Re: How about a '1 life per round' server?

**fldash** · 03-16-2006, 02:54 PM

Another thing that we are forgetting, or at least failing to mention, and I know I'm guilty of this, is that when time is running out tactics pretty much get thrown out completely in an attempt to rush and capture the objective. Once again though, map times are coded by the map makers and something we can't really change.

I don't think I've seen either the Axis or the Allies win on the TG server because one side ran out of reinforcements. This happened all the time in BETA. This is telling me that players are valuing their lives.

Just something to think about.

**Ironsight** · 03-16-2006, 02:58 PM

A random ending would be a nice feature. For example: 20 minutes plus or minus 2 minutes.

**Leonidas** · 03-16-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Tzefanya

Another thing that we are forgetting, or at least failing to mention, and I know I'm guilty of this, is that when time is running out tactics pretty much get thrown out completely in an attempt to rush and capture the objective. Once again though, map times are coded by the map makers and something we can't really change.

I don't think I've seen either the Axis or the Allies win on the TG server because one side ran out of reinforcements. This happened all the time in BETA. This is telling me that players are valuing their lives.

Just something to think about.

Yes, this is quite true, The teams never lose due to running out of reinforcements. Just watch how people play and you can tell they are really trying not to die.

I can honestly say that I would NEVER play "One life" RO. This is not GR, and the overall design of the game is completly different. This is a WW2 game, not a SF/R6 conflict. But, as long as it's on a different server and I don't have to play it, then go ahead. I'm sure some people would really enjoy it.

EDIT: It seems that this post was taken to be negative. I did not mean for it to seem like it, I simply wished to state that I myself am not interested in it, but if I could still play regular RO than I would have no problem with it.

**Overlag** · 03-16-2006, 07:36 PM

the games are tested and tested to try and strike a balance... why does it need changing? Its much like the mods CS/DOD servers run..... totaly ruins the game (apart from removing that AWP!!!)

**perry** · 03-16-2006, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by Overlag

the games are tested and tested to try and strike a balance... why does it need changing? Its much like the mods CS/DOD servers run..... totaly ruins the game (apart from removing that AWP!!!)

Your definition of a ruined game is another man's definition of a perfect, heavenly game given to him by the gods of gaming. I wouldn't appreciate a 1 life per sound server for this game, but others may really love it so I see nothing wrong with them having a server to play on.

**Overlag** · 03-16-2006, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by perry

Your definition of a ruined game is another man's definition of a perfect, heavenly game given to him by the gods of gaming. I wouldn't appreciate a 1 life per sound server for this game, but others may really love it so I see nothing wrong with them having a server to play on.

the game as a whole is tweaked constantly through development to make its fun, as well as realistic.....

for instance SOME maps you HAVE to die.... to move up, different teams have different reinforcement rates... the teams that how a very low reinforcement rate have to becareful not to die, where as teams with a constant resupply are cannon fodder....

the fact is 16 players didnt win a war, millions did... the reinforcement rates on a given map are made to reflect this, like sideA with limited resources have to dig in and defend, where as sideB has countless amounts of inf to try and push there way through...The way i see it, every respawn in this game, is another solder from that limited pool, it isnt "me".

do you get where im going here?

GR is different, it was more about "Speical ops" which would be limited to a certain size, This is a frontline WWII sim.

**Apophis** · 03-16-2006, 10:17 PM

Overlag,

Are you really trying to argue that people shouldn't be able to play this game on an entirely separate server in a way they might find enjoyable just because YOU wouldn't? If you're not interested, that's find. But there's NO reason to depreciate the potential enjoyment others could get out of something like this.

**Overlag** · 03-16-2006, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Apophis

Overlag,

Are you really trying to argue that people shouldn't be able to play this game on an entirely separate server in a way they might find enjoyable just because YOU wouldn't? If you're not interested, that's find. But there's NO reason to depreciate the potential enjoyment others could get out of something like this.

no... i thought this was about changing the server to 1 life........

and im not argueing..... im posting good points on why its a bad idea

i mean one artilliery strike and the whole team can die.

**Trooper** · 03-16-2006, 10:22 PM

If this change does happen IT WILL NOT go on to server 1 or 2, as apo has stated many times 4 or 5 times, it would never go on a heavily used server, okay i feel better.

**Apophis** · 03-16-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Overlag

no... i thought this was about changing the server to 1 life........

and im not argueing..... im posting good points on why its a bad idea

i mean one artilliery strike and the whole team can die.

I've SPECIFICALLY reiterated a few times in this thread that it would have NO IMPACT on our existing servers and would be an separate server that could run according to this configuration. PLEASE read the rest of the thread.

It's not a bad idea at all. It's a pretty interesting idea. It's just not one that you're interested in.

Originally Posted by Apophis

If I can find some additional resources to run something like this to try it out, I think it might be worth exploring for the more hardcore players.

Originally Posted by Apophis

This means. If I can find some ADDITIONAL resources, other than that already allocated to Red Orchestra, I might be willing to try out a 1 life per round server. I think it would be worth exploring for the more hardcore players, as in those players who would CHOOSE to play on this server because they find the concept interesting. Players who do NOT find this concept interesting, could freely choose to play on our normal RO servers.

Originally Posted by Apophis

We can do this without interfering in ANYONE ELSES GAMEPLAY. So if you don't like the concept, you don't need to play on the RO No-Respawn server. If you do like the concept, you would be able to play on that server.

**Trooper** · 03-16-2006, 10:26 PM

okay so i was wrong ONLY 3 times.

**Overlag** · 03-16-2006, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by Overlag

no... i thought this was about changing the server to 1 life........

and im not argueing..... im posting good points on why its a bad idea

i mean one artilliery strike and the whole team can die.

whys everyone so up tight?

**Apophis** · 03-16-2006, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by Overlag

whys everyone so up tight?

Honestly? It's because it's been spelled out in this thread numerous times that this would be something entirely separate from our normal RO servers, and it would be for people that were interested in it. For some reason the people that are NOT interested in it just need to keep telling those that area what a stupid/bad idea it is for wanting to try something they might enjoy.

I heard crap like this all the time when I was starting Network 42 Professional Counter-Strike oh so many years ago. Many people had nothing to say but the fact that my idea was stupid and no one would be interested.

**Overlag** · 03-16-2006, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Apophis

Honestly? It's because it's been spelled out in this thread numerous times that this would be something entirely separate from our normal RO servers, and it would be for people that were interested in it. For some reason the people that are NOT interested in it just need to keep telling those that area what a stupid/bad idea it is for wanting to try something they might enjoy.

I heard crap like this all the time when I was starting Network 42 Professional Counter-Strike oh so many years ago. Many people had nothing to say but the fact that my idea was stupid and no one would be interested.

i didnt say it was stupid or bad, i just said the game design might not make 1life work, where as in GR it worked perfectly, as it was designed for it... I liked 1life in GR when i did play, but thats cos the whole concept was different. I thought i stated that in BOTH my replies nicely and well thought out reasoning.

I didnt just come in and say "THIS IDEA SUCKS, j00 SUCK" did i?

**Apophis** · 03-17-2006, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by Overlag

i didnt say it was stupid or bad, i just said the game design might not make 1life work, where as in GR it worked perfectly, as it was designed for it... I liked 1life in GR when i did play, but thats cos the whole concept was different. I thought i stated that in BOTH my replies nicely and well thought out reasoning.

I didnt just come in and say "THIS IDEA SUCKS, j00 SUCK" did i?

You're English, so I wasn't sure you could string that many words together in a coherent sentence.

I didn't really mean that you made all those accusations, so no worries..

On another note, what do you think the impact will be on DoD:Source now that RO is out? Is RO a DoD:S killer?

Thread Tools

Display