stankyus

New TO&E try out

149 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, madrebel said:

I'll argue again, the majority doesn't really care about historical TOEs all that much. They want to see the weapons evolve, they want to see x/y/z, and they'd like those things to happen as close to realistically as possible within the context of a balanced over all game. You mention the german LMG ... seriously how many players has this cost us? why wouldn't you force the balance here? sitting on a historical high horse may be 'right' but you're riding that pony in a parade with nobody watching as you pass by.

perhaps lets turn this back around, what do YOU/CRS want for the game? more players or more historical accuracy? in the past when this game was healthiest, how were the spawn lists organized? historical adherence or best attempt at balance? use that statistical math of yours, comb through the old subscription stats, do some comparisons. graph unsubs alongside patch releases and game wide decisions. what cost us players? do the opposite of that. 

I'm not riding anything...I simply trying to keep you guys happy while pointing out the consequences of what you ask for. The player base asked for more infantry only fights - they got them. 

As for historic TOES, I'm not sure I can buy that line of thought totally. Its also why certain weapons were developed and why certain weapons were produced in the quantities they were in relation to all else.  Again you can go red vs blue and do the best you can to equate. The downside of Red vs blue is what cost the Brits their HEAT grenade. Would I support pulling that again if I personally was given an option? No...because the numbers said it killed little in the way of armor...and I believe robbing one side of a weapon it had historically (and used until past 1944) when it isn't influencing outcome is IMHO not good and side baised. That comes from listening to much forum/HC whining and not looking at what the numbers actually say about what that system does in the game. 

In any game, where one side has a capability the other is lacking, there will always be whining about why the side lacking can't have that capability too. You make the choice to adhere to history or favor game play. 

As for the games history like all else it went through ebbs and flows. From my point of viewing bringing out the tiger with no counter was a disaster even though the Axis player base loved it. Similarly (very early in history) not having proportional AA on either side was a disaster and cost players.  There are times its better to hold off on things rather than introduce them partially and drive players away...regardless fo what management or any given player base may want. 

Ill be honest with you guys as a day one player and just talking for myself here. A good deal of self inflicted damage hurt this title over an extended period of time. In no way shape or form do I support some of the past decisions that were made. The question is how to overcome that. My own -personal- preference is to start with history and alter that as needed for gameplay. Thats what was done with new TOE as the old imbalance situation simply had to be removed or you would end up with a single side with no-one to fight. 

So again - by all means way in with evaluation and suggestions and let the guys move the levers. At least there is a basis for doing it now thats open and transparent. Its not some group of guys huddled around a desk making side biased decisions with no transparency. 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Ohhh, maybe degrees of capture for a given building. We own 2 floors but need the 3rd for full capture? No idea what would be involved for that but it's interesting.

 

I've already asked that internally old zeke...its a good idea...waiting to hear back. So much for 'CRS doesnt listen' etc etc. If I listened any harder I wouldn't get anything done at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of any boycott Mata.  It's the same ol story these days... population swings from what axis side squads are playing...  When one side get a 4-5 win streak..then they switch but I think we all know the Allied side is fighting on one leg most of the time until the Whips show up and some of the other normally axis players come over.  I know the guys that come over are great to have and that we allies suck at comms and marking and etc etc but this is what has become of the Allied side.   

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Area capture couldn't come soon enough..

If it was easier to do multiple capture points in larger structures and add some more remote structures to add more value to rifles (rather than have everything in towns) would that be a good stand in until such time as area capture was in the code base? 

Share this post


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

I don't know of any boycott Mata.  It's the same ol story these days... population swings from what axis side squads are playing...  When one side get a 4-5 win streak..then they switch but I think we all know the Allied side is fighting on one leg most of the time until the Whips show up and some of the other normally axis players come over.  I know the guys that come over are great to have and that we allies suck at comms and marking and etc etc but this is what has become of the Allied side.   

Which is another reason why the TOE structure had to be changed and prior proven balance issues had to be liquidated in a more equitable better structured manner. That's the making the omelette and breaking the eggs part. Long running imbalance is destructive to either side and the game. 

broken-eggs.jpg 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, scotsman said:

If it was easier to do multiple capture points in larger structures and add some more remote structures to add more value to rifles (rather than have everything in towns) would that be a good stand in until such time as area capture was in the code base? 

Area capture is already in the code base. The capture building is an area right? All you have to do is extend that area beyond the inside of the building and that's pretty much it.  The side with the most inf inside the zone is the one who's capturing, and you're not all stuffed into a single room waiting for people to run in, you've actually got rifles, lmg, PPO's and field guns covering alley ways and open fields, the building is just another fortification.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been vocal on line about this new system, but I am slowly coming around on it.  I don't mind it as much now, the game play imo is even better.  I don't mind the inf on inf battles, they have been great.  Nor do I mind the supply.  What I do mind is that the little German pak can kill anything that the allies currently have, and the 1934 can't kill anything without 5-6 shots on it.  In a game when much of the action and game play is based around fms's, this is a problem.  Same with the population in-balance. Can't we try...for just one campaign, player lock sides?  What's it going to hurt at this point?

Keep up the good work Rats.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, knucks said:

Area capture is already in the code base. The capture building is an area right? All you have to do is extend that area beyond the inside of the building and that's pretty much it.  The side with the most inf inside the zone is the one who's capturing, and you're not all stuffed into a single room waiting for people to run in, you've actually got rifles, lmg, PPO's and field guns covering alley ways and open fields, the building is just another fortification.

There is an effective radius I believe as it but I'm unsure how that impacts other code and affects the strat engine behind it. I'd have to go look see....nor do I know what it would do to strat if multiple positions overlapped one another 

Share this post


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

I'll argue again, the majority doesn't really care about historical TOEs all that much.

Based on what? I and others have constantly advocated historical accuracy. CRS must have perceived that enough players support it to warrant the changes.  

2 people like this

Share this post


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

I've been vocal on line about this new system, but I am slowly coming around on it.  I don't mind it as much now, the game play imo is even better.  I don't mind the inf on inf battles, they have been great.  Nor do I mind the supply.  What I do mind is that the little German pak can kill anything that the allies currently have, and the 1934 can't kill anything without 5-6 shots on it.  In a game when much of the action and game play is based around fms's, this is a problem.  Same with the population in-balance. Can't we try...for just one campaign, player lock sides?  What's it going to hurt at this point?

Keep up the good work Rats.

I dont know what would be involved in that but Ill ask at the next production meeting. 

On the Pak - the issue is that its a weapon sitting on the fence in terms of performance. At very short range and with spall in effect it just has enough total penetration to cause spall. The round doesn't penetrate but it spalls the armor and that is what gets the crew...not an actual  penetration. Believe it or not that leads back to game balance again...the old game didn't do spall like that...you penetrated or you didn't and if you didn't there was no behind the armor spall. That lead to Axis super matilda arguments and so a non-penetrating spall limit was added. 

Is the spall limit set correctly? I would say in general its ok to a bit low for a single scalar number applied to all calibers - but I would rather make it dynamic as a function of base armor thickness vs caliber. If that was done it likely wouldn't penetrate/spall  something like a matila unless the barrel was literally touching the front hull. It's what the game has now...and it can be made better with a simple change in the calculation of the spall limit number (dynamic thickness vs caliber vs static number) 

I'll add that to my list...but I think its important you understand what its doing and why...the penetration data is spot on...whats likely getting you on hard tanks is spall. 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, scotsman said:

I dont know what would be involved in that but Ill ask at the next production meeting. 

On the Pak - the issue is that its a weapon sitting on the fence in terms of performance. At very short range and with spall in effect it just has enough total penetration to cause spall. The round doesn't penetrate but it spalls the armor and that is what gets the crew...not an actual  penetration. Believe it or not that leads back to game balance again...the old game didn't do spall like that...you penetrated or you didn't and if you didn't there was no behind the armor spall. That lead to Axis super matilda arguments and so a non-penetrating spall limit was added. 

Is the spall limit set correctly? I would say in general its ok to a bit low for a single scalar number applied to all calibers - but I would rather make it dynamic as a function of base armor thickness vs caliber. If that was done it likely wouldn't penetrate/spall  something like a matila unless the barrel was literally touching the front hull. It's what the game has now...and it can be made better with a simple change in the calculation of the spall limit number (dynamic thickness vs caliber vs static number) 

I'll add that to my list...but I think its important you understand what its doing  and why

 

Thank you, appreciate the explanation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, scotsman said:

There is an effective radius I believe as it but I'm unsure how that impacts other code and affects the strat engine behind it. I'd have to go look see....nor do I know what it would do to strat if multiple positions overlapped one another 

Doesn't have to be large, take the absolute minimum distance between 2 points that you can find on the map, make that the new size. I would even add some standard PPO to outside these buildings for cover, as long as you can stand some feet away outside of the building then the problem with SMG's dominating CP is at the least reduced, and arguable capture is more fun and dynamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, knucks said:

Doesn't have to be large, take the absolute minimum distance between 2 points that you can find on the map, make that the new size. I would even add some standard PPO to outside these buildings for cover, as long as you can stand some feet away outside of the building then the problem with SMG's dominating CP is at the least reduced, and arguable capture is more fun and dynamic.

Ok - taking notes - still don't have an answer yet on my base question on this but I'm all for changes that make the game more fun. Be ok if I do a thread on this after I get the answers? It will have to be something that doesn't involve changing the entire map workwise...preferable a data change. If I am slow posting an answer send me a PM to prompt me please.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ask a question or make a comment you deserve an answer as soon as I can get... that's how I work 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

I'm not riding anything...I simply trying to keep you guys happy while pointing out the consequences of what you ask for. The player base asked for more infantry only fights - they got them. 

As for historic TOES, I'm not sure I can buy that line of thought totally. Its also why certain weapons were developed and why certain weapons were produced in the quantities they were in relation to all else.  Again you can go red vs blue and do the best you can to equate. The downside of Red vs blue is what cost the Brits their HEAT grenade. Would I support pulling that again if I personally was given an option? No...because the numbers said it killed little in the way of armor...and I believe robbing one side of a weapon it had historically (and used until past 1944) when it isn't influencing outcome is IMHO not good and side baised. That comes from listening to much forum/HC whining and not looking at what the numbers actually say about what that system does in the game.

why cant a side have something the other doesnt, especially when statistically it wasn't a factor? was the brit grenade the issue? really? or were there a string of other issues that preceded it culminating in the whines for removal? typically IMO, its the string before the vocal whines that are the real problem. like, bush tunnels and incorrect modeling of the brit rifle grenade (no back blast and too good off angle). both of those contributed, neither was resolved - instead we just flat removed the weapon instead of fixing the underlying issue.

its ok to have mostly red vs mostly blue, again, if the core map moving ability is roughly equal (meaning core infantry lists). in this thread, that's smgs. you have to account for the technical limitations too. this game, due to everyone logging in to a single location in texas, can result in some warpy infantry play. until such time that we can distribute the cell hosts and geo-locate players, perhaps even AOs, smooth infantry play is somewhat compromised - depending on time zone and depending on other factors. point is, rifle's aren't as effective as they ought to be. staying aimed down the sight while the bolt is cycled, perhaps relaxing the sway some, or some other tweaks may improve those things (different buildings) but to some extent automatic weapons will rule supreme here even if the technicals were perfect.

i'll always vote for data, let data rule. if the data shows that weaponX really isn't a big deal, then don't remove it. players will complain about everything but if the data clearly shows they've no leg to stand on - let them tilt. they'll get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im with you - I dont think it was an issue statistically looking at past campaign data... it already had a fusing angle inserted on it. Nevertheless we are where we are, I'm simply saying there is only so far you can go down a given path. A panzerfaust or shrek has a much larger diameter warhead than PIAT or bazooka. Performance wise they arent equal to PIAT or bazooka. If you give the Allies more of X to reflect that, the Axis will inevitably whine...because they don't look any deeper than the spawn numbers and so on. In reality they are all cheap weapons as well. 

When you get to capping potential it becomes even more difficult as more boots means more cap potential -  even if it means the weapons performance across the spawn pool was equalized. The guys did their best to capture all of that on the first pass. 

again no one answer can fix everything and keep everyone happy - the only universal constant is some number of people are always unhappy and think they are being singled out in some fashion. 

Share this post


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

No mate - the reality is that it's hard to have it both ways - you can't scream about historic accuracy if what you want is red vs blue. If it's a mix, so be it, but come to a consensus that's what you want and give up on making any other arguements about specific historic matchups. Same goes for weapon characteristics...does this mean you want everyone to have the same smg round to round dispersion? Thats red vs blue and can be done...but don't come to the forum and argu for historic weapons accuracy if you already asked for something else.

It's hard to see through the noise at times... what you are saying is that in essence the disparity in players minutes and numbers is due to the TOE structure and it's effects on defense and capture. (Smg) Is that the reason for the play time and player imbalance or is it that the allies for too long labored under an unfair balance dynamic forever...which was the issue with the old TOE structure. I assume both sides want a fair fight free from side bias. 

All I can say is let the guys make their adjustments after the campaign...they will do so happily I'm sure...but the existing disparity had to be destroyed because it was, imho, destroying one side of the game in the long term, which helps no one.

 

You're completely off base, sorry. 

Apples and oranges. Weapons should perform historically, no one argues with that. That said, YOU MUST HAVE A BALANCED GAME, a balanced game ALWAYS TRUMPS HISTORICAL ACCURACY.  < that's why you guys are failing to see. 

Right now, we don't have a balanced game. Sure, go on and say "lets see how it plays out" while you lose the tiny player base that's left. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mosizlak said:

You're completely off base, sorry. 

Apples and oranges. Weapons should perform historically, no one argues with that. That said, YOU MUST HAVE A BALANCED GAME, a balanced game ALWAYS TRUMPS HISTORICAL ACCURACY.  < that's why you guys are failing to see. 

Right now, we don't have a balanced game. Sure, go on and say "lets see how it plays out" while you lose the tiny player base that's left. 

No one is failing to see anything - you just haven't given the system a chance to respond is all. You have said your bit,.. please give them a chance to respond with an adjustment. IMHO you're not doing that.. Would you rather go back to a TOE where one side is disadvantaged by 40% in two tiers? The game was playing for YEARS with that in place. 

Jeez guys...once again...if you want progress that means change...there may be a step back occasionally but  its better than the previous state which was -nothing for ten years-.  Personally I'm glad you're in here and complaining...you should make your opinions known. Now give them a chance to respond for heavens sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should do a Red -vs- Blue next map.........and see how that works out? Im sure a lot of salty tears from one side or the other.........

OR

We can let the RATS assess the TOE's after this map and make adjustments as needed.......again this is a test not a FINAL decision on TOE's.

Edited by bmw

Share this post


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

It's not the Allies' job to make the game fun for the Axis, or vice versa.  That's CRS's job.  

Yes, +1.

Share this post


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

Maybe we should do a Red -vs- Blue next map.........and see how that works out? Im sure a lot of salty tears from one side or the other.........

OR

We can let the RATS assess the TOE's after this map and make adjustments as needed.......again this is a test not a FINAL decision on TOE's.

this...adjustments are inbound but everyone has to let that happen...already in progress... 

Share this post


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

Right now, we don't have a balanced game. Sure, go on and say "lets see how it plays out" while you lose the tiny player base that's left. 

 

Equipment-wise, it seems pretty darn balanced to me. I sure as hell don't want red-vs-blue. Ever.

The problem is numbers. We need spawn delays of 30+ s, even 60 s....just like every other successful online shooter in existence. Just like "realistic" WWII PvP games like Post Scriptum. At a certain point, we need to get past the whining, man-up, and do what works for every single other game.

WWIIOL'ers are coddled as hell. Again, try Post Scriptum. Enjoy waiting 30-60 seconds while you stare at a map waiting for the next opportunity to spawn in. NOBODY complains about it because it's perfectly understood and accepted as a gameplay necessity.

Hell, one of my favorite games of all time was America's Army (2.x-ish), where you had ONE f-ing life and that was it. It made for utterly beautiful gameplay. I *wish* WWIIOL was closer to that, where fear of death was a thing rather than just mindless human waves.

Edited by xanthus
2 people like this

Share this post


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

I'll argue again, the majority doesn't really care about historical TOEs all that much. They want to see the weapons evolve, they want to see x/y/z, and they'd like those things to happen as close to realistically as possible within the context of a balanced over all game. You mention the german LMG ... seriously how many players has this cost us? why wouldn't you force the balance here? sitting on a historical high horse may be 'right' but you're riding that pony in a parade with nobody watching as you pass by.

perhaps lets turn this back around, what do YOU/CRS want for the game? more players or more historical accuracy? in the past when this game was healthiest, how were the spawn lists organized? historical adherence or best attempt at balance? use that statistical math of yours, comb through the old subscription stats, do some comparisons. graph unsubs alongside patch releases and game wide decisions. what cost us players? do the opposite of that. 

@XOOMvery interesting request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.