Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

XOOM

How can we get beyond pure negativity in the forums?

Recommended Posts

stankyus
12 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Hatch seemed to suggest recently that historical-date-adjusted-by-game-event-flow at least could be discussed, and that strict game adherence to historical dates based on events that don't happen in-game would not make sense.

Old-CRS's policy was that weapons were eligible for game use if they were fielded, or contracted to be provided and fielded.

The British had contracted to have six pounder cruisers in late 1940 - early 1941, and towed six pounders in late 1940. Historically, without Dunkirk, those would have been fielded no later than T1. 

The French had contracted to have the B1 ter and S40 tanks in late 1940 - early 1941 and  ARL V39 and SAu 40 assault guns in 1941. Historically, without the Armistice, those would have been fielded no later than T1.

The Churchill Gun Carrier with 75mm 20 pounder was built and fieldable in 1942. Scotsman has said there is evidence it was fielded in Italy in 1943.

Brandt, the French weapon firm, had 75mm/57mm APDS ammo ready for the Mle 1897 75mm gun family in 1940. It had been tested by the Army, and was ready to go to mass production. Without the Armistice, that could have been fielded in 1941. Data is available on its penetration with range. The French had no tanks or SP guns mounting the Mle 1897 gun family, but the US did have the M3 Gun Motor Carriage which mounted that gun, first fielded in 1941.

***

Of course, historical-date-adjusted-by-game-event-flow also would result in favorable availabilities for the Axis. The point here is that the one-sidedness of "strict date availability" is not a dead end.

Well you have pointed this out many times, I think I have liked each of your posts.  THIS IMHO is way to fungible and is a can of worms not worth opening.

Cant remember who it was but there was some reference about trying to maintain historical dates of entrances and performances that might not be historical or correct. I read that... yah but what? I don't think by the outline of the way things are going that they will not back off of the German HEAT or 37mm performance. I have noticed when I have brought up the 17pdr ammo - crickets.  I wonder if the Axis T-0 tanks are going to get their rarity on the battlefield also - Tiger? bah the Axis would through a fit.  Very few P4Ds entered France, Very few STugBs did also.. where the majority where 38ts and Pz1s and 2's. We already heard that the Firefly is going to be extremely limited because of the BEFs historic TO&E. I wonder how many Axis TO&E are going to be that limited by the same constraints? I heard a lot of great stuff entering for the Axis with no mentioning of constraints and date entrances with the exception of the Achillies and Firefly. Only 2 of the mentioned AFV entrances.  PZ3L, M, 4H, and StugH... Firefly and Achillies. Not only very late tier wise but in very few brigades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
3 minutes ago, jwilly said:

My take would be, make everyone's ammo work as chronologically correct. Everyone's early war HEAT simply had poor performance. No fantasy performance...performance in a given tier has to be supported by test data for ammo from that date-period. HL ammo should work like HL data; HL/A ammo once available should work like HL/A ammo.

I mean adjusted TO&E like the StugB and 4D.  ATM the CH5 carries 4 or 5 rounds.. that should be upped to half the ammo count.. and fix the damn sites so they can be dialed in ASAP. ATM its a useless POS without it which is another example of getting another bugged allied AFV in the game that somehow passed Q&A with something so glaringly missing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nugx
15 hours ago, stankyus said:

Look I understand your idea, but for ppl who can afford to put more time in the game for points to earn and my god have you actually looked at TOM for some of these players? 10-15k minutes a map? You still can create a side imbalance.  Balance has to be strictly coded into the game.

And that balance would be very easy to achieve, because Rats would just have to alter the cost/use ratio of gear - it would be strictly coded into the game.

For example the tiger in 1940 would cost a lot and would have only 1-2 uses.

Once all the gear is potentialy available right from the start and then unlocks for everyone gradualy - it's much easier to balance it out, because you just have to manipulate the cost and personal spawn of it.

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kase250
1 hour ago, nugx said:

And that balance would be very easy to achieve, because Rats would just have to alter the cost/use ratio of gear - it would be strictly coded into the game.

For example the tiger in 1940 would cost a lot and would have only 1-2 uses.

Once all the gear is potentialy available right from the start and then unlocks for everyone gradualy - it's much easier to balance it out, because you just have to manipulate the cost and personal spawn of it.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo with my money plssss.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
21 hours ago, stankyus said:

Dre, you know and I know that these things happen in the game.. I killed a StugG at 1600m with a 3" atg the otherday, he was off angled and elevated.. took about 8 hits but I accomplished taking him out, I tracked him and most likely got a good hit on that 50mm plate. However I also put 14 rounds into the flank of one at 500m with a 3" ATG, his rear half was exposed and that's the "easy" engine kill and fuel shot.. I also got him smoking and he backed up and spun toward me and took a shot at me - I helped him because my last shot tracked him at the wrong moment and I was OH FK!.. when he did and 57mm opened up on him and he exploded. I got no kill on him, but I did manage two StugG kills, one being Kareca WOOT.  So to imply that the S75 is a good tank to deal with Tigers because it took x amounts of shots to kill one, one time does not make an argument.  If that was the case I could argue that the 3" ATG should enter into T1 because I also hit a PZH 8 times before he stopped shooting at me earlier with that damn near unkillable hull MG.

Sure it happens , but your example is 1 gun vs one Tank . My example is 2 Stugs,1 3h and a 4G  thats 4 guns shooting at one Tank , and we both know that the Sherman 75mm will only need one shot on the 4G and the 3h at the range of 450 meters to take them out, there you have 2 Panzers gone out of the fight myself being tracked well I'm only 1/2 useful now and not sure how the other Stug faired. 

 

 

Now to your other post with the Axis used P2,P1 and a lot of 38ts  yes that's all correct but the Axis didn't take France cause of better guns but because of better Tactics. If we want to go that route then each French tanker in Game will have the chat bar disabled along with the map marks so we can actually simulate how it was in a French tank .

Also the French Char crew will abandon their Tank then  cause one of the Axis tactic ( even that they knew they could not penetrate them ) was open up on them with everything they had in their arsenal , till the French crew were so rattled in their Chars that they gave up. Because I can imagine having 5 LMG and various other guns pounding on the steel of the char made the crew being on edge in a hurry.

These are all not in game, French tank have the benefit of coms and mark just like the Axis , and the fear of death ain't there either . 

Edited by dre21
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
3 minutes ago, dre21 said:

Now to your other post with the Axis used P2,P1 and a lot of 38ts  yes that's all correct but the Axis didn't take France cause of better guns but because of better Tactics. If we want to go that route then each French tanker in Game will have the chat bar disabled along with the map marks so we can actually simulate how it was in a French tank .

Also the French Char crew will abandon their Tank then  cause one of the Axis tactic ( even that they knew they could not penetrate them ) was open up on them with everything they had in their arsenal , till the French crew were so rattled in their Chars that they gave up. Because I can imagine having 5 LMG and various other guns pounding on the steel of the char made the crew being on edge in a hurry.

These are all not in game, French tank have the benefit of coms and mark just like the Axis , and the fear of death ain't there either . 

If you think there is something wrong with the S75 as it is and its a issue across the board, report it in the bugs section.  My experience is quite different in the Sherman.. I rarely take a hit in one from a StugG.  I think we have a case of extreme lag death going on.. kinda like the ei you empty 2 mags into and he keeps on running then falls over dead 100m from where you shot him. Its certainly not normal.

As to the quote above...  Discord, that's what we use while tanking. 

That being said.. I am NOT suggesting that the Axis just get Pz1/2s and 38ts to make up their armor force in T0.  BUT BUT IF CRS decides to put historic TO&E numbers on the Firefly ETC  WITHOUT treating the Axis equally..  There has been no mention of these restraints going into the Axis TO&E and that is bad bedside manner to not mention it along with the foremost allied mentions. 

 

Listen, there are tells that ppl give away in conversation they don't mean to give away. The mentioning of the Firefly being held to a limited and historic TO&E without mentioning restrictions to historic TO&E for things like the Tiger or Pz3L is a "tell".  There might be BUT..

1. It tells me that somewhere inside or OUTSIDE CRS, possibly friends in the game are concerned with the potential of the Firefly and had to be addressed openly though off handed.

2. It tells me that there is a lot of scrutiny over the Allied kit that is not being applied to the Axis kit because if that was the case it would be just as important to have mentioned them.

3. Suggests personal preference and attention to detail concerning that preference.

Not saying its all of those or even any of those, but the chances are much higher than naught they are one or all three.  The very least the perception coming across suggests such and perceptions is EVERYTHING.

 I want a FUN game for both sides and what is being presented looks to be very lopsided. Not just in equipment available for the tiers but in how the new Allied equipment is going to be limited.  No mention about the how they are going to handle the new Axis equipment, just coming soon. Very soon.

Now, I know for a fact that CRS has all the ballistics data for all the rounds in the game.  The Germans did not use the PzGr39 round for the 88 in 1939-40 but they got it in the game because of future armor it is going to face.  I have asked over the years mb 10 times to give the 17pdr its historical APCBC round and not the APC round its using.  Talk about not being historical, the version of the 17pdr we have in the game NEVER fired the APC round in anger. That round was rushed to the front along with the 17pdr Pheasant.  Still crickets about it.

This is the crap that's getting my panties in a jumble and several other Allied players.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21

Well see Discord would need to be disabled then too as soon as you spawn an French tank. All these things that in real life actually favored the Axis are not in game. The only thing Axis have going is the better population,  why that is I have no clue . Maybe because of the Equipment, maybe because of being the bad guy is more a turn on. I don't know.

Last 4G I took out one shot dead so it goes with most of our Armor , we get one Tank with a turret  where we actually stand a chance to fight, if our glass gun doesn't get taken out .

Yes the Stug is a great platform. But how many players do you fear in it?

I can think of only 2 that take them out on a consistent regular basis and made it their platform to play, Kareca and myself. 

So yes Tiger is a Beast and yes we may get to many per Spawn list ( which is CRS baby not the player base) but you see nothing wrong with a year 42 tank going against a  year 44 tank? 

There are plenty of other instruments in the Allied arsenal that will take out a Tiger once in game . ( MAYBE I'm blind and need to play a stint / campaign on the Allied side again )

The 88 is a shadow of its former glory . It's like Bigfoot rarely sighted in the game world anymore . And if it is the life expectancy is that of a LT landing on a hot LZ in Vietnam .

 

I agree both sides need fun and the balance issue has been a sore spot ever since. I remember the Char and Mattyothon.  Where you would see nothing but these 2 tanks on the Battlefield maybe the old time Axis have just become more efficient with dealing heavy Tanks because we had to do it for such a long time , while back then it was a pretty much aim and kill affair on the Allied side when they spotted Axis Armor. I'm not sure .

I think we can go back and forth on this subject and never come to a solution. 

Now I have to tell my Squad mates I'll be killing them next Campaign. They are not going to like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
7 minutes ago, dre21 said:

Well see Discord would need to be disabled then too as soon as you spawn an French tank. All these things that in real life actually favored the Axis are not in game. The only thing Axis have going is the better population,  why that is I have no clue . Maybe because of the Equipment, maybe because of being the bad guy is more a turn on. I don't know.

Last 4G I took out one shot dead so it goes with most of our Armor , we get one Tank with a turret  where we actually stand a chance to fight, if our glass gun doesn't get taken out .

Yes the Stug is a great platform. But how many players do you fear in it?

I can think of only 2 that take them out on a consistent regular basis and made it their platform to play, Kareca and myself. 

So yes Tiger is a Beast and yes we may get to many per Spawn list ( which is CRS baby not the player base) but you see nothing wrong with a year 42 tank going against a  year 44 tank? 

There are plenty of other instruments in the Allied arsenal that will take out a Tiger once in game . ( MAYBE I'm blind and need to play a stint / campaign on the Allied side again )

The 88 is a shadow of its former glory . It's like Bigfoot rarely sighted in the game world anymore . And if it is the life expectancy is that of a LT landing on a hot LZ in Vietnam .

 

I agree both sides need fun and the balance issue has been a sore spot ever since. I remember the Char and Mattyothon.  Where you would see nothing but these 2 tanks on the Battlefield maybe the old time Axis have just become more efficient with dealing heavy Tanks because we had to do it for such a long time , while back then it was a pretty much aim and kill affair on the Allied side when they spotted Axis Armor. I'm not sure .

I think we can go back and forth on this subject and never come to a solution. 

Now I have to tell my Squad mates I'll be killing them next Campaign. They are not going to like it.

Well disabling discord is a no go.. just like unbalancing the Axis kit in T-0 because the game has to remain fun.

The 4G is not a bad tank, its consistently .2-25 better than the CH3, and about .1-2 worse than the Sherman. I think by and large that tank triad is prob the closest balanced triad AFVs in the game.

As for fearing the StugG... There is fear of the StugG and there is fear of who is behind the wheels. I "fear" the stugG period, its worse when you know the stugG driver is very good at handling that platform.  Usually when I see one in a Sherman, I back up, get behind something or drive into deep cover.. There is a reason why I prefer the M10. I will do 10x more M10 missions than the S75 in any given map.

As for warpage of material for balance.. I am 100% behind that approach. I played Axis back during the Matty Map, Axis the first Tiger map, then Allied when all we had where Cru3s and M10s vrs the Tiger.  The damage done to the Allied side during that fiasco literally destroyed some of our largest and most influential squads. We still have not recovered. The Tiger parity led to about half AEF unsubbing from the game. Only the core ppl are somewhat active and a shadow of its former self.  IF we go back to a system that pits the allied side to fight Tigers with Cru3s, CH3s, M10s and vanilla shermans again with no hope of relief for 2.5 RDP cycles before the S76 and Firefly enter the game.. eh, we will probably never see beyond T-2 at that point and the allies will literally require a huge armor number advantage along with a player advantage. The set up will not draw players to our side one bit, the opposite will happen.  THATS why we cannot go 100% historical date entry. It will destroy the allied side at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

So how did Allied units facing Tigers handle the situation historically?

1. There were only a few Tigers. Supporting units for each Tiger were killed off. The Tiger commanders didn't want to be out front with no support against flanking attacks, etc., so they fell back.

2. Real battlefields are smoky and dusty, so vision was limited, which decreased a key Tiger advantage. Allied units took advantage of this by firing a steady progression of smoke shells at the Tiger when they couldn't kill it and didn't want it to kill them. Then while it was masked, Allied units could maneuver so that someone could get a flanking shot.

3. Early Tigers had poor reliability. They were introduced in settings where the German side was gradually falling back, so German breakdowns often were captured by Allied units before the next night when German tank recovery units could go get them and do repairs.

Factor 1 fits the existing game if played realistically, i.e. each side is a team. If the German side plays individually, without teamwork, that further weakens use of Tigers against a teamwork Allied side.

Only if the Allied side does not play with teamwork is Factor 1 not to the Allies' advantage.

Factor 2 isn't yet part of the game. Game-smoke either forms small localized puffs and stays in place until it magically dissipates, or it rises rapidly upward until it again magically dissipates. Dust quickly dissipates. Combat and tank-movement don't make the battlefield lower-visibility. That's presumably a CRS choice. 

Smoke-shell smoke dissipates unrealistically quickly. Again, a CRS choice.

Factor 3 isn't part of the game either. All game-tanks have perfect reliability. And, there are no abandoned tanks with a breakdown issue or light damage, because unlike real war, no one abandons such a tank. So, holding the battlefield to allow friendly and maybe enemy tank recovery is irrelevant.

It appears to me that the expected tanking imbalance is in the context of fundamental non-side-specific unrealisms that CRS could fix.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sudden

How to promote teamwork????? ???

???

This game does not work without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM

A core problem with the red/blue and the on-paper numerically "balanced" vehicle setup is that vehicles aren't equal in terms of speed, armor, guns, optics, ammo and other factors. One side enjoys a general qualitative advantage AND more often than not a considerable numerical advantage too – which makes it twice if not thrice or four times as powerful. Quantity, a quality in itself that offset the qualitative disadvantage, is not factored in, and is further automatically denied the side that is chronically underpopulated. For the underpop side it doesn't matter if the spawnlist is choked with half-decent kit if there aren't enough players around to put the gear to use as its qualitative disadvantage requires, en masse. This, to me, is the fundamental fault that needs to be fixed so that the game may offer both sides a relatively balanced WWII-ish experience. This qualitative/quantitative balance/imbalance shifts from tier to tier so I'm not making an Allied/Axis thing out of this - it will have to be fixed for all tiers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

I'm all for adding in code to simulate the 1 man turret and radio less tanks.

We model armor, main gun and speed - but not comms, how come?

One man turret tanks and/or tanks with no radios should have some steep penalties.

No marks.  No comms but own mission; have to think about voice comms; prolly shouldn't be in, but may have to be for playability and its just a game.

 

As for mechanical reliability - prolly not, unless you create a vehicle that can go out and fix any 'reliability' issue - then I'd prolly be all for it as it provides more things for players to do.

 

As for strict timelines, I'm mostly for it, balance should be by the numbers of units, not the date.

For sure try it, if it is shown it don't work, then maybe fudge by some number of months. (but not this 3 year crap like the grease gun, i'm talking a few months maybe)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
2 hours ago, Bmbm said:

A core problem with the red/blue and the on-paper numerically "balanced" vehicle setup is that vehicles aren't equal in terms of speed, armor, guns, optics, ammo and other factors. One side enjoys a general qualitative advantage AND more often than not a considerable numerical advantage too – which makes it twice if not thrice or four times as powerful. Quantity, a quality in itself that offset the qualitative disadvantage, is not factored in, and is further automatically denied the side that is chronically underpopulated. For the underpop side it doesn't matter if the spawnlist is choked with half-decent kit if there aren't enough players around to put the gear to use as its qualitative disadvantage requires, en masse. This, to me, is the fundamental fault that needs to be fixed so that the game may offer both sides a relatively balanced WWII-ish experience. This qualitative/quantitative balance/imbalance shifts from tier to tier so I'm not making an Allied/Axis thing out of this - it will have to be fixed for all tiers.

It used to be explained by old-CRS that vehicle comparisons for purposes of balance were best done using statistically determined lethality...necessarily, after a new vehicle had been in-game for a while and had built up some stats.

Old-CRS told us that a key feature of building the game around a transactional database was so that such all-action-encompassing statistics were readily internally available.

I think it's well understood that population imbalance is a positive-feedback mechanism, because a sizeable percentage of players are here for "psychic income" that is maximized by being on the advantaged, winning side. They're most likely to get kills without being killed, and so forth, by being on the overpop side. 

But even so, the game population imbalance rarely goes beyond 2:1 overall. 

in real war, participant number ratios in a given battle often reach and exceed 2:1. That's because real-war mechanics create lethality multipliers of 2:1 and beyond in the opposite direction for prepared defenders, compared to attackers.

I've never understood why CRS has always maintained a commitment to the dysfunctional fiction that both sides' first participants in any battle physically arrive at each battlefield simultaneously, and that infrastructure such as bunkers should be designed so it looks defensively effective but doesn't actually create the statistically verifiable lethality advantage that real-war 2:1 participant ratios inherently require.

If game defenders always were provided an opportunity to prepare planned defenses before the opposing side could attack, utilizing a realistically complete set of statistically proven defensive elements, then it would be reasonable to force-balance each such battle to a 2:1 population ratio at any given time. That might entail limiting the number of attackers, or the number of defenders. Across the map, that would create opportunities for both sides to be the attacker...as currently preferred by some players, though that might go away once the current advantages of overpop were gone...even when the overall game population ratio approached 2:1.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM
4 hours ago, jwilly said:

It used to be explained by old-CRS that vehicle comparisons for purposes of balance were best done using statistically determined lethality...necessarily, after a new vehicle had been in-game for a while and had built up some stats.

I don’t subscribe to that notion. In fact, I’m diametrically opposed to it. 

4 hours ago, jwilly said:

I've never understood why CRS has always maintained a commitment to the dysfunctional fiction that both sides' first participants in any battle physically arrive at each battlefield simultaneously

We can’t impose a 30-minute delay on the attack to create a defensive advantage. The warning signs are there already - loss of FB, sudden downshifts and upshifts in activity, EWS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silky
9 hours ago, Sudden said:

How to promote teamwork????? ???

???

This game does not work without it.

Other games use the XP reward system to encourage certain types of gameplay. 

 

The mssion mechanism in this game is nothing more than a way to spawn in. What if it weren’t?

What if achieving the mission objective gave an XP/points reward that all players wanted, regardless of their rank or experience? What if all players on that mission received bonus points for the achievement of the objective and also points based on group survival or group kills?

 

Think about a RDP bombing mission. At the moment, the bombers get points for bombs on factories; the fighter escorts get points for killing any interceptors, that’s all. And the points they get are completely worthless because all the players are probably maxed out on rank anyhow. 

Now imagine a game where the bombers get points for bombs on target, so do the  escort fighters. Imagine where the fighters get points for bombers RTBing and the bombers get points for the bomber group RTBing. Imagine where interceptors get points for factories not being damaged, for bombers not RTBing as well as aircraft downed. 

And then imagine that the XP pony’s gained mean something to every player, where achieving XP rewards stands as a different game objective, aside campaign win and the thrill of killing stuff.

With some subtle changes to the mission mechanism and the XP system, we can change behaviours to create a much better game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
57 minutes ago, Bmbm said:

I don’t subscribe to that notion. In fact, I’m diametrically opposed to it. 

It has the advantages of being objective; being based on data that the game was designed to collect and provide; and inherently measuring the differential effect of design or functionality modications to a model or the game mechanics to achieve better balance.

It would seem that any other approach is necessarily subjective, therefore open to bias/unfairness/error claims and pushback from one side or the other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
1 hour ago, Bmbm said:

We can’t impose a 30-minute delay on the attack to create a defensive advantage. The warning signs are there already - loss of FB, sudden downshifts and upshifts in activity, EWS. 

The discussion has been about what to do about imbalance.

Xoom seemed to reinforce in the latest Rat Chat that the game remains based on realistic models and mechanics.

Intentionally rejecting that most WWII battles were not 1:1 meeting engagements, and instead were attacker:defender with a participant ratio of 2:1 or higher and a roughly 2:1 offsetting lethality advantage for the defender due to defensive preparations, would seem to be obviously inconsistent with realistic mechanics and obviously associated with the question of why the game hasn't yet effectively figured out imbalance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nugx
Quote

and the fear of death ain't there either .

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but this system introduces this.

 

Quote

Think about a RDP bombing mission. At the moment, the bombers get points for bombs on factories; the fighter escorts get points for killing any interceptors, that’s all. And the points they get are completely worthless because all the players are probably maxed out on rank anyhow.

 

And this also,  fear of death + personal spawn + players purchasing gear after they lost it for the points they earn

 

 

Quote

Xoom seemed to reinforce in the latest Rat Chat that the game remains based on realistic models and mechanics.

 

Jwilly, models can remain realistic but mechanics which create gameplay need a leeway. (there are already many unrealistic things in the game, simply because full realism in a video game is not possible)

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

We're having a discussion about balance. It's the height of absurdity to propose a system in which some players could fight in T0 using T5 weapons, as a way to improve customer perceptions of balance.

Noobs entering the game for the first time would have no points accumulated, so they'd be using T0 gear in T0. How fast would they accumulate points, fighting against even a few vets using late-tier weapons?

They'd get a great first impression, having their H75 bounced by an Me 262 or having their R35 facing off with a King Tiger.

I'm at a loss as to how that idea can make sense to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM
47 minutes ago, jwilly said:

It has the advantages of being objective; being based on data that the game was designed to collect and provide; and inherently measuring the differential effect of design or functionality modications to a model or the game mechanics to achieve better balance.

It would seem that any other approach is necessarily subjective, therefore open to bias/unfairness/error claims and pushback from one side or the other.

General stats assume that all factors are equal over time, which they patently are not. Stats are skewed by the circumstances of engagements, eg camping, stand-off, surprise, TOM, teamwork, skill, numerical advantage/disadvantage etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nugx
Quote

Noobs entering the game for the first time would have no points accumulated, so they'd be using T0 gear in T0. How fast would they accumulate points, fighting against even a few vets using late-tier weapons?

Jwilly, how can I discuss this, if you don't want to hear what I'm proposing ?

 

T 0 is the timeline - the 'years', which means that if it would be 1943, noobs would be in 1943 gear, if it is 1945, noobs would be in 1945 gear.

At 1939, 1940, the systems would create limits, so the cost for late game tier is high and 'fear of death' is high also (due to small nr of personal spawn)

 

There would never be a situation that a noob is in h75 vs 262, simply because the system would not allow it, and by the time a few players use 262, everyone would be on 1943 gear.

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nugx

Everything then can be balanced very easily.

 

The more lethal gear like 262 which you mentioned, can cost even more.  And it would be very easy for Rats to balance, because all you would need to tweak is 1 number - the cost   from  100 to 10000000 and then you are sure it is 'limited' to give you an extreme example.

So apart from the normal cost - there could be an extra cost from the 'lethalness' of the gear, so it costs more.

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
8 hours ago, Bmbm said:

General stats assume that all factors are equal over time, which they patently are not. Stats are skewed by the circumstances of engagements, eg camping, stand-off, surprise, TOM, teamwork, skill, numerical advantage/disadvantage etc. 

Wait, so are you saying that each map is so diametrically different to the point that statistical data over a period of time are of no value in determining potential battlefield effectiveness?  Am I reading you correctly?  Why did Xoom say that upping the Tiger numbers was because the "Tiger was not living up to its historical potential"? That's pretty much a direct quote.  How do you think he arrived at that conclusion?  MB he was looking at the stats and instead of a 10-1 KD vrs AFVs it was consistently approx. 5.0 kd? We all know it took 10 shermans to take out one Tiger... right?

That begs the question then, why do we limit the Matty in T-0 to 2 Max?  The only conclusion would be a anti-allied bias because statistical data is irrelevant.  The only option therefore is subjective.  This line of thinking is huge factor in EXACTLY why the Germans never produced a nuclear warhead because all semitic scientific data was ignored by legal policy - IE Einstein. I mean why do scientist use statistical data to produce a range of performance in the scientific method?

DOC had a excellent method of determining balance. It called CVC.  It was a economic model. Each side had an equal income and spent it on vehicle costs.  Each attribute of a AFV was given a value.. Speed, Armor, Gun/Ammo and probably more aspects that varied by class of weapon platform.  The sum of each attribute was then calculated to give the cost of each item.  That cost was then applied how many you could "purchase" WITH statistical data the value of attribute was adjusted till a good balance was found.  Data had to be collected over a period of time. So if you wanted more stugGs, it came at a cost of 2 less 4Gs for instance. The only item that ever broke the mold was the introduction of the Tiger. It added a significant but new attribute not seen before in the game. Player draw.. that's where we learned about the Axis Bench.. The allied side numbers actually increased for that map, however the Axis Bench showed up and at times the Axis where fielding a 5:1 numerical superiority - CRS released data on population.  It was summed up by calling it the "Sexiness" factor and because of that over a period of time and Statistical data, not only in the effectiveness of the Tiger but data on how it created such a numerical superiority the magic number of limiting the Tiger to 2.. like we do the Matilda.

What you are suggesting is preferential treatment of equipment by what you think is balance if you are diametrically opposed to statistical data to determine balance.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21

I played Axis back during the Matty Map, Axis the first Tiger map, then Allied when all we had where Cru3s and M10s vrs the Tiger.  The damage done to the Allied side during that fiasco literally destroyed some of our largest and most influential squads. We still have not recovered

How do you explain  that the Axis were able to retain somewhat their player base while most Allied Squads split after one Tiger campaign?

Could it be because the point shoot kill aspect was somewhat gone and they actually had to use tactics? Like the Axis side was told from the day the Game came out?  From day one it was pretty much axis Panzer runs into a Allied Tank the chances were 80% the Allied would win . 

Now Axis many years later got the Tiger and the Allies left in droves . Sure sounds to me someone got conditioned to as an Allied you run into an Axis tank you will win and all of a sudden that was not the case anymore so I bail.

So CRS will give Allies the Firefly so that is restored. 

Like I have said many times CRS did the Allies no favors giving them the Char and Matilda because the invincibility ego set in when they were almost guaranteed to drive up to an AB and kill everything that spawned. 

 

Nugx once you tell us who you really are I might start to read what you write but as long as I see no missions i'm really not interested .

Sure it looks like you used to play the game but then come in here with your name that you used to use and not hide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raptor34

Just got caught up with the discussion. To be clear, when I said I disagreed with you Stankyus what I was really trying to say is that I support the global move to more historical TOE. If the Firefly is to be limited (as they should be) as per TOE, so should the Tiger in Tier 3. As with the Matty and B1 in tier 0. And I am fully with Jwilly when I say that I think the only good way to deal with weapons and ammo is historical dates and modelling. If it was a poor performer, then its a poor performer in game. Having ammo from one time and vehicles from another just doesn't make sense in the long run. When we use history (within reason) we have something that should act closer to the real event than not. 

As you said this means that the axis tier 0 will have to deal with mainly pz38 and pz2 as their main armour number wise, IVD and STUG B will be very limited as they were. On the other side, there will be very few Mattys and B1 and only in a few units. I fully support the idea of armour flags post 1.36 btw, where heavy armour must to brought in to support an attack or defence, not just available at every depot and to every inf unit (unless historical to that unit's TOE). Tier 3 the axis should have very limited numbers of Tigers available but that means we need to fight them with Sherman 75mms. It is not going to always be in one sides favour but it will move from tier to tier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...