• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
OHM

Tier changes and other stuff

231 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

Except we were not running things 14 years ago.
We cant fix 17 years overnight

The major long standing issues should have been the first ones addressed. 

Share this post


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

The major long standing issues should have been the first ones addressed. 

 you are assuming they are not being so
and you are assuming all things take the same amount of time
and that we would withhold A because B takes longer.

You are more than welcome to come help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

 you are assuming they are not being so
and you are assuming all things take the same amount of time
and that we would withhold A because B takes longer.

You are more than welcome to come help

Then what exactly is being done to ensure that the Axis Air Force can compete in the battle space that matters in WWIIOL right above active AOs?  What steps does CRS have planned to ensure that happens?

I see thought being put into evening up the LMG. I see thought being put into evening out the Tiger. I see no real moves to make the LW competitive. An imbalance going on year 15 that doesn’t seem to be getting discussed as far as I can tell. If it’s being worked on what are the the plans?  Enlighten me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hatch has commented on that already minky. DM audits are being done - thats the big one. wont matter what they model if the cannons continue to suck.

 

hatch also recently commented on a possible solution for stress damage modeling that is quite promising. he also mentioned going back to the 6km cylinder instead of this barely 3km sphere of suck.

Edited by madrebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Merlin51 said:

panther takes a bit longer as it can not be made from any other existing platforms.

P4M is just sitting there begging to be added, its a very minor adjustment to the G.

Presumably the Panther D will also include the A and G too since those would be based on the same underlying chassis. in the mean time you can bump the tiger numbers if required to deal with 2 new 17lber lugging AFVs. its not a big deal but it does go counter to the point of this thread ... so if it was never even stated in the first place we'd have avoided a long heated thread and instead been able to focus only on the very large list of cool [censored] about to drop.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tank game is ruined anyways, really its so hard to stay alive in a tank in this game that's why a lot of people quit playing all together.....

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I remember where I got 900 million now. It would take 1000 analysts working at 4 keys a minute something like an average of 900 million years to break the code  with the max being something like 1.8 billion years. I guess the Germans felt pretty safe with those odds. Then come the human errors. Good thing for human fallibility. 

Of interest

Traffic analysis to crack the codes, Gordan Welchman equally important as Turing, Hut 6. 

Interesting viewing

 

S! 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

The tank game is ruined anyways, really its so hard to stay alive in a tank in this game that's why a lot of people quit playing all together.....

do you use your tank in coordination with a squad? or more lone wolfing?

squad coordination typically increases the chances of surviving

Unless I am participating with my squad or sister squad I usually don't bother with tanking, because as you note. "its so hard to stay alive", which is entirely true. 

S! 

3 people like this

Share this post


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

P4M is just sitting there begging to be added, its a very minor adjustment to the G.

Which is the ausf M?
The ausf J goes from bolt on armor to homogeneous on the frontal
same gun as G and some kind of turret drive change, so not much change, bit more efficient armor.

What has the ausf M?

 

 

2 hours ago, madrebel said:

Presumably the Panther D will also include the A and G

Might be able to merge the A and D, a lot of the improvements in mechanical reliability wont be apparent in game.
G has significant armor changes so would need to be it's own model eventually i would think.
If i had to take an uneducated guess, i would guess that the D would be the initial model.

It is possible the G may not be worth modeling, as some of its changes would appear to be a downgrade for economic reasons
such as the armor reduction?

Keep in mind im just quickly glancing at the 2 and disregarding things such as improved fuel system, more reliable X Y Z
since those do not play out in game.

Im also not deciding anything, simply speculating while i watch a winframe server fail miserably at rebooting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, for anyone dreading the panther when it comes.

PantheraScheme.jpg

  • Hull front, lower: 60 mm (2.4 in) at 35°; upper: 80 mm (3.1 in) at 35°; (Ausf. G: lower Hull front reduced to 50 mm (2.0 in))
  • Hull side, lower: 40 mm (1.6 in) at 90°; upper: 40 mm (1.6 in) at 50°; (Ausf. G: upper Hull side changed to 50 mm (2.0 in) at 60°)
  • Hull rear: 40 mm (1.6 in) at 60°
  • Turret front: 100 mm (3.9 in) at 78°
  • Turret side: 45 mm (1.8 in) at 65°
  • Turret rear: 45 mm (1.8 in) at 65°
  • Turret, top: 16 mm (0.63 in) at 5°
  • Gun mantlet: 100 mm (3.9 in) rounded

 


Notice that the exotic cat is only tough in the teeth, it's ribs break easy, as do the sides of it's head.
It can be taken out by a much lesser unit, just dont punch it in the teeth, unless you are the rabbit.

Share this post


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

do you use your tank in coordination with a squad? or more lone wolfing?

squad coordination typically increases the chances of surviving

Unless I am participating with my squad or sister squad I usually don't bother with tanking, because as you note. "its so hard to stay alive", which is entirely true. 

S! 

You mean teamwork and combined arms equal high survivability rate??? This is a major development.

 

All sarcasm aside, yes lonewolf tanks die quicker than a coordinated team. But this is true in the air, and by infantry. 

Which is another reason we are hoping to get Integrated communication in post 1.36. Discord is next best thing, as when towns are being taken you see a channel or two with much large populations in that channel.

 

Yes I know people preferred Teamspeak over Discord based on features I understand, however the cost factor came into play (resource prioritization) and it is what we have to work with.  My belief is Communication is the biggest factor in success in this game. It helps foster exciting game play, larger scale battles, and that WWIIOL Moment. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BLKHWK8 said:

You mean teamwork and combined arms equal high survivability rate??? This is a major development.

 

All sarcasm aside, yes lonewolf tanks die quicker than a coordinated team. But this is true in the air, and by infantry. 

Which is another reason we are hoping to get Integrated communication in post 1.36. Discord is next best thing, as when towns are being taken you see a channel or two with much large populations in that channel.

 

Yes I know people preferred Teamspeak over Discord based on features I understand, however the cost factor came into play (resource prioritization) and it is what we have to work with.  My belief is Communication is the biggest factor in success in this game. It helps foster exciting game play, larger scale battles, and that WWIIOL Moment. 

Well as of late I usually tag along with Blitzkader and they are an organized group. Tanks, inf and atg's go out together. People are on discord. 

Communication is "King". Live longer, fight better, more fun. That's about it.

I understand people get on the game when they can and that means lone wolfing it at times....but often there are squads on discord, even with a few people in channel and most are willing and helpful to alleviate the "lone wolf" situation. 

Having said that....it is frustrating as a "lone wolfer" when no one is around, you just want some fun tanking (or flying for that matter) and there's no cohesion.

S! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Elfin said:

Well as of late I usually tag along with Blitzkader and they are an organized group. Tanks, inf and atg's go out together. People are on discord. 

Communication is "King". Live longer, fight better, more fun. That's about it.

I understand people get on the game when they can and that means lone wolfing it at times....but often there are squads on discord, even with a few people in channel and most are willing and helpful to alleviate the "lone wolf" situation. 

Having said that....it is frustrating as a "lone wolfer" when no one is around, you just want some fun tanking (or flying for that matter) and there's no cohesion.

S! 

I find when I am lonewolfing I am mostly running FB runs, or fly RDP. I login to Discord and join the channel with people in it, and start the converstation  Where do you need me, and how can I help.

I mostly play Inf and ATG both of which are a pain with no support watching your six.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! M10 in the BEF, made me happy... I can't wait to use the Achilles.. that made me giddy.

Any pics of the ch8? What is it? 95mm?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel as though we at CRS on the right track and are making some pretty good strides, more so than we have in awhile to try and create more accurate and more fair game play environment. I really hope you guys give us sometime to get this right, and not go straight to worst case assumptions and quit. If you want things to improve, you have to be willing to commit to some change. We are committed to fine tuning that change as we go along.

Our Christmas release showcases improvements and benefits for both sides, further demonstrating WWIIOL overall being successful (both sides properly tended to) is our priority.

Please, share your thoughts, but stay productive and positive. Thank you.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BLKHWK8 said:

You mean teamwork and combined arms equal high survivability rate??? This is a major development.

 

All sarcasm aside, yes lonewolf tanks die quicker than a coordinated team. But this is true in the air, and by infantry. 

Which is another reason we are hoping to get Integrated communication in post 1.36. Discord is next best thing, as when towns are being taken you see a channel or two with much large populations in that channel.

 

Yes I know people preferred Teamspeak over Discord based on features I understand, however the cost factor came into play (resource prioritization) and it is what we have to work with.  My belief is Communication is the biggest factor in success in this game. It helps foster exciting game play, larger scale battles, and that WWIIOL Moment. 

it does not. entire squads can be wiped out by a pair of RPATS lonewolf bush tunneling. it happens soo often most tankers quit.

 

why do you guys constantly refuse to see the RPATS/sappers don't need teamwork and leadership?

why are you soo condescending to the tankers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎20‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 0:15 AM, raptor34 said:

@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.

Right, but most of the player base do not come to the forums. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen allied side chat demand to know what has happened to "our Stus" and then cursed and blamed CRS "nerfs" and constant "love of Axis" for giving "them the 3H" (unkillable and invincible were just two of the adjectives last night) and "we get nothing". Guys explaining again and again on side chat about more historical accuracy and the possible future introduction of more tiers with shorter time between them, are drowned out by the anti CRS anti Axis doom and gloom brigade. Some are saying this is the price allies have to pay for "the axis lmg nerf". Side chat is not the place for forumites to try and reason with the playerbase, changes like no Stus, should be signalled well in advance to get some of the complaining and hating out of the playerbase systems before we have so many asking "what happened to the stu?"

 

S! Ian 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a game developer with stated aims of open communication with the playerbase, well lets just say the players are not happy.  This lack of forethought has overwhelmed  the excellent patch ahead of us. 

In any game perception is everything.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

For a game developer with stated aims of open communication with the playerbase, well lets just say the players are not happy.  This lack of forethought has overwhelmed  the excellent patch ahead of us. 

In any game perception is everything.

They're not just stated aims, they're acted upon. Go find me another developer who communicates with their community as openly and inclusively as we at CRS do, and I'll show you a unicorn at the bottom of the rainbow.

We expect some degree of discomfort because changes are happening, these changes are guided by what we have already said a couple of times, but there is a basis for all that which ensures greater accuracy and balance than previously done.

With criticism and emotions alone your commentary cannot be considered productive or actionable.

Share this post


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

The French could do with some of those Yaks for later tier rides.

Problem is UK and France viewed Soviet Union as hostile until Barbarossa... if anyone was going to have Yaks in the west it would probably have been the LW not FAF.

Also, an earlier post said USA declared war on Germany immediately after Pearl Harbour, it was Hitler who declared war and saved Roosevelt and Churchill having to get USA public opinion to agree to joining the war in Europe.

In the alternate history we are debating, if Germany was struggling to overcome France and UK, would Japan feel able to conquer the Pacific Economic Area? Would Pearl have happened? Would US troops have deployed to Europe without Pearl Harbour? Why not speculate that the day of infamy never arose, Roosevelt lost the election, and congress banned sale of weapons to France and UK? It is as probable a "what if" as US troops arriving to fight in France/Belgium in autumn 1942.

 

S! ian 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ian77 said:

Problem is UK and France viewed Soviet Union as hostile until Barbarossa... if anyone was going to have Yaks in the west it would probably have been the LW not FAF.

Also, an earlier post said USA declared war on Germany immediately after Pearl Harbour, it was Hitler who declared war and saved Roosevelt and Churchill having to get USA public opinion to agree to joining the war in Europe.

In the alternate history we are debating, if Germany was struggling to overcome France and UK, would Japan feel able to conquer the Pacific Economic Area? Would Pearl have happened? Would US troops have deployed to Europe without Pearl Harbour? Why not speculate that the day of infamy never arose, Roosevelt lost the election, and congress banned sale of weapons to France and UK? It is as probable a "what if" as US troops arriving to fight in France/Belgium in autumn 1942.

 

S! ian 

That's actually a good point.  It was the fall of France and the Netherlands along with the extreme pressure being applied on Britain which really prompted Japanese expansion to happen when it did.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ian77 said:

Problem is UK and France viewed Soviet Union as hostile until Barbarossa... if anyone was going to have Yaks in the west it would probably have been the LW not FAF.

Also, an earlier post said USA declared war on Germany immediately after Pearl Harbour, it was Hitler who declared war and saved Roosevelt and Churchill having to get USA public opinion to agree to joining the war in Europe.

In the alternate history we are debating, if Germany was struggling to overcome France and UK, would Japan feel able to conquer the Pacific Economic Area? Would Pearl have happened? Would US troops have deployed to Europe without Pearl Harbour? Why not speculate that the day of infamy never arose, Roosevelt lost the election, and congress banned sale of weapons to France and UK? It is as probable a "what if" as US troops arriving to fight in France/Belgium in autumn 1942.

 

S! ian 

 

spoil sport... so who stole your bone???

Share this post


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

They're not just stated aims, they're acted upon. Go find me another developer who communicates with their community as openly and inclusively as we at CRS do, and I'll show you a unicorn at the bottom of the rainbow.

We expect some degree of discomfort because changes are happening, these changes are guided by what we have already said a couple of times, but there is a basis for all that which ensures greater accuracy and balance than previously done.

With criticism and emotions alone your commentary cannot be considered productive or actionable.

Criticism is a heathy part of good development. Without it you devolve into group think by only ever hearing a feedback loop that confirms your own bias. CRS has in the past fallen directly into that loop with their constant silencing and banning of players.  I’m sure the old team at CRS talked about how great everything was right up until the bottom fell out in 2012. Coming in here and constantly demanding to only hear praises will on put you on a track to Kim Jong Un style leadership. Only the people seeking your praise will show up here while the bottom falls out elsewhere. 

Share this post


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

I feel as though we at CRS on the right track and are making some pretty good strides, more so than we have in awhile to try and create more accurate and more fair game play environment. I really hope you guys give us sometime to get this right, and not go straight to worst case assumptions and quit. If you want things to improve, you have to be willing to commit to some change. We are committed to fine tuning that change as we go along.

Our Christmas release showcases improvements and benefits for both sides, further demonstrating WWIIOL overall being successful (both sides properly tended to) is our priority.

Please, share your thoughts, but stay productive and positive. Thank you.

Xoom most of us in the forum by and large agree with your sentiment, but we on the forums are not the majority in game, and they are the ones demanding "where is our stu?" day after day, night after night.  WE   know the reasons and many support them, and I think most would be willing to see how this works out, but IMHO CRS should have signposted this last campaign, and got everyone used to the idea of no guaranteed kit in spawnlist following RDP, well before the moaning started. (See the LMG "fix" thread for an example of pre fix moaning!)

 

S! Ian 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, major0noob said:

it does not. entire squads can be wiped out by a pair of RPATS lonewolf bush tunneling. it happens soo often most tankers quit.

 

why do you guys constantly refuse to see the RPATS/sappers don't need teamwork and leadership?

why are you soo condescending to the tankers?

IMO 2019 needs to be the year we focus on QoL for tanks and planes. Infantry have all the tools they need for now, sure LMG fix this or that or w/e but if you want players back bring back the excellent vehicle play we used to have.

 

further, if you're going to go down any route that has the title 'realism' hanging over it and you allow infantry to phase through bushes you're immediately invalidating your own realistic premise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.