There's also the issue of how people can be said to 'earn' anything when all it takes is a bot server and a great deal of patience, WoW players would be great at this game!
The flaws of RO2's leveling system
- Thread starter Avtomat
- Start date
The point is that some people do like an unlock system and some don't. It's just impossible to satisfy everybody, but you can't just turn all things around 1 year after game release. The came got released with the currently unlock system. People have been playing with it since day one. Removing it now would make those that like it start to dislike the game. And those that dislike it, well most of them did already abandon the game. Will they come back if it's removed? I don't know, but if I look at how classic was supposed to bring players back, then I expect that those players won't come back if the progression system got removed. Lowering the threshold of the unlocks to make it easier for people to get that unlock will be as good as removing the unlock system all together. If things should be changed, then it should be discussed openly and not be demanded like it was in some of the past posts. Demanding is nothing else than trying to force someone into what a person want.
Trying to satisfy everybody is kind of the whole reason we are in this situation to begin with, just saying.
If the game had stuck to its existing niche, the community would not be split three or four ways over every issue, and certainly not over such a wide spectrum of them.
If the game had stuck to its existing niche, the community would not be split three or four ways over every issue, and certainly not over such a wide spectrum of them.
Last edited:
And demanding for a change on the first page of a thread reflects what the whole community likes to see? Just saying.
What do you mean by "revision"?
Last edited:
Revision would be for the developer responsible for the setting of each and every single value of each weapon, to look upon them and maybe feel inclined to see to it that all the values that require a change, get one. If he so desires, if he is after all moved by our claims. Our claims that the requirements are unnecessarily high, or not fair, or don't really make too much sense at times. Well at least not in our eyes and wisdom.
Now, if there is some grand reason of things as to why the requirements should carry on as dogma, and because the game was launched that way is not one, we would be happy to hear. As of now the requirement is the way it is, because it is, and there would be no questioning of it, if it made a little bit more sense. Unless of course it does, and we don't know.. But no one here has made the claim that it does really.
There are a handful of things the whole community likes to see. You already fixed one of them with coloured text chat, there are a few other similarly gameplay-style-neutral things which everyone can agree on, but as soon as the issue of design comes up? Welp.
I personally would start with making the system more rational, like making miniscule cosmetic changes much less time consuming to unlock. I'd rather see it gone completely, but I don't think anyone can make a reasonable argument against rationalising the required kills to unlock certain things (particularly minor cosmetic changes or upgrades for weapons that are much harder to get kills with), regardless of whether they love unlocks or hate them.
So if TWI was to change the game to please one portion of the audience, what makes you think you (and like-minded people) should be the ones to carter to? Because you played RO1? If RO2 had stuck to its "niche" , the player pop would guess what? be more or less the same as RO1 had before RO2 launch - which frankly isn't fantastic either.
I've got nothing against people asking for stuff , after all this is the IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS forum. But if you're gonna make demands to change to game for everyone at least have to decency to admit what you want, and not just dance around the issue and go "lol no we dont actually want THAT, but we totally want this , which have 100% same effect."
: ''I declare this, the number 1 priority in this game right now!''
not making demands huh? Or are you just having a hard time containing your long-bottled up resentments
Also, stop having such a huge persecution complex , no one here is out to get you, and by flipping out everytime some one says anything negative about you or your friends , you only prove your detractors right..
Last edited:
Oh I don't know, the fact that it had something special? It was the only game of its sort, and while RO2 is not quite at the CoD/BF level yet, RO2 is distinctly watered down. If you find a good niche nobody else is competing for, then it makes sense to hold it down, not try and tackle much larger, much better-funded and better-known studios on their own turf. It just doesn't work.
If RO1 had found some arcadey niche I didn't like, I'd still argue for RO2 to stay true to its roots. It's nothing to do with 'people like me', it's about game design and knowing how to choose your battles. Picking a fight with the big boys clearly did nothing for RO's wellbeing.
And I guess this forum user will never be moderated accordingly, hence he will continue focusing all his energies on posts that deal with each and every person individually instead of the issue at hand, spewing his usual magic, baiting and throwing live matches. I rather not see Avtomat's thread derailed, I'll pass...
While I'm not about to say there's some grand conspiracy out to silence me or Sarkis, I will freely say that mentioning a preference for a certain thing in the wrong circles will sure as hell get people trying to discredit you or shut you up.
The best part is they're usually the people who don't bother to even read what's being discussed, like all those on the Steam page flipping out about "THEM DAMN RIVET-COUNTERS TRYING TO ADD ANOTHER GAMEMODE AND FORCE US ALL TO PLAY IT" on an announcement about a server running custom settings.
This community is absolutely toxic and it isn't improving any.
The best part is they're usually the people who don't bother to even read what's being discussed, like all those on the Steam page flipping out about "THEM DAMN RIVET-COUNTERS TRYING TO ADD ANOTHER GAMEMODE AND FORCE US ALL TO PLAY IT" on an announcement about a server running custom settings.
This community is absolutely toxic and it isn't improving any.
I'm not against any changes, but I would like to see a proper discussion first. Simply demanding changes isn't a proper discussion. If you would take a closer look to some of the mutators that I wrote, then you might detect some design changes too. With this I mean design changes to the default RO2 gameplay. Some of those were accepted by the community and some where not, but at least did the community have a bit longer period to accept or reject the changes than posting demands on the first page of a thread.
One of the examples is my bot-detonator mutator. That one would prevent (or at least reduce) bot-farming. But only a few servers do run it, and those are servers which have a low player count. This could of course be related to people wanting to get their unlock as fast as possible, though for what reason would they continue playing RO2 if they got their precious unlock? What will be the new carrot to keep them in the game? Some people just don't care if the game is realistic or not. They only care about what they can achieve.
Do I like the current progression system? Well partly yes and partly no. What I do like is that unlocks can come available if you play more with a specific weapon. What I sure do not like are some of the avatar improvements that do come with the leveling. Personally I would have been more happy with cosmetic unlocks, including the ability to unlock weapons and weapon upgrades. But I believe a weapon unlock or weapon upgrade unlock should be harder to achieve than a cosmetic unlock. Plainly saying "it takes me too long to get the PEM unlocked" (I know it wasn't you that said it) is a bit childish. Keeping the unlock thresholds high does actually prevent that all people will be running around with the same unlocks. It gives a bit wider variety in what's on the battle field. This is how I see it.
I like being the only guy on the server using the silenced Nagant revolver. Don't make its requirements lower. 
It's odd you call us out for something other people get away with no end. I won't name anyone because I know it will land me in trouble, but it is not something we are doing any different to them - just in our case it's not sanctioned, in theirs it apparently is.
Go right ahead and read the comments on that announcement on the Steam page, and some of the posts that have been made in various threads that were merely suggestions, and did not have the word 'demand' anywhere in them.
Like I said. Stop playing the innocent victim.
The word 'demand' is in this thread. Like I said before it's on the first page of this thread.
I wasn't talking about this thread, hence my use of the word 'other'.
I also don't really see how everyone having the same unlock is any worse than everybody having the same starting equipment (especially in the case of things like the PEM which everybody should have anyway). Cosmetic upgrades should be easy to get, taking maybe 10 levels for most weapons and 5 for things like ATRs and pistols which see less use. Next come minor upgrades at 25 (15 for ATRs/pistols), and finally major changes that make the user drastically more effective in combat at 50.
That's not a finalised idea, just a vague suggestion as to how it could work. The current system is broken from any sensible point of view.
I also don't really see how everyone having the same unlock is any worse than everybody having the same starting equipment (especially in the case of things like the PEM which everybody should have anyway). Cosmetic upgrades should be easy to get, taking maybe 10 levels for most weapons and 5 for things like ATRs and pistols which see less use. Next come minor upgrades at 25 (15 for ATRs/pistols), and finally major changes that make the user drastically more effective in combat at 50.
That's not a finalised idea, just a vague suggestion as to how it could work. The current system is broken from any sensible point of view.
One thing is for sure, we are not the aggressors, and we are certainly innocent, all we do is try to help RO, even if that takes us against the stream... the mainstream even for we are loyal fans.
I stand for my demand, as I said, a demand for nothing but a revision, not much of a demand really, If what is demanded is clearly something I will have no sway or final decision in, or at all.
While the word will remain as being a demand, as I do believe I have a say on this, (long forgotten INB4RESET). One can hardly say I am trying to dictate anything at all. I demand respect in our little developers/players relation.
While this progression system's absurd requirements and faults continues to insult our intelligence, yes, I will, demand. I am a customer, who was promised many things by the developers before the game was launched, most of which I did not hold them accountable for, and don't plan to, and that would be unfair to.
Someone has to do the dirty work of standing for the innocent Red Orchestra loving player. So long as I can, I will do that.
And good suggestion Ross. I would also go for reducing the requirements, design them in such a way that anyone can unlock everything at one point, perhaps, maybe after 600 hours of play, that would suffice I guess. Maybe even less, anything that will make it a more of a sideshow. Was it a sideshow now, we would not be having problems with it.
for we are loyal fans.I stand for my demand, as I said, a demand for nothing but a revision, not much of a demand really, If what is demanded is clearly something I will have no sway or final decision in, or at all.
While the word will remain as being a demand, as I do believe I have a say on this, (long forgotten INB4RESET). One can hardly say I am trying to dictate anything at all. I demand respect in our little developers/players relation.
While this progression system's absurd requirements and faults continues to insult our intelligence, yes, I will, demand. I am a customer, who was promised many things by the developers before the game was launched, most of which I did not hold them accountable for, and don't plan to, and that would be unfair to.
Someone has to do the dirty work of standing for the innocent Red Orchestra loving player. So long as I can, I will do that.
And good suggestion Ross. I would also go for reducing the requirements, design them in such a way that anyone can unlock everything at one point, perhaps, maybe after 600 hours of play, that would suffice I guess. Maybe even less, anything that will make it a more of a sideshow. Was it a sideshow now, we would not be having problems with it.
At almost 800 idle free hours in the game I still have none of the scoped rifles at level 50 (only have the scoped g41 close to level 40), neither of the AT rifles at level 50 (have the PZb close to level 40), only one of the handguns at level 50, and the MKb close to level 40. My guess is that it would probably take an additional 400 hours or so to get all those guns to level 50, especially since the scoped rifles have some of the highest requirements. Also, I didn't really whore any gun too much past level 50 except the MG34 which I got enough kills with to get to level 50 twice.
No real point to make, just throwing out some numbers.