Author Topic: Development progress?  (Read 26044 times)

Offline Musti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.734
    • View Profile
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #315 on: 18-08-2013, 16:08:53 »
But then we would have to add more damage(and/or accuracy) for Zooks because those things (and to lesser extent Panzerschrek) are more like rocket-shotguns, and their damage is quite lame blah blah blah.
While I would love to have more historical accuracy, I think it would mess with the fine gameplay we have/had until now, I guess we have to have some limited trade-offs.(ok we don't but it would mess up the game)
WARNING!
Assholes are closer than they appear!

Offline hyperanthropos

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #316 on: 18-08-2013, 16:08:39 »
I still fail to see how this pretty small and relativly easy to accomplish change in the 30 would break gameplay. I think it wouldn't affect the gameplay too much, but provide us with a somewhat higher degree of historical accuracy.


Offline Strat_84

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Lemming Chieftain
    • View Profile
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #317 on: 18-08-2013, 16:08:36 »
Why are Shermans coded like this, with different front armours and different hitpoints? No idea. Probably for the same reason the panzerfaust 30 has a different penetration from the 60 and 100.

The hitpoints are more or less consistent. There could be some refinement about the armor thicknesses but it's more or less the proper value.
Except the Jumbo is underated, it deserves a 140 or 150mm.  >:(  :P


Offline hyperanthropos

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #318 on: 18-08-2013, 16:08:37 »

The argument that coding a weapon intentionally weak so it forces you to sneak is a very weak one in my opinion, especially considering the range of it is 30 metres, so you are going to have to sneak no matter what. Also, I should note that according to the revision logs, Kev hasn't ever changed the damage the panzerfaust 30 does.

In my opinion, the panzerfaust 30 base damage should be increased to 90, so it is the same as the 60 and 100.

Wow this is exactly what I wished to hear. Maybe some Dev/Betatester could bring the arguments and conclusion of this discussion into the internal forum. Thank you.

Offline x4fun ODIUM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
    • www.762-ranking.de
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #319 on: 18-08-2013, 17:08:11 »

The argument that coding a weapon intentionally weak so it forces you to sneak is a very weak one in my opinion [...]

Fully agreed! The general player reaction is not "Oh hey great, I have to sneak around more."
It is more like "why does the Panzerfaust not work - what is wrong here?" and leads to lots of frustration.

Yes, historical accuracy makes for more challenging gameplay, but if that gameplay and its elements follow a consistent logic (as in: "generally remember what you know from real life data, and you shall succeed"), it motivates players to try harder, train and keep playing.
Kind Regards / MfG
x4fun I<ODIUM>I


Offline Musti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.734
    • View Profile
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #320 on: 18-08-2013, 17:08:11 »
Yeah? Then make Zooka/Sherman 75 one-shot-kill Panthers from the side, sit back and watch the forums.
WARNING!
Assholes are closer than they appear!

Offline kingtiger1891

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #321 on: 18-08-2013, 17:08:35 »
So what do you want to explain with this ? The slight curve at the exit point on left ? The basic balance of forces easily explains this, you don't need any other theory. And anyway it's the bloody EXIT point, who cares about the way the round exits, your point is all about it should penetrate with a turning round !
My point is the shell travels less distance than what trigonometric calculation would give. And I don't think I need to write an article to explain that's what happened in the photo. And for the "positive normalization"? The curve should bend to the opposite side if that's the case.

The theory discussion is really getting nowhere. If you still think it's reasonable for the thin APC armor to deflect a 75mm+ AP shell, try find a supporting evidence.

Offline hitm4k3r

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.123
    • View Profile
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #322 on: 18-08-2013, 17:08:03 »

The argument that coding a weapon intentionally weak so it forces you to sneak is a very weak one in my opinion, especially considering the range of it is 30 metres, so you are going to have to sneak no matter what. Also, I should note that according to the revision logs, Kev hasn't ever changed the damage the panzerfaust 30 does.

In my opinion, the panzerfaust 30 base damage should be increased to 90, so it is the same as the 60 and 100.

Wow this is exactly what I wished to hear. Maybe some Dev/Betatester could bring the arguments and conclusion of this discussion into the internal forum. Thank you.

We are allready on it and there is a lot of stuff being done atm. Good things are on their way.  :)

Offline Mayhemic.MAD

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 863
    • View Profile
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #323 on: 18-08-2013, 17:08:17 »
There was a change to the handheld AT weapons in july 2009, which set the damage to 55 for bazooka, panzerfaust 30, panzerschreck and piat, as a part of a whole new tank damage model.
I feel too like this is too simple and we should try some adjustments there to reflect the differences of those weapons more, but of course these settings are in use since some time now, changes there might lead to other imbalances and even more problems than a weak panzerfaust 30m. But as long as we adjust between 55 and 90, it should be ok I guess, especially the one shot panzerfaust should not be weakened.
Der Motor des Panzers ist ebenso seine Waffe wie die Kanone.
Heinz Guderian

--- Donate for the biggest BattleField Mod Supporter!! ---

Offline Strat_84

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Lemming Chieftain
    • View Profile
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #324 on: 18-08-2013, 17:08:57 »
The curve should bend to the opposite side if that's the case.
So you absolutely want to be right but you don't have a clue about the way things work right ?
First you claim a shell would magically turn on impact to be more effective against slopped armor, now you tell me that if it doesn't it should turn toward the steel plate on exit ?

Ever tried to pull your finger through some air ? You can easily.
Then try pulling it through some steel ...

Now have a look at the drawing published on the website Lightning linked, have a look on how the forces influence the trajectory of the round (red arrows) and extrapolate for the exit point of a shell that penetrated. If you still can't understand, I'm afraid nobody can help you.
« Last Edit: 18-08-2013, 18:08:01 by Strat_84 »


Offline Erwin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 258
  • Admin of CMP-Gaming
    • View Profile
    • Collaborative Multiplayer Gaming
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #325 on: 18-08-2013, 21:08:32 »
For me, Panzerschreck having less damage than Bazooka is ridiculous even if it is for balancing purposes. At least foot infantry should get true power of their AT weapons, because it's not easy to get close to a tank. After you can't kill a tank with 2 shots from a Panzerschreck, you get frustrated. I mean I work my ass off, dealing with enemy infantry and the tank to get close and bam, I fire my handheld AT, only to get blasted away with an HE shell because it can't kill a tank from point blank range.  ::)
« Last Edit: 18-08-2013, 21:08:04 by Erwin »
- It's still up!
- No it ain't.

Offline Mudzin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 692
    • View Profile
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #326 on: 18-08-2013, 23:08:02 »
Not mentioning the fact that Panzershreck could destroy every tank in WWII in reality...  ::)

Offline hyperanthropos

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #327 on: 19-08-2013, 00:08:37 »
Hey guys it was already mentioned by Shitmaker in this threat that the Panzerschreck in the current internal Beta is able to one shot Shermans again.


Offline kingtiger1891

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #328 on: 19-08-2013, 00:08:05 »
First you claim a shell would magically turn on impact to be more effective against slopped armor, now you tell me that if it doesn't it should turn toward the steel plate on exit ?



Just choose from one of the two answers: Does their so called "actual way of AP", blue curve, bend up or down? Up or down?

And again this is not what I tell you, it's what you should have seen in the pic by yourself.
« Last Edit: 19-08-2013, 00:08:04 by kingtiger1891 »

Offline Strat_84

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Lemming Chieftain
    • View Profile
Re: Development progress?
« Reply #329 on: 19-08-2013, 12:08:26 »


Just choose from one of the two answers: Does their so called "actual way of AP", blue curve, bend up or down? Up or down?

And again this is not what I tell you, it's what you should have seen in the pic by yourself.

It bends up WHEN the DOWN SIDE of the shell is in contact with STEEL (important forces) while most of the UP SIDE of the shell sustains only the resistance of the AIR (almost nothing).

If the shell penetrates, the DOWN SIDE of the shell will finally get OUT OF THE STEEL, while the UP SIDE of the shell will still face FULL STEEL RESISTANCE, thus reversing the balance of the forces you have at the entry point. The shell will tend to turn DOWNWARDS.
Follow with your finger when reading please.

And BTW, I asked you to look at the forces and momentums on that drawing, not the "trajectories". They both give an idea of what happens at the entry point but they are more or less false regarding the actual travel of a round inside the armor.