Members - Veterans
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

737 Excellent

About Rolf_Mützelburg

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/23/13

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
  • Soldier
    All types

Recent Profile Visitors

1894 profile views
  1. Should badges have negative effects?

    because you can't sell that.
  2. Should badges have negative effects?

    That's my point, the reload time isn't the problem, the guns just suck at being guns. Reto nerfs the guns so that you HAVE to use badges in order to use them. Not saying the STG is under powered... I'm saying literally EVERYTHING is underpowered. This game is some sort of Harrison bergeron philosophy where the handicapper general shoots the knee caps of every good idea, for the sake of "balance"
  3. Should badges have negative effects?

    Personally, I find the entire system to be a gimmick. There is a limited number of skills that could vary from person to person, most of which are hereditary and not obtainable. The majority of the perks in this game are exaggerations of subtle variations within a given population. They are exaggerated twice, first the effects of the badges are exaggerations of human ability, then a second time by the intentionally poor design of the equipment that demands you use the badges to utilize them. For example, Fast reload gold is stupendously fast, the default reloads for almost all guns is already adequate. The need for an endless supply of ammo isn't solved by simply reloading really fast, the answer is a Machine gun. But as I've said many, too many, times before, the MGs were nerfed for the sake of parody. Heavy set is just complete fantasy, and need no rebuttal. People don't like getting shot... no fking snit. Don't walk in-front of the fking enemy then. I have never used heavy set in 2 years, and I don't even remember the last time a sniper actually killed me first. I think I was shot in the back yesterday by someone being cheeki breeki in our flank, but IDK if that was a sniper. He was hardly more than 200m away, so I doubt anyone could call that a sniper. Same as the sniper scopes. If they were actually used for marksmanship, then I could tolerate them, knowing no one has enough marksmanship to use them. But that's the problem, no one uses them for that. They just use them like an ACOG, as a crutch for their poor aim. I outshoot "snipers" all day with my iron sights. And the biggest thing is not letting them get the first shot. I don't move till I've killed something. Because I know there are 18-20 people on that team, and snipers like to trek out into nowhere. So when ever I find myself in an unoccupided territory, I start bush-lurking looking for snipers. And I find them, every time. They are all COD-MLG-twats. They have no situational awareness, and little else going for them in life. If they had half a brain, they'd be pushing the point, or hunting like I am. Badges, in much the same way seem to just be crutches, designed to fit into Reto's purposely dysfunctional arsenal, so they can try and get more people to drop gold for those ribbons. Personally I prefer a cosmetic based economy over buyable cheats, like extra HP, or speed, or what have you. Especially when the gun is suppose to function without those things, and Reto purposely nerfs it just so I have to get tight grip gold, or something like that to use the thing.
  4. My point about the affect of spalling, is that even in a model where 1 shot kills are possible, they are not easy. Even if you pen, you're more likely to kill the crew than blow the turret off the tank. In almost every tank design I've ever seen, since WWI, the crew is the weakest part of every tank. Not only can they be killed by almost anything that penetrates the tank, but even things as simple as rough terrain, and percussion from explosives can hinder their performance regardless of whether they are wounded or not. Simply hitting a large bump at high speed can knock a crew man out, or disrupt his job cycle. Just hitting the tank with something big and scary can knock a loader out of his seat, or back into his seat if he is standing. These modular models are always a work in progress, as each facet of the tank can always be broken down into smaller and smaller parts. The crew themselves have dozens of individual tasks and difficulties impeding their jobs. As a matter of game design, adding layers, or taking layers away from the damage model can be used to shape gameplay. If you don't want tanks getting 1 shot'd all the time, reducing the effects of spalling will not only be more realistic coming from the War Thunder model, but serve a purpose design wise. Likewise, if crews being killed too easily becomes a problem, it can be negated by allowing crewmen to switch seats faster. So that the death of a single crew man does not leave you dirverless for long periods of time. These minor details do affect the tanks as a whole, and lend to strategies and gameplay value. Every detail counts. This is why I lose my shitz when Reto does something unrealistic for no good reason, as it throws everything else out of whack. Everything in this game is a collection of interconnected parts. The less parts, the more influential each remaining part is. The more parts, the more variables you have at your disposal to subtly adjust the game. But it also makes development alot of work. As the old saying goes, "You get what you pay for". There is no easy victory. The harder you work, the better the result. If Reto chooses to cut corners, the game will suffer for it. There is no trick, no way around it. No "arcade" solution. Even arcade games require mountains of variables and detailed design. Arcade games are not any easier to make than realistic games. They just appear simpler because they don't demand as much from the players who play them. But under the hood, they are complicated systems of interconnecting parts just like any simulator out there. "arcade" is just a synonym for lazy. The result is not an arcade game like TF2, but rather a lazy game. This is why dev teams that pursue realisim always achieve higher standards; because they are holding themselves to a different goal. They have all the variables in front of them. They know what needs to be done, and they endlessly pursue that one goal. Arcade games fall short of innovation all to often, because they don't have a clear goal. A lead designer may have an idea in his head, a central theme, or style that he is aiming for: but the variables, the meat and potatoes are not provided to them. The devs working on an arcade game have to come up not only with the premiss of the game, but then they have to set all the variables, and invent all the complex systems themselves. All you have to do to make a realistic game by comparison, is color by numbers. All the data is given to you in the form of history books, maps, charts, all the parts are already there. You just have to copy them. You don't need to reinvent the race car, just copy a real race car. That is why Mario Kart was such an amazing thing. Its hard to come up with complex balanced systems like that. The more Reto tries to reinvent the tank, the more difficult it will be. It would be far easier design wise, to simply copy the charts and templates from the war. Gotta go, lunch is over, back to work.
  5. Well, like all things its relative: diesel fuel does not combust the same way gasoline does. It can burn, but it needs to be heated first, so it tends to slowly burn like oil sitting on the water, rather than explode. This is why the Shermans were so deadly. Sure they were thin skinned, but the gas engines had a nasty habit of bursting into flames if the engine, fuel tank or even just a fuel line, was hit. And when they burned, they burned ALOT. Explosively. This makes deisel powered engines significantly less dangerous. It won't make them any more or less impervious to damage. But you're less likely to EXPLODE from a shell hitting your tank. The universal killer of all tank crews was ammo racks. No matter what ammo you use, or where you store it, if a shell rack is hit, its instant death. On the bright side, instant death is still better than burning to death. But yea, realistically you can expect quite a few one hit kills. That said, I think the warthunder model is a bit inaccurate in that spalling is credited with doing alot more damage than it probably should. Shrapnel can be very dangerous to crew, but the idea that a tiny chip of metal, even molten metal can for example detonate an ammo rack is a bit far-fetched to me. Equally so, I don't think a chip of metal can burst a fuel tank. If a shell penetrates, and the slug itself manages to get through the armor in one piece, maybe that slug could do some serious damage. But if all you can do is crack the shell of the tank, the small jet of molten metal emitted from shaped charges, and the spalling caused by HE detonating against the outside of the tank isn't enough to penetrate anything other than the crew themselves. A shaped charge directly impacting a fuel tank or ammo rack could probably do it. But it doesn't have the range to reach across an open cabin all the way to the rack or fuel tank on the other side. I find it hard to believe that the metal fragments from the inside of the tank are traveling fast enough or have enough kinetic energy to rip open a fuel tank or brass shell. I couldn't find a photo of the fragments themselves left behind from a shell impact, but I am led to believe they are very small, like wood chips, if not smaller.
  6. Oh, I've heard worse. Apparently armor itself is going to have it's own separate HP. The idea is even if you fail to pen, your shot will deal damage to the armor plates. Once the plates are worn away, the tank has no armor left. And every shot, regardless of the caliber, pens. And armor plates won't be repairable. This means in practice, a 20mm cannon, or even just a Pz-I's little armor piercing MG can spray your Tiger 2 until its nothing more than a flak88 on wheels. Its the communist interpretation of "equality" where they force everyone to be equal by shooting them in the knee if they start to gain too much of an advantage. They are trying to force balance into their inherently unbalanced tech tree by rigging the system against heavily armored vehicles. Light tanks will be able to kill heavy tanks simply by zerg rushing them with light cannon fire. And there is nothing you can do to stop it. Even if you one shot each one, it's like trying to kill sticky bombers. They can afford to fail over and over. You can't hold them off forever. Combine this with stickies, heavy armor becomes obsolete. Its slow, and effectively useless against anything other than other heavy tanks. In fact this makes even heavy on heavy action awful, as it means you can only hope to deflect one or two shells from another heavy tanks before you have no armor left. Then you are essentially doomed to wander the earth with only a bar of HP between you and death. You are effectively a dead man walking, er... driving. Just imagine what a Luch could do, firing 20mm cannon fire at full RPM. It could drill through even the heaviest armor. This is all based off the flawed premise that guns can weaken armor by repeatedly smacking into it. The truth is that real armor plates are only weakened in the area that is hit. Meaning in order for your 20mm cannon to actually drill through a thick plate, it would have to hit the exact same hole several times. Simply shooting the frontal plate will do nothing in real life, as each shot will land on a fresh piece of steel.
  7. I'm shipping out to HLL in less than a month.
  8. New/sub-factions suggestion topics

    Reto has time and time again affirmed that they intend for each faction to be it's own independent state, with it's own capital, and resources, and that each state could align or declare war as it pleases. They planned to add Britain as a sub-faction only until it was developed enough to transition to an independent state. This has been there stance for over 2 years.
  9. New/sub-factions suggestion topics

    It would require a tremendous amount of stretching the truth. Britain too had a semi auto rifle, but it never replaced the Infield. America had a heavy tank design going into the war, that was never used. Germany had jet planes before anyone else. But these are all inconvenient facts. They make balancing the factions difficult, and as such are ignored. Despite these facts, we can expect Reto to make semi rifles standard issue in armies that didn't issue them. We can expect the US to have a steady supply of Heavy Tanks despite them never reaching the War in time, and we can expect Germany will never get their jet fighters, despite them deploying more jets than the US deployed Heavy Tanks, and More than Britain issued semi rifles. We can also expect the server to remain underpopulated, the factions to be uneven, and the map to be one sided. We can expect nothing written on this thread will ever be sighted by Reto in any decision making process, and we can expect France will never make it into the game, because at this point, I doubt they'll ever even make it to Britain or Italy first. But hey, don't let that discourage you from exploring the possibilities. Maybe some day another game will come along that actually intends to do things differently. This thread may prove useful then.
  10. New/sub-factions suggestion topics

    Well, if your not French, you're not going to care much for it. Its not like France is famous for anything other than surrendering. Italy has a bad rap too. Britain has a much better reputation. And its reflected by their equipment. Italy is mocked for having the worst weapons. France would be neck and neck with them in this regard, if they were in the war long enough to even register. These terrible reputations stemmed from the war itself not some American interpretation. America wasn't even involved when France was in the war. Brits fighting in France were the first to point out France's deficiencies. Historians have pushed back on this by highlighting that Britain only ever saw the worst of the French. But they also highlighted even more weaknesses the British didn't even know about at the time, such as their failed tank doctrine. There were many battles where the French fought ferociously. Even around Dunkirk. But the Brits didn't get to see much of it. And a the overwhelming majority of the French army were conscripts who entered the war with dismal moral. The idea of a second World War was a dismal prospect, and moral in the French army, even prior to the German break through was awful. And it didn't look good when compared to the professional British troops. Its one of those cases where it looked worse because they were being compared to one of the most well trained and well disciplined armies in Europe at the time. And on the other side was the German Juggernaut, which had succeeded in completely outmaneuvering the entire Allied Force in one move. The Germans' moral was fantastic by comparison, making the French look that much more pathetic. This is sort of what happened to Italy as well. Despite the embarrassing situation in Ethiopia, and being in the Shadow of Germany's smashing victories in 1939, Italy went into the war in good standings. However, they would slowly over time lose more and more prestige, all while being in the shadow of Germany. Eventually being replaced all together with German troops having to do most of the heavy fighting in Italy itself by the end of the war. Combine this with their WWI history, and being turn coats, their legacy is tarnished nearly as much as the French. But at least they made it through the mid war period. These factions are not going to garner much love, because historically they were not impressive, and tactically their equipment is under-powered. Britain's weapons are nothing special, but the British themselves, like the Germans made up for it in fighting spirit, and being that they served to the end of the war, they do have at least SOME late and mid war equipment. Sure Britain doesn't have anything like the Tiger, but the LeeEnfield is very famous, and arguably as good if not better than the Mauser. Britain has long been compared to Germany as being almost equal. They weren't able to take the fight to Germany after what happened in 1939, but they had the guts and the guns needed to hold them off. This has no doubt had a huge effect on the way history has remembered them. The US probably did the least to deserve their reputation, but their military power is rivaled by only the USSR, and their current position as a world super power cements this. Therefore, without any military prowess what so ever, America secures itself a place in this story simply for being the most well supplied. They may not have served through the whole war, which is why they don't have the same romantic reputation as Germany or Britain. But they have the tools. The USSR is in the same boat. The USSR has an absolutely AWFUL reputation for being meat-headed and clumsy. There is no equivalent to the Desert Fox in the Russian roster. But like America, they had an almost unlimited supply of men and material. The T34 like the Sherman was a potent and zerg like weapon, that made itself an icon simply do to its numbers. The Russian troops were fanatical and desperate, just like the Germans, and proved themselves beyond a reasonable doubt to have all as much if not more spirit than their Western Allies. Their general staff simply failed to make use of it as efficiently as their Western counterparts. Both in equipment and personality, Russia lacked the refined, classy look of the Western Allies. This plays into their reputation. Understand these subjective observations are not a reflection of the actual extent and functionality of these factions, but simply a brief explanation of how public opinion of these nations formed. Naturally those people from these nations will have a more favorable opinion of their own people. They have a more accurate and in depth understanding of their own people's history, and can more easily dispel some of the more unfair observations. Not to mention natural biases that may form surrounding other nations, which affects how you see your own nation. As I explained, these nations were not judged in a vacuum. They were compared with one another. So your opinion of Germany will change your opinion of France. As thinking less of Germany makes France's swift defeat at the hands of the Germans more embarrassing, but also make the state of their army less pitiful. If you credit Germany for being the bigger power, then Frances defeat becomes less of a fantastic feat. But then of course that usually means comparing the French Army to the German Army in a very biased way. Again harming France's position. This is why France is so universally mocked. Because no matter who you blame, their defeat cannot be explained without either drawing fault with France, or crediting Germany. Bias can be examined in an objective way. While I agree it does exist, which is why its so hard for me to gauge America's reputation. I can point out the obvious, such as the fact America for better or worst was a massive industrial power. And that alone puts them in a favorable position.
  11. New/sub-factions suggestion topics

    Maybe a small number for Britain, France will be the butt end of every joke known to man, and will at most only gather a hand full of vengeful French nationalists from the EU. No one else will give a fk about France. And their tech tree is going to be a nightmare to design, as they got knocked out early war. So their tech tree ends at 1939. Russia and the US, we already have the numbers for. Combined they make up about as much as Germany. Add Italy to the Axis, and you'll counteract what little Britain and France would have contributed to the balance. Resource wise, even if you gave each sub faction it's own separate resources, We already have all the heavy hitters in the game. So the other lesser sub factions would be a drop in the bucket. with England and Italy being the only nations with full tech trees, and France being an anomaly as usual. Because France and the USSR were never meant to be in the war at the same time. Germany did not and would not invade Russia before dealing with France. So, the idea of both of them attacking at once is entirely made up, and unfairly so. And I haven't even mentioned America's "Neutral" approach to all this. The problem is adding France implies that this is an early war scenario, in which case the factions completely change.
  12. New/sub-factions suggestion topics

    adding factions does not add players. All you can do is try to convince more players to switch sides by offering them more variety within that faction. As of Now Germany is WAY bigger than the other factions. Combining them would only equalize the distribution of players. Adding fringe factions under the umbrella of Allied or Axis will at the least change nothing, at the most take away a handful of less dedicated members from the other faction. The USSR has failed as a separate faction, and has been living off of underdog bonuses like life support since it was added. If you look at their win/loss record, they would be losing warfunds hand over fist if not for the underdog bonus bailing them out. The idea that a faction like France or Britain would somehow succeed where a faction as massive as the USSR has failed is ridiculous. If you haven't noticed Germany isn't doing any better in this fictional scenario than it would historically. And Germany only has to bear half of America, because the other half is in the Pacific. Whether the Pacific theater is simulated or not, doesn't change the fact that only half of America's resources can be sent to Europe. And America joined mid war. Russia joined the Allies only after being stabbed in the back by Germany. This is why period is important, as it adds context. If you start out in the year 1945, then yea, all the important decisions have already been made, at that point, the game is already over. That's like joining a football game in the last quarter with a score of 10-0. Start in 1939, and you mad as well cut the USSR and US out of the game, as it is very unlikely a German faction will knowingly repeat history like that. If you want all 3 main factions in the game from the start, you have to start from when all 3 entered the war. Not the end of the war, not so early that the factions didn't exist. That would make no sense from a design standpoint. We're looking at 1941, midway through Barbarossa. Think Stalingrad, Moscow, the bombing of London. The submarine war in the N Atlantic. From that situation, Germany despite all it's flaws is in a position to actually do some damage, and neither the US or Russia is in a position to just mop the floor with them like they were in 1945. Africa would be well into its late stages, and Italy would still be a force worth fighting. England would be just England. And we'd finally have something resembling WWII.
  13. New/sub-factions suggestion topics

    In a death match, on private servers, you can do what ever you want and people don't mind. But on a global server, on a war server, where hundreds of people have to work together for a common goal, and that goal is designed around combat and strategy; to inject politics into a leaderless system that undermines every balance argument ever made, with the possibility of totally OP unstoppable and unpredictable super packs looming over the already cluster fk of a game we have, there are 1000 problems that come from this, just for the sake of "what if" What if martians just invade earth right in the middle of it all? What difference would it make at that point? Why not throw Mexico into this then? Give Ethiopia nuclear weapons! Your argument is based off a subjective definition of "Fun" the same baseless argument Reto uses when they have no real argument to justify their actions. A good "what if scenario" is one where you take a historic event, and focus in on a single, defining moment, and then spin the table. You don't change the position or reality of the situation in any way, you don't arbitrarily apply hundreds of modifiers and exception's you take a single point in history, and take the alternative path, and see where it leads you. What single event are you proposing would have led to all this? What single alteration to the timeline could possibly result in all this? Your turning this war game into a death match, treating history like a level editor, where you can copy paste assets without any rhyme or reason. You're going to at best end up with something resembling Garry's mod. But not WWII, not even a coherent war. This is not the makings of a solid game, but rather a sandbox with assets stolen from what could have been a great game. Tell me what makes this picture more ridiculous than you're version of alternative history?