• 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.
stankyus

New TO&E try out

149 posts in this topic

Just now, xanthus said:

 

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.

Yup - treat the disease and not the symptom. No argument there except there will be those will rage over that solution as well. The one constant is rage... 

1Rii6wV.jpg

2 people like this

Share this post


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

@XOOMvery interesting request.

agree - it would be interesting to see what the numbers say on that...would be quite the numbers exercise though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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.

In real tactical action, "capturing a building" usually means nothing unless you also have an unopposed supply line to it.

And, interdicting a supply line with ground units usually means nothing for very long unless those ground units have their own supply line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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? 

Capture points need to be chained. You can't capture 6 until you hold 5a, 5b and/or 5c, adjoining 6, as the last node of a contiguous supply line. And, you can't more-than-transiently interdict a supply line without having a supply line of your own.

Share this post


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

it has to be a blend and I think infantry specifically needs to be much closer to red-vs-blue. the arguments for historical adherence to realistic TOE have NEVER been that loud.

there are people that have been against mobile spawns in every shape and form, they want to drive trucks from town to town. as well as other insane and tedious ideas for the sake of realism

they also argued for this exact ToE

 

realism in terms of weapon/target performance and historical accuracy in modeling equipment is enough for me. marching 5km and adding mechanical breakdowns is just needless frustration, like the current ToE.

Share this post


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

Weapons should perform historically, no one argues with that. That said, YOU MUST HAVE A BALANCED GAME, a balanced game ALWAYS TRUMPS HISTORICAL ACCURACY. 

Old CRS did tell us on many occasions that historical performance was #1, while they made design/production decisions that fudged history in order to accomplish balance and/or promote gameplay.

Examples: early 88mm AP ammo, Tiger Afrika Korps camo in western Europe, color mismatch for most-distant vehicle/gun LODs relative to the terrain-vegetation, cross-country wheeled vehicle mobility, infantry running speed relative to tracked vehicle speed,  loaded-bomber aerobatics, and so forth.

My preference would be to have marketing-driven design/production decisions that consciously bend history, made openly and documented. In the old days, it got confusing when we knew we'd been lied to (for the good of the game) a bunch of times, then we were asked to believe yet another explanation that did't ring true.

Share this post


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

Based on what?

That’s the killer eh. 

All: We’re closely monitoring events. There will be changes and tweaks. Nothing is perfect from the get go. No need to break out the falsettos just yet. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Old CRS did tell us on many occasions that historical performance was #1, while they made design/production decisions that fudged history in order to accomplish balance and/or promote gameplay.

Examples: early 88mm AP ammo, Tiger Afrika Korps camo in western Europe, color mismatch for most-distant vehicle/gun LODs relative to the terrain-vegetation, cross-country wheeled vehicle mobility, infantry running speed relative to tracked vehicle speed,  loaded-bomber aerobatics, and so forth.

My preference would be to have marketing-driven design/production decisions that consciously bend history, made openly and documented. In the old days, it got confusing when we knew we'd been lied to (for the good of the game) a bunch of times, then we were asked to believe yet another explanation that did't ring true.

Gameplay and balance should always come before complete historical accuracy.  Always. 

If we're so into total realism again, let's unfudge the panzer roof armor and let the 50 cals run wild like they used to. Everyone up for that again? 

Share this post


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

Gameplay and balance should always come before complete historical accuracy.  Always. 

If we're so into total realism again, let's unfudge the panzer roof armor and let the 50 cals run wild like they used to. Everyone up for that again? 

the tanker pop was decimated by RPATS, thankfully they can no longer run loaded and columns are back

/s

 

they really need to get in touch with the gameplay. sometimes, it's like they don't even play; or at least fun seems like the last thing they look for in a game

Share this post


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

My preference would be to have marketing-driven design/production decisions that consciously bend history, made openly and documented. In the old days, it got confusing when we knew we'd been lied to (for the good of the game) a bunch of times, then we were asked to believe yet another explanation that did't ring true.

This.

 

Credibility is hard, but priceless and cheaply sold for temporary gain and dear to buy back again.

 

Course, keep something else in mind.  Doc would tell us the truth as far as he was allowed a LOT of times, and people threw fits cause they didn't like it.  We have to engage like adults instead of children having a specific toy break and not replaced/put away and require timeouts that take more time and energy to respond to.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but there are only two options: history & balance by available spawn numbers or red vs. blue.

No matter how hard you try or how transparent you are when you create make-believe tiers and introduce weapons in ahistorical dates it creates an opening for the tinfoil hat brigade.

By going pure history you eliminate the CRS is biased argument since you can't argue with the fundamental history. No matter how transparent you are the moment you try to bend history you will never make anyone happy since there will always be arguments how much it should be bent. It will be forever a dog chasing its tail.

With historical introduction dates you eliminate that problem and balance spawn pool numbers with MATH like Scotsman has been doing. It's creates variety, yet still balances the game.

5 people like this

Share this post


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

I'm sorry but there are only two options: history & balance by available spawn numbers or red vs. blue.

No matter how hard you try or how transparent you are when you create make-believe tiers and introduce weapons in ahistorical dates it creates an opening for the tinfoil hat brigade.

By going pure history you eliminate the CRS is biased argument since you can't argue with the fundamental history. No matter how transparent you are the moment you try to bend history you will never make anyone happy since there will always be arguments how much it should be bent. It will be forever a dog chasing its tail.

With historical introduction dates you eliminate that problem and balance spawn pool numbers with MATH like Scotsman has been doing. It's creates variety, yet still balances the game.

Historical dates and ahistorical numbers is still a form of fantasy.  It may feel more 'right', which isn't to be sneezed at, but it's not simulationist historical.

So you are going to end up with some fantasy numbers anyway, better to admit it and design for a game.

The other part is that our battlefield is not historical, it's a fight over nodal spawn castles, without artillery or real logistics or front lines or any of that breakdown/bridge limits/fuel business.  The equipment is going to valuate differently then it 'should' in a true historical wargame, because it plays out differently with low number 'all flanks open' target towns and vehicles and spawns.

Share this post


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

I'm sorry but there are only two options: history & balance by available spawn numbers or red vs. blue.

No matter how hard you try or how transparent you are when you create make-believe tiers and introduce weapons in ahistorical dates it creates an opening for the tinfoil hat brigade.

By going pure history you eliminate the CRS is biased argument since you can't argue with the fundamental history. No matter how transparent you are the moment you try to bend history you will never make anyone happy since there will always be arguments how much it should be bent. It will be forever a dog chasing its tail.

With historical introduction dates you eliminate that problem and balance spawn pool numbers with MATH like Scotsman has been doing. It's creates variety, yet still balances the game.

This.

Now not only adapt and overcome, put your energy in game and stop whining.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I'm sorry but there are only two options: history & balance by available spawn numbers or red vs. blue.

No matter how hard you try or how transparent you are when you create make-believe tiers and introduce weapons in ahistorical dates it creates an opening for the tinfoil hat brigade.

By going pure history you eliminate the CRS is biased argument since you can't argue with the fundamental history. No matter how transparent you are the moment you try to bend history you will never make anyone happy since there will always be arguments how much it should be bent. It will be forever a dog chasing its tail.

With historical introduction dates you eliminate that problem and balance spawn pool numbers with MATH like Scotsman has been doing. It's creates variety, yet still balances the game.

Sorry, but that doesn't make a fun and balanced game. 

Go for history then. The BEF was the only true mechanized force in the world. Let's model horses for everyone else.  When the US gets in, lets have the real tank to tank ratio, and plane to plane ratio.  Let's model mechanical breakdowns and see how that works. As tiers go by, Germany doesnt have enough fuel. 

Not fun. Neither is what we have ingame at the moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno......I spawn what ever is available and get at it.  Im here to have fun not argue over smg qtys or whatever.....

I get the gist here but no one solution is going to make everyone happy. Someone will always not agree.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

I dunno......I spawn what ever is available and get at it.  Im here to have fun not argue over smg qtys or whatever.....

I get the gist here but no one solution is going to make everyone happy. Someone will always not agree.

True dat

Share this post


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

Old CRS did tell us on many occasions that historical performance was #1, while they made design/production decisions that fudged history in order to accomplish balance and/or promote gameplay.

Examples: early 88mm AP ammo, Tiger Afrika Korps camo in western Europe, color mismatch for most-distant vehicle/gun LODs relative to the terrain-vegetation, cross-country wheeled vehicle mobility, infantry running speed relative to tracked vehicle speed,  loaded-bomber aerobatics, and so forth.

My preference would be to have marketing-driven design/production decisions that consciously bend history, made openly and documented. In the old days, it got confusing when we knew we'd been lied to (for the good of the game) a bunch of times, then we were asked to believe yet another explanation that did't ring true.

Been as transparent here as is possible...short of just publishing everything. I designed a tool...up to the team how to best use it and the associated historical production backgrounds. If there are typos or breakdowns they will get fixed.

Share this post


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

I dunno......I spawn what ever is available and get at it.  Im here to have fun not argue over smg qtys or whatever.....

I get the gist here but no one solution is going to make everyone happy. Someone will always not agree.

This!

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Gameplay and balance should always come before complete historical accuracy.  Always. 

If we're so into total realism again, let's unfudge the panzer roof armor and let the 50 cals run wild like they used to. Everyone up for that again? 

As long as you have a flight model that doesn't allow impossible maneuver, has G limits,  and that will instead result in crash of the aircraft attempting them... 

Share this post


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

As long as you have a flight model that doesn't allow impossible maneuver, has G limits,  and that will instead result in crash of the aircraft attempting them... 

stop - you're making me wet ...

Share this post


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

the tanker pop was decimated by RPATS, thankfully they can no longer run loaded and columns are back

/s

 

they really need to get in touch with the gameplay. sometimes, it's like they don't even play; or at least fun seems like the last thing they look for in a game

Do you not remember that some of us WERE simply players back then? I objected to several things in the the RPAT modeling...including saying without functional HE the tanks would be defenseless etc. It fell on deaf ears... too bad the old forums aren't around because you could go look it all up. I'm all for fun -and- accurate weapons performance....that and avoiding any side bias are what I promised everyone. Everyone I know of is doing there best to deliver on that. Keeping a mathematically unsound TOE with built in side bias is/was not an option...not if you want fair play for both sides. If there are temporary glitches in doing way with that side bias then all we can do is ask your patience and let us use the tools to fix it quickly. Going into an endless loop about us not understanding or wanting fun gameplay is silly. I would think you would be happy to have devs that -have- played since day one and know the full history of the game. 

 

1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

This.

 

Credibility is hard, but priceless and cheaply sold for temporary gain and dear to buy back again.

 

Course, keep something else in mind.  Doc would tell us the truth as far as he was allowed a LOT of times, and people threw fits cause they didn't like it.  We have to engage like adults instead of children having a specific toy break and not replaced/put away and require timeouts that take more time and energy to respond to.

Amen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a huge fan of the present TOE, as it exists in tier 0. That being said ... i still play and will note that i have heard positive feedback on it from a number of squad mates who play a lot. For what it's worth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Do you not remember that some of us WERE simply players back then? I objected to several things in the the RPAT modeling...including saying without functional HE the tanks would be defenseless etc.

I still think its the bush tunnels more than anything. Infantry aren't constrained by the terrain. Granted, vehicles aren't 'really' either but a tank can't completely disappear driving down the middle of a bush line. Tanks then either have to spray bush lines liberally in the process giving away their location or they get sapped/RPAT killed by infantry that appear out of nowhere. Infantry also can't protect tanks when again, bush ninjas just pop out of nowhere.

Share this post


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

I'm sorry but there are only two options: history & balance by available spawn numbers or red vs. blue.

No matter how hard you try or how transparent you are when you create make-believe tiers and introduce weapons in ahistorical dates it creates an opening for the tinfoil hat brigade.

By going pure history you eliminate the CRS is biased argument since you can't argue with the fundamental history. No matter how transparent you are the moment you try to bend history you will never make anyone happy since there will always be arguments how much it should be bent. It will be forever a dog chasing its tail.

With historical introduction dates you eliminate that problem and balance spawn pool numbers with MATH like Scotsman has been doing. It's creates variety, yet still balances the game.

Absolutely. Keep it up Rats. 

Share this post


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

I still think its the bush tunnels more than anything. Infantry aren't constrained by the terrain. Granted, vehicles aren't 'really' either but a tank can't completely disappear driving down the middle of a bush line. Tanks then either have to spray bush lines liberally in the process giving away their location or they get sapped/RPAT killed by infantry that appear out of nowhere. Infantry also can't protect tanks when again, bush ninjas just pop out of nowhere.

I talked endlessly back then about the need to sanitize your approach and how to...and we don't have the player density to provide the required infantry cover in any case on a one for one basis. Forum memories are really short... That's why the entire argument that 'CRS does what it wants to and doesn't understand game play' is silly. I have been on the bad end of many game decisions including repeat and rinse AP40, tigers with no counters, no AA etc. I know all too well just how bad decisions affect morale and gameplay...I was just a player like all of you are.  Yet not giving the guys who are doing the TOE a chance to adjust is to my way of thinking simply unfair. The old TOEs were broken from the get go...and unfair. That could mathematically proven and wasn't just my or anyone else's opinion...it was a simple fact. 

So ok - Moz and others - we just pulled an unexploded RPG out of your chest  and you're thrashing us for missing a bit of shrapnel from the tail fin. Give me a break... let the guys finish clamping the arteries and we will get the shrapnel fragment (any SMG issue)...quickly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.