Last time I checked, dead Germans didn't come alive again at Kursk either.
If you can't model the battle of Kursk, don't. Model a 25 vs 25 scenario at Kursk, not the whole battle.
With regards to ArmA having respawns, I assume it has a respawn option. I don't player ArmA head to head either, so I really wouldn't know. It also has Co-op.
The next RO will have co-op too which is great and puts it on my must buy list. I expect to play this game more often than the ArmA games.
I hope they go the whole nine yards and include non respawning PvP as well. Respawning is fine in sci fi games like Planetside and Quake, but it has no place in a milsim.
It's not about high horses, it's about personal preferences.
Jun 13 2009, 12:08
there is no respawning in the RO ....
if you die you take over different soldier of same class in next wave ...
if you can't cope with it ... you just nitpicker
Hurrr durrrr, RO has respawn option as well. And did someone actually say that RO even tried to be a sim?
Originally Posted by Baff1
Are you trying to suggest that it isn't?
@Dwarden, I have no real intrest in coping with it. I am a nitpicker! (Spawning is for salmon).
I take over a different soldier that magically teleports onto the battlefield. There's no way round this issue once we broach the subject of realism. Renaming respawns as waves, or taking over other peoples bodies...makes no odds.
That's not the way I like to play.
It essentially reduces the core gameplay to the same as BF2.
I like BF2 also, but these kind of games make no emphasis on the importance of survival.
You just spamwar to get the most kills and take the most points.
I don't find them very tactical, or atleast not very "real world tactical".
They all have plenty of tactical aspects of course, but it's video game tactics and not squad tactics, if you see where I'm coming from.
Without that mental conceit that I am learning and training for real world combat, or recreating combat as it would actually of historically occoured, the mind candy is gone and after a nights fun, so is my intrest.
The subject was raised in comparison to America's Army, which has no respawns and for my money has better gameplay because of it. Critically, closer teamwork is required.
Both games are pretty similar in my opinion and should appeal to eachothers audiences almost equally. I think anyone who really wants to distinguish between these two titles is a nitpicker also.
Last edited by Baff1; Jun 13 2009 at 15:15.
Jun 13 2009, 21:59
so what prevents you use server mutator to adjust reinforce wave to just equal of 1 life ...
seems to falls into category 'complain about anything anytime' ...
not to mention considering most of RO maps are several times more complex than AA2 maps on hideouts You would just waste 30m watching some lucky alive guys trying to find some lucky idlers ...
Last edited by Dwarden; Jun 13 2009 at 22:01.
I haven't tried hosting a server or using any mutator. Or at least I have tried hosting a server, but the bots were crap so I didn't try for very long.
Try not to be a fanboy please. Discussing the difference between two similar games and ones preferences doesn't fall into the catagory of complaint unless you are being over sensetive.
I don't think no respawn games last 30 minutes. More like 5, 10 if you are lucky.
Good level design has objectives that focus the action.
RO is fantastic, I'm a big fan. The only thing I missed in the former ones is the huge maps and planning in hundreds of custom missions that the Bohemia games provide.
In objective based gameplay respawn is required when you don't have massive maps like ArmA. I guarantee you remove respawn it will just become another counterstrike, cod, and yes, AA "lets find a corner to camp in so now its just a glorified deathmatch". Sure it will still have realistic weapons and such, but there will be no teamwork encouraged. Some of the maps also have imbalances that play into the respawn, such as attack/defend where defenders have superior positions but attackers have more "respawns" available to them.
The only flaw i think that could be addressed is increasing spawn times for classes such as machine-gunner and sniper, so staying alive would be a priority. But for you're average rifleman whos going to be the ones storming the objective, their respawn would be shorter.
At the end of the day its not who inflicts the most casualties but who controls the battlefield.
Jun 14 2009, 09:42
you may be claiming the games are similar but except for being shooters and on engine base that's only similiary and nothing else ...
if You don't like the wave system then it's not game for You ... also AA2 maps are way 'shorter' on timer ...
i doubt You going to see 1000s of AI and 10 to 100 players fighting intense city battles in UE3 engine for quite some time
btw take in mind FriendlyFire is enabled and player numbers are higher than AA2 too
so often even if player is good enough to avoid being killed by enemy some friendly finish his misery
i doubt anyone going to love wait 1h battle to 'play again' just because there is no 'take over another soldier'
at least i'm not aware of people who going to like such gameplay except last man standing tournaments or some clan matches
this is job for modding community to make maps / mutators which suits certain 'gameplay' system ...
Last edited by Dwarden; Jun 14 2009 at 09:46.
I'm not really looking for 1,000s of AI fighting intense city battles in the UE3 engine.
I have Total War for that sort of thing.
What I am looking for is something squad based, a game in which I and my friends can play together as a small unit against the sort of sized enemy forces we feel it would be authentic for a force our size to contend with.
Just having 1,000's of enemies, (AI's or humans), for the sake of it doesn't improve my gameplay, it dilutes it.
And no, it's not a job for the modding community to make maps and gametypes I want to play. It is the job of the developers.
Modding communities do excellent free content which add lots of replayability to already great games, but they have no job. What they may or may not add to game is not something I think about when purchasing. I buy a game dependant on the content it is sold with.
What a cop out answer. "The modding community will make this game into what you wanted". I'll believe it when I see it, (and then buy it).
I've never known a non respawn game to last an hour, as I said more like 5 or 10 minutes.
Actually I've known OpF servers to go an hour between games. But I think your point stands, who wants to wait that long.
One of the key differences between games where you wait between rounds and games where you just respawn, is that when you are dead you get to chat with the other dead players. Discuss tactics, make friends, become part of a community.
In a respawn game you have about enough time to type "GG" and then you are off again.
Respawn games don't really have the same social element
Last man standing is not my prefered gametype either.
I like objective based ones. Missions where people have to be at certain area's at certain times or lose.
AA does this quite well, better examples would be Hidden and Dangerous 2 and Enemy Territory and ET Quake Wars, who combine all the classic gametypes into one mission, including capture the flag, king of the hill, team deatch match, attack and defend etc.
RO and AA aren't just shooters on the same engine. The similarity does not just end there. Bioshock and Splinter Cell are both shooters on the same engine.
RO and AA are squad based tactical first person shooters. Military simulations on the same engine with an eye for authenticity and realism. They don't use cross hairs. They have similar movement speeds, related theme's. Identical ballistics. They are both predominantly team based multiplayers. Similar damage models. Similar tactics and squad compositions. Similar weapon types and soldier roles.
You could reskin AA for WW2 and it would play much the same way, just as if you reskinned RO for modern day it would be almost identical.
Other games very similar to these two would be RavenShield and Infiltration. Anyone who enjoyed any of those 4 titles is someone I would recommend the other 3 to.
@Thiespy, I don't agree that smaller maps require respawns. If we look at Counterstrike, and the R6 series we can see that small maps wasn't a problem. Likewise in the larger maps of Ghost Recon I didn't have a problem with it either.
An example of whats wrong with respawns in a larger map would be, if I ambush a player, he respawns and comes back to get me. It might have taken me a long time to work my way into that position. In the end I have to change my tactics to suit the game and not the scenario, not only do I have to find my position but I am only allowed to engage people if they have their back to me, so that they can't spot me and come back and nuke me in their next body.
So I am letting people past me that in a no respawn game I would be engaging. Why? Because the games tactics advocate it even when the scenario's do not.
ArmA I can't speak for, that wasn't a game that ever occoured to me to play PvP. I just sort of drove around in it and flew around in it and made giant armies attack eachother for my pleasure mostly. The odd co-op maybe.
Last edited by Baff1; Jun 14 2009 at 15:29.