Jump to content
Stryker

Realism over Balance/Fun

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Marg said:

well, we haven't played the same game then. Arty and booming was always in use Vehicles are now almost useless, yes you can kill with them and no you can't support infantry like before. You can't argue that anything is 2-3shot (APS) for tandem, you can't argue the fact that any high caliber HE/SE shell is useless. What is the point in having vehicle in battle right now other than scoring long range meaningless kills with auto-cannons loaded with AP shells or for self hating individuals HE/SH? 

Initially the other strikes were seen commonly, but as players got used to the game most started saving their BP for vehicles. The end result (in my experience anyway) was a long period of infantry only gameplay, with matches ending with both teams spawning vehicles every time one was destroyed. I had way too many games on both the winning and losing side where players would sit way back near their main base in a cloud of smoke while spamming projectiles inaccurately and still racking up kills, only to then retreat the moment their APS stopped an RPG so they could let it reset. This sort of play often didn't determine the outcome of the game but it was frustrating for both teams, as the opposing team would just get randomly hit from range by an enemy they can't get near and the friendly team would have a vehicle slot taken by someone with no interest in winning.

 

As for how I play, I use vehicles to back up groups of teammates as they attack an objective, ideally looking to find a position that stops the enemy from pushing on to the capture point while we cap it. It's less about getting kills and more about using the threat of kills to deter the enemy from moving in. If my team isn't trying to cap outdoor objectives then I play more defensively and try to protect objectives from range, or just dick around until I get killed.

 

When I'm thinking about vehicle balance I tend to think of them in context of the other streaks, people will still use the others because they don't have time to save for a vehicle or don't feel like using one, but if you were doing everything you could to win how often would you call in artillery or a bombing over a Marder or T-72?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cral said:

I had way too many games on both the winning and losing side where players would sit way back near their main base in a cloud of smoke while spamming projectiles inaccurately and still racking up kills,

that NEVER happen unless someone pre-fired earlier on spawning location though never seen that, never done that, looks like you've seen someone running away also (BS)

6 hours ago, Cral said:

This sort of play often didn't determine the outcome of the game but it was frustrating for both teams, as the opposing team would just get randomly hit from range by an enemy they can't get near and the friendly team would have a vehicle slot taken by someone with no interest in winning.

so what that nerf changed, you still can snipe on long range and slot can be taken by some one who just wants to rack up kills. 

What  has changed though you can't flush enemy infantry from defensive positions

(BS)

6 hours ago, Cral said:

 I use vehicles to back up groups of teammates as they attack an objective, ideally looking to find a position that stops the enemy from pushing on to the capture point while we cap it

You can't do that on most of the maps, if cap is moderately defended enemies would simply impal you with RPGs. Also Enemy could come from different directions (it also depends on how many points enemy have captured). If said enemy had just that one guy that is dedicated to AT role an prays to god in heave for enemy who bring something heavy, he would be on your ass with tandem warhead in 30 sec (up to 1 min). The only way you could do that "safely" in on the point that's on the edge of the map and on long ranges(not so efficient) ... (BS)

6 hours ago, Cral said:

but if you were doing everything you could to win how often would you call in artillery or a bombing over a Marder or T-72?

every-time i see critical cap at critical moment in battle getting overrun or my team needs fire support to cap, done that before though probably won't do for a long time if game keeps going that way

 

5 hours ago, TZoningHard said:

Infantry is supposed to support the tanks IRL, they are a direct combat force.

it's like saying no matter the temperature water is always liquid (under atmospheric pressure ofc :P)

Edited by Marg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Cral said:

The only major balance issue I see is with the TOR, as it really shouldn't be able to destroy tanks, it should only break modules (including weapons) or kill passengers in my opinion.

You mean "tanks" or "IFV? Because it's a huge difference since the latter can be damaged by .50cal and the first cannot, excluding attachments. If tanks can be damaged to the body or turret, then it's a bug.

Edited by Kony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kony said:

You mean "tanks" or "IFV? Because it's a huge difference since the latter can be damaged by .50cal and the first cannot, excluding attachments. If tanks can be damaged to the body or turret, then it's a bug.

IFV, I'm just being lazy referring to all armor as tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2018 at 12:02 PM, Cral said:

IFV, I'm just being lazy referring to all armor as tanks.

IRL vehicles such as Bradley can be penetrated by .50 cal, when shot at side or rear for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kony said:

IRL vehicles such as Bradley can be penetrated by .50 cal, when shot at side or rear for sure.

Could that destroy one in a relatively low number of shots though? I can understand it doing some damage, or impairing the vehicle in some way (breaking tracks, breaking it's weaponry, hitting the engine slowing it's top speed), but outright destroying it seems a little unbalanced when tanks are such a large target and snipers can peek while barely being visible.

 

This will probably become more balanced when the TOR becomes harder to use effectively, so it's not a big deal, it just seems a bit overpowered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cral said:

Could that destroy one in a relatively low number of shots though? I can understand it doing some damage, or impairing the vehicle in some way (breaking tracks, breaking it's weaponry, hitting the engine slowing it's top speed), but outright destroying it seems a little unbalanced when tanks are such a large target and snipers can peek while barely being visible.

 

You are right, .50 shouldn't be able to destroy a vehicle with a few shots. Have you checked it perhaps how many are required to do so? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being discussed or objectively considered here by some is that higher the damage or lower TTK becomes the more net code and network quality mitigated the game becomes, ergo, the higher the damage the more "WTF!?" factor a game will have in WAN gaming...

Latency, jitter, and buffer bloat take a toll, and sd decreasing TTK and  increasing ROF approach the time constant windows of networking, and networking quality issues -- high damage/low TTK skill weapons can quickly become luck (good & bad) weapons. As well LSS engines like Frostbite, and UE render much larger worlds where ranged engagement adds MOA differences over distance that are multipliers of these issues.

Everyone has their pet game, with a pet weapon where the damage was high, and often mistakenly belive it was 'all skill' that got them their kills...

Edited by Hoak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Bullets don't do much damage (pea shooters srsly?).

I think that it is fine, when you get shot where there's no armor you are almost insta killed.

Quote

The recoil on some weapons is way too high.

Agree, even the G38 which is a gun with a decent controlable recoil has too much, PDWs too, and let's not talk why I don't even play with LMGs.

Quote

Shotguns and RPG don't do shit to infantry.

Disagree, is truth that PRG where nerfed, but is good because there was too many id#$s running with RPGs all the time.

They still should make them heavier to handle so it's only used on non-close combat.

Quote

The pacing feels too fast for a tactical shooter.

Not as much as BF or COD, but could be slower like tarkov and others.

Quote
  • Muzzle velocity on all weapons shouldn't be dumbed down.
  • HE shells have weak splash damage.
  • The ROF of 50.cal Coaxial and RCWS are too slow.
  • Headglitching. (Bullets/Projectiles should originate from the barrel, not the camera/head)
  • Lack of weapon and barrel collision, especially for turrets.
  • Suppressors should decrease recoil by weight and improve accuracy by giving additional barrel length, and in return increases gas blowback.

Definitely agree with all that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tactical doesn't mean slow, most games that try to be tactical slow down the game for casual and less skilled players to be able to comprehend whats going on.

I really dont like the insta killing from flank shots. It's of a free kill for such little effort. flanking isn't hard for high IQ but its over rewarded with free kills.

I like when you have the chance to counter play a bad player that got lucky in the right place at the right time or spawned up in a random place. Especially when you cant depend on blueberrys on you flanks to be competent, forces you to play lonewolf in order to avoid getting flanked as teammates are useless.

Shotguns are OK up close with a one shot kill to the gut which Y very much disagree with. Shot guns need less damage fall off but should only oneshot kill up close to the face with 2 solid shots to the body for a kill.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be the case that some games slow down the pace artificially to give it a more tactical feel while slower means not necessarily more tactical but either way I think it is absolutely fine to wish for a slower paced game that feels different than a faster paced one. And in my opinion WW3 aims to give the immersion of participating in a real conflict based on modern technology we are all familiar with. Maybe that is why many argue in favor of a slower pace compared to lets say Bf 3 or 4.

Of course it can be annoying to hardly be able to react if getting flanked an shot at. But I think it should be rewarding to flank the enemy. Often it is risky to get into a good flanking position and it takes time. If I manage to get into a good flanking position being relatively close to the enemy who maybe is not even covered slightly towards the direction I come from a free kill is what I would expect.

It is hard to define what a good or bad player is ultimately. But getting in the right place at the right time is probably not only luck but a skill on its own and should be rewarded. Sure it may happen sometimes that I end up there randomly but that is rather the exception than the rule I would guess.

I do not think that the recoil is high at all. An AR with a long barrel and a grip seems easily controllable to me. Comparing it to PUBG or R6 Siege (being quite different games of course) I would say that on average the recoil is easier to control in WW3. If at all I would like it to be higher but that's preference mostly

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who say the guns has too much recoil really needs to learn how to control it. It is not that much honestly.

 

The last shooter i played before ww3 was bo4 and boy the recoil took me by surprise at first ? but then i just tried to adapt and learned it in about a day or so. It actually added more depth to the gunplay. really fun and well balanced IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RealFox said:

Anyone who say the guns has too much recoil really needs to learn how to control it. It is not that much honestly.

Agree with that. IMO recoil is good because you feel what type of gun you are shooting (7.62, 5.56 etc.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2018 at 2:58 PM, Kony said:

You are right, .50 shouldn't be able to destroy a vehicle with a few shots. Have you checked it perhaps how many are required to do so? 

Did you guys sneakily change this without me realising? I tried testing it a little after you asked this and it did nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Cral said:

Did you guys sneakily change this without me realising? I tried testing it a little after you asked this and it did nothing.

Haha, I doubt it. It was propably fixed soon after we both found it out but you haven't checked that since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...