Rounds are stupid

[lods of emone]

What is the point in playing two rounds on the same side? It's just boring and doesn't prove anything.

You should switch sides each round and play for 3 so both teams get a chance at attacking and defending. This would also encourage people to play as both Axis and Allies.

 

[kalle]

It's best of three which often means two matches. It's not very good for immersion though.

 

[Pino]

When Tripwire said they would be making Red Orchestra more accessible, I assumed that would include automatic team switching. It adds diversity and balancing, at no cost.
For those that like making one more attempt after a close loss, a server option could be added.

 

[Gudenrath]

I prefer 3 round matches. Too often one team wins the first round and the other the second, a third round is needed to settle who won. There is just no fun in tied matches.

I disagree that 3 rounds is not very good for immersion, on the contrary. After playing 3 rounds with basically the same teammates the chances of creating a team feeling is better.

Team switching could be an optional feature for those that like that sort of thing, but it shouldn't be default. I think too much immersion will be lost if it was.

 

[Cat_in_da_Hat]

There is a server side option called 'Half-Time Team Swap' which by default is turned off. Perhaps this is the feature you speak of.

 

[Don Draper]

Im 50/50 on the idea.

I think what would be better is Auto select for team selection as a option....it wont solve the problem....but for people like me where i would rather the game decide which side i will be on based on the status of the gameplay...this would automatically get me playing all sides.//when the oppurtunity presented.

 

[Gudenrath]

Im 50/50 on the idea.

I think what would be better is Auto select for team selection as a option....it wont solve the problem....but for people like me where i would rather the game decide which side i will be on based on the status of the gameplay...this would automatically get me playing all sides.//when the oppurtunity presented.

This. I always used auto select in RO1, and it is a feature I really miss in RO2.

 

[Six_Ten]

I'd rather play a map once, see who wins, and move on.

 

[Icey_Pain]

I would ditch the idea of rounds completely. Focus on making objective struggles happen several times during a much longer round. I'd say that the average round should be atleast 20 minutes, and should consist of an area about triple the size of the maps that we see now.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

I like the rounds system.... :IS2:

 

[Destraex]

I hated switching sides in BC2 and BF3. Ruins immersion and usually screws with teams and team work.

I like the system as it is. When the multiplayer campaign system is implimented at a later time switching sides mid round will certainly not make sense. I have also noticed that people like "playing or role playing" a particular class on a particular role like being in a movie.

 

[DarkHunt3r]

Or you could just simply play countdown which does swap attackers and defenders at the half way point

 

[GRIZZLY]

This. I always used auto select in RO1, and it is a feature I really miss in RO2.

+1

Also...
I love the fact that there are 2 rounds. There are a lot of times when the attacking team dicks around for half of the first match and run out of time when they finally get it together. Then on the 2nd round they don't waste nearly as much time on the first objective and it turns out being a much more cut throat game.

That said, I wish it would randomize classes after the first round. But that will never be implemented so at least reselecting would be nice.

 

[Cyper]

For me it doesn't really matter. I always play as Axist or I don't play at all.

I am not fond of switching in general. When you finally learn more about your team mates role, what they play as, and when the teamspirit start to go on, you lost it because it's all switching.

 

[RJ_MacReady]

I on the other hand always play Russians (or I don't play at all), so it doesn't really matter for me too.
Still, when you play the third round on the very same map, it can get a little boring sometimes. I guess I wouldn't have anything against removing rounds completely, but only if it resulted in increased timers for everything (lockdown, spawning, map time, etc.). It might make the gameplay a little bit more tactical and a bit slower paced.

I am not fond of switching in general. When you finally learn more about your team mates role, what they play as, and when the teamspirit start to go on, you lost it because it's all switching.

I agree with you completely.
There's also a long term factor in it, when you start to recognize players from your past games and you know what kind of style they're good at and what to expect from them. So you can quickly adjust yours to better fit the battle.
Not to mention that when you see familiar names (and you always see them in your favourite team, be it either Russian or German), a certain team spirit kicks in right from the start.

 

[Cyper]

I on the other hand always play Russians (or I don't play at all), so it doesn't really matter for me too.
Still, when you play the third round on the very same map, it can get a little boring sometimes. I guess I wouldn't have anything against removing rounds completely, but only if it resulted in increased timers for everything (lockdown, spawning, map time, etc.). It might make the gameplay a little bit more tactical and a bit slower paced.

I agree with you completely.
There's also a long term factor in it, when you start to recognize players from your past games and you know what kind of style they're good at and what to expect from them. So you can quickly adjust yours to better fit the battle.
Not to mention that when you see familiar names (and you always see them in your favourite team, be it either Russian or German), a certain team spirit kicks in right from the start.

Exactly.

A few weeks ago when I was playing OST I played as a commander for once. To make long story short I gave orders to attack all the time. One time we were behind a hill with both tanks and infantry. I ordered them to hold the position and a lot of them did. We were crawling just to see the enemies like you always have to do. I ordered arty, and when it came in I threw smoke and marked the towns CAP as an attack point and gave the order 'attack at will'. Everyone started to rush agianst the town - both infantry and tanks. We took the town. As a matter of fact, the others started to get it, so we used this strategy and took roughly seven CAPS. We started with zero. We did the same thing all the time. It took about one hour. People started to request for arty, for tanks, for snipers.. the team spirit was very high. Imagine some stupid switch accuring in the middle of that. It would totally ruin the whole experience.

 

[MarioBava]

Not only do I disagree that "rounds are stupid", I strongly disagree. I'd hate switching sides in the middle of a match, just like I hate getting autobalanced. I'm not one who always plays Axis or always plays Allies. I play both. But I like the tension that best of 3 matches create (so I'm really looking forward to campaign mode...if there are enough servers willing to run it) and the tactical progression that can develop. You get a second chance to improve on what may have not worked so well in the first round.

Related to this, though, I wouldn't mind if it was random which side the Axis and Allies started on for the duration of matches. That is, for example on Grain Elevator have it be randomly determined which side is attacking and defending for the match. Let Axis defend the elevator sometimes. That would lend some variety to maps and mix up the "oh no, not this map, Axis always wins!" phenomena.

Going further, it would be pretty fun if (I made a suggestion about this waaaay back) objective captures saved from round to round, making each match more of a dynamic battlefield with attack/counterattack progression. For example, on attack/defend maps, the overall criteria for winning a round stay unchanged throughout the match (ie attackers must grab all objectives and on the other side defenders must hold at least one objective), but say attackers win the first round, then in the second round the attackers still possess all objectives and the defenders have to counterattack; capture and hold at least one of the objectives by round end to win the second round.

 

[Nightingale]

I don't like spending an hour on the same map, so I'd prefer that Territory servers actually only use one round on each map.

 

[Cyper]

I don't like spending an hour on the same map, so I'd prefer that Territory servers actually only use one round on each map.

Neither do I. One hour isn't really that much. 20 minutes feels like a quickmatch in COD unless there's several rounds. 2-3 hours is good for one match.

 

[Father Ted]

Lots of people seem to want "team play" in this game. Having rounds is the way to do it. At the mo: 1st round = "What am I doing, who are these guys?", 2nd round ="Listen, let's try this", 3rd round = a degree of team play on both sides.

If we really want more teamplay, then a best of five or seven is the way to go. In pub play there generally is no team, but forcing people to stick together for several rounds makes a team (or a bunch of abusive chat, depending on the people).