• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About zupercharged

  • Rank
    Private First Class

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
  • Soldier
  1. 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.
  2. Where you take the protection of the non-US AAs and the speed of the civilian truck minus all the extra seats
  3. 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.
  4. Im one of those rare anomalies which regularly defends anyway. So feed me xp!
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. ACHTUNG! The following topic was something I originally proposed in my Spotting 2.0 Concept post, however in that post I, in reality, tried to propose at least 5 different ideas which resulted in my failure to propose anything conclusive with many gaps in the thoughts behind their implementation into the actual game. As such I will be revisiting these ideas in their own individual posts; to ensure that the final idea holds water, to convey them more clearly and to properly do them justice: SUBCLASSES Recently, there have more prominent been complaints about excessive numbers of LMG Rambos who use it like 'a glorified AR', marauding tank hunters which are a greater threat to enemy tanks than tanks themselves and just in general; team compositions which result in unbalanced and in-cohesive gameplay. Indeed there have always been such issues and Reto has made efforts to control this, and since the introduction of squads the issue of unbalanced teams has been greatly reduced from what it once was, but issues still remain. Subclasses are effectively an extension to the squad mechanic with the intention of providing greater control over team composition in battles and with the goals of improving game balance, teamwork, greater control over the composition of a squad and providing a way to balance and control the numbers of each type of weapon fielded within the team and how they're deployed. It is effectively a tool allowing for greater ease of control over the way teams fight on the battlefield. ACHTUNG! Some Subclasses have been deemed potentially unnecessary, namely the Sapper, Combat engineer and Medic; who use Mines, a Wrench and the Medic bag respectively. I feel these classes may be unnecessary because the equipment they use can be and often is taken with equipment from another class. As such I feel that such classes would be niche and pointless, with the exception of the medic which I disagree with more because I dislike the idea of restricting the current aid equipment to any one class. [NOTE: If these classes aren't added then players with that equipment will be simply designated as rifleman or otherwise] What is a Subclass? A subclass is a way to further define the role of a soldier at a level for which it would be pointless and even counterproductive to introduce a new class which performs the same role (which would add the need for more assault teams, squads and generally only serve to further complicate both command and gameplay). It works by assigning various groups of equipment to a Subclass, and then attaching that Subclass to players who have that equipment in their load out. The symbols for each Subclass would only be visible to Allies as well as visible on the map, to provide a better grasp of the team composition and to allow squad leaders to know what they're working with at a glance. Each symbol has been designed so as to avoid difficulty when differentiating between them by ensuring that each symbol is unique, and an alternate version has been prepared if people think that the originals are too small to use inside an infantry indicator; in which case the alternate symbols below will be what floats above the players name and the infantry indicators will be restricted to use on the map only. How does it help? The immediate benefit would be the option to restrict the number of a certain class by team or by squad. An example of such would be restricting LMGs and ATs by making it so that a team is restricted to only one Support gunner and AT Trooper per squad. Of course I feel measures like these would be more useful if, when team sizes are increased to 20, Reto makes it so that the default infantry squad is increased to 4 players; as this would make all squads even in number making it easier to divide up the team composition, as well as help any Subclass restrictions have more of an effect. Here's a list of potential Subclass restrictions: Support gunners (LMG): 1 per squad at any given time AT Troopers (Projectile ATs): 1 per squad at any given time Sharpshooters (Scope 4x): 1-2 per squad at any given time/ each scope costs an extra squad point Signaller (Radio): 1 per line/ 2-4 per team at any given time A squad leader could also potentially manage the kinds of players he wants in his squad, similar to how we currently add slots for players from another class, by having slots in which he can define preferred subclasses and how many of each subclass they want; the matchmaker will then compose squads depending on what players are available and squad leaders in part chosen by considering whose requirements the available players can best fill, but sometimes squad leaders will just have to make do will subordinates of a different class to prevent an increase of wait time between games. While Subclasses at this point may seem small, I believe that in the future it will provide a foundation as a step forward towards more organised teams and command. At least that's my take on it, though I may add more later if anything comes to mind (or if a good suggestion is made) but right now I'm pressed for time so ill just post what I have. Sincerely, Zupercharged
  13. I get where your coming from and it would be a good way to reduce the amount of players who's chosen weapon is the front of their car. It would also encourage players to think about how they approach enemy positions, though I have to ask, will cars no longer work as cover? Because at the moment that would be a terrible idea. However krlutin is correct in saying that it probably wouldn't go down well with some people (rammers included) and makes a fair point about spawn campers. You would need to find a way to realistically reduce the severity of the damage; I haven't thought it through but I think a good solution might be to make it so that the car is made in two sections; the main body of the car and the engine block which have separate health. When the engine blocks health reaches 0 the car will only stall after a given amount of time (say 5-10 seconds?) to allow the driver to get the passengers out of immediate danger. Then if the driver has a wrench he could fix the engine block and once its back to full health the car will drive again. The engine block could also take damage from crashing, to encourage less reckless driving. However to balance this the main body of the car will take damage even if it was the engine that was hit and unlike the engine, the main body cannot be repaired. This is to prevent cars from lasting forever. ... Damnit, now I have an idea for new damage models for vehicles! As if I dont have enough suggestions to write up...
  14. Agree to disagree, fair enough. I just hope you realise Reto is trying to cater to more than just the Forum but also the wider, more casual player base who don't take part in forum discussions and that ignoring them when discussing new features in a closed environment by refusing to discuss with newer forum goers can have major implications when it comes to making these features a reality and can result in a major and unexpected backlash, or things not proceeding as planned when these features are released. I would also care to point out that a Radical opinion is one affecting the fundamental nature of something (in this case Retos arcade policy) and that my opinion is actually more neutral in that it tries to maintain the status quo, unless you were referring to something else. Regardless, if you have nothing more to say, I bid you a good day c: sincerely, Zupercharged
  15. The issue is that these 'players' you say want mortars and are fed up with Retos arcade policy, are the vocal players which are undoubtedly in the minority (most players play casually and rarely appear on the forum). I happen to also feel that Reto is too carefree with how they develop the game (they add a lot of things which just walk all over history and their gameplay isn't so immersive for a WW2 setting) but the truth of the matter is that the majority of the players who play H&G casually are here because they enjoy something about the current gameplay, and so there will always be an arcade feel to it. I want H&G to be more immersive, more realistic, more organised and better balanced; and I try to suggest and support features which are easily applied, and which will slowly guide H&G to be closer to these goals. I believe that Reto deemed these modelled and tested mortars "not fun", because the concept is simply incapable of being implemented in a way which would enhance gameplay for the exact reasons that I specified (and then some), and which I will specify again, even more clearly; Small teams: with the current team sizes, on average there will only be 3-6 players to a line per team. Removing 1 or 2 of these players (motar man and forward observer respectively) to take rear positions will further reduce the troops actually fighting, stagnating gameplay and distracting from the actual objectives; resulting in frustration and discontent on both sides. Bad communication: I also stated before that a mortar (as indirect fire) would be a 2 man job, which means you need two players who can; Want to dedicate themselves to being a motar team, get along well and can communicate quickly and effectively. Recently I have come to appreciate how underdeveloped communication is in this game, as it would be unable to handle complex conversations quickly and effectively. As a result, the only motar teams you would have would consist of two players who know each other and really want to spend whole games as motar men, as you would probably need a new mortar squad to compensate (further removing from the players actively participating in combat). Casual and Immature players: You mentioned that there are players who would be willing to use mortars, I would say that you could find someone willing to use anything; the question is, How many players would be willing to dedicate themselves to providing mortar support every game, because a mortar (provided it isn't watered down to Battlefield3 levels of accessablity basically point and click on a map) Would take time and effort to learn to use to an effective and consistent standard, not to mention most players would find it too much hassle to call in targets for some guy who may or may not hit. I would argue that most players are incapable or unmotivated to learn how to use such a tool, while plenty of the enemy would be happy to harass those who do. The conclusion is as I said earlier; Players who actually use it would eventually become bored or frustrated with the constant harassment, and eventually the mortar would fall into disuse. Short Games: A game of H&G ends after half an hour; the games have been tailored to conclude within this time and as such the progression between objectives is a constant back and forth, the time it would take to constantly reposition and set up the mortar (not even counting the time wasted getting back into position when you get hunted down by marauding motorbikes and snipers) would leave little time to actually use the damn thing, and mortar support would never be there when you need it. I suggested a single-player mortar system in consideration to these problems and firmly believe that such a solution would instead enhance combat rather than detract from it. To demand Reto to completely alter their arcade policy, isn't just asking for the game to be redeveloped from scratch (since basically everything is arcade to some extent), but also denying the thousands of players who are actually playing (albeit many of which casually), the chance to play the game that they want to play. Put simply, Reto is too far in to make such a change, thousands of players have invested in the game we have now, and Reto had already made the decision to come out of open beta and officially release the game; A change in policy just isn't possible. At least that's how I see it. Sincerely, Zupercharged