Or they can do the TF2 thing and have the same set of characters with different colours.
Even then I think some will object to playing on team RED.
RO2 Team Stack
- Thread starter >F|R< Sarcinelli
- Start date
Or they can do the TF2 thing and have the same set of characters with different colours.
Even then I think some will object to playing on team RED.
Thats present in every multiplayer game featuring some real life nations/factions. I still remember when in CoD 4 the Marines team always outnumbered the OpFor team because nobody wanted to play with them. Its always going to be like that. I am sure that in IC:V the US team will always outnumber the NVA team
Do you have absolutely no desire that the game be kept fair?Thats present in every multiplayer game featuring some real life nations/factions. I still remember when in CoD 4 the Marines team always outnumbered the OpFor team because nobody wanted to play with them. Its always going to be like that. I am sure that in IC:V the US team will always outnumber the NVA team
You truly are shameless.
Shame on you, and on players that agree with you. To me, you lot are scum. Its as simple as that.
I hope to never see you in-game.
I apologise if you are not an Axis only player. That was uncalled for on my part.
What I will not apologise for is my stance that players who only play a certain team deserve to be named and shamed.
40-1 and 2.fjm are probably the worst servers for axis stacking, I try and play allies where I can but there's only so many times you can put up with being bumrushed and losing the map in a matter of minutes even on maps like grain elevator/station ect.
Another point which has been brought up is that people should ask players to switch if the teams are uneven, I mean ive done it in the past and a few of the regulars on the server switched over with (a mostly) positive reaction. Some people however were not so keen and in their own words "War isn't fair deal with it" and here I was think I was playing a videogame....
Another point which has been brought up is that people should ask players to switch if the teams are uneven, I mean ive done it in the past and a few of the regulars on the server switched over with (a mostly) positive reaction. Some people however were not so keen and in their own words "War isn't fair deal with it" and here I was think I was playing a videogame....
Last edited:
I am an Axis only player but calling everybody who do the same a scum is silly. I wouldn't use the word retarded but just because different people have different beliefs and views doesn't mean you have the right to call them scum like you did. Even so you don't know why somebody is playing with one faction only. Maybe you think those people are stacking because they want the winning side. Well I will tell you that not everybody is stacking for that reason. For example I am using just one faction in most of the games. I like some faction I am just sticking with it. Its not my fault that in RO2 the Axis are op or imbalanced, that's devs' fault, blame them not me. In Rising Storm I am playing with the Allies only and we are losing most of the time but I dont have even single round in the Axis team. But am I calling the Axis players in RS scum or other offensive words? No ofc not, I am dealing with it. Is it so hard for you to deal with the Axis stacking in HoS? It will never change unless TWI have plans for some MAJOR changes, which will never happen imo. Until this happens you have to either stop *****ing about the always losing Russian team or start playing with the Axis from time to time if you want to win.
Last edited:
Not a single round? Aren't you curious what the weapons are like? Curious about anything Japanese side? We have so little content as it is and you're skipping half of it.
Anyway,
I understand that some people absolutely can't stand losing and will choose the side most likely to win. Odd, considering there's nothing at stake in a vid game, I'd suggest there's bigger issues at play here. If they are over 18 therapy could be recommended.
I understand that someone can choose a side based on ideological preferences. I don't see the point personally, taking a stand that no one else realises you're taking, sort of like being proud you wear Superman underwear every day. Who gives a rat's *** anyway? It's just a game.
I can see people choosing a side because they prefer the weapons. Yeah, I have weapons I like and occasionally I'll choose a side because I have a hankering to play a specific one. Never if I'll be shortsiding the other team though, I don't really care that much.
I find it both sad and amusing that people will knowingly stack, at the expense of the other team and the game in general. It's selfish and immature.
It might be anything - some people prefer German uniforms or weaponry or they like to be "the bad ones" (Republic was always outnumbered by the Sith Empire). On russian servers people overstack Soviet's side. National pride, I guess.
I always try to join the attacking team first, regardless of what nation this is, then any with a free slot. I agree that German team is probably overstacked on european side (where I play mostly), but this alone doesn't mean Germans always win. I've seen some very good Soviet teams.
In fact I saw that many times people are leaving the side which is... losing. This creates a constant loop: losing players leave so they open slot for other people who join the losing team and so the fallacy of "unbeatenable" German Team is created.
My favourite team is Allies (because I have to join Soviet team as Germans are overstacked most of the time and a few other factors) and my win-to-lose ratio is 0.87. 401 wins to 451 loses. In short: no, Axis - Germany in particular - not always wins.
Some outcomes can be attributed to maps, which can be seen clearly when you play the campaign mode: some maps aren't attacked most of the time and when they are chosen the defenders quickly show how big mistake this was.
We're not talking IS (some prefer DP-29 over MG-34). We're not talking about ammo capacity (where DP-29 has lesser magazine than MG-34). We're talking about how many rounds you can eject while aiming at one another. Unless you hit and kill you're going to be at a disadvantage.
That's what I like campaign mode for - it can swap sides of attackers and defenders for certain maps. The other side has the taste of that the "usual attacker/defender" has to do in order to win it and then it ain't that easy.
I always try to join the attacking team first, regardless of what nation this is, then any with a free slot. I agree that German team is probably overstacked on european side (where I play mostly), but this alone doesn't mean Germans always win. I've seen some very good Soviet teams.
In fact I saw that many times people are leaving the side which is... losing. This creates a constant loop: losing players leave so they open slot for other people who join the losing team and so the fallacy of "unbeatenable" German Team is created.
My favourite team is Allies (because I have to join Soviet team as Germans are overstacked most of the time and a few other factors) and my win-to-lose ratio is 0.87. 401 wins to 451 loses. In short: no, Axis - Germany in particular - not always wins.
Some outcomes can be attributed to maps, which can be seen clearly when you play the campaign mode: some maps aren't attacked most of the time and when they are chosen the defenders quickly show how big mistake this was.
Say that to an American - with M1 Garand - in his face when you have to bolt your weapon... Weapon capable of taking a few shots in a row is clearly superior to a weapon which needs to be bolted after each shoot. Japanese players have to make up their firepower disadvantage by other means, but saying that US weapons are NOT better isn't true.
We're not talking IS (some prefer DP-29 over MG-34). We're not talking about ammo capacity (where DP-29 has lesser magazine than MG-34). We're talking about how many rounds you can eject while aiming at one another. Unless you hit and kill you're going to be at a disadvantage.
I remember when the German team was forced to attack though the Red October Factory. We - the Soviet team - simply slaughtered them. They weren't even able to get past the first objective, although they made a few brave attempts to capture it. You simply can't win against a team of battle-hardened veterans who have been playing this map from the attacking side's perspective over and over... I, myself, took down many Germans with my trusty DP-29. Some maps are simply very hard to attack, regardless the side, often experience in its defense/attack also matters.
That's what I like campaign mode for - it can swap sides of attackers and defenders for certain maps. The other side has the taste of that the "usual attacker/defender" has to do in order to win it and then it ain't that easy.
You'd be suprised how sane people would be then. Just think about this like that: do you want to play as red or green block? Or you want Empire or Republic? When there is nothing to attribute, there is much less ideology involved and less fuss over it when the main difference between block A and block B is its color.
Last edited:
You are more shameless than I thought. Axis only on RO2 and Allied only on RS.
Someone give this champion a medal. He earned it.
If you had any decency whatsoever (and it appears you don't) you would play the harder team when you saw team stacking.
I rescind my earlier apology.
I think it's easier to learn the strengths and weaknesses of a faction by playing as them.
That was actually my original thinking in RS when I first played as the Japanese - learn their weaknesses so that I could give them a real good hammering as Allies... as it turned out, I discovered that they're really great fun to play, and now I often feel a wee bit of disappointment when the auto-team select puts me on Allies (although I have been ranking up my trench gun recently to get the bayonet and that's been immense fun too).
That was actually my original thinking in RS when I first played as the Japanese - learn their weaknesses so that I could give them a real good hammering as Allies... as it turned out, I discovered that they're really great fun to play, and now I often feel a wee bit of disappointment when the auto-team select puts me on Allies (although I have been ranking up my trench gun recently to get the bayonet and that's been immense fun too).
@Holy Death. In a one on one fight between a Garand and an Arisaka, the trick to beating the Garand is not missing and firing first. Always does the trick.
As an Allies Team player I always use the Springfield over the Garand. The Garand sucks big time. In CQB if you miss your first shot with any weapon you are dead BUT if your first shot connects and you are using the Springfield you will survive. In the same scenario if you use the Garand, your first shot hits the target, and its not a headshot your enemy will most likely survive that shot and kill you with his first shot of his bolt action rifle. In long range engagement its a no brainer to use the bolt action rifles.
I don't think the rifles are the problem anyway. Its mainly the SMGs. The Axis SMGs are way better than the Thompson.
Why exactly this makes me an evil person?
I may be shameless, you will never know that, but I know for sure that you are funny for judging the people only by the team they are choosing in a video game. Btw if I am shameless in RO for picking my team because of my personal views, what am I in CS where I choose my team depending on the maps
Last edited: