That would be a problem for the defenders who would have to retreat if they want to defend another objective.
I think that TWI wants it to make each objective feel like a match on its own.
Questions about territory vs countdown...
- Thread starter Fedorov
- Start date
That would be a problem for the defenders who would have to retreat if they want to defend another objective.
I think that TWI wants it to make each objective feel like a match on its own.
Not re-spawning allows some attackers/defenders to move up to a position where they can easily kill the enemy spawn as well.
However I would personally prefer a retreat/regroup call for both teams. Where if they move to the next spawn zone they will stay alive but gain an additional goody. Like for instance a pistol or an extra nade.
Game-play wise I think simply re-spawning everybody allows for the easiest balance and least exploitability. I just primarily think that it feels or looks kind of odd to suddenly respawn.
However by making the screen get blurred/fade to black before re-spawning might make the effect less abrupt than in the current videos.
Ideally as you can place the bomb in multiple places in a lot of S&D and CS maps, I would prefer to be able to capture multiple places in search an destroy. But that's primarily because I like diversity in maps, and in general hate push maps that force you to play in a certain way at a certain speed.
While true I would much rather have the option to still choose what to attack. Purely because having 2 cap zones even if only one is defended means that player the same map multiple times can mean that a different cap zone is primarily defended.
Even in regular Roost you end up seeing that everybody ends up primarily defending one cap zone. But people might leave a single person in the other cap zone to hold some people off. And its that element of surprise that makes multiple cap zones so nice.
However by making the screen get blurred/fade to black before re-spawning might make the effect less abrupt than in the current videos.
Ideally as you can place the bomb in multiple places in a lot of S&D and CS maps, I would prefer to be able to capture multiple places in search an destroy. But that's primarily because I like diversity in maps, and in general hate push maps that force you to play in a certain way at a certain speed.
While true I would much rather have the option to still choose what to attack. Purely because having 2 cap zones even if only one is defended means that player the same map multiple times can mean that a different cap zone is primarily defended.
Even in regular Roost you end up seeing that everybody ends up primarily defending one cap zone. But people might leave a single person in the other cap zone to hold some people off. And its that element of surprise that makes multiple cap zones so nice.
Last edited:
One of the dumbest ideas in a game, especially for a "realism game".
It promotes "quick" gameplay. It makes the game more predictable as well. When an objective is captured, you will automatically know that the enemy is moved forward.
And really, what is so bad about walking across the map?
I don't like features in games that take control of the player or pull you out of the experience.
This might be the final thing to push RO2 into the "not buy" category for me. Or at least the "wait until it is $20 or less" category.
But in all honesty, I do not want to play a game with such a feature.
And what is wrong with them running to the new objective? They might get mowed down, and they might not get there quick enough.
Call it unfair. I'll just call it intense, and it makes for great gameplay.
Maybe. I liked how despite being a game, RO1 felt like you were in one large battle.
Small individual "match" style games are not my thing. If I wanted that, I would've went with a small scale game like CoD.
But TWI's game. I'll see if they change it or not. If not, there is still RO1 and Raven Shield.
Last edited:
I already answered that question: "TWI wants it to make each objective feel like a match on its own"
Maybe. I liked how despite being a game, RO1 felt like you were in one large battle.
Small individual "match" style games are not my thing. If I wanted that, I would've went with a small scale game like CoD.
Not really, for me the real RO1 was the mod for UT2k4, which felt more then "match" style game than big battle. And no, the unrealistic mechanics of a CoD wouldnt cut it.
man, you know this is gonna be just a game mode, right?, the old territory mode is still there.
This is about the new gametype called countdown. Its not intended to replace RO1's original gametype. This is an additional gametype. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.One of the dumbest ideas in a game, especially for a "realism game".
It promotes "quick" gameplay. It makes the game more predictable as well. When an objective is captured, you will automatically know that the enemy is moved forward.
And really, what is so bad about walking across the map?
I don't like features in games that take control of the player or pull you out of the experience.
This might be the final thing to push RO2 into the "not buy" category for me. Or at least the "wait until it is $20 or less" category.
But in all honesty, I do not want to play a game with such a feature.
And what is wrong with them running to the new objective? They might get mowed down, and they might not get there quick enough.
Call it unfair. I'll just call it intense, and it makes for great gameplay.
Maybe. I liked how despite being a game, RO1 felt like you were in one large battle.
Small individual "match" style games are not my thing. If I wanted that, I would've went with a small scale game like CoD.
But TWI's game. I'll see if they change it or not. If not, there is still RO1 and Raven Shield.
I'm not so sure about that. In the gameplay videos of Grain Elevator, Ramm talked about how Countdown was different from traditional single life gametypes, because it allowed teams to fight several smaller scale battles over the course of one big map.
The problem is if living players do respawn after capturing an objective, then it is really no different from traditional single life gametypes like Counterstrike. For the living players who have to respawn at the end of the round, the continuity of the battle is broken, as well as any sense of immersion.
Well that would depend on the map layout, wouldn't it?
The term "surviving stragglers" would apply more to the losing team than to the winning team, wouldn't it? The players who capture the objective and continue to the next (without respawning) would be more like the vanguard.
That has to do more with map design, I think. As I said before, the 29th ID Darkest Hour server has been experimenting with a Countdown-like gamemode, where living players do not respawn after capturing objectives, and it works wonderfully.
It also affects players' behaviour in game. Players defending an objective will have to decide when it is necessary to retreat. Players will have to make sure they are out of the objective area BEFORE it is overwhelmed, lest they get killed after the objective is capped, and have to wait for the next objective to respawn.
However, if you respawn even when you are living, there is less incentive for players to preserve their lives, and greater encouragement for players to play recklessly. Why not just fight to the death? You'll respawn anyway.
In fact, this is a disturbing trend I see in some of TW's game design choices - this, and the inability to exit tanks - which all seem to encourage a kind of fight-to-the-death behavior among players.
At least players will want to stick around for the next part. With CS, it's the same map over again, so no investment to stick around.
Partly, but someone could purposely sneak ahead to the next objective, and hide there until the previous one gets capped. I also think respawning breaks immersion, so I'd like to see it happen where if you're in the cap area, you don't respawn.
Yeah I realize that. I know, custom filters.
Filter relaxed realism, filter countdown, and?
By the time that is done, I'll be playing on 20% or so of the servers.
Worst part is if I am in a server hosting one game type, and it switches...
Yeah I realize that. I know, custom filters.
Filter relaxed realism, filter countdown, and?
By the time that is done, I'll be playing on 20% or so of the servers.
Worst part is if I am in a server hosting one game type, and it switches...
I think this game will sell good enough so you don't have to worry about that.
Also... how many servers do you need to enjoy the game? as long as you can find one that is good for you, there shouldn't be any problem.
I personally wont use filters, I'll make my choices as I always do (it will be the lowest ping of the fully populated servers)
Give server admins an option to have all or only dead players respawn. Give players a filter for it. Win win for everyone.
If you killed all but one person you would be able to get anywhere on the map with a low chance of firing at you. So no it doesn't depend on map layout, unless all but the default fighting area is mined.
Last edited:
I am sort of hoping for nwe respawn for all, just to make it something really different. It would be easier to grasp too if everyone respawned, and I seriously see imba tactics when you don't respawn. Like set the guys up for optimal defence on objective two and screw objective one. I don't think that would result in fun game-play
The reason for the respawn is, I believe, to ensure that both teams are even for each "battle". While I understand the desire to not be forced to respawn, I don't believe it counts as a suicide and the point is to have all players fully healthy and armed. While I can see some merits in wanting to "play on", for most players a predictable situation would be committing suicide just before ending a round to ensure that they were at full strength for the next cap. If players are deliberately killing themselves to improve their game experience then something's gone wrong somewhere in the design process.