"Training" ala America's Army for key roles

[LordKhaine]

All those opposed will be singing a different tune when we get stuck with the same horrible SL over and over during a 4 hour long MP campaign game .

I highly doubt that. in RO1 I find the opposite far more common. So often is chat filled with morons whining on about how someone is useless at their class, and they should let said moron take the role instead. Perhaps a valid criticism if the person is doing badly in their role, but more often they're doing the role perfectly well... someone is just whining because they want the role for themself. If I had a quid for every time someone has complained loudly and repeatedly in local about the teams sniper...

I consider myself a good squad leader in RO. I know where to place smoke and how to call arty well. Do I play as a squad leader in RO? Almost never. Because no matter how well you do your job, someone will always whine about how you should be doing this or that.

 

[NoxNoctum]

Well, in 75% of public games, players who didn't know what to do with Squad Leader class when asked to drop artillery or throw smokes said:
"How to do it?"
"Can i drop artillery!?"
"I just want to shot some guys, leave me alone"
"I just picked SL b/c was free and has SMG"

For that reason special classes like SL, Sniper, AT soldier, Combat Engineer, Tank Commander shouldn't be available to all players in multiplayer modes just after installing the game. I don't mind if somebody just want to play for fun, he can pick rifle or SMG class and start killing like he want to. Let the players who really want to lead and know how to do it pick SL. When some guy pick SL just to have SMG it's pure waste of class. In RL also not all soldiers become officers, snipers etc. Of course for all who willing to become a commander e.g. road is open.

Solutions how to fix that were mentioned in this thread many times. Such trainings, video tutorials and class restrictions are gameplay and realism friendly. I'd like to those suggestion add already mentioned votekick and votekickfromclass system, where team can decide to kick lazy SL or doing nothing sniper and degrade to rifleman.

Yes options to kick people from server or just from role (And not by having to press esc, game controls, vote kicking and find their name on a list LOL) is needed as well.

 

[Zetsumei]

kills are important you wont save your team by staying alive you save your team by killing enemy mg's and snipers when you're the sniper yourself.

 

[NoxNoctum]

I highly doubt that. in RO1 I find the opposite far more common. So often is chat filled with morons whining on about how someone is useless at their class, and they should let said moron take the role instead. Perhaps a valid criticism if the person is doing badly in their role, but more often they're doing the role perfectly well... someone is just whining because they want the role for themself. If I had a quid for every time someone has complained loudly and repeatedly in local about the teams sniper...

I consider myself a good squad leader in RO. I know where to place smoke and how to call arty well. Do I play as a squad leader in RO? Almost never. Because no matter how well you do your job, someone will always whine about how you should be doing this or that.

You must be playing on better servers than me. Usually the whiners are completely right. It's murphy's law of RO. Newbies and people who like to grief by wasting roles have the fastest computers and therefore take the key roles.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I think that training or tutorials are a good idea, but it shouldn't be mandatory. Perhaps just a small incentive is given to the player if they are completed, perhaps towards their progression or even just a completion achievement.

I gotta say that my experience over the years has been fairly decent with regards to players in the so called important classes. It is Very rare that I feel a player was bad enough that they should not have been in that class And that we lost a round. On occasion I've seen a lot of players whine about it, but they seemed to be the type that wanted the role for themselves. Remember, there are still other players that more often than not pick up the slack, and the odds are just as good that the other team may have an inadequate player in one of those important classes. So, long story short if training is included, make it optional.

 

[sturmfuhrer]

I gotta say that my experience over the years has been fairly decent with regards to players in the so called important classes

Do you remember when RO was first released? Im just thinking that when RO2 is released, there will hopefully, due to the increased viral-marketing, be more players that overcome the initial struggle of realism Red Orchestra imposes on the player, however initially new players dont understand the difference between Call of Duty and RO and thus will go all out for Kills, not utilising the class for the benefit of the overall team. Its only now, some four years after release that most inexperinced players have either become accustomed or just given up on RO, I mean there is a decent amount of players playing RO but nothing compared to Call of duty or Battlefield games. Red Orchestra is a Niche game, no Call of duty player is suddenly going to go "I fancy playing Red Orchestra today", more commonly those who are interested in more realisitc game play will search for such titles as Red Orchestra and as RO may be on the 360/ps3 im just thinking of the new fan-base that may be aquired and how training would be benefitial to the new players the RO2 will hopefully gather in.

Basically training will accustom the new player to the roles of each individual class and their importance on the teams overall success. It should also educate the new player on the operations of the specific class, its weapons and and the most effiecent way to utilise them.

Sturm

 

[Blue Orchestra]

Maybe the training can be optional, but give you a one-time bonus to your rank?

 

[Apos]

One more thing, what is missing here. Many players don't know how reinforcements works and usually where team must stay low and defend, most players just do stupid and rush. It also suppose to be included in one of the tutorials.

 

[Nimsky]

All those opposed will be singing a different tune when we get stuck with the same horrible SL over and over during a 4 hour long MP campaign game .

Indeed.

Current RO has a problem: any noob can pick the restricted classes, and there are no tutorials. This results in people not using the classes correctly (commander doesn't use arty / smoke, etc). It hampers teamwork.

I don't know about you guys, but I want to see that problem be fixed.

Mandatory tutorials allow people to have at least a basic understanding of the classes. Sure, YOU know how to use them because you've played Ostfront... but that doesn't matter, because the needs of the entire player base come first. I probably won't need the tutorials either, but I'm still in favour of them because they will solve some of RO's problems. Tutorials are even more important now because RO2 will have more more gameplay mechanics (squad command, on-demand HUD etc).

Of course America's Army style classes where you have to listen to a boring lecture are silly. But practical tutorials that teach the player useful skills are good to have. Everyone will benefit from them.

Now, you might say "Why make them mandatory?". Because if you make them optional, hardly anybody will do them.

Are you guys seriously too impatient for a 10 minute tutorial per key class?

Big "NO" on mandatory training.

I just want to pick up the game and play.

You can still do that, you'll just be limited to rifleman and submachinegunner.

 

[reyalpOR]

You can still do that, you'll just be limited to rifleman and submachinegunner.

That's some bitter lamecake.

I still can't see what mandatory training is going to teach us that we won't already learn in multiplayer/singleplayer.

Do we really need a mandatory five or to ten minute training session to know how to throw a smoke grenade?

Do we really need another mandatory five to ten minute training session to understand that scoped rifles help you shoot more accurately at targets farther away?

Do we really need another mandatory five to ten minute training session telling us that it's better to use an MG-34 using the bipod in a rested position?

Of course we don't, this predicted player base cannot be this inept. This is nothing a pop-up bubble can't already take care of.

It shouldn't be anymore complicated than it has to be.

 

[NoxNoctum]

Of course we don't, this predicted player base cannot be this inept.

Uh ... yeah it can. Even 4 years since RO's commercial release on steam, I still see people take a role and have no idea what to do. Just the other day I was having to tell over chat a CLAN MEMBER (and a well known one at that) how to call in artillery . As for snipers... I'd say only 25% of the time are they prioritizing killing enemy snipers/MGers and racking up kills like they should be... the other 75% I'll look and they'll have like 9 kills during a half hour match.

It will be far worse when we have hopefully hundreds of thousands of newbies flocking to the game. And don't get me wrong, I absolutely want a huge playerbase. But a 5-10 minute training for special roles that doesn't waste time with any BS lectures ala America's Army but just goes straight to "this is how to throw smoke in a correct way, block your enemies' LOS not your own side's", "this is how to call in arty", "this is how to lead a target and dial in your scope", "this is how to use a tank" etc... will largely fix that problem.

TWI is more than capable of making it fun too. Anyone play that online game someone posted like a few weeks ago "Interstellar Marines"? (if you haven't check it out)... essentially it was just a shoot pop up cardboard targets game, designed as "training", but it was a total blast. I think TWI is smart enough to be able to make mandatory training fun too, and actually better ease in the new players coming from COD/BF so that there's less of a chance of them giving up and quitting.

And like Nimsky said, if training is optional, no one will do it, especially the COD players who want to get straight into the action.

 

[sturmfuhrer]

I for one would love for instance Sniper training. Main reason is no one playing RO2 out of the box is going to be able to utilise the sniper class to its most effectivness, however, with adequate training I would expect some to excel and some to realise Sniping just isnt their fortay. I want a Sniper on my team to prioritse targets and not just go all out for kills, I would also feel more at ease knowing hes hiding in some hole in the wall than if I was in the middle of a battlezone with a sniper standing next to me hip firing his rifle. Furthermore most Snipers in Ro die farely quickly give or take a few kills that they manage to take down before succumbing to the same fate, now imagine its RO2 and a gamemode that only allows 1 death per objective. I know, in my opinion I would be more than definately unhappy to see my sniper dieing within 5 minutes of the match starting only to realise we now have no sniper cover for the rest of the objective.

Sturm

 

[reyalpOR]

Uh ... yeah it can...

I find your lack of faith disturbing

DV

Though understandable.

I still am a "NO" on the basis that it might make the game even more complicated than it has to be. Especially for those so called "COD players".

 

[NoxNoctum]

I find your lack of faith disturbing

DV

lol :IS2:

 

[sturmfuhrer]

Current RO has a problem: any noob can pick the restricted classes, and there are no tutorials. This results in people not using the classes correctly (commander doesn't use arty / smoke, etc). It hampers teamwork.

Precisely, to me in RO 'Rifleman', Submachinegunner, Officer 'are just classes which sounds quite 'gamey', I want to be a 'soldier' who is "qualified" to be one of two Mg-gunners on the team - A privaledged position not a super-soldier who can utilise every single role in the Army.

Sturm

 

[Nimsky]

I find your lack of faith disturbing

DV

Though understandable.

I still am a "NO" on the basis that it might make the game even more complicated than it has to be. Especially for those so called "COD players".

Wait, so explaining how stuff works makes things not less, but more complicated?

I find your lack of logic disturbing

It shouldn't be the responsibility of the players to use in-game chat to explain a shoddy player how to use artillery. Pop-up messages won't help either, because people won't read them and click them away. People are lazy.

The key roles, especially the platoon leader, often play a key role in the battle. A poor platoon leader can cause frustration for the entire team ("Use artillery FFS!!") if the team can't even capture the first objective because they require artillery. It's just not fun. A mandatory tutorial is the only way to decrease such problems.

 

[reyalpOR]

Wait, so explaining how stuff works makes things not less, but more complicated?

I'm referring to the training as an obstacle to the new players, possibly a deterrent.

If anything, all the classes would need a mandatory training to prevent the new players from doing it "wrong".

I'd be ok with a training part of the game, just not mandatory. Everyone is still able to pick any class, but those with the additional training get priority. An incentive to the players as Mr Moe suggested.

 

[sturmfuhrer]

but those with the additional training get priority

I like that idea, im definately in favour of this.

Sturm

 

[Serathis]

Honestly I think mandatory training should be in the game. Anyone who screams and rages over having to do 30 minutes, 1 hours of practice for specialized and important roles... well, they can always go play Halo on Xbox Live, talking about their favourite Pokemons and teabagging each other. Anyone who gives a damn about teamwork and such, they are welcome.

 

[TWB*JimMiller]

I highly doubt that. in RO1 I find the opposite far more common. So often is chat filled with morons whining on about how someone is useless at their class, and they should let said moron take the role instead. Perhaps a valid criticism if the person is doing badly in their role, but more often they're doing the role perfectly well... someone is just whining because they want the role for themself. If I had a quid for every time someone has complained loudly and repeatedly in local about the teams sniper...

I consider myself a good squad leader in RO. I know where to place smoke and how to call arty well. Do I play as a squad leader in RO? Almost never. Because no matter how well you do your job, someone will always whine about how you should be doing this or that.

This used to happen a lot in the past. I remember a guy going nuts because no arty was dropping, problem was, the arty had been going off regularly. Another time a guy was cussing me out because I didn't throw any smoke, even though I had four smokes active at the time. I was even communicating to the team right where the smoke was and how they can use it to get to the cap, he refused and went the opposite direction and rage quit after he was repeatedly killed. Once a player raage quit becuase the SL did not drop arty, on danzig. I remember one "special" player who went ballistic about the SL not throwing smoke, he happened to be the SL...

I have found that no matter what you do, or how well you do it, someone is going to complain.

As for training vids, I am all for a in-depth interesting training vid on the various roles. I am not for making them mandatory.

The entire reason I did not play AA was due to the training. I sat through one for about 15 minutes that consisted of teaching me how to push the mouse button.

Now if the training was about squad movements, bounding over watch, or some kind of useful tactic, then I would watch them. Otherwise, I feel anything that gets between me and the wonderful bliss of playing RO2 will just serve to upset me. Yes I am looking at you PATOF!

Having said that, I think the process of identifying and removing a disruptive player should be streamlined.