Stona

Updated Combined Simulator Battles

12 minutes ago, Cpt_Inkognito said:

 

Just... please stop replying to them. Their reasoning isn't deserving of actual replies, and the back-and-forth will never end since they sit there as Übermensch (and here I thought Russians were against that German idea!) without flaws and think that anyone less skilled than them are subhuman and not worthy of existing in their presence.

 

well they definately can't be human if they make no mistakes..

 

rise of the machines it seems...

 

They shouldn't take the Motivation away from People new to SIM.

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just check a difference in behavior. Between me - checking what target that is, and a guy (MoSoldier1983) on a Leopard - who didn't bothered to do that. Denying T92 a position by performing a teamkill.

 

want to remind you, that Leopard is a tier 5 tank. Meaning, a player should have at least some understanding of the gaming process. Buuuuuut, nope. denied.

target id.wrpl

Edited by Althix
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so People with experience never make mistakes?

 

how come professional racing Drivers with years of experience who are the best in their field of Expertise still Crash?

 

could it be that mistakes happen to everyone... because of human error.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Althix said:

anyway on topic.

current event su vs. nato has one problem. too few players for a soviet side (because nobody wants to suffer.)

is there a way to make 2 nations vs 2 nations event?

 

I really haven't seen any suffering for the RU side this evening so far, it's 1:1 more or less. Too few Sov players is just because their vehicles are less popular, I guess. Or they simply didn't get the message yet that this event is no more lop sided towards the NATO side.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

waiting time. in order to play nato i have to wait up to 10 mins.

 

and the sad thing is, upcoming T-62 will not solve the problems soviets have. yes it will have a better turret and a gun. But, thanks to heat-fs, it is only speed what matters in t5 battles. which again puts leopard on the top spot.

 

APDS from L7, can kill T62 from a distance up to 2000m+. but main disadvantage of the tank is speed. 50 km/h, like T54. So i really doubt that introduction of T62 would somehow trigger interest of players to soviet tanks. IT-1 can't. so... yeah. waiting time.

Edited by Althix
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be a forced join in progress for all players which wants to play sim event. Together with that, they should write some script for MM that does not allow to start another battle before the previous one is full 16v16 (or14v14) excluesively for sim.

 

It sure would solve a problem with 5v5 battles on huge maps (this battles frustrate players in my opinion and are the a part cause of less and less ppl playing top tier sim). It would make games more interesting and fun to play.

 

I would like to see this implemented.

Edited by _Nirvash
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, laachta said:

 

I really haven't seen any suffering for the RU side this evening so far, it's 1:1 more or less. Too few Sov players is just because their vehicles are less popular, I guess. Or they simply didn't get the message yet that this event is no more lop sided towards the NATO side.

The only way soviet side wins if NATO side players are completely incompetent, and that does happen all the time I admit.

From my perspective here is how it looks like 

If soviet team is bad and NATO team is bad = soviets win with about 70% chance

If soviet team is ok and NATO team is ok = NATO wins with about 60-70% chance

If soviet team is good and NATO team is good = NATO wins with about 90% chance. 

That is of course not considering the team composition, yesterday we played as NATO 6v6 game where 2 out of 6 soviet players were in PT-76, you can guess how well that went for them. 

 

Soviet and German tanks are the most popular ones in the game, there is just no way around it, their tanks are most known in the world from WW2 (T-34, Tigers, Panthers, and yes I know that M4s are also well known, but they just never seemed to get the hype, just a workhorse type of a tank) and most people at the start go ether Soviet or German (how hard it is to get to the top tier in British and US tanks is also not helping the case), so in terms of queue times the best possible combination we could have is Soviet + US\GB vs German + US\GB, I would think that Soviet + GB vs German + US would give a nice balance in most aspects.

CAS - GB would greatly balance out the problem SU have with that (as we figured out yesterday, the IL-28 is just way too easy to shoot down, unlike RB where they can ROFL fly and take huge amount of punishment, in SB one short burst into the wing pretty much makes it a brick and bombing is very hard on most maps because you cant just do crazy stuff like in RB 3rd person view).

ATGMs - main reason why I would put GB with SU and not US is because of the 2nd gen ATGM balance, both sides would have them.

Tank capabilities - SU has "in your face" type of tanks and GB has the long range support MBT in the Chieftain, that can work. On the other side we would have the ultimate flankers in Leopards and M60s that might not be the most armored tanks on the field but killing them can sure be very hard if driver knows what he is doing. 

 

IMHO that should bring balance in terms of gameplay and queue times (there will always be people playing SU and there will always be people playing GER).

 

P.S One more reason to have Ger + US is so that both Sabre is on the same side. 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best option would be to make the events assign teams like in enduring, where you get Germans vs Allies or Germans vs Soviets not everyone at once vs one team. Sometimes I've seen only US vs Germans in EC.

 

Thats what they should do in the ground forces.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cpt_Inkognito said:

 

Yes! Force me to join into battles where the enemy team basically already is spawn-camping me, or where enemy bombers are diving onto the spawn the second I join! :D

 

With this implemented, there would be no such thing as joining to the battle with ppl spawncamping. The battles would fill fast, in first minute. Not like today, where ppl join 5 min after base start of the battle. Try to think before you type ;).

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IceDeath said:

The only way soviet side wins if NATO side players are completely incompetent, and that does happen all the time I admit.

From my perspective here is how it looks like 

If soviet team is bad and NATO team is bad = soviets win with about 70% chance

If soviet team is ok and NATO team is ok = NATO wins with about 60-70% chance

If soviet team is good and NATO team is good = NATO wins with about 90% chance. 

That is of course not considering the team composition, yesterday we played as NATO 6v6 game where 2 out of 6 soviet players were in PT-76, you can guess how well that went for them. 

 

Soviet and German tanks are the most popular ones in the game, there is just no way around it, their tanks are most known in the world from WW2 (T-34, Tigers, Panthers, and yes I know that M4s are also well known, but they just never seemed to get the hype, just a workhorse type of a tank) and most people at the start go ether Soviet or German (how hard it is to get to the top tier in British and US tanks is also not helping the case), so in terms of queue times the best possible combination we could have is Soviet + US\GB vs German + US\GB, I would think that Soviet + GB vs German + US would give a nice balance in most aspects.

CAS - GB would greatly balance out the problem SU have with that (as we figured out yesterday, the IL-28 is just way too easy to shoot down, unlike RB where they can ROFL fly and take huge amount of punishment, in SB one short burst into the wing pretty much makes it a brick and bombing is very hard on most maps because you cant just do crazy stuff like in RB 3rd person view).

ATGMs - main reason why I would put GB with SU and not US is because of the 2nd gen ATGM balance, both sides would have them.

Tank capabilities - SU has "in your face" type of tanks and GB has the long range support MBT in the Chieftain, that can work. On the other side we would have the ultimate flankers in Leopards and M60s that might not be the most armored tanks on the field but killing them can sure be very hard if driver knows what he is doing. 

 

IMHO that should bring balance in terms of gameplay and queue times (there will always be people playing SU and there will always be people playing GER).

 

P.S One more reason to have Ger + US is so that both Sabre is on the same side. 

 

Well, I certainly hope this will never get implemented. No offense.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, laachta said:

 

Well, I certainly hope this will never get implemented. No offense.

 

Me too, it will make what is there even worse for a sim.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, laachta said:

 

Well, I certainly hope this will never get implemented. No offense.

 

1 hour ago, PakistanHound said:

 

Me too, it will make what is there even worse for a sim.

Any reasons ? Tho I dont expect anything logical from PakistanHound. 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, IceDeath said:

 

Any reasons ? Tho I dont expect anything logical from PakistanHound. 

 

Historical Cold War opponents, of course.

 

Your suggestions otherwise makes perfect sense from the queue time reduction point of view, no argument there.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, laachta said:

 

Historical Cold War opponents, of course.

 

Your suggestions otherwise makes perfect sense from the queue time reduction point of view, no argument there.

Mmm, I guess it is a question of priorities.

We dont have a historical game play any way and honestly putting 1 small historical thing vs actually being able to play any side you want in a event, does not seem worth it for me.

The problem is that both me and Althix are very tired that we pretty much cant play tanks we want to (not talking about the event restrictions but purely from event balance and queue numbers point of view), I dont remember when was the last time I was able to just play the whole day my M60 or Chieftain that took me 300 RB battles or sweat, cursing and nerves to spade, I was able to play it only 4 times so far.

I also remember that when Leo event was a thing (16v12), Nirvash didnt play on Leo because there is just no kills to be had, opposition just died way too fast no challenge what so ever, but playing the other 3 nations was also almost impossible because of the queue times, you could rolf stomp in Leo and feel dirty for abusing such imbalanced event or you could have waited 10+ minutes for a game as allies. 

Edited by IceDeath
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hunternz

 

Is it possible to make an interactive in game booklet, like "F1" HELP PAGE in game? This feature would smartly check vehicles in your team an when you press certain keyboard key, the window pop up and you see a tankopedia which contains pictures/3d model of every tank in YOUR TEAM. Thanks to this ppl could check the tanks, how they look and compare with the tank they are actually aiming at.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IceDeath said:

Mmm, I guess it is a question of priorities.

We dont have a historical game play any way and honestly putting 1 small historical thing vs actually being able to play any side you want in a event, does not seem worth it for me.

The problem is that both me and Althix are very tired that we pretty much cant play tanks we want to (not talking about the event restrictions but purely from event balance and queue numbers point of view), I dont remember when was the last time I was able to just play the whole day my M60 or Chieftain that took me 300 RB battles or sweat, cursing and nerves to spade, I was able to play it only 4 times so far.

I also remember that when Leo event was a thing (16v12), Nirvash didnt play on Leo because there is just no kills to be had, opposition just died way too fast no challenge what so ever, but playing the other 3 nations was also almost impossible because of the queue times, you could rolf stomp in Leo and feel dirty for abusing such imbalanced event or you could have waited 10+ minutes for a game as allies. 

 

Yeah, it's a matter of different priorities, exactly as you say. While you guys lean more towards arcadish kind of gameplay, others like me rate historicity or realism more than anything. These two approaches contradict each other and there is simply no way to satisfy both.

  • Upvote 5
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, laachta said:

 

Yeah, it's a matter of different priorities, exactly as you say. While you guys lean more towards arcadish kind of gameplay, others like me rate historicity or realism more than anything. These two approaches contradict each other and there is simply no way to satisfy both.

 

- Set "Simulator Battles" back as "Historic Battles".

- Re-instate "Simulator Mode" stats into squadron stats.

- Add "Simulator Mode" flag/check-box to join battles as option.

- Make "Simulator Mode" selection (on/off) create battles with two different rule-sets.

-- off=Mouse-aim allowed, standard views as per current Battle type.

-- on=Only Mouse-Joy allowed, view restricted to cockpit or virtual cockpit if cockpit not available.

--- Historical Battles would be restricted to Simulator Mode=on only.

--- Would be nice if Simulator Mode=on also restricts users from manning turret guns until position and restrictions could be put into place the same as with cockpit so in the future, someone could man from a gunner position with its realistic view and capabilities like manning a AAA's guns with non-manned positions on auto-ai. They'd have to switch/cycle positions or key/button to a specific position.

 

Then match-maker simply has 2 sets of queues where simulator mode is changeable.  Players who fly without using mouse aim and from a cockpit, or the battle type's current/default rules.  FMs and DMs needn't be changed or swapped, I'd fly "Arcade Battles" in "Simulator Mode" happily with those crazy FMs and DMs, as long as the lasers aren't pointing at anyone and everyone is restricted to their cockpits.  I think you'd have a lot of people trying and normally flying "Simulator Mode" only and enjoying the original intention of arcade/realistic/historic.  You could even allow "Simulator Mode" to be off in "Historic Battles" and open the views just like realistic.

 

Think about it, would many people who love SB/EC also enjoy RB where they get to fly more maps and see markers for quick action and less eye strain?  Or how about being able to hop into AB and enjoy its nonsense and possibly larger population as long as they weren't being laser-targeted?

 

Anyway...  So many basic, and not particularly complex, things could be done to greatly improve this game and its enjoyment possibilities for everybody...  But... We're talking Gaijin... adding hdg at the end of altitude in the team quick-chat will probably take them 6 years, cost them $4b to do and never be budgeted, and besides their focus groups will tell them this is not what the players truly want :P. Specially if the idea originated from SB.

 

 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, laachta said:

 

Yeah, it's a matter of different priorities, exactly as you say. While you guys lean more towards arcadish kind of gameplay, others like me rate historicity or realism more than anything. These two approaches contradict each other and there is simply no way to satisfy both.

My problem is that people like you want to TRY turn this into some kind of historic\sim game, but this just cannot happen, no way with the way game is built and I dont understand why you cant see that. 

Just look past your wishes and "oh how cool it will be", imagine all current player base with the same problems (inability to even now play SB because it is too hard to ID a tank without marker), random battles type of game play etc. It should be very clear that you cannot build a real sim out of this game, at the very least because there can be no sim without infantry.

What I propose on the other hand is taking the current mode called SB and making it more playable for people, enough people play it already and enjoy, I dont care how it is called, I just care that I really like how it plays and the potential with few simple adjustments are event greater, all we need to do is drop this whole historic\simulator pretense that will never work in this game any way and go full on game play focus.  

 

All this historical\simulator wishes is like trying to make Americas Army into full on simulator (if you know what that game was\is, for the sake of argument lets focus on old AA:O of 2.x versions), just because that shooter had bigger maps, all the stances and ADS does not mean it was ever close to sim or that it is possible to turn it into sim.

A bit better know example Project Reality from BF, had some nice features, a different game play with some complex mechanics, not a sim and could never become one. 

I really wish Gaijin would already just change the names of the modes like they did some time ago, get rid of Realistic and Simulator names and change it to something else, something that will stop people from getting wrong ideas about the game. 

Edited by IceDeath
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.