753317

Re: Ballancing

October 28th, 2003 02:51 PM

Uhm are you agreeing with the topic or not?
Sorry if I miss your meaning.

753345

Re: Ballancing

October 28th, 2003 03:07 PM

"balance is key in any FPS. Realism has to come second. I totally agree FH needs to fix many balance issues."

Yes I am agreeing.

753583

Re: Ballancing

October 28th, 2003 07:01 PM

The time to work the action of the .303 and K98 is correct.

I own a complete collection of both the .303 and G/K98 series (yes every representative version). In Rapid firing practices I can get 45 rounds per minute with the .303 (any model). The K98 is a bit slower at 40 rpm. This includes aiming with the rounds impacting within 10 inches of eachother @ 200 yards.

Honestly, all you are suggesting is a return to Vanilla.

754003

Re: Ballancing

October 29th, 2003 10:54 AM

I don't think we are disputing the fact that the real life rifles can perform just as or if not better than the in game rifles. I own a few rifles including a M48 Czec version of the K98 and I agree with you.

The issue is that in the game...since the rifles are soooo accurate it makes the game out balanced. If you are running, walking, standing then there has to be a accuracy curve to were you are going to mostly likely miss your target. If you are crouched then your stablity and accuracy is curved up and if you are prone then it's raised even higher. But there still must be a 1% chance of missing...call it the heat of battle.

Also the current accuracy of the K98 and M1 Garand make the sniper rifles mute. I say make the sniper rifles as accurate as the standard rifles are now and just as deadly but the difference is you are looking through the scope and can't see what's coming up along side you, etc. Just tone down the standard rifles a bit and make the sniper rifles less accessable so you don't have a game full of snipers.

Just my opinion.

754659

Re: Ballancing

October 29th, 2003 07:22 PM

Having browsed through this thread I don't really see what the issue is with rifle accuracy. Both teams have decent rifles, so whats the problem? So what if sniper rifles are crap, it's not like snipers contribute much to the game anyway. There are far greater inbalances in the game which should be addressed than a rifle. I would ramble on, but it's late, so I'll save it for another day.

754672

Re: Ballancing

October 29th, 2003 08:00 PM

The one thing i hate about the rifles, is the cocking animation. Who the hell works the bolt on a rifle that way?

Either increase the bolt time, or lessen the acuracy when standing/running for balance sake, because right now, the rifle is making many other weapons obsolete. In close combat, an smg should OWN a rifle, unless the rifleman gets in a lucky shot. As it is now, they both have about equil chances because the rifleman can still manuvour, and fire accurate 1 hit kills in rapic sucsession.

If you have UT2k3, play red orchestra and youl see what i mean.

755673

Re: Ballancing

October 30th, 2003 06:18 PM

[QUOTE=ReichwolffTBC]I say make the sniper rifles as accurate as the standard rifles are now and just as deadly but the difference is you are looking through the scope and can't see what's coming up along side you, etc. Just tone down the standard rifles a bit and make the sniper rifles less accessable so you don't have a game full of snipers.
[QUOTE]

I'm in accordance with that; but suggest the following:

Let the 'bullet spread' indicator come in a lot slower on non-sniper rifles. This will represent the time it takes to settle into a decent (read: stable) firing position, take a breath, time your shot with maximum accuracy...

1 shot kill is fine, and a soldier can get lucky with a snapshot from time to time, can't they?

756123

Re: Ballancing

October 31st, 2003 08:49 AM

"1 shot kill is fine, and a soldier can get lucky with a snapshot from time to time, can't they?"

Yeah that would work well...If you kneel the wide crosshair slowly closes to a certain point but not a pin point. If you're prone it would continue to close to a pin point...I like that idea for simulating careful aim.

Very good.

756160

Re: Ballancing

October 31st, 2003 09:59 AM

I agree the allies should have more tanks then germans, but especially for russian campains this is not because the T34 was a bad tank !

Maybe the image of allied tanks early in the war could be corrected by making more early war maps. I think it will produce quitte a number of upset posts "why did you make german tanks suck"

In 1940 when the war began many allied tanks were infantry fighting tanks. They had were terribly slow and had cannons that were built to kill infantry, not tanks. Nevertheless they often had very thick armour for their time, thick enough the 20 to 37 mm cannon of german tanks could not take them out. That is why mainly stuka's were flying in close support with the army groups.

In 1941 when germany launched it's attack on russia they first met little resistance and were practically standing at the gates of moskow, but soon they would come up against the T34 and the KV1 that no german tank could stand up against. At the german invasion of russia the german tank forces were made up of Panzer III with 50 mm cannon and the well known Panzer IV D with the infantry 75 mm short barrel cannon, aswell as numbers of totally outdated Panzer II and Chech 35T and 38 t.

That situation lasted for months if not untill germany was able to field the tigers and the panthers.

Fh as it is now focusses mainly on th later war years, but i heard ( hope) that will change. 1940/1941 were the decisive war years for the germans in conquering europe and invading russia. Also the desert campaingns were going on then.

I do still think the tigers armour is too strong ( not it's cannon, that is fine ) I posted it several times with the tigers own official manual as proof : the real T34 was could kill a tiger from 1500 m and less....in one shot to the flanks. Up front it could kill it from 500 m or less. And i mean the T34/76 in FH, not the stronger T34/85 ! In FH a T34 will not even damage a tiger if it fires at the front armour from 0 distance.....

I know the nOObs wil go insane if the tiger armour gets tuned down a little bit to realistic values but it does do the T34 justice. If they want realistic rolling fortresses, they have to wait for the Ferdinand or King tiger i guess.

I don't see issues in infantry combat......whatever supposed too strong weapon is fired it's operator will die from a single rifle type bullit. Moving under cover as much as possible is key there, real soldiers do it too, you will only find idiots charging in the open and then complaining about weapon strenght if they are mowed down in games

756380

Re: Ballancing

October 31st, 2003 02:13 PM

I don't really see no balance issues with rifles.. They don't differ all that much from other teams equals. I think you just suck and don't like to get owned. I agree the rifles could and even should be less accurate while running or standing, but I don't really see this as a problem as long as the rifles are almost each others counterparts. What does this have to do with balance? Or do you want FH to become vanilla BF where you need like two or three shots with rifle everytime? Lets just give every soldier HMGs to run around with, the vanilla BF style, so even you can hit. The other soldier with rifle always hits but I don't! This is unfair!


Sorry.