• 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.
snappahead

support tanks

181 posts in this topic

This continual fighting over the 251s "costing" is one of the most mind boggling boondoggles I can fathom in the game's history.

I don't give any damns how many charts can be produced and flapped about on how much the 251/88 historically cost. That cost was paid by 1940s logisticians because they had a certain impact on the conduct of the war. This game is, until a veritable army of paid coders descends on it and introduces a full logistics model, a **completely disassociated scenario** from actual war conduct and production dynamics. They should be at BEST an interesting anecdote as it pertains to this game's production.

I get that this game's "winning edge" is in being a historical milsim. I sadly understand that as of right now it can only run dependent on unpaid labor.

But the continual insistence on decisions that make a unfun game for the vast, vast majority of potential players is causing us to circle the drain.

If the people who are insisting on economic ToEs are propping up operational finances and ergo are getting to set priorities, for the love of God tell us what that number is and I'll chip in to replace those contributions, and I imagine others will too.

Because I absolutely cannot  fathom any other reason why, given the dozens of paying customers who are saying in this and other threads This Is Not What I Want, that What We Don't Want keeps getting pushed.

Edited by riprend
8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, riprend said:

This continual fighting over the 251s "costing" is one of the most mind boggling boondoggles I can fathom in the game's history.

I don't give any damns how many charts can be produced and flapped about on how much the 251/88 historically cost. That cost was paid by 1940s logisticians because they had a certain impact on the conduct of the war. This game is, until a veritable army of paid coders descends on it and introduces a full logistics model, a **completely disassociated scenario** from actual war conduct and production dynamics. They should be at BEST an interesting anecdote as it pertains to this game's production.

I get that this game's "winning edge" is in being a historical milsim. I sadly understand that as of right now it can only run dependent on unpaid labor.

But the continual insistence on decisions that make a unfun game for the vast, vast majority of potential players is causing us to circle the drain.

If the people who are insisting on economic ToEs are propping up operational finances and ergo are getting to set priorities, for the love of God tell us what that number is and I'll chip in to replace those contributions, and I imagine others will too.

Because I absolutely cannot  fathom any other reason why, given the dozens of paying customers who are saying in this and other threads This Is Not What I Want, that What We Don't Want keeps getting pushed.

truthzies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, riprend said:

But the continual insistence on decisions that make a unfun game for the vast, vast majority of potential players is causing us to circle the drain.

If the people who are insisting on economic ToEs are propping up operational finances and ergo are getting to set priorities, for the love of God tell us what that number is and I'll chip in to replace those contributions, and I imagine others will too.

Because I absolutely cannot  fathom any other reason why, given the dozens of paying customers who are saying in this and other threads This Is Not What I Want, that What We Don't Want keeps getting pushed.

10/10

You said that perfectly. I like the new weapons, I like the attempts to have some historical introduction dates, but at the end of the day when you are in Tier X, the spawn lists each side have should be balanced in their capacity and capability. It worried me when we are told that for example the Allies "only have" turning as an advantage in airplanes, because it is the advantage to have, the trump card in WWIIOL combat because action in this game, unlike real life, happens low on the deck (please note that I personally feel that this is completely OK as the Spitfire was historically an excellent plane, I'm using it more of a point regarding my concern how I feel that the theory of WWIIOL game design doesn't line up with WWIIOL gameplay reality). Similarly it worries/ied me that the Allies had a woeful number of SMGs to fight with against greater Axis SMG numbers and the gameplay implications weren't thought through. To me, it speaks to a fundamental disconnect between spawnlist theory and gameplay reality/design where we are so driven by the hard data, that we don't realize the sky is blue because the data is telling us it is red. I realize that hindsight is 20/20 and when you are looking at spawnlists 100+ units long with numbers spread and changing across all three tiers it can be a herculean task. But many of the criticisms being posted in these threads and real world gameplay examples aren't particularly esoteric or small fringe issues.

I have been here since the start, and I can't remember a time when there has been such a clear agreement between both sides regarding a decision that CRS has taken. I don't think we should necessarily see this as a PB vs. CRS situation because that infers that we are somehow against each other. We have the same goal to make the game bigger and better, but just have competing visions. We all help in the way we can. Some like BMBM, Ohm, Heavy, Pete, Merlin effectively work a second job, others post their thoughts and opinions on the forums. We all get passionate but I think its important we always stay respectful to one another. S!

And regarding what @riprendsaid regarding the finances, I agree. I am more than happy to further support the project since I believe in the uniqueness of the game.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

I think perhaps you would not like that terribly much, it was not well liked in the 1st iteration.

It basically devolves down to give up 30 of these and 20 of those and all of these for 12 of that, and then the spawn list looks terribly devoid
of all supporting and expendable gear, and gear for lower ranks etc.
A lot of players were not thrilled with it.

I also imagine it caused a lot of internal HC hostility as one branch would trade off another branch's assets for more of it's own.
 

much rather have that..... then this

Share this post


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

much rather have that..... then this

Don't agree on this one. I remember what it was like and it was poisonous. Usually one branch would get sacrificed (mostly Luftwaffe for the ground guys) which generated a lot of bad blood. The playerbase also didn't like numbers being cut down for campaign victory purposes at an expense of fun gameplay purposes. Its not really the fault of the HC... it is their job to work to win the map and use all the tools at their disposal. So if that means selling off every Panzer II and piece of scrap metal to squeeze 1 more PzIIIH into the spawnlist they would rightly do it since their job was to win the map, and not necessarily to make the game fun for new players needing those crappy tanks to rank up, or niche players who maybe enjoyed Panzer hunting with the wacky laffy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so we traded a system that produces only limited but useful spawnlists..... for a system that produces both limited and useless spawnlists..... sweet

2 people like this

Share this post


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

so we traded a system that produces only limited but useful spawnlists..... for a system that produces both limited and useless spawnlists..... sweet

Heh, don't disagree with you on the current system :) Just saying that the days of HC-picked spawn lists really weren't all that fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe a hybrid system then........ HC picks half the stuff ...... well CRS holds certain constants ..... like x numbers of specific equipment for noobs and what not???????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, kgarner said:

truthzies

You can take half the credit, you got me riled up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

we should just go back to the system of letting the HC's pick how to use their RDP dollars

Dude, I SPECIALIZED in this area.  I helped Allied CinCs BREAK Axis, got the Crus up in numbers when K/D said they were better (mantlet), back to masses of Matties, and other RDP work (although there were Allied CinCs for a run there who were just geniuses at this and got it done better then help from me).

So many problems with doing it.  I can enumerate them, but the short answer is Just No.

Share this post


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

This continual fighting over the 251s "costing" is one of the most mind boggling boondoggles I can fathom in the game's history.

I don't give any damns how many charts can be produced and flapped about on how much the 251/88 historically cost. That cost was paid by 1940s logisticians because they had a certain impact on the conduct of the war. This game is, until a veritable army of paid coders descends on it and introduces a full logistics model, a **completely disassociated scenario** from actual war conduct and production dynamics. They should be at BEST an interesting anecdote as it pertains to this game's production.

I get that this game's "winning edge" is in being a historical milsim. I sadly understand that as of right now it can only run dependent on unpaid labor.

But the continual insistence on decisions that make a unfun game for the vast, vast majority of potential players is causing us to circle the drain.

If the people who are insisting on economic ToEs are propping up operational finances and ergo are getting to set priorities, for the love of God tell us what that number is and I'll chip in to replace those contributions, and I imagine others will too.

Because I absolutely cannot  fathom any other reason why, given the dozens of paying customers who are saying in this and other threads This Is Not What I Want, that What We Don't Want keeps getting pushed.

Great post!

We are all wondering where this "push" has come from. We shall probably be told this is what we asked for......

 

S! Ian

Share this post


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

10/10

You said that perfectly. I like the new weapons, I like the attempts to have some historical introduction dates, but at the end of the day when you are in Tier X, the spawn lists each side have should be balanced in their capacity and capability. It worried me when we are told that for example the Allies "only have" turning as an advantage in airplanes, because it is the advantage to have, the trump card in WWIIOL combat because action in this game, unlike real life, happens low on the deck (please note that I personally feel that this is completely OK as the Spitfire was historically an excellent plane, I'm using it more of a point regarding my concern how I feel that the theory of WWIIOL game design doesn't line up with WWIIOL gameplay reality). Similarly it worries/ied me that the Allies had a woeful number of SMGs to fight with against greater Axis SMG numbers and the gameplay implications weren't thought through. To me, it speaks to a fundamental disconnect between spawnlist theory and gameplay reality/design where we are so driven by the hard data, that we don't realize the sky is blue because the data is telling us it is red. I realize that hindsight is 20/20 and when you are looking at spawnlists 100+ units long with numbers spread and changing across all three tiers it can be a herculean task. But many of the criticisms being posted in these threads and real world gameplay examples aren't particularly esoteric or small fringe issues.

I have been here since the start, and I can't remember a time when there has been such a clear agreement between both sides regarding a decision that CRS has taken. I don't think we should necessarily see this as a PB vs. CRS situation because that infers that we are somehow against each other. We have the same goal to make the game bigger and better, but just have competing visions. We all help in the way we can. Some like BMBM, Ohm, Heavy, Pete, Merlin effectively work a second job, others post their thoughts and opinions on the forums. We all get passionate but I think its important we always stay respectful to one another. S!

And regarding what @riprendsaid regarding the finances, I agree. I am more than happy to further support the project since I believe in the uniqueness of the game.

Another great post.

"I have been here since the start, and I can't remember a time when there has been such a clear agreement between both sides regarding a decision that CRS has taken. "  - THIS - this is probably the most worrying aspect of the whole spawn list debate.

S! Ian

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I surely can, got a spawnlist spreadsheet that's usable and cross-indexed with half-tiers?

You won't shut me down with that kind of comeback, you gotta know better.  But yes it does appear you guys are going to stick to your guns, and player input isn't getting across as to the error in the CRS approach.

 

You don't need a spawnlist spreadsheet to assign your own values to vehicles. I'm not asking you to do a full job on this, if you can assign values (however you define them) according to your own formula to tier 0 that's good enough. My intent is NOT to shut you down but to stimulate you to actually present something concrete instead of calling for ME to do it. You don't have to calculate every item or every service (forget air and navy if you will), just show me how you would calculate the value of select army stuff. The value can be anything - points, dollars, CVC or however you prefer to define it.

Yes, we have invested a lot of time and effort in the current approach and believe it is better than the old arbitrary and non-functional CVC values that CRS 1.0 set by fingerspitzgefühl and didn't bother to update. The disposition of the budget HAS changed multiple times since we introduced it - admittedly the launch was premature - and it will continue to change based on player input, data collection and lessons learned. But we do NOT have an alternate model at this time, so yes, we are sticking to a well-researched and complete model rather than a subjective, incomplete one. Warts and all.

14 hours ago, ian77 said:

And as for players giving suggestions on what spawn lists should look like, when Capco did this in a previous thread you derided him for giving the axis "a 30% " advantage. Way to encourage the players to suggest alterations.....

Derision is your interpretation. I simply stated that the effect of his suggestion would significantly benefit the axis, i.e. not balanced. 

14 hours ago, ian77 said:

But that is the standard response... just scroll up to see the "right we will get rid of all the halftracks then" or "we will get rid of all the 251s then" type comments. Everything to ridiculous extreme, and certainly not asked for by the players.

You and others have complained loudly about worthless HTs, worthless 88s and worthless PzIIs, and called for their reduction. Turns out you don't want to remove these worthless bits of equipment after all? If you want to keep them you will have to pay for them, in budget dollars. The old tit-for-tat supply gave the Axis a sometimes ridiculous qualitative AND quantitative advantage in addition to a general population advantage - I understand that it's hard for diehard Axis players to swallow that pill but we can't have such imbalance. And again, the legacy of that is obvious with an atrophied Allied side and near-permanent population imbalance.

As regards gameplay and your idee fixe that I don't know anything about current affairs - what do you know? I know perfectly well how battles play out and the challenges this new TOE presents relative to that. What I have seen is an almost complete lack of ability to understand or adapt to, or even accept, that challenge - with some notable exceptions. The scarcity of kit and the sometimes extreme disparities that the quality/quantity model in conjunction with historical ratios of gear present does require a massive adjustment of tactics and teamwork which, sad to say, is only rarely manifested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The self-contradiction is just ridiculous.

"Tell me how you would set up the spawn list"

"you can assign values (however you define them)"

and when a respected allied HC/Vet did so you used your secret list, and said he was wrong.

IF all you will use is the completely non appropriate for this game production lists, nobody will be coming up with any viable alternative, because your gospel will say it is wrong.

Nobody is suggesting coming up with playable and equitable spawnlists is easy, but if we are headed to a generic town based garrison supply for 1.36 why the hairoil have we been put through the last 3 months?

What the heck is the point of any of us spending hours working on potential spawnlists when it is all going down the pan in a few weeks time?

Aside from getting the majority of the PB up in arms against CRS, what have the spawnlist changes achieved since Map158? Because from my ingame perspective the changes have not led to more players and more in game action. Just the reverse.

 

S! Ian 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

The self-contradiction is just ridiculous.

"Tell me how you would set up the spawn list"

"you can assign values (however you define them)"

and when a respected allied HC/Vet did so you used your secret list, and said he was wrong.

IF all you will use is the completely non appropriate for this game production lists, nobody will be coming up with any viable alternative, because your gospel will say it is wrong.

Nobody is suggesting coming up with playable and equitable spawnlists is easy, but if we are headed to a generic town based garrison supply for 1.36 why the hairoil have we been put through the last 3 months?

What the heck is the point of any of us spending hours working on potential spawnlists when it is all going down the pan in a few weeks time?

Aside from getting the majority of the PB up in arms against CRS, what have the spawnlist changes achieved since Map158? Because from my ingame perspective the changes have not led to more players and more in game action. Just the reverse.

 

S! Ian 

 

I stopped taking the guy seriously. It's just funny at this point. 

Edited by dfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't seem to understand. If Kilemall or anyone else wants to construct a completely different value-based spawnlist (e.g. a K/D-driven list), he can go right ahead and assign values as he sees fit based on stats or whatever source he wants to use, because the alternate value will have absolutely no bearing to the numbers we're currently using. Different animals altogether. Not applicable. Void. 

Spawnlists for 1.36 are also balanced by the objective quality/quantity costing and equal budget method that Scotsman researched, they are however differently disposed. IOW, the production cost in then-year dollars and the budget equality continues to influence 1.36 garrison and brigade composition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no interest in constructing a value-based spawnlist, because I think value-based spawnlists are the problem.

I want you to take your 18 yearsof experience in this game and use it to curate a spawnlist that in equal measure, resonates with the history and precedence of the game, and is fun. A somewhat lower priority is historical quantities. An incredibly lower priority is how much the items cost their respective sides.

XOOM had no problem tearing down a system - the HC/brigade interaction - that was desired by CRS from the founding of the game. Why are you now suddenly hidebound by the precedent of a "value based spawnlist"?

Edited by riprend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Chaoswzkd said:

Just because French tank reload speeds are ahistorical now and in the past doesn't mean they won't get hit at some point.

It's a side point to this thread, but the above comment keeps being made. I hope it doesn't become accepted wisdom through repetition, because I think it's historically incorrect.

One man turrets (including several French tanks, and the PzKpfW II when the magazine emptied) did not have slower reloading than anyone's two man turrets, and only somewhat (50%?) slower reloading than that of three man turrets.

What one man turrets did have was an inability to simultaneously be at the main gun (eye to the gunsight while the hands accepted the next shell from the crewman below and put it into the gun) and fire the coaxial MG and observe around the tank.

All of the early-days CRS tank models have badly coded management of what could be done simultaneously. The one man turrets are just the most obvious examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, riprend said:

I have no interest in constructing a value-based spawnlist, because I think value-based spawnlists are the problem.

I want you to take your 18 yearsof experience in this game and use it to curate a spawnlist that in equal measure, resonates with the history and precedence of the game, and is fun. A somewhat lower priority is historical quantities. An incredibly lower priority is how much the items cost their respective sides.

XOOM had no problem tearing down a system - the HC/brigade interaction - that was desired by CRS from the founding of the game. Why are you now suddenly hidebound by the precedent of a "value based spawnlist"?

Interesting. The old spawnlist was value-based, in terms of it being based on defunct CVC values and based on subjective value by whomever put the final old version into place. However you look at it, some valuation - or worse, no valuation or undefined subjective valuation - is always going to be part of the spawnlist construction. 

A curated spawnlist would still have to be based on a definition of the balancing criteria. "To equal measure resonate with history and precedence of the game, and is fun" - is simply too subjective. Which part of history would you keep and which would you ignore? Which precedence of the game - every campaign has been different, every year different, every version different. There is no ONE interpretation of that criterion. And how do you define FUN?

Historical ratios: these have been significantly watered down from the original research and adjusted for gameplay in several iterations (not all of them experienced in the live game), to the point of now being almost eradicated. The whiff of history you're now experiencing is extremely faint and not at all representative of actual history.

I hope you read this in the constructive and sharing spirit that it was written. I seriously appreciate the discussion (although it is keeping me from working on mumblemumble that I had hoped to have ready by the end of this month).

Share this post


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

The whiff of history you're now experiencing is extremely faint and not at all representative of actual history.

That sums up the whole game mechanics and the resulting combat style VS history, were the equipment production value had a meaning.

Share this post


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

If (...) anyone else wants to construct a completely different value-based spawnlist (...), he can go right ahead and assign values as he sees fit based on stats or whatever source he wants to use (...)

Spawnlists for 1.36 are also balanced by the objective quality/quantity costing and equal budget method (...), they are however differently disposed. IOW, the production cost in then-year dollars and the budget equality continues to influence 1.36 garrison and brigade composition.

There is nothing wrong with the cost model, or at least nothing that I want to try to convince CRS to fix any faster than you probably already want to do.

The problem instead is what you call "disposition of spawnlists" above, i.e. how the budgets are spent. 

It's already been discussed, and you've acknowledged, that it's problematic for only one side to have a very expensive weapon type (example: 88mm FlaK 36 plus its gun tractor). As you noted and everyone agrees, the fix for that will be to fill out all of those incomplete model-sets, and probably that's part of the very long work-priority lists. 

The question is what can be done more immediately.

An aggregate-customer-demand-based solution often is good marketing. Adjust the numbers of each weapon type toward the relative demand from that side for that weapon type, consistent with the total budget and the game's foundational historical-flavor marketing goals such as weapon chronology.

You're already moving in that direction, it appears. The caveat would be to avoid backsliding by allowing other considerations to override aggregate customer demand.

The resulting numbers of course won't satisfy every critic's individual theoretical preference, but they should maximize each side's operational game satisfaction delivery.

Share this post


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

The whiff of history you're now experiencing is extremely faint and not at all representative of actual history.

That sums up the whole game mechanics and the resulting combat style VS history, were the equipment production value had a meaning.

+1.

The key problems lately have been CRS's attempt to represent history via divisional TOEs, when the historical forces often fought as kampfgruppen or battlegroups or with attached supporting elements, and the limited and minimally historically representational game mechanics, for which weapons are differently valuable than was the case historically.

Share this post


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

An aggregate-customer-demand-based solution often is good marketing. Adjust the numbers of each weapon type toward the relative demand from that side for that weapon type, consistent with the total budget and the game's foundational historical-flavor marketing goals such as weapon chronology.

That's pretty much the ambition and direction of the whole project. Glad we agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, BMBM said:

The old spawnlist was value-based, in terms of it being based on defunct CVC values and based on subjective value by whomever put the final old version into place. However you look at it, some valuation - or worse, no valuation or undefined subjective valuation - is always going to be part of the spawnlist construction. 

A curated spawnlist would still have to be based on a definition of the balancing criteria. "To equal measure resonate with history and precedence of the game, and is fun" - is simply too subjective. Which part of history would you keep and which would you ignore? Which precedence of the game - every campaign has been different, every year different, every version different. There is no ONE interpretation of that criterion. And how do you define FUN?

I'm probably not the only person here that was educated as an engineer, then spent a career adapting that skillset to the real world. 

With considerable respect intended because I've been there a lot, the above reads like an engineer's comment about how to design a product. 

If products could be designed solely objectively, there'd be a lot fewer unsuccessful companies.

Equally important to successful product design is having someone that can put themselves inside the customer's head and subjectively figure out the best aggregate answers to the questions above, including what maximizes fun and what will convince the customer that they want what you're selling. Those questions inherently are subjective. If you try to answer them objectively, you'll get the wrong answers. And, if you devalue the questions because they're subjective, you have a process problem.

A key to good engineering management is helping your engineers to understand that objective metrics are essential in some areas because the subjective folks otherwise don't realize they're asking for the impossible or uneconomical, but you have to listen to the subjective folks when it comes to what the customer wants, and will think is fun, and will want to buy.

Edited by jwilly
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Equally important to successful product design is having someone that can put themselves inside the customer's head and subjectively figure out the best aggregate answers to the questions above, including what maximizes fun and what will convince the customer that they want what you're selling. Those questions inherently are subjective. If you try to answer them objectively, you'll get the wrong answers. And, if you devalue the questions because they're subjective, you have a process problem.

Absolutely agree - however the decisions, the curation, needs to be logged and tracked (i.e. based on something aka value) in lieu of a math formula for instance. A subjective choice is a valuation, a deliberation of values, wouldn't you agree?

The maximization of fun - which I agree is the ultimate goal here - is however much you punt it a totally subjective valuation. What's fun for ME is probably boring or completely off-putting for YOU, and what's fun for Ian is likely not so fun for someone else. "Fun" would have to be based on an ideal equal situation WRT population, situation, geography, skill, morale and equipment that is rarely present in the live game - and providing fun for everyone all the time regardless of situation just isn't possible. Trying to boil down "fun" to a lowest common denominator or average... well that's a task in itself. I would like to add that I've endeavored to disassociate myself and my own ideal game session/combat from the valuation process as far as humanly possible. I am human after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.