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.

Tank supply imbalance


Recommended Posts

  • CORNERED RAT
TEX64
4 hours ago, kareca said:

CRS chose (wrongly, in my opinion) to make a SIMULATOR and not a game
The result is this.
So I've been gone for a while. I hope it will change yet.

 

S!

Has CRS (xoom) ever considered selling to any interested company with conditions to take the game / simulator forward?

I know that it is not easy to maintain this structure.

 

 

Maybe one day Xoom will write his personal history re WW2OL - disagree with him this way and that - but he really stepped up as has the CRS Team to not only keep the dream alive but to advance the ball further toward the goal.

If you want a peek into the future of WW2OL . . . you need to sign up for the virtual convention and listen, take some notes, and think about what it was like the first time you spawned into WW2OL because you need to think about that emotion and the possibilities for the game back in 2001.  Each of us should be proud that we helped get the game to this point after 20 years but others have done some VERY heavy lifting and I know they are excited to talk about what lies ahead for the game.

!S,

tex

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • delems

    31

  • fidd

    31

  • drkmouse

    25

  • BMBM

    18

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Tell ya what bmbm. Put yourself where your words are. Pick town - you get 1 tiger. 3 axis will take s76, best of 7 matches - let's see who wins?

So when will this be fixed ? Went onto both sides and wrote down all possible tank supply numbers https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OtN0mK1AXhUBkah4qSSSBU0x8EAcvHTj_wVuZIuD97A/edit?usp

*** Define the even fight. Define equal skill. Come on, you know exactly what this means. Take current spawn list - 12 s76 vrs 4 tigers. if 2 dm79 take out s76, and 2 dm79 take out tige

raptor34
Posted (edited)

The future is why I am here S!

Edited by raptor34
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • CORNERED RAT
BMBM
8 hours ago, Kilemall said:
There are distinct problems with that approach, not the least of which it doesn't begin to address how our equipment and battlefield and production is NOT that of WWII and more importantly is NOT A GAME.

There are distinct problems with ANY approach. We have yet to see a model that gives us a more objective and scientific ground for comparison/valuation. This is especially true as we add more diversity of kit. 

You people seem to think that that list, since dumbed down towards tit-for-tat, or even the current list, was/is a reenactment list, or a ”simulation” list as opposed to a ”game” list. 

It is not.

Had we gone fully historical the game would be unplayable, grossly imbalanced in certain sectors and specifically wrt budget. If so, Axis would *never* win. To function, Axis must be brought up to level (QV) without making their arguably more qualitative kit tip over that delicate balance point - which is an aggregate of multiple factors. Past versions of the list were easier to manage - there were fewer items, less cogs, but also a systemic fault in that quantity was never used as a quality in itself.

There are other things we cannot factor in that are far more important towards tactical domination and ultimately map win: size of the army (population), morale (population/leadership/ToM/results) and training (skill, mindset).

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
stikyfingr
9 hours ago, Kilemall said:

I can hear you, yanno.

Don't worry, somebody will say something that will trigger my essay gun.

Superb reposte sir !!

Link to post
Share on other sites
delems
Posted (edited)

*** There are other things we cannot factor in that are far more important towards tactical domination and ultimately map win: size of the army (population), morale (population/leadership/ToM/results) and training (skill, mindset).

Agree.

And, I'm sure it is not that easy to come up with a) balanced lists and b) lists that have enough gear to play, but not so much that it is too much so never really attrit.

But, you can't tell me you really think 12 s76 vrs 4 tigers is even or fair?

Same for 18 s75 vrs 10 IVG/H?

Then, 3 Stuart vrs x2 IIIL?

(forget 38t, IIC, IIIF, IIIB, IVD - shouldn't even be in spawn list tier 3 on-- give IIIH to DLC)

And while there are a couple IIIN and IIIH - they in no way make up for the extra 16 s76/s75.

And, won't even mention (ok I will) the 5x DAC can kill every panzer, every tier.... 232 sure can't do that.

USA tank list is completely out of whack imo.

Edited by delems
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • CORNERED RAT
BMBM
30 minutes ago, delems said:

But, you can't tell me you really think 12 s76 vrs 4 tigers is even or fair?

I’m totally disinterested in pool table discussions. Your X vs Y scenarios never play out as such in game and are wholly misleading. Again and for the last time, you have to factor in population, situation, skill, morale, terrain, phase of battle and other factors (eg surprise, use of cover and smoke, air superiority, optics etc) - using simple numbers is simply leading you up the garden path to lalala-land.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** I’m totally disinterested in pool table discussions.

So purposely ignoring facts?

If all those other factors are exactly even for a given hour or two....

Then the 12 - 4 doesn't change that?  Because it does - it is not fair, it is not even.

How can you be so blind?  12 > 4.  Period.

So, same skill, same players, same effort. -- 12 to 4 is not the same.

But, so be it, we will continue to see axis players stop playing and leave until this tank balance is corrected is my guess.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
dfire

 

8 minutes ago, delems said:

*** I’m totally disinterested in pool table discussions.

So purposely ignoring facts?

If all those other factors are exactly even for a given hour or two....

Then the 12 - 4 doesn't change that?  Because it does - it is not fair, it is not even.

How can you be so blind?  12 > 4.  Period.

So, same skill, same players, same effort. -- 12 to 4 is not the same.

But, so be it, we will continue to see axis players stop playing and leave until this tank balance is corrected is my guess.

Perhaps if he listened to customers instead of trying to act superior to them, so many people wouldn't of left the game over the years. He can make his argument for his tank numbers, but there's no arguing player numbers have gone down. I'm sure he will deflect that though, per usual.

Is less players only because of unbalanced tank numbers? No. However, it is one thing that contributes. Heck, there's one person in this very thread that even said that's why they don't play anymore. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
undercova

if 12 S76 vs. 4 Tiger is fine by CRS ... why not give axis back the FG42 to garrison and flags ??!?!??

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
8 hours ago, BMBM said:

There are distinct problems with ANY approach. We have yet to see a model that gives us a more objective and scientific ground for comparison/valuation. This is especially true as we add more diversity of kit. 

You people seem to think that that list, since dumbed down towards tit-for-tat, or even the current list, was/is a reenactment list, or a ”simulation” list as opposed to a ”game” list. 

It is not.

Had we gone fully historical the game would be unplayable, grossly imbalanced in certain sectors and specifically wrt budget. If so, Axis would *never* win. To function, Axis must be brought up to level (QV) without making their arguably more qualitative kit tip over that delicate balance point - which is an aggregate of multiple factors. Past versions of the list were easier to manage - there were fewer items, less cogs, but also a systemic fault in that quantity was never used as a quality in itself.

There are other things we cannot factor in that are far more important towards tactical domination and ultimately map win: size of the army (population), morale (population/leadership/ToM/results) and training (skill, mindset).

I would not argue most of your points, and have often said the new increased kit REQUIRED a systematic approach to spawnlist building and that it be a lot more rigorously flexible to accommodate constant new items.  Or if you have done your work right, players are the primary determinant of outcome.  That's a big part of the sell, that a player's little action has big effects and is all part of a team effort.

I would disagree with the assertion that quantity wasn't a quality, the original RDP set had hard limits as to how much kit could intro based in large measure on their cost as well as tier availability.  If you are talking a logarithmic type curve of the highest end items for their tier such as Matties and Tigers, no it didn't.

I also agree with equipment being valuated on combat potential, not K/D.

What I disagree with is integrating historical cost into that valuation, and seemingly no adjustments for the reality we experience on the battlefield.

 

Exhibit A, the 88.  Yes theoretically it's a kill everything in 2km death machine with optics to match.

It was an expensive gun to manufacture.

But on a practical basis in our game, it's not so valuable.

It involves more player manpower to maneuver and tow.

It's soft yet large nature makes it easy prey to air units, ironically the thing it was RL designed to kill, yet it doesn't have effective AA fire.

Our marking systems in game belie a level of communication and instant 'marking' for ground targets not seen on the RL battlefield until Blue Force Tracker- created about the same time as the game.  88s are particularly affected by this.

And above all, the porous nature of our lines and density and 'offsides spawning', the lowest infantry can sneak through the area and kill them.

Wasn't that way in the early going of the game because of the different terrain and nature of the game reality they operated in. 

 

Any valuation system that does not account for our game's 'reality' is doomed to 'get it wrong'.

Yes, that involves judgement, not the fetish for Pentagon-type spreadsheet truths.

K/D based analysis is a variant on such things and doesn't tell the truth, but neither does this current method.  They should not be ignored and help make informed decisions, but never be crutched on, and include game reality performance in their valuation.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Elfin

Maybe it's time to reinstate the choice of TOE by HC for a map?

(within limits of course)

Given that players are concerned, then "said" players can do HC and set up the TOE as they see fit for an upcoming map.

That at least would take the heat off of CRS and put it on players.

Then again ....there is the risk HC for a side...will be unable to agree on deployment.

If players don't step up.....then CRS can be the default situation.

Perhaps fewer concerns from players will arise.

 

S!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
raptor34
54 minutes ago, Elfin said:

Maybe it's time to reinstate the choice of TOE by HC for a map?

(within limits of course)

Given that players are concerned, then "said" players can do HC and set up the TOE as they see fit for an upcoming map.

That at least would take the heat off of CRS and put it on players.

Then again ....there is the risk HC for a side...will be unable to agree on deployment.

If players don't step up.....then CRS can be the default situation.

Perhaps fewer concerns from players will arise.

 

S!

100% 

More campaign variety, more interesting map set ups, only fellow players to blame, not CRS

Link to post
Share on other sites
delems
Posted (edited)

Tell ya what bmbm.

Put yourself where your words are.

Pick town - you get 1 tiger.

3 axis will take s76, best of 7 matches - let's see who wins?

Edited by delems
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
stikyfingr
On 5/18/2021 at 9:17 PM, XOOM said:

I encourage many CRS to stay connected with our players, that is the difference between CRS as a developer (staying connected to our player base) and every other game developer out there.

My forum activity is lower these days but my responsibilities have grown exponentially, I am in the "fight" (so to speak) harder than ever trying to advance the game and company forward. My job is predominately supporting our leadership team and personnel but I do maintain a decent presence on the WWII Online FB group page and Discord. 

My Wife has to compete for my time given all that I invest here. WWII Online is my exclusive focus and responsibility these days, but there was a time where it was split.

Vast majority should appreciate that reply. Ty.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
goreblimey
7 hours ago, delems said:

Tell ya what bmbm.

Put yourself where your words are.

Pick town - you get 1 tiger.

3 axis will take s76, best of 7 matches - let's see who wins?

Look it takes 3 axis to fight fair......

try 1 tiger vs  1 s76 that can respawn twice

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kidd27
20 hours ago, delems said:

*** I’m totally disinterested in pool table discussions.

So purposely ignoring facts?

If all those other factors are exactly even for a given hour or two....

Then the 12 - 4 doesn't change that?  Because it does - it is not fair, it is not even.

How can you be so blind?  12 > 4.  Period.

So, same skill, same players, same effort. -- 12 to 4 is not the same.

But, so be it, we will continue to see axis players stop playing and leave until this tank balance is corrected is my guess.

stop picking out a part of the entire equation as proof of an imbalance.

The whole equation includes ALL equipment. not just the 2 you've decided to pick out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kidd27
12 hours ago, delems said:

Tell ya what bmbm.

Put yourself where your words are.

Pick town - you get 1 tiger.

3 axis will take s76, best of 7 matches - let's see who wins?

why do the axis get 3 players? how bout he gets the tiger and you get the s76.

when you die you can respawn and drive back to find him again.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kidd27
15 hours ago, raptor34 said:

100% 

More campaign variety, more interesting map set ups, only fellow players to blame, not CRS

i believe the "HC controls too much of my fun" was an argument for ditching HC pick 'ems

Link to post
Share on other sites
N8
34 minutes ago, Kidd27 said:

stop picking out a part of the entire equation as proof of an imbalance.

The whole equation includes ALL equipment. not just the 2 you've decided to pick out.

 

ok

28 minutes ago, Kidd27 said:

i believe the "HC controls too much of my fun" was an argument for ditching HC pick 'ems

ok

31 minutes ago, Kidd27 said:

why do the axis get 3 players? how bout he gets the tiger and you get the s76.

when you die you can respawn and drive back to find him again.

ok

Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
51 minutes ago, Kidd27 said:

i believe the "HC controls too much of my fun" was an argument for ditching HC pick 'ems

I think most HC officers would laugh their heads off at the notion of HC "controlling" much of anything, beyond where and when an AO is placed. Personally I'd like us to move away from "cookie-cut" TOE's for Bde's, and would like to see more variety, especially, but not limited to, the axis Bde's, who I think would really benefit from being able to optimise their TOE's for the terrain.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
N8

ok

9 minutes ago, fidd said:

I think most HC officers would laugh their heads off at the notion of HC "controlling" much of anything, beyond where and when an AO is placed. Personally I'd like us to move away from "cookie-cut" TOE's for Bde's, and would like to see more variety, especially, but not limited to, the axis Bde's, who I think would really benefit from being able to optimise their TOE's for the terrain.

ok

Link to post
Share on other sites
choad
1 hour ago, Kidd27 said:

stop picking out a part of the entire equation as proof of an imbalance.

The whole equation includes ALL equipment. not just the 2 you've decided to pick out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

He will never do that because he knows his brittle argument would start to fall apart like a cheap suit.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
rob

My solution to the 12 to 4 ratio would be 12 Sherm 76 to 4 Tiger and 8 Panther. I'm really hoping that's the path forward. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, rob said:

My solution to the 12 to 4 ratio would be 12 Sherm 76 to 4 Tiger and 8 Panther. I'm really hoping that's the path forward. 

There is no "solution", because there is no "problem". just as there was never a "mattty problem" in respect of axis tier 0 armour was essentially unable to KO Matildas. There has been a series of ill-advised terrain changes, and FMS implementations/short EWS range for trucks, all of which created a terrain problem in rendering defensive ATG's near useless. As the 88 was only effective means of despatching Matildas at a decent range, this created the Matty problem. In the same way, this "12to4" problem is no such thing, because the stats that matter are those covering the probabilities of taking a cp, and of taking a town. The actual composition of the TOE's can be pretty much anything.

There's also the overall server-pop situation to consider. The axis have a HUGE advantage in low pop where 4 players can spawn Tigers, whereas the allies, especially in attack, have to spawn at least double that just to attain a rough parity. I presume, and I am guessing here, that these issues are all fed into Xoom's "ouija-board" when TOE's are set for any given tier. If the axis were up against 12 to 4 (simultaneously) 24/7, and across the front, then there might be some grounds for reviewing it, were tank v tank stats the only consideration in arriving at what constitutes a good TOE.

I would think if and when the Panther comes in, you'll see a reduction in the number of Tigers - current numbers widely over-represent the type - and some Panthers, 8 may be a little over-optimistic! ...and hopefully some as yet undevved Hetzers/Marders to leaven the mix. So long as we have this bloody-awful terrain, it's likely that any axis TOE featuring Tigers and Panthers will find itself in trouble in flat terrain, and doing rather well in hilly terrain where longer engagements are possible. As the Panther is even more vulnerable to hits from the side, than the Tiger that same marking/ease of flanking which is currently seeing the Tiger underperform in flat terrain is likely to be worse than with the Tiger. So this, again, like the "matty problem" is first and foremost actually a terrain problem. 

If you first instinct on reading this is to boil with rage, consider this: The Pak40 is the best ATG in game, both with optics, ease of concealment, and hitting power/low dispersion. it is also currently nearly useless in defence, like every single other medium ATG in game, because of the terrain, marking, clouds of aircraft and FMS environment. If the terrain foliage was reduced, significantly, bush-tunnels done away with, and ATG's were generally able to be towed out roughly within 1000m of town before there were eyes on that same ground, then, we would not be so hung up on the numbers of this or that tank.

Edited by fidd
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
N8
34 minutes ago, fidd said:

There is no "solution"

And there is no "need" for these unnecessary paragraphs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...