• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Rename classic to 'defenders win'

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
You mean that reducing vision thus amplifying concealment differences between a static and exposed target, drastically reducing mobility across the board, reducing all accuracy when not shooting from a static position and further reducing accuracy after recent movement might possibly skew gameplay in a more static direction?

How could anyone have foreseen this...
 
Upvote 0
#23
Its not the problem of the amount of stamina. Running Speed is fine how it is, no need for rabbits on cocaine. You should just use it clever, running from cover to cover (as sl or tl) throwing smoke, getting your avatar breaks to recover. But without a good team everything is impossible. It depends on teamwork, thats the key to win or to loose.
 
Upvote 0
#25
Mekhazzio said:
You mean that reducing vision thus amplifying concealment differences between a static and exposed target, drastically reducing mobility across the board, reducing all accuracy when not shooting from a static position and further reducing accuracy after recent movement might possibly skew gameplay in a more static direction?

How could anyone have foreseen this...
Click to expand...

well stated!
 
Upvote 0
#28
Mekhazzio said:
You mean that reducing vision thus amplifying concealment differences between a static and exposed target, drastically reducing mobility across the board, reducing all accuracy when not shooting from a static position and further reducing accuracy after recent movement might possibly skew gameplay in a more static direction?

How could anyone have foreseen this...
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Slower, trickier gameplay is exactly what plenty of people wanted -- it's why there even is a Classic mode. It's a very "Red Orchestra" type of play experience.
 
Upvote 0
#29
Mekhazzio said:
You mean that reducing vision thus amplifying concealment differences between a static and exposed target, drastically reducing mobility across the board, reducing all accuracy when not shooting from a static position and further reducing accuracy after recent movement might possibly skew gameplay in a more static direction?

How could anyone have foreseen this...
Click to expand...
Who'd have thought. You make the game more realistic, you see more realistic results. There's a reason real life doctrine suggests that an attacker should have a significant force superiority, instead of the parity we usually see in RO2.

Since Classic provides a more accurate simulation of the mechanics (with the possible exception of vision, zoom should be available to all weapons and separate from aiming) you get a more realistic result.
 
Upvote 0
#30
I think the quality of a team along with team effort and team coordination has everything to do with whether or not the attacking team wins regardless of the obstacles you face. Even then, sometimes the defending team simply plays better and victory can seem un-reachable.

On offense, it is extremely important that the commander and squad leaders are the best possible players suited for those particular roles; especially the squad leader! What I mean by best suited is:

Squad leaders need excellent communication skills and excellent situational awareness! It is important that a squad leader at least inform the team to defend an objective or attack an objective at the appropriate times! It is also important that the squad leader uses his smoke grenades in a capacity that does not hinder his/her teams support crew visibility, mainly machine gunners and snipers.

Furthermore, it is the squad leader’s responsibility to request artillery strikes or air surveillance as they should be in the forefront of the fight. When I play squad leader I find myself shooting a bit less and coordinating a bit more. In my opinion, nothing can go worse for a team than having a terrible squad leader who doesn’t use the attack/defend commands, who doesn’t mark artillery targets and who doesn’t use smoke grenades wisely. All it takes is a little patience from your team mates to get into position before launching the artillery and a little communication from squad leaders and the commander to let the team know what the basic plan is and when to execute.
For example, the dialog could go like this:

Commander: Artillery is ready!
Squad Leader: We are going to hit objective “B” hard in one minute! Everyone defend Objective “A” until I switch orders to attack Objective “B”
Squad Leader: Give us recon!
Commander: recon out!
Squad leader: give us artillery support!
Commander: Artilliry is out!
Squad Leader: ATTACK! Smoke out go! go! go!

All of this can take place in just a matter of minutes. And the objective could be overrun assuming the team executes without too many mistakes. Mistakes such as not calling the artillery in an effective region.



As for the commander, it is important that the commander can trust his squad leaders to do their job and do it well so that the commander doesn’t find himself searching for targets with artillery or spamming the recon plane at times that it might not be needed. When a commander can trust the information of squad leaders, his support abilities can be the bane of the defending enemy team! Nothing is worse than a well-coordinated mortar strike, followed by smoke and advancing enemies from a weakly guarded flank!

In a nutshell, I find often that team coordination is lacking, not the maps themselves. Any objective can be met with a little patience from team mates and a little coordination! When crossing open spaces to reach an objective. It is important to have artillery support suppress as much of the enemy forces as possible while you advance with concealment from smoke.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#31
Nikita said:
Unfortunately, I think you'll find that Pavlov's House and Barracks don't rank very high on anyone's list of favorite maps...
Click to expand...

Actually Pavlov's is my favourite map bar none - there's a wide variety of obstacles and terrain to deal with, which caters to a variety of playstyles. I'd like to see the "tank zone" in the upper left corner to have some more trenches / features to make it more "useful" and "interesting", but aside from that I like being able to either assault through buildings with SMGs or go sniper-happy from across the street.
 
Upvote 0
#33
I do not agree with OP!

It is not so much a problem with Classic mode but the maps themselves. The maps where defenders win most of the time are the same as they were before in Realism and the same problem existed.

It takes a good team to win as germans on Grain Elevator just like it does as russians on Commisar's House or Red October. With the reduced running speed it makes it harder yes but the new smoke gives better cover and another big part is that we see many new players lately and it is quite straightforward to defend but to attack as a newbie takes some learning.

But I agree that some of the maps need more balancing. Then again on Classic there is no Lockdown anymore so attackers can try to win through reinforcements.
 
Upvote 0
#34
The problem is its easier to defend a zone than to attack it.In defense it just takes bodies in the cap and let the attackers expose themselves.On attack it often takes a coordinated effort to push using teamwork,smoke,arty,and cover fire.That's often too many things that have to come together on a average public server.

Not saying it cannot be done many nights I have seen some great teamwork.With vocal leaders and squad mates all working together for a common goal.When this happens its a thing of beauty even the hardest maps can be beaten when teams work together.

Personally I try to judge map balance during clan matches with two evenly matched teams.Its really hard to judge map balance on pubs sometimes for the simple fact that half a team will be doing their own thing.In a tactical fps like RO this just don't cut it and it shows more so on the attack maps due to lack of coordination.
 
Upvote 0
#35
TheRealGunther said:
The problem is its easier to defend a zone than to attack it.In defense it just takes bodies in the cap and let the attackers expose themselves.On attack it often takes a coordinated effort to push using teamwork,smoke,arty,and cover fire.That's often too many things that have to come together on a average public server.

Not saying it cannot be done many nights I have seen some great teamwork.With vocal leaders and squad mates all working together for a common goal.When this happens its a thing of beauty even the hardest maps can be beaten when teams work together.

Personally I try to judge map balance during clan matches with two evenly matched teams.Its really hard to judge map balance on pubs sometimes for the simple fact that half a team will be doing their own thing.In a tactical fps like RO this just don't cut it and it shows more so on the attack maps due to lack of coordination.
Click to expand...

Indeed, if maps were to be balanced for pub play, clans matches would be unbalanced in favor of the attacker.
 
Upvote 0
#36
Proud_God said:
Indeed, if maps were to be balanced for pub play, clans matches would be unbalanced in favor of the attacker.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of players will never play in a clan match, and the vast majority of matches played will be in public servers. With that in mind balancing a map should be entirely focused on public play.

If people in clans want stuff balanced for their particular niche, they will surely create their own maps. A great many maps were created in RO1/DH2 that way.
 
Upvote 0
#37
Ace42 said:
Actually Pavlov's is my favourite map bar none -
Click to expand...
I despise Pavlovs, but I love Barracks :p

Golf33 said:
Who'd have thought. You make the game more realistic, you see more realistic results. There's a reason real life doctrine suggests that an attacker should have a significant force superiority, instead of the parity we usually see in RO2.
Click to expand...

Problem is given how "individually" most people play, giving one side a force superiority would probably guarantee them victories.

Ultimately it's impossible to balance the game both for individual single player type people and for team play.
 
Upvote 0
#38
Barely enough stamina to cross the street in one go, slower run speed, and lack of spawn on SL all combine to make attacking on Classic a miserable experience as your reinforcements take ages to actually arrive at the front, and by the time they get there, they are barely even replacing the troops who got killed in the meantime. Most of the maps are wide, open, and totally devoid of adequate cover (Mamayev is the best so far, but still very easy to lock down the entire thing with a few good MGs - it just happens to work for both teams, so the Germans do win sometimes).

All this is to be expected when you make a game mode that removes even the improvements RO2 made over Ostfront in order to try and placate the hardcore realism fans, rather than taking out the bad features from realism and then keeping RO2's improvements.
 
Upvote 0
#39
ross said:
Barely enough stamina to cross the street in one go, slower run speed, and lack of spawn on SL all combine to make attacking on Classic a miserable experience as your reinforcements take ages to actually arrive at the front, and by the time they get there, they are barely even replacing the troops who got killed in the meantime. Most of the maps are wide, open, and totally devoid of adequate cover (Mamayev is the best so far, but still very easy to lock down the entire thing with a few good MGs - it just happens to work for both teams, so the Germans do win sometimes).

All this is to be expected when you make a game mode that removes even the improvements RO2 made over Ostfront in order to try and placate the hardcore realism fans, rather than taking out the bad features from realism and then keeping RO2's improvements.
Click to expand...

The weapon handling changes were a great 'placation'. As for the other obvious improvements from RO2, many of them are still present in Classic Mode: mantling, bullet penetration, cover system, etc...

The only area that Tripwire erred in when making Classic Mode was, as you mentioned, stamina and movement. A significant issue that most people seem to agree needs to be tweaked.

[url]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=78922[/URL]

I'm also of the opinion personally that LMGs have a tad too much shift-zoom, but that appears to be a much less universal view.
 
Upvote 0
#40
Having historically wrong or plain made-up weapons forced upon us was a pretty big error too, I would say. I can only surmise they were so desperate to make it feel like RO1 that they overlooked the fact that the correct variants of the 91/30 sniper and G41 sniper were already in the game, and went with the ones which closer mimicked RO1's loadouts instead.

The unlock system is a mess, but not being able to pick the correct weapons really, really irks me.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu