Balance will destroy FH -1 reply

Please wait...

Cochise

click...boom

50 XP

1st December 2003

0 Uploads

286 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

Seems like a lot of threads on different weapons and subjects lately have called on the FH team to better "balance" different aspects, different weapons, different classes etc., of the game. People more and more seem to want and demand a balancing of armor, or this allied vehicle should be just as powerful as its axis counterpart, or the british weapon should be the equal of its german counterpart stuff. All of this stuff seems to be lumped into the concept of "better balancing" the game.

Then there is the issue of mapping. If the battlefield is setup such that one side has an advantage over the other, it is automatically deemed a poorly designed map and, historical accuracy is sacrificed for "balancing". (that is if it is supposed to be accurate in the first place)

Good balance is an important part of any game and after all, it is a game and not even a simulation at that, and the objective at the end of the day is to have fun!!!! But...

TOO MUCH balance can be a very bad thing. It destroys the necessity of having to use different tactics with different weapons, it can destroy the neccessity of having to play as a team if everything is so balanced that one individual can overcome any obstacle in the game by himself, it destroys having to think creatively to overcome an imbalance in the game, it takes away from the true reality of many of the battles fought and thus, detracts from what FH was interested in accomplishing in the first place, it lessens the chances that one team will be involved in a desperate struggle to survive the map, which is, after all, what battles are all about... someone has to lose. Balance in effect, "dumbs-down" the game, (I hate that phrase, just couldn't think of anything better) because people don't have to think about what weapon they are using for what purpose because hey, they're all the same, right? All LMG's are the same, all half-tracks, tanks are balanced and so on etc etc.

I would hate that to happen to FH, and I am more the devils advocate on this issue and I think that if FH became too balanced, it would just destroy the mod.

Food for thought... :moon:




Flokken

The Piat+n02 are my friends ;)

50 XP

1st July 2003

0 Uploads

163 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

Cochise

TOO MUCH balance can be a very bad thing. It destroys the necessity of having to use different tactics with different weapons, it can destroy the neccessity of having to play as a team

Agree, in 0.5e it just feels so damn good when you and your teammates destroy a tiger together :)




PanzerAce

Some Guy...

50 XP

11th January 2004

0 Uploads

736 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

:nodding: :nodding: :nodding: :nodding: :nodding:




Niipzu

FH Fanboy

50 XP

27th December 2003

0 Uploads

124 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

I agree.

Devs, keep your own line, don't listen all whiners... Balance don't mean equality. Gears and vehicles should be realistic. Instead each map should be carefully balanced so that both teams are able to be victorious.




zero_zero

I'm sonic the spacehog

50 XP

17th November 2003

0 Uploads

363 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

Your thoughts are ok but what are you suggesting then? For now the balance/reality factor is good so why assume this will change? Your scaring people with this post for no reason.




Turbo_tiger(DK)

FH dev & JagdPanther lover

50 XP

22nd October 2003

0 Uploads

240 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago
CochiseSeems like a lot of threads on different weapons and subjects lately have called on the FH team to better "balance" different aspects, different weapons, different classes etc., of the game. People more and more seem to want and demand a balancing of armor, or this allied vehicle should be just as powerful as its axis counterpart, or the british weapon should be the equal of its german counterpart stuff. All of this stuff seems to be lumped into the concept of "better balancing" the game. Then there is the issue of mapping. If the battlefield is setup such that one side has an advantage over the other, it is automatically deemed a poorly designed map and, historical accuracy is sacrificed for "balancing". (that is if it is supposed to be accurate in the first place) Good balance is an important part of any game and after all, it is a game and not even a simulation at that, and the objective at the end of the day is to have fun!!!! But... TOO MUCH balance can be a very bad thing. It destroys the necessity of having to use different tactics with different weapons, it can destroy the neccessity of having to play as a team if everything is so balanced that one individual can overcome any obstacle in the game by himself, it destroys having to think creatively to overcome an imbalance in the game, it takes away from the true reality of many of the battles fought and thus, detracts from what FH was interested in accomplishing in the first place, it lessens the chances that one team will be involved in a desperate struggle to survive the map, which is, after all, what battles are all about... someone has to lose. Balance in effect, "dumbs-down" the game, (I hate that phrase, just couldn't think of anything better) because people don't have to think about what weapon they are using for what purpose because hey, they're all the same, right? All LMG's are the same, all half-tracks, tanks are balanced and so on etc etc. I would hate that to happen to FH, and I am more the devils advocate on this issue and I think that if FH became too balanced, it would just destroy the mod. Food for thought... :moon:

You are right and you are wrong. You are right in the sence that (like in vanilla bf) it ruins a game when the Sherman=Pz IVD with a different body or M10=Tiger etc. But you are wrong in the sence that you seem to believe that that is what the "Balance whiner's" want (I'm one of them). I can accept that the Tiger is a better tank than a Sherman, that how it is, but what I do not like is an unbalenced game (Even if its historically correct), there are so many factors involved in "real world" balance, one of them is numbers - and that cannot satisfactorily be simulated in BF. Now I hear you thinking you can do it through tickets, well you can but if that requires you to bet killed the historically correct 50 times, its no fun anymore. FH should make sure that all side have a good selection of the equipment historically available, and it should be as powerful/weak as in real life, but great care should be taken in mapping that they only spawn in numbers that reflect historical realities. So a Tiger should spawn less often that a Sherman, actually only one every 45 Shermans or so.




Cochise

click...boom

50 XP

1st December 2003

0 Uploads

286 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago
zero_zeroYour thoughts are ok but what are you suggesting then? For now the balance/reality factor is good so why assume this will change? Your scaring people with this post for no reason.

How the heck am I scaring people??? :lol: Don't be scared!!!! :lol: :uhoh:

My point is to those that demand more balance, is just think about the NEGATIVE aspects to more balance, as well and to point out that yes, there is such a thing as TOO MUCH, balance.

I think FH is fine the way that it is, and I like some of the un-balanced parts of the mod. I wanted to present a different point of view from all the posts asking for more balance because I think it is an important consideration as the mod develops.

Just as I said...,

food for thought.




Cochise

click...boom

50 XP

1st December 2003

0 Uploads

286 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago
Turbo_tiger(DK)You are right and you are wrong. You are right in the sence that (like in vanilla bf) it ruins a game when the Sherman=Pz IVD with a different body or M10=Tiger etc. But you are wrong in the sence that you seem to believe that that is what the "Balance whiner's" want (I'm one of them). I can accept that the Tiger is a better tank than a Sherman, that how it is, but what I do not like is an unbalenced game (Even if its historically correct), there are so many factors involved in "real world" balance, one of them is numbers - and that cannot satisfactorily be simulated in BF. Now I hear you thinking you can do it through tickets, well you can but if that requires you to bet killed the historically correct 50 times, its no fun anymore. FH should make sure that all side have a good selection of the equipment historically available, and it should be as powerful/weak as in real life, but great care should be taken in mapping that they only spawn in numbers that reflect historical realities. So a Tiger should spawn less often that a Sherman, actually only one every 45 Shermans or so.

I agree 1000% with what you are saying.




dRaStiQ

Master and Commander

50 XP

26th October 2003

0 Uploads

580 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago

humm

balance is important but let me say what I mean by balance

Balance would be that if somehow I was playing myself (or 10 members of my clan where playing themselves), barring silly mistakes, the result would be a draw.

Im not saying how this should be achieved. I agree that making it happen by simply making sure every single vehicule/weapon has a carbon copy would suck cock but I do think it needs to be done somehow

Also when u say battles are all about a desparate struggle to survive, I disagree, the best clan games I have had have been games vs clans who are on the same level as my clan and are using as sofisticated/effective (not necessarilly the same tho) tactics as we are. The match ends up being a fiercely contested game, every control point capped is a major victory. Thats fun as well, although yes it does depend ob the map. there are maps where the defenders are going to be overrun if thier not careful, but that sort of map should not be designed so they WILL be overrun unless they are many times more skillful. that sucks

Devs: Keep balance just achieve it by interesting (and if possible historically accurate) ways. give us tank vs infantry maps (a cityish map with the odd main boulevard, give 1 team bazookes, mines, X packs e.t.c. and the other practically no anti inf weapons but lots of tanks then tweak it till its fair for both teams) make maps like that or balance the numbers of units e.t.c. just make it so each team has an equal chance of winning

and winning can be different, u can have maps where just surviving IS winning, but its hard, so long as its just as hard 2 wipe em outt

dats what I reckons




D_Day_Dawson

Missing in action

50 XP

7th August 2003

0 Uploads

750 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

I think you're right - I've advocated balanced maps but the more times I play recently the more fun I've had playing as the underdog.. Dunno what the answer is - I'm sure (hope) the devs are on top of it. If you supply the equipment to make a map balanced (as you say N shermans per Tiger) then it's up to the players to create/tip the balance.