|
Mortabis posted:
I guess that's their solution to the cheap tank spam problem.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:47
|
|
NOOOOooooo my T-34s 
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
In part. And the accuracy changes, with some other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:Is there an indigenous East German designed assault rifle that isn't an AK variant? They had the Wieger-940 series of indigenous small arms in development when the wall came crashing down. Magni fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Christ, the pubbie tears that will be coming after the autoloader/accuracy/pricing adjustments and new NSWP units. Pact OP, secret dev counter-bias
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
PACT needs to be OP for a little bit, last time I played getting pubbies on the Red side of games was basically impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Mazz posted:PACT needs to be OP for a little bit, last time I played getting pubbies on the Red side of games was basically impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
As pact I always seem to be on a super team that slaps NATO silly...and when I'm on NATO I get massacred with my team...anecdotal evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:As pact I always seem to be on a super team that slaps NATO silly...and when I'm on NATO I get massacred with my team...anecdotal evidence. Obviously the retards are going to flood the popular faction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Stabilizer nerf is a stealth buff to good guns with no stab. They will no longer take a 5% shot and then be in reload cycle when their 50+% shot comes up. I turn off my AMX-10 guns sometimes when a shot is important and I'm feeling micro ey. Also I assume the missile accuracy will get bad when the unit moves just like all SA missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Presenting, the Kpz T-72M1, which has had far less drastic buffs than the T-80B. Specific buffs are 8rpm, a tiny bit more ACC, a bit more STAB and a spoonful of fuel efficiency. Oh and autoloader goodness, of course. Edit: also the T-72BU  Edit: Also the T-80UM. All thanks to the tank man 
OctaMurk fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Tell me they're not just adding that autoloader mechanic without making it a visible weapon attribute.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
40% stabilized accuracy.  The T-80 is back in a big way!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Elukka posted:Tell me they're not just adding that autoloader mechanic without making it a visible weapon attribute. Heheh, Eugen making vital information visible, that's a good one
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Heheh, Eugen making vital information visible, that's a good one Holy loly though way to add poo poo without making it visible at all to new players.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
      There was a medium tanks image but I couldn't find it again; basically the T-64A is kind of a piece of garbage now at 50 points with 30% accuracy, the M60A3 has crazy accuracy, the Japanese Type 74 mod E has 10 rpm autoloader with 65% acc 2275m 13 AP for 50 points; Leo 1s have accuracy buffs. That T-55AMV looks pretty bad next to that 1A5 tbh. Also Strv 103Cs with 15rpm autoloaders heheh. Predicting that 80-100 point tanks such as the Leo2, T-72B1 are going to be much more popular than before because you can get enough AP to knock things over, enough accuracy to hit things very consistently, and enough survivability to stick around for a bit; ultra-high end tanks still going to have the same role as before, mediums that have especially high acc such as the M60A3 and Type 74 mod E or relatively good armor such as the T-72A / T-72 will see more use but others that are mediocre in all aspects such as the T-64A will be even more marginalized than before, and cheap tanks will be marginalized because they are more expensive and will also get knocked out rapidly by the new high acc tanks. OctaMurk fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
That Vasilek rate of fire.... that's higher than it is currently right? Thing is gonna be nasty for suppressing things in support of taking ground now. If they are making heavy tanks that much more lethal, why not drop the price of lovely low-survivability medium tanks to be low enough to be disposable/use for probing attacks on flanks?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
I guess the new choice unit for flank recon is going to be the cheapest tank/autocannon vehicle you can get that still has a stabilizer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Did they ever fix the hosed up miserable AA balance or should i just wait for the next game?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Did they ever fix the hosed up miserable AA balance or should i just wait for the next game? Apparently that's one of the DLC changes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
M1A2 doesn't seem to be the unstoppable powerhouse among tanks it once was. Everything got buffed to its level (except in AP). Ah well. e: also its autonomy got cut a smidgen
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Has anyone found a hack or mod or whateverthehell to make the campaign in this coopable yet? drat you Eugen for tking away my favourite thing in ALB!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:M1A2 doesn't seem to be the unstoppable powerhouse among tanks it once was. Everything got buffed to its level (except in AP). Ah well. Yep  http://www.wargame-ee.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=155&t=46691&p=613776#p613776 poo poo poster, but what do you all think? Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
I am amassing an amazing loss ratio as NATO. It's bad and I am bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
I think fundamentally the autoloader change is loving stupid and adds even more complexity to a game already suffering from overdesign.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Veterancy already acts as a "ROF boost" for manual loading tanks in the sense that it increases your suppression resistance, so upvet M1A2s etc would maintain their advantage over PACT autoloaders for a longer time. PACT receives no such equivalent bonus from veterancy. I obviously haven't played so I don't know the real effects of this yet, but just looking at the stat cards for the T-80B vs. the Leo2, the autoloader advantage seems to be clearly taken into account for the T-80B, or for the T-72A vs. the M60A3 as well. At the high end, the auto-loader advantage does not seem to have as large an impact on the price; maybe the solution would be to increase the veterancy of high end NATO tanks to give them more suppression resistance?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I think fundamentally the autoloader change is loving stupid and adds even more complexity to a game already suffering from overdesign. I've been out of the game since not long after release so maybe i've forfeited my right to an opinion but i can't name any way in which this sounds like a good idea. Morale is already an arcane mechanic to most players and this just adds a layer of obscurantism that appeals to grogs who think they should have gameplay advantages because of their masturbation material of choice. The tank price model is hosed like 10 different ways, how is this going to make it easier to balance? How does this address any of the core mechanical issues confronting Wargame, save possibly adding another thing to piss people off so they get further from doing the boring parts of balance? Just as somebody who likes good game design it's ugly and really discouraging to see from a developer that i thought, briefly, had competence. Also i just want to stick it to those grogs because gently caress 'em. Panzeh posted:Apparently that's one of the DLC changes. OK more specifically did they ever get their heads out of their asses on "all radar missiles should have identical ROF" because holy poo poo what a dumb change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Tulip posted:I've been out of the game since not long after release so maybe i've forfeited my right to an opinion but i can't name any way in which this sounds like a good idea. Morale is already an arcane mechanic to most players and this just adds a layer of obscurantism that appeals to grogs who think they should have gameplay advantages because of their masturbation material of choice. The tank price model is hosed like 10 different ways, how is this going to make it easier to balance? How does this address any of the core mechanical issues confronting Wargame, save possibly adding another thing to piss people off so they get further from doing the boring parts of balance? Just as somebody who likes good game design it's ugly and really discouraging to see from a developer that i thought, briefly, had competence. Could always lower the RoF difference from morale, but increase the Aim/RoF difference. So that way, manuals will fire a few seconds slower but autos wont be going full-tilt either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
The manual/autoloader change is good in principle if price and other stats take it into account. More faction diversity is always nice, and it's another factor for tank balance, which gives you another lever to adjust without having touch Accuracy, Armor, AP, RoF or Cost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
The primary limiting factor in *real world* conditions is the ability for the commander and gunner to search for, then select a target, then slew the gun into position and correctly find the range; Not having the round ready to go. Auto-loaders are no more immune to human frailty than a manually loaded tank. Gameplay wise it's needless complexity and specificity added to a model heavily based on abstractions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
But Abstractions based on Authenticity. That's why we've got different guided weapon seeker tags instead of just having guided missiles period. Autoloaders is at the same level of detail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Except it's not authentic, at all. It's pretty much going to be suppressed weapons 2.0 a pointless flavor change with unintended consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:Except it's not authentic, at all. It's not going to change that much, in my opinion, other than the top level tank balance. No stabs basically being STAT is a much bigger change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
At the very least the laser focus being taken off of only the most super optimal options is a hugely welcome change of pace. The differences between the frontline main MBT's is a lot smaller, with some factional quirks, and they are all generally getting priced toward usefulness. Medium tanks actually being able to hit things makes them more effective against everything in the game, and potentially even worth bringing in as 2 Leo1A5's may actually provide some competitive edge or difference over the Leo2A1, where as previously they were just useless and a waste of money. If your fights come down to "but mah M1A2's denigrated rate of fire from morale means this T-80U is unfairly outmatching me" well, you're already over the hump. Especially considering the advantages most other NATO tanks already posses. Jesus, look at the Type 90 now. What an insane bargain that thing is when you factor in its high availability. I still agree that targeting time is absolutely the deciding factor in tank warfare, but if we can't get that these little balance and flavor changes sure don't bother me. Also, 2800m range AP24 move and fire Invars. Move and shoot soviet tank missiles in general. That's just going to be positively a giggle machine and considering our majority RedFor playerbase we should be jumping for joy at that (historically accurate) silly change. GoLambo fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
I don't think autoloaders are going to be gamebreakers and besides, it adds another way to differentiate tanks and is a cool mechanic. Any balance issues with autoloaders can be solved by for example, changing the floor on ROF loss due to panic as Guggy brought up. Even if autoloaders have maximum ROF when they're panicked--they still have bad ACC/STAB due to panic, bad aim time, and they could ROUT. You're probably not going to keep your panicked tanks in a slugging match whether they are autoloaders or manual loaders, and we aren't going to see regularly some kind of ridiculous "panicked tanks vs panicked tanks" mass armor battles where an armored force triumphs because of the autoloaders. It's a nice little flavor thing, but I don't think it's a game decider.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
At least the Leopard 1A5 had its price come down. I'm not sure how I feel about increasing the amount of accurate fire on a battlefield already dominated by firepower but I suppose if you aren't going to reduce firepower in general then giving maneuver elements some of that firepower is a decent way to go. I still think aim time should be changed to a sliding scale where old/big guns aim slower and new/small guns aim fast. Would give stuff like the IKV-91 and other modern support guns a clearer role than just miniature tank. Modern MBT guns would end up somewhere in the middle of the range and stuff like the Centurion, T-34, Su-125 etc. would have their price efficiency taken down a few pegs by having poor aim times. T-72 would probably have poor aim times as well but could use another price nerf. Maybe the T-64 could find a spot again by aiming and shooting fast. Actually you could just tie it to the optics stat if you were lazy. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Arghhhh my proposal to get the Morale RoF penalty lessened to 33% at worst for Manuals was rejected Hopefully things work out ok!
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Arghhhh my proposal to get the Morale RoF penalty lessened to 33% at worst for Manuals was rejected Honestly man I think your points were somewhat missing the mark as already the quality of those manual loader tanks was such that they don't need more advantages. As I said in Marhsals, the autoloader doesn't help you if the tank is dead already. Not that I have any more input to the DLC/balance, I just got kicked from the Marshals for putting the information out there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:
I was just informed. I'm sorry to see ya go man, you've busted your back hardcore to get a lovely community on its feet with the info it needs to at least try and compete with established players (your tutorials and charts), plus hard work on your mod meant to improve gameplay for everyone. I went to bed, woke up and you'd been removed. This was news to me But to those who want a thoroughly cultivated and balanced PVP experience, it wont be the default version of RD I'll be suggesting to them 
Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Not that I have any more input to the DLC/balance, I just got kicked from the Marshals for putting the information out there. Why'd you do that anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
Oh by the way, going back a page or two, you guys put up some good arguments about the hind changes. I never minded the weapon load out so much as its price, and although I still think it's a little bit overpriced in my gut, it seems somewhat more reasonable after some of the posts. Either way, it was dumb of me to get worked up about it without even testing it out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:05
|
|
