Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Earlier today i was shooting at two Us soldiers crawling through a field under 150m away, the crosshairs dead on them, all 5 dropped low which shouldnt happen, reloaded, had to aim and fire above them to the point where my gun covered them so i couldnt see them to fire effectively, im sure i fired once and the bullet came out the end of the gun and hit my own foot it fired so slow.
Plus the imbalances in the maps favoring the US with the new garry system
How are the US favored with the new garry system?...
The strongpoints now favor one team or the other, but if you add that half of the german team can't do nothing with its main gun they have it way harder
The original belief was that the M1 Garand rifle platoon did not need an MG because of its semi auto fire. That did not go well so they took a WW1 walking trench rifle (BAR) and tried to convert it into a machine gun substitute.
It only had 20 rounds, no air cooling, no quick swap barrel, and it overheated pretty fast, so compared to the Bren gun and MG42 it was pretty bad. But it was never designed for this role.
Germans have bolt action which is made up for with an actual MG while Americans have semi auto but a not so great automatic rifle with a bipod.
I already explained it in the image. Ya just not good enough.
All of your points can be countered, and I'll explain why.
1. You won't handle this "easy" as a commander. You are relying on the fact that everyone is going to actually listen to you. You assume the enemy team is going to be dumb. It's not just one Garrison first of all. It's multiple Garrisons along that frontline that you have to contend with. Even if you know where the Garrisons are, doesn't mean you are "easily" going to take them out. The Entire team is going to be spawning on those Garrisons. During this time, if the American team tries to attack, they are going to lose Eastern Ourthe.
2. You just proved why this new meta is bad. You admit that attack is indeed harder. It's not just harder, it's downright suicidal for the American' team to push Southern Edge. It's all open fields. So why is it that one team has a harder time attacking then the other team? There needs to be some semblance of balance in map design.
2a Recon Squads to block the garrisons? Are you serious? Again, you are relying on the fact that the recon squads are even going to be able to find the garrisons, let alone listen to you and "sit" there to block a Garrison. This is a poor game mechanic, that a player has to camp a garrison to block a team from spawning. Not only is it a bad mechanic, but I usually drop three garrisons in the locked territory, so your recon squads can't block 3 of them.
2b. Again, you make it sound so easy. It's not easy. You assume the enemy team isn't going to leave anyone on defense, clearing the sector of your recon squads and infantry squads who happen to get close. Even if you DO manage to start taking Southern Edge because they put too much on attack, they can just have multiple squads redeploy on invincible garrisons that you can't destroy.
If the teams are even in skill and leadership, the German team is going to win this game every single time. If you are on the American team, you just have to hope that the German team is dumb. The enemy team has the same advantage as you, they know where your Garrisons are going to be. You can't put it too far away from the objective, or you are going to lose it. They know your Garrison is going to be near the point.
Since the new meta update I've not seen this happen one single time. Battles now last much longer and have a tendency to end in a positon war. Which was pretty common for a lot of ww2 battles. So something in these changes must be right.
Kar should get some love no doubt, but a Garand or Carbine would still outperform it even with better cycles !
Yeah, the Kar98k is terrible right now, leading to a huge discrepancy in firepower. Which is sad. However, not all the maps favor just one side. Some maps favor the German's over the American's, but there are also maps like Hurtgen, which usually favors the American's.
I do agree with you, that the American's overall are superior to the German's in just about every category. Tanks, AT, Firearms. There does need to be a lot of adjustments made to offer some balance to the game.
Even the German Garrisons and Outposts are a disadvantage for the German's, you can spot them so much easier. The American outposts are garrisons are low profile, while the German's have huge antennas sticking up and lights on them, which makes them easier to find. The Supply drops as well, German's have a huge rocket as a supply drop, while the American's have this little tan care package that is often hard to find.
I don't want this game to be completely balanced right down the middle, that's impossible and boring. However, I agree, there does need to be some changes to make the German's stand out from the American's.
German's need to be better at some things, like Tank destroying. Currently the Panzershreck is trash. I can hit a Jumbo two times in the backside, and it doesn't destroy them. That's a big problem.
Giving a few of the classes a Panzerfaust (Like Rifleman and Assault classes can choose them in their loadout).
Give the German's the ability to build 8.8cm Flak 36.
I'm sure there are tons of other ideas out there that are worthy, and would help distinguish the two teams and balance out the game a bit.
Thats my experience. As i see at your comment maybe i didn't provide enough information for the strategie you can apply or you don't understand. Dont think with Attack and Defence. Think on a moving forward from defence to attack. When i have time i will upload a video compilation.
1. When you give them the chance to build up more than one it is your fault. You walk from eastern to southern point covering the north. Build a broad frontline, walk up surround. Distance doesn't matter!
2. Yeah its harder and?
2a. So you say you know there are multiple garries at the line and you dont find them?
A lot of people were, and are still complaining about the American having semi auto and the poor German had to deal with the bolt action. What can we possibly do to render the gunplay more fun and fair ? So that the best shot , the most tactical , the most daring wins ? That instead of being dropped dead from across the valley when making a mad dash to another cover you hear bullets flying by and cracking that would force you to hit the dirt and hide in that small crater in front of you ? Those are the moment that pumps the adrenaline in you , that makes you think you are indeed in the midst of “HELL LET LOOSE” , that bring satisfying gameplay . It is really fun to get shot at , it gives you chill, it is scary and dirty, it is not fun to get insta sniped from kilometer away from god knows what and where. I personally felt a big difference since the patch when it comes to that when playing the landing on Omaha, beforehand people were not really keen playing cos all those recoilless no brained gun would wipe you out of the beach before you could even realize that there was a beach after the water. Now it feels so much better you hear bullet screaming and hitting around you and , and yes also mowing down some friends , as they should , but not all of them , you have the time to get that feeling of danger , you get time to try to reach that bank of sand where 5 other Gi are hiding in , those are the moment you play for. And it’s the same when you are on the other side , it feel good to shoot and try to control that beast of a MG42 in the mass of enemy , as much as it is to land a really tricky/skillfull shot with a K98.
What could be done to further expend on this idea and put the emphasis on it ? So that this could occur more in any other map and situation ?
->Some people were talking to balance guns through the use of a “cone of fire” , as it is currently when you shoot without ADS, but implementing it also when you shoot down the sight. This would mean to shot exactly aimed at the same thing would not land exactly at the same spot, as it would be in real life most probably. Although i can understand the idea , and maybe could work with a very very very small cone of fire , I simply can’t get behind tit. I don’t think that one should win a firefight simply by the sheer luck that the RNG he gets from the cone of fire of his gun (when it comes to longer range , for short range without ADS, it is less disturbing) hit the other , and just imagine the frustration in can bring in game when you have that gut feeling that your shot was spot on but , hey , bad luck , cone of fire -_(^-^)_- . I don’t think it is the way to go , I think the better play should be the one who land its shot the best , through aiming skill , mastering the weapon ,had better positioning, and timing, and that would be made easier by bringing the right weapon to the right situation . No one wants to be aiming at something time it just right just to have to bullet randomizing away, it is not engaging gameplay.
With my previous point you might understand where I’m going and what ideas I am trying to carry. I think balancing the gunplay should be made across the board through aiming skill , mastering the weapon ,had better positioning, took daring risks (that might work or not), and timing.
- >Add more recoil to the guns , even after the update the recoil is pretty insignificant for many guns (Thomson ,BAR, Garand, Gewher MP40) . that could/should also match their historical particularities ( tommy gun had a high rate of fire, Bar is really heavy , STG is the ancestor of assault rifles , MP40 accurate but slow rate) to add more depth. As stated in the developer briefing #83 on FPP, the recoil of various gun was analyzed in order to portray it in the game is if it was shot by someone relatively competent, but it is not the character that should be relatively competent, but the player. I feel most gun feels the same expect some rare exception as the K98 (bolted) and the MG42 , and this is mainly due to their rate of fire. Gewher Garand and M1 feels extremely similar , same goes for tommy and mp40 etc. It needs to be addressed to really have a satisfying particular “feel” around each weapon. Tweaking recoil amongst others to balance the asymmetry in the gunplay and making it satisfying and rewarding is a proper way to do it (really bare exemple: on long distant shot , the recoil from the garand should give a decent chance to the K98 player to bolt a new round in while the Us player have to readjust its aim).
-> Remove the zoom in and holding your breath feature for 13 seconds robot shot. Or maybe just the robot-like stabilization. But either way I have no clue why this feature made it so far into the game and a lot of people agree with that. Why is it a bad feature ? It kills many interesting aspect of the game , it doesn’t promote any kind of mobility as you are extremely likely to get one shot from both long and short distance ,so no mad dash from cover to cover, it especially replace any kind of skill you could input inside aiming and timing proper to each gun. If each gun had a different sway (due to weight ,another way to balance weapons) and a different aiming down the sight “breathing” pattern (if you just ran and you are standing a little more erratic and hard to deal with than if you were laying down) that is contextual , THIS would bring some actual much needed timing, decision making and feel of war into the game. As it is right now in the game there is almost no incentive to be crouch , standing , laying down or anything, the best way to survive is not to move not to get spotted ,which lead to uninteresting gameplay loop, as well as having that zoom and boom , minimizing the portion of you body that the enemy can see doesn’t change much considering the incredible accurate of that feature .Try it yourself , hop inside a game and try to play without that zoom and boom feature , it feels a thousand time more rewarding. On a note ,the current breathing pattern across all the guns is really small.
Let me illustrate this by an example: Imagine you are in a house with a MG (thus you a clearly spotted) covering an open field, you are shooting across the field on whatever moves in order to suppress them but it literally just takes one guy from across that is not being enough suppressed to zoom and boom you across the field in a single shot with his carbine, negating all effort you have made to find yourself with the suitable gun in the suitable position where you clearly should have had the upper hand. Instead , the gameplay that should be promoted would be that the American on the other side of the field should either try to flank your position , make the use of smokes screen , help of a tank , but most importantly try to use covering fire , if the whole squad shoot towards and around that building you are staying at , the suppression should seriously hinder you capability to land accurate shot , not in a way that your shot don’t land where you are aiming , but the sight “ twitch” at every bullet flying by , or your breathing gets more erratic , and you the player have to compensate for that, which gives you a sense of danger ( well in this case the weapon has a bipod so not so much into breathing ), or if too much, makes you back-off.
->Supression: As I just stated previously in my MG nest example, it should be an essential part of the game, an useful tool and again another way to bring some balancing into weapons and the game in general. It should make it harder for you to aim , not to shoot. But should not go overboard with it either , it’s important to nail it right ( it is always interesting to see what other games made with it, RO2, Post scriptum, Squad, BF5. Pick the best suitable of each system and adapt it for your own vision of the game).
->Muzzle flash, in the current state of the game , the muzzle flash is nearly inexistent ,only a bit of smoke comes out of the gun , this paired with the sound problems in the game (that we will address later in the essay , point 2) , gives a very hard time to process from where we are getting shot at , here again promoting the hiding, and negating the decision making , it should be as follow , if I shoot , I will draw attention and probably get fired back. How many post didn’t we see of people complaining about Hill400 map because the character blend in so well with the props? I believe the character blending is not a problem, quite the contrary , the problem is the inability to rely on visual information as muzzle flash or sound ( again see later on, point 2) to understand where we are getting shot from. This coupled with the one shot zoom and boom gunplay leads to unpleasant and frustrating gunplay.
I therefore state that a deep and rewarding gunplay should be based on the fine tuning of those 5 features. And I truly believe this would both please new comers / veteran of tactical shooter / and occasional players , as the frustration of getting one taped outta nowhere is real and gives you this bad feeling of “being lost” on the battlefield. As trying to adapt does not change much in the end result.
-Recoil
-Sway (when on the move or not)
-Breathing pattern (contextualized or not , after moving, resting , laying down)
-Supression
-Muzzle flash
That's not how the game works though. You will ALWAYS have players who want to flank a point, or they'll ignore defense and just keep pushing from another point. Again, you make it sound so easy, that everyone on the team is going to listen to you. This may be true if you are playing in Clan matches and servers full of veterans willing to listen, but this is rarely the case.
You may push a point from a defense, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to fight 250m to Southern Edge from Defense, while they only have to fight 30-50m away with invincible Garrisons.
1. You are completely ignoring the fact that they CAN build Garrisons that close. You are talking about a perfect situation where your team listens to you as a Commander and that the enemy team is dumb. It doesn't change the fact that in this picture, the German's are heavily favored in this situation.
2. It shouldn't be harder, it should be somewhat balanced. This game thrives on it's public community. The current meta, combined with the map designs catering to one team over the other, creates a situation where people are going to stack the team they can win the game on the easiest, and die the least. Noone wants to die and run 200m everytime they die.
2a. In this picture, the German's don't have to put their Garrisons right on the line. They can put them in Foy (which is still only like 60m away) they can put them near the barn. You make it sound like your Recon squads are going to find every Garrison and camp them so the enemies can't spawn. That never happens. You are talking about a perfect situation.
You can't use these perfect game scenarios where your team does everything perfectly. We are talking about a large discrepancy and imbalance in the map design. Sure, a good team can overcome this. But you are relying on the other team being bad. That's not how you construct a game. You don't build a game mechanic around one team being perfect, and the other team being bad.
I'm not saying the game has to be perfectly balanced. I know that's impossible.
But take St. Marie Dumont for example. Rue De La Gare is in a PERFECT position so both teams have equal chance to take the point. It leads to exciting games where one team isn't forced to run further then the other team. One team isn't faced with a near impossible uphill battle.
Anyways. The devs have already commented on this, and they know this is an issue. They plan on overhauling the sectors and strongpoints to better reflect balanced gameplay. They already confirmed this. So arguing about this is kind of futile now.