FileFront Forums - Balancing Vehicles and Weapons

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)

- Forgotten Hope General Yib-Yab (Off Topic) (http://forums.filefront.com/forgotten-hope-general-discussion-483/)

- - Balancing Vehicles and Weapons (http://forums.filefront.com/forgotten-hope-general-discussion/223810-balancing-vehicles-weapons.html)

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:

Originally Posted by USMA2010

This issue seems to have been getting worse over the past few releases. I know that some of what I will mention might be bugs, but I find it hard to believe that all are.
How do you guys feel about changing the code of the vehicles in Forgotten Hope? Here are some examples of it today:

* The very inaccurate cannon on the Panzer III Ausf. J Special.

* The unrealistically slow Crusader Mk. I.

* The lack of a Browning M2 machinegun on the M4A1 76(w).

* The incredible inaccuracy of the KwK 36 on the Tiger I.

* Giving the Russians AP ammo used in 1941 on maps that take place in 1945.

* Giving the Russians the very weak KV-1 for all maps, instead of making a slightly remodeled KV-1S.

* Raising the commander and AA positions on the M-36 to the point where anyone with a firearm can kill him.

* Giving the M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo the same traction as the M4A3 and M4A1, when it should actually slide around and sink into snow and mud.

* Never adding the Crusader Mk. III, even though the gun barrel and gun code already exist elsewhere in the mod.

Other weapons:

* Adding the 35 round magazine to the PPSh41 in pre 1943 maps when that magazine did not even exist.

* Giving the Germans the Faustpatrone 30 well on maps well after they were replaced by Panzerfausts.

* Making the Suomi M-31 very inaccurate, even though it should be as accurate as a carbine.

* Giving anti-tank rifles unrealistically long reloading times, even with the semi-automatic PTRS.

* Putting the Bazooka on Eastern Front maps, when in truth the Russians hardly got any Bazookas.

* Outright removing grenades from some maps.

* Making anti-tank guns unrealistically inaccurate.

* Coding a three kilogram explosive so that two of them can destroy most tanks, even though in reality they could do nothing to outright blow up all but the lightest of tanks.

* Removing any sort of reloading time on the Bofors 40mm AA gun.

This is not a flame people who support realism over balance, or vice versa, thread. This is a genuine poll created by a rather alarmed member of the community to collect the opinions of those who use this mod.
It also has nothing to do with balancing maps, which even I can see having its place in Forgotten Hope.

Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lobo

Stop thinking in your stats and the stats of other players and maybe some maps can be won by your team.

Lobo,

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:

Originally Posted by USMA2010

MOOORG! BLORG! BARG! MORF! BLA!

I don't understand why people are so opposed to this--USMA may be an undiplomatic thug at times :-) but he's obviously done his research, and put together a well-considered list of fair points.

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:

Originally Posted by FuzzyBunny

Lobo,

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.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Just my personal opinion, but I actually like maps that are stacked against one side. Isn't that realistic? I think it adds a lot to have maps that one side wins 80%+ of the time. Those are the ones that I actually get most excited for and the maps you typically see the most amount of teamwork, unfortunately. I like the challenge and the feeling of accomplishment when your team actually pulls out a win on one of those maps.

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