Asking the players about the tank system

[djinn]

My gripe with the measure is that it takes into account just one aspect of tank combat.
I personally like that I can survive a Panzer IVs shot in a Sherman some times, especially from a n00b who just pointed and shot rather than aimed.

But I hate the moon-motion of tanks, which is more my gripe. But the poll takes only tank damage as the ONE possible aspect for change.

Its partly what I meant by it being a bit one sided. The other part was that I simply didn't realize option 1 was about maintaining because of how it was framed.

[Kwiot]

The poll could be divided into 2 options:
-I want tanking based on luck
-I want tanking based on skills

Obviously voted for option 3...

[AdamPA1006]

2.4 tanking was pretty damn solid Im not sure why they changed it. I liked more 1 hit kills simple as that. When I am hitting shermans with tiger and they are surviving something is really wrong.

[Erwin]

Change tank turning speeds.

I started to like this new system. If you know weak points you still get 1s1k. But some buggy tanks always ruines it.

So I guess a mix between this and 2.4 would be the best option.

[Kuupperi]

If I could choose I would make the tank (killing) system as realistic as it can be made. Maybe people would learn to drive their tanks with more causion. Now the Allie tanks seem so weak and the Axis tanks a little stronger (of course there are many different tanks in the mod, heavy/medium/small, and they got their own abilities to pierce the armor and survive from the hit). Personally I like these fast and more realistic tank battles where cover and tactics matter more than the origin of tank.

[Kwiot]

Wut?! Axis tanks more stronger?! Yeah, especially Tiger being shot with 2 shots by standard Sherman from side... -_-'

[Natty]

game play is subjective
Fixed that for you

uh wut.? how on earth did you become a beta tester 

[LuckyOne]

game play is subjective
Fixed that for you

uh wut.? how on earth did you become a beta tester 

Gameplay isn't subjective (we are all playing the same game, and the mechanics are presumably equal for everyone), but the ideas that should be incorporated into gameplay, and the "feel" that gameplay should achieve are... I think that's what he meant to say.

[Kuupperi]

Wut?! Axis tanks more stronger?! Yeah, especially Tiger being shot with 2 shots by standard Sherman from side... -_-'

You know the strongest armor is located in the front, right? The side and rear are more weak and less capable to stop 75mm AP round. Generally the Axis tanks win face to face combat more likely but if you get flanked by the Allies tank you are pretty much doomed. That's why the Tiger is sometimes an easy target for the Sherman.

[LuckyOne]

Change tank turning speeds.

I started to like this new system. If you know weak points you still get 1s1k. But some buggy tanks always ruines it.

So I guess a mix between this and 2.4 would be the best option.

Yeah it seems the origin of the "weird/unrealistic" situations problems might not lie in the coding of the tanks or anglemod but (as always) in wonky BF 2 hit detection. Generally 1s1k is still very probable in the mod, although some tanks need minor tweaking (especially Cromwell, Crusader, Sherman to some extent), and the TDs, AT guns need to be a bit stronger (damage wise, to be more reliable in ambushes, flanking attacks).

[djinn]

game play is subjective
Fixed that for you

uh wut.? how on earth did you become a beta tester 

Really, Natty. You're going to go there?

Point is, most people are looking for different things.
Let's face facts, if you had your way, FH2 would play like Battlefield 1942 (Its helluva lot of fun, easy to get into, albeit rude to historical accuracy in many ways), someone else wants a more PR gameplay, others want something with constuction, others would lose emplaced guns altogether, others want more power to the commander, to the extent where it becomes an RTS.

Gameplay is subjective. You decide what gameplay best suits the majority and try to tweak that to meet some desires of the outlying groups. But really, gameplay is a matter of taste.

its not written in stone somewhere.

Realism is a factor of gameplay, so if 'Realism' is a variable, then So is Gameplay...
I hope I haven't you lost you...?

[Strat_84]

I'm still amazed to see where this is going.

On the one hand you have Natty spreading the usual bullshit on gameplay > realism (i.e. THE moto to just do anything)

On the other hand people that pretend 1s1k is realism and exagerate on the total opposite (but that's quite a natural response to the former statements)

That doesn't mean I entirely agree with the changes that happened with 2.45, I actually repeatedly warned against some of them without any result.
But opposing realism to gameplay is just plain stupidity. Especially with a game whose main asset is to propose some kind of realism ingame. If the physical models involved in the game are good, the gameplay will naturally follow, that's a constant of most proper WWII based games. There's not need of bickering about what is supposed to be fun and what is not.

Moreover, (and I repeat myself, again ...), I'm still wondering what is actually causing the problems that are reported.
The slight modifications in damage multipliers ? I don't think so.
But everytime I noticed something a bit weird happening with tanking it was on 762. And the few times I could play on other servers I didn't notice anything. Just as pre-2.45 I also encountered some weird situations on 762 only (like a M3A4 Sherman facing a Marder at medium range, both stationary, and having to land 3 shots on the Marder's front to kill him, while the marder only managed to deal limited damage to the sherman as well).

So I genuinely wonder, might there be untold server side modifications, or any other reason responsible for this mess on 762 servers only. And please don't take this as another episode of the endless 762 vs the rest of the world story, I'm seriously wondering as I don't see any other logic answer with the informations I have.

edit: typos

[Butcher]

The mood in this thread is getting quite angry on both "sides". I appreciate that Natty is answering us.

I´m not drawing conclusions here, but until now there seems to be a tendency towards the old system (and the ones voting for hardcore realism would definately be happier to see the 2.4 system introduced).

Are there internal discussions going on, or is the new tank system written in stone?

@Strat_84: If you look closely, you will notice there are a lot of people complaining that are mostly/exclusively playing on hslan. So that´s no 762 issue. Also I think the developers would have told us that.

And the current tank combat system is excluding realism for the sake of gameplay. It´s no "universal truth" but 2.4 showed us that gameplay could be (more) fun and be close to realism. Option three is what I voted - and that´s a game largely influenced by realism. And that´s what FH2 was all about - or we would be playing BF1942 with better graphics as you stated yourself.

Don´t come and tell me the current system is anywhere close to realism. The Tiger is stronger than the Sherman - wow - but that´s what BF1942 also had.

[djinn]

Perhaps we shouldn't use templates. There are clear types of gameplay, players want to experience in tanks. 2.4 had its flaws even for people who wanted realism. 2.45 also...

I for one, want to experience metal monsters, NOT Mech warrors.

The mouse rotation needn't be nerfed for turrets or the acceleration on tanks, but it should still feel mechanical. Its as much a sound thing as it is a motion sensitivity thing.

the damage for me, in 2.45 actually works better because tank combat is not as frustrating i.e you don't get tank-sniped. Its easier to bear as infantry, not so much with tanks. Granted 2.45 does have serious bugs on some tanks, but BUGS /= system. So its not what 2.45 is all about.

Believe it or not, 1s1k on everything in our scaled world is NOT realism. You need a scaled version of realism to actually get the feel that works. Tanks feel to easy to destroy both by other tanks and infantry AT kits with the actual damage in place.

I always felt FH2 did the juggling act between fun and realism, making of a gameplay that is a strike average between the two. The 'FEEL' of WWII without the hard-brutal punishment of it (which is not what little games are made of)

To get the feel, you need to pick the hardcore realism values and ratios, then scale it match the average map. So a single Sherman represents a small tank group without requiring that many times the health. It would still feel like a single tank, but it can hold its own where a number more tanks would have been.

That's the sweet spot I'm personally looking for.

[Strat_84]

@Strat_84: If you look closely, you will notice there are a lot of people complaining that are mostly/exclusively playing on hslan. So that´s no 762 issue. Also I think the developers would have told us that.

We don't live in the same world then. In yours Hslan was regularly populated during the past 2 months ? 

And the current tank combat system is excluding realism for the sake of gameplay. It´s no "universal truth" but 2.4 showed us that gameplay could be (more) fun and be close to realism. Option three is what I voted - and that´s a game largely influenced by realism. And that´s what FH2 was all about - or we would be playing BF1942 with better graphics as you stated yourself.

Don´t come and tell me the current system is anywhere close to realism. The Tiger is stronger than the Sherman - wow - but that´s what BF1942 also had.

You know, the problem with coming and telling 2.4 tank system was perfect and 2.45 tank system is broken is that 2.4 and 2.45 are very similar.
The only differences AFAIK (and I know the system quite well) are:
- some slight damage multipliers changes that should not have a dramatic impact on dealt damage
- decreased reload times (a gameplay change I disagree with in the current state BTW)

If you forget that, and a few bug fixes, 2.4 and 2.45 tanking systems are I.D.E.N.T.I.C.A.L.