Changes for the mod

[Terence's Mouth]

What to change in the mod in my opinion.

All that changes should bring more good feelings into the mod instead of let the mod feel like a guerrilla,emplacement or artillery simulator.(like in the moment)
I think its time to give BK-Mod the old feeling back where games was much more intens in the ground fight instead of the artillery fight.
I dont want to pick out single things and say why theyre bad, i just want more fun in playing this game instead of realism.
And i realy like that realism in BK mod this is all what the BK-Mod is about, but fun definatly comes before realism.

Some changes i think they would bring back the old touch to BK-Mod and give players better tactics to win games instead of mega defense and bombing only.

1. Decrease artillery damage to tanks, no artillery can destroy chains of a tank or engine (only antitank ground units should have this abillity)
2. Limit 107mortar SE and British heavy mortars to only "one".
3. Decrease damage of grenades in trenches (one heroe could jump on the grenade to save other soldiers, but i think if a grenade kills half of a squad
instead of the whole squad it would be good enough.)
In old times where the grenade damage in treches was changed there wasnt firegrenades in the game if i remember right(they would be realy dangerous for trenches but
with less range than normal grenades)
[Axis grenades has much longer range so there is no balance for the trenches yet]
I want the trenches back into this mod because at the moment theyre mostly useless,i want them as good artillery/mortar cover on openfields
to make your defense saver.

The artillery is realy to dangerous at the moment but this things would help the infantry to survive them without buffing the artillery.
The artillery is the best antitank weapon at aliet side if you look on jagdtiger tigers kingtigers or panthers,if you loose a heavy tank only because it gets immobilized with
the first artillery hit then its just a bad feeling that realy has to been thrown out of the game.

I hope you understand my point, i played this mod for realy long and i think there is a way to put out or decrease that unormal bad feelings that come from time to time.

[Warhawks97]

1. ?
2. No limit..... think about why units are build and try to "fix" the reasons. Just as it is with arty limit.... dont just limit.... find out why its used so often. (cost efficency ratio, availability).So just get rid of limit this... this.... and this..... Limit unmovable and static units its in my opinion the most silly thing anyway.... because they are static a limit doesnt work. At 2 vs 2 maps they remain as strong and powerfull (OP even) while on large maps they cant be really used in a larger tactical fighting style. So limits, esspecially on static units... do not fix any issue.
3. Many axis use trenches quite effective... US has little use of them. Why? Axis weapons kill very very good at distance+ allied have short nade range. So even if you use smoke rounds from mortars you must get so close that axis mg shreds your squad.
US weapons at the other hand suck at distance+ axis have large nade range. In Fact even Rifles-supposed ranged weapons in first place even when having no bolt action become potential weapons just when axis got into nade range. So you cant prevent really that axis throw nade, even when leaving squads equiped with Rifles

Brits can also do some use of trenches due to their effective ranged rifles (just like axis).


The reason why arty is best vs (axis) tanks is because of often very static games. The stuff behind (paks, mgs) and arround is what allows no smart outflanking of axis tanks and frontally is more often than not suicide.

What could help here? Movment! How to achieve more movment and higher game dynamics? Arty (esspecially light arty like 75 mm guns and rocket launcher like calli) that kills defenses like paks and other supporting defenses available in sufficient numbers and available when its needed and not when it is too late to be usefull (calli sherman), changed cost efficency ratios between offense and defense units (more expesive paks, slightly cheaper vehicles/ certain inf, changed and readjusted weapon/gun performences). Then you would have more movment-> effective maneuvering-> more moving-> arty less effective vs tanks because those move more-> Other weapons than arty will kill tanks more effectively and frequently.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Firstly I would like to say that I am honestly really glad to see that Terence who is an another experienced player of whom I respect, finally participating on the forums!

-I just want to hint shortly here on some points... That the reason behind the Axis inf for having more standard grenades range by default.. is probably because of that they don't have any similar upgrades for rifle grenades on the other hand unlike the Allies.. and maybe also because of that they usually cost more!!
But the Volks for example are just like the US rifles considering this case; as that both units are cheap

-The efficiency of a grenade highly depends on the location of where it explodes.. so if ur troops were all sticking together in such a narrow small sized area such as Trenches or any other place where they are all crowded near each other... They would then all die simply with just a single one grenade regardless of how many they were.

-107mm mortar emplacements shall receive less amount of HP hopefully ^^ The same way now for the naked 88s to become easier destructible with arty shells

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I'd better change 107m mortar accuracy, your inf standing on 1 point more than 3 seconds - congrats, they are one shoted.

[Terence's Mouth]

1. Less artillery damage to tanks if possible, and pls take out that artillery is able to destroy chains or engine, its just boring loosing heavy tanks by that crap.
2. Only a limit can stop that abusing by players that build 3 or more 107 or only 2 lol, or build 2 SE heavy mortars, dont tell me there is a better way with costs or other things.
If you listen to me you would see the game would be much better, think about the changes that come to the game if you change what i want to change, then you will like it.
3.Today you have to get in and get out of trenches if you see a enemy infantry unit thats realy annoying, there should be a much better way, and again think
what that change brings to the gameplay and you will like this idea too.

@sukin-kot 107m mortar accuracy have to been changed too(because theyre like having aimbot) but a limit to one is realy important because i saw many players spamming them and you cant make a infantry move anymore.

@Tiger axis has longer range because of the stielgranaten.
Im talking about grenade damage in trenches and only in trenches, one grenade kills whole squad in it, effect=always get out of trenches when infantry unit attacking you with sprint mode effect=your units get shot in the back when they get out while cant shoot back effect= better use sandbags and put units behind them than you use trenches effect=you dont have mortar or artillery protection
and this is why i said to change the damge of grenades in trenches.(in old times i remember they wasnt so deadly like now in trenches but the same on open fields)

@Warhakws dont think youre god, that changes i wrote will bring better feelings into the game, dont talk about other ways or other bullshit when i already posted the best way.

And everybody can notice that this are realy good changes for more intense infanty gameplay and less bombing gameplay.
So what do you want?More bombing or same bombing tactics? or more intense ground forces battles?
The only reason to say my ideas are bad is that you want more or same bombing tactis instead of real fights.

[SchlagtSieTot]

Dug in infantry should be almost impossible to kill with anything else but other infantry men - that would be realistic.
You can bombard an area non stop for days. Turn the whole ground around and there would still be infantry popping up from under the dirt at the end of the day.
I would really love to see trenches get a solid buff.
This might be impossible to implement in the game, but if infantry could garrison ruins, like a collapsed house etc, that would be so sweet.

[Warhawks97]

1. Less artillery damage to tanks if possible, and pls take out that artillery is able to destroy chains or engine, its just boring loosing heavy tanks by that crap.
2. Only a limit can stop that abusing by players that build 3 or more 107 or only 2 lol, or build 2 SE heavy mortars, dont tell me there is a better way with costs or other things.
If you listen to me you would see the game would be much better, think about the changes that come to the game if you change what i want to change, then you will like it.

1. Nah.... i think arty should be able to deal some damage. I mean it was a common tactic and the immobilization rate had been reduced. But if you take that way then some docs would be absolutely helpless vs tanks. I personally using tanks very often and i rarley have that problem. But i also never use JT, elephant and rarely SP (even more rarely KT). I´ve never ever build a JT in pvp game.


2. Congrats... you can remove these units then..... Ever played a game at map like vire river extended? For inf doc i would rather remove 105 sherman and jumbo moving it to armor doc. I mean its an Inf doc and this doc could build more jumbos as mortars? Thats freaking weird. Besides i am often relying on 107 as arty support using captains VT since howitzers die fast having poor VT ability. Same btw for luft doc arty support by 88. So limit 88´s or 107 mortars would just kill an important part of these docs.

By limits everything you are creating a one way path for players forcing all to use the same tactics (most likely the one which you can counter best).



The 107 from inf doc is the only really dangerous thing inf doc has currently and the only that provides proper support.



And its always about cost. For example take howitzers. In BK i get them cheap, ok, but i have to pay everytime i use them. Still i prefer them over an M10 quite often (when facing tanks for example). In vcoh they cost a bit more to build and are much harder to counter (nebels cant really counter them there) and i can fire for free. So with your logic (only limits help) i would use only howitzers in vcoh but in fact i use less arty there as in BK! So your logic cant be correct. Erich told me last night the same when he made experiences in Men of War. The reason why certain units are build and others not depends in 99,99% of all cases on the game dynamics and cost-efficency ratios of units (which creates the game dyncamics). And in particular for static units limits is the worst you can do. They will stay nasty in strong on small maps, but due to limit there is no real reason to use/unlock them on larger maps.

Regarding the 107 you must consider: it cost 3 CP, it cost more than a sherman, cant move, crew can die and you can steal it, it needs protection by other units or enemie would run towards it and capture it, every ability cost 35 ammo, docs like SE, def and stuff have effective counter by using arty and stuff.

[Terence's Mouth]

All that changes should bring more good feelings into the mod instead of let the mod feel like a guerrilla,emplacement or artillery simulator.(like in the moment)
I think its time to give BK-Mod the old feeling back where games was much more intens in the ground fight instead of the artillery fight.
I dont want to pick out single things and say why theyre bad, i just want more fun in playing this game instead of realism.
And i realy like that realism in BK mod this is all what the BK-Mod is about, but fun definatly comes before realism.

If you want artillery and bombing battles then say this directly in one sentence.

[Terence's Mouth]

btw. sniper limit was a good idea nebler limit was a good idea and heavy mortars limit would be a great idea too.

[Warhawks97]

If you want artillery and bombing battles then say this directly in one sentence.

just a huge lol. I am one of those who is fighting longest against that arty abuse. Just i prefer other ways. Limit does not help to anyhow increase the fun in any way.... it just presses all players into a one way style![/b] Half of my topics like pak and vehicle cost, infantry cost and performence, mortar cost decrease (mainly for better late game smoke support during attacks), bunker changes


And which old times you talk about? You want old times? Alright.... remove arty limit.... two calli, two 105 shermans, two grilles, reduce their cost, endless nebler, remove Nebler VT in terror doc, reduce cost of arty barrages (35 ammo cost for grille, 35 for 105 arty, 80 for walking stuka, 35 for nebler, 100 for 150 mm hummel), reduce inf doc 105 off map arty cooldown cost, decrease wespe cost back to 360/30...... endless bunkers with perma MG.... Mega Stupa with 100% accuracy... 100% accuracy for stuhs...

I am sure these are the "old times" you talking about. When doing your changes i am sure we will soon see 2 CW arty docs in 4 vs 4 games.

You seem not to get the facts: The reality showed us clearly that every limitation of arty (esspecially in non arty docs) created only more arty abuse. Sounds like a contradiction but i will give some samples:

- Terror doc lost nebler and VT ability got less effective. Terror doc was less able to knock out nasty heavier defenses. The result was that more players started using SE doc.
- Better sample Inf doc. Once it had low cooldown of its 105 off map (iirc half of what it is now), endless 105 howitzers and two 105 shermans. It was most played allied arty doc but it was by far not so crazy as RA doc, esspecially vs Tanks it was less effective than sniper priest. So howitzers got limited, off map cooldown increased, 105 sherman limited (currently it needs three barrages to kill an 88 due to bad accuracy, so it rarley killed any tanks that were moving). So you created more arty against tanks since more Hummels and priests are being used than in old times.


You say "old times" but by doing so you admit that at times with MUCH more available arty and less limits LESS arty got used. Tell me how is that possible? you have just maneuvered yourself into a huge contradiction.

[Terence's Mouth]

i dont talk about artillery limit just about artillery that destroys chains and engines plus make to much damage to tanks in my opinion.
Longtom should be only artillery that can destroy a heavy tank easily.

In old times i remember my tanks wasnt stopped or even killed by artillery, that is what i mean.

You realy talk so much but most things are miles away from the topic.

[Warhawks97]

In old times i remember my tanks wasnt stopped or even killed by artillery, that is what i mean.

Nothing got changed. In fact chance to immobilize got reduced in past patch. You know why it just feels so? Because we have by far more often RA docs with sniper priests then ever before. The reason is written above.

[Terence's Mouth]

I saw so many times that tanks was immobilized by the first shot, and that bad feeling is just to big or to bad.
The game would be much better without that feeling, i hope you understand me.
Im searching for ways and changes that eliminate that bad feelings that destroying all the fun.
Easy fast and single changes.

[Terence's Mouth]

Maybe youre right and in old times wasnt somuch RA docs and arty players.
And it was a good idea to decrease the chance to immobilize tanks in the last patch but it failed because tanks still get immobilized by first shot and finished by other arty strikes or easy flank manouvers.
It would make the mod much better if only ground forces can immobilize vehicles but no artillery.

[MarKr]

You created another topic with a "collection of demands of changes" where you asked for no discussion (good work on that guys ) so I'll reply here.

1. Decrease artillery damage to tanks, no artillery can destroy chains of a tank or engine (only antitank ground units should have this abillity)

I don't think that will happen because it was intended this way. There's even a load screen tip that says that tanks can be immobilized by arty fire. Also as others said already arty is essential for stopping or at least slowing down super heavies.

2. Limit 107mortar SE and British heavy mortars to only "one".

How will that help? You build one, deploy it in your base, use grenade to kill the crew, build new one, do the same (repeat as many times as you want) = as many mortars as you want. This restriction would only make building more of them a bit more annoying but not at all impossible.

3. Decrease damage of grenades in trenches (one heroe could jump on the grenade to save other soldiers, but i think if a grenade kills half of a squad instead of the whole squad it would be good enough.)

So you ask for reducing the effectivity of arty, mortars and grenades against infantry in trenches...given the fact that not every doctrine has access to flame grenades, how will you get past such a trench? Pios with flamethrower? Pios/ engineers are weak combat units so they would most probably not even get close enough to use the flamethrower. The only thing that remains is the flame mortar shots from PE mortar HT. IIRC Allies don't have these... by this change trenches would become another variant of an emplacement I guess...

[Terence's Mouth]

I want more intense ground battle instead of camping and bombing tactics, tell me a better way then...

@1. It would help realy much. (it would be realy ok for me if the damage will be the same but without that chance to immobilze tanks)

@2. A limit would stop the spam and abuse, you think mortar just staying around alone without protection or what?

@3. If you use 2 Units attacking one trench you can take out the crew realy easily and fast, where is you fucking problem?
I dont want OP trenches that you can make WW1 batlles i just dont like that sandbags are better than trenches, i dont want to decrease arty or mortar damage to trenches because i think its good like it is now, but i said trenches are most useless to build, i just want them a little bit better.
And i realy didnt say flames should be the only way to kill units in trenches.


@2again ... there are realy importants limits that keeps the mod alive, like sniper limit KT limit hummel limit and much more...but no limit for heavy mortars is ok for you?
i would agree to a limit of 1-2 but not more.

[Warhawks97]

FINALLY..... i had endless long disucussion with Terence (who found himself in a contradiction). He lost battles in 1 vs 1 against a single 107 mortar. So a limit wouldnt solve his issue. A limit would keep the 107 very powerfull in 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2 but useless in teamfights (just like howitzers).

He simply overlooked our demands to reduce health HP of 107 mortar or the ammount of damage taken by arty (maybe 107 has same problem as naked 88 here).

So the 107 mortar more vulnerable to arty (and maybe nade bundles as well) instead of a limt is finally our common demand. So devs... take that into your consideration. Nobody demands 107 or 88 limit, just make them easier destroyable with arty.... Thx..

[Terence's Mouth]

I said if a single 107 can change or win a game what will happen if you build more of them? so a limit would realy help.
Or like warhawks said now more vulnerable to arty or other things.
I just dont like how a 107 can change a battle or let a player win a game without skill and i want solution for it, i dont care about the solution but i realy want a solution.

For heavy tanks that die without shooting a single shoot the only solution is to elimiate the chance of artillery destroying chains or engine.
I dont think that here is anybody that like to build a KT to loose it infront of his base without using it.

[kwok]

My proposed solution:
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=592&p=5168#p5168

[ShadowIchigo]

I said if a single 107 can change or win a game what will happen if you build more of them? so a limit would realy help.
Or like warhawks said now more vulnerable to arty or other things.
I just dont like how a 107 can change a battle or let a player win a game without skill and i want solution for it, i dont care about the solution but i realy want a solution.

For heavy tanks that die without shooting a single shoot the only solution is to elimiate the chance of artillery destroying chains or engine.
I dont think that here is anybody that like to build a KT to loose it infront of his base without using it.

Yea but this goes to exactly what mark said.. it doesnt matter if you were to put a limit on these types of units bc they can be recrewed. U can build one, nade it, build another nade it, build another, nade it, then when u finally think you had enough recrew them. Sure it can be a little micro managing for the player doing so (hardly any really) and annoying, but it doesnt really fix the problem. Hp and damage recieved is more of a better solution imho and yhe more sensible one at that.

[MarKr]

@1. It would help realy much. (it would be realy ok for me if the damage will be the same but without that chance to immobilze tanks)

Exactely...it would be OK for YOU. If you use tanks then I can understand that it is annoying for you but for your opponents the immobilizing effect might be life saving.

This is a problem with many suggestions made on the forum - people don't consider the impact of the proposed change on other play-styles. There are two very basic play-styles: offensive and defensive. Offensive is usually favored by more experienced players because it offers more action and during the game "something constantly happens". It also requires more micro skills which is something that experienced players usualy have but new players usually lack. Defensive play-style is usually preffered by new players as it is easier to play since you "only" build defensive line and hold for as long as you gather enough resources to build an attack force and then attack. If attack fails, you retreat behind the defenses and repeat the whole process. Each of these styles has some pros and cons. Players who propose changes here often do so to compensate the shortcomings in their strategy and completely neglect what impact the change will have on other strategies. For some reason they presume that their play style is better than the other which is simply wrong. Certain play-style might be better for a certain player but presuming that some style is fundementaly better than other is simply a nonsense. So just as you said, this change would be beneficial for your play-style, for other styles it might be harming.

@2. A limit would stop the spam and abuse, you think mortar just staying around alone without protection or what?

It would not, just as I and Shadow told you, limits of these kinds of units can be bypassed.

@3. If you use 2 Units attacking one trench you can take out the crew realy easily and fast, where is you fucking problem? I dont want OP trenches that you can make WW1 batlles i just dont like that sandbags are better than trenches, i dont want to decrease arty or mortar damage to trenches because i think its good like it is now, but i said trenches are most useless to build, i just want them a little bit better.
And i realy didnt say flames should be the only way to kill units in trenches.

So you say that mortars and arty should not be more effective against trenches and yet you wrote:

I want the trenches back into this mod because at the moment theyre mostly useless,i want them as good artillery/mortar cover on openfields
to make your defense saver.

So on one hand you want trenches to become "good artillery/mortar cover on openfields" (so I guess that from your point of view they are not such atm) but on the other hand you consider mortar/arty effectivity against trenches OK?
So, my "fucking" problem is that from what you wrote it sounds that infantry in trenches should take less damage from grenades, and at the same time they should be able to stand their ground effectivelly against mortars and arty. Trenches cost nothing so you could build more of them to form defenses (especially in open fields - where you would like to use them primarily), in some you put infantry squads, in some AT squads, in some HMG team...how would you/your opponent get through that? Two/more squads attacking at once? Good luck doing that against entrenched MG42 supported by other units. Also iirc trenches provide better defense from bullets than sandbags so why are trenches worse than sandbags?

[Warhawks97]

This is a problem with many suggestions made on the forum - people don't consider the impact of the proposed change on other play-styles. There are two very basic play-styles: offensive and defensive. Offensive is usually favored by more experienced players because it offers more action and during the game "something constantly happens". It also requires more micro skills which is something that experienced players usualy have but new players usually lack. Defensive play-style is usually preffered by new players as it is easier to play since you "only" build defensive line and hold for as long as you gather enough resources to build an attack force and then attack. If attack fails, you retreat behind the defenses and repeat the whole process. Each of these styles has some pros and cons. Players who propose changes here often do so to compensate the shortcomings in their strategy and completely neglect what impact the change will have on other strategies. For some reason they presume that their play style is better than the other which is simply wrong. Certain play-style might be better for a certain player but presuming that some style is fundementaly better than other is simply a nonsense. So just as you said, this change would be beneficial for your play-style, for other styles it might be harming.

The experienced had also been new players once. But we simply got "skilled" and "thus more offensive" coz we learned how to move our damn units. We learned the rules of mobile warfare or we got bashed by several arty pieces.

But the "new players" that play all the time only the "defensive style" do never learn any kind of offense because right after like 5 matches they realize that camping arround is often the easiest way to win. You just have to camp as team and win when enemie allied get no CW arty. Is this how new players should "learn"? Also many of those "defensive players" have like thousand games played but not learned to fight effectively offensive except with arty abuse, super range units etc....After thousand games they still can only do that "offensive camp". Recently a guy with good stats had double stuh, Ostwind, Maultier and Tank IV and i did put a IV/70 behind them. That shows really great how new players never really learn the offense as long as camping is the best strategy to win. There are currently so many of them (esspecially axis side) that like 80% of the games are just pure frustration coz its a silly ww1 scenario in which tanks got simply added.

And one thing i really never understand when you say "its easier for many to defend untill they get attack force" is why the other side cant simply use "easy" arty against "easy" defense? It sounds like a challanage: "All new players this side pls for defending, all better players on the other side attacking the defense with minimum arty support". That how it sounds to me. The problem is: when the defense players are also skilled players but just too lazy to do much more than defending, then the attacker team can be as good as they want, they wont win unless they taking the ultimate arty doc. And as result you just got a bunch of players absolutely frustrated that once again only arty can win the day while others say that it is a fucking camp game again. That way no side will leave the game in a good mood. The defenders write: "you can only play with arty! NOOBS" the attackers say: "Fucking campers! We had no other choice but arty! You deserved getting bombed by arty!"

And this repeating from game to game. So you should really decide what you finally want and which players you support. Rather a highly defensive focused game with lots of campy looking more like "BK mod ww1" where you get 1 meter forward, 0,5 meters back and so on or a more open, temporarily defensive game in which arty will relatively soon crack defenses when those wont move. With frontlines moving more quickly and so on.


Its up to you devs which you want. And as you said, the more experienced one want more open fights, less campy and a bit more action. But it should be said that you wont create a new pool of players that will become "experienced offensive players". Finally you will only have a bunch of "new" defensive players and "experienced" defensive players. You can then gradually rename "BK mod" into "World War 1 mod" or something like that.

BUT... PLS DONT reduce campy by simply adding limits. The more limits the more you push all players into a one way style. Defense shouldnt be removed or made completely usless. Just the tools against it should be sufficient and the cost-efficency changed if neccessary (like you gonna do with paks) so that defense is more supportive, not main strategy to win a game (offensive camping).

[Butterkeks]

Well, sadly it is really possible to win games by offensive camping (especially as axis).

I recently had a game, me and Cyber tried to push the enemy (Iwas RA, he was inf doc, and our third mate was a noob playing armor).
Our noob mate tried to camp, so SE player simply bombed him out with SE's heavy mortar.

I couldn't do shit against it at this time as I was trying to attack in order to get points for priests. Cyber then got stopped by bunkers, as our mate did nothing, SE player went over to bomb me out. Everything was full of fortifications and I couldn't get any CP to get my priests.
SE player had at this time already his howitzers.
When my Priests came, I had to kill enemy bunkers + 2 vet 2 Wespe + heavy mortar + 210mm Nebelwerfer +5 LfH. Well, of course I couldn't do it. Sector Artillery prevented Cyber from attacking (gladly you change it now ).
At this point the enemy started to attack with elite inf (Storms, Panzergrens), shreddind my and cybers inf. Then a Beutepanzer and some tank IV supported by massive arty spam, and the game was lost.

I don't like the changes suggested in this topic, but something has to be done. Having one noob mate vs three medium players made us unable to attack. So what will happen? People will stop paying with noobs, so it's even harder for them to learn the game, leading them to use the defensive strategy even more.
(Our mate built ten trenches but had zero units. One Beutepanzer killed him because he didn't have any AT guns. At one time he built 4 Chaffees and lost them all to a asingle pak38...).

I want to be honest, I also have no good suggestions on how to solve this, but we really should have a discussion about this.

[MarKr]

Point of my post was that people often suggest changes based on their play-style while believeing that their play-style is universally the best one and everybody should play that way. However who decides what is "better". The terms "good" and "bad" are highly subjective for every person. Therefore some play-style can suit very well to some players and so they consider it the best, but it is only the best for them, others may preffer the defensive style and thus it is best for them, but nobody can say that one style is unversaly better than the other.

But players often forget about this when they make suggestions for changes and their suggestions are then of a nature "it will benefit my style and others can go f*ck themselves" and I feel that one of my duties as dev team member is to look at suggestions and ask myself if this or that change in playstyle "A" won't mess up the playstyle "B".

I know that Warhawks supports the dynamic gameplay - he said it himself several times. For him it is more fun, more challangeing. But again - for HIM. OK, surely there are other players who enjoy it too. But there are surely players who preffer campy style. Is their style worse? Maybe from your point of view. But surely not from theirs. And we cannot simply make the mod work for one playstyle and completely ditch the other side.

@Butterkeks: But what you describe is hardly a problem of "offensive/defensive style is better/worse". If your Armor mate were some skilled player the situation would be completely different, not to mention that Armor doc isn't really fit for camping.

Yes, I know that solving this would be good but I don't really believe it can be solved. I mean, what could be possibly done about it? Should we remove emplacements and defensive elements? That would force players not to camp - but as I said, that would ruin the game for players who like to camp. Should we greately reduce arty? That would on the other hand put campers into advantage. Should everybody receive about the same campy capabilities? That would lead to even more arty...

The problem is that if everybody has a different playstyle, you practically cannot fine-balance the game without significant changes to one of the playstyles for which the changes will be harming. And since we don't want to tell to players "this is the playstyle you have to use" and even if so, it is impossible to determine which playstyle is universaly better, we cannot make changes without harming one or the other side of the baricade.

I have also noticed that quite often somebody writes a post like "X is very OP because of.... and against..." to which somebody replies "What? I have never had any problem countering X...it should stay as it is.". Now both sides get support from some players...so what do you do then?

[JimQwilleran]

+1