Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

delems

How come Brit get semis?

Recommended Posts

drkmouse
36 minutes ago, blakeh said:

that is not just one side-  plenty of axis snipers do it too.   This is not a side problem, it is a game problem.

wierd when i see  aixs  snipers and lmg  they are stting   neer or on top of berms, have even stoped of  allied ones  and then seen ther ehead sticking out of hill ( shooting at point blank and nothing)

if it is a one sided or universal thing, needs to be audited.

Share this post


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

Because real Enfields could cycle not only way faster than a Mauser, but you can do so and stay in the sight picture. We're literally saying that if the Enfield acted like a real one, you could take the semis away from the UK (except on the home islands, where they should get a bunch of M1s (maybe the UK Garrison forces?).

Ok then, I agree.  Have fast enfields and remove M1s.

Share this post


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

I said unless.  Putting words in your mouth would be saying you ARE saying that.  I know better then to do that.

 

Well, which is it?  What are you saying by bringing that up?

wow  you damb well it is  niether of those, you are  jsut  trying to throw  out  red herrings...

Share this post


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

wow  you damb well it is  niether of those, you are  jsut  trying to throw  out  red herrings...

Didn't answer the question.

And seems to me you're throwing out way more red herrings given the 'what about Allied berm this and that' stuff, as though that is some balance issue favoring the Allies.

Share this post


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

Ok then, I agree.  Have fast enfields and remove M1s.

And more SMGs later tiers to allow more play, or more infantry/assault tank for MG control.

My personal theory is that we don't necessarily need red vs. blue absolute parity in all forces but OVERALL parity in spawnlists for various phases of battle, whether that is LR control, ambush, medium infantry or close assault capability.

It's a fools errand to try and match up disparate equipment types accurately modeled AND exact historical ratios, its a game.  But we can make smart functional choices that feel close to historical if we do spawnlist building by role and matchups, with the spawning biome very much in mind.

If we change spawning, that changes the spawnlists.  I'm not sure current Rats have that sort of correlation built into their theory of spawnlisting, but we are going to continue to have these unhappiness discussions until it IS consistently done.

Share this post


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

Ok then, I agree.  Have fast enfields and remove M1s.

I haven't measured. You can probably take aimed shots maybe a third to half again faster with the SMLE? Sort of depends on a lot of things. Fast firing is easier standing/crouching. I've seen videos where they do aimed speed fire prone—we rarely shoot prone because dropping into the dirt is often a problem because of cactus everywhere (even where they are not, pieces of them scatter around). It's harder, though. I think the current RoF is probably not that far off, the big issue is completely losing the sight picture.

Anyway, and someone who just plays Allied, and when the US is in I avoid the UK if there are no M1s, I'd rather have the UK feel more like the UK and not have the M1s.

Course I have no idea what the G41 numbers are compared to reality, either, if some of the German semis were bumped because the French AND the UK got them, that might need adjustment again.

Unrelated to semis, I wish resting was a thing. Like a "deploy" key for rifles (resting on windowsill, or a rock, whatever).

Share this post


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

Have fast enfields and remove M1s.

And, French MAS40 enters in T1, and is replaced by MAS44 in T3.

And, Enfield modified so it fires and cycles with the sight picture maintained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

If we change spawning, that changes the spawnlists.  I'm not sure current Rats have that sort of correlation built into their theory of spawnlisting, but we are going to continue to have these unhappiness discussions until it IS consistently done.

Yeah, so much of what is perceived as broken weapons, or nerfs, etc, is a function of a bad spawning and capture paradigm.

Clearing and guarding CPs is an arbitrary mechanic, and one where full auto rules.

It is my understanding "capture" is just a specific texture on the floor or something. Apply that, it's capturable. What if (odd idea):

1. Increase capture time a LOT. Like painfully long for a single guy.

2. The more people on the capture textures (plural for a reason), the faster it goes. Substantial multiplier here.

3. Put the capture texture in every enterable building in an area around the depot. Alternately, in specific ones.

So instead of a single flag building (make the CP a new building, keep the flag, but make it look more normal), there are a bunch linked together. You know when you enter one, you see the progress bar and the facility name as now. Clearing takes longer, but so does capture. Instead of guarding by staring at a wall in the CP, you can be in any of multiple structures actually fighting. If you see capping, then you know you have to clear buildings. Might even put some outside. Many depots have one of those "triangle" neighborhoods next to them, right? Link the little park like outside space in the middle?

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

Didn't answer the question.

And seems to me you're throwing out way more red herrings given the 'what about Allied berm this and that' stuff, as though that is some balance issue favoring the Allies.

your realy are a  pc of work..  my record stands for itself.........( when axis was rolling  2-3 maps in a row i was advocating  for help to allies  MANY TIME.....

unlike some  who  only  non stop  go for  one side even when  rolling map after map

asn  as i said atm  12 map  5 axis 5 allies 2  ties... so changes have to be even  .....

Share this post


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

your realy are a  pc of work..  my record stands for itself.........( when axis was rolling  2-3 maps in a row i was advocating  for help to allies  MANY TIME.....

unlike some  who  only  non stop  go for  one side even when  rolling map after map

asn  as i said atm  12 map  5 axis 5 allies 2  ties... so changes have to be even  .....

I have a record of doing the same too, you just don't seem to be aware of it or care.

I would suggest you couch your arguments in terms of total fairness and rise above the crowd, if that is your actual perspective.

Plenty of people on both sides that want things arranged the way they like to play and win.  The constant trick is to give the game what it needs, not what every faction and and interest group wants.

Share this post


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

asn  as i said atm  12 map  5 axis 5 allies 2  ties... so changes have to be even  .....

Relative map wins is not a useful metric to discuss equipment differences at all, since people can switch sides, and change the map. Winning the map has nothing to do with equipment, everything to do with numbers. 50 guys with nothing but tier-0 inf, trucks, and ATGs rolls a map against some lesser number with everything, regardless of tier. What the relative numbers are per tier varies I bet, but at some OP level it doesn't matter.

Share this post


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

Relative map wins is not a useful metric to discuss equipment differences at all, since people can switch sides, and change the map. Winning the map has nothing to do with equipment, everything to do with numbers. 50 guys with nothing but tier-0 inf, trucks, and ATGs rolls a map against some lesser number with everything, regardless of tier. What the relative numbers are per tier varies I bet, but at some OP level it doesn't matter.

Don't accept this argument, have too many years seeing how the original RDP changes would alter player numbers, hissy fits about this and that occurrence in game matters, so does leadership, and even a few imbalances in a spawnlist will greatly impact those numbers.

The converse is also true, equipment that is 'useless' when outnumbered because it is easily flanked and destroyed becomes fearsome in the hands of properly organized and covered numbers.

Share this post


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

Don't accept this argument, have too many years seeing how the original RDP changes would alter player numbers, hissy fits about this and that occurrence in game matters, so does leadership, and even a few imbalances in a spawnlist will greatly impact those numbers.

The converse is also true, equipment that is 'useless' when outnumbered because it is easily flanked and destroyed becomes fearsome in the hands of properly organized and covered numbers.

Don't accept which one? That wins vs losses is not related to technical aspects of equipment, or that 50 people with whatever crap weapons will not wipe the mat with 10 given any equip they want?

I didn't say that there was no interaction between eqp and numbers, there is (a cool thing might attract players), I meant that controlled for the cool factor attracting people, I don't think it matters if the numbers are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, tater said:

Don't accept which one? That wins vs losses is not related to technical aspects of equipment, or that 50 people with whatever crap weapons will not wipe the mat with 10 given any equip they want?

I didn't say that there was no interaction between eqp and numbers, there is (a cool thing might attract players), I meant that controlled for the cool factor attracting people, I don't think it matters if the numbers are right.

I don't accept that only numbers matter.  Instead, various psychological conditions can greatly alter those numbers, some of which can be equipment related and more often fairness/hissy fits of one sort or another, and in rare instances outnumbered but organized and well-led players have held out, broken the will of larger numbers over a course of weeks and in turn brought about larger numbers on their side.

That's why I don't accept HC that just throw their hands up and say it's pointless can't be done.  It can be, but can you put the team together to do it?

And of course the ULTIMATE example about how numbers and morale is not just raw player-hours- how the small TZ3 numbers can upend the results of fighting of far greater numbers of people in other TZs, and in turn create superior numbers.

 

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dandare9

A comment about 'if one side has the weapon,  the other has it too!'.  Zooks?  Shreks come one tier later than when allies get them.  

Doh!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jsilec
On 6/28/2020 at 8:56 AM, dandare9 said:

A comment about 'if one side has the weapon,  the other has it too!'.  Zooks?  Shreks come one tier later than when allies get them.  

Doh!

Tankbuster ju 87 comes in a tier earlier then allied ones...i have no idea if thats “historical” but its happened not saying its right or wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

History-based timing mismatches are OK...even good...as long as the game includes some in both directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
Posted (edited)
On 6/27/2020 at 1:43 AM, Kilemall said:

I don't accept that only numbers matter.  Instead, various psychological conditions can greatly alter those numbers, some of which can be equipment related and more often fairness/hissy fits of one sort or another, and in rare instances outnumbered but organized and well-led players have held out, broken the will of larger numbers over a course of weeks and in turn brought about larger numbers on their side.

It's patently obvious that there are certain numerical disparities that are impossible to overcome in ww2ol. Also that the game doesn;t work at very low pop levels at all.

The following is LOCAL pop within a given AO:

1. At some low pop on both sides everything is broken, and the game is just moling.

2. All towns have a minimum number of players required within a DO to successfully defend against an actual attack. (on the order of 1 player per bunker/CP, plus a floater). "Actual attack" in this case means enough players per #3, below.

3. All towns have a minimum number of attackers relative to defenders to successfully attack—it's literally probably 1 extra player above defenders.

4. These numbers hold regardless of "supply." 20 guys attacking from a depleted Garrison wipe the floor in a town with <N defenders who need N as a minimum to defend, even thought the defending town has a full garrison, plus multiple BDEs. If they get N defenders in place, then I suppose there is a non-zero chance they hold, but it requires them doing everything right, the OP attackers doing everything wrong.

The actual game—shooting at stuff—is 100% disconnected from "the map" during most play. When sides are ~equal, then supply matters, otherwise local player numbers are literally everything.

A Garrison could be down to a handful or mortarmen or ATRs as the only units (what's the least used unit?). A single player could cap an entire city if no defenders show up from that depleted Garrison, no matter how many full BDES that city held. This scales. Add a single defender, and 2 attackers could mole it to capture, with no supply on attack to speak of. The operational and tactic games are unrelated.

 

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
On 6/26/2020 at 11:51 AM, drkmouse said:

wierd when i see  aixs  snipers and lmg  they are stting   neer or on top of berms, have even stoped of  allied ones  and then seen ther ehead sticking out of hill ( shooting at point blank and nothing)

if it is a one sided or universal thing, needs to be audited.

Its universal however be aware, IF they do not allow some tolerances for items to clip you will lose a massive amount of mobility and fidelity that will make the experience  less enjoyable and more ridged  where movement is being dictated by the angle of the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

I actually think rifles should get to "deploy" as well. Advantages of a rest. The ability to sort of clip makes them a little safer from fire. Con in game is you have less ability to move when flanked (have to undeploy).

I think this would be a win all around. The slight clipping we see with LMGs makes them slightly more realistic, IMO—in outcomes. Fire a burst, then duck. Repeat. Same for reloading. If in a really good spot, you might have to be flanked and addressed from the side. Right now you hear/see a LMG that is not doing the above, find the muzzle flash, throw a couple rifle rounds at it, and it's dead. K/D for LMGs should be far higher than other small arms, I bet it isn't (arty killed the most, then MG fire).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moetow

I mean, CRS yells HISTORICAL ACCURACY with the historical date introduction with the tiers, then does this. 
 

Makes zero sense to me, giving the BEF garands. Total farce and completely hypocritical to boot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
On 6/26/2020 at 6:43 PM, tater said:

Relative map wins is not a useful metric to discuss equipment differences at all, since people can switch sides, and change the map. Winning the map has nothing to do with equipment, everything to do with numbers. 50 guys with nothing but tier-0 inf, trucks, and ATGs rolls a map against some lesser number with everything, regardless of tier. What the relative numbers are per tier varies I bet, but at some OP level it doesn't matter.

LOL... In a vacuum you would be more correct than not, however you get a side with better equipment you will get more numbers and the side that has T0 equipment will log out.

Share this post


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

Makes zero sense to me, giving the BEF garands. Total farce and completely hypocritical to boot...

The British were given 38,001 M1 rifles by the US as Lend-Lease (because of logistics, assumed to be for home island defense). They have red bands painted on the forestock.

I agree they should not be on the front, no supply chain for ammo, etc., even if there were 5.4X as many of those UK M1s as FG42s were ever made. Having the No4mk1 cycle without leaving sight picture (they might need to change animation though?) would help. In RL it's harder to stay in sight picture prone than standing/kneeling, too. Dang reality being complex.

Anyway, I'm cool with the UK loosing the M1 on the Continent (that's a real sacrifice, BTW, I'm loathe to spawn in as a Brit rifleman when no M1 around once US is in. Most all my sorties are M1 rifles as soon as they are around).

 

7 minutes ago, stankyus said:

LOL... In a vacuum you would be more correct than not, however you get a side with better equipment you will get more numbers and the side that has T0 equipment will log out.

Yeah, I think you are certainly right. My point is that numbers is the proximal cause of wins. What causes the numbers can vary, obviously—including the allure of cool eqp.

So the game can be "fixed" via arbitrary mechanics, or they can try to make so much cool stuff that the "better eqp" attracts even numbers. My gut feeling is the latter then results in stabilizing some of the pop based on gear, and it still likely has OP/UP based on other side choice selections unrelated to gear.

Certainly taking the M1s from the UK will hurt in that regard (though then there should be more of them in the Garrisons in the actual UK should they find themselves invaded).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drkmouse
43 minutes ago, stankyus said:

LOL... In a vacuum you would be more correct than not, however you get a side with better equipment you will get more numbers and the side that has T0 equipment will log out.

umm realy?  dak/pac    vs   232    :2.0 KD   favor allies      allies top  7   tanks  vs allies  top tiger  1.0/ 1.0/2.0/2.0+  AV  1.7 KD favor allies vs axis BEST, and we  get  far less of them....

ant me go on? ;)    maps even past  12  maps only  do to axis  running  tz3 ( and  you all let us know that time and again)   

Share this post


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

umm realy?  dak/pac    vs   232    :2.0 KD   favor allies      allies top  7   tanks  vs allies  top tiger  1.0/ 1.0/2.0/2.0+  AV  1.7 KD favor allies vs axis BEST, and we  get  far less of them....

ant me go on? ;)    maps even past  12  maps only  do to axis  running  tz3 ( and  you all let us know that time and again)   

I don't see how this is related to his response to me.

We're talking about the number of players driving wins vs losses, not relative eqp kills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...