Forgotten Hope Public Forum
Forgotten Hope 2 => Community Polls => Topic started by: Butcher on 02-10-2012, 16:10:56
-
Hello,
in the previous thread about the tank combat it turned out that the developers are planning to keep the tank combat of the current version. It´s supposed to offer more strategical depht and make more fun for players - at least that is what they claim.
We - the players - could play with this "improved" tank system the last months and I´m curious what your opinion is about it.
Is it really the right thing to introduce a totally unrealistic tank combat system into FH2? Are those longer lasting tank fights really more fun, or do you prefer relistic and thus shorter tank combat?
Vote and explain the reasons for your decision in random points for a better overall view.
My vote goes for Option 3. The tank combat used to be good in version 2.4. Realism should play an important factor, 1S1K (One shot one kill) - situations were common.
Reasons:
- The current system is not rewarding for the players. Your target gets away to often.
- Immersion suffers under this. It´s simply not realistic.
- Ambushes with Paks/Pounders or light armoured vehicles (Marder) become rather useless.
- It´s frustrating to outsmart your enemy and not get a kill.
- No fluid combat. Tanks sit at one point and get repaired. They rape infantry and the battle gets stucked.
-
Well, I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle. As an occasional tanker I like the new system. It gives you a greater chance to survive against tank campers and guys that are insanely familiar with certain maps. Now you can try to be of actual use with your tank.
But it bugs me a bit that the system is flawed and isn't tank-related anymore, seeing that Tigers suddenly become basically as vulnerable as Cromwells. It makes for funny situations in-game and I'm sure that wasn't the goal of the devs (firing your 76 mm at a 222 and have it survive...) . Also, our regular tank-aces (we all know who) are now even less likely to get killed.
I do like the fact that 1s1k is no longer possible. That was just as annoying overall as the new system. So I hope the devs figure out a way to keep everybody happy cuz as it seems now the player base seems to be divided on this subject.
-
I went with option 3 as well. Mainly because I enjoy being in AT guns and lightly armoured tank destroyers. In the current system even if you take time to place yourself in a nice ambush you still lose since everybody can 1s1k you but your supposedly powerful gun is now weak.
Also, the more powerful guns (76mm, 75mm L70, 88, etc.) seem way too weak at the moment. A 76mm Sherman should definitely 1s1k a Panther to the side (heck, even a 75mm Sherman should do that on shorter ranges) and Panzerfausts should have much more power.
-
I'm divided between option 2 and 3. I agree there should still be 1s1k situations with proper positioning and range, it should stay historical and "immersive", but not to the extent we had in the past where only the fastest trigger won (2.4 was an improvement definitely, but now we went overboard). Flanking, ambushing and accurate shooting should be awarded by 1s1k (but for accurate shooting we first need less deviation).
-
You don't have the option of, I like the current damage system i.e I think its ok... I think your poll is biased to change.
Granted I hate the spacey tank motion, but tank damage for me is well balanced. I can survive a distant shot, but still experience 1s1k if aimed well.
It does have a few bugs, but its not a system change in as much as it is a fix-up that is needed, IMO.
-
points for idea, minus on execution. poll is leading and you just made it for those who you want to choose "3"....
"gameplay > realism" ?? what does that mean, lol. as if one excludes the other.. and in any case, game play is what drives games....
sorry but... we'll take care of this 8)
-
You don't have the option of, I like the current damage system i.e I think its ok... I think your poll is biased to change.
Option Number one...
-
points for idea, minus on execution. poll is leading and you just made it for those who you want to choose "3"....
"gameplay > realism" ?? what does that mean, lol. as if one excludes the other.. and in any case, game play is what drives games....
sorry but... we'll take care of this 8)
Well the course you are going is making the mod "more fun" on cost of realism - or did any Sherman stand 3 Pak40 hits from 100 metres in reality?
Option one is made for those who like the current tank system. Did I force anybody to vote for option 3? What direction should the Fh2 tank system go? ... bla bla bla (Current Tank system) aka option nr. 1
I´m under the impression you just don´t like the outcome, but then make a poll of your own.
And the current tank system excludes realism. A panther taking 76mms in the side is not realistic. A Sherman taking multiple 75mm hits isn´t realistic. Previous versions weren´t hardcore simulations either, but much closer to actual tank combat.
-
realism is subjective
game play is functional
cheers.
-
realism is subjective
game play is subjective
cheers.
Fixed that for you
-
You don't have the option of, I like the current damage system i.e I think its ok... I think your poll is biased to change.
Option Number one...
Oh sorry. Did't see the last bit. thanks for that. yes, its quite a fair poll.
-
Ain´t realism objective? It´s hard numbers and facts. Nobody of us was there, but that´s what books are for.
Gameplay - whether judged by funtional or subjective criteria worked in version 2.4 (imo and obviously in the opinion of 3/4 of the people voting here).
-
How the hell is this poll biased? It offers enough different possibilities to choose from and is easy to understand. And what is wrong with "gameplay>realsim"? What is so difficult to understand? You can take penetration tables and other statistics, reports and so on to compare the performance of a tank in reality and in a game. But ofcourse some people have to imply that it is corrupted. It is not perfect from a statistical POV but it serves it's purpose.
The only thing I would change is to move this poll to the general discussion section so that more people can read it and vote.
-
How the hell is this poll biased? It offers enough different possibilities to choose from and is easy to understand. And what is wrong with "gameplay>realsim"? What is so difficult to understand? You can take penetration tables and other statistics, reports and so on to compare the performance of a tank in reality and in a game. But ofcourse some people have to imply that it is corrupted. It is not perfect from a statistical POV but it serves it's purpose.
The only thing I would change is to move this poll to the general discussion section so that more people can read it and vote.
Agreed.
-
Ain´t realism objective?
haha!.... serious question?... no no. it's not.. it is completely subjective. What one guy thinks is realistic, the other thinks is unrealistic etc etc....... sorry to burst your bubble.
@5hitman: "gameplay > realism" means nothing, we dont need to choose. obviously game play is more important, but both can co-exist.
poll is biased and leading.. you dont see that? Can't help you there then :-\
compare penetration tables? gimme a break. sorry but, this went too far now. Thx for your feedback.
-
Butcher, don't engage. Just go on with the Poll. let the data speak for itself as it should, or your thread will be run aground.
-
@ Shitmaker: The advantage of calling this corrupted is that you can then ignore it and don´t have to deal with the problem.
-
But it is a bit leading in that the current tank system is NOT just about 'longer tank battles and multiple penetration'. You do get 1s1ks more often than not.
-
for one moment there it sounded as if you believed that there is one universal "truth", one set of fact-based rules that should be implemented in to the game straight without question, as religious people think the "bible" is the ultimate truth told to people by gods. As if the closer to these objective and statistic-based "facts" the game comes, the "purer" and more "realistic" it automatically becomes, and therefor any sub-sequent effects such statistics have on the outcome of actions in the game should be ignored or set to the side, for the "ultimate truth" must always reign in order for us to reach closer to the realism nirvana we all want to float around in, the purest of experiences.
please tell me this wasnt how you believed game design works. my belly cant stand such cramps today.
-
Butcher, don't engage. Just go on with the Poll. let the data speak for itself as it should, or your thread will be run aground.
-
So can a moderator move this into the general discussion section or not? Would be important to get some more voices.
-
Moving this to general since this isnt exactly feedback but a public poll to see what people think. The rather heated and detailed discussion, however, will continue at: http://fhpubforum.warumdarum.de/index.php?topic=17920.150
Anyway, poll is "biased" only because theres "unwanted" results at the moment. It would be gospel if option 1 was leading.
-
I got a strong feeling that this thread is gonna end up with something like "learn to shoot", as long as option 3 is leading ::)
-
"Hardcore realism" for me, but I'll be equally happy seeing 2.4 system back.
-
Reasons:
...
- No fluid combat. Tanks sit at one point and get repaired. They rape infantry and the battle gets stucked.
Why not asking to slow down tank repair speed? Also, tank repair could be made impossible from tank passenger slots. That way, a tank couldn't leave engagement at full speed and be repaired at the same time. Other solutions exist than the good ol 1s1k for all german armors at any range/angle.
By the way, i voted option #1.
-
Would also support tank repair being only possible by someone outside the tank, not sitting on it. It's all well and good to try throwing HE at the tank but this is rarely effective. If it's your first shot, you kill the repairmen, but show the Tiger where you are and are quickly killed. If you switch to HE after one shot and you see the grease monkeys (usually glitching between the two seats, don't forget, so rifleman are no use), they usually hide inside the tank. The tank driver is almost always an SL, so you have 10 or 15 seconds to kill the tank and if you don't manage it, that's it. I like 'repairing' your tank to be you retreating, firing smoke, bailing under fire and repairing, and if it works good for you and if it doesn't, bad luck. If it was changed (if it can be changed), repairers being forced to trot along behind the tank to repair would be a positive improvement.
-
Well at least you have a certain ammount of teamwork by "exploiting" this possibility.
-
Something between 2 and 3 for me. To me 2.4 with very occasional and rare lucky survival/bounce is the way to go. Voted 3 though, as this is the direction to go for, with some adjustments towards 2 though.
-
I think that the combat should be tactical, not much about luck.
What i feel could be changed, could be the speed of turret turning (i think its too fast right for realism no?), it would favor the ones that plan their positions better. Think that hit in back could be one shot one kill for all tanks, sides two-three and front 4-5?
I think tank battles at FH1 were brilliant =)
-
poll is biased and leading.. you dont see that? Can't help you there then :-\
This poll has every options you need, but if you don't agree, create your own unbiased poll then and we'll see what results we get from that.. -.-
Me and a lot of people with me, know what kind of results we'll get from that. I just hope you're not gonna call your own poll biased.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Wut?! Axis tanks more stronger?! Yeah, especially Tiger being shot with 2 shots by standard Sherman from side... -_-'
-
game play is subjective
Fixed that for you
uh wut.? how on earth did you become a beta tester ???
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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...?
-
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
-
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.
-
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: 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 ? :P
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.
-
Hslan was populated the first weeks. I had a lot of games there and back then people were also wondering what was changed with the tank system.
The changes might be small, but the resluts are immense.
-
I voted for the 2.4 system. Actually in my opinion,the more realism we got the better the game becomes.
FH is becoming quite arcade-like as of recent, and I really dislike that tendency.
-
uh wut.? how on earth did you become a beta tester ???
almost everytime I see Djinn's posts I have this question in my mind ;)
on topic:
I voted for 2.4 system but something between current one and 2.4 would be nice as well
-
FH is becoming quite arcade-like as of recent, and I really dislike that tendency.
This - Didn't vote 2.4 though.
-
Let's face facts, if you had your way, FH2 would play like Battlefield 1942
uh lol wut? what's the point of lying in a forum?
bla bla bla etc
I hope I haven't you lost you...?
Well the obviousness of what you say makes me lost sometimes...you possess the perfect skill of filling a page with words and end up not saying anything.
(http://snappedshot.com/uploads/master_obvious.JPG)
-
Yer, this thread has gotten pretty hostile. I feel really disrespected simply reading through it.
Let's try to just present the facts, people. We have enough thread where we fist-fight. I think we don't need any more.
I think it might help to make it clear what we are expressing is our personal opinion (Irrespective of our experience or game metaphors we hold as law) - So we don't have these back and forths. I think we're scaring away the meeker fans from even sharing their opinion, data that I think is important if we stop trying to impose ours.
This refers to myself btw...
-
The thing is djinn,
We need to be direct, and not trying to mask our point using typical oriental eastern courtesy bullshit in order to appease everyone that might read our post. Right, smiles?
IMO, the shocker comes with Strat_84's post here.
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.
Angle mod?
Change to damage modifier for each materials?
I know that discussing outcomes like:
(e.g. we need Tiger I 80 mm side armour to be slightly more potent from Sherman's 75 mm shots, which needs to get into 100 m to be able to punch through)
is totally useless for devs, but can you actually theorize from all the raw data in the editor and determine how many shots from a gun to specific parts of the tank needed to kill it?
-
I wouldn't mind a healthy discussion. But I DONT SEE ONE.
First off, most people here need a basic understanding about fallacies. And courtesy, and humility.
Or we'll keep twisting people's words to mean what we want it to.
Also, I don't like having to log in to see a direct afront to me rather than an argument about something I said.
RL is tough and frustrating to a person's ego without having to come on a game forum to see someone make himself feel better about his hollow existence by being condescending or simply insulting.
Pushing a position is not making an argument so it doesn't lead to finding a better system, which is what I'm more interested in. I feel if we CAN'T actually make headway, then its best we simply leave our points here rather than acting like we know it all.
we are moving from one impasse to another without actually coming to a common understanding about anything.
I try to accept my mistakes when I realize I've made them. But few do that. That inability to see the bigger picture, means we are really just being nasty without doing anything constructive.
WE DON'T HAVE TO INSULT A PERSON'S INTELLIGENCE TO DISAGREE WITH THEIR POINT - IT'S OUR OPINION, AND IT MIGHT WELL BE WRONG.
-
@Djinn: when there is so much bullshit in your post expect people to be rude to you as many (like me) might be simply tired of reading your pointless posts with hope that this time you write something usefull.
Also: keep you butthurt out of this thread, no one cares.
can any moderator clean this thread out of offtopic crap and left poll related posts only?
-
Technically, that removes ALL your posts then, doesn't it, Jan?
I made point in each of mine. I just don't understand why people have to be so nasty to others because they are sitting behind their keyboard rather than talking to a person's face.
it makes discussing anything so hurtful of late.
Some of us aren't that aggressive. Really, I'm just saying, let's respect our differences when presenting an opinion. Is that really too much to ask?
-
So many 10year old prima donnas in here.
Just stfu and post about the topic!
-
moderators could slap a good ol' padlock on this sad little story ::)
-
LOL, Noo, we leave it for more player opinions like it was intended.
Personally, this is my last post. I think I've assisted in derailing it thus far
-
So many 10year old prima donnas in here.
Just stfu and post about the topic!
Post about the topic? Yeah that will work. Problem is that most people have absolutely no idea about the topic. They don't know how the armor coding works in Fh2, they don't know how angle mod works or which changes Kev made to the guns. All they do is saying that tank is now to weak!!!!! at which point some other fool comes in and screams AXIS BIAS and that it is in fact not weak enough and after all is said and done everybody only agrees that FH2 tanking is now like BF3s or BF42s, even though they still don't know how shit works.
And this goes on week after week and if you close a thread they run whining about "censorship" and what not.
Because of that I will close this topic now, because I don't think any good will come of it except pissing everyone of.
-
you possess the perfect skill of filling a page with words and end up not saying anything.
He must have learned from the master. ;)
Shame on you all. Cant have anything here these days without everyone choking each other.
-
What the hell is wrong with everyone?!
First of all, I would like EVERYONE (YES, YOU, I don't care who you are, EVERYONE) to read this http://fhpubforum.warumdarum.de/index.php?topic=26.0
I would like to remind everyone to stay on topic as well! Reading this feels as if people are replying just for the sake of replying, or to either defend their own or pick on each others precious internet status. Instead of contributing something intelligent to the topic.
And I would like to remind our testers and developers to be an example to other members and be respectful towards other testers, developers and fans alike.
Now impress me and go through a month without the need to lock a thread!
with love
- Joe
/ragequits thread