Overall Game Design

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Tachibana]

make some significant changes and essentially create Eir2

Don't want to be the one to stop the party, but, we simply don't have the manpower to make that happen any time soon.

[AlphaTIG]

Volks, you keep arguing what units currently do and what they are currently used for. If you would stop living in the past, we could move forward in what is most likely a better future. As long as you keep thinking the same way, we will always have the same thing.

For example, you are complaining about the M8 reload. If it's a problem, we can change it so it's not a problem. It feels like every time an idea is tabled you right an essay on how it won't work instead of looking at the possibilities and opportunities for change.

The meta game before doc disabling happened just fucking sucked. The mod has grown stagnate and boring to play. I am not going to continue to finance the same old shit for half a dozen people to play. Either we make some significant changes and essentially create Eir2 or we just shut this shit down.

That doesn't mean it MUST be my way or the highway, what it means is the changes need to be something new and fresh, not just a coat of paint on the same old dog shit.

if you want a new game then give us or at least your dev team an overall concept for the game including all the units and their roles as well as their cost and the available rescources for each company. after all that is cleared you can start working on doctrines (which basicly renders all the previous work on doctrines wasted)

first of all that would just be a concept where all the details have to be worked out

and secondly i dont think any of the coders are willing to do a complete overhaul of every fuckin unit in the game


so how about you think about minor changes to the existing mod which have significant influence on gameplay (like a change of overall available rescources) instead of trying to reinvent the wheel?

so far the point behind all this was balancing out the base game, but if you want to change the base game instead of just balancing it, then i suggest that you find a solution that isnt synonymous with "hey guys lets build a whole new game from scratch and completely fuck over the old one"

[tank130]

if you want a new game then give us or at least your dev team an overall concept for the game including all the units and their roles as well as their cost and the available rescources for each company. after all that is cleared you can start working on doctrines

OVERALL CONCEPT:
Heavy tanks designed more to combat other heavies or mediums, but weak against infantry

Medium Tanks designed to be anti infantry and anti LV.

LV's good at anti support weapons, but weak to small arms. Best suited for flanks and recon

All vehicles should be weaker to AT, but AT should be much more expensive.
Repairs moved to repair units that are very weak. Repairs should be costly, but faster.

Heavy & medium tanks should be powerful, but must be handled carefully to avoid lose.

Heavy Tanks should not be able to take on AT weapons head on and win.


Resources Available:
Current resources to stay the same

Doctrines:
 - No coding work has been done on current doctrine redesign, therefore no work has been lost.
 - Doctrine ( pick & choose ) model to maintain it's approved concept and buffs to be applied in accordance to the new proposed game design above.

and secondly i dont think any of the coders are willing to do a complete overhaul of every fuckin unit in the game

Fortunately the proposed design would not require that. However, it is important to note that 2 of our current 2 coders have both made proposals in the Dev lobby that would essentially require a complete overhaul of the game and it's most of it's mechanics.

so far the point behind all this was balancing out the base game, but if you want to change the base game instead of just balancing it, then i suggest that you find a solution that isn't synonymous with "hey guys lets build a whole new game from scratch and completely fuck over the old one"

I would like to thank you for reminding me why the dev team said this time around we would not involve the community in the design discussions. That we would just create the mod as we wanted to create and if it succeeded great, if not we only have ourselves to blame.
Thank you for reminding me that listening to people like you only bogs done the process and makes us want to just throw in to towel and forget the whole damn thing.

So, my apologies to the rest of the Dev team. We all agreed to keep it out of the community forum and I fucked that up.

[Shabtajus]

So, my apologies to the rest of the Dev team. We all agreed to keep it out of the community forum and I fucked that up.

I forgive you tank130

[chefarzt]

Who deleted the post about Tank being
The Donald Trump of Game Design?
I liked that one...

[chefarzt]

And also not taking vanilla(Coh) unlocks out of the Game,
like Rangers, Ariborne
wouldve , for example saved u the Zooks discussion.
You just made it less then Vanilla Coh.
Who would actually want to play it, while its supposed to be more?
U cant create balance (why even try it ?) on an imbalanced platform.

[AlphaTIG]

Who deleted the post about Tank being
The Donald Trump of Game Design?
I liked that one...

must've been the trump, the trump cant handle the truth.

[Scotzmen]

I'm all for making this more infantry based and less tank based. There are things that can be done to limit support spam and try to make this mod play smoothly and with the same pace.

[Heartmann]

Hey ho pplz !!

Missed you all and hope you are well, snuggly as always

Trying to get a hold of whats going on and what ppl whant to do from this post in general is a puzzle in itself

I liked tanks finishing statements, (Overall directions) made things abit clearer and also like the fact that he underlined not trying to think to much from whats old, so say we did not like a units performance, we can just change that ^^

Apart from that, wear and tear? how would that work/not work? (I honestly tried reading what you all wrote, but I didn't get it, someone plze summerize it for me?)

I definitely liked the thoughts on a more tactical almost squad based Rainbow six vibe as the new direction (again just going on what I could grasp from pplz texts) but taking tanks and removing there infantry murdering power seems at least to me rather irritable, I mean its a box with guns and cannons.

Big ones and heavy mg fire, anything like that is a infantry murdering machine.

Now admittedly the sight radius, or cone angle for sight can be tampered with to force ppl to screen the tank with inf? but forcing the tanks to be non-effective (or atleast not as effective) vs inf feels annoying.

I also liked the idea of limiting offmap and on map arty, and/or making it less area intensive so to say the accuracy and spread of the landing shells to be reduced?

My main gripe with AT has always been Allied AP rounds vs axis cloak, and id take AP rounds every day tbfh, please can we remove AP rounds or make them universal?

I would like more support, but if we are going more on the infantry directions, we need also to think on the fact that the maps are a certain size, we can only flank and manoeuvre to a certain degree

Gameplay would not benefit from a over increase in stuff on field, the battles will not have that flow And that's not so strange considering the game is designed to be a base building battlefield, not an area of army engagement
 
So id love more things and new concepts, as long as it does not just over whelm the overall gameplay, and turn it into a stalemate on the field

(At least not the main percentage of games, considering there is the player intentions and skills to take in account, but at least so the game does not foster that behaviour)

[AlphaTIG]

Now admittedly the sight radius, or cone angle for sight can be tampered with to force ppl to screen the tank with inf? but forcing the tanks to be non-effective (or atleast not as effective) vs inf feels annoying.

is it possible to give tanks and or vehicles only a like 120 angle of sight instead of the 360?

[Heartmann]

I honestly don't know ^^ But it would be cool ^^

[tank130]

is it possible to give tanks and or vehicles only a like 120 angle of sight instead of the 360?

Pretty sure that would be hard coded in the game, like the new sight system in CoH2. We would not have the ability to change angle, just distance.

[Heartmann]

damn, cause that would be a good thing to balance the need for inf and the use of tanks ^^

[TheVolskinator]

is it possible to give tanks and or vehicles only a like 120 angle of sight instead of the 360?

No.

[Walkin]

Vehicles function as a weapons platform for weapons that you cannot get anywhere else. An ATG can reliably damage enemy armor, and a mortar can engage enemy infantry with AoE barrages, for example, but only tanks are capable of carrying a weapon that performs both AI and AT roles simultaneously. And their weapons need to be good; otherwise they wouldn't be worth their relatively expensive prices. The problem is that not only does armor currently boast massive firepower capabilities, but they're also pretty great at too many other things, too. This leads to vehicles not needing infantry support or combined arms tactics to function properly.

Why scout for your armor when your armor has the same 35m view range that regular infantry has? Why screen your armor when your tank is capable of reversing out of just about any bad situation it drives in to? Why drive enemy infantry back when your tank is usually capable of wtf pwning enemy infantry at little risk to itself? This is why we're currently seeing massive Schrek blobs: a single Schrek is incapable of reliably damaging enemy armor before that armor can escape, a single Schrek is incapable of scaring away any real armored threat, and a single Schrek is usually too vulnerable on its own. You need massive Schrek blobs to accomplish anything against the current meta of kiting armor and LV spam.

It seems obvious to me that armor is too capable on its own, and something needs to be done to encourage infantry support and combined arms tactics in EiR again.

I would recommend:
-Reducing armor acceleration, top speed, and especially reverse speed, to encourage players to protect their armor with other troops instead of using their armor for solo run-and-gun missions. No more running into an AT blob and backing out before taking any real damage.
-Reducing vision on these vehicles to 25-30m range to encourage players to screen their vehicles with infantry and scout ahead with recon units. No more seeing trouble coming from a mile away.
-Increase damage and/or penetration on AT weapons at close range. Players should be rewarded for getting their AT units right on top of enemy armor, and likewise, players should be encouraged to keep AT weapons at range from their armor.

I think these three ideas would go a long way in reducing the independent capabilities of armor, encourage good tactics and play for AT units instead of spam, and encourage players to use combined arms/infantry support in game.

Light vehicles are a different story. I feel like light vehicles should keep their current speed/vision to facilitate their use as hit-and-run fighters and quasi-recon units, but should become slightly vulnerable to small arms fire. They shouldn't die easily to mere rifle/MG fire, but they should become noticeably worn down over time, as small arms fire punctures tires, injures crew members, penetrates vulnerable spots, etc. I don't think it should be taken to vCoH levels, where PE vehicles die too easily to rifle fire, but I do believe that a happy medium can be reached for each vehicle. Maybe the Armored Skirts/Sandbags upgrades for the M8/T17/Staghound could be useful for reducing damage received from small arms/light AT fire? And the Stuart could be unique as the only LV that's immune to small arms fire.

[TheVolskinator]

-Reducing armor acceleration, top speed, and especially reverse speed, to encourage players to protect their armor with other troops instead of using their armor for solo run-and-gun missions. No more running into an AT blob and backing out before taking any real damage.

Reverse speed is the same as the speed of forward movement; CoH has no function for a different speed whilst reversing. Wouldn't these changes promote blobbing even more? If tanks can no longer escape from my blob of HHAT, then sweet, that tactic is even more effective than it is currently.

-Reducing vision on these vehicles to 25-30m range to encourage players to screen their vehicles with infantry and scout ahead with recon units. No more seeing trouble coming from a mile away.

Not only would the vision changes smack the ability for tanks to handle HHAT rushes in the nuts (even poorly microed blob rushes), but it basically removes any kiting ability from tanks.

Also, think of armor companies across the board. Now, when facing them, all you need to do is kill the infantry. Once that player is out of inf you can literally kite his tanks with HHAT, and that makes them pretty much useless.

-Increase damage and/or penetration on AT weapons at close range. Players should be rewarded for getting their AT units right on top of enemy armor, and likewise, players should be encouraged to keep AT weapons at range from their armor.

There is no damage over range function in CoH. Also, the problem with ATGs isnt their penetration at point blank range, its the fact that most medium or heavy tanks will nuke the crew at close range--this is fine, an ATG SHOULD be vulnerable if you get a tank close to it.

[Walkin]

Reverse speed is the same as the speed of forward movement; CoH has no function for a different speed whilst reversing. Wouldn't these changes promote blobbing even more? If tanks can no longer escape from my blob of HHAT, then sweet, that tactic is even more effective than it is currently.

You're assuming that absolutely nothing would change in terms of gameplay, company composition, player tactics, or the overall metagame, which is a silly assumption to make.

Making tanks a little slower and less maneuverable would make them a little less omnipotent than they currently are. Right now, tanks are faster than infantry, tougher than infantry, more powerful than infantry, more versatile than infantry. There's really very little need to use infantry and vehicles together at all, because vehicles in EiR outclass infantry in almost every way.

But by slowing down armor a bit, you'd be encouraging players to stick some infantry or other units near their armor for support. You currently do not have to do this, as most tanks are either capable enough to deal with any trouble they come across (Sherman, P4), or mobile enough to escape relatively unharmed (Cromwell). Thus the need for massive AT blobs to alpha strike anything they come across before it can escape. By removing armor's ability to so easily avoid trouble, you'd be removing the need for players to spam so much AT. Meanwhile, the infantry/recon/screening units that a player keeps around their armor forces you to replace some of your AT spam with something to eliminate their screening forces and protect your own AT.

Not only would the vision changes smack the ability for tanks to handle HHAT rushes in the nuts (even poorly microed blob rushes),

Good. Is there any particular reason that tanks deserve to see AT rushes coming? Stop expecting your armor to be able to see every situation coming from a mile away, and use infantry/recon units to see what's coming.

The only reason tanks currently even have 35 view range is because that's how it was in vCoH, and nobody's thought to change it so far. But "that's the way things have always been" is not a valid argument here. Reducing vision to 25-30m range is the most sensible solution to a very real problem that EiR faces.

but it basically removes any kiting ability from tanks.

Just learn to spot for your armor as you would a Panther/ATG/Sniper/etc. Again, most armor shouldn't have the same kind of battlefield awareness that infantry/recon units do.

Also, think of armor companies across the board. Now, when facing them, all you need to do is kill the infantry.

OK, and? So a company has a weakness, big deal. An Armor player will have to focus on on keeping his screening troops alive and maintaining troops levels on the battlefield, and an enemy player will have to focus on taking out those supporting troops to leave his enemy blind. that sounds like interesting gameplay to me.

Once that player is out of inf you can literally kite his tanks with HHAT, and that makes them pretty much useless.

"literally kite his tanks with HHAT" where the hell are you getting this from? I said tanks should be slowed down a bit, not that their top speed should be reduced to a crawl. Now you're just making stuff up.

There is no damage over range function in CoH.

But there is a penetration over distance function, which would be pretty useful for small arms vs LVs, and light AT versus armor at close range. As an Axis player, I should be afraid of some Bazookas closing in on my armor. Instead, I laugh at them because I know they'll hardly penetrate me, even at point blank range.

[Tachibana]

If I may ask, what tank are you finding to be so omnipotent right now that we require such changes? P4? Cromwell? Sherman? M10? M18? Firefly? Panther? Ostwind? STuG? Something else?

All I have heard so far is either A.) Mediums are under performing or b.) Mediums are fine. You are the only one who has said mediums are omnipotent or over-performing. I'd like a bit more detail of matches that you have had in the current meta that has lead you to this opinion.

[tank130]

I think Carrot has some very good points and they are aligned with the problem we currently have with too much Armor/vehicles requiring too much AT

If I may ask, what tank are you finding to be so omnipotent right now that we require such changes? P4? Cromwell? Sherman? M10? M18? Firefly? Panther? Ostwind? STuG? Something else?

I think this is a good question. Mediums seem pretty meh, but heavies & super heavies are certainly a problem.
Perhaps this could be part of the solution for mediums being so under used. Perhaps they can remain the faster, more nimble option and be more anti infantry focused?

I am a little concerned that your question may be missing the point that Carrot is making. With tanks being so self sufficient, we have inadvertently made infantry near obsolete.

[Walkin]

I am a little concerned that your question may be missing the point that Carrot is making. With tanks being so self sufficient, we have inadvertently made infantry near obsolete.

This is what I meant with that "omnipotent" comment. 'Self-sufficient' is a much better way of describing it.