• 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

4 hours ago, BMBM said:

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.

Sorry, but this will stop 1.36 dead in its tracks, and kill WWIIOL.

I am truly at a loss to understand why you are so intent on killing off the "game" for some doctrinal theory and super secret production costs that belong in a global economic level wargame, rather than this amazing FPS.

Please do not kill 1.36 before it even gets here

Please give this fantastic game a fighting chance.

S! ian

 

Share this post


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

Sorry, but this will stop 1.36 dead in its tracks, and kill WWIIOL.

I am truly at a loss to understand why you are so intent on killing off the "game" for some doctrinal theory and super secret production costs that belong in a global economic level wargame, rather than this amazing FPS.

Please do not kill 1.36 before it even gets here

I don't think we know yet what the Garrison TOEs will be...?

So how do we know that there's fault to be found with them?

Seems like the support tank issue will be gone. If the budget for each side is expended according to player usage:

Quote

 

Quote

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.

...then it seems like there's nothing obvious to complain about...?

Edited by jwilly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Methinks you need to actually see the 1.36 spawnlists and the environment they exist in before clubbing it to death. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I think a hybrid HC/CRS supply system would be the best way to sort this out........ The best way to refine data on the in-game usefulness of any piece of equipment is to let those that have the most experience with the game sort through whatever concrete value sets you have erected and find the holes.  If HC starts trading to much of "this" for "that"..... then "that's" price might need to be adjusted.... I suspect that had alot to do with crs 1.0's quantitative analysis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRS should hold constants like........... no more than 50% of any item can be reduced........... no more than 50% increase of specific items.  OR baseline concretes like X,Y, and Z are to vital to noob functions and are well enough adjusted that they are not open to HC manipulation at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AT least then any arguments about specifics will be of the constructive sort..... where everyone knows the rules...... which will make disagreement and suggestions less subjective and more constructive.

Share this post


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

This is why I think a hybrid HC/CRS supply system would be the best way to sort this out........ The best way to refine data on the in-game usefulness of any piece of equipment is to let those that have the most experience with the game sort through whatever concrete value sets you have erected and find the holes.  If HC starts trading to much of "this" for "that"..... then "that's" price might need to be adjusted.... I suspect that had alot to do with crs 1.0's quantitative analysis

Usage data provides democratic input from the customers, to a significant extent based on fun-delivery by the game.

HC desires would be based on their how-to-win ideas...which, history of HC-determination-of-TOEs shows us, is not aligned with maximized game fun-delivery.

Arbitrary rules for TOE composition also are not inherently based on maximized fun-delivery. They're someone's idea of how the game should work. Maybe they're right, maybe not.

What customers in recent campaigns have chosen to spawn, ratioed to each nation's total budget...that's valid customer input if your goal is maximized customer satisfaction.

Share this post


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

Usage data provides democratic input from the customers, to a significant extent based on fun-delivery by the game.

That'd probably cull a lot of variety from the spawnlists and reduce the game to the common lowest denominator. Just my gut feeling. You'd probably never see a Blenheim, a Laffly W15, an R35, H39 or any of the CS tanks or mortarmen with that approach. Sure, we could pimp the list with the bestest general purpose tanks per tier and the most used infantry types (rifle, SMG, LMG) for the most prevalent type of combat (massed close combat onslaught), but I'm pretty sure the game would be the poorer for it. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do something to balance that out.......... we have tried 100% fru fru dollar amounts to create spawnlists..... thats not the best approach...... we have tried letting HC have 100% control..... that didn't work.

 


MAYBE WE TAKE LESSONS FROM BOTH EXPERIENCES AND TRY TO FIND SOLUTIONS GIVEN THOSE EXPERIENCES EH?

Facts:

HC should not have 100% influence..... they want to be effective

CRS should not have 100% influence..... they want to pretend this video game is real life

If both sides act as a counterbalance to each maybe some equilibrium can be achieved.....

CRS should set strict limits on what can be traded, and how much..... These variables are much more game specific and will create much better aim's at control and balance then RL dollar amounts for 80 years ago...... I mean duh.  We start with your price tags..... then let HC show you where you are wrong.... all the while keeping HC on a leash..... only let HC have so much power.... maybe only certain units can be traded, certain amounts of units exchanged..... there are a million ways to keep pandora in that box but at the same time refine equilibrium.

Have each persona have its own separate dollar spending allowance so that one does not sacrifice the other.  One allowance for AIR, one for army, one for navy.

obviously, there should be at least some of every unit....... 

CRS should have most of the control and use HC as a way to efficiently refine values

 

You ask for solutions..... This is a solution..... the total opposite of me just saying "waaaaaa i dont like this, I want something different" 

I am a firm believer in........ you don't have the right to complain if you don't have any ideas on how to fix the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by kgarner

Share this post


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

CRS should hold constants like........... no more than 50% of any item can be reduced........... no more than 50% increase of specific items.  OR baseline concretes like X,Y, and Z are to vital to noob functions and are well enough adjusted that they are not open to HC manipulation at all. 

Those sort of things were in the original RDP rules, and got more restrictive as time went on and HCs would do things like wipe out all the baby tanks and leave new players nothing to spawn or build up on.

While I didn't see the final iteration of the RDP list rules, I am under the firm impression that they got to the point where HC discretion was tightly circumscribed to deal with ranking and having at least 1 of every ride available for fans.

And there were times when HCs didn't turn in a new equipment list so Doc ran with what they had the campaign before, which if they were weird and/or bad set off players for a whole nother campaign.

As I heard it there were HCs who basically begged for it to be taken away, either not their gig or just beat up by the politics of lists.

 

Ya.  This is one of those things where we need to learn what didn't work and not Go There.

 

Another example of game, not warsim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just go back to the list DOC soo painfully put together.

he went through a lot more BS than rats 2.0 or scotsman to get something somewhat acceptable

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind a costing model, just some of the inputs need to change based on real gameplay.

For one, any tank, AG, TD w/o a MG should immediately have its cost cut in half. (if not more)

251 is better than truck, question is what amount?  Is current cost 200%   300%?  I'd say for our game it should be maybe 20% more.

Guessing 88s and Sd Kfz 7s are way over cost (per game play value) - cut them in half at least most likely.

Point is, we do need a model, the costing model created is probably a great starting point -- now it has to be tweaked for game play.

 

And lastly, either ALL nations INF flags have no tanks or they all have some - no half half stuff. (which of course should not matter with 1.36)

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

I don't mind a costing model, just some of the inputs need to change based on real gameplay.

For one, any tank, AG, TD w/o a MG should immediately have it's cost cut in half. (if not more)

251 is better than truck, question is what amount?  Is current cost 200%   300%?  I'd say for our game it should be maybe 20% more.

Guessing 88s and Sd Kfz 7s are way over cost (per game play value) - cut them in half at least most likely.

Point is, we do need a model, the costing model created is probably a great starting point -- now it has to be tweaked for game play.

 

And lastly, either ALL nations INF flags have no tanks or they all have some - no half half stuff. (which of course should not matter with 1.36)

88s must be way  over cost per game play value.  It is the only logical thing that could explain all the matildas in T0, and how OHM and BMBM incorrectly  believe they have a mathematical balance with their historical supply lists in T0.

In the real world (for people who actually played a real TO the previous 2 campaigns like I have).  I can tell you there are way too many matildas in the British infantry flags in T0 - its really unbalanced.

And even though the current campaign started in T3 with Shermageddon, I don’t think the axis have forgotten about T0 the last two previous campaigns either.   The axis are still looking to see  some corrective action on this front too.

Edited by krazydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 4:29 PM, BMBM said:

Because what? I'm hearing of plenty 2000+ meter kills so it can't be that meaningless - unless all you can think of is ONE kind of game - the depot campathon game.

No the  get our boots into the cps alive game which has been removed as we cant keep a zoc or any sort of coordinated effort going because of the way too many ats/sappers/bombers/atgs/atrs/easily driven out and engaged defending armor....left a few years ago to the ats coming into game and then seeing sappers are back and now i hearing about heat grenadiers coming back....i think you guys are seriously still scared of the sg days ffs....oj and the fellas left a decade ago and they aren’t coming back so can we please get a combined arms back and not a boots rule the plains game because imo the pendulum has swing too far

Share this post


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

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.

Agree. The game should be FUN for the PB to continue playing it. In this iteration of the Hysterical Spawnlists, based on the attitude of the PB, it seems like it is less than fun for many. I wish CRS would have the guts to actually do a pool here or in game about this. But I am afraid they are too afraid to know the truth.

Now, why is it that the current approach to Hysterical spawnlists is less fun? Because, in my  opinion,  it is severely limiting the type of gameplay. When players on one side that specialize in a certain type of weapon, or they have most FUN using a certain type of weapon, and  won't find it available in the Hysterical spawnlist, they will have less fun.

And all of this for what ?? What is the gain? I fail to see it. Yes, I did not play for a while, I only get my sense of what is going on via the fora, so my perceptions might be skewed. I will certainly try to get the game up and running again, just to see. All of this for what? What is better now. What is the type of FUN I could not have before and I can have now, with those Hysterical spawnlists. Will report when (if) I found out. In the meanwhile, feel free to tell me your take on it. And by your I mean the players that actually play and find the game more fun now. 

Edited by bogol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BMBM said:

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).

I do agree that there has to be a valuation of units, this is just basic wargaming scenario building 101.

But as I have said for years, NO one wants to actually play a recreationist sim, best you can do is give a FEEL for the tier era, not actual numbers.  Special scenarios, sure.  War, no.  Just gonna have to learn the hard way, I guess.

Even now though, there are obviously subjective choices being made with unit composition.  There is no escape from human judgement, especially in an entertainment.

 

And to a point you make in another post, yes one should always neutral out one's personal desires in this game's design. 

The game needs what it needs, and one of the things people don't understand is that Rats have to do what the game needs, not what people want to do, including Rat personal preferences.

But this whole few tanks here few SMGs there combat biome busting approach kills off entire segments of the game.  That IS enforcing a 'way to play  the game' and limiting solution options.

When you can't determine what the 'right' fun is for people or the game as a whole, best to provide as many avenues to different kinds of fun as possible.

 

Example of this is town capture, knockdown dragout multi-day Stalingrad vs. ninja cap vs. armor roll vs. infantry infiltration building to a combined arms limited battle.  The game is richer when all of those can happen naturally without being goosed into it, and poorer if one type of capture is coded for over the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

But as I have said for years, NO one wants to actually play a recreationist sim, best you can do is give a FEEL for the tier era, not actual numbers. 

We're not into recreation, so why even bring it up? The list started out as an ambition to represent the historical diversity and character of each nation's TOE in the proper timeline, based on actual numbers, actual cost and actual production ratios. Incidentally, many here on the forum have been talking about these factors relative to their wishes and woes since the game launched, so our direction here should come as no surprise. We then applied several filters to that and tweaked it further before launch. Post-launch, we've made several changes that takes it well away from anything remotely associated with recreation. What's left, is that faint whiff of history to give you that FEEL for the tier era. And it continues to evolve.

38 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

But this whole few tanks here few SMGs there combat biome busting approach kills off entire segments of the game.  That IS enforcing a 'way to play  the game' and limiting solution options.

The message here that keeps getting missed is that the new list raised challenges that the old ones didn't, challenges that required a rethink of how equipment is used, how formations are used, how the game is played. It seems to me that the required rethink did not occur, instead most people simply forged on with the old behavior in the new list. This is akin to the paradigm shift introduced with the brigade system. The old list provided one set of enforced ways of playing the game as it certainly didn't offer unlimited supply - the thing is, you got used to that set of challenges. Now here's another set of challenges , let's see you adapt to them. 

39 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

When you can't determine what the 'right' fun is for people or the game as a whole, best to provide as many avenues to different kinds of fun as possible.

The avenues to many different kinds of fun are as multifarious as ever.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BMBM said:

That'd probably cull a lot of variety from the spawnlists and reduce the game to the common lowest denominator. Just my gut feeling. You'd probably never see a Blenheim, a Laffly W15, an R35, H39 or any of the CS tanks or mortarmen with that approach. Sure, we could pimp the list with the bestest general purpose tanks per tier and the most used infantry types (rifle, SMG, LMG) for the most prevalent type of combat (massed close combat onslaught), but I'm pretty sure the game would be the poorer for it. 

Two responses:

1. The proposal would be to include anything in the analysis that's spawned by choice, as opposed to being left until the spawn-list end. Then the ratioing would be based on popularity, with relative numbers based on the allowed aggregate budget. So, the lists could include a small number of almost every model. What they wouldn't include would be large numbers of weapons that are unpopular.

2. "the game would be the poorer for it"...well, now, what's the goal here? To design the game you want, or the game that maximizes fun delivery?

My gut feeling would be that all else equal, maximized fun delivery would result in maximized customer count at any given point in time, and maximized likelihood of a game revenue growth trajectory. That, I'm pretty sure, is someone's goal.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The items mentioned are already marginal. Stuff that doesn't get much playtime isn't over-represented for some imagined ulterior desire to saddle a side with useless gear. 

I recall the old French list which had but 4 Laffly W15s for tier 0-1 and left them out altogether in tier 2 and 3 - it was my favorite platform. How was that dimension of "fun" preserved? In the current list that platform, useful as it is, retained right through to the end.

Share this post


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

The items mentioned are already marginal. Stuff that doesn't get much playtime isn't over-represented for some imagined ulterior desire to saddle a side with useless gear. 

I recall the old French list which had but 4 Laffly W15s for tier 0-1 and left them out altogether in tier 2 and 3 - it was my favorite platform. How was that dimension of "fun" preserved? In the current list that platform, useful as it is, retained right through to the end.

I'd think CRS would want to maximize aggregate fun delivery. That likely would mean that some kinds of fun would not be delivered, because if those kinds of fun are delivered, other kinds of fun in greater quantity could not be simultaneously delivered. That's the nature of a statistical analysis. You're striving to maximize...not to be all things to all people.

You've said several times that CRS wants objective solutions. Statistical fun-delivery maximization based on aggregate spawn demand plus your budget costs would be highly objective. Trying to individually decide who to deliver fun to, and what exceptions to make to aggregate demand based maximization, would be subjective. What's the solution goal again?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wish these damn forums could be more positive for once. Some only want balance, some (like me) would gladly play a recreation level-simulation. CRS must build with design goals in mind, because they are the ones building it. They are trying to deliver a playable game that still is a simulation style experience. Just let them put out 1.36 before everyone loses their minds. 

Keep up the good work, you guys are trying and most of us are behind the effort. Things will be refined with time. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 9:22 PM, riprend said:

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.

yeah it's absurd

over a year for CRS to gradually lower a build timer for the FMS from 3:00 down to 1:30, then now to 30 seconds...just for a single timer

any suggestion no matter how minor is met with dev posts about how it won't work or there needs to be more data, or wait and see

hell I suggested giving the mortarman 50/50 smoke/HE and merlin51 posted like a dozen times telling me how wrong I was

so this company that is extremely resistant to change all of a sudden has 1 or 2 guys making drastic changes to the spawnlists with no one checking on their decisions

Share this post


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

We're not into recreation, so why even bring it up? The list started out as an ambition to represent the historical diversity and character of each nation's TOE in the proper timeline, based on actual numbers,

Please for the love of God stop this nonsense about using "actual numbers".

1. 23 Matilda IIs were in France in 1940

2. BEF was less than 20% of allied force.

CRS/WWIIOL does not use historical numbers so please stop constantly claiming that it does. You saying it again and again does not change reality just because your production lists say it is possible.

The Matilda numbers are fantasy.

The allied SMG numbers are fantasy.

The proportion of the BEF is fantasy.

So why do the axis flags have to stay as the CRS homage to the axis doctrine of light panzer columns thrusting deep behind enemy lines, bypassing defended towns and cutting their lines of communications?

How could any potential new player checking out this historically based game with a modicum of knowledge of the Battle of France take your spawnlists seriously?

S! Ian

Share this post


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

. This is akin to the paradigm shift introduced with the brigade system. The old list provided one set of enforced ways of playing the game as it certainly didn't offer unlimited supply - the thing is, you got used to that set of challenges. Now here's another set of challenges , let's see you adapt to them. 

 

LOL - you do know that your paradigm shift of brigade spawning is being shelved? The game will not last another 10 years waiting for this paradigm shift to be reversed.

Forcing players to adapt their way of playing, is exactly you forcing players to play the game your way. As for playing with the equipment in a certain way, there is little or no equipment to play with much of the time.

Maybe if some of the people forcing these "new ways of playing the game" actually played the game they might understand the players point of view?

We play the game for enjoyment, not to have somebody decide we need to face a new set of challenges that have to be overcome. You have decided that we your paying customers have to adapt.

Adapt or what? What happens when paying customers decide they do not want to adapt to your interpretation of the Battle of France?

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The playerbase in the forums have been pretty clear on your so called historic Hardest Campaign Ever spawn lists. "Let's see you adapt to them".

 

S! Ian

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.