Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 553
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby mofetagalactica » 11 Feb 2020, 21:55

I tought the talking about the 50cal was already over? there was a pool about it already and community seems to like it how it is, and some others not. This is about 20mm and 37mm not 50cals, stay in topic, or make a new one about 50cals if you want to talk about it again but you already know how will that end.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby kwok » 11 Feb 2020, 21:59

The 50 cal changes are already over but this topic is basically asking for 50cal changes but for the 20mm and I'm bringing up 50cals as an example of why NOT to do this change.

Also, where the hell you been? Welcome back. Come fight me.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 553
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby mofetagalactica » 11 Feb 2020, 22:37

You better quietly read well what warhawks propposed, cause you're being kinda over negative about it, He's basically only saying that single 20mm worth more than quads, and he didn't even asked for a buff againts light vehicles when using AP since he just said that he wants new AP rounds to behave like the standard rounds that we all know while nerfing them againts inf (if you're using AP) but buffing it againts infantry if using HE.

Jezz standarize the 20mm and 37mm guns across the board add some AP/HE into them and make the quads way better.
If greyhounds where such a problem i have told you to make the 50mm puma earlier available, or just delay greyhound upgrade (cutting content sucks but wathever).
Its also a falacy that greyhounds completely reeplaces the use of other light vehicles thats only true on 1v1 scenarios, team games experiences and fast wheeled vehicles pathfinding malfuctions dosn't make it that strong.

A recommendation for next patch, if you're thinking on delaying the greyhound upgrade behind supply yard, then for the sake of it make the supply yard building to dont require to tech for it and if you're just nerfing the 50cal in general, the at least make the quad 50 to behave better than single 50cal cause there isn't that much difference between them same problem that we see here with autocannons.

If you're too afraid of units getting forgotten 'cause new 20mm changes then just make those other units get new habilities, if pumas 50mm are less used because of it then give puma 50mm cammo habilities, if marders aren't used enough then give them an hability to double-shoot from the beggining as a way of fast firing thanks to the space that gunner and loader has with the open turret, if there are other units that aren't used because of this just think of new habilities to make them special, another example would be an hability for halftracks in general to have the hability to transport AT guns or just spawn AT guns if its not possible to script it (It was possible in europe at war)

Adding new content is the only way to make new and old peopple to try bk again even if its OP for some time until it get balanced in the way.

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 290
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby idliketoplaybetter » 11 Feb 2020, 23:38

I more less like the idea of actually giving all AA's in the game ability to use either default AP shell as it is now, maybe tweaked up/down in regard of damage and additionally having HE shells. At the same time, as we are coming back to the topic of .50cal.., there were variants of different bullets/rounds for those too.
So why not to nerf simple mg variant of .50cal a bit, as if people are actually thinking it is painfull, but give it also semiHe option for say 30 to 50 muni as cooldown option?

Various numbers for shells/rounds could be played around somehow for all mg's, ideally. Say, instead of as it is now with buttoning for brenmg, mg crews could use per-cooldown Smoke rounds, that would decrease tank/AC accuracy and/or ROF.
Orrrr, have tracer rounds, that will instead buff crit rate on/against specific armored unit. Alike mark target is now, but that one is free and has limited use.

I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on this guys, unless it is anyhow technically possible for implementing, ofcourse.
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby kwok » 12 Feb 2020, 01:00

About what warhawks proposed, he basically DID ask for a buff against light vehicles for the quad. As for the rest of the topic, it is literally about buffing 20mm against light vehicles. Jezz... seriously the only argument made so far FOR making the adjustments has literally been "the 4 guns should do more than 1 gun so just put the buff in" without any thought in how it would actually impact the game. It is the same mentality as just making the WM AT grenade rifle do more damage as the AT boys because the WM AT grenade is a grenade not a bullet, and in general people have regarded that unit as just a bad idea and took a long time to balance, some arguing still haven't balanced because apparently blitz doc counters on its own counters all light vehicles. Devs have acknowledged the general mistake and are working to balance it today. Trying to prevent the same mistakes again.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against making changes but I'm against making flat one-sided changes which lead to bad balance purely for the sake of "realism". The community has more or less lead the balance changes in the past 3ish patches and since then people have said that balance has gotten worse and worse. I can give another example on just poorly thought out balance decisions... especially since you've come back figree because it directly relates to your idea. But that would be off topic.

No one has given any counter balance solution at all yet, assuming that just because it has AP and HE rounds it somehow rounds out the game. A simple concern brought up was "okay if this is implemented then the a lot of AT focused vehicles would basically be obsolete. What about those?" and the response was basically "but it has four guns that doesn't make sense..."

If I have to come up with something to compromise (but don't whole heartedly support), it would be to do the following:
- Grant the AP/HE ability for quads
- Standardize the AP 20mm penetration and damage values to ____
- Standardize the HE 20mm penetration, damage, and AOE to ____
- Decrease the burst values 20mm units to ____
- Increase the reload of 20mm units to ____
- Increase the moving penalty of 20mm units to ____


@playbetter
I think your ideas would technically work but my gut instinct tells me that it would crash a lot of computers. Each bullet is a calculation. Already, smgs and mgs cause game crashes and performance issues when pushed to the extreme (that's why a lot of vcoh values increase the damage of those types of guns instead of ROF but keep the sound of a lot of gunshots). Doing your smoke idea for example would mean after every shot you would spawn smoke and apply a modifier at the end of the bullet hit calculation like the current chaffee round. It would probably really burden the game to basically rapid fire the chaffee smoke round.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 553
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby mofetagalactica » 12 Feb 2020, 03:10

Its not just a weapon problem on quads/dual, its also their prices compared to when they come out they're usually slower too and not that resilent any 50/37mm cannon can deal with them, you just build them per fun not because they give you something extra compared to single auto cannons, im not saying that quads should do X4 ROF than single ones, but at least double rof and bigger magazine...
Last edited by mofetagalactica on 12 Feb 2020, 07:04, edited 1 time in total.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby kwok » 12 Feb 2020, 04:59

you quoted me but i feel like you didnt read anything i said since you didnt seem to respond to anything i said at all.

CGarr
Posts: 165
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby CGarr » 12 Feb 2020, 06:58

kwok wrote:
. Multirole always have their drawbacks as well bc they can "do everything but are no masters in anything".



Yeah.... This is exactly what we are going for but the 50cal has turned this into master of everything and 20mm changes will turn those inter master of everything. The greyhound literally sweeps dedicated AT vehicles consistently.


What vehicles specifically? The 28mm? That thing is kinda trash at its actual job (unless jeep sniping specifically is its actual job). 37mm HT is basically the M8 with an HE option instead of a 50 cal and no turret, so it makes sense for that thing to get clapped by the M8. 50mm Puma wins usually in a 1 on 1 engagement, although nobody really builds that thing because its 50mm seems to be way less effective than the pak38, so the fuel is better spent on dedicated anti inf so MP can instead be put towards a proper AT gun. The actual AT HT/cars mop the floor with the M8, their gun 1 hits it usually. Stubby 75 isn't really dedicated AT but it might win, never really use it so I can speak for it.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 553
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby mofetagalactica » 12 Feb 2020, 07:05

kwok wrote:you quoted me but i feel like you didnt read anything i said since you didnt seem to respond to anything i said at all.


My bad didn't wanted to quote you but yeah i did read what you wrote.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby kwok » 12 Feb 2020, 08:10

CGarr wrote:
kwok wrote:
. Multirole always have their drawbacks as well bc they can "do everything but are no masters in anything".



Yeah.... This is exactly what we are going for but the 50cal has turned this into master of everything and 20mm changes will turn those inter master of everything. The greyhound literally sweeps dedicated AT vehicles consistently.


What vehicles specifically? The 28mm? That thing is kinda trash at its actual job (unless jeep sniping specifically is its actual job). 37mm HT is basically the M8 with an HE option instead of a 50 cal and no turret, so it makes sense for that thing to get clapped by the M8. 50mm Puma wins usually in a 1 on 1 engagement, although nobody really builds that thing because its 50mm seems to be way less effective than the pak38, so the fuel is better spent on dedicated anti inf so MP can instead be put towards a proper AT gun. The actual AT HT/cars mop the floor with the M8, their gun 1 hits it usually. Stubby 75 isn't really dedicated AT but it might win, never really use it so I can speak for it.


You know not that long ago, as in right before the 50cal changes, the 28mm car was the best counter to the recce that EVERYONE bitched about. There's also the 28mm 250 halftrack which basically has been demoted to cheesy 100mu rocket platform. That used to be used a lot because of its rapid fire cannon. There's also the AT halftracks WM has, like all variants in def doc. There's also all the 20mm single cannon vehicles that are literally in question on this thread which were formerly touted as OP by a certain someone on this thread. And if the claim is that the reason why the 20mm vehicles are "not OP any more" is because of turret speed is BS... that only went to the puma which still rocks UNTIL the greyhound comes out. This is hinted at by Mefisto in this post. viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3519. And I really really don't think the 50mm puma "usually wins" in a 1 on 1... practically, both vehicles will keep running and running around missing each other with the main gun but the 50cal has a continuous strong stream of fire with faster turret rotation that lets it win. The 50mm puma USE to be built... wonder why it stopped... you can basically pin point it to when 50cals just dominated everything and axis opening strats are literally hiding behind AT guns because they are cheap and can camo hoping to catch the greyhound in its sight before it scurries away.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3701
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby Warhawks97 » 12 Feb 2020, 19:59

idliketoplaybetter wrote:I more less like the idea of actually giving all AA's in the game ability to use either default AP shell as it is now, maybe tweaked up/down in regard of damage and additionally having HE shells. At the same time, as we are coming back to the topic of .50cal.., there were variants of different bullets/rounds for those too.
So why not to nerf simple mg variant of .50cal a bit, as if people are actually thinking it is painfull, but give it also semiHe option for say 30 to 50 muni as cooldown option?


cal 50 did not have HE... usually they were loaded with AP and API when it was supposed to tackle various threats.


kwok wrote:About what warhawks proposed, he basically DID ask for a buff against light vehicles for the quad. As for the rest of the topic, it is literally about buffing 20mm against light vehicles. Jezz... seriously the only argument made so far FOR making the adjustments has literally been "the 4 guns should do more than 1 gun so just put the buff in" without any thought in how it would actually impact the game. It is the same mentality as just making the WM AT grenade rifle do more damage as the AT boys because the WM AT grenade is a grenade not a bullet, and in general people have regarded that unit as just a bad idea and took a long time to balance, some arguing still haven't balanced because apparently blitz doc counters on its own counters all light vehicles. Devs have acknowledged the general mistake and are working to balance it today. Trying to prevent the same mistakes again.


Out of my head i count 4 different vehicles mounted with single 20 mm as well as stationary once. They all kill vehicles and no major change in effectivness against vehicles is required.

In fact, when you would have to switch between HE and AP it would become less multirole as players would at least have to switch armor. Current AP is quite sniper like with every second shot hitting the mark from max range if no cover is applied.



Don't get me wrong, I'm not against making changes but I'm against making flat one-sided changes which lead to bad balance purely for the sake of "realism". The community has more or less lead the balance changes in the past 3ish patches and since then people have said that balance has gotten worse and worse. I can give another example on just poorly thought out balance decisions... especially since you've come back figree because it directly relates to your idea. But that would be off topic.

No one has given any counter balance solution at all yet, assuming that just because it has AP and HE rounds it somehow rounds out the game. A simple concern brought up was "okay if this is implemented then the a lot of AT focused vehicles would basically be obsolete. What about those?" and the response was basically "but it has four guns that doesn't make sense..."

If I have to come up with something to compromise (but don't whole heartedly support), it would be to do the following:
- Grant the AP/HE ability for quads
- Standardize the AP 20mm penetration and damage values to ____
- Standardize the HE 20mm penetration, damage, and AOE to ____
- Decrease the burst values 20mm units to ____
- Increase the reload of 20mm units to ____
- Increase the moving penalty of 20mm units to ____



Fine, why not.

Point is, its not just for the realism.
The quad 20 mm is one of the most expensive things in game. Compared to that weapon all others are literally available in every one dollar store. Yet its the worst. The stationary unit costs more than most vehicles and more than a light tank+ requires expensive builder squad.
And the only mobile version is mounted on a Tank costing more than a sherman. If we would have Puma mounted with a quad 20 mm, i would be srsly concerned to make it realistic. But so far this weapon has harsh limitations (doctrinal, CP, special build unit, expensive and only one mobile version) already.
And i have yet to see that a stationary unit that cant move is suddenly "hunting" something down. Its like saying an stationary 88 would make all tanks obsolete.


mofetagalactica wrote:Its not just a weapon problem on quads/dual, its also their prices compared to when they come out they're usually slower too and not that resilent any 50/37mm cannon can deal with them, you just build them per fun not because they give you something extra compared to single auto cannons, im not saying that quads should do X4 ROF than single ones, but at least double rof and bigger magazine...


agree. But why bigger magazins? 20 mm had 20 round clipps.

that only went to the puma which still rocks UNTIL the greyhound comes out. This is hinted at by Mefisto in this post. viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3519. And I really really don't think the 50mm puma "usually wins" in a 1 on 1... practically, both vehicles will keep running and running around missing each other with the main gun but the 50cal has a continuous strong stream of fire with faster turret rotation that lets it win. The 50mm puma USE to be built... wonder why it stopped... you can basically pin point it to when 50cals just dominated everything and axis opening strats are literally hiding behind AT guns because they are cheap and can camo hoping to catch the greyhound in its sight before it scurries away.


I might remind you that the front armor of Puma is afterall petty resistant to cal 50s. Much more resistant (10x times?) than any other vehicle. Thats why Puma is one kind of vehicle that can afterall go well against greyhounds.

Except of course you changed it at some point. But so far its frontal armor is quite good.


Bottom line:
single 20 mm with AP does not have to kill a vehicle outright in 3-4 hits. And doesnt need to be so sniper like against inf.
In return for somewhat worse anti inf power when AP is active, it gets ability to switch to HE.
Quad 20 mm gets a rework to match its costs and effort. And dont worry, we dont have fast moving quad 20 mm units. They are either literally sitting ducks that cost more than vehicles or mounted on an expensive tank which wouldnt be overpriced if the quad would be a quad.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 553
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby mofetagalactica » 12 Feb 2020, 20:00

The 50mm was too close to getting stugs wich was meta and with stugs IV having cammo from start now i think they're not gonna be used that much anymore unless you add cammo to "p50" or something special like arillery call ins, if you still think 50mm has a bad chance againts greyhounds go record a vid showing this off, 50 cal does almost nothing to puma front armor from far/distant range.

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 290
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby idliketoplaybetter » 12 Feb 2020, 21:36

Warhawks97 wrote: cal 50 did not have HE... usually they were loaded with AP and API when it was supposed to tackle various threats.


Wiki doesnt agree with this on u.

" Cartridge, caliber .50, high-explosive incendiary armor-piercing (HEIAP), Mk 211 Mod 0"

Usually and did not have. If that is an argument, there are various things that were used very occasionally, but are used in the game anyway.
Or to say, how effective in reality those things were.

Though i dont insist on implementing specifically that HE(!), it would be simply enough to keep "default" AP round for anti-infantry measures (at least make it a better supressive weapon) and decrease overall damage against armoured vehicles , but in regard of having cooldown ability with API rounds, with more hits on AC.
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby kwok » 12 Feb 2020, 23:56

mofetagalactica wrote: if you still think 50mm has a bad chance againts greyhounds go record a vid showing this off


Fight me. I did this with Mefisto already which prompted him to post his other post. But that video wasn't save and you are a stronger player. We've done this before too, where we played games where we agreed to not get the 50cal until a certain point. We tried a couple other games as well where US always won but that was way way long ago back when the 7man squad was still available and was game crushing. Now that you're back, would love to play again not just to test balance but just because we are short on challengers. I'm getting sick of losing on purpose so that people don't immediately hate the beta right away. Fun fact... most people I've lost to really enjoy the beta. Most people I've beaten hate the beta. Wonder why....

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2905
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby MarKr » 13 Feb 2020, 00:18

mofetagalactica wrote:im not saying that quads should do X4 ROF than single ones, but at least double rof and bigger magazine...
In that case it already has more RoF than you suggested, bigger magazines too.

Quad 20mm fires 32 bullets per second, single 20mm fires about 3.

Quad fires 288 shots before it needs to reload, single 20mm reloads after 60 shots.

Warhawks97 wrote:The quad 20 mm is one of the most expensive things in game. Compared to that weapon all others are literally available in every one dollar store. Yet its the worst.
From gameplay perspective (which is more important tha realism), why not take it from the other side and instead of buffing something to make it worth its cost, just drop the cost to make it worth its performance? It has been mentioned before that this sort of thinking often leads to the "circle of buffing" ("A" is weak so we buff it, after the buff a unit "B" is now weak in comparison so it gets buffed, now unit "C" is in weak so it gets a buff, now unit "D" is weak so buff it too and so on until unit "A" feels weak again).
Then, when they get cheaper, is there ANY gameplay reason why it cannot stay as it is? You simply know what you're getting for the cost - a 360° rapid-fire emplacement effective against infantry with a good suppression and possibly effective against planes. If you know your opponent uses minimum infantry and doesn't have air doctrines, no need to build it.

Warhawks97 wrote:agree. But why bigger magazins? 20 mm had 20 round clipps.
If it helps to balance the weapon, why not?

Warhawks97 wrote:They all kill vehicles and no major change in effectivness against vehicles is required.

In fact, when you would have to switch between HE and AP it would become less multirole as players would at least have to switch armor. Current AP is quite sniper like with every second shot hitting the mark from max range if no cover is applied.
"AP" would be same or a bit more effective against armor, since you mention that now the weapon is "sniping" infantry, I pressume this would be changed in "HE" mode so that the weapon would not rely on accuracy but rather AoE, which would in turn mean that one shot would be able to hit more than one soldier (especially when they often stand close in different types of cover) so in "HE" mode the effectivity would go up along with more effectiveness against buildings. This would mean simply stronger overall gun with the only drawback being the micro of the switching.
I don't know how you guys imagine the switch but I would say that it goes down to two options:
- it will have some cooldown time to prevent switching too often, then it will be most likely impossible to switch exactly when you need the other ammo type and people will need to stick with whatever they chose even if there is a target that requires the other ammo type which will most likely lead to people complaining that it is not flexible enough
- it will have cooldown short enough to allow for quick switching and then it will make the weapons overly flexible, will take over roles of other units making them obsolete
Speaking of similar roles - wouldn't this AP/HE switch make these cannons basically identical in role to the stubby 75mm vehicles? I know that the 75mm vehicles deal more damage, have longer cooldowns and what not but the 20mm fires faster so in the end some average "DPS" would probably be pretty similar. People also mentioned here that with the 20mm AP/HE switch the vehicles would be delayed a bit so they would be available at (about) the same time as the 75mm ones.

Again, what is bad about the current performance of 20mm guns from gameplay perspective? OK, it "snipes" infantry, but honestly, do players really care if the gun kills an enemy soldier with an accurate hit or an AoE hit? Given how some people complain about the current CW trucks not auto-deploying, even when it literarlly takes just two more clicks than before (which you don't need to take under time pressure of combat), this would add more clicks to make units more useful against infantry.
Image

CGarr
Posts: 165
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby CGarr » 13 Feb 2020, 04:14

Mainly @kwok, regarding the changes made to weapons like 50cals, tank roof MG's, 20mm/37mm, etc. to try and improve this mod's ability to immerse a player. @markr, this also somewhat applies to your last post.

I think Kwok's kinda right in the sense that if we make all these changes, nothing will really change in the end in terms of balance. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make these changes. We just need to acknowledge that these initial changes are being made to create a more immersive experience, and that they might not be the best for balance. With that being said, it's not like compensating changes can't be implemented afterwards to restore whatever balance equilibrium we initally had. If people want 20mm's and 50cals and all that to be changed because it'll make the games overall damage model more consistent (less instances where a gun feels like it's heavily underperforming for what it is), then those changes should be made. Further balance fixes can be made after if these initial changes make some units obsolete, and said fixes would just bring back the original balance. They might not make the game more balanced than it was before the initial big changes, but that isn't their purpose. The purpose of the secondary fixes is to try and restore the original balance to some degree while also allowing us to change/incorporate elements that'd make the game feel better to play.

So far, at least out of those 3 changes I mentioned above, none pushed us so far away from the balance equilibrium that compensating changes wouldn't be able to bring us back. That's not to say that these big initial changes can't do that. With that in mind, there'd probably be less back and forth between devs and the community in terms of accepting and incorporating some changes if we follow up any suggestions with compensating fixes in the same post to whatever units may be negatively affected by the initial suggestion.

Sorry to sound all preachy, this thread doesn't really look like its going anywhere though and that kind of sucks, since its not a bad idea. Both sides need to communicate their thouhgts better though. Whichever member of the devteam responds (in this case, Kwok) needs to state which specific units/gameplay elements will be affected negatively, as comparing this suggestion to the 50 cal change without acknowledging and agreeing on the context of both changes doesn't really provide a good argument for why the suggestion shouldn't be implemented. Counters to that argument should address whatever points were brought up by the person arguing against implementation.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby kwok » 13 Feb 2020, 09:01

CGarr wrote:Mainly @kwok, regarding the changes made to weapons like 50cals, tank roof MG's, 20mm/37mm, etc. to try and improve this mod's ability to immerse a player. @markr, this also somewhat applies to your last post.

I think Kwok's kinda right in the sense that if we make all these changes, nothing will really change in the end in terms of balance. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make these changes. We just need to acknowledge that these initial changes are being made to create a more immersive experience, and that they might not be the best for balance. With that being said, it's not like compensating changes can't be implemented afterwards to restore whatever balance equilibrium we initally had. If people want 20mm's and 50cals and all that to be changed because it'll make the games overall damage model more consistent (less instances where a gun feels like it's heavily underperforming for what it is), then those changes should be made. Further balance fixes can be made after if these initial changes make some units obsolete, and said fixes would just bring back the original balance. They might not make the game more balanced than it was before the initial big changes, but that isn't their purpose. The purpose of the secondary fixes is to try and restore the original balance to some degree while also allowing us to change/incorporate elements that'd make the game feel better to play.

So far, at least out of those 3 changes I mentioned above, none pushed us so far away from the balance equilibrium that compensating changes wouldn't be able to bring us back. That's not to say that these big initial changes can't do that. With that in mind, there'd probably be less back and forth between devs and the community in terms of accepting and incorporating some changes if we follow up any suggestions with compensating fixes in the same post to whatever units may be negatively affected by the initial suggestion.

Sorry to sound all preachy, this thread doesn't really look like its going anywhere though and that kind of sucks, since its not a bad idea. Both sides need to communicate their thouhgts better though.


Since we talked on steam/discord, better to continue the discussion here and you mentioned some things I agree with but also disagree with. Fundamentally I agree that changes that improve game immersion and make the game "more fun" should be implemented. If making 20mm cannons stronger does that, then sure. If so then yes definitely counter balancing changes should also be made.

Where I disagree is the idea that we would make the changes "afterwards". Changes that break balance are probably much more harmful to the 'fun' aspect than how realistically a certain gun performs in game. Quite frankly the perspective that the community doesn't get and can only experience as dev team members is this... we get days and days of endless shit from the community about how we ruin the game despite doing exactly what the community asked. To the point where the first reaction for any dev member to any suggestion is to be defensive.

All changes should be thought thoroughly and implemented to as close to balance as possible because fun is a factor not just of immersion but balance. Balance is probably the more important factor because no one wants to play a game they don't have control over (see 5000 topics posted about RNG and balance).

Given that, I would say this idea is bad in the sense it just isn't thought out at all except hinging on a SINGLE argument that "20mm cannons are big and that unit has four of them" (which by the way markr immediately proved that the 20mm quads behave just as suggested PLUS more).

Whichever member of the devteam responds (in this case, Kwok) needs to state which specific units/gameplay elements will be affected negatively, as comparing this suggestion to the 50 cal change without acknowledging and agreeing on the context of both changes doesn't really provide a good argument for why the suggestion shouldn't be implemented. Counters to that argument should address whatever points were brought up by the person arguing against implementation.

Did this maybe 3 times already and no direct response except the same repeated points. The burden of proof is not on the person arguing against implementation but the person who suggests it. Burden of proof lies on the change NOT on the status quo. Here is the argument that literally has not been answered by anyone (except you dicky but i responded to your counter)
kwok wrote:It's starting to sound like another 50cal-like change, which I think would be a nice change. But given that, I would think that the changed units should change in tier just like the 50cal otherwise it'll be another rush to these units. At least for the mobile ones like pumas and such. A change like this really would make other units like the 50mm puma obsolete, just as the 50cal basically phased out the 20mm HT or stuarts. Haven't seen those in replays in forever... just greyhound after greyhound.

I recommend YOU try to consolidate the responses to this point and work from there. Devs will not do 90% of the thinking labor for an idea that was come up by the community that only put 5% of their own thought into it.

BUT, since I care about yall, I'll do the work for you. I've attempted to consolidate the responses to the concern below:

Walderschmidt wrote:^I'm okay with that. I barely use the 50mm anyway.

kwok wrote:Okay.. well from a pure philosophical stand point, no. not okay with "that". from a community that bitches about adding more units but doesnt use the units already available. no.

Walderschmidt wrote:^What new units have I bitched about adding?
This would make me use ones already in play more.

Commentary: No. When you get asks to add units every day when most aren't used at all... no.

Warhawks97 wrote:
kwok wrote:Glad you finally got the point... wish you got that back with the 50cal changes... (i know you're being sarcastic)

If the wirbel needs a price reduction to be viable for its current role then sure it can be price reduced. But we are not making 20mm cannons across the board "strong as a 50cal" just because that's how it was in reality. We learned that from tons and tons of balancing the 50cal.


The cal 50 became a cal 50 and multirole capable bc the axis 20 mm was mutlirole capable (except for the quad ofc).
And the only issue here is apparently the greyhound with its early cal 50. Would be bad if it gets completely reversed. The greyhound can be solved by delaying access of the cal 50 for this particular unit.


So basically the single 20 mm are super deadly, the cal 50 are at the right place, the 37 mm Ostwind is totally fine and the Bofors is doing its job just that it would be nice to have a ammo swap just as the 37 mm on ostwind does.


So its only the quad that is left out completely for whatever reason ever since which is sad.

I hope you are not going to turn cal 50 to "anti inf only" mode and trashing the single 20 mm just bc of your "multipurpose is not allowed" kind of thinking. Multirole always have their drawbacks as well bc they can "do everything but are no masters in anything".

And if we get through the forum over the past years i would argue that pretty much all have complained about the quad 20 mm being not competetive and just an expensive HMG at one point.


Commentary: Classic warhawks relying on realism and history to prove a point but completely ignores the entire gameplay impacts. See Markr's response to this giant thread.


mofetagalactica wrote:
If you're too afraid of units getting forgotten 'cause new 20mm changes then just make those other units get new habilities, if pumas 50mm are less used because of it then give puma 50mm cammo habilities, if marders aren't used enough then give them an hability to double-shoot from the beggining as a way of fast firing thanks to the space that gunner and loader has with the open turret, if there are other units that aren't used because of this just think of new habilities to make them special, another example would be an hability for halftracks in general to have the hability to transport AT guns or just spawn AT guns if its not possible to script it (It was possible in europe at war)

Commentary: Oh yes. Thank god the devs have the magical "make new abilities" wand to apply to all other impacted forgotten units for the sake of changing maybe 2 units. After that we can wave our magical balance wand to fix the impact of all those additional new abilities.

mofetagalactica wrote:Its not just a weapon problem on quads/dual, its also their prices compared to when they come out they're usually slower too and not that resilent any 50/37mm cannon can deal with them, you just build them per fun not because they give you something extra compared to single auto cannons, im not saying that quads should do X4 ROF than single ones, but at least double rof and bigger magazine...

mofetagalactica wrote:
kwok wrote:you quoted me but i feel like you didnt read anything i said since you didnt seem to respond to anything i said at all.


My bad didn't wanted to quote you but yeah i did read what you wrote.


Commentary: First, markr just explained the whole ROF thing is apparently BS. the quads shoot like 6 times faster than the single and have a much larger magzine. Second, basically admitted to not responding at all of what i said for like the 3rd time not counting this post.

This one is my favorite:
kwok wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not against making changes but I'm against making flat one-sided changes which lead to bad balance purely for the sake of "realism". The community has more or less lead the balance changes in the past 3ish patches and since then people have said that balance has gotten worse and worse. I can give another example on just poorly thought out balance decisions... especially since you've come back figree because it directly relates to your idea. But that would be off topic.

No one has given any counter balance solution at all yet, assuming that just because it has AP and HE rounds it somehow rounds out the game. A simple concern brought up was "okay if this is implemented then the a lot of AT focused vehicles would basically be obsolete. What about those?" and the response was basically "but it has four guns that doesn't make sense..."

If I have to come up with something to compromise (but don't whole heartedly support), it would be to do the following:
- Grant the AP/HE ability for quads
- Standardize the AP 20mm penetration and damage values to ____
- Standardize the HE 20mm penetration, damage, and AOE to ____
- Decrease the burst values 20mm units to ____
- Increase the reload of 20mm units to ____
- Increase the moving penalty of 20mm units to ____


Fine, why not.

Commentary: Noted. The following changes will be made as suggested by the community:
- Grant the AP/HE ability for quads
- Standardize the AP 20mm penetration and damage values to 0
- Standardize the HE 20mm penetration, damage, and AOE to 0
- Decrease the burst values 20mm units to 0
- Increase the reload of 20mm units to 0
- Increase the moving penalty of 20mm units to 0
Have fun with your new 20mm cannons


There's a shit ton more of other things I mentioned that also got flat out ignored only to shovel more realism arguments but no thought on overall balance and gameplay. I aint even gonna TOUCH the incoherent rants made by warhawks that have no focused point or suggestion, only complaints. Everyone can find problems easily. Not many can find solutions. Then once someone finds a solution, everyone will find a problem with it. Don't be a problem finder, be a solution maker. Feel free to bring up anything else i would have missed.

I just spent 25 minutes writing this and sifting through essentially shit for the sake of what... Trying to guide the community to come up with a decent reason/argument... literally give me ANYTHING that shows that SOMEONE here has thought through the impacts of changes and how to accommodate for them.

THIS POST is probably the only one worth working with that NOBODY gave any care to work upon:
CGarr wrote:I'd be fine with the autocannon vehicles coming later in the game if they killed inf faster and had more utility against vehicles, again it might tone down tank rushing a bit (which from what I understand is something you've been pushing for a while, Kwok). There'd actually be good reason to get the light vehicles rather than waiting for a medium tank. Keep in mind I'm saying this with the changes I suggested in my reply above, which I think might be a bit less dramatic in terms of how they would alter the game while still addressing the issue.

THIS is the closest to a good suggestion i've seen.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2905
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

Postby MarKr » 13 Feb 2020, 17:19

CGarr wrote:Mainly @kwok, regarding the changes made to weapons like 50cals, tank roof MG's, 20mm/37mm, etc. to try and improve this mod's ability to immerse a player. @markr, this also somewhat applies to your last post.
Saying that turning things more realistic to achieve a better immersive experience is a double-edge sword. It is hard to imagine that "realism-leads-to-immersion" is the important thing to players that ask for returning of KCH, or who are saying that Fallshirms in their previous "rambo" state were fine because if these people don't have any problems with units that never existed or act completely unrealistically, I seriously doubt they would care about performance of some autocannon. I would still stand behind my original statement that majority of players don't care if an autocannon kills the soldier with a direct hit or an AoE hit, as long as the soldier is dead. That is why people complained about 50cals - they could hardly kill anything. If autocannons were in a position where they would struggle against vehicles and killing infantry would be a problem too, then I would be for giving it some changes to make it useable. My problem with this topic is that nobody said that 20mm cannons cannot kill anyhting, it is more like people say "hey, they are good and all but realistically they would be better so let's make them better". Even the quads have a good stopping power against infantry, maybe not so good against vehicles but you cannot say they struggle killing absolutely anything. I agree that the cost might be too high for what it does btw.
While I can understand that immersion can be an important aspect in a game for some people, I have my doubts that majority of BKmod's community sees it that way. The fact that "immersion" as a reason for the change was brought up only after 40 posts in this topic, I think, supports my doubts.

CGarr wrote:With that being said, it's not like compensating changes can't be implemented afterwards to restore whatever balance equilibrium we initally had. ...
Further balance fixes can be made after if these initial changes make some units obsolete, and said fixes would just bring back the original balance. ...
The purpose of the secondary fixes is to try and restore the original balance to some degree while also allowing us to change/incorporate elements that'd make the game feel better to play.
I understand what you mean here but my experience tell me this most likely won't be as easy as it sounds in the quote. If we take a look at the 50cal changes, they were introduced in 5.1.6 update which was released 29th November 2018, so well over a year ago and even now we're still making changes to put it into the right place and this whole topic exists because of those 50cal changes. As I said, the 50cals were pretty weak before and so the changes at least had a good gameplay reason for taking place. In this case the gameplay reasons are more or less "it would be cool". I don't want to be dealing with autocannon balance changes for the next year or more if there is no real gameplay need for such changes.
Image


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest