Patches

[Shootter]

For those who told me that i should find another form to explain myself instead of calling a entire nation "bastards"

1.- I Obviously only talking about the russian community in this game
2.- many of them are not nice people and they are opportunistic and traitors.
3.- Im not gonna be nice when many russians called me in lobby "nigger, ****ing mexican, i f*cked your black mother" Or when i just win a game agaist them im called "****ing noob"
just because their exploit doesn't work with me


too many russians are like that, so don't expect me to be nice with them.
i spend all day playing agaist russians and i know them very well, i even have a russian friend (not in this game) that agrees with me.

[ShtoormoVick]

Oh, I'm so sure that this kind of attitude will earn you plenty more russian friends among adequate people. If one starts picking on people because of their national origin, then he deserves a title of a f*cking idiot.

BTW I knew one black guy who was of pretty low opinion about the black race, but that never became a reason for me to become a racist.

So, some trolls call you this and that, and now you come here and talk on people? That's ridiculous and moronic.

[Medan]

"I would like to ask Instinct one thing... Which maps or which settings are the reference for the game design? Are 3v3 Farmland, 2v2 Workshop and 4v4 Bazerville the reference maps for which the game is designed?"

I cannot speak for Instinct or DMS, but in my experience units are not balanced or designed for specific maps. Units are tools in a toolbox and are evaluated on a variety of factors, i.e., usefulness, utility, combat effectiveness, price, cost, historical impact, purchase time, obsolescence and many more. If units are tools, maps are a sandbox and rarely impact game balance. For example, if I give feedback stating the StuH 42 is overpowered on Workshop, I haven't developed a persuasive argument for a dramatic change to the StuH 42. However, if I argue the StuH 42 is too efficient due to the indirect nature of shell and the inclusion of APCR against enemy armor… it might carry a bit more weight. There are so many different maps that trying to balance units to specific maps is ridiculous. I have played hundreds of games testing new content and they have been on different maps unless for a specific reason.

Czad, you make it seem Instinct has an obligation to discuss game balance/design? Your feedback should not be predicated on his thoughts, but rather your own experiences. If you have feedback, give it and perhaps he will agree with it, but do so constructively and logically. Perhaps, he will even discuss it on the forums, but an obligation doesn’t exist.

[CzaD]

Czad, you make it seem Instinct has an obligation to discuss game balance/design? Your feedback should not be predicated on his thoughts, but rather your own experiences. If you have feedback, give it and perhaps he will agree with it, but do so constructively and logically. Perhaps, he will even discuss it on the forums, but an obligation doesn’t exist.

I just asked one question. I never said he must answer it but that would be very helpful as my experiences vary a lot depending on the map or map settings. Knowing which maps and settings are best suited for Instinct's vision of the game I would have an slight idea what kind of game he is designing.

Is his vision leaning towards the LMG spam, emplacements spam, heavy art and heavy tank game play that we see on default and overplayed 4v4 Bazerville or 3v3 Farmland? Or maybe is it the 3v3 Lakeland with non default settings in which a heavy tank is a tactical choice rather than a routine practice?

Why do so many maps allow spawn to span artillery shelling? That makes the Nebel on default 4v4 Bazerville bit useless coz it is always within the artillery range. Those maps should come with no artillery game mode recommendation.

Why is Farmland a 3x3 map at all? A map with a single middle flag? Most of the time it plays like Day of Victory because players spam emplacements around a single flag.

Why create so many different flag patterns to confuse new players? For, example, on Fragtown the left player assaults the town and it is clear from the flag pattern that this is his responsibility. Now, let's look at Westland: the left players caps his home flag and what is he supposed to do next: help in the middle or push on the enemy home flag? On village or on Road to Langers it is even worse, because the left player is just punished by the terrain and the flag position so you will see the left players just camp behind the windmill on Village or around the farm on Road to Langres.

Why do so many people complain about the poor map design or even lack of it? Do they have a point?

What sort of game play is spawn killing on Bocage? Everytime I take the enemy home flags I fight with blinking units.

Why did he introduce a completely unbalanced no middle tank mode, in which the UK has Matildas and Valentines as support vehicles and Germany gets only Pumas? Is it part of his vision for his game? How is a new player to tell this is a good game mode?

Why in a competitive game mode do we have the King Tiger spam in 5x5+ games? And what makes 5x5+ maps with default settings competitive?

Lastly, how am I supposed to provide a constructive feedback on units or balance when I have no idea which maps and settings the game is best designed for? Shall I write: keep the price of the Hellcat as it is for 3v3 Lakeland because the map allows flanking but reduce it for 3v3 Farmland or 4v4 Bazerville coz all lightly armoured TDs are useless. The same goes for infantry usefulness: excellent infantry tactics on 3v3 Lakeland and volks spam on 4v4 Bazerville due to emplacements spam? Or maybe should I write that Matildas should be twice as expensive because they are super OP in no medium tank mode?

And lastly, Medan, don't you think that units in real time tactics game are best discussed within the range of tactics available to them? And don't you think that those tactics are heavily map and settings dependant: is it going to be frontal assault on 3v3 Farmland or some maneuver warfare on 3v3 Lakeland? StuH 42, as you mentioned it, might be super effective on Farmland with default settings ( regardless of its APCR) but it might not be such a big threat on 3v3 Lakeland.

To sum up: I am confused. I don't know whether to teach new players mechanical emplacements spam tactics, KV1 spam or effective banking for KT on 3v3 Farmland or 4v4 Bazerville and other more maps with default settings or maybe mobile warfare tactics on 3v3 Lakeland?

[Medan]

“Lastly, how am I supposed to provide a constructive feedback on units or balance when I have no idea which maps and settings the game is best designed for?”

I just gave you examples of effective feedback concerning units. If you have a balance issues with units that are map specific, it won’t be very persuasive. Please take a moment and reread what I wrote carefully. I, like you, enjoy offering ideas/feedback. From my experience asking for answers won’t illicit responses. Garnering clear, concise sometimes does…

But so does common sense. If you have balance concerns about 5v5 and higher games, have they been addressed over the last year? Map specific concerns, do they seem like a priority in patches? How about emplacement spam or some gimmicky issues? All these answers can be seen in the patch logs, just go read them. Perhaps you already know, but don’t like the answer? This hasn’t been the first time you have asked, so have previous attempts garnered answers?

“I am confused. I don't know whether to teach new players mechanical emplacements spam tactics, KV1 spam or effective banking for KT on 3v3 Farmland or 4v4 Bazerville or maybe mobile warfare tactics on 3v3 Lakeland? “

Since the last year, I only play public games… been a pretty eye opening experience compared to playing with [EPIC]. You know there is a large group of players that really enjoy smaller maps and less of an emphasis of infantry. They love setting up defenses, pounding with heavy artillery and fielding the heaviest armor. So we enjoy mobile engagements, infantry centric games with clever tactics. Who is wrong? No one, everyone gets to play the game they want… you say it is a tactics game, isn’t a tactic digging in and doing nothing? I am sorry that you don’t like that type of play, but such is reality, people do.

And that is why I made the analogy of a toolbox and the sandbox. It seems to me units are balanced against their value (all the factors I spoke about in the last post) and maps are designed to be play spaces. A KV-1 is much different on a smaller map than on a larger map, but so is the Piat. If maps create circumstances that you personally don’t like… don’t play them. As an infantry centric player, I can tell you my best experiences come from 2v2/3v3s on a variety of maps. Some people love the cluster****s of a 4v4 Bazerville, but I can tell you there are plenty of units to use in both cases. If a unit finds no role to fill in any type of play space, it is usually removed.

So quality feedback is really easy to give… let’s take the KV-1 for example. Is the unit as a whole super effective? Is it too cheap? Why? Maybe there is a bug with the model? No, ok, are there counters? Focus on the unit, not the map, since it could be awesome on 2v2 Workshop, but terrible in a 2v2 Bocage. The StuH 42 is another example I used... is it so good on every map that you don't have any choice but to buy it? That maybe an issue and if worded well, great feedback.

In terms of unit balance, gameplay on specific maps don't make a persuasive argument in altering the unit. Small novel written, examples given. If you want to discuss it further, you can always contact me on Steam.

[fang]

I would gladly pay US 5$ to get the community map pack in DLC. I have it and love to play it, but sadly most of my friends dont have it (and they are not exactly random players, they are a clan playing on TS, so active players). I just would have more maps to play on (especially 3v3). Everyone would benefit from adding those map. Many people complain about the lack of map for 3v3 settings (especially good one). But I guess it would be an issue in term of copyrights since the maps have been made by players.

I honestly doubt the 3/faction added new units will give a second life to the game. The commmunity map pack would certainly add help the game to stay longer popular imo. Something really has to be done.

Another suggestion: many people, including myself, like to play ranked to be sure to play on "standard" settings but the 200 or 250 points difference limit is too restrictive. Would be awsome if this fixed value would turn into a more flexible %.

Thank you for reading

[CzaD]

And that is why I made the analogy of a toolbox and the sandbox. It seems to me units are balanced against their value (all the factors I spoke about in the last post) and maps are designed to be play spaces.

Don't you think that if you want to make the best use of your tools you need to find the right sandbox as not all sandboxes are the same. And what if there is no sand in the sandbox? Then all your perfectly balanced tools are useless. This is what many people here try to point out: some maps, which you nicely describe as "cluster****s", restrict the use of some of the units as there is no enough tactical space for them.

I just gave you examples of effective feedback concerning units. If you have a balance issues with units that are map specific, it won’t be very persuasive.

Medan, here is the very mistake you keep on making. You assume that I just want to leave feedback concerning specific units. But this is not what I am trying to get across. I am writing about the bigger picture, namely the relation between units, tactics and maps. I have no desire to talk about some units in vacuum. I always put them in the context of the fixed number of maps we have in the game as this is how you get the real experience of the metagame.


I believe that in a real time tactics game we should not be focusing on units, but on a variety of fun and interesting tactics we can use in the game and in order to do that we need put units in the context of available maps and see how the units can be tactically used on those maps. How can you discuss chess pieces and tactics without the board? Or how could you discuss chess game if players were allowed to play on a standard board and on a board haft the size? The bishop in chess is a very mobile unit and can cover lots of squares, but how useful would it become if you played on a 32 square board instead of the standard 64 one. The same goes for all medium tanks, all TD with light armour when played on maps with default settings and when they have no other option but to run head on into Pak- 40. What can elite infantry do in 4v4 Bazerville with all the HMGs and 20mm spam? Or what can USA Pershings do against the King Tiger on the 4v4 Bazerville or 3v3 Farmland?

The questions I asked are real questions which point to the meta game problems that are related to maps with default settings. You know that very well because since the game was released the same problems are pointed out everywhere by your friends again and again in every thread about units, factions etc.

It is very ironic to tell me to read the change logs as many of the changes you can find in there were actually made thanks to my feedback.

But I will tell you what I can really see in the change logs: lots of the effort and time was devoted to dealing with the symptoms of the problem, but none or not enough to deal with the causes of the problem. Players from the very beginning were only concerned about the default settings for maps as even Hartmann and Triumph always said that there are no real spam issues on maps played with optimum number of players rather than the default maximum one. So, lots of patches and lots of spam related changes which sadly don’t deal with half the problems we have with maps default settings.

But I can assure you I do understand that Instinct wants to keep the settings as they are for the sake of variety. What is not entirely clear to me is how this makes the game easier to balance and make it more accessible and competitive? How to find the right timing and price for Hellcat on cluster****s? How can completely new players know which maps are cluter****s and which not and how are they going to develop their skills when the most popular games are cluster****s? And what can you say about competitiveness of some ranked players if they only play Germany vs USA on cluster****s?


____________________________________

Btw, I would like to tell you all about some Mr Dot, who – reps me again and again by 5 points and always leaves the same reason, which is a “.”. I wonder who might have the privileges to – rep people again and again and by such a big number of points? I can only think about one person who can afford such childishness.

EDIT: LOL. Mr Dot struck again. I hope it makes you happy. I like to make people happy.

[Medan]

I have attempted to steer your feedback and discussion towards something that has historically resonated with DMS. It was a pretty simple analogy; it does not need to be muddied by your conjecture. I have literally no idea what your first paragraph is grasping at besides an unwillingness to accept the analogy. You tell me that I don't understand the bigger picture, but I have explained why maps rarely effect unit balance. You don't have to accept this proposition, but your questions will likely continue to go unanswered.

But let's be honest here... your last post is just an attempt to feel "right". But you fail to grasp that I am not arguing with you, I am telling you what works and what doesn't. You can digest what I wrote and try to consider it for future feedback or you can stick your head in the ground and repeat the word "cluster****". Your posts continue to display increasing personal frustration instead of meaningful discussion.

[ShtoormoVick]

Damn, it feels almost like reading Trotsky-Kautsky correspondence.

[CzaD]

I asked a single question. I wanted to find out what maps and settings the game is best balanced for. Knowing that would help me (and others too, I would believe):

- enjoy the game more;
- provide better feedback.

Instinct, a year ago, mentioned that he had plans of "differentiating properly between max player count and recommended player count".

He said that:

So, I only see the option to have a player count highlighted in the options in green, to display what sort of player count is generally recommended, while leaving the option to have more players on each map. This however will take time until we have expanded our team and have time left to do it.

Basically, I intended to follow it up as I am really interested in what is the recommended player count for Farmland or Bazerville.... until, Medan came to kindly inform me that Instinct is not obliged to answer such questions and insisted on me giving feedback I never was interested in giving. So after I explained why it is important to me to know some examples of recommended player counts for some maps: I was rewarded with straight -10 rep points and 10 infraction points for joining a flame war.

So, basically, I am cool. It is nothing unusual.

And Medan, I am sorry you didn't understand my first paragraph. I expanded your analogy to show you that there is not just one perceptive to the discussed problem:
1. you can adapt existing tools for the existing sandboxes;
2. you can adapt sandboxes to the tools;
3. or you can adjust the number of workers using the tools in the sandboxes.

I am interested in the 3rd option, specifically, in "the option to have a player count highlighted in the options in green".