Arty

[Jalis]

Just for curiosity.

How can you justify a 105 mm arty shell that do a lot of damage on a large aoe and with x10 range cost twice less a grenade launch at short range with risk and do light damage. Or if you want an other example how is it possible a full 105 salvo cost the same price than a single satchel charge ? roughly 6 time the damage launch without risk form x20 the distance. Not to say even the launcher ranger / stormtrooper or grenadier are not really cheaper than an hotwitzer.

Try to find something else than, I always saw bk mod like that.

In test I learn a thing. If a player use systematically something, it is because it is disbalance, overpowered or both. If he complains something is too expensive but he continue to buy it ; he lies.

[kwok]

I can explain why the ratio to small weapons to large weapons is not linear. Availability, accuracy, and diminishing return.

[Jalis]

I was not curious for for an explaination, but like said for a justification. However you can can edit your answer and replace explain by justify

[kwok]

Eh, I feel the justification is the same as reason in this case. Because the tradeoffs are not linear.

EDIT:
For example, a large AOE damage randomly placed is heavily RNG dependent and gameflow dependent. Meanwhile, grenades are available from the start and by a large assortment of units with as much capability to wipe a squad as artillery and is NOT RNG dependent. Cost shouldn't only be a factor of damage but all factors. Thus, you get a non-linear cost to weapon scale.

[MarKr]

Kwok is right.
But how would you imagine it should work? Something like...grenade costs 15 ammo, satchel is 5x more destructive, so 75 ammo, Hummel has 10x the destructive potential of satchel so 750 ammo? You simply cannot scale the price this way in the game. You would either have to start from some low cost ability and make the stronger ones more expensive (which would get the most destructive ones to several hunders ammo per use) or start from the expensive ones and make cheaper the weaker and then stuff like grenade would need to cost like 1 ammo which is nothing and would be mindlessly spammed (yeah, we can add cooldowns and such but still it would be weird).

[Viper]

arty strikes always very cheap. maybe not change or reduce cost for any grenades. but just all arty barrages can be like 15% or 25% more expensive. only that.

[Jalis]

Well, Kwok I admit played a bit with words.

I have read about -- quad save the days -- something like ; players even didnt tried smoke and grenade to counter the maxson, but arty like always.

How balme people to use a cheap ¨click here to win¨ ? So answer, for arty rather than smoke and grenade is ; player used arty because the ratio ammo / efficiency was far higher. Did players though one is rng and the other not ? I presume they even dont care. Perhaps I m wrong but I had the feeling it had a bit of sadness or reisgnation, in the constation player used, arty, once more to solve problems. Anyway we cant be surprised for that.

I dont know how arty could really a be an auto reflex for PVP players.

If I had to justify low cost howitzer and low cost use in pve I would say ; I know several players who love win without risk. They play archelous river build tons of arty claims victory against a so called expert AI, and have fun with an easy slaughter. They are happy, no problem, no change, end.

Yes probably if a grenade cost 15 ammo a Hummel full salvo will not cost 750. But probably also on a game I will ignore grenade most time and save ammo for Hummel.

Well I dont know exactly what is the feeling among players, or if a bit too systematic use of arty (and arty like ) is a problem. If it is, probably the ratio efficiency / cost is too high. If most players are confortables with the situation, that means there is no gameplay problem.

[kwok]

I see what you mean Jalis, I think you make a good point. I'm going to play Devil's advocate (so personally I'm not disagreeing with you I'm just arguing) and say it is not the efficiency-cost ratio that is the problem but the people and their mentality aka refusal to adapt.

It's a bit contradictory to say that the arty value to cost is too high and that's why artillery is overly used and then say that emplacements are OP/quad saves the day/airborne AA is OP. If artillery were truly so easy and effective, then emplacements without smoke as an alternative shouldn't be so strong. Alternatively, players will complain about any aspect that wouldn't fit the image of what they think is the method of winning rather than adapting to the game to win. The amount of times artillery has been adjusted based on community feedback and never reaching a balanced state shows that there must be something more fundamentally wrong than just the cost.

I have my own solution to arty, and while many players have openly agreed it is a plausible solution nearly none were willing to participate and try.
The few players I have tried the solution with have never complained about artillery except for ONE player who thought that passive camping on a single location shouldn't be artied non-stop. Beyond that one experience, I've probably had over 100 games on my solution and not once was artillery the complaint about my solution.
You can read more about my solution here: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=736&p=8493#p7100

I don't mean this in an insulting way, but what you say here isn't new and has been considered before. So I will say the same thing I told everyone else who complained about artillery and believe they have some fix: it's not about the balance of the mod, it's about the mentality of people.

[Jalis]

Perhaps I though or even hoped it was different for pvp. But there is not so much difference it seems. People always take the easiest way and dont look at anything else, nor even wonder about it.

[kwok]

I'd say it's not even the easiest way they look for, it's "their way" only that they push for. It's the typical "I only use 3 units and I should be able to win otherwise the other faction is more comprehensive and OP." Axis are literally designed to be more well rounded as talked about many times on this forum, but there is still people who say allies are more "comprehensive" than axis.

[Warhawks97]

Well.... but at some point this "their way to win" (which is arty) has started somewehere and someday. "Ways to win" do not come out of nothing i would say. Fistly when i had quite a lot of experience and esspecially after these "clan days" and after lots of lessons i did figure for myself that at least for BK doc the arty way was not the best and easiest way to win. At the beginning i used BK doc like pretty much everybody did at that time: Stuh, paks and rocket launcher and tanks at the end. It was simply "save" and less "risky" at the first view. And this first view is what matters and which creates these "ways to win". And the first time a player found a way to win he will likely continue that way. And for me it was simply this camp with stuhs and rocket arty. First after pushing myself to find new ways and ideas i did figure out that the most deadly and successfull way to win was not to use stuhs and rocket arty at all or if then only in very specific moments when games really stuck. But so far i figured out that the most save way and also most cost effective way to win with BK doc was to rely on inf early enough and to get them on vet levels early enough to win during long games. Also aggressive vehicle and medium armor use in mid game was highly successfull.

But it took me more than a year or two to learn that. And i met many that never learned it.


So important is that esspecially new players will not achive their first victories by arty. And here comes simply this cost efficency. And there you see: Arty: 300 MP, more or less basic inf squad: 400 MP. Inf below that cost is in most cases dying to fast as that less skilled and new players would ever be really successfull with them, no matter how many they would get to whatever cheap cost.

Its like a kid: If it once gets something by lots of crying he will do so forever. And if less skilled and new players win all about arty they will continue. I think for many of them it was really a lesson when they played docs with really little or late arty. For me it was when i started playing armor doc more frequently.


So at the end kwok, it might have really something to do with cost efficency. At least the cost efficency "at the first look". Many players would change their minds and investments if they would ever see how capable veted inf can become. And here is another factor. If new players use vehicles or armor for not really cheap cost and see how useless or overpriced many of them are its not a surprise that they sooner or later get (or fall back) to arty.

[kwok]

I agree on your assessment of human nature, but my issue is that it extends hypocritically and cost changes won't change anything. The price of barrage and artillery related things have fluctuated up and down and there is always a complaint. When costs go up "impossible to kill defenses now". Costs go down "too much arty". And the net complaint is "devs don't know how to balance and are ruining the game."
So many think raising the cost will fix it, but then the next patch the price comes back down. We start adding limits on arty, start adding and removing abilities to arty, we move it up and down different trees and between build orders. If arty is SUCH a problem then why the hell did we complain so much to make it so it's added to raf? There is no end to balancing arty because the game is just not designed for the way we play. I mentioned a design error with factions before, but this and arty related problems are player errors to me. There might be some cost problems, but those won't be discovered until we can get ourselves out of this rat race in our heads that the current meta is the "correct and only way to play".

[rant] how hypocritical it is for players to say they love the mod because it rewards true strategy and thinking when the majority of players use a formula and complain when it doesn't work. How hypocritical it is for players to say they love the mod because it adds a huge assortment of different units when the majority of players only use a couple of the same units every game and complain when more units aren't added. How hypocritical it is for players to blame the devs for making the changes they ask for then say it is the devs that are wrong because devs don't even play the mod. When is it the player's fault ever? When can asking for help be the first reaction to problem instead of asking for change? We have a forum now specifically for teaching players to address problems, but our gut reaction is to go to the balance forum first. Even dealing with endless arty on a small map has a solution, and I've done it in the most recent beta where players complained about arty the most. These "good players" seem to be only good at lobbying on the forum until their formula trumps all others. [/rant]

[Jalis]

Roughly it s a problem that cant be solved for pvp. Even players can argue for or against something, goal is to win, and they will not shot themself in the foot just to have a pleasant game, but loose it.

It is a problem that can be solve for solo and multi coop. Playing a faction without arty at all nor arty like such as bombers ect ... is perfectly possible, and you will find players happy like that. Some others will not imagine to play something else than what was at start, in it s conception at Vcoh, doctrine like PE SE or brit arty. But it is their game, their choices and whatever could be the choice they have fun and cause trouble to no one.

It make me thing the crossbow story. Knight and nobles were raging against it, the pope condamned its use at the second Latran concile, but everybody used crossbowmen companies at war.

[kwok]

I guess my problem is that no matter how you twist or balance, there will always be a problem. So instead, there are ways of fixing it that no one has tried yet and can be enforced by devs. But, everyone seems to choose not to but instead bitch and moan. It seems hypocritical for everyone to complain but not take the solution available. Or at least TRY a different solution than what has been done up and down multiple times.

[Wake]

Artillery is just easier to use. It's relatively common for maps to look like this at the start and end of a match:




That is from the end of a 4v4 on Operation Goodwood.






There is an argument that artillery is overpowered, because of its relative destruction for how cheap it is. But this discussion has happened before, and one conclusion was that players didn't really know what to do if the enemy had an MG and an AT gun. The MG stops infantry and the AT gun stops tanks. The easiest way to attack then becomes to make your own artillery, and games can quickly become artillery wars because of this. The other options are to use smoke or flank the defenses, but that's harder for players to do, and hence they prefer to bomb the enemy into submission.

Razelazz made the comparison. It's like real war.

[Jalis]

Even AI can be an arty spammer if you explain it how easy it is to abuse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxUO7YfWRJ8

Point I m responsible for no salvo, as player I had no arty at all. Here even a blind would understand the situation. We about constantly hear the so typical sound of heavy artillery shells incoming.

PS ; video good enough for full screen.

[Jalis]

Last point.

When costs go up "impossible to kill defenses now". Costs go down "too much arty".

Roughly arty is necessary to crush defenses and first of it emplacement ? right ? But who allowed defensive emplacement in mass ? coh ? no. BK did. Shortly BK made created its own pain.

There is no end to balancing arty because the game is just not designed for the way we play.

I would say ; There is no end to balancing arty because the game is just not designed for THIS WAY ---> BK made it.

Remember VCOH, and I dont say vcoh was better than BK. Who had arty and who had emplacement ? True emplacement, only RE had. Well you can say mg nest are emplacement but mg nest were weak and didnt need arty to be crushed. No quad, nor flak vierling, nor 88 emplacment existed, except strating position defence to prevent early rush. The only problem would perhaps have been mg bunker, but turn it as mg nest would have solve the problem. Special brit arty who had the emplaced arty (but no tanks).

Despite BK is my prefered mod I will not fall in exagerated complaisance. BK had the bad habit to cannibalize all that made doctrines specificity, if not souls and distribute it to everyone. RE have emplacement ? emplacment for everyone, PE have sprint ? sprint for everyone.

And arty also, arty for everyone. Remenber for exemple axis def had no howitzer, and luft no bombers.

It is an other story, but recently whitetiger had complain about useless skills at Terror doc, such as ultra decryption or Goliath. My opinion here is to reach the marketing -- Giant command tree -- BK had also to cannibalize doctrines and distribute specific cp skills too others, but also pick up upgrades to make them CP, and at the end make useless cp skills to reach the magical 16.

Players are humans so naturally lazy and attracted by easy things. If you give him many defensive emplacements, probably he will have tempation to use it and camp.
Conclusion ? with far less emplacements what would means far less arty needed (so really available to players) probably you would have a different game style, perhaps more mobile or nervous ?

It is hypothecal of course, BK past is too heavy, and habits too deep, for it can really change. Usually pvp games are conservative, and can afford only slight change because of players pressure.

[Warhawks97]

That emplacment cause arty is a bit too easy i would say. Also the ammount of ambush capabilties etc. I mean try to stop a tank with a single AT gun in vcoh. The US couldnt hide at all and Axis had one ambush shot. But like 4 hits required. In BK a single Pak takes out two tanks before they can make a pass. In vCoH only 88 and maybe 17 pdr emplacment could stop a tank by its own.

I think such gameplay changes have to kept in mind as well. Emplacment might be one reason, but not the only one.

[kwok]

Jalis, I agree on your general idea on bk design impacting playstyles. And I definitely agree on your assessment of people. I think we are both in somewhat alignment on the problem.

Where I don't agree is your proposed solution because I think the problem is much more broad than your assessment. I hope you got a chance to read my solution post I linked above. If not, the short summary is the problem is the maps are too small and it impacts the playstyles, it doesn't fit the mod. To put my reasoning in one sentence (and I wrote a fuckin essay), a core feature of bk is extended ranges, so naturally the game size must scale proportionally. Unfortunately, players only still play on maps designed for vcoh not bk.

My failure was when I posted the solution I thought players would take it upon themselves to make the game more enjoyable for themselves and start choosing maps. Especially since it seemed like a lot of players agreed on my assessment. My failure is that I forgot how hypocritical people could be. So my next thought is that this really needs to be a dev supported effort; devs need to be much more selective in what maps they want to brand as "bk mod tip". Unfortunately, I can only give criticism to their latest decision in this regard. They seem to have gone in the opposite direction and back on their own values by adding small maps and 1v1 maps in the next map pack. But, you can only do so much as a single lobbyist...

[Jalis]

For sure people at pvp are not always honnest. You are Lucky there is no BK pvp ligue with ranking. Here you would be sure people would play only little maps short to finish in order to accumulate as many game (victories in their mind) as possible. For what I experienced, their is a natural tendency at pvp to focus on victory, and achieve it as fast as possible to jump on the next game for an other one. It is a strange concept for an Entertainment activity that gaming time is a waste that separe you from the only important moment ; victory panel at the end.

Probably anyway people will say playing large maps take too much time, just like if playing 2 hours for a single game was less enjoyable than play two 1 hours games.

I will stop here before Tiger says I m trying to make philosophy.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I will stop here before Tiger says I m trying to make philosophy.

I assume you mean Wh1teTiger, not me.. right?
Next time call him with his full name please... If you say just "Tiger" then it's me

[Jalis]

I assume you mean Wh1teTiger, not me.. right?

No, you re not. No offense, but whitetiger is not at that time an enough regular speaker for I can affort a nikename shortcut.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Hmm, I kind of not understand your typing style btw.. or just barely I do to be honest!
But as far as I can compromise your complicated sentence... Then I guess you are saying that "Tiger" over there actually refers to "Tiger1996" apparently.
Well, but why do you think I would ever say that you are just trying to make philosophy here? I don't get it.

Edit:- Ah, just received your PM So; I guess I finally got what u mean ^^ All fine then...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also;

My failure is that I forgot how hypocritical people could be. So my next thought is that this really needs to be a dev supported effort; devs need to be much more selective in what maps they want to brand as "bk mod tip". Unfortunately, I can only give criticism to their latest decision in this regard. They seem to have gone in the opposite direction and back on their own values by adding small maps and 1v1 maps in the next map pack. But, you can only do so much as a single lobbyist...

That's a weird statement. What latest decision are u talking about?

Adding 1vs1 maps is nothing bad either.. specifically as long as the maps are working fine; not bugged, balanced and well designed... But if some people don't ever like to play on small maps of that kind; then definitely there are still bigger maps that perfectly fits such taste throughout the map-pack.
And don't forget that the map-pack actually includes 2 maps of your own recommendation! One of which I really liked too... Talking about the map called "Blija"

[kwok]

My failure is that I forgot how hypocritical people could be. So my next thought is that this really needs to be a dev supported effort; devs need to be much more selective in what maps they want to brand as "bk mod tip". Unfortunately, I can only give criticism to their latest decision in this regard. They seem to have gone in the opposite direction and back on their own values by adding small maps and 1v1 maps in the next map pack. But, you can only do so much as a single lobbyist...

That's a weird statement. What latest decision are u talking about?

Why do you always speak like you want to instigate a fight? I said pretty clearly what latest decision I disagreed with, how is not agreeing to include small maps and 1v1 maps in a mappack a weird statement... I don't even know WHAT you are trying to bait me with this time.

And I think adding 1v1 maps is a bad because it directly contradicts what the devs say about the mod: BK mod is not designed for 1v1. So no, the maps will literally never be balanced because the mod isn't designed to be balanced for 1v1. The reason why I think it is bad is because this contradictory and hypocritical messaging from the devs is a blatant hole for future arguments when people try to make balance suggestions using 1v1 scenarios as supporting evidence and statements.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Why do you always speak like you want to instigate a fight? I said pretty clearly what latest decision I disagreed with, how is not agreeing to include small maps and 1v1 maps in a mappack a weird statement... I don't even know WHAT you are trying to bait me with this time.

And I don't even see why do u always think that I am trying to bait you at all.. absolutely not, as I am also not trying to trigger a fight anyhow... Moreover; saying "weird statement" is simply not an insult of any kind so far, as I was just wondering!
However, it might be quite irritating to call the vast majority of people as being "hypocritical" here btw. Although that sadly it might be true, but don't forget you are one of the people at the end... Just like me and everybody else.

And I think adding 1v1 maps is a bad because it directly contradicts what the devs say about the mod: BK mod is not designed for 1v1. So no, the maps will literally never be balanced because the mod isn't designed to be balanced for 1v1. The reason why I think it is bad is because this contradictory and hypocritical messaging from the devs is a blatant hole for future arguments when people try to make balance suggestions using 1v1 scenarios as supporting evidence and statements.

Respectively, I have to disagree with you on this one... Because 1vs1 games are still a huge part of the core game.. and when not too many players are online; people tend to do 1v1 rounds. Bk might not be balanced for 1vs1 games in some way though, but this doesn't mean that the map itself can't be balanced.. specifically as long as the map looks good, and the ammo and fuel points are fairly positioned throughout the entire map and not in extreme high numbers, then the map would be quickly recognized as "balanced" regardless of its size!