OHM

Tier changes and other stuff

231 posts in this topic

there's a huge disconnect between the forums and in-game guys.

ya'll at CRS need to talk to the in-game guys more than the forum people. they play 2 completely different games, and the in game people represent more subs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, major0noob said:

there's a huge disconnect between the forums and in-game guys.

ya'll at CRS need to talk to the in-game guys more than the forum people. they play 2 completely different games, and the in game people represent more subs.

This does happen on a daily basis, we take feedback in all varieties not just in the forums. I personally have discussions with players almost everytime I login via .m etc. Our game managers and the community managers all have this communication, not to mention the Rat Chats of which we had 4 this year. HC meetings give us feedback as well. We continue to try to get the pulse of the community at large. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in that case, i really need to ask

why did it talk soo long to check the FMS with 3min build times?

 

it was painfully obvious they were not being built, and AO's were abandoned often. it lasted for 10 months till i gave a daily record of FMS's. the ones made were beyond meaningful range or camped to hell.

why did it take soo long?

Share this post


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

in that case, i really need to ask

why did it talk soo long to check the FMS with 3min build times?

 

it was painfully obvious they were not being built, and AO's were abandoned often. it lasted for 10 months till i gave a daily record of FMS's. the ones made were beyond meaningful range or camped to hell.

why did it take soo long?

Because we wanted to collect and analyze some data to gage performance. Some things take longer than others to modify. And now they're shorter build times, free players have access to build them again this campaign and we're now introducing a patch very soon that will work to increase their survivability to reduce the distance in which players can hear them from.

I want to also add that it's really important to not provide just 100% critique. We don't need smoke blown up anything here at CRS, but we do need to hear about some of the good things we are doing that you as a community are appreciating, not just all of the negative. The reason is, it helps guide us towards what we should invest more in.

I don't want the forums to be purely based on dumping negativity and demands. I understand that comes with the territory but we need to maintain a healthy and productive environment.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ian77 said:

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 

Fair enough, makes sense. We'll need your help in this endeavor of maintaining effective communications as well. You as in the "community" who are participating here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

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?

The J is what I meant, sorry. The L/48 gun while not a huge improvement wouldn't suck to have either.

*edit* the Panzer 4/70 is a better game vehicle than the jagdpanther IMO. at some point a 'better than the stug3g' TD will be needed and of the later war options, the 4/70 makes the most sense to me.

Edited by madrebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way. The Jagdpanther is king in my opinion. Yes, the Jadgpanzer IV/70 is much smaller and a harder target to kill. But I would take the 88mm pak43 any day of the week.

Share this post


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

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. 

Who said anything about "demanding" anything, let alone purely positive commentary? Criticism is criticism, it is lacking an important and productive component: constructiveness. 

I surround myself in our organization and in my life around people who will speak their mind and stand up for what they believe in. Without it, everyone will tell you what you want to hear, not what you need to hear to make better choices. That's called leadership, and I don't think you know me well enough as an individual to make an assertion like that as you did here, in fact it kind of pisses me off because it's 100% counter intuitive to who I am.

4 people like this

Share this post


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

The J is what I meant, sorry. The L/48 gun while not a huge improvement wouldn't suck to have either.

*edit* the Panzer 4/70 is a better game vehicle than the jagdpanther IMO. at some point a 'better than the stug3g' TD will be needed and of the later war options, the 4/70 makes the most sense to me.

Well the stug is really an adhoc TD kind of, or began that way at least.
Think they reached a point where they just could not do much more with the PZIII chassis i guess?
They ran that design through to the end of the war though

Jagdpanzer IV V 70, i am not sure if better since same gun, cheaper to build i think?
Poorman's Jagdpanther maybe?
Now myself, id have put the gun IN the PZIV turret rather than make it a casemate, but maybe it would not have fit.

I think the StuG platform is the nicest looking, then the Jagdpanzer IV, from there they get ugly to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not the same gun, well, same gun as the panther but the jagpanther sported the same gun as the tiger 2. more than that though, the jagdpather was nigh on invulnerable from the front. that characteristic makes for a wonderful actual battle piece, perhaps not so great for a game you want balanced though. the P4/70 should be easier to take out for either of the 17lber tanks about to enter the game. still, the frontal armor is pretty serious being 80mm and sloped so perhaps step 1 would be best as the early stug4 sporting the L/48 same as the PZ4-J.

stug3g isn't going to do much against the achilles and firefly though.

 

Share this post


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

the jagdpather was nigh on invulnerable from the front.

But, it's so damned ugly.
 

11 minutes ago, madrebel said:

stug3g isn't going to do much against the achilles and firefly though.

Well both are just regunned M10 and Shermans.
M10 is just a matter of hitting first, you could give it a 200mm gun, and it's still good until the 1st hit.
Which is correct, the turret is a glorified gun shield, you are supposed to hunt, not trade punches.

The firefly, i would imagine the 3G will fair about the same as it does now, in a penetration aspect.
It may not trade punches as well.
Some of that is our fault as players i suppose, we sit and trade punches when our real life counterparts would be displacing, attempting to disengage
for a better position etc, or sometimes just bailing out due to the psychological effect.
Hell i even find myself doing it in crap like R35's and PZIIc's.
We tend to get an unreal expectation of immortality.
I doubt our real life counterparts had nearly the confidence in the engineers claims as we do.

That said, i would love to have some panthers in game.
The fact you cant kill it well from the nose is even better, to me anyways.
Will you get over confident in your nose and forget your surroundings?
Can i tie up your attention long enough for someone to flank around and punch a hole in your thin sides?

But then i like tigers in game.
I like trying to get them to come in closer and sneaking up with an ATG and punching the lower hull side.
When you can get some people working together on it, it's fun.
Or getting a truck from the next town or FB over, and towing someone's atg around behind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game has a lot of immortality in it...like all the other FPS wargames. None of us behave realistically, most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer your question, speedtrees do have colliders, currently the bushes do not.   Future implementation of colliders inside bushes is a discussion our team will be having.  There's some plus and minuses there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

@XOOM, can the current speedtree implentation have coliiders? I am all for removing our warp tunnel bushlines.

@Xl2rippr is best to answer, but i believe they can yes.
I am not sure you want to make them 100% impenetrable since there is a lot we can not model in full real world fidelity.
I have lots of bush lines here where i live, and i can disappear into a lot of it.
Running through it is another story.
But i agree some small bits of trunk and such so you cant just sprint like hell with out having to dodge around a bit of stuff would be nice.
Might even save your life once or twice.

I am pretty sure rippr would have to redesign said bushes though, not something he would simply turn on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jpz4/70 is going to far surpass the stuG threat in thier respective tiers. Last time I checked, 17pdr 800m APCBC ammo, Possibly 1k, 76mm 500m and under. I reserve  the right to be wrong. The only blessing is that it's not turreted, and not a huge ammo load. Matter of fact, I'm more worried about it than the panther. Hopefully the m36 enters with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just FYI, I'm surprised to not see the 38t ausfG was not a part, it certainly would close the distance in t0 and further improve the Axis tanking in T0. I think it's only a armor change.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it would close the distance between the S35 to about 600m, where the s35 starts to become vulnerable to the 37mm on the 38t... which is about 500m.. I think. Going off the top of my head.

Share this post


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

I'm more worried about it than the panther. Hopefully the m36 enters with it.

Why?
You can poke a hole in a panther with a stick, every place but the face.
They spent the whole steel budget on the front.

14 minutes ago, stankyus said:

I think it's only a armor change.

External armor change though, bolt on
So needs art and data for the vehicle, and then the UI and database changes.
Only one BMBM, if we pull him any thinner, i think we will be able to see through him

Edited by Merlin51

Share this post


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

Just FYI, I'm surprised to not see the 38t ausfG was not a part, it certainly would close the distance in t0 and further improve the Axis tanking in T0. I think it's only a armor change.

Also decreased mobility, since it increases the weight of the tank by 10-15% and overloads the front suspensions.

Share this post


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

Why?
You can poke a hole in a panther with a stick, every place but the face.
They spent the whole steel budget on the front.


 

That’s true for most tanks though. Pak36 can handle Shermans from the flank and behind too, doesnt make it an easy kill. 

 

Just now, jwilly said:

Also decreased mobility, since it increases the weight of the tank by 10-15% and overloads the front suspensions.

Hence the G reducing armor in an effort to increase life of that final drive gear iirc

Share this post


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

Why?
You can poke a hole in a panther with a stick, every place but the face.
They spent the whole steel budget on the front.


 

You misread me, I fear the jpz4/l70 more than the panther. The panther is going to be a [censored] but due to gun, the turret front vrs 17pdr or 90mm.. it not going to be a tiger vrs the 76. 

Share this post


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

Hence the G reducing armor in an effort to increase life of that final drive gear iirc

I thought the E through G all had 25mm bolted on the glacis?

Share this post


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

Also decreased mobility, since it increases the weight of the tank by 10-15% and overloads the front suspensions.

Yes, mobility will be a issue, but it's already not a stalwart of mobility as it is. Not much of a loss imho. I'm just thinking that if historic ammo is in play, any increase in gun performance or armor needs an push. I tanked Axis back in the day when things were much worse off. It's better, but does need attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.