Reasons Why I've Quit RS2, Coming From a RO2/RS1 Vet

[Scrotum Scratcher]

I've played this game for around 230 hours and RO2/RS1 for around 370. I've reached honor level 85 on RO2 and 90 on RS1. I'm no means the best player, but I know quite a bit about both RS2 and RO2/RS1. I've given this game a chance, but there are so many issues that should be addressed. I've decided to leave my two cents for people to agree or disagree with me and maybe change something. I'll also leave my opinion on what this game did great on compared to RS1 and RO2.

Too much asymmetry leads to bad balance

This game feels too asymmetrical which leads to bad balance. In almost all of my games, the game has been decided in the first five minutes. I know people will disagree with me on this, but I believe the US is way too strong compared to the PAVN/NLF. Whereas the ARVN and ANZAC feel somewhat balanced, I believe US has too much superiority over the North. The US gets the advantages of having better weaponry, CAS, and fire support. The North on the other hand gets ambush deployment and Ho Chi Minh trail. I don't consider traps and tunnels as advantages for multiple reasons which I'll discuss later. RO2 was almost symmetric so I'll compare mostly to RS1.

In RS1, the balance felt so much better as the IJA had banzai and knee mortars whereas the US had flamethrowers and better firearms. Fire support call in's were nearly identical and both teams could spawn on SLs. Flamethrowers could counter banzai charges while knee mortars and banzai helped the IJA get through the immense firepower of the USF. In this game however, the North do not get many unique advantages compared to the US. Banzai charge is gone and knee mortars are replaced with RPGs while the US keeps their superior firepower, (I know people will disagree with me once more, but I think the US has better firearms than the PAVN/NLF. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong) flamethrowers, and now they get grenade launchers and helicopters. Traps make such a small impact on the game, especially when pointmen can just highlight them and press left ctrl to delete them, whereas RS1 traps could only be detected with good eyesight. Not to mention the fact that RS1 traps were better, as any class with a grenade could place a trap that is equivalent to the Sapper trap in RS2. Riflemen in RS2 only get a punji trap that does no splash damage unlike the grenade in RS1. Traps in RS1 still didn't do much, and they certainly seem underwhelming in RS2, which is sad as this particular war is a goldmine for effective traps.

The other advantages, Ho Chi Minh Trail and Ambush deployment, feel great in my opinion. Ambush deployment is very useful for the Vietnamese in many scenarios and Ho Chi Minh Trail mitigates some of the ticket damage caused by the overwhelming fire of the USF. I still can't decide if it's worth the fire support options for those call in's however.

USF fire support is... insane. In RS1, commanders had the option of mortars, artillery, and naval barrage. All of them had their uses in different scenarios and calling in one would cause a cooldown of all three. In RS2, not only are the fire support options stronger than the ones in RS1, but you can call all three at once. Commanders can call in napalm on an objective, artillery behind it, and AC47 if it's even needed at that point. I HATE this aspect because the North only gets one fire support option, which is a short mixed barrage. Counter-arty is very useful and it separates the rookie commanders from the experienced ones. The problem is that the North can only use it for either the napalm canisters or the enemy artillery. If a good US commander is patient with their fire support, they could potentially either 1) use their fire support with no retaliation from the Northern commander, or 2) Use a fire support, forcing the Northern commander to use theirs, and then have the Vietnamese at your mercy for the next fire support call in. Having AA to counter the spooky is nice, but I still think this makes the North very weak in both defense and offense, as the North gets overwhelmed by fire support when defending, but struggle at breaking heavily entrenched US positions.

Squad Leaders vs Squad Tunnels

This is one element of the game that I really don't like for three reasons. 1) Tunnels will always be weaker than SLs if the SLs are actually competent. 2) Tunnels seem too fragile and easy to destroy, and 3) Tunnels encourage solo play as players make their own squad to dig their own personal tunnel.

I think tunnels are underwhelming. If a SL is actually competent, and by this I mean they hide behind an objective without getting involved in the combat, they can be stronger than a tunnel. A squad leader can easily reposition themselves and even fight back if detected. They can retreat and keep their squad in a good position. Tunnels do allow Vietnamese SLs to engage in the combat, but this is not necessarily a benefit. This encouragement causes SLs to die along with their tunnels, causing the whole squad to spawn back at the base. This is so painful on supremacy maps in particular.

Tunnels are hard to dig and reposition, yet they are so fragile to enemy fire and they are easy to detect from the loach. One stray 20mm cannon or a hand grenade can destroy a tunnel. All of the skill needed to sneak behind enemy lines to place a half decent tunnel can be stopped so easily. While I do think that the Cobra should be able to destroy tunnels, I think it should only be with rockets and not the 20mm cannon. This would help the fight against the US CAS spam while leaving ARVN and ANZAC untouched. I also think hand grenades should not destroy tunnels. That should be the job of the C4 or by walking up to it and destroying it manually. Destroying tunnels is not risky enough for the Southern forces in my opinion.

Lastly, squad tunnels encourage solo play. Most players just decide not to rely on another person to dig a good tunnel, so they think they should just make their own squad and dig their own tunnel. I actually don't blame them. I am one of these people. This hurts the North, as they lose teamwork that is so desperately needed to win. Squads that actually do make good tunnels will be down some squadmates due to rogue tunnelers. A full squad could be severely weakened if a SL decides to not place a tunnel the whole match! This full squad could also be fragmented if the squad members leave to find another squad or make their own personal squad and lock others out of it.

Movement, arcade feel, and other minor issues

This game does not feel like its successful predecessors. I understand that they tried to appeal to the casual players of Battlefield and COD. But this change in particular really saddens me as they're blatantly appealing to arcade shooters instead of sticking to their roots of semi-realism. RO2/RS1 was the perfect balance between hyper-realistic simulators like Squad and casual twitch shooters like Battlefield. This game however leans towards the arcade side of things. Despite doing this, it didn't get a hold of either the casuals or the RO2/RO1/RS1 loyal fans and instead developed its own dedicated fanbase. Everyone has unlimited stamina and the movement in the game feels oddly fast compared to RO2/RS1. The suppression also seems weak. Countless amounts of times, I've been able to sprint across a street under LMG fire and was easily able to snap towards the gunner and get a clean shot. Instead of being punished for playing like a chicken with its head cut off, I was rewarded. I'm not a fan of braindead gameplay. Damage models and hitboxes also seem off. This may be due to the low tickrate of servers. Please add a way to see tickrate of a server. For damage, the M16 can get OHKs like no tomorrow while I'm able to survive AK shots to the groin. Pistols are more reliable than assault rifles when it comes to stopping power...

Player customization is okay, but this game is taking it a little too far for my liking... I'm talking about the people running with no shirts. PAVN/NLF wearing goggles and gas masks. Let experienced players wear prestigious clothing like berets, but please stop the Asian men wielding RPGs running into combat with no shirt on and the US Marines wearing gas masks and rear echelon uniforms.

Voice acting in this game is a joke honestly. I can't comment too much on the Northern VA as I don't speak Vietnamese, but the flamethrower death voice acting in RS2 is just a copy and paste from the Japanese VA in RS1. Also, the US VA's are really bad. Not only do they paraphrase lines that were used RS1, but they also try to sound like a stereotypical movie actor that doesn't like bad words. In a war that utilized the draft, there is no 18 year old voice actor. Atleast RO2 brought in some young voice actors to reflect conscription. In RS1, the US VAs were better despite some being BRITISH! If you want me to do some voice acting, hit me up. I'll do it for free.

What this game did good for the series

I do believe this game did improve on some aspects. I love the new squad system personally. Having multiple squads of six is much better than the squads in RO2/RS1. No longer can a single incompetent SL1 destroy a whole experienced team. Having radiomen is also a really great aspect of the game that encourages teamwork and communication. Smoke grenades for artillery marking should also stay. Having weapon modifications available to everyone should be kept as well. The removal of the shift-zoom of iron sights from RO2/RS1 was one of the best additions to this game.

This is what I think about the game. While I would say this game was worth the money as I got over 200 hours of playtime, I think I will stick with RO2/RS1 and RO1 in the long run. Feel free to disagree, agree, or give your opinion in the replies. I'd like to hear what other people think. Maybe this game is just not for me.

[Sam Carter]

Diposting pertama kali oleh TMC:

With only 230 hours in RS2 and 370 hours in RO2 you dont even know the whole picture of the game. Without fully experience the game you cannot give strong supporting to your arguement

RO2 is more asymmetry than RS2, German has much stronger with their weapons

In RO2 the support system is very limited. I guess you don't play enough commander so you don't fully experience with it.

Squad Leaders vs Squad Tunnels really change the gameplay in RS2, and are much better than spawing on MG in RO2 with is not realistic

I understand a lot of RO2 players complain about this game when it released, but please give us proper arguements with supporting.

370 hours are vet, so what about those with 2000-3000 hours?

wtf are you on about, over 300h is a lot of time. Not everyone leaves the game open in the menu to count hours, and even less people have possibility to play 3k hours ffs. Some of us have lives you know.

[Scrotum Scratcher]

Diposting pertama kali oleh =(e)= Lemonater47:

Define casual and arcade. Because the way I see it it's the other way around. For the reasons explained.

You call RO2 more of a meat grinder. I assume because there's a lot of death going on in a shorter period of time. In RS2 that same amount of deaths happens over a longer period of time. It's slower paced. Players live longer and spend more time taking individual cap zones. Therefore you could claim that RS2 is slower paced than RO2. But wouldn't that make it less casual? Or is the meatgrinder aspect the thing that makes RO2 less casual? Bit of a conundrum don't you think?

So really I don't think it's to do with the "casualness" or "arcadiness" at all. They're just buzz words people are throwing around without actually thinking about their meaning. Originally used by people criticising the newer game in order to feel better about themselves. Now everyone's throwing those words around like they actually mean something.

It's minor differences people are getting hung up on. So they jump to these conclusions and pass judgement without defining their terms. It's almost elitist. But it happens in basicaly every game series. There's always those who don't like change and are uncomprimising.

Because yeah sprint is the big one for people. When it's just a stamina change. It no longer affects speed. It instead affects sway drastically.

As for tunnels in SU I still think they are far better suited to supremacy. I mean just after you made that post I was in a game where we were stomping the north. We pick an SU map and lose due to well placed tunnels. When they're in the jungle spawning behind all your caps it's damn hard. The only way the americans can do something similar is dropping behind them in helicopters. Which are big visible things.


In terms of which game has more "teamwork". It's almost impossible to accuractely tell which has more. On the one hand you have people who enjoy RO2 more saying than RS2 has more team work. On the other hand you got people who like RS2 saying the opposite. So who do we listen to? Seems like bias on both sides lol. Unintentional bias I'm sure. The brain can be rather selective in it's memories. As far as I'm concerned it's probably the same amount. But then you have to look at it on a technical level. In that regard I would have to say RS2 has more potential for team work. The new squad system, the fact that squad chat actually works in this game, the way helicopters need to work together to be effective and can even work with the commander to make him more effective, the way radiomen work with the commander, the fact that there is a command voice channel for TLs, SLs and radiomen and even the way transports work with infantry.

The streamlining is what makes me think this game is more casual than RO2 for the most part. Stamina was basically removed, free aim isn't default, silly cosmetics, etc.

I think it's slower paced due to the way the maps are laid out in RS2. If RO2 maps were played in RS2, I think even more deaths would occur with the faster pace of automatic weapons, unlimited sprint, etc. whereas RO2 is slower with the weaponry, stamina, etc. But the maps in RO2 don't handhold the attackers much. There are lots of open fields and defenders are heavily entrenched with deployed MGs, barbed wire, trenches, bunkers. I dont think lifespan is a true indicator of the "casualness" of a game. I think it's harder to stay alive in RO2. That doesn't necessarily mean RO2 is more hardcore or more casual. Lots of factors contribute to lifespan.

If US is losing to tunnels then pilots aren't doing their job. North is taking advantage of their asymmetric mechanics (tunnels) while the US isn't (air superiority). Shoot their tunnels with the 20mm and they'll eventually dissipate from the attrition. I've seen how fast helicopters can land. And you'll be surprised how many manage to sneak through. (cough cough SnifflyBread)

I've been playing both games RO2 and RS2 extensively for the past weeks and it just feels like RO2 requires more teamwork to me. RS1 especially for the IJA. I definitely remember people screaming through their mics in RO2 whereas everyone just takes their assault rifle and does their own thing in this game, especially on supremacy. Maybe I'm just playing on the wrong servers, who knows. I do agree that this game has more potential for teamwork however.

[Scrotum Scratcher]

Diposting pertama kali oleh TMC:

With only 230 hours in RS2 and 370 hours in RO2 you dont even know the whole picture of the game. Without fully experience the game you cannot give strong supporting to your arguement

RO2 is more asymmetry than RS2, German has much stronger with their weapons

In RO2 the support system is very limited. I guess you don't play enough commander so you don't fully experience with it.

Squad Leaders vs Squad Tunnels really change the gameplay in RS2, and are much better than spawing on MG in RO2 with is not realistic

I understand a lot of RO2 players complain about this game when it released, but please give us proper arguements with supporting.

370 hours are vet, so what about those with 2000-3000 hours?

I do know an extensive amount of both games actually. And I can give a strong support to my argument, while you fail to support yours.

RO2 is more asymmetrical than RS2? The only example you gave is GER gets the stronger weapons. Which is actually an opinion as USSR gets better SMGs and semi-auto rifles while GER gets better bolt action rifles and MGs. AVT-40 vs MKB is highly debatable in my opinion as both get scopes and both are full auto. AVT-40 has a stronger round than the other but the MKB has more controllable recoil. I can list multiple asymmetries of RS2 while RO2 is essentially symmetrical.

I've played lots of commander, hero role in both theatres. It's a very fun class. Again, you don't explain how RO2 support system is more limiting compared to RS2.

I also did not mention that the RS2 support system was more limiting in the first place. The abilities are actually quite diverse.

Only riflemen could spawn on MGs and SLs in RO2. Everyone else spawned solely on a SL.

It doesn't take 2000-3000 hours to master something. Paramedics in my region take about 120 hours of training to qualify for the job. A job to deliver babies, administer fluids, medications, treat wounds, and work in a rescue team in a high stress environment. I played a FPS video game for three times that amount. I know enough to provide proper, supported arguments.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Scrotum Scratcher:

Diposting pertama kali oleh =(e)= Lemonater47:

Define casual and arcade. Because the way I see it it's the other way around. For the reasons explained.

You call RO2 more of a meat grinder. I assume because there's a lot of death going on in a shorter period of time. In RS2 that same amount of deaths happens over a longer period of time. It's slower paced. Players live longer and spend more time taking individual cap zones. Therefore you could claim that RS2 is slower paced than RO2. But wouldn't that make it less casual? Or is the meatgrinder aspect the thing that makes RO2 less casual? Bit of a conundrum don't you think?

So really I don't think it's to do with the "casualness" or "arcadiness" at all. They're just buzz words people are throwing around without actually thinking about their meaning. Originally used by people criticising the newer game in order to feel better about themselves. Now everyone's throwing those words around like they actually mean something.

It's minor differences people are getting hung up on. So they jump to these conclusions and pass judgement without defining their terms. It's almost elitist. But it happens in basicaly every game series. There's always those who don't like change and are uncomprimising.

Because yeah sprint is the big one for people. When it's just a stamina change. It no longer affects speed. It instead affects sway drastically.

As for tunnels in SU I still think they are far better suited to supremacy. I mean just after you made that post I was in a game where we were stomping the north. We pick an SU map and lose due to well placed tunnels. When they're in the jungle spawning behind all your caps it's damn hard. The only way the americans can do something similar is dropping behind them in helicopters. Which are big visible things.


In terms of which game has more "teamwork". It's almost impossible to accuractely tell which has more. On the one hand you have people who enjoy RO2 more saying than RS2 has more team work. On the other hand you got people who like RS2 saying the opposite. So who do we listen to? Seems like bias on both sides lol. Unintentional bias I'm sure. The brain can be rather selective in it's memories. As far as I'm concerned it's probably the same amount. But then you have to look at it on a technical level. In that regard I would have to say RS2 has more potential for team work. The new squad system, the fact that squad chat actually works in this game, the way helicopters need to work together to be effective and can even work with the commander to make him more effective, the way radiomen work with the commander, the fact that there is a command voice channel for TLs, SLs and radiomen and even the way transports work with infantry.

The streamlining is what makes me think this game is more casual than RO2 for the most part. Stamina was basically removed, free aim isn't default, silly cosmetics, etc.

I think it's slower paced due to the way the maps are laid out in RS2. If RO2 maps were played in RS2, I think even more deaths would occur with the faster pace of automatic weapons, unlimited sprint, etc. whereas RO2 is slower with the weaponry, stamina, etc. But the maps in RO2 don't handhold the attackers much. There are lots of open fields and defenders are heavily entrenched with deployed MGs, barbed wire, trenches, bunkers. I dont think lifespan is a true indicator of the "casualness" of a game. I think it's harder to stay alive in RO2. That doesn't necessarily mean RO2 is more hardcore or more casual. Lots of factors contribute to lifespan.

If US is losing to tunnels then pilots aren't doing their job. North is taking advantage of their asymmetric mechanics (tunnels) while the US isn't (air superiority). Shoot their tunnels with the 20mm and they'll eventually dissipate from the attrition. I've seen how fast helicopters can land. And you'll be surprised how many manage to sneak through. (cough cough SnifflyBread)

I've been playing both games RO2 and RS2 extensively for the past weeks and it just feels like RO2 requires more teamwork to me. RS1 especially for the IJA. I definitely remember people screaming through their mics in RO2 whereas everyone just takes their assault rifle and does their own thing in this game, especially on supremacy. Maybe I'm just playing on the wrong servers, who knows. I do agree that this game has more potential for teamwork however.

Free aim defaults to on. Hipfire freeaim that is. Same as RO2. The only freeaim that defaults to off is ADS freeaim. A feature RO2 didn't even have.

Streamlining. I call it giving the player more information. The UI is far more informative than in RO2. Meaning more players know what's going on. Why is that a bad thing?

Stamina hasn't been removed it has simply changed what it does. Stamina in RO2 more or less only affected run speed. You could still sprint for ages in that game then snap shoot someone 75m away with a bolt action. Good luck doing the same here.

A good helicopter can dominate. But good ground fire can really have an impact on good pilots. A lot of people don't realize but small arms fire can ruin a pilots day. The cobra for example is heavy. So receiving any amount of damage to the rotors or engine can really make it difficult to fly. Forcing it to RTB. Once a northern team realizes they don't need to kill the choppers to make them go away you as a pilot can come under immense amounts of fire. The loach has a spotting radius of 50m. But if he was flying at 50m the whole time it could only spot things directly below it. As it's a circular radius. So it has to fly even lower. While it copes a lot better with damage in terms of flyability it's pilots are a lot more exposed. I've seen cobra loach teams who can dominate with cobra combined getting 100+ kills and the loach getting 1000 points get absolutely shut down by a northern team who knows how to deal with choppers. It takes 3 DSHK rounds through the engine to completely destroy the engine. So even one hitting it is bad news.

RS1 Japanese require a single charismatic individual to convince the team that banzai is actually the most OP ability in the game. It's balanced out due to the fact most people chicken out. But once you convince the team that you are literally unstoppable (unless you get some bad luck) you can get multiple successful charges. Is that more team work though. A banzai charge is really fun to be a part of. But it's more the charisma of an individual than the team working together. And it's at the largest scale. In RS2 you get a lot more small scale team work. Such as an individual squad working together. Don't get that in RO2/RS1. Senit doesn't happen all the time. But fewmnwork doesn't happen all the time in RO2 either. Not to mention I don't think yelling through the mic is a great indication of team work lol. If someone's yelling it's usually because of the lack of teamwork.

[GAMBiT]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Scrotum Scratcher:

I've played this game for around 230 hours and RO2/RS1 for around 370. I've reached honor level 85 on RO2 and 90 on RS1. I'm no means the best player, but I know quite a bit about both RS2 and RO2/RS1. I've given this game a chance, but there are so many issues that should be addressed. I've decided to leave my two cents for people to agree or disagree with me and maybe change something. I'll also leave my opinion on what this game did great on compared to RS1 and RO2.

Too much asymmetry leads to bad balance

This game feels too asymmetrical which leads to bad balance. In almost all of my games, the game has been decided in the first five minutes. I know people will disagree with me on this, but I believe the US is way too strong compared to the PAVN/NLF. Whereas the ARVN and ANZAC feel somewhat balanced, I believe US has too much superiority over the North. The US gets the advantages of having better weaponry, CAS, and fire support. The North on the other hand gets ambush deployment and Ho Chi Minh trail. I don't consider traps and tunnels as advantages for multiple reasons which I'll discuss later. RO2 was almost symmetric so I'll compare mostly to RS1.

In RS1, the balance felt so much better as the IJA had banzai and knee mortars whereas the US had flamethrowers and better firearms. Fire support call in's were nearly identical and both teams could spawn on SLs. Flamethrowers could counter banzai charges while knee mortars and banzai helped the IJA get through the immense firepower of the USF. In this game however, the North do not get many unique advantages compared to the US. Banzai charge is gone and knee mortars are replaced with RPGs while the US keeps their superior firepower, (I know people will disagree with me once more, but I think the US has better firearms than the PAVN/NLF. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong) flamethrowers, and now they get grenade launchers and helicopters. Traps make such a small impact on the game, especially when pointmen can just highlight them and press left ctrl to delete them, whereas RS1 traps could only be detected with good eyesight. Not to mention the fact that RS1 traps were better, as any class with a grenade could place a trap that is equivalent to the Sapper trap in RS2. Riflemen in RS2 only get a punji trap that does no splash damage unlike the grenade in RS1. Traps in RS1 still didn't do much, and they certainly seem underwhelming in RS2, which is sad as this particular war is a goldmine for effective traps.

The other advantages, Ho Chi Minh Trail and Ambush deployment, feel great in my opinion. Ambush deployment is very useful for the Vietnamese in many scenarios and Ho Chi Minh Trail mitigates some of the ticket damage caused by the overwhelming fire of the USF. I still can't decide if it's worth the fire support options for those call in's however.

USF fire support is... insane. In RS1, commanders had the option of mortars, artillery, and naval barrage. All of them had their uses in different scenarios and calling in one would cause a cooldown of all three. In RS2, not only are the fire support options stronger than the ones in RS1, but you can call all three at once. Commanders can call in napalm on an objective, artillery behind it, and AC47 if it's even needed at that point. I HATE this aspect because the North only gets one fire support option, which is a short mixed barrage. Counter-arty is very useful and it separates the rookie commanders from the experienced ones. The problem is that the North can only use it for either the napalm canisters or the enemy artillery. If a good US commander is patient with their fire support, they could potentially either 1) use their fire support with no retaliation from the Northern commander, or 2) Use a fire support, forcing the Northern commander to use theirs, and then have the Vietnamese at your mercy for the next fire support call in. Having AA to counter the spooky is nice, but I still think this makes the North very weak in both defense and offense, as the North gets overwhelmed by fire support when defending, but struggle at breaking heavily entrenched US positions.

Squad Leaders vs Squad Tunnels

This is one element of the game that I really don't like for three reasons. 1) Tunnels will always be weaker than SLs if the SLs are actually competent. 2) Tunnels seem too fragile and easy to destroy, and 3) Tunnels encourage solo play as players make their own squad to dig their own personal tunnel.

I think tunnels are underwhelming. If a SL is actually competent, and by this I mean they hide behind an objective without getting involved in the combat, they can be stronger than a tunnel. A squad leader can easily reposition themselves and even fight back if detected. They can retreat and keep their squad in a good position. Tunnels do allow Vietnamese SLs to engage in the combat, but this is not necessarily a benefit. This encouragement causes SLs to die along with their tunnels, causing the whole squad to spawn back at the base. This is so painful on supremacy maps in particular.

Tunnels are hard to dig and reposition, yet they are so fragile to enemy fire and they are easy to detect from the loach. One stray 20mm cannon or a hand grenade can destroy a tunnel. All of the skill needed to sneak behind enemy lines to place a half decent tunnel can be stopped so easily. While I do think that the Cobra should be able to destroy tunnels, I think it should only be with rockets and not the 20mm cannon. This would help the fight against the US CAS spam while leaving ARVN and ANZAC untouched. I also think hand grenades should not destroy tunnels. That should be the job of the C4 or by walking up to it and destroying it manually. Destroying tunnels is not risky enough for the Southern forces in my opinion.

Lastly, squad tunnels encourage solo play. Most players just decide not to rely on another person to dig a good tunnel, so they think they should just make their own squad and dig their own tunnel. I actually don't blame them. I am one of these people. This hurts the North, as they lose teamwork that is so desperately needed to win. Squads that actually do make good tunnels will be down some squadmates due to rogue tunnelers. A full squad could be severely weakened if a SL decides to not place a tunnel the whole match! This full squad could also be fragmented if the squad members leave to find another squad or make their own personal squad and lock others out of it.

Movement, arcade feel, and other minor issues

This game does not feel like its successful predecessors. I understand that they tried to appeal to the casual players of Battlefield and COD. But this change in particular really saddens me as they're blatantly appealing to arcade shooters instead of sticking to their roots of semi-realism. RO2/RS1 was the perfect balance between hyper-realistic simulators like Squad and casual twitch shooters like Battlefield. This game however leans towards the arcade side of things. Despite doing this, it didn't get a hold of either the casuals or the RO2/RO1/RS1 loyal fans and instead developed its own dedicated fanbase. Everyone has unlimited stamina and the movement in the game feels oddly fast compared to RO2/RS1. The suppression also seems weak. Countless amounts of times, I've been able to sprint across a street under LMG fire and was easily able to snap towards the gunner and get a clean shot. Instead of being punished for playing like a chicken with its head cut off, I was rewarded. I'm not a fan of braindead gameplay. Damage models and hitboxes also seem off. This may be due to the low tickrate of servers. Please add a way to see tickrate of a server. For damage, the M16 can get OHKs like no tomorrow while I'm able to survive AK shots to the groin. Pistols are more reliable than assault rifles when it comes to stopping power...

Player customization is okay, but this game is taking it a little too far for my liking... I'm talking about the people running with no shirts. PAVN/NLF wearing goggles and gas masks. Let experienced players wear prestigious clothing like berets, but please stop the Asian men wielding RPGs running into combat with no shirt on and the US Marines wearing gas masks and rear echelon uniforms.

Voice acting in this game is a joke honestly. I can't comment too much on the Northern VA as I don't speak Vietnamese, but the flamethrower death voice acting in RS2 is just a copy and paste from the Japanese VA in RS1. Also, the US VA's are really bad. Not only do they paraphrase lines that were used RS1, but they also try to sound like a stereotypical movie actor that doesn't like bad words. In a war that utilized the draft, there is no 18 year old voice actor. Atleast RO2 brought in some young voice actors to reflect conscription. In RS1, the US VAs were better despite some being BRITISH! If you want me to do some voice acting, hit me up. I'll do it for free.

What this game did good for the series

I do believe this game did improve on some aspects. I love the new squad system personally. Having multiple squads of six is much better than the squads in RO2/RS1. No longer can a single incompetent SL1 destroy a whole experienced team. Having radiomen is also a really great aspect of the game that encourages teamwork and communication. Smoke grenades for artillery marking should also stay. Having weapon modifications available to everyone should be kept as well. The removal of the shift-zoom of iron sights from RO2/RS1 was one of the best additions to this game.

This is what I think about the game. While I would say this game was worth the money as I got over 200 hours of playtime, I think I will stick with RO2/RS1 and RO1 in the long run. Feel free to disagree, agree, or give your opinion in the replies. I'd like to hear what other people think. Maybe this game is just not for me.

Game is fine.

[@theweedfather]

Just say you didn't like the direction the game went in, a lot of these complaints seem like personal lack of adaptation to different playstyles.

Asymmetrical differences on both sides require different skills. I'd say just about everything aside from the arcadeyness and voice acting quality you reference is personal opinion and if we were to remove the asymmetry it would be MORE like the arcade titles you mentioned, not less.

In any case, RO2 is dead and when it is not the team stacking is ridiculous.

[Platybelodon {TP}]

Personally, I find the part of RS2 I like the least is the overbearing UI. Of course, I could turn it off but then I'm at a serious disadvantage. The base UI of RO2 was pretty spot-on as far as I'm concerned.

I think they made a mistake by having player markers. People are not encouraged to learn the uniforms (although really in RS2 it's the general colour tone - I had to point this out to a level 37 player yesterday, and the fact he hadn't noticed says something). For me, this is where the 'arcade' feeling comes from. There is more information given to the player, and less that they have to discover or infer for themselves. It's a good thing when I have to check with binoculars whether I should be shooting at that chap or not!

It could be argued that this concentrates attention on enemy players, rather than capture zones, despite the voiceovers. Twice in the last campaign I was placing a first tunnel when we lost zone A, on a server where the countdown ensures all are ready rather than spawning the first to connect. There is a marked reluctance to get into the zone, which seems greater than in RO2. This could be down to more new players, but when it happens every match in a row one wonders if people are just very stupid and fail to realise the basic reason why the team keeps losing.

One aspect I do enjoy very much is the playing the map as the North and South in turn, although this seems to have been reduced by servers playing Campaign. That was excellent in showing team superiority rather than just one having better equipment, and goes some way to addressing the OP's point about asymmetry being problematic.

On balance, I do prefer RO/RO2. My laptop could never handle RS1 very well so I've played very little of it.

[TMC]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Andy:

wtf are you on about, over 300h is a lot of time. Not everyone leaves the game open in the menu to count hours, and even less people have possibility to play 3k hours ffs. Some of us have lives you know.

I do not think the complaints raised in this post are applicable to this game. Please read the real RO2 vet players complaints and compare the “complaints” raised here. The quality is different.
one example: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197997141044/recommended/418460/

Before you ♥♥♥♥ talk on me or trying to challenge me, please do not over estimate yourself and know what you are talking about before posting those ♥♥♥♥. Or else, it only exposures your ignorance of this game.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Platybelodon {TP}:

Personally, I find the part of RS2 I like the least is the overbearing UI. Of course, I could turn it off but then I'm at a serious disadvantage. The base UI of RO2 was pretty spot-on as far as I'm concerned.

I think they made a mistake by having player markers. People are not encouraged to learn the uniforms (although really in RS2 it's the general colour tone - I had to point this out to a level 37 player yesterday, and the fact he hadn't noticed says something). For me, this is where the 'arcade' feeling comes from. There is more information given to the player, and less that they have to discover or infer for themselves. It's a good thing when I have to check with binoculars whether I should be shooting at that chap or not!

It could be argued that this concentrates attention on enemy players, rather than capture zones, despite the voiceovers. Twice in the last campaign I was placing a first tunnel when we lost zone A, on a server where the countdown ensures all are ready rather than spawning the first to connect. There is a marked reluctance to get into the zone, which seems greater than in RO2. This could be down to more new players, but when it happens every match in a row one wonders if people are just very stupid and fail to realise the basic reason why the team keeps losing.

One aspect I do enjoy very much is the playing the map as the North and South in turn, although this seems to have been reduced by servers playing Campaign. That was excellent in showing team superiority rather than just one having better equipment, and goes some way to addressing the OP's point about asymmetry being problematic.

On balance, I do prefer RO/RO2. My laptop could never handle RS1 very well so I've played very little of it.

Ro2 had player markers. Really big obnoxious ones that displayed people's entire names up to 150m away.

But it's a server setting. Was in RO2, is in RS2.

[Platybelodon {TP}]

That's interesting, Lemonater47 - in 387 hours in RO2 I have never seen these markers. Perhaps it is a setting on the server type, but now I think about it I have only played Realism or Classic as otherwise it wouldn't be Red Orchestra! With that option not available in RS2 it seems we have to hunt through server settings (are these visible anywhere beforehand?) I'd rather choose by overall ruleset then ping/population. The servers carried over from RO2 still have the markers and so on. I have not found one that has limited UI as per RO2 Realism/Classic. Is there one you know or recommend?

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Platybelodon {TP}:

That's interesting, Lemonater47 - in 387 hours in RO2 I have never seen these markers. Perhaps it is a setting on the server type, but now I think about it I have only played Realism or Classic as otherwise it wouldn't be Red Orchestra! With that option not available in RS2 it seems we have to hunt through server settings (are these visible anywhere beforehand?) I'd rather choose by overall ruleset then ping/population. The servers carried over from RO2 still have the markers and so on. I have not found one that has limited UI as per RO2 Realism/Classic. Is there one you know or recommend?

Realism/classic didn't matter. 99% of servers ran realism. The most popular RO2 servers before RS2s release had friendly markers on the full 150m. Only one of whom actually transitioned over to RS2 (and did not maintain their popularity).

But ALL servers in RO2 have markers turned on. Most of them just have it set to 10m or 25m. So you have seen them. The player names in white. Yellow for squad leaders.

Friendly markers are both a server setting AND a client setting as well in RS2. So if you go to your settings right now you can set them to whatever you want. Servers can override the maximum distance. Most servers in RS2 seem to have it set to 50m (which wasn't actually an option in RO2 it went 25 to 75 whereas RS2 goes 25 to 50 to 100).

[ZeroFuqsGiven]

Diposting pertama kali oleh TMC:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Andy:

wtf are you on about, over 300h is a lot of time. Not everyone leaves the game open in the menu to count hours, and even less people have possibility to play 3k hours ffs. Some of us have lives you know.

I do not think the complaints raised in this post are applicable to this game. Please read the real RO2 vet players complaints and compare the “complaints” raised here. The quality is different.
one example: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197997141044/recommended/418460/

Before you ♥♥♥♥ talk on me or trying to challenge me, please do not over estimate yourself and know what you are talking about before posting those ♥♥♥♥. Or else, it only exposures your ignorance of this game.

Honestly you are out of your damn mind if you think someone doesn't have an understanding of the game because they only have a couple hundred hours in.

[Sam Carter]

Diposting pertama kali oleh TMC:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Andy:

wtf are you on about, over 300h is a lot of time. Not everyone leaves the game open in the menu to count hours, and even less people have possibility to play 3k hours ffs. Some of us have lives you know.

I do not think the complaints raised in this post are applicable to this game. Please read the real RO2 vet players complaints and compare the “complaints” raised here. The quality is different.
one example: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197997141044/recommended/418460/

Before you ♥♥♥♥ talk on me or trying to challenge me, please do not over estimate yourself and know what you are talking about before posting those ♥♥♥♥. Or else, it only exposures your ignorance of this game.

Again, what the ♥♥♥♥ are you talking about lol. I have 400hours for now on RO2 and I know this game since it came out. Around 100 on RS2, it's enough to understand how the game works, since they're so similar. Nobody thinks you're cool because you could clock thousands of hours in RS2 in such a short period of time, it only makes you look like a no-lifer, Mr. Pro

[Keldor Potner]

In regards to the balancing issues you stated about the north and south maybe check back after a few more updates. In their recent amaa, tripwire talked about focusing the next updates on the north factions... Things like fire support are subject to change for the two factions.

[Platybelodon {TP}]

Thanks Lemontater. You are right, of course. However, I remember the first time I played RS2 (coming straight from RO2) and was struck by the volume of HUD compared to what I was used to. I think the labels are far more visible because of the default colour scheme as well. Whitish on snow and grey rather than blue and red on green jungle. I know I could change that, but I'd like a level playing field with less obtrusive UI in general. My pipe dream.

I'll see what I can turn off as regards HUD, have a few rounds with as minimal a setup as possible and see if I can remain competitive against folks who turn all the grass off...