First Impressions of 0.67... -1 reply

Please wait...

schnuple

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

4th February 2004

0 Uploads

35 Posts

0 Threads

#111 14 years ago
ArminAce--------------------------------------------------------------------# 1st we are developing vor an average system to add more and better content then the original game .... and not for low end systems ... if you have an average system then you have an fragmented disk and bad settings 2nd what do you want finally ??? more realism or more arcade ? most here contradict themselfs every 2 posts pistol => was seldom ...and in the german army for example => only for officers

Thanks for the reply, Firstly, I've got a fairly high-end system- P4 3.4 , ati x800 xtpe, asus p4p800, cable internet unlimited download speed, I'm an obsessive tweaker, so I doubt I'm missing any settings, My hd is a seagate 80g about a year old and it doesn't have a single fragment for longer than a couple of hours as I run disk cleaners,registry cleanups and defrags about 5 or more times a day, My computer is as clean and optomised as you can get. I've done this to get the most out of my side of the connection. About the so-called realism/ game play issue, for starters I don't mean arcade when I say gameplay. Realism for me, in regard to this game, is about how it looks and feels in an effort to recreate the battles so you feel more in the period. Once you feel your " there" , then what it's all about- killing opponents, winning the game -is the primary. I feel everyone deserves a fair chance in most circumstances. Classes that have pistols, like some smg classes, don't need them, and those that do like rifleman and snipers, maybe even type99 class etc, don't have them. When I use rifleclass, I don't use a pistol very often, but your almost always going to end up in a close encounter at some stage and It would be nice to at least have a chance against the other guy. How often have you ended up at a flag lending support, or taking it yourself, most flags have buildings or some such, and some enemy comes flying through the door or window with an mp40 or thompson or ppsh rapid firing? At least with a pistol you've got some chance(not much), and it's better than standing there getting riddled full of bullets while your trusty k98 reloads into your next lifetime. Who really cares whether in WW2 pistols were'nt issued to rifleman or snipers when your in a bunker facing someone with a machinegun. There's only 64 people or less playing out battles of thousands, and we're not really in 1942 we're in cyberspace, it can go anyway we want it to. Maybe pistols were'nt issued because they couldn't afford to give one to everybody. If you asked any rifleman of the time if he'd like a pistol I'm sure he'd say yes. The bottom line is , this is a "competitive" game, the realism is going fine, the kits should give everybody a fair go at anything that comes against them. I hope (and i'm sure eveybody else hopes) I never post on this topic again. Thanks again Arminace for your reply I really respect you(for some reason?).




Zehnder

Hands up. Who wants to die?

50 XP

27th July 2004

0 Uploads

584 Posts

0 Threads

#112 14 years ago
sidtherat ... and game must be balaned, at least to some extent, because nobody will play game with no chance of wining[/QUOTE] NO. You don't get it. Many great battles in history were those won against odds or from a disadvantage. Of course many more were won from the rightful balance in favor. Your logic says that D-Day should have gone a different way due to a lack of balance. Tactics are useful, let's keep them that way in FH. [QUOTE=sidtherat] ...because unbalanced maps lead to base camping and one-sided experience, or even zero-sided experience, because succes without fight is boring

NO. I don't even see how you come to such a conclusion. I do not play FH to be on level ground with everybody at all times, that's what Vanilla and DC are for.




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#113 14 years ago

NO, I think he's saying that it's no friggin' fun if you play a map where you have no chance of winning or where you don't have an even chance. And I'd agree.

I'm not saying that balancing should be done by giving one side tons of tanks, but you have to balance your maps so that it isn't guaranteed that one side will win. If the map is unbalanced, chances are it'll get pulled from rotation. When you see side A winning 9 out of 10 times, kiss that map goodbye on any well-adminned server.

Now, if the FH devs don't really care about this, if they don't care that all their hard work ends up being unappreciated because people just stop playing the map, that's fine. But it's like I said last time with Eastern Blitz. You can make this lovely map, but if it isn't balanced or if it has bugs, or if it causes tons of framerate drop on most people's systems except those with top-end systems, kiss it goodbye.




Skipster

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

29th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,068 Posts

0 Threads

#114 14 years ago
malone1313NO. You don't get it. Many great battles in history were those won against odds or from a disadvantage. Of course many more were won from the rightful balance in favor. Your logic says that D-Day should have gone a different way due to a lack of balance. Tactics are useful, let's keep them that way in FH.

Well, for one thing, in FH, we never fight against odds (unless autobalance is off). Also, our victories never have anything to do with logistical planning, surprise, strategic maneuvering, leadership, morale, training, or any of the really important factors that go into winning a battle. Certainly, tactics are useful. In fact, if both sides had exactly the same equipment, tactics would be the deciding factor. If a map is skewed too far in favor of one side, only one side will need tactics. Of course, I don't want to see balancing done necessarily through equipment. Look at Charlie Sector. Just by making flags at the bunkers, they balanced the map to give the US a chance. Now the Germans have more chances to use "tactics", as opposed to the beach rape it was before, when a kindergarten class could keep the US stuck on the beach. Of course, as was stated, balance is important. Maps that aren't balanced, (and that doesn't mean maps need to be 50/50 balanced) that resolve in ownage for one team 3/4 of the time, are not going to be played. Then they will get removed from servers. Then it doesn't matter how realistic or well-done the map is, does it? Also, the BF engine skews things too. Take Tobruk for example. People say the map is unbalanced because the Germans can't counter the Matilda. Now to me, the equipment on that map is fine, the Germans need to use the 88 to counter the Matilda, as they did in real life. The problem is, that to be realistic, the 88 should have far superior range to any Allied tank on that map. But because of fog, (which AFAIK doesn't exist in the desert) the 88 is forced to engage at ranges where the tank's MG can kill the gunner. Contrast that to an 88 in WW2OL. You can take out anything but a Matilda at 2000m, and about 1200m for a Matilda. One or two 88's can decimate an armored column. That's realistic. (well, it would be in the desert, anyway) I guess my point is that if we can't have as much realism as a computer will allow us, (due to the engine, not the devs, they've done a wonderful job :D) then we need balancing to replace historical advantages/disadvantages that aren't represented.




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#115 14 years ago
A$$A$$INCheck the website recently? :naughty:

I stand corrected. Good to see we're getting one.




schnuple

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

4th February 2004

0 Uploads

35 Posts

0 Threads

#116 14 years ago

[QUOTE=Skipster I guess my point is that if we can't have as much realism as a computer will allow us, (due to the engine, not the devs, they've done a wonderful job :D) then we need balancing to replace historical advantages/disadvantages that aren't represented.[/QUOTE] I hope everyone reads your post, you've got it down.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#117 14 years ago

What I like in FH is that the two sides are not completely balanced (in a 1to1 match-up of equipment sense). I like the differences in the tanks (ie Axis better tanks, Allies more maybe), but in each map both sides must end up with a decent balance. The new Shermans are a good step to that direction. What I don't like in 0.67 (and in 0.66) is that some Axis heavy tanks are easy to destroy (like Pather G), while the infantry equipment in some maps isn't matched up at all (Allies have Thompsons and Bazookas, Axis have MP40s and Panzerfaust 30ms). The good thing is that the FH devs are active and changing things. I have faith in them, keep up the good work. :cya:




MG42Maniac

A man of dubious moral fibre

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

3,932 Posts

0 Threads

#118 14 years ago

I've played for for about 4 hrs offline on my new system and I have to its looking pretty damm nice. I don't get any lag not even on Eastern Blitz but my FPS drops to 70-80 when I am on Breakthrough with 64 bots @25%CPU. The new music is good, I don't get what all the whining is about...... The new maps are kick ass too esp Kharkov :) I've no had any CTD or found any bugs yet, but as I said its early days. And last but by no means least well done for adding Marder 2 :bows:




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#119 14 years ago

Map balance is an exercise in identifying each side's advantage(s) and emphasizing them in varying degrees until both sides can have an atmoshperic and satisfying game.