Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons
 

I see what you are saying. I have not seen the stat whoring problem too much and I think this is causing some confusion. In most of my games, most decent players try to win the map. The people I'd like to drop an expack on are the idiots who take critical vehicles/weapons and then waste them, but hey, it happens to everyone sometimes.

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.

No, this is the greatest game of all time, and if we didn't like it so much we wouldn't give enough of a rat's ass to put so much time into trying to suggest ways of making it better.

I never argued against "stacked" maps, I'm sorry if it came across this way. I just don't like situations where whatever you do ends in being pointlessly slaughtered. I don't know what gives you the impression I prefer Goodwood to Storm/Arnhem--I find them difficult but challenging and, yes, balanced. The key phrase is "reasonable chance".

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
 

If we did not complain, and only shower the developers with praise, Forgotten Hope would suck.

Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons
 

And if we were nonstop complaining bastards FH .6, .67 and .7 wouldn't exist because the developers would have no desire to do this.

Find the balance, USMA2010.

Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons
 

Wow, things get so civilized in here sometimes, gotta stir it up! Yer mudda! :-)

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:

• Day of Zitadelle / Caen / Prokhorovka (Too easy to camp Allied mainbase, almost impossible to get out once this is the case. Seen Allies win Caen enough times to make this one iffy, though)
• Goodwood (Ditto for both sides, more so for Allies due to terrain/vegetation)
• DICE Bocage (Ditto for both sides, slightly more so for Allies due to greater distance over open area to first flag)
• Valirisk (Ditto for both sides--both have too few exits and too large distances for infantry to realistically cover to get out, although in this map it's less of a problem due to air as a joker)

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:

• Pavlov (spawn locations very random, nobody spawns at the flag)
• Berlin Streets (too dark and dynamic to spawncamp, although I've yet to see Axis win)
• Supercharge / Breakthrough (air support & AA nicely balanced, airdrops as a joker. Although Axis base is a tiny bit easy to camp, the map's so big that this rarely comes to pass in my experience)
• Zielona Gora / Tulagi / FH Guadalcanal / Falaise (lots of open routes, no advantage to any one weapon)
• DICE Berlin in FH (3 exits for Allies)
• Kharkov Outskirts (big open fields, lots of hiding places, infantry and tanks both play a strong role, needs teamwork, trucks are a joker)
• Cretan Village (big open areas, lots of side passages, snipers)
• Charlie Sector / Foy (multiple entries, open areas, snipers as joker in CS)
• Arnhem / Storm / 0.7 Tobruk / Stalingrad / Nordwind / Seelow / Crete (Attackers working together or defenders paying attention can win, plus arty as a joker in S'grad, Seelow)
• Eastern Blitz / Counterattack / Kharkov Outskirts / Sector 318 (big open spaces to maneuver, infantry & tanks both play a strong role, trucks as a joker)
• Rheinubung (when it's over it's over, and more subs in 0.7 even it out)
• Battle of Britain / Bombing the Reich (when it's over it's over)
• Orel / Kasserine (enough exits, air as a joker, buildings/hills make it too difficult to camp)

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
 

Ah, it's true, I guess the skills and the millions hour of work have not chair in this party.

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
 

three words: totally clueless fanboy

Re: Balancing Vehicles and Weapons
 

We did complain, suggest, whine and nag since the very first release. That is why 0.7 is so high quality.

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
 

I had a hunch we had more common ground than uncommon ground... couldn't agree more and I think that's a wonderful compromise for maps that have the potential to go completely one-sided. I just don't want those types of maps to be removed that start out one-sided from the beginning.

And as for mixing it up: you smell and your mama dresses you funny ;)