OHM

Tier changes and other stuff

231 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, augetout said:

warts and all, wwiionline is still the best game of its kind.

 

S!

 +1 S!

 

Ian 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, memories are short around here.  

 

With all due respect, I would have faith in this approach if new CRS had a history of adequately balancing their spawnlists.  But... they don't.  

 

I can't say definitively that this is bad news bears until I try it out and get a feel for burn rates on supply, but all of my experience tells me that CRS will be walking on very thin ice with this approach.  

 

I respect you taking this risk, but I genuinely wonder if you realize how much you are rolling the dice right now.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, XOOM said:

The French M1 Gun and Stuart are ahistorical to a Tier 1 introduction and were removed for that reason alone. The Mas40 was added, where as the Gewehr 41 was pushed out. The British M1 Garand was pulled, and they received the Sten Mk II and the Crusader, as the A13 numbers were reduced to add in additional Crusaders. The Germans did in fact receive the Panzer III H and Pak38. Some German armor numbers were reduced because of the cost expenditures. Allied armor and ATG equipment, because of its cost value remaining the same did increase, and older Tier 0 equipment was swapped with newer equipment.

The French did not get screwed. These changes are historically driven and it is my opinion that we are marching towards a more fair, but realistic game, at a pace that we haven't done in awhile. So while these initial changes may not promote your side's interest in totality, they are in fact representative of the war and the pursuit to a game whereby balance is achieved historically, budget driven, and by using data to make decisions and removing as much feeling of bias across the board as we can.

Please accept that as a factual statement. I will repeat: CRS is not out to cater, or go after, either side. WWII Online is our product and deeply important to us, representation of both sides are at a maximum within our group internally, and decisions are being made with data in hand.

These changes as described bring us closer to the realm of what we're trying to emulate here in WWII Online: reality, simulation, challenging game play, history.

While we do reserve the right to be human and make mistakes, we're trying to respond accordingly to valid concerns over sometime now to address inaccurate introduction date and number of equipment. As this is a game, and is intended to be fun as well, there's a careful balance in all of that. We're listening and absorbing productive feedback that works towards the betterment of the whole game. We'll continue doing that in the most unbiased way possible.

Fair enough. For a long time WWIIOL has leaned on crutch gameplay but applied the crutches in an uneven and haphazard way. I can respect this approach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hrrrm.

In one sense, great principle to work from.  Variability is key IMO and the ahistorical equipment was an affront to the principles of the game.

In another sense, I don't have a lot of confidence that you guys have a firm grasp of balanced function based spawnlists based on earlier lists that have been pushed in earlier campaigns and in this T0.

 

Also, the man-hours adjusted cost of weapons is inaccurate valuation when aspects of the weapons are not modeled.

I previously mentioned T-34s as being an example of future model issues, but I can think of Axis tank FHA that went into their production cost, but is not modeled with the expensive advantage.  Or the ammo counts including the much more expensive tungsten/HEAT rounds, but does not count the multiplier effect of people despawning and respawning getting a reload.  Or various problems with heavy tanks including breakdown rates, fuel use, bridge capacity, etc. that are not modeled and effectively make them cheaper/more available then a real build/TCO model would deliver.   Paint schemes vs. terrain is another example.

A modeled capability point system that is much more nuanced would be much better as a baseline for spawnlist builds.

 

Now here is another thing to consider- many players never really got into the whole variable thing in the first place, whether RDP, ToE, or other such mechanisms.

Part of it was they wanted guaranteed results- we have spawned and gotten a camp on, killed x Matties and y Tigers, we have cut down the next tier of tanks and they are only spawning third-class equipment, we will soon have this town.

Such people looked upon the spawnlists as a standard template toolist for kampenforce and raced for their Pearl Harbor, and that WAS boring.  But for them, that's exactly what they wanted, reliable on demand tools and tells for the kind of play they wanted.

 

I have no sympathy for such people of course, but they are out there and a few still playing, and this sort of thing is against their form of play and won't get them back.

But a greater concern for me is that this feels like a topdown RDP list from the old days, with indeed the same sort of goal in mind likely, again variability when ToE isn't there to make things weird.

And brother, I KNOW that issue hands down no question.  It does NOT go over well to go into a tier with the other guy advantaged in XYZ class of weapons.

 

Oh, I like it.  But I'm a weirdo that enjoys challenges like the real forces faced, sometimes advanced and sometimes behind in weapon categories.  But players absolutely hate it, big reason HC lists died off, and coupled with the 'what were they thinking' logic of some lists I've seen recently, I have to echo Capco's point, why the risk for a dicey variation mechanic that is yet another dog bowl moved for such a game change.  Believe, you will have many people who will sign in, see or hear the mix of what they got vs. what we got, and logout until days or weeks later.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a fan of hopefully soonish Italian forces ... you're gunna have some HUGE issues if all you're considering is delivery dates. like don't even bother modeling them kinda issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bersi said:

i guess thats how axis tankers feel with a matti or char infront

Except, we only get 2.  The only semi decent ATG to deal is the mle37 and we are talking frontally at 5-600m with no APHE rounds so shot placement is paramount.  Its not like I have not played Axis, I did for years well before all the fantasy HEAT, and increased amounts. Thats why I dont advocate increaseing the Matty numbers in T0.. its not that I dont want to play them but rarely get to do so because they are gone.. but because I know what its like facing them.  A suck it excuse does not make a argument or justification for it.

4 people like this

Share this post


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

as a fan of hopefully soonish Italian forces ... you're gunna have some HUGE issues if all you're considering is delivery dates. like don't even bother modeling them kinda issues.

A very good point mind you, its not going to play out well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Now here is another thing to consider- many players never really got into the whole variable thing in the first place, whether RDP, ToE, or other such mechanisms.

Part of it was they wanted guaranteed results- we have spawned and gotten a camp on, killed x Matties and y Tigers, we have cut down the next tier of tanks and they are only spawning third-class equipment, we will soon have this town.

Such people looked upon the spawnlists as a standard template toolist for kampenforce and raced for their Pearl Harbor, and that WAS boring.  But for them, that's exactly what they wanted, reliable on demand tools and tells for the kind of play they wanted.

 

I have no sympathy for such people of course, but they are out there and a few still playing, and this sort of thing is against their form of play and won't get them back.

 

This is where your analysis blows way off course.  The hatred of TOEs had nothing to do with the variability they provided.  It was the poor implementation and unrealistic nature of brigade movement that was the problem.  Sure camps happened before TOEs.  They also happened post TOEs.  What irritated people was TOEs effect on tactical gameplay.  Squad leaders could come up with a great tactical plan, execute it perfectly, battle over a town for 3+ hours, get the town surrounded, and then have the whole thing ruined by some noob pushing a single button with one hand while eating a Cheeto with the other hand having never actually spawned into the game world.  The unrealistic warping of entire divisions with no physical manifestation of movement in the game world didn't provide variability.  Rather it provided the most laughable unrealistic gameplay mechanic that managed to drive the good tactical leaders from the game.  The real world equivalent would be Patton's 3rd Army suddenly popping up in the middle of Bastogne instead of actually having to move across country and fight from outside in for a rescue of the 101st Airborne.   Unfortunately a first person shooter MMO that simulates warfare needs tactical leaders for game play.  Even now, look at what @XOOM complains about the most, players not stepping up to create that "WWIIOL Moment".  The players that used to create those moments were driven from the game for the most part.  Their efforts were constantly stymied by the button pushing Cheeto eating noob that couldn't otherwise couldn't manage a over .3 K/D in the game world if they wanted to.  Many of these folks couldn't figure out tactical gameplay and loved the flag movement because it actually gave them a purpose in game other then being a continuous pop up target for the rest of us.  

Had TOEs been implemented differently, they wouldn't have been a problem.  Had we instead frozen brigade movement into a town that was AO'ed and opened up the back line connected FBs for reinforcement purposes we would have had better dynamic because rescue forces would actually have to move to the fight in the game world.  Even the MS, UMS, FRU, and FMS as gamey as they are were a better designed dynamic.  At least they had a physical thing in the game world that could players could engage to stop.  Some would say they are stopped too easily.  Ask @major0noob, he will tell you all about it.  

As for the current CRS approach, it sounds like they are moving to historical introduction dates.  It's an approach I can respect, even if I don't like it.  It leaves players to deal with the actual historical disadvantages faced during the war for both sides.  Fair enough.  Before the approach the was to move things around for an assist for one side in some areas while leaving the other side to languish in other areas because of "historical accuracy".  The approach was inconsistent and quite frankly unfair.  At least now CRS has a leg to stand on given that they can point to a solid historical reason for decisions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FTR, the British got their first Stuarts (M3A1) in August 1941 and used them operationally in Op Crusader Nov-Dec 1941. Some 170 too part, out of nearly 6000 produced - with the Brits being the main user. The M5 (M3 with sloped frontal glacis, same as M3A3) had the same gun as earlier versions. Our version is a stand-in for all versions of the tank and does belong in tier 1 (assuming this to be 1941). One might argue that we should introduce the M3A1 in its original boxy form however, though the front armor anyway isn't much to write home about - it'd be mostly a cosmetic change.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, minky said:

 some noob pushing a single button with one hand while eating a Cheeto with the other hand having never actually spawned into the game world. 

I'll take the brigade move to Shilde for $200 Alex.............

 

cheetos

 

lol.....:lol:

Share this post


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

Ok gimme my brit grenadier back then......

ZING!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, malvoc said:

Ok gimme my brit grenadier back then......

I’ll never understand why that change was made. They removed a weapon that was already modeled in game. All they had to do was fix the blowback so it couldn’t be used at point blank range. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and weren't they like less than 10 ppl in the history of the game that were really effective with it - half of them in blackhand?

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

and weren't they like less than 10 ppl in the history of the game that were really effective with it - half of them in blackhand?

Yes and no. I think most people used them like I did. Run up like a sapper and hit them at point blank right on the sapper spot well within the range where the back blast should have peeled my face off. That could have been addressed within their removal from the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the 12 Days of Christmas promotion going to bring us the corresponding French and German HEAT RGs? The LOD0 weapon art has existed for a long time...maybe the animations etc. are done and everything's finally ready?

germanrg-new_zpsi2kioafk.png

frenchrg-new1_zps7zdxomvj.png

2 people like this

Share this post


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

FTR, the British got their first Stuarts (M3A1) in August 1941 and used them operationally in Op Crusader Nov-Dec 1941. Some 170 too part, out of nearly 6000 produced - with the Brits being the main user. The M5 (M3 with sloped frontal glacis, same as M3A3) had the same gun as earlier versions. Our version is a stand-in for all versions of the tank and does belong in tier 1 (assuming this to be 1941). One might argue that we should introduce the M3A1 in its original boxy form however, though the front armor anyway isn't much to write home about - it'd be mostly a cosmetic change.

The same could be said of the pak 38 in tier 0. The first delivery to German units was actually in 1940 but they didn’t see combat until April of 1941 on the Russian front because France had been defeated. The lull in combat was the reason for their later debut. 

Unless of course we are now doing “half tiers” which would mean CRS has lined it all up pretty well. 

Edited by minky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Xoom, the Brit grenadier was “OP as [censored].”

 

If it were to come back I probably wouldn’t even use it, but it’s the principle of it that matters in the context of this thread’s discussion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Capco said:

According to Xoom, the Brit grenadier was “OP as [censored].”

 

If it were to come back I probably wouldn’t even use it, but it’s the principle of it that matters in the context of this thread’s discussion.

I disagree with XOOM on that point. Always have. By that line reasoning several other units on both sides should have been pulled too. Personally I think it got pulled because CRS has never gotten HE to work right and the way the unit was actually used in game was an embarrassment to their realism mantra. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All WWIIOL HEAT devices currently are "OP as [censored]". The current code has no relationship between the amount of armor penetrated and the damage done on the far side of that armor, which of course is totally wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there was a point when there were 20 RPATS and 20 sappers... now columns are gone

even with only 5 RPATS in a flag they out killed every single tank in game. they had more tank kills than TD's and ATG's combined, they even had more tank kills than the individual sherman/4g/S76 and even the tiger. they're like the axis LMG... historically accurate but wildly overpowered with in-game tactics and knowledge.

 

wouldn't mind if they replaced the sapper with them, but ffs have mercy on the tank game, at this point: adding more ATS is like taking a sledghammer to a sick orphan.

we're lucky to get 2 people to spawn armour these days, and if they use comms with each other it's like a friggen miracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, major0noob said:

historically accurate but wildly overpowered with in-game tactics and knowledge.

IMO a HUGE percentage of this is because infantry can warp through bushes. get the world right, and all the things in it, and infantry have to wait and ambush instead of stroll freely through the under brush just to pop out and whack a tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Variable gear for the tiers?

Knowing this community, I would not be surprised if people will start complaining about new tier imbalances  or perceived campaign manipulation when they don’t like a particular gear change.

Are you guys sure you want this new headache?

 

 

Edited by krazydog

Share this post


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

and weren't they like less than 10 ppl in the history of the game that were really effective with it - half of them in blackhand?

Yes the majority of the BEF grenadier ACES where in the blackhand.  MOZ made the HEAT grenadier look like childs play.. the squidrd of grenadiers.  For every shot I put on target I got 1 out of ten produce a kill.. excluding the 232 which was more like 1 out of 30.  I was able to track tanks which I often resorted to doing, but that was before they beefed up the track threshold.  I blame Moz for it getting removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.