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..." |
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" |
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. |
...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...
|
.......And you still haven't presented a single argument to the contray.
Well according to Relic this units are designed (among other things) to destroy structures and imo they should be be better at it.
Because YOU feel is underpowered
Did not make that claim, pls stop putting words in my mouth
Because YOU feel like it has no use
Did not make that claim, pls stop putting words in my mouth
Because YOU feel it needs to be more realistic
Actually I would simply like them to be better in one of the roles they are designed for in game and in reality.
If you got butt hurt because of it that's YOUR prerogative.
I would appreciated if you where less offensive.
Happy holidays |
...
Sorry bust your bubble.
Still have not presented a single argument in this case why making heavy assault guns better against fortifications upsets balance.
If you generally want to debate balance and realism, I have create a thread just for that, so move it there PLS...
http://www.coh2.org/topic/47072/myths-1-realism-vs-balance
|
"effective vs infantry and buildings"
What does AVRE do?
Wipe infantry and clears buildings.
Just as expected unable to acknowledge mistakes and continues do make them.
If the description you quote was referring to garrison, as you, it would say garrison not buildings, since it says buildings it refers structures and that includes fortifications...
Once more I really see little point in continuing debating with out, wasting time and space, unless you acknowledge that you where wrong and :
1) Fortification do exist in COH2
2) Assault guns and heavy assault guns exist in COH2
3) The design purpose of heavy assault gun is to destroy fortification
I'm arguing potato who supports its claim with fluff text instead of unit stats here 
There seems to be some words missing here, having trouble expressing yourself again?
Is that words "like a" (I'm arguing like a potato...)? |
|
There seems to be some arguments that I regularly come across them and I find them weak. So instead of having to reply to them repeatedly I though feet to discuss them in a separate thread and try to save all of us some time and space.
Probably in singe thread that someone writes something in the line of:In real life (or historically), this unit did this thing, another person will reply by something like CoH2 is immerse, not realistic or balance trumps realism.
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.
Does that mean that realism is more important than balance? NO. Imo solutions on balance try to be historical realistic when possible.
In other words the argument that "balance trumps realism" is simply not enough, one would still have to explain why the proposed change upsets balance...
|
Game mechanics in coh2 mean that M-42 45mm AT gun is as much of a fortification breaker as ISU-152.
I have trouble expressing what I say?
I plainly said to you that these units in coh2 are NOT designed to fight fortifications, because they (fortifications) don't exist in coh2 ...
M-42 is not a fortification breaker, because according to you, fortification do not exist in COH2
...its not designed to counter it,...
Unfortunately I have to repeat thing for you
"Churchill AVRE this special designed and protected Churchill AVRE (Armored Vehicle Royal Engineers) is equipped with a massive 290 Petard mortar that fires 40 lb (Flying Dustbin) capable of levering fortification or smashing troop concentrations."
Well Relic disagrees with you...it is designed to do just that...
To sum up:
I really see little point in continuing debating with out, wasting time and space, unless you acknowledge that you where wrong and :
1) Fortification do exist in COH2
2) Assault guns and heavy assault guns exist in COH2
3) The design purpose of heavy assault gun is to destroy fortification
Judging from your history I doubt you will prove able to acknowledge that you where wrong, thus our debate will not continue....
Happy new year anyway
|
I'll be straightforward, the answer is balance trumps realism.
That is a very nice generalization but not very relevant. Realism and Balance are not conflicting concepts. One can achieve balance by using realistic solutions, in fact the more realistic the solutions the better the immersion.
In other words, what you wrote, does not explain, why in your opinion, a bonus on damage of Avre shot against a Schwerer Panzer Headquarters would upset balance. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
