• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Hells Gate   03/24/2019

      Break through the lines, and enter Hells Gate!!! This will be the next CRS organized event.  Lead by the High command from each side.
      Free Premium Access for the event
      Date: 3/30/19 Time: 11:00 AM Server time/ 12:00pm EST/ 1600 GMT
stankyus

New TO&E try out

149 posts in this topic

10 minutes ago, themouse said:

you seem  to think....the people who fly wouldn't like the most realistic  flight model they can get ........you are flat wrong.

Not at all! I would hope they want it...but I also would expect air players to understand all players will always game the game...and use issues with the FM to get away with unrealistic maneuvers that affect other parts of the player base. That might be fun for an air player..while ticking off the ground players. 

I want it all to be right for everyone .. that's a personal goal 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it all been switched to ball? I thought the belting had around 50% AP for the m2 in planes?

Share this post


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

Not at all! I would hope they want it...but I also would expect air players to understand all players will always game the game...and use issues with the FM to get away with unrealistic maneuvers that affect other parts of the player base. That might be fun for an air player..while ticking off the ground players. 

I want it all to be right for everyone .. that's a personal goal 

 

What air?  I've only seen about 3 aircraft all map!!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

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. 

I play probably 15-25 hours a week and have a ton of fun, wouldn't bother with it if I didn't, I credit that to my squad, laughing and getting the job done is what makes the game. There are so many different things to do for fun in this game if you aren't having fun it's your fault

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Has it all been switched to ball? I thought the belting had around 50% AP for the m2 in planes?

I don't recall and I'm not at my computer - hatch did the belting - but I'll check tomorrow and confirm. I believe it may be ball until the armor update and audit was completed (in which the AFV roofs revert to their proper thickness) upon which the belting goes to war standards. AP was updated in the KE audit. 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

I play probably 15-25 hours a week and have a ton of fun, wouldn't bother with it if I didn't, I credit that to my squad, laughing and getting the job done is what makes the game. There are so many different things to do for fun in this game if you aren't having fun it's your fault

 

that's all well and good,  you try playing my timezone.......these days you can easily spend  half the day waiting for somebody from any squad  to log onto discord!

Edited by themouse
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, OHM said:

I suggest time relearn how to play with all the equipment and stop playing easy mode!!!    

(that kinda sounds like someone we all know)

It could be me and the silent majority.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd venture to say that almost all of the hanger folks are eagerly waiting for historical airframe stress and g-loading limits. I know I am, as it stands now its one of the biggest drawbacks to flight simulation in WW2OL. I also know the ground players are looking forward to it as well. If a few [censored] about the changes they are likely only doing so because they have been so entrenched in "gaming the game" that they don't want to see any changes.

And WW2OL 2.0. I agree with Scotsman, If I had a few million to use for funding game development, it would be all poured into this project. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, raptor34 said:

I'd venture to say that almost all of the hanger folks are eagerly waiting for historical airframe stress and g-loading limits. I know I am, as it stands now its one of the biggest drawbacks to flight simulation in WW2OL. I also know the ground players are looking forward to it as well. If a few [censored] about the changes they are likely only doing so because they have been so entrenched in "gaming the game" that they don't want to see any changes.

And WW2OL 2.0. I agree with Scotsman, If I had a few million to use for funding game development, it would be all poured into this project. 

You will get updated airframe specific damage models first shortly based on live fire data against 100s of engines and airframes of all types. Updated FM stuff will likely follow that at some point. Expect QA to check that thoroughly. 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

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 

Better take a serious look at the air war then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Numbers move the map, anything else is side noise. Axis dominated from the first minute, and it was obvious this would happen, because the last camp when they lost, they still had the top 5 killers. Now WHIPS +  a bunch of random guys switched over, and i played as axis for a day out of frustration, i saw dozens of former allieds. So the whole argument of  "just get better bro" is wrong, when there is a constant migration of players. I also think we don't need to increase SD, variable cap timers have replaced it, and do a great job. The problem is extreme imbalance situations, like they happen at the end of a campaign or in this case from day 1. The minimum should be a campaign side lock to avoid that + maybe some ftp bonus, restrictions whatever, only in extreme imbalance situations, because with constant even pop, the map wouldn't move. 

Share this post


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

What a silly thing to say...no offense but it is...if you can't tolerate a day or two turn around with a volunteer staff on a US holiday...well...(Never mind that one responsible person isn't even in the US but in Europe on top of that. )

it's not just the ToE, it's the attitude towards the game. gameplay and fun are fourth or fifth priorities and have been for a while

fun being a low priority ruins soo much...

 

for example the new PPO's: their useless in-game out of fears of problems. they could be useful and fun, but there's always some excuse to make stuff suck even without trying it.

or not addressing suck, like the case in this thread. 14 matties vs 7 panzers and 2:1 auto ratio... come. on. tiger/s76 parity was bad, this is this is silly

 

 

i'm not enjoying the game. so i have no reason to keep my alt subbed

Share this post


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

fun being a low priority ruins soo much...

for example the new PPO's: their useless in-game out of fears of problems. they could be useful and fun, but there's always some excuse to make stuff suck even without trying it.

or not addressing suck, like the case in this thread. 14 matties vs 7 panzers and 2:1 auto ratio... come. on. tiger/s76 parity was bad, this is this is silly

I'm not sure where you are getting this notion that things aren't being addressed. The initial Matty numbers were changed and CRS has been very upfront that numbers change in Tier1 and will again be reassessed for the next campaign. Similarly PPOs have been discussed and are being looked at as well but there are real grieving/clipping issues that need to be QA'd first.

And for the record I've been having fun. Last campaign and this campaign. I appreciate the Matty challenge personally. Hence my sub. S!

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be some tweaks to the current list as soon as we can get them verified, SMGs included. Sorry for the inconvenience.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crazy as this may seem, but me thinks Axis are out of bubblegum...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ebert101 said:

Numbers move the map, anything else is side noise. Axis dominated from the first minute, and it was obvious this would happen, because the last camp when they lost, they still had the top 5 killers. Now WHIPS +  a bunch of random guys switched over, and i played as axis for a day out of frustration, i saw dozens of former allieds. So the whole argument of  "just get better bro" is wrong, when there is a constant migration of players. I also think we don't need to increase SD, variable cap timers have replaced it, and do a great job. The problem is extreme imbalance situations, like they happen at the end of a campaign or in this case from day 1. The minimum should be a campaign side lock to avoid that + maybe some ftp bonus, restrictions whatever, only in extreme imbalance situations, because with constant even pop, the map wouldn't move. 

good points all - probably need a thread on it and try to come to an agreement on a quick solution...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ebert101 said:

Numbers move the map, anything else is side noise. Axis dominated from the first minute, and it was obvious this would happen, because the last camp when they lost, they still had the top 5 killers. Now WHIPS +  a bunch of random guys switched over, and i played as axis for a day out of frustration, i saw dozens of former allieds. So the whole argument of  "just get better bro" is wrong, when there is a constant migration of players. I also think we don't need to increase SD, variable cap timers have replaced it, and do a great job. The problem is extreme imbalance situations, like they happen at the end of a campaign or in this case from day 1. The minimum should be a campaign side lock to avoid that + maybe some ftp bonus, restrictions whatever, only in extreme imbalance situations, because with constant even pop, the map wouldn't move. 

One of the ugly truths of ToE balancing is that spawnlists behave differently with differing pop levels, both absolute and relative.

 

For instance the Axis T0 tank park works a LOT better with full flanking infantry protection/overpop and a more limited Allied tank count, and/or massive overstock numbers.  Not having any of those means the combination of Allied ATGs and tanks will likely tear up Axis tanking and require infantry infiltration tactics alone to take towns with tanks only at the end.

 

But the spawnlist has to be set, possibly weeks before they are seen, and for a variety of relative pops.

 

Taking this campaign as an example, if this was another 'up' campaign for the Allies the original Matty count would be devastating, but with Axis infantry overpop/org they are vulnerable sapper fodder.  Conclusions drawn from this campaign could be skewed depending on how studies are being conducted.

 

So historical unit creation not only runs into the 'happiness quotient' of people wanting their tool on hand to solve things their way and the whole combat role/biome issue, but also differing combat effectiveness based on relative pops at different TZs.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

One of the ugly truths of ToE balancing is that spawnlists behave differently with differing pop levels, both absolute and relative.

 

For instance the Axis T0 tank park works a LOT better with full flanking infantry protection/overpop and a more limited Allied tank count, and/or massive overstock numbers.  Not having any of those means the combination of Allied ATGs and tanks will likely tear up Axis tanking and require infantry infiltration tactics alone to take towns with tanks only at the end.

 

But the spawnlist has to be set, possibly weeks before they are seen, and for a variety of relative pops.

 

Taking this campaign as an example, if this was another 'up' campaign for the Allies the original Matty count would be devastating, but with Axis infantry overpop/org they are vulnerable sapper fodder.  Conclusions drawn from this campaign could be skewed depending on how studies are being conducted.

 

So historical unit creation not only runs into the 'happiness quotient' of people wanting their tool on hand to solve things their way and the whole combat role/biome issue, but also differing combat effectiveness based on relative pops at different TZs.

Very well said. And completely agree. A T0 Matty CS column with infantry would be devastating to all but the best prepared defenses.

The more I think if it, I see as using F2P to force spawn into the underpop side is really the only realistic way to make things work. Even then you still will have a vet vs. noob imbalance but pretty much any gamer can competently point and shoot a rifle, so the effect should be much less.

Share this post


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

The more I think if it, I see as using F2P to force spawn into the underpop side is really the only realistic way to make things work.

And you'll force 'one side' only players to pick up a sub if they want to play for the over pop side. Or they'll quit - there is that too.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think F2P locked to underpop, combined with 12-24 hour side locks, might be something to try. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of the moment of this post:

 

Axis Rifleman:  0.87 K/D

British Rifleman:  0.61 K/D

French Rifleman:  0.58 K/D

 

 

That's what happens when you give one side a decided advantage in SMGs.  

 

After playing for about 8 hours straight today, everything I thought was bad was unequivocally confirmed.  The Allies don't stand a chance without parity in auto supply.  

 

In one instance today, a single Axis division took on 2 Allied divisions at once and beat them both back, taking 3 towns in the process.  Even with a considerable overpop advantage, no side should be able to do that to another side's infantry supply without losing a head of steam.  

 

That.  Is.  Disgusting.  Period.  End of story.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

In one instance today, a single Axis division took on 2 Allied divisions at once and beat them both back, taking 3 towns in the process.  Even with a considerable overpop advantage, no side should be able to do that to another side's infantry supply without losing a head of steam. 

That.  Is.  Disgusting.  Period.  End of story.  

Even though I play Axis, I'm not posting this as an Axis player and would post the exact same if the tables were turned.

...are you sure that this is *ALL* attributed to SMG supply? Because if you follow your argument you technically had more automatic weapons than the Axis, and yet still lost the towns. Seems to me an issue of one side being overpopulated combined with inflated egos (Axis) and deflated egos (Allies) along with probably some coordination issues. I empathize with everyone on the SMG/LMG issue, but I think there is more to it than that and this is sorta become a convenient scapegoat to explain away lost territory. Case in point being Axis successfully defending towns at the end of the last month with nothing but rifles.

Again, I'm not trying to get into a side-bias argument here, or pointing fingers, or telling someone to tough it out. Merely saying that I think we are starting to miss the forest for the trees here with this SMG debate and are setting the entire playerbase up for disappointment if there are any material changes in the spawn pools next tier but not difference in outcome.

Let us also not forget that the map started moving West before the whole SMG debate started. The initial debate was the large number of Matilada's in the British Infantry Divisions. Furthermore, most of the initial movement was done in the south primarily against French divisions which have more equal number of SMGs. Again, not try to make one side seem better to the other, just saying that we have to be careful about jumping to conclusions regarding what the current "cause" of the problem is without fully actually identifying the fundamental problem.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are big comms issues on allied side, some player caused but some design limitations. The interplay between French and British is awful from a game mechanic standpoint. RAF and AdA never see each other despite having the same target, same for the ground forces. This does translate to an in game advantage/disadvantage between the sides.

UI/chat overhaul is the true fix.

Between now and then, perhaps we do like what was done for the German side with their ‘italian’ infantry.Instead of British/French just have ‘allied’ where you use differently weighted TOEs to determine which is British, French, or american. This would have all the allies together on the same missions and the same chat channels as there are no longer multiple combatants, just “Allies’ with TOEs attached.

if that can’t be done, only a UI/chat overhaul will get the allies truly working together like the Germans and the 2 Italian units attached to German TOEs currently are.

Share this post


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

Even though I play Axis, I'm not posting this as an Axis player and would post the exact same if the tables were turned.

...are you sure that this is *ALL* attributed to SMG supply? Because if you follow your argument you technically had more automatic weapons than the Axis, and yet still lost the towns. Seems to me an issue of one side being overpopulated combined with inflated egos (Axis) and deflated egos (Allies) along with probably some coordination issues. I empathize with everyone on the SMG/LMG issue, but I think there is more to it than that and this is sorta become a convenient scapegoat to explain away lost territory. Case in point being Axis successfully defending towns at the end of the last month with nothing but rifles.

Again, I'm not trying to get into a side-bias argument here, or pointing fingers, or telling someone to tough it out. Merely saying that I think we are starting to miss the forest for the trees here with this SMG debate and are setting the entire playerbase up for disappointment if there are any material changes in the spawn pools next tier but not difference in outcome.

Let us also not forget that the map started moving West before the whole SMG debate started. The initial debate was the large number of Matilada's in the British Infantry Divisions. Furthermore, most of the initial movement was done in the south primarily against French divisions which have more equal number of SMGs. Again, not try to make one side seem better to the other, just saying that we have to be careful about jumping to conclusions regarding what the current "cause" of the problem is without fully actually identifying the fundamental problem.

There is also the added factor that the Allies are woefully outnumbered and, for the last year and change, woefully outskilled.  

 

Again, not to get all side-bias-y myself, but I used to believe that the Allies were, pound for pound, player for player, a touch above the Axis, while the Axis had a bit more population at their disposal to make up for it.  Now the Allies are losing the skill game and the numbers game.  The subpar level of play I've seen today is shocking at times, and is entirely in line with the trends we can see in the campaign wins and statlines for those campaigns.  

 

In most Axis victories of the past 2 years, campaign K/D is 1.1 compared to the Allies 0.8.  In most Allied victories, K/D is about even at 0.95.  There's a serious issue with skill balance and numbers balance and it's been going on for quite a while.  That's why several players (Axis and Allied) were able to accurately predict the flow of this campaign before it even began.  

 

The reason I brought up the SMG thing in my last post was because it was visibly a palpable issue when I played today.  My kill list and death list were almost only automatics.  At one point during our AO we had 3 Allies (2 rifles) in Bavay bunker and 1 outside cutting with a rifle.  We weren't able to cap the AB even though the Axis barely responded in time because they were able to spam rush it with automatics while we were trying to hold it with rifles (I was the rifle cutting and killed 4 autos).  

 

Do I think the Allies of 5 years ago could have made these lists work?  Maybe, but not just because of the skill of those vets that are no longer playing.  I think it would have been possible because of the larger overall population of 5 years ago.  

 

When the Allies can only muster 5-10 guys per AO, you can't provide the necessary combined arms support that makes these Allied lists "tick" (or in other words, you can't mask the infantry deficiency with the tank advantage).  There's just too many jobs to do for major combined arms to work with those few numbers.  At that point, the biggest deciding factor in moving the map ends up being 1-v-1 infantry engagements, which will invariably be tilted towards the side with more SMGs in the case of such a disparity.  

 

Right now, the Axis are able to stonewall our attacks with just StuGs and 232s in the face of 14 Matildas, and that's because we might get 1 Matilda to go along with our single (read: easily focused and tracked) FMS with 3-4 Infantry to spawn in at that AO, all at different times, fighting against 5-6 Axis players who are all fighting at the same time, while SYSTEM is also requesting reinforcements at our DOs.  The only reason we almost captured Bavay was because the Axis didn't spawn to defend until we had the AB under cap. 

 

In short, the extra Allied tanks or lack of Axis tanks doesn't affect the outcome of most battles.  The extra SMGs do.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.