Nice idea!
But you know there are 'a few' popular servers out there who would never ever use it.
Upvote
0
RO2 The cycle after every update
- Thread starter Balthasar
- Start date
Nice idea!
But you know there are 'a few' popular servers out there who would never ever use it.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
An idea....
Just like campaign mode. Territory could have AXIS or ALLIES randomized to either be attacking or defending many of the maps would work with this in mind..
I would love to play the other side of Pavlov's as German, attacking Bridges with Panzer III & MG42 support and maps like Barracks could easily have the teams swapping locations.
Just an idea, I too have noticed many German Stacked teams.. and it's especially bad when they are defending and manage to lock the Russians out of the first objectives. (Terrible on Bridges - esp with no lockout)
What i suggest is not exactly a fix for the issue, but perhaps it could possibly be one of the easiest ways to doing something about balance.
Redoing maps... I just cant see it happening, too much work and effort.
However giving both teams the chance to attack or defend on easy or hard maps could possibly balance some of the teams, you have the guys like me who always play German and dont mind playing even on the harder maps, then you have the guys who always go attacking/defending who would be playing either team depending on who is attacking.
Funny joke going around the Aussie/NZ server. IF YOU VOTE RAKOWICE or any German Sided maps... you must go ALLIES. Almost all the Rakowice games I've played in my time in RO2 have Germans providing the rape services. Giving Germans the hard time of attacking could lead to some interesting things? Or maybe... defending is just too easy on that map.
Campaign mode is pretty awesome like that, but TBH I'd rather just play a Territory match and cycle between RS/RO2 instead of spending a whole night in one front.
Cheers
Just like campaign mode. Territory could have AXIS or ALLIES randomized to either be attacking or defending many of the maps would work with this in mind..
I would love to play the other side of Pavlov's as German, attacking Bridges with Panzer III & MG42 support and maps like Barracks could easily have the teams swapping locations.
Just an idea, I too have noticed many German Stacked teams.. and it's especially bad when they are defending and manage to lock the Russians out of the first objectives. (Terrible on Bridges - esp with no lockout)
What i suggest is not exactly a fix for the issue, but perhaps it could possibly be one of the easiest ways to doing something about balance.
Redoing maps... I just cant see it happening, too much work and effort.
However giving both teams the chance to attack or defend on easy or hard maps could possibly balance some of the teams, you have the guys like me who always play German and dont mind playing even on the harder maps, then you have the guys who always go attacking/defending who would be playing either team depending on who is attacking.
Funny joke going around the Aussie/NZ server. IF YOU VOTE RAKOWICE or any German Sided maps... you must go ALLIES. Almost all the Rakowice games I've played in my time in RO2 have Germans providing the rape services. Giving Germans the hard time of attacking could lead to some interesting things? Or maybe... defending is just too easy on that map.
Campaign mode is pretty awesome like that, but TBH I'd rather just play a Territory match and cycle between RS/RO2 instead of spending a whole night in one front.
Cheers
Upvote
0
This is a server side option I believe. I remember playing Territory and after the first round the announcer was saying Switching Sides and our roles of attackers and defenders have changed with only keeping the teams (axis went attackers and vice versa)
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
A server side option would be nice for forced auto select. So therefore, at least one person gives a sh|t.
And yes, I have seen it where players switch sides in territory mode, so it is either a server setting in stock or IOM (not sure which).
And yes, I have seen it where players switch sides in territory mode, so it is either a server setting in stock or IOM (not sure which).
Upvote
0
Its in stock. I talking about seing it after the release. I haven't seen it for year or more since I am not playing Territory anymore.
Upvote
0
People have to remember that even if auto-balance is set and if it is (NOT) set to do it upon death. You could have a team that is say 10 vs 10 but if say 5 people leave one of those teams then the teams will be unbalanced 10 vs 5 until more people join and they obviously then have to join the shorthanded team.
Servers should have where you can disable team picking and have it (Auto-Select) only as stated that would fix any so called stacking.
Servers should have where you can disable team picking and have it (Auto-Select) only as stated that would fix any so called stacking.
Upvote
0
this issue could also be easily fixed if the players switched teams after the match is over.
its done in EVERY single objective based game, let alone FPS, why the hell this wasn't done yet? only god knows.
forced auto-assign, and team switching between rounds is a remedy despratly needed for this game.
TWI, please do something already.
its done in EVERY single objective based game, let alone FPS, why the hell this wasn't done yet? only god knows.
forced auto-assign, and team switching between rounds is a remedy despratly needed for this game.
TWI, please do something already.
Upvote
0
I'd say part of the Axis-stacking issue has to do with the biased weapon selection and unlock system. For many players, there is quite a bit more incentive to play on the Axis side in order to unlock all the game-changing weapons and fantastical add-ons.
1. MGer:
Axis:
MG-34 and now the iconic MG-42 - both of which have the truly awesome belt-feed unlock at lvl.50.
Allies:
DP-28 -nothing new, no unlocks, no DT-29
2. (Elite) Assault:
Axis:
MP-40 - for some reason the MP-40 has a prototype dual mag unlock at lvl.25 despite being a very good weapon in its base form
MKB-42 - we also have the fantasy uber-weapon unlocking a bayonet and then a scope just in case one feels like hanging back as some sort of mid-range sharpshooter.
Allies:
PPSH-41 - unlocks the largely standard issue drum mag at lvl.25. Why bother working toward lvl.50 for single-shots?
PPS-42 - the weapon whose addition was barely noticed as it really is quite unremarkable. At lvl.25 players obtain the grand privilege of unfolding the wire stock, :IS2:.
AVT-40 - another unremarkable weapon. It looks like a SVT-40 and if you hope to hit anything, you press 6 and use it like a SVT-40. Very disappointing when compared to its Axis counterpart. It seems like they added the scope unlock simply because the MKB also unlocks a scope. A 15 or 20 round magazine unlock might actually provide some sort of incentive to use the AVT-40.
3. Marksman:
Largely equal in weaponry and respective unlocks, although the G43 scope unlock for the G41(W) is perplexing to say the least.
4. (Elite) Rifleman:
Seems equal on both sides to me.
5. AT-Soldiers
Again we see the Axis being propped up with the use of a captured PTRS and tungsten core ammo. That said, being able to spawn with this ammo as a Soviet AT Hero seems pretty game-breaking (or has this been fixed already?)
If Germany issued the inferior Panzerb
1. MGer:
Axis:
MG-34 and now the iconic MG-42 - both of which have the truly awesome belt-feed unlock at lvl.50.
Allies:
DP-28 -nothing new, no unlocks, no DT-29
2. (Elite) Assault:
Axis:
MP-40 - for some reason the MP-40 has a prototype dual mag unlock at lvl.25 despite being a very good weapon in its base form
MKB-42 - we also have the fantasy uber-weapon unlocking a bayonet and then a scope just in case one feels like hanging back as some sort of mid-range sharpshooter.
Allies:
PPSH-41 - unlocks the largely standard issue drum mag at lvl.25. Why bother working toward lvl.50 for single-shots?
PPS-42 - the weapon whose addition was barely noticed as it really is quite unremarkable. At lvl.25 players obtain the grand privilege of unfolding the wire stock, :IS2:.
AVT-40 - another unremarkable weapon. It looks like a SVT-40 and if you hope to hit anything, you press 6 and use it like a SVT-40. Very disappointing when compared to its Axis counterpart. It seems like they added the scope unlock simply because the MKB also unlocks a scope. A 15 or 20 round magazine unlock might actually provide some sort of incentive to use the AVT-40.
3. Marksman:
Largely equal in weaponry and respective unlocks, although the G43 scope unlock for the G41(W) is perplexing to say the least.
4. (Elite) Rifleman:
Seems equal on both sides to me.
5. AT-Soldiers
Again we see the Axis being propped up with the use of a captured PTRS and tungsten core ammo. That said, being able to spawn with this ammo as a Soviet AT Hero seems pretty game-breaking (or has this been fixed already?)
If Germany issued the inferior Panzerb
Last edited:
Upvote
0
![[40-1]MORD](/data/avatars/s/34/34566.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
As my servers have been mentioned a few times I will explain to you server settings we use.
Autobalnce on
Autobalance on death
Max team difference: 2 (lowest you can set it .I think that had been changed from max 1)
Autobalnce on
Autobalance on death
Max team difference: 2 (lowest you can set it .I think that had been changed from max 1)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Agree with a few things said here.
There needs to be more balancing mechanics in place for sure. For instance autobalance should DEFINITELY take into account the amount of experience and/or points that are on a team.
Ideas like swapping teams at the end of a round would also make for better balance I'm certain. This should be an option players can vote for.
Also RE Axis stacking; I tend to play a lot of Allies on RO2, but only because I can't stand picking the easy-win team. And that's more often Axis in my experience, depending on the maps.
There needs to be more balancing mechanics in place for sure. For instance autobalance should DEFINITELY take into account the amount of experience and/or points that are on a team.
Ideas like swapping teams at the end of a round would also make for better balance I'm certain. This should be an option players can vote for.
Also RE Axis stacking; I tend to play a lot of Allies on RO2, but only because I can't stand picking the easy-win team. And that's more often Axis in my experience, depending on the maps.
Upvote
0
I'm (apparently) one of the only experienced-players that always picks the team with less people, regardless of map.
I'd go as far to say it is immature and disappointing to see the same people play one side exclusively. For RO2, it is a big problem on the German team as these same people like to hog MG-gunner and MKB.
For RS, it is obviously the American team, but I have seen the same problem occur for Japanese. Same folks only play as BAR or Flamethrower on Allies while the smaller-minority likes to play Light Morter exclusively and just shoot at Americans from point-blank range.
I honestly would not mind having forced-autobalance. I think team-stacking is a huge problem as it keeps newer-players from learning good methods to play Soviets/Japanese since no veteran players want to play those teams.
I'd go as far to say it is immature and disappointing to see the same people play one side exclusively. For RO2, it is a big problem on the German team as these same people like to hog MG-gunner and MKB.
For RS, it is obviously the American team, but I have seen the same problem occur for Japanese. Same folks only play as BAR or Flamethrower on Allies while the smaller-minority likes to play Light Morter exclusively and just shoot at Americans from point-blank range.
I honestly would not mind having forced-autobalance. I think team-stacking is a huge problem as it keeps newer-players from learning good methods to play Soviets/Japanese since no veteran players want to play those teams.
Upvote
0
Clearly game theory dictates that to make the appropriate decisions more consistently in a game, regardless of which side you're on, you need to have played the game from both sides of the board.
I can't abide by the idea of playing only one side exclusively.
I can't abide by the idea of playing only one side exclusively.
Upvote
0
Map balancing is one thing but how about rewarding people for playing on the more difficult side?
Forcing people with some type of auto select feature could backfire but encouraging people to take the more difficult path could be a better option.
Give them double points or something.
Forcing people with some type of auto select feature could backfire but encouraging people to take the more difficult path could be a better option.
Give them double points or something.
Upvote
0