|
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Uh huh... Lobo, are you sure you are posting that in the correct thread? :p |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons I am damn sure, I had hear in the balls when you was in the belly of mum. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons okay USMA is on his knees no need to talk about his mum |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
God damn that ad with the noise it interrupted Los Pericos, out of spite iam making sure i will never get an Intel processor again. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons I pretty much have to get one when Apple takes the plunge in 2006. At least I will have more games to play then. Anyone else noticed how virtually all of the FH and forum veterans voted against balancing the vehicles, and only the new guys voted for it? So who are you going to choose to please, the 86% who have played the mod for ages, through thick and thin; or support the 14% who just started? |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
Quote:
Thank you devs! |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons I can't, Intel is going to be making the new processors for Apples, not AMD. And I'll be damned if I get a Windows based computer again, after all the hell they have put me through! |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
In no EARLYNorth Africa maps should any vehicle get a one shot kill at any range. :nodding: I will rephrase that. "No Early North African theatre maps sould have one shot kills at any range, not including Universal carrier, Mk.VI light tank, L6/40, PzII, rear shots, or advantages due to differences in terrain height. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Give up Anlushac11, IRL the tank of USMA would kill in 1 shot because he doesn't use powder, he pushes the shell with his masculinity. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
|
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons discussion aside - while i understand the point of improving survivability ratio of m3a1 halftracks etc. vechicles [they dont die from first tank shot, mostly 2 o3 are required] - id strongly suggest of puting somewhere a big red sign - THIS IS NOT A BUG, IT IS FEATURE. i understand why it was done, but i'd like it somewhere described etc. because at first glance it looks like bug, a serious one.. very serious ps. there is a limit of balancing - look at bf1942 - this is where road to balancing ends :) |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
(Oh yeah, and get rid of tag visibility, it makes it too easy to see people.) :-) |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
Realism as far as possible but do not sacrifice gameplay for it. What good is a realistic mod when no one wants to play it for one reason or another? I mean who would want to play omaha as allied on every map? I voted yes because I do think some stuff needs ballancing, yet I doubt that will happen for FH42 and I can only hope the devs concider it for FH2. (I wonder if it is possible to note how the games ended? might be something to look into for FH2 to see if one side constantly looses a map, which is a good ballance indicator) As for praising it.. why do we constantly have to praise it? I'd bet a case of fine german beer that every FH player promotes the game where he can. You cannot buy better praise. If we did not like the game, we would not be here complaining and hoping it might get better. Damn, its like people cannot find any other way to discredit other people! Quote:
This crap totally ruins maps like Kharkov outskirts where people constantly tag-scan. IMHO? Get rid of any indicator. Hate to repeat myself but that totally changes the game (to the better imho)! Played on one server without tags or hitindicators (iirc) Funny how people always want realism yet whore the tags and fog! |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
|
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons You sneaky devil you! ;) And, how does it look? One thing that we might want to think about for FH2 is removing points for kills. Seriously think about it. You're playing Omaha as allied and the entire round you are getting wasted. Then in the last 5 minutes your team finally breaks through and caps all flags. Thing is, the game does not care how many flags you took or even if you won the round since your kills are heavily reflected in the final score. The alles, who won the round, will have a lot less kills and even a 2x bonus will not change that. There are players in BF2 who have huge kill scores (planecampers) but have capped a handfull of flags. (one of the worst has like 20,700 kills, 700 deaths and 3 flag caps) Guess who gets the gold stars! |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Thou shalt not play game for stat, but for teh thrill! |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
|
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Wow, someone finally replied to my post, I guess USMC still didn't pay attention to it though. I'm guessing since FH only has 1 KV, they'd use the mid production model (otherwise it'd either completely own on early maps, or suck balls on late maps), so perhaps it would have a slightly better gun (not by a whole lot, maybe 10mm more penetration), but still wouldn't have better armor, so technically it'd be weaker IMHO. But another tank type is always nice to have. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
|
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons strumtrupp some maps are meant to be hard for one side, and maybe the one army only wins 1 out of 9 times. but thats because it was historically a tough battle for that army. example omaha, its suppose to be tough for allies, it was tough irl, a slaughter! i enjoy playing allies on that map, "runnin and gunning" with my tommy blazing down jerry's left and right. its a hoot! im one who doesnt care if my stats are 30/30 or 30/50 or 30/100, as long as my team wins. or gives it a damn good try anyway :D i play to win, not pad my score, i play under many different names, so i have no stats im farming! |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons This drives me mad, we will need to create stupid maps in FH2 so you don't come complain that there is an enemy that killed 150 dudes and was killed 2 times. What the hell, when Charlie starts I know I will die 40 times, and I will spawn to die, spawn again and die again, till I am sick of blood and pain, and 10 dudes in the german side will get 50 kills. But if we win the map I will feel the most proud player in world, over a montain of rubble and corpses of buddies. Stop thinking in your stats and the stats of other players and maybe some maps can be won by your team. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons What do you do with stats? Hit women? Grow your vpenis? |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons I dont even understand the point of the poll? Very few of the suggestions there have anything to do with balance, half of them are just demanding new vehicles or for changing the weapons/vehicle load outs. Should vehicles and weapons be compleatly balanced like they were in vanilla (where the Chi Ha = Sherman and the Sherman = Panzer 4)? HELL NO!! No one wants that here. Realism is very important so those are all valid suggestions, but this is a game so there has to be balance between each side some way or another if it is in the weapon/vehicle load outs or not making uber laser accurate AT/tank cannons. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Read the poll again buddy, it mentions nothing of adding new vehicles. Hell, I specifically stated that I am N_O_T complaining about the lack of certain vehicles or weapons in the mod. Pay attention. Now no offense, but if you want balanced gameplay I suggest you get Battlegroup 1942. They did balance everything, a medium between FH and Vanilla. Pretty good models and textures, better than DICE work, but not up to par with FH. I would like to point out, again, that the true FH veterans vote against balancing vehicles. Because so many people are not bothering to read my first post, here it is again: Quote:
|
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
please stop implying that everyone who is interested in fair gameplay/balance/whatever you call it is a stat whore. When I and others bitch about the balance of a map, it is not about nerfing it, or taking out teamplay, or whatever. Each advantage on any map should have a counter-mechanism that a decent team should have a reasonable ability to use, and each team should have a reasonable (before you say it, nobody is saying "equal") chance of winning. Most people I know play (a) for fun and (b) to win, not for stats. Stats are lame, stats need to go. You seem to have this attitude that all situations are winnable, and if they're not, just bite the bullet and accept it. Maybe that's the case with a bunch of cloned goose-stepping '1337 nazi uber-gamer stormtroops. F*** that--most players are "just some dude, probably decent, but not league-quality." Running at machine guns as a distraction for a team that doesn't clue up isn't fun, it's stupid. Might as well get a magazine and go take a massive dump and wait for the map to end, that's more gratifying. If Sturmtrupp says something like "get rid of tickets", how the hell is that stat whoring? Sorry, I just don't get it. Now please dump the "stop stat whoring" crap, that's really not the point. Sorry, bad mood, but please consider. Quote:
|
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Work for months on a mod that is 2 gigabit in size and hand it out to all for FREE...And all you get is complaints!.....oh well |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons @FuzzyBunny, I don't get your point, believe me we try our best to give a team always systems to supress the enemy advantages. But I am tired of see players that only care about stats and cause the defeat of his team. Just load maps like Ramelle, in a bad round you can find the classic tiger tanker that is only worried in hunt soldiers one mille away, just one example but I could say hundreds. And then the poor german team complains the map is not balanced, what they must do is place a panzerschreck in the ass of that statwhore so a person interested in teamplay take the tank. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Inaccurat gun on the Panzer IIIj ? We encountered that problem during betatesting and got it fixed, after that every tester was able to hit the enemies and Aberdeen (which was a nightmare before) was one of the best tank maps all of a sudden. Maybe you guys just need some more practice ? just an idea Oh and one more question, off topic. Someone posted that console command to have the 1st person view actually walking and not sliding through the map but I can't find it. Anyone still got that one handy ? |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
As much as I love Operation Goodwood, I'd rather play the Storm as the Germans or Arnherm as the Brits. Regardless of my opinion - why do you think you get to dictate for all of us that all maps should be the way you like them: with a reasonable chance of victory for each side? I guess it depends on your definition of reasonable. For me, it's 20% as I mentioned above and I'm OK with each strategy not having an equal counterbalance for the other team - sometimes they don't. Isn't there room for both types of maps? If you don't like it then find a different server when the map comes up. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Balance maps=OK Weapons/Vechiles=BAD |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
Most FH maps are very balanced. If I think a map is uneven it is when I can't help my team by either sniping, sneaking or charging because it is impossible for them to take advantage of what I am doing. For me, Pegasus, Goodwood & Prokhorovka (when the Allies are boxed into their base) are good examples of this. You guys do a really good job balancing things out. There are just situations where I think the balance mechanism takes way more skill under some situations than could reasonably be expected of a good-but-not-great team, that at least deserves a shot at the win. I assume that the devs/testers are very good players, so maybe this affects how easy/practical a countermeasure system seems to use. Quote:
Quote:
And I'm sorry you get the feeling I'm trying to "dictate" anything; I'm under no delusion that I'm in any position to do so, just trying to make logical arguments. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons @FuzzyBunny - Fair enough - I may have jumped to conclusions a bit there. I guess I'm less concerned about 'unbalanced' maps because it's really easy for each of us to choose not to play them and I'd rather have a vareity of options available. I didn't see anywhere in the thread where you identified the maps that you don't think fall into the 'reasonable chance' arena - apologies if I missed it. So that I understand your position better, which maps do you think one team doesn't have a reasonable chance of winning? And what are the odds of winning on those maps in your opinion? (And please don't list any of the new .7 maps - nobody (outside of the dev/tester team) has played those long enough to conclude anything about the chances of victory for either team). I'm not attacking you here - I'm honestly curious. Also, re: goodwood - I wasn't saying I thought that was your preference - I was saying that was my preference. And I love Goodwood - I think it's the best all around map from a balanced gameplay perspective. I just prefer the 'stacked' maps a bit more. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
|
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
Find the balance, USMA2010. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
There are no maps I hate, mainly situations in some maps that bug me. Please note that this is not meant to comment on the quality of the maps, preferences/dislikes (such as having to run too far to get from A to B, etc.), or how hard it is to win (example: Battle of Britain/Bombing the Reich are piss-easy to win as attacker, but you at least go down fighting)--just regarding what I see as "balance" issues. I've already started a not-too-well-received thread about an 0.7 map (I have issues with Pegasus and Hell of Bocage, but whatever, point taken, we'll see.) Here are the main maps I can think of right now where I've consistently seen one team get hopelessly demolished under certain circumstances:
Basically, anytime one team can be completely boxed in and creamed with no realistic hope of escape or even of shooting back from cover due to massive baserape, I find it pointless to go on. That's why I suggested making uncap mainbase flags cappable on some maps once all other flags are gone--sort of a "partial push" system such as implemented in Vuoksi and 0.7 Tobruk. If the winning team can just end it, like on Makin or 0.67a Saipan, you just lose the last flag, too bad, who cares, next map. Desert Rose used to be on my "ugh" list, but giving Allies the airfield at start makes a huge difference. If Axis have all the flags, it's still mad difficult for Allies, but I get the feeling the Tiger's been slightly castrated, which helps. At least now Allies have a fighting chance at all times, they're not just bait for tank snipers on the ridge. Maps I think do a good job of balance:
I'm torn on Alpenfestung & Blackknight, as Allies get plenty of toys, but the exits tend to be easy to camp. No opinion. All the others I've either not played enough or really don't see any major pros/cons with in terms of balance aspects. As always, please feel free to disagree with any or all of this--this is from personal observation only and not meant to reflect on the maps themselves. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
Most of the maps are representation of real battles, so if we want to be acurate in its representation if one team gets a good advantage position it's probable they will win the battle, like it hapened in reality. See Omaha, the hard part is the landing, once allies have a good position in land chances for axis to recover advantage are minimal. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
|
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
|
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Right, USMA. The devs do alot work, same for the betatesters, but theres just nothing better than the consumers voice :D I think 0.7 is even more unbalanced than .67, for example how the hell shall the germans win prok??? They need ALL (!!!) flags, including the one in the russian base to get the russians to bleed. Its just impossible with those tons of russian jeeps and bt7s going for backflags. The map looks better and has more action, but its totaly ruined in balance. This is the place i want balance, i want to have a realistical chance for both sides to win. However vehicles should be realistic. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
And as for mixing it up: you smell and your mama dresses you funny ;) |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
Everything's black and white, isn't it USMA2010? There are no shades of grey. I wonder if that's a function of your age, your politics or both? |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Keep it civil! 0.7 is a job extremly well done though it has it flaws, now naturally those are complained about (nothing wrong with that aslong as it is done in a respectfull manner). |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
Because it endlessly beats every other mod and almost all full version games to oblivion. Yet as a student of military history, if you will, I recgonize plently of blatently false bits of code in the game that should be fixed as soon as possible. The very way that you make an attempt at an insult there is a prime example that age does not reflect maturity. Not to forget that you violated rule one of forum contribution, you double posted. Try again later. Edit: Perhaps you are new at this, but it is the norm around here to call a person by the first syllable of the main section of their name. In the future, USMA will suffice. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
|
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
Although i did lust for a Su-152 for a while there tonight. and I just cant hate the T-34 because its so damn pretty evne though it feels like im firing tennis balls at shit. That, and its twin with the bigger package is probably the greatest tank in existance. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Pfft, Su76 is twice as good. Faster, smaller, and a higher rate of fire. I even managed to off Stauffenberg in it, not to mention three Tigers. It made me feel all warm inside! |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
|
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Guess you have never tried to kill a Tiger at point blank range with a shot to the rear, have you? It just keeps on ticking, free of damage. |
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons T-34...Well built tank....but, less crew...less AP and HE rounds on board..also no radio..and no battle repair...when they lost a track, they were finished in a defensive situation. USSR had no M88 recovery vehicle....lol |
| All times are GMT -7. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.