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.

goreblimey

TIER 1 armour BALANCE need looking at

Recommended Posts

nugx

In other way,  one could think of this system this way:

Every player has the potential to get his '5 minutes' of briliance once he purchases the 'better' armament - but that will end once someone blows you up, repeating the process.

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kase250
16 minutes ago, nugx said:

In other way,  one could think of this system this way:

Every player has the potential to get his '5 minutes' of briliance once he purchases the 'better' armament - but that will end once someone blows you up, repeating the process.

Errrrmmmm.... What are you talking about mate?

"purchases the better armament" "5 minutes of brilliance" I am lost...

Is this a new suggestion perhaps?

Share this post


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

Errrrmmmm.... What are you talking about mate?

"purchases the better armament" "5 minutes of brilliance" I am lost...

Is this a new suggestion perhaps?

 

I'll give you example:

Game starts in 1939, you manage to have some very good sorties and in 1940 you purchase a tiger from 1942 for the points you saved up (let's say the game gives you 3 uses of the tiger).

A tiger in 1940 would be better, then what rest of the players have - but if you die 3 times in that tiger, you go back to rest of the players from 1940 in their free tanks.

And this process repeat ad infinitum - when you are back in 1940 with everyone else on their free tanks, you save up again to purchase a better gear.

 

The points could also serve to purchase depleted armament, instead of purchasing 'better' gear. For example:

All players used up the 'free' tanks from 1940, so instead of buying 'better' gear for high price - you can purchase more uses of the same gear for lower price. (untill the re-supply)

 

This gives a lot of tactical options for every player.

What tier I want to purchase? Do i want to save up for 3 uses of tiger?  Or I want to purchase 10 uses of PZ4 ?   Or i want to purchase 50 uses of pz3 in 1940 that is depleted ?

 

rH0McIy.png

 

 

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kase250
9 minutes ago, nugx said:

 

I'll give you example:

Game starts in 1939, you manage to have some very good sorties and in 1940 you purchase a tiger from 1942 for the points you saved up (let's say the game gives you 3 uses of the tiger).

A tiger in 1940 would be better, then what rest of the players have - but if you die 3 times in that tiger, you go back to rest of the players from 1940 in their free tanks.

And this process repeat ad infinitum - when you are back in 1940 with everyone else on their free tanks, you save up again to purchase a better gear.

 

The points could also serve to purchase depleted armament, instead of purchasing 'better' gear. For example: All players used up the 'free' tanks from 1940, so instead of buying 'better' gear for high price - you can purchase

more uses of the same gear for lower price.

 

 

 

Ok, I got the point... but do you know about Tier cycles?

Basically, we have factories who does  Research cylces and when the cycle finish we advance to a new tier. We dont have "years" etc. 

Your new system could be nice for a new game though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nugx
56 minutes ago, kase250 said:

Ok, I got the point... but you do you know about Tier cycles?

Basically, we have factories who does  Research cylces and when the cycle finish we advance to a new tier. We dont have "years" etc.

If could be nice for a new game though.

 

 

 

It seems Rats are planning 'years'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goreblimey

While your at  it you could buy gold ammunition too LOL

nugx , why are you hiding behind this name come out whoever you are......cos noone is going to take you seriously with an account that  NEVER plays.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Westy91
2 hours ago, nugx said:

 

I'll give you example:

Game starts in 1939, you manage to have some very good sorties and in 1940 you purchase a tiger from 1942 for the points you saved up (let's say the game gives you 3 uses of the tiger).

A tiger in 1940 would be better, then what rest of the players have - but if you die 3 times in that tiger, you go back to rest of the players from 1940 in their free tanks.

And this process repeat ad infinitum - when you are back in 1940 with everyone else on their free tanks, you save up again to purchase a better gear.

 

The points could also serve to purchase depleted armament, instead of purchasing 'better' gear. For example:

All players used up the 'free' tanks from 1940, so instead of buying 'better' gear for high price - you can purchase more uses of the same gear for lower price. (untill the re-supply)

 

This gives a lot of tactical options for every player.

What tier I want to purchase? Do i want to save up for 3 uses of tiger?  Or I want to purchase 10 uses of PZ4 ?   Or i want to purchase 50 uses of pz3 in 1940 that is depleted ?

 

rH0McIy.png

 

 

We have no plans on turning this into what is essentially a pay to win/loot box style game. 

Putting late war equipment up against early war kit is like the Spanish Empire going up against the Aztecs. Just one tiger up against early war armour would be a resounding win for the tiger practically every time and that's just not fair on the players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nugx
Quote

We have no plans on turning this into what is essentially a pay to win/loot box style game.

But it's not, that's not the intention of it at all.

 

Quote

Putting late war equipment up against early war kit is like the Spanish Empire going up against the Aztecs. Just one tiger up against early war armour would be a resounding win for the tiger practically every time and that's just not fair on the players.

Obviously before someone can purchase anything - he has to play for it, together with other players on the low equipment.

There would never be a situation that hordes of late war armor go against the early armor - because the system would make it not possible due to  cost/use ratio.

And by the time that tigers are common, it would be 1941-1942, so everyone already would be on later tiers for free.  + some players from allied side, already would be on even later equipment from 1943-1944

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

The idea I would support is shifting the rank-requirements down with TIERS.

Supply could even be fixed from day1 and not evolve over time. Just letting more and more players access the heavier equipment.  

Share this post


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

The idea I would support is shifting the rank-requirements down with TIERS.

Supply could even be fixed from day1 and not evolve over time. Just letting more and more players access the heavier equipment.  

So it's this idea, just different wording - it's the same as rank requirement shifting down.

 

Timeline moves up - the tiers go lower - more players get access to heavier equipment.

 

 

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE
14 minutes ago, nugx said:

So it's this idea, just different wording - it's the same as rank requirement shifting down.

 

Timeline moves up - the tiers go lower - more players get access to heavier equipment.

 

 

Yup and builders would own it all from day1 :D 

because of the numbers we need to audit ranks and add more ranks. 

The result would be similar to what @merlin51proposed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nugx

Yup and builders would own it all from day1

Lol you guys assume that everyone would be driving around in a tiger on first day - but the system would be made so, to make it impossible, all you need to do is tweak the price/use ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nugx

Here, i've made a quick edit, to show you guys how it would progress

 

9Iw8vRD.png

 

chnGSfi.png

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
10 hours ago, DOC said:

But DOC doesn't know anything he killed the game remember ? ;)

If there was just one thing I learned about you.. (not only) but if I had a take away and had to put one thing down. Balance was a P1 for you and when we had balance issues you fixed them.. one of the comments you said, I still repeat to this day.  "Nothing is for free".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
10 hours ago, jwilly said:

CRS is baby-stepping back into development by adding models that are clones of existing models, but with parameter changes to make them perform like a different version.

Why not do that same thing for ammo-tiering? The 88 model in T0 would have PzGr AP. The 88 model in T1 and beyond would have PzGr 39, which historically was first fielded in 1941. Ditto with other weapons that were significantly upgraded after introduction.

Early 17pdr would be the Pheasant... IIRC the only 17pdr to fire the current 17pdr APC in anger. Then there is the current 17pdr with the WRONG ammo. By the time the current 17pdr was fielded they no longer used the APC ammo but the APCBC ammo. As for the sites, It think the 1.9x sites where also the sites rushed in to service for the pheasant, though I think a very few numbers off the first production run of the current 17pdr where fitted with the 1.9x.  That being said, because the 17pdr is in its historical tier and representative of the 1943 ATG, it should be fitted with the 3x sites.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

My guess is that buying equipment from the future (i.e. sooner than historical research says it could have been fielded) is a non-starter.

There would be no historically supported context in which a Tiger could have been built and fielded in 1940. Tigers were built as soon as the design was sorted out, all of the subassemblies were manufacturable, and the fabrication and assembly capability existed.

No point in further discussion of that.

Quote

 

Dunkirk doesn't exist in the game unless you guys make it happen.  

 

If equipment availability was to depend on historical information that can be researched and analyzed even though it didn't happen historically due to an overriding event i.e. Dunkirk, that research has to be done and a timeline of soonest-availability assembled.

Only a relatively few weapons in our part of WWII could have been built and fielded sooner than they historically were. In the above concept, for most weapons, game availability will be the same as historical availability, because the gating factor was design-development or manufacturability. But, in some instances, historical circumstances delayed or halted development, manufacturing or fielding of a particular weapon. If that history plays out differently in-game, that weapon might be available, sooner or at all. Those instances are the ones that are of interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vanapo

Is pasting the same proposal that has been discussed in several threads (with general negativ replies to it) over and over again into new or ongoing threads considered to be a violation of forum rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus

LOL.. looked up Nugx stats. No sorties on either side, no join date, no information period.

Whoooo could it be floating a pay to win game idea?

Come on man, out with who you are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nugx

My guess is that buying equipment from the future (i.e. sooner than historical research says it could have been fielded) is a non-starter.

Willy, Xoom said that in future Rats will not be doing 'same ol, same ol', if they don't want to be doing 'same ol' - then 100% realism need to be dropped.

 

There would be no historically supported context in which a Tiger could have been built and fielded in 1940

In history no, but it would be fun for the gameplay.

 

Whoooo could it be floating a pay to win game idea?

lol, it's totaly the opposite, it's furthest away from pay to win it can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ebert100
On 18.9.2018 at 9:32 AM, flash99 said:

Gee That Goreblimey guy knows his stuff :)

And it appears I have 10,000 more axis sorties than you ebert100 lol

:) Ok, i got it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madrebel
2 minutes ago, nugx said:

Willy, Xoom said that in future Rats will not be doing 'same ol, same ol', if they don't want to be doing 'same ol' - then 100% realism need to be dropped.

The logic here is so flawed I'm struggling to figure out which logical fallacy this adheres to most closely. I'll get back to you.

Share this post


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

The logic here is so flawed I'm struggling to figure out which logical fallacy this adheres to most closely. I'll get back to you.

 

Madrebel, it's pretty simple, WWIIOL 2000-2004 was not realistic, but was fun.

See the paradigm?

 

Sticking only to realism in games = not fun

Non realism = fun

 

For WWIIOL the best would be to be in the middle         FUN ---------------------- WWIIOL --------------------- Realism

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...