Myths 1: "Realism VS Balance"

Yup, Hitler definitely was the typical 4v4 axis noob who kept playing that 3v3 when japan wanted to surrender and went AFK after USF used off-map strike on their base and Italians being Italians never tech'd, played with osttruppen level infantry regardless of what opponent used and just started team killing when they've seen its too late, just one went on, being a noob try hard

Hitler's downfall took on full steam after the 1943 Relic balance patch that let Soviet engineers build tank traps and made Soviet AT guns almost free. Hitler didn't read the patch notes and tried to A-move his Tigers and Panthers onto the VP at Kursk. Then relic released the paid custom DLC commander "Zhukov Tactics" that let Soviets mass T34's AND commit rampant pop-cap abuse.

Imo realism or historic accuracy and balance are not conflicting concepts. In addition the closer one can get to realistic behavior or historic accuracy the better because it increases immersion and make the game more realistic.

That kinda depends on the scale of the unit design in question and the level of realism/ balance.

Volksgrenadier divisions for example did use larger numbers of automatic weapons, but most people seem to interpret that as a blob of Volks with nothing but MP44s...and then ignoring the balance implications plus the fact that Sturmpioniers also have MP44s.
And by Volksgrenadier divisions I mean specific companies within the division, not every man. Yet people still seem to believe Volks= top notch machinegun blob a la that wikipedia image.

...it's the direction relic entertainment is moving towards as illustrated many time by them and every time some attempts to engage in a "realism" debate. They already made it clear that they want a competitive game for e sports , thus realism takes a back seat to competitive balance. Before the official forums went down they had a entire thread sticky on top for the sole purpose of outlining that historical debates and realism are not permitted when it comes to balance...

(Quote transferred from another thread.)

What they made clear is that there little point in asking a change that would upset balance for historic or realism reasons.

If one claims that ISU-152 should one shoot every axis Tank because historically it could or that Elephant and Tiger should have the same range because they are both 88mm, then a response that this change would severely upsets balance and balance comes before realism is completely valid.

On the other hand if someone claims that the clip size of rifle X should be bigger because it real life the clip was bigger size the response that "balance trumps realism" is invalid because the affect of such a change in balance is minimal (can even be zero by increasing reload speed) while the game become more accurate historical increasing immersion something Relic wants.

In other words balance comes before realism, but changes that increase realism without upsetting balance are welcomed...

Snip....

Well that's a nice sentiment, in the history of game development I have no doubt that being able to create a realistic and balance game is the ultimate test of a true immersive experience.

However, we live in the real world and as such the representation of the events by this game and many others are of the real wars, which by their nature are inherently unbalanced. If two opposing forces where always balance, no one would ever win a war or wage a war again, thus war is the mistress of innovation to gain a advantage to the other force.

Back to the game, even your example is poor at best, which both revel that you do not have a understanding of the game and secondly attempt to reconcile two contrary forces is abysmal at best.

For example, you belive that units clip size could be increase due to the real life version of the weapon would have "little to no effect" in performance which is utterly absurd, units Total DPS can be cut back if excessive time pases between reloads. Which is why there reload bulletins, concidently the bulletins that a player should desire the most, are labeled "rare" And are often reload speed for different units to compensate for. quick ejection on expended mags.

As this is not a historical thread, which this thread belongs in either "wish list" or "other" section in the forum considering it has very little value as a thread in the main lobby. I will say that you fail to understand even the basic nature of armed conflict, in which I personally hope you take your time and explore the subject out side the comfort of your PC and perhaps dive in to the occasional book.

I like to point the Irony of the title of this thread, "myth1: Realism Vs balance" as reality of conflict of humans is by its definition a unbalanced action, much like the conflict this game is portraying.

Lastly, any changes no matter how minor effect the game as a whole, changes should only be made with best available data on the GAME and NOT on the subject matter that is based off. In order to created balance in the GAME, it should use game data and not make changes based on "Historical" reasons. It definitely shouldn't change based on the feelings of others And especially opinions based with little knowledge to the game itself.

Yup, Hitler definitely was the typical 4v4 axis noob who kept playing that 3v3 when japan wanted to surrender and went AFK after USF used off-map strike on their base and Italians being Italians never tech'd, played with osttruppen level infantry regardless of what opponent used and just started team killing when they've seen its too late, just one went on, being a noob try hard

You knew Japan surrendered way after Germany was defeated, hur?

That kinda depends on the scale of the unit design in question and the level of realism/ balance.

Volksgrenadier divisions for example did use larger numbers of automatic weapons, but most people seem to interpret that as a blob of Volks with nothing but MP44s...and then ignoring the balance implications plus the fact that Sturmpioniers also have MP44s.
And by Volksgrenadier divisions I mean specific companies within the division, not every man. Yet people still seem to believe Volks= top notch machinegun blob a la that wikipedia image.

Units in general are pretty silly once we add in call-ins. Army basic Riflemen and Rangers under the umbrella of one company's commander?!

You knew Japan surrendered way after Germany was defeated, hur?

Details irrelevant for the spirit of this thread!

Back to the game, even your example is poor at best, which both revel that you do not have a understanding of the game and secondly attempt to reconcile two contrary forces is abysmal at best.

For example, you belive that units clip size could be increase due to the real life version of the weapon would have "little to no effect" in performance which is utterly absurd, units Total DPS can be cut back if excessive time pases between reloads. Which is why there reload bulletins, concidently the bulletins that a player should desire the most, are labeled "rare" And are often reload speed for different units to compensate for. quick ejection on expended mags.

As this is not a historical thread, which this thread belongs in either "wish list" or "other" section in the forum considering it has very little value as a thread in the main lobby. I will say that you fail to understand even the basic nature of armed conflict, in which I personally hope you take your time and explore the subject out side the comfort of your PC and perhaps dive in to the occasional book.

I like to point the Irony of the title of this thread, "myth1: Realism Vs balance" as reality of conflict of humans is by its definition a unbalanced action, much like the conflict this game is portraying.

Lastly, any changes no matter how minor effect the game as a whole, changes should only be made with best available data on the GAME and NOT on the subject matter that is based off. In order to created balance in the GAME, it should use game data and not make changes based on "Historical" reasons. It definitely shouldn't change based on the feelings of others And especially opinions based with little knowledge to the game itself.

I let Relic answer to you with their patch notes....

Paratrooper Carbine

This change was made to better match the historical clip size with the in-game value.
Reload frequency from 8-9 to 14

Rear Echelon Carbine

This change was made to better match the historical clip size with the in-game value.
Reload frequency from 8-9 to 14

As you can see Relic increased the clip size by 75%, without even increasing reload time to compensate, BECAUSE OF HISTORIC REASONS. Is my example still poor? Now do you acknowledge that you are mistaken?
Happy new year dude.

Details irrelevant for the spirit of this thread!

New year same Katitof, unable to acknowledge any mistake...When someone else makes a mistake he is a noob, bla bla bla...when Katiotf makes mistake its an "irrelevant detail"

I let Relic answer to you with their patch notes....

Paratrooper Carbine

This change was made to better match the historical clip size with the in-game value.
Reload frequency from 8-9 to 14

Rear Echelon Carbine

This change was made to better match the historical clip size with the in-game value.
Reload frequency from 8-9 to 14

As you can see Relic increased the clip size by 75% without even increasing reload time BECAUSE OF HISTORIC REASONS. Is my example still poor? Now do you acknowledge that you made mistaken?
Happy new year dude.

Again I don't belive you have adequate reading comprehension skills...

"This change was made to BETTER MATCH the historical clip size with the IN-GAME value....8-9 to 14"

In this sentence it illustrates two points that seem to eluded your understanding:

First the phrase "better match" means it's a closer to previous value to the historical variant, but NOT exact historical specifications. After all the carbine used has a magazine size of 15 +1 chambered and if you know weapons history by 44' longer 30 round mags with M2/M3 variants and the conversion kits for fill auto would be more historically accurate as they would be used well into early Vietnam.

Secondly they carefully use the phrase "In-game value" to still illustrate that game values are still prioritized as it follows the phrase "historical"

Combine the entire sentence it's saying what me and countless others have been trying to get through your thick skull

Basically translation "guys we are trying to get it as close to the real deal while still using in game values.

Yes, poor example.

Inrevalent, regardless if you belive that you or I are correct, relic direction in design is under their discretion. As of now that's balance OVER realism. A bone in the patch every once and a while DOES not change that until relic decides otherwise.

I am but a mere observer pointing the flaws of your view and up to this point in your arguments.

Not Balance. Moved to Scrap Yard

About Time

About Time

In others words (what you say is): "hide this thread before everyone see how I made a fool of myself and how I still continue to make a fool of myself..."

In others word hide this thread before everyone see how I made a fool of myself and how I still continue to make a fool of myself...

At literal face value, truer words have not been spoken before

At literal face value, truer words have not been spoken before

Good to see that you released how wrong you where Gen0di. On there hand I find strange that you continue to post in a thread that you believe that should be closed...

Oh my dear boy, as it was in the previous thread, the very fact you are trying to change what said makes even more apparent.

I do not wish this to be closed, but reposition to a more suitable location. The "scrap yard" is excellent location.

:-)

Oh my dear boy, ...
I do not wish this to be closed, but reposition to a more suitable location. The "scrap yard" is excellent location.

Oh my dear Child (no idea if you are boy or girl) what you write is full of errors but I wouldn't go so far as to call them scarp yard material.

Since you are incurable of accepting that you are wrong in saying things like this:

In order to created balance in the GAME, it should use game data and not make changes based on "Historical" reasons. It definitely shouldn't change based on the feelings of others And especially opinions based with little knowledge to the game itself.

and as clearly demonstrate Relic makes changes for historical reasons and since you brought up the subject of knowledge of the game lets as check how much is your knowledge of the game. In your following argument you seem to have little knowledge of the game:

For example, you belive that units clip size could be increase due to the real life version of the weapon would have "little to no effect" in performance which is utterly absurd, units Total DPS can be cut back if excessive time pases between reloads. Which is why there reload bulletins, concidently the bulletins that a player should desire the most, are labeled "rare" And are often reload speed for different units to compensate for. quick ejection on expended mags.

1) Contrary to what you write "excessive" time between reloads does not reduce DPS it increase DPS.
2)A Bulletin's usefulness and its "rareness" are completely irrelevant.
3)Reload bulletins for small arm fire are not the most desired ones. It really depends on the weapon and range but generally reload is worse than accuracy or cool-down.

Nice try

much like your other thread this one has ended against you. Its time to let slip away to obscurity with the rest of the scrap.

No pun intended

Nice try
much like your other thread this one has ended against you. Its time to let slip away to obscurity with the rest of the scrap.
No pun intended

In other words you are saying: Since I GenObi have been proven to be wrong by you myself and because I am incapable of acknowledging that in public, I Gen0bi will have to change the subject...