Summary of Balance: DLC#2

User avatar
homerfcb
Lieutenant
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2012 16:33
Contact:

Re: Summary of Balance: DLC#2

Postby homerfcb » Thu 4 Sep 2014 13:56

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
Mitchverr wrote:With this being the case, what exactly are the current protocols of making a vehicle or asset possible for the inclusion for nations

None.

Asides from NSWP & Scandinavian new units, there was no plan for adding new units.
Since the purely solo DLC was moved earlier, we've decided to add a few units to answer some requests/fill some gaps and please the community.
Based on the effort/rants ratio, we will stick to just Scandinavians now. Just as the UGBEAR policy, there's hardly a point for us to add extra-stuff, trying to introduce new unit types, ... Modeling copycats of existing units is easier and obviously much safer ...


Dear Madmat, I see your Point and I think it is a good idea to handle things, but two points:

Wouldn't it be fair to give the Patriot(with a RL range of 70km) an ingame range of 5000m to 5200m ? This would apply to the scale as ingame range values develop, somewehre around 812.646357223134*ln(x)+ 1660.7593491703, where x is the RL range in km...

And I wish that you could understand refor rants just a bit, I made a post about it yesterday in another thread:
Spoiler : :
homerfcb wrote:Such OPs will obviously help pact...
However I can understand it to some extent. Players, who mainly play pact feel severely hit because of several reasons:
Since Wargame Red Dragon came out, Eugen made the evil man out of them, because Eugen felt insulted by RedFor players. I’m sure Eugen didn’t wanted to hurt Redfor players or anything like this, but they did by following three actions:
1:
They displayed the stats, which teams wins more often to prove that the game is nearly balanced. It surely wasn’t at this stage. But the wrong use of stats, made Blufor “fanboys” more and more attack the REDFOR “fanboys”, like: “Stupid whine post, game is balanced”. Especially after this REDFOR proposals are generally seen as whine threads.
2:
They showed the lists of units which were not added to the game. That solely wouldn’t be that bad, but they only displayed this units for Blufor nations. That raised the hate against REDFOR “fanboys” even more: “Wow we missed so many awesome units and you dare to complain!?” – not thinking about the fact that REDFOR maybe missed some units, too, however this made every REDFOR proposal be covered with posts like, than Gib losat, Gib Patriot etc.
3:
The game currently is pretty well balanced, patriot and Marder are thins that will be figured out, but it so, that REDFOR nearly never has any Top Unit(what is a Top unit, I make it easy and judge it by the price) in any category, don’t misunderstand me they have some very cost effective units, which make you very competitive but they just don’t have the super high end units.
In Wargame EE it was totally different: USSR had the top Tank, the Top Artillery and the top AA unit.
Now they(now REDFOR) lost in all this three departments while not getting anything back from Blufor. They just win in very specialized units, where there is nothing like this at BLUFOR, like Napal Arti, SEAD helicopters or BMPT,
But as I said in another thread, it feels bad that, when you make a Redfor deck, all Highend units you put in have a better or even counterpart at the other side, if a counterpart exists, although this does not make the game unbalance. But it arguably feels bad

I don’t want to insult Eugen with my post, because they make a good job in total, but I just wanted to explain why REDFOR-“Fanboys” become more and more aggressive and less reasonable…

Ps: I you wanna ask why I write “Fanboys” in exclamation marks, I just don’t like this word, because who is a fanboy?

I appreciate your work, but my concern is that the community could be splitted...
The big nerf whiners thread, much controversal stuff, some suggestions and some more stuff, also with a big Patriot range explanation Just klick me, or go here viewtopic.php?f=155&t=48184

brroleg
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue 3 Dec 2013 07:05
Location: Ukraine
Contact:

Re: Summary of Balance: DLC#2

Postby brroleg » Thu 4 Sep 2014 14:03

As unit Patriot is ok, there is enough ways to kill it without much losses. But, its just UNFAIR that murica got atacms and patriot. So USA has both super weapons: ballistic missiles and super long range SAM, and soviets has none. If it was a ASYMMETRIC BALANCE then soviets should have got one of these and usa the other. So now we have something else, but not ASYMMETRIC BALANCE.

User avatar
Tiera
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2344
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012 00:08
Contact:

Re: Summary of Balance: DLC#2

Postby Tiera » Thu 4 Sep 2014 14:10

[EUG]MadMat wrote:Just as the UGBEAR policy, there's hardly a point for us to add extra-stuff, trying to introduce new unit types...


"Am I not merciful" indeed. :lol: Seriously though:
The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on.

People are always ungrateful, especially if one gives people gifts they were not requesting in the first place. I highly doubt that anyone in their right mind would disagree with the notion of improving the game and introducing new consepts...it's just the implementation and the perceived arbitrariness of deck changes that has made the plebs so upset.

And when "Now specialized decks are more interesting and fun to play often turned into "you shall no longer be able to use these units in these specialized decks because...of reasons", it was hardly surprising that the first forum reaction was to view it as a bug and/or practically a call to arms for flame warriors of both factions.

A simple and plain statement of the reasoning behind the changes would have done a lot of good. "From now on specialized decks shall require team play and are meant to complement one another instead of being able to do everything at least by some degree by themselves" would have avoided a lot of confusion.
Image

pdanders
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed 31 Jul 2013 20:48
Contact:

Re: Summary of Balance: DLC#2

Postby pdanders » Thu 4 Sep 2014 14:14

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
Mitchverr wrote:With this being the case, what exactly are the current protocols of making a vehicle or asset possible for the inclusion for nations

None.

Asides from NSWP & Scandinavian new units, there was no plan for adding new units.
Since the purely solo DLC was moved earlier, we've decided to add a few units to answer some requests/fill some gaps and please the community.
Based on the effort/rants ratio, we will stick to just Scandinavians now. Just as the UGBEAR policy, there's hardly a point for us to add extra-stuff, trying to introduce new unit types, ... Modeling copycats of existing units is easier and obviously much safer ...


You guys did bring this on yourself you know. If the explanation was brought up front when the unit was announced things would have gone much better.

Also Madmat.... do you know WHY you see impassioned responses on the forum. Because WE LOVE YOUR WORK. Seriously, most people on the forums are here because we think Wargame is awesome and Eugen has provided us something unique. We wouldn't bother complaining if we didn't love the game and actually care about it! Seriously!

Honestly, i'm very curious what problem you guys saw that the Patriot (and buffing other Radar AA) was meant to solve. I'm seriously interested; did you feel that it was "too safe" to use planes? Maybe that one could still spam things like cheap rocket planes to destroy things?
Last edited by pdanders on Thu 4 Sep 2014 14:22, edited 1 time in total.

ImpulseNOR
Corporal
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu 21 Mar 2013 19:31
Contact:

Re: Summary of Balance: DLC#2

Postby ImpulseNOR » Thu 4 Sep 2014 14:17

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
Asides from NSWP & Scandinavian new units, there was no plan for adding new units.
Since the purely solo DLC was moved earlier, we've decided to add a few units to answer some requests/fill some gaps and please the community.
Based on the effort/rants ratio, we will stick to just Scandinavians now. Just as the UGBEAR policy, there's hardly a point for us to add extra-stuff, trying to introduce new unit types, ... Modeling copycats of existing units is easier and obviously much safer ...


Grow up. The vocal minority will always be loud and unhappy and as any community connected dev will tell you, don't listen to what players say, look at what they do.

If you upset people's game style by introducing major units, people are going to whine because people hate change. I for one absolutely love the additions. However if this toxic forum is the only channel of gratification for your work then I suggest you find a new one. Money, for instance, is a universal language.

There are ways to charge for dlcs that won't split gameplay or the community and I think you will find that there's a whole playerbase that want to throw money at the Wargame franchise for more stuff. Units, game modes, maps, I'd buy the out of any dlc added to prolong the life of the last Wargame installment before I have to deal with scifi act of aggression. Heck I'd even pay for model fixes just to show you that some loud suit like ugbear doesn't speak for what I value in a game.

Get some perspective, look at your sales numbers, hire someone to sift through and herd the cesspool that is the forums, so that your financial decisions regarding this project aren't tainted from viewing them through the stained glasses that is the forum.
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Fri 5 Sep 2014 22:31, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Language

User avatar
BeyondNight
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2064
Joined: Fri 7 Jun 2013 20:33
Location: The Depths
Contact:

Re: Summary of Balance: DLC#2

Postby BeyondNight » Thu 4 Sep 2014 14:39

Tiera wrote:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:Just as the UGBEAR policy, there's hardly a point for us to add extra-stuff, trying to introduce new unit types...


"Am I not merciful" indeed. :lol: Seriously though:
The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on.

People are always ungrateful, especially if one gives people gifts they were not requesting in the first place. I highly doubt that anyone in their right mind would disagree with the notion of improving the game and introducing new consepts...it's just the implementation and the perceived arbitrariness of deck changes that has made the plebs so upset.

And when "Now specialized decks are more interesting and fun to play often turned into "you shall no longer be able to use these units in these specialized decks because...of reasons", it was hardly surprising that the first forum reaction was to view it as a bug and/or practically a call to arms for flame warriors of both factions.

A simple and plain statement of the reasoning behind the changes would have done a lot of good. "From now on specialized decks shall require team play and are meant to complement one another instead of being able to do everything at least by some degree by themselves" would have avoided a lot of confusion.


My Swedish Mech Deck lost its BKAN... i get complimenting decks but robbing an entire class of support/capability seems a bit much to me (then again this is pre Scandi DLC), but ive found you always have take a step back with DLC and Patches that have been big , you have to sit back and wait until anything crazy gets looked into and things can settle down, and then you'll be able to see what kind of long term effects it might have for the game.

TLDR; people need to have a little patience
Spoiler : :
Image

Korochun
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun 30 Jun 2013 08:21
Contact:

Re: Summary of Balance: DLC#2

Postby Korochun » Thu 4 Sep 2014 14:51

What are you talking about? I never said the Mig-31 should disappear.

Come on, Korochun, at least try not to lie just to make a fuss about nothing.


Let me explain in simpler English.

You are arguing that Mig-31 is the reason for Patriot inclusion with no equivalents.

This is a bad arguement, as Mig-31 is useless.

Capiche?
Last edited by Korochun on Thu 4 Sep 2014 14:52, edited 1 time in total.

Huginn
Warrant Officer
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat 24 May 2014 12:01

Re: Summary of Balance: DLC#2

Postby Huginn » Thu 4 Sep 2014 14:52

[EUG]MadMat wrote:So, now that's doom prophets are recovering from a whole day of howling, let' contemplate that (those) matter(s) with a cooler head. :)
Some changes might be of the order, some were already in the pipes when the DLC version was released on Steam a bit fast ... even for us.

JAV1L15 wrote:Marder 2: slightly too cost effective
- While it certainly has availability issues and its cost means less infantry (you can get 4 squads of Panzergren'90 for 100 points in the 5 pt transports, or only 2 in Marder 2's for the same cost) the Marder 2 could use a small +5/10 pt cost increase to 35/40.
- Some people suggest a nerf to its accuracy, but I don't personally see its stats as too much of an issue, it is easily countered by any half decent tank, infantry in AT range, an ATGM helicopter out of its AA range or an aircraft that looks at it funny.
- Should really be exclusive to Panzergren'90.
- An indirect way of also increasing the price of the Marder 2 is to give Panzergren'90 the much needed +5 to their cost, bringing them to 25 pts
- Ideal situation: 25pt infantry + 35/40pt transport = 60/65pts total

Marder 2's price is, in our opinion spot-on, yet for its intended stats ... which are not exactly the ones displayed.
Among all the rants about it, I ain't seen anyone noticing (although I might have missed it) something strange about its gun: its range is 1925m for HE, and 2100m for AP. The former is the proper range, the latter is a leftover from a test that wasn't fully reverted.
Plus, to avoid creating a singleton unit in the armory, we've (I :( ) attached it to the Marder 1 serie ... which I didn't recalled was also of use by the Deckungsgruppe. This will be changed, the Marder 2 made single and thus only available to (both) Panzergrenadier.


Guess the range nerf was to be expected to sate the rivers of tears. Max numbers of Marder 2's available before upcoming nerf is 14 national, 12 coalition. After nerf it will be at max 10/8. Marder 2's arent as good as people make it to be. It's by far the only IFV that can "take a hit" and maybe survive.

As if the T-72 Spam wouldnt beat Marder 2's in the long run anyways. BMP-3 ATGM would destroy it in 1 hit and it only costs 5 points more. Sate the 80% of the community crying like children and be on with it. Not like 10 of those will be a game changer. Right now im very happy that the community doesnt decide anything, as all their opinions of nerfs are ridiculous and they wont be happy until Marder 2 is so expensive that u cant use it anymore.

I've beaten Marder 2's sound and simple everytime ive met them coz they are so few in numbers that when you've gotten rid of a few of them (by using a few tanks, which i thought everyone was able to do but apparantly people dont know what armor is) they are literally not a threat anymore. :D
Image

terror51247
Major
Posts: 1851
Joined: Thu 27 Sep 2012 12:55
Contact:

Re: Summary of Balance: DLC#2

Postby terror51247 » Thu 4 Sep 2014 14:55

Huginn wrote:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:So, now that's doom prophets are recovering from a whole day of howling, let' contemplate that (those) matter(s) with a cooler head. :)
Some changes might be of the order, some were already in the pipes when the DLC version was released on Steam a bit fast ... even for us.

JAV1L15 wrote:Marder 2: slightly too cost effective
- While it certainly has availability issues and its cost means less infantry (you can get 4 squads of Panzergren'90 for 100 points in the 5 pt transports, or only 2 in Marder 2's for the same cost) the Marder 2 could use a small +5/10 pt cost increase to 35/40.
- Some people suggest a nerf to its accuracy, but I don't personally see its stats as too much of an issue, it is easily countered by any half decent tank, infantry in AT range, an ATGM helicopter out of its AA range or an aircraft that looks at it funny.
- Should really be exclusive to Panzergren'90.
- An indirect way of also increasing the price of the Marder 2 is to give Panzergren'90 the much needed +5 to their cost, bringing them to 25 pts
- Ideal situation: 25pt infantry + 35/40pt transport = 60/65pts total

Marder 2's price is, in our opinion spot-on, yet for its intended stats ... which are not exactly the ones displayed.
Among all the rants about it, I ain't seen anyone noticing (although I might have missed it) something strange about its gun: its range is 1925m for HE, and 2100m for AP. The former is the proper range, the latter is a leftover from a test that wasn't fully reverted.
Plus, to avoid creating a singleton unit in the armory, we've (I :( ) attached it to the Marder 1 serie ... which I didn't recalled was also of use by the Deckungsgruppe. This will be changed, the Marder 2 made single and thus only available to (both) Panzergrenadier.


Guess the range nerf was to be expected to sate the rivers of tears. Max numbers of Marder 2's available before upcoming nerf is 14 national, 12 coalition. After nerf it will be at max 10/8. Marder 2's arent as good as people make it to be. It's by far the only IFV that can "take a hit" and maybe survive.

As if the T-72 Spam wouldnt beat Marder 2's in the long run anyways. BMP-3 ATGM would destroy it in 1 hit and it only costs 5 points more. Sate the 80% of the community crying like children and be on with it. Not like 10 of those will be a game changer. Right now im very happy that the community doesnt decide anything, as all their opinions of nerfs are ridiculous and they wont be happy until Marder 2 is so expensive that u cant use it anymore.

I've beaten Marder 2's sound and simple everytime ive met them coz they are so few in numbers that when you've gotten rid of a few of them (by using a few tanks, which i thought everyone was able to do but apparantly people dont know what armor is) they are literally not a threat anymore. :D

Bmp3 needs 2 hits to destroy a marder2.
How can anyone play to a faction's strength if the major flavour of that faction is overpriced units in every category?

Korochun
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun 30 Jun 2013 08:21
Contact:

Re: Summary of Balance: DLC#2

Postby Korochun » Thu 4 Sep 2014 14:56

Huginn wrote: BMP-3 ATGM would destroy it in 1 hit


BMP-3 will not one-shot a Marder.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shifu and 25 guests