zupercharged

Members
  • Content count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About zupercharged

  • Rank
    Private First Class

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
    Germany
  • Soldier
    Infantry
  1. The US never using their own AT rifles should probably be more obvious of a problem for giving AT rifles to all factions, thanks for pointing that out XD. But yeah, I say balancing nightmare because you could make it so that the PTRD can only be shot from the prone position and that would make a lot of the problems go away (not all of them though), I wouldn't mind if a similar restriction was made for the Bazooka and Panzerschreck where you could only shoot them while crouched (don't you need to worry about the backblast while prone?). Heck, maybe a little priming animation before you throw an AT grenade to delay the throw speed would go a long way to easing their issues. I said I don't like Retos short term fixes, but even then there's a lot more things like these ideas which could do a much better job at fixing the issues people have with these AT weapons, both from a realistic stand point and from a gameplay one; instead of simply messing with the damage and sway.
  2. To extend on that, I would prefer that they didn't focus on anti-material/AT rifles at all. the PTRD has proven to be a balancing nightmare; its already out there so there's no taking it back but it doesn't need to go any further, especially when considering that most of these weapons were mostly intended for two man teams and became obsolete not that far into the war. My biggest issue is with the idea that "Faction A has weapon X, its too OP! Give the other factions a similar weapon or else!" the problem is that the guns that follow aren't balanced to be like the gun they are but instead are made to match up to the weapon its meant to counter and it ends up a mess. We have tons of examples of this exact thing, here's the major German ones I'm aware of (I'm sure there are other examples from the other factions): I would prefer if they focused on straightening out the existing weapons before adding any more. To reiterate: Straightening out not balancing because when balancing they loose track of what it is the gun is actually supposed to do and eventually end up simply throwing nerfs and buffs till people learn to stop complaining. I would like it if they stopped with the short term solutions (nerf, buff and counter weapon) and take the time to properly sort things through... but I digress, wishful thinking doesn't help anyone.
  3. yes, but a minimap is more so. The current HUD is trying its best to be subtle, so it doesn't distract from the game; a minimap would go in the opposite direction and have players constantly acknowledging it which would break immersion for a lot of players. I don't see why its so hard to just press a button when you need the map?
  4. That's a bit too arcade-ish for my tastes... just embed a compass in the corner of the current map case.
  5. If we're talking sound, then adding ambient sound (distant gunfire/explosions + birds and rustling leaves) should be a priority for immersion as I discussed in my Ambient Sound post (also discussed music). Also, a lot of people have been requesting revised gun sounds, so add those to the bucket list.
  6. Where you take the protection of the non-US AAs and the speed of the civilian truck minus all the extra seats
  7. He didn't say why, but I would assume its because most infantry don't bother using their own AT weaponry because the panzerfaust does the same thing for free. Removing all exp earned for AT ribbon when using the panzerfaust would encourage players to bring their own AT weapon if they want to level that ribbon, this is similar to the fact that shooting down para planes doesn't give you plane kills. Wait, this is about infantry... still makes some sense I suppose, its still a free weapon... idc much tho.
  8. Im one of those rare anomalies which regularly defends anyway. So feed me xp!
  9. Bloody hell, you read my mind! this is basically what I was going to propose for modular tank damage in a Vehicles 2.0 post (I also have suggestions for other vehicles). Here's a few diagrams I drew up and a brief explanation to expand on the idea: TANKS Ok so yeah, you read my mind on this one. A system based on a simplified version of the War Thunder modular damage (and I later found was similar to Red Orchestra 2 I didn't even know it had tanks lol) it splits the tanks internals into 4 module groups (to simplify repairs so tankers can actually hope to fight) (+over all health): Engine block/ Transmission [RED] - Effects movement based on module health (0=no movement). Requires sufficient penetration from the sides or a well placed grenade on top of the engine compartment. Engine may set alight, if it does it deals damage to the crew over time (1bar/5sec?) and will 'cook up' (destroy the tank) if not repaired within a certain time limit (30-60sec?) Repair: Wrench on lower glacis or rear section to fix Tracks (L/R) [YLW] - Effects movement based on module health [Left and Right tracks have separate module health] (easy to one-shot). Requires direct hit on Sprocket/Idler wheel, otherwise module can be disabled when it runs over a mine (mine also deals minor damage to [RED] and [TOI]) or hit by grenade. Repair: Wrench on Relative side of main hull to fix Breach/ Barrel [PPL] - Effects Fire rate based on module health (0=Blocked breach). Requires Penetration of barrel or specified section of the turret interior. Repair: Wrench on Barrel/ Gun mantlet to fix Turret ring/ Elevator [GRN] - Effects Turret traverse and elevation speed based on module health [Ring and Elevator have separate module health(?)] (0=jammed turret). Requires direct penetrating hit to specified areas (yes its hard to hit). Repair: Wrench on turret body to fix Tank overall Integrity [TOI] - Separate health representing the tanks overall durability (0=Improvised pressure cooker). When a hit is taken the [TOI] looses health alongside the lost health of any modules that get hit, as a plus its durability would be many times stronger than it is currently (no point in modules if it dies in 2-3 hits). Repair: Wrench anywhere on tank (repairs alongside any modules): ONLY REPAIRABLE IN ATTACKERS LINE STARTING OBJECTIVE CAPTURE ZONE OR DEFENDERS 01-02 CAPTURE ZONE I avoided Ammo racks and Crew compartments because infantry would very quickly catch on to where to plant those magnetic mines (throwable AT grenades should have their penetration nerfed, reserving them for disabling exterior modules did someone call for molotovs?). Otherwise the general idea is that it is not hard to disable a tank, but it is hard to destroy one; on the flip side, its more complex to maintain and the amount you can spawn in a game is reduced from what it is now (so people don't just abandon it to spawn a new one). That's just a bit on the tank modules, there's more features to come on the tank later. Also, here's something else to look forward to in my Vehicles 2.0 post (coming in the foreseeable future): LIGHT VEHICLES PLANES
  10. Your forts would be practical, but they are also... blunt put kindly. The issue is the same as the current issue with House interiors, which is that they are designed solely from a game perspective and thus utterly drop the suspension of disbelief, as the idea of someone actually living there is inconceivable. Take the one way ramps you suggested they sound like prime mine targets btw; they do what you want them to do (let players out but not in) but being completely honest why would anyone make a fortified position you can't get into? Even a vault needs a door. Now lets look at the forts themselves; the way you've written this suggests that a fort will be on every spawn, again its equal for each position and does everything you want it to... but realistically who would build a fort between each isolated hamlet on a road!? I wasn't aware we were fighting over the maginot line! My issue is that for a game set in WW2, it already stretching the limits of how much nonsensical made-up BS they can force into the setting and get away with it;They've already blurred the line between a WW2 shooter with a causal, arcade-y twist and an arcade shooter with a WW2 skin. With all due respect, something like this would be the final nail in the coffin for any semblance of immersion this game still has because, again, "it would utterly drop the suspension of disbelief"... and that might just be the last straw for some people.
  11. Ok, you got me there (thanks >_>`). I was aware of the massive amounts of equipment captured from the French and British from the blitzkrieg and Dunkirk but I didn't realise such large numbers of PPSHs specifically were captured as It was introduced about the time the German offensive was grinding to a halt (the topic was on extended and drum magazines, so I didn't think to bring up the sten or such). My point still stands though; I don't think any foreign weapons should be easy to unlock, period. I mainly just wanted to raise the point that if people really want their enemies weapons they'll damn well have to work for it. I thought I set the bar pretty high (its not easy to grind a weapon you don't own) but of course it can always be raised, though I would hesitate to reward all that effort for a 9mm PPSH conversion XD. While I do like the idea, unless it has a drum mag, this topic deserves its own thread with a more comprehensive list of guns which would nicely compliment the existing ones. Provided there's nothing too far fetched and they're not made too readily available I would be all for it
  12. Of course the PPSH was first introduced in game as a foreign weapon available to both the US and GER, before the introduction of the RUS faction. I personally think the mp40 works fine (and the M1A1, on occasions that I use it) but if its really such an issue then maybe there could be some way to prestige a weapon ribbon or something related to war contributions; in order to unlock a foreign weapon for purchase (seems like a lot of effort better spent elsewhere honestly) Here's a few examples; Unlock 12th rank ribbon for the foreign weapon (ie 12th rank PPSH ribbon as a German) to unlock it for purchase. Kill 100,000 enemies in a war game with the foreign weapon you want to unlock (just a little reward for the more... dedicated war participants). Kill 100,000 enemies in a war game with the foreign weapon whilst contesting an objective. (So as not to distract too much from the actual game. Sounds like I set the bar high? That's good, I would hate it if we buggered what little historical consistency this game has; There were examples of Germans using captured PPSHs on the eastern front because ammunition was easier to get, but the German army was by no means handing them out standard issue so only a small determined few should actually be able to unlock it. Similarly, it is widely documented that Allied forces considered a German officers handgun as greatly coveted souvenir amongst other small artefacts, but again it was valued in part for its rarity.
  13. Subclasses are ultimately passive, its just a tool for categorising the units and only lays the foundation for greater control over team balance; its how that control is taken, how the tool is used, that determines the nature of its effect. You are correct to be concerned that it could be used to make another Red orchestra 2, which is something you seem to be particularly wary of, because if handled poorly it could very well be used to that end. I have never played Red orchestra, i have never seen gameplay nor do i know how it works (the same goes for squad). So believe me when i say it is not my intent to have H&G become more like them but my genuine suggestion to improve it for the better. See the issue here is that your projecting how Red Orchestra works onto my suggestion, which i can assure you does not reflect my intentions. Yes i suggested hard caps, however i made sure to tailor it to a particularity Reto-ish, arcadey approach. The hard caps i suggested in my take on the application of this tool called Subclasses were aimed mainly at LMGs and Projectile AT weapons, in particular: Support gunners (LMG): 1 per squad at any given time AT Troopers (Projectile ATs): 1 per squad at any given time While defined, these restrictions do come with a degree of flexibility; Typically i would say you have at least 4 squads of infantry per team in a game, what this means is that you could typically get up to 4 LMGs per team in a game; which for platoon sized teams of 18, i would say is a particularly generous margin (especially considering i rarely see more than 1-2 LMGs per game, similarly for ATs). To clarify, what its being used for isn't to restrict LMGs or Bazookas down to 4 but rather to prevent them from being used in excessive numbers at once, and skewing the team balance. Again, the restrictions which are actually applied are by no means as unforgiving as your making them out to be; it would be a lie to say that the restrictions aren't with multi-character players in mind, but that's because people with multiple characters are the problem as they are the ones who have their own spare rambo AT class which they can whip out on a whim part way through a game at their own convenience, which results in skewed teams and meta balance (for the record i only have 2 inf [Stg and Kar98] and a tanker). Its very rare for a player with just one character to dedicate it to an AT role and Its for one-character players that i didn't push for any hard restrictions on the number of SMGs, ARs or Scoped weapons (only suggested a soft cap for scopes, make recon more useful) in order to avoid the obvious backlash such restrictions would recive, as you so beautifully described: I trust Reto to take this feature and arcade the shirt out of it, as is the nature of Reto. I also trust you and the forum army to verbally tear them a new one if or when they cock it up and go to far. I could curse Reto for their lackadaisical approach to giving things to their players, which i would liken to the Kaiser handing out a blank cheque; probably a premature and ill-conceived decision but impossible to go back on once done. As such i recognise that there is only so much which can be realistically restricted without going back on Retos pledges (like mass distribution of scopes and assault rifles) and as such i believe that should my version of Subclasses make it into the game it would have been suitably tailored to suit H&G and its player base. Sincerely, Zupercharged
  14. Sorry, the post you quoted was addressed to Ninkanoob as a reply to their suggestion for mortars, the second part of their suggestion at the start of this thread; so indeed you didn't talk about such. Again, sorry for the confusion. I certainly agree that players cannot be relied on to do everything. In the case of mortars I feel that there's also the issue of marauding motorbikers who would even further dissuade players from using them. Though that having been said, may I suggest (at least with the current state of the game) simply keeping the mortars out of the map and out of sight, as any distractions from the main objectives would spread the current sized teams too thinly (as mortars would most definitely be a priority target). If I recall correctly you mentioned that you came from a military background? I don't so I can only do my best to scrape together a believable fire procedure from various online information sources, so any input like this is greatly appreciated. At the current stage of the game, I belive it would be most appropriate to have prearranged fire missions which players can easily understand and choose between for whatever best suits their target objective. This is so that a player can quickly and simply call in a fire mission, without stumbling through a full military procedure in which they may only half know what they're talking about like me and most likely waste the mortar strike, or miss the window of opportunity. Though of course any thoughts you have on this would be welcome. Also I recently made a post on Subclasses with the goal of better team management at a squad and team level; for which, again, your thoughts would be appreciated
  15. I chose to divide subclasses by weapon because they tend to take up at least half of ones carry weight and so it would be rare for an existing load out to overlap between classes (Players wouldn't like it if too many people had to rethink their load outs) and because the primary weapon is effectively the business end of your soldier making it the most defining aspect of your role. I see badges and attachments as modifiers to tailor your weapon to your comforts but I didn't want to make things too complex. Not to say that weighing your affinity to a subclass wouldn't work, its just I would prefer to keep the boundaries clear cut to keep it simple. I was hesitant to suggest this because I'm currently rethinking on how the spotting mechanic would work again, but thinking about it I can see how helpful the extra information would be and I will admit, it is a nice advantage for the recon class. I'll keep it in mind To be frank, the intention for subclasses is to balance the kinds of load outs in each team during a game and to prevent a whole squad of friends changing to their bazooka troopers and going on a tank-hunting road trip. I just concluded that hard caps would be the most effective solution. It doesn't matter to me how it works; so long as it properly balances the teams.