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.
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.
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...
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.