OHM

Tier changes and other stuff

231 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, raptor34 said:

Tier 0 is my favourite. We are there Madrebel. And disagree that this a horrible idea. 

sortie counts have been posted many times in the past. what you like is an individual thing and doesn't constitute the majority. the t0 allied pilot sortie trend has been a thing for YEARS. same phenomena with axis tankers and t0 vs tier1 and again over the years sortie counts have shown that more players show up to drive 3hs than 3fs.

 

ffs pull your heads out and look at any other game. how about overwatch. recently briggete got a nerf and her pick rate has dropped. one example off the top of my head. the majority of gamers gravitate towards whatever they feel gives them the greatest advantage eschewing everything else, regardless of the actual statistical advantages/disadvantages. if the perception is "im out gunned" the outcome, as a general rule, will be "so i'm not going to log in".

 

its very simple psychology - psychology this game has experienced time and again. now you're going to force that psychology ... such a horrible decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that is it wrong to compare WW2OL, or any wargame, to a purpose built balanced arena game like Overwatch. Simulations and even sim like games (like ours) have always stood out as different, both in gameplay and purpose. I am not trying to [censored] anyone off here, I understand what I like is not what everyone likes per say but I stand by my support of the re-tiering process to make a more realistic wargame. Overall playability it still a concern of the Rats and there is a way to make this work for the better. Let’s see it out. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're obtuse ...

 

fine, war thunder. how many people complain about those tier advantages/disadvantages? how many people [my mom] out the perceived uber rides in whatever bracket they enjoy most?

the game, its rule set, and its intent doesn't alter the underlying psychology of gamers who are gaming for escapism and entertainment reasons. failure to understand player psychology is part of the reason this game remains a niche.

ffs IN THIS GAME we've seen this play out - overwatch was a secondary example AFTER THE EXAMPLES I GAVE FROM THIS GAME!

 

if you think you 'know better, just wait, trust us' you're yet again marching whats left of this playerbase towards another boondoggle of idealist design that falls flat. not trying to be a prick about it but ffs, end the insanity at some point. this time wont be any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see we have gained a crowd. :popcorn:

I’ve read your past examples from this game and I still disagree. This isn’t going anywhere at the moment so I’ll leave this here and reply with more specific arguements in the future as I realize that I tried to encompass too much in my post this morning. So we disagree on game design, there is more than one way to do it. In a red vs blue game you have one set of requirements, and in a full simulation you have the other. WW2OL walks that line in the middle at times, and though I support the effort to make it more realistic, I also understand it still needs to be playable. I really think these changes will add to, not take away from, our game. That’s where I stand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you disagree with the fact that tier0 sortie numbers are lower for both allied (specifically raf) pilots and german tankers compared to tier1? you can't disagree with fact, especially when it has trended for years (since cannon armed spits first arrived), and maintain any credibility.

if you choose to ignore factual trends, how do you think the playerbase will react when you land a steaming pile of "trust me" on their plate? you've already sacrificed your credibility because you're arguing your personal emotion versus actual statistical fact.

 

again, while we do disagree on design im talking mostly about psychology of players, why they play, how they play. which game, its design, or any other factor doesn't really matter when you can trend psychology not only in this game, but any/every other game that has ever had at any point in its history, even minor imbalances between A and B. generally speaking, players trend toward the over powered (be it real or perceived) because it tickles their escapist fantasy. when you FORCE a disadvantage, no matter what your game is, no matter its design, you're going to literally force players out of your game.

 

what don't you get about that? can you cite anything to back up your argument that isn't "well i feel"? this isn't about what you like, it isn't about what i like, its about human beings being human beings. we pile on, we cheat, this is who we are - you're literally championing a design that exacerbates the worst in us.

 

good f'n luck with that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2018 at 3:51 PM, 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?

I used it a bunch and some of the guys did, but we preferred the ATR mostly. 

I did play around with it alot on the training server with georgh (RIP buddy), and we were getting panzer kills as far as we could shoot the grenade lol. It wasn't practical in real game situations because of the accuracy, but it was still doable. 

No reason whatsoever not to bring it back ASAP. None. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jwilly and Madrebel have explained the primary issues.

 

The intro problem I see happening is a lot of stuff that was combat intro'd, either on the Russian front in the case of the Germans, and a lot of stuff that wasn't in until D-day, most notably Sherman 76s.  A lot of both side's stuff was in North Africa of course, which should handle a lot of the T1-T2, but the timing in terms of half-tiers is going to create a lot of fast intros coupled with dry spells of new equipment.

The principle of half-tiers isn't half bad given that the Pop Neutrality stuff has slowed down campaign games to a more predictable length and a likely perceived need for equipment variability and 'IIIH is coming' effects in the absence of ToEs, but combat intro rather then just flat out balance- hmmm, as noted been down this path before, I predict you'll end up doing intros on balance principles within historical limits anyway.

I AM happy to see a lot of the ahistorical fantasy stuff go that was created in the name of balance, those always made me itchy. 

But, let's not recreate the SAME DAMN MISTAKES, and disadvantaged class of weapons by historical combat intro with the bitter tears of the RDP HClist experience is very SDM.

 

Another issue- correct me if I'm wrong, we have a whole set of reworked models just waiting to be put in, and reserved likely for a marketing blitzkrieg, yes?

Well then, we are going to get VERY different results in some cases from the equipment, which will be different from the current results and objective game performance, not to mention player experience.

Yet, we are trying to apply adjusted man-hour builds of the real thing, against both versions of the same equipment, to build spawnlists.

Shouldn't that set off alarms that the spawnlists built today will be very off after some of these patches go in?  And that depending on the sequence of patches, the spawnlists will be invalid during each iteration of the equipment patching, because the base concept of the spawnlist build valuation is not predicated at all with the game performance version of 'reality'?

 

Point value built spawnlists (including inf which far as I know Rats 1.0 never valuated officially at least that got near any players) and half-tiers themselves are good things, but details and implementations can make a quagmire of the best design intentions and practice.

 

Seems like I'm beating on you guys, and well, ya, but it's because you are on the right track, you just switched to the track with the onrushing 'Been Here Before' express and we'd like to avoid a train wreck.

 

Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kilemall said:

 

Seems like I'm beating on you guys, and well, ya, but it's because you are on the right track, you just switched to the track with the onrushing 'Been Here Before' express and we'd like to avoid a train wreck.

 

Again.

Glad someone else sees what's happening. 

Remember when the tiger came our vs the m10? Comical. 

Remember earlier when the Germans got the 3h and the allies got squat? That must have been a fun time for the allies, fighting the 3h with s35s lol. Wait, we're doing it again...when the population is 1/10th of what it was...let's run off the rest of them lol...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

I used it a bunch and some of the guys did, but we preferred the ATR mostly. 

I did play around with it alot on the training server with georgh (RIP buddy), and we were getting panzer kills as far as we could shoot the grenade lol. It wasn't practical in real game situations because of the accuracy, but it was still doable. 

No reason whatsoever not to bring it back ASAP. None. 

Whining and unsubbing was why, as I recall.

Again, a point-based spawnlist with really accurate valuations can help- in this case perhaps the BEF has fewer sappers, or the ATR/sapper/BritRG/ATGs are considered as a total light infantry unit package to balance as total soft AT firepower available to X towns and Y brigade types.

 

Rats 1.0 for reasons inexplicable to me wanted to think of the inf units as all the same with similar total firepower, when they were clearly different beasts both historically and game performance.  So they didn't even consider approaches like I'm suggesting.  Rats 2.0 clearly are more willing to make change and experiment, but sometimes I'm not getting the principles involved in those list builds and I think they can sometimes backfire/cause bigger problems without a VERY disciplined approach to player game psychology.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's talk about the British HEAT RG, and HEAT devices in general.

Quote

 

No reason whatsoever not to bring it back ASAP. None. 

 

1. It should come back in conjunction with announcement of the German HEAT RG (presumably T1) and the French HEAT RG (tier TBD).

2. To function realistically, the British RG should have a substantial increasing likelihood of not fuzing depending on angle of impact. The internal inertial fuze actuator was designed for a 90 degree impact. At an off angle impact, the spring supported plunger hit the side of the guide tube instead of moving freely forward. 

The weapon actually should exist as two or three weapons...the 1940 version with poor penetration and poor off-angle-impact reliability, the 1941 version that was much more reliable, and the later-war version that had more penetration.

3. All of these, but especially the British one since it has the largest charge and case mass, need to have frag-grenade-similar external lethality around the blast point, with lengthened lethality-distance back along the arrival path due to the extra grenade mass fragmentized in that direction.

4. All HEAT devices need to have their penetration physics fixed. Their maximum penetration occurs when 100% of the jet energy is used up penetrating. In that instance, there is zero damage inside the penetrated target.

5. The existing magnetic-attach HEAT sapper charge never existed except for the Germans. It should move to T0 with medium-low penetration (but more than the GG/P-40) and sticky attach (only to horizontal surfaces), then T3 with good penetration and magnetic attach.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also I have a question?

which 109 are we using in tier0? 1,183 E-1 built between late 38 and late 39. At some point in 39 all production shifted to the E3 with 1,276 E-3 produced. 561 E-4s, all versions and 438 E-7s again, all types being built throughout 1940. 

Now, the E1 was in inventory but was not a contemporary production weapon well before the invasion of france started - the E3 would have been the contemporary production version. With the E4 and E7, you have the early 1940 production and the mid/late 1940 main production fighter rolling off the lines. so which one is it?

furthermore, since we're ALL about history now then we're going to have to switch the spitfire to two blade fixed pitch wooden prop until tier 0.5 at which point the spit1a we have, and have had since the game's launch, can rightfully be introduced to the game. we're all about history right? then lets get it right.

also noteworthy, the 109F both the F1 and the F2 were produced and saw combat in 1940 with 1200 some F2s built between 10/40 and 8/41. This overlaps with the F4 which began production in May of 41 until may of 42 - full 1350PS power rating cleared as of 2/42 (so a 109F4 that goes 408mph in tier2 or a 396mph F4 in tier1 - fun!)

further still and back to the spitfire, you need to get the CORRECT performance for 41 and early 42 spitfires that accounts for all the factory fit and finish issues causing an average speed loss of about 20mph for planes coming from all but .. farnborough? the main factory i forget which one. this lead to a rather lengthy investigation early in 42 that eventually led to standardizing the fit and finish across all factories leading us to the performance level of the spitVb that we have in game.

 

its all about historical accuracy right? such a stupid idea.

 

*edit* oh and let's not forget the hurricane outnumbered the spitfire 2:1 so lets make sure we have that accurate too - right? this is going to be FUN!

Edited by madrebel
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just ditch the French and call this game D-DAY and fight from the beaches and try and push are way in lol!!!!!!

Share this post


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

also I have a question?

which 109 are we using in tier0? 1,183 E-1 built between late 38 and late 39. At some point in 39 all production shifted to the E3 with 1,276 E-3 produced. 561 E-4s, all versions and 438 E-7s again, all types being built throughout 1940. 

Now, the E1 was in inventory but was not a contemporary production weapon well before the invasion of france started - the E3 would have been the contemporary production version. With the E4 and E7, you have the early 1940 production and the mid/late 1940 main production fighter rolling off the lines. so which one is it?

furthermore, since we're ALL about history now then we're going to have to switch the spitfire to two blade fixed pitch wooden prop until tier 0.5 at which point the spit1a we have, and have had since the game's launch, can rightfully be introduced to the game. we're all about history right? then lets get it right.

also noteworthy, the 109F both the F1 and the F2 were produced and saw combat in 1940 with 1200 some F2s built between 10/40 and 8/41. This overlaps with the F4 which began production in May of 41 until may of 42 - full 1350PS power rating cleared as of 2/42 (so a 109F4 that goes 408mph in tier2 or a 396mph F4 in tier1 - fun!)

further still and back to the spitfire, you need to get the CORRECT performance for 41 and early 42 spitfires that accounts for all the factory fit and finish issues causing an average speed loss of about 20mph for planes coming from all but .. farnborough? the main factory i forget which one. this lead to a rather lengthy investigation early in 42 that eventually led to standardizing the fit and finish across all factories leading us to the performance level of the spitVb that we have in game.

 

its all about historical accuracy right? such a stupid idea.

 

*edit* oh and let's not forget the hurricane outnumbered the spitfire 2:1 so lets make sure we have that accurate too - right? this is going to be FUN!

Honestly, it would be great to have all the aircraft versions modelled correctly if we had more resources. I've often wondered if it would be better to pick a campaign timeline, say 1940 till 1941 and try to model it in detail rather than spread out over the whole war. It would include things like the BEF brining Hurricanes to the fight first, followed by Spitfires in our alt.history Battle of France. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no no, go all the way with that thought. "followed by spitfires, but still 2:1 hurricanes to spitfires". you're wanting the RaF to fly 2 blade fixed pitch spit1s until t0.5 AND be out numbered 2:1 by hurricanes in the inventory throughout t0 and into early t1.

grand idea.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll throw my two cents into the pot.

For those of us who have been here since day 1, I think we've seen every possible permutation from the original development team regarding spawn lists. From historical, to tier balanced, to HC choosing which vehicle to research for the next tier, to RDP affection alternatively research time or resupply... we've seen it and tried it all. My own bias is that as a WWII-themed game we need to strive as much as possible to have a realistic time line with how weapons were introduced. There are (France) and will be (Italy) times when we will need to have ahistorical, yet realistically plausible, version of lend-lease as the current French.

Mid-tiers I think will help greatly to smooth our some imbalances (less time between high-powered units with minimal counters) but I think that we should focus on historical dates as much as possible. Mid-tiers will also fix some of the issues with units that were introduced December 1942 being in the same tier as something introduced January 1942. So issues like the current Stuart (early 1943 variant) would go away since you could model the 1941 variant.

I agree with madrebel that player psychology is important to take into account, and players will naturally gravitate to the real or perceived strongest weapons. The sortie rate is a real thing and we've know about it for years. But I also don't think that if you have a forced disadvantage, when it is backed-up with clear historical evidence with consistent and equal treatment across sides, that it will necessarily make people quit. If you combine this with mid-tier it finally becomes manageable because you 1) know that in this tier you will be outgunned/outclassed but more importantly, you know that 2) in a few days that advantage will fade and your side will have a nice power-weapon to use for a few days.

This natural see-saw in weapons was a natural part of the war, and I think something that adds an important dynamic and sense of immersion into this game. But as I said, it has to be done right. The wrong way to do it is to tweak spawn/tier lists add hoc to where the players perceive one side if being favored for any number of reasons. It may be completely false, but sometimes perceptions create their own reality, and we can't deny that fact in a game with paying customers.

I think if you had a readily accessible tier list both ingame and on the website with clearly written explanation of the tier mechanic (be it date of first combat use, date of production, date of delivery, etc.), and a list of what is in each tier, along with the introduction date of the vehicle that it would ease a lot of the bad blood. I can remember even in my squad that members who necessarily wouldn't be WWII buffs would get on the "CRS is nerfing us" bandwagon because there was never any clear information of how tiers were designed and what principle was being used in vehicle selection (or if it was being applied consistently to all weapons).

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, aismov said:

I'll throw my two cents into the pot.

For those of us who have been here since day 1, I think we've seen every possible permutation from the original development team regarding spawn lists. From historical, to tier balanced, to HC choosing which vehicle to research for the next tier, to RDP affection alternatively research time or resupply... we've seen it and tried it all. My own bias is that as a WWII-themed game we need to strive as much as possible to have a realistic time line with how weapons were introduced. There are (France) and will be (Italy) times when we will need to have ahistorical, yet realistically plausible, version of lend-lease as the current French.

Mid-tiers I think will help greatly to smooth our some imbalances (less time between high-powered units with minimal counters) but I think that we should focus on historical dates as much as possible. Mid-tiers will also fix some of the issues with units that were introduced December 1942 being in the same tier as something introduced January 1942. So issues like the current Stuart (early 1943 variant) would go away since you could model the 1941 variant.

I agree with madrebel that player psychology is important to take into account, and players will naturally gravitate to the real or perceived strongest weapons. The sortie rate is a real thing and we've know about it for years. But I also don't think that if you have a forced disadvantage, when it is backed-up with clear historical evidence with consistent and equal treatment across sides, that it will necessarily make people quit. If you combine this with mid-tier it finally becomes manageable because you 1) know that in this tier you will be outgunned/outclassed but more importantly, you know that 2) in a few days that advantage will fade and your side will have a nice power-weapon to use for a few days.

This natural see-saw in weapons was a natural part of the war, and I think something that adds an important dynamic and sense of immersion into this game. But as I said, it has to be done right. The wrong way to do it is to tweak spawn/tier lists add hoc to where the players perceive one side if being favored for any number of reasons. It may be completely false, but sometimes perceptions create their own reality, and we can't deny that fact in a game with paying customers.

I think if you had a readily accessible tier list both ingame and on the website with clearly written explanation of the tier mechanic (be it date of first combat use, date of production, date of delivery, etc.), and a list of what is in each tier, along with the introduction date of the vehicle that it would ease a lot of the bad blood. I can remember even in my squad that members who necessarily wouldn't be WWII buffs would get on the "CRS is nerfing us" bandwagon because there was never any clear information of how tiers were designed and what principle was being used in vehicle selection (or if it was being applied consistently to all weapons).

@aismov, well said. This is more or less exactly what I wanted to communicate this morning. "Backed-up with clear historical evidence and equal treatment across sides" is a particularly well-worded argument that would, like you say, likely go a long way to making sure these changes are clearly laid out to the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, go the realistic route first - fudge where need.

Really, we all know 90% of game is population and how you use gear.  Not the gear itself. (or even quantity)

Some things are easy, there is no way ever a grease gun should be around in tier 0, 1 or 2.

Other weapons might not be as easy.

And, again, if something is way off, say brit grenadier, then just give them a few; 2 per flag maybe, and remove 2 sappers - don't make it so hard.

So what if Tigers were in 1942, if axis only gets 1 per ARM flag maybe?

Also, I think as more gear and variants come into game, it helps even everything out.

 

PS and to bad so sad allied tier 0 pilots - axis has faced supersonic UFO allied bombers for 17 years; suck it up buttercup.  Adapt and overcome.

Edited by delems
2 people like this

Share this post


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

But I also don't think that if you have a forced disadvantage, when it is backed-up with clear historical evidence with consistent and equal treatment across sides, that it will necessarily make people quit. If you combine this with mid-tier it finally becomes manageable because you 1) know that in this tier you will be outgunned/outclassed but more importantly, you know that 2) in a few days that advantage will fade and your side will have a nice power-weapon to use for a few days.

sacrifice the games fun for the reenactors fantasy... this led to the current pop and volunteer staff.

 

i swear, you people don't get it. it's a game

Share this post


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

Let's talk about the British HEAT RG, and HEAT devices in general.

1. It should come back in conjunction with announcement of the German HEAT RG (presumably T1) and the French HEAT RG (tier TBD).

2. To function realistically, the British RG should have a substantial increasing likelihood of not fuzing depending on angle of impact. The internal inertial fuze actuator was designed for a 90 degree impact. At an off angle impact, the spring supported plunger hit the side of the guide tube instead of moving freely forward. 

The weapon actually should exist as two or three weapons...the 1940 version with poor penetration and poor off-angle-impact reliability, the 1941 version that was much more reliable, and the later-war version that had more penetration.

3. All of these, but especially the British one since it has the largest charge and case mass, need to have frag-grenade-similar external lethality around the blast point, with lengthened lethality-distance back along the arrival path due to the extra grenade mass fragmentized in that direction.

4. All HEAT devices need to have their penetration physics fixed. Their maximum penetration occurs when 100% of the jet energy is used up penetrating. In that instance, there is zero damage inside the penetrated target.

5. The existing magnetic-attach HEAT sapper charge never existed except for the Germans. It should move to T0 with medium-low penetration (but more than the GG/P-40) and sticky attach (only to horizontal surfaces), then T3 with good penetration and magnetic attach.

Sooo..we going away from historical date introductions already? Can't have it both ways.

Share this post


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

sacrifice the games fun for the reenactors fantasy... this led to the current pop and volunteer staff.

 

i swear, you people don't get it. it's a game

That is a pretty inaccurate statement IMHO. Nobody here is advocating for a reenactors' fantasy; rather to have vehicles introduced in some semblance of a historical fashion. I find it hard to see how that can be sacrificing the game's fun since this very model served it very well for many years. If anything an ad hoc system where vehicles are introduced without any historical context opens up pandora's box with one side claiming a CRS-biased agenda. A historical-based system makes things more clear and less up for debate because that is what historically happened. There will always be arguments no matter what CRS does, and the historical timeframe system that is balanced out by spawn numbers has its weaknesses too.

But the more clarity that is provided, the better.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Sooo..we going away from historical date introductions already? Can't have it both ways.

Were you reacting to something in my post? I think it's entirely consistent with historical date introductions. What do you disagree with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The France issue followed by the Italian issue forces your balancing hand. One day this needs to extend to the other euro co-belligerents as well as Japan. 

 

Lets get back to reality though. No P38 flying under French colors should have a super charger. The entire time period from mid 40 to dday has to be assumed for the French yet you’re going to limit everyone else to a reality that doesn’t extend to the French?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.