitly planned to try and get some of that crowd in their game seeing as how games which are nothing but achievements (COD for instance) are some of the best sold games ever, mostly on consoles offcourse but regardless, they're still number1 while having NO innovation compared to their previous titles and just aiming for the people who want to be a super duper master commander sergeant
Last edited:
I agree completely. The upgrade system isn't only unfair, it's also very uninteresting, leaving out a lot of cool in-game things to do. The special function button (6 default) for rifles should be attach bayonets, for example.
If each attachment had some kind of trade-off, that would be awesome, but those other options shouldn't be unlocked.
Really, if the only reason to level up a weapon was for aesthetic stuff (black hand grip), I wouldn't have a single problem with leveling up weapons. That's how you can actually show that a player is dedicated and giving long term goals without borking the balance.
If each attachment had some kind of trade-off, that would be awesome, but those other options shouldn't be unlocked.
Really, if the only reason to level up a weapon was for aesthetic stuff (black hand grip), I wouldn't have a single problem with leveling up weapons. That's how you can actually show that a player is dedicated and giving long term goals without borking the balance.
It needs heavy tweaking.
Cut out anything that wasn't in mass-production (and would reasonably be in the hands of most soldiers during Stalingrad) but keep the unlocks to an extent. It makes sense that more experienced soldiers would have scavenged better equipment in the field.
However, don't nerf weapons so they have an unlock tree (PPSh) or give us unrealistic unlocks so that we're getting something every 25 levels (double drum MG34, MP-40/II). The unlocks should be reasonable things for veteran soldiers to scavenge, like the Soviet MG'er scavenging a DT machine gun out of a burned out T34 or a higher quality sniper scope for the marksman.
If they could offer the upgrades without making it unbalancing or ahistoric, I think it'd be a lot more likable.
Cut out anything that wasn't in mass-production (and would reasonably be in the hands of most soldiers during Stalingrad) but keep the unlocks to an extent. It makes sense that more experienced soldiers would have scavenged better equipment in the field.
However, don't nerf weapons so they have an unlock tree (PPSh) or give us unrealistic unlocks so that we're getting something every 25 levels (double drum MG34, MP-40/II). The unlocks should be reasonable things for veteran soldiers to scavenge, like the Soviet MG'er scavenging a DT machine gun out of a burned out T34 or a higher quality sniper scope for the marksman.
If they could offer the upgrades without making it unbalancing or ahistoric, I think it'd be a lot more likable.
Its really quite simple, everyone feels like they are "t3h boss" until they realize the plain of existence they are on is a mental ward.
In my opinion this type of a system is an artificial depth enhancer. If you've played 10 hours of COD whatever, you've basically experienced it all. By adding an unlock system you can keep people playing just waiting till they get Item X or unlock Y thinking that will change the game for them, in some cases these unlocks actually do really change the game. They also often make players who play longer, arbitrarily better then players who have not played so long. Thus telling the new guys they have to play longer before they can enjoy it.
It's just a damned rabbit hole designed to suck you in and keep you playing all the while distracting you from the extremely bland game play.
(speaking at the cod type game there)
In my opinion just focusing on the gameplay and making that the light of the game that shines is the better move. Real tactics & teamwork offer much greater depth and enjoyability to players of all skill levels then gimmicks.
All of that has already been said though, and TWI knows our stance on this and have stated they have "the design team" looking into it, so now its a game of wait and see.
I play RO because I love it. Not because I want to play Counter Strike. I bought RO2 because I expected it to be more like RO1 simply because the brand Red Orchestra goes along with realism. Unfortunately, the weaponhandling in RO2 is away to simplified and it needs improvements such as other things in the game. I am all free to express my opinions about this - and so is everyone else - and there is nothing wrong with writing suggestions. That's exactly what the forums is there for. If you can't stand that people express their opinions about all kinds of things regarding RO the best thing to do is not to read the forums. I actually think It's amazing how dedicated this community is; Look at all the mods for RO1. The community made the game more amazing than what and all this was done due to the fact that people actually were passionate about discussing the game.
Or.. maybe we should have it like on operation flashpoints: red rivers forums..
Last edited:
I'ld just like to add one thing - if you're going to do a persistent stats thing - get it working on release. Tracking stats is a database problem - the kind of problem the computing world has been doing (and usually doing well) for decades. The problem(s) are well understood both in theory and practice. A whole industry basically lives on doing this kind of thing. If you don't have any expertise in-house, either contract the work out or hire an expert. There is absolutely no excuse for screwing it up this badly; it just makes you look incompetent.
I'll add:
If you're going to do a persistent stats thing - think it through. It feels like they weren't really thinking about the consequences when they made it.