However let's continue with balancing parameter's. The first part was about the view range, as vision is the key factor to be successful, which means seen or don't be seen will make a difference . The following point is somewhat big and important, as it should change the outcome for classes and the tier .
Tier and Classification will decide if you get different bonuses like "designated target" or ECU or more damage when fully aimed, so picking the right class is important for a vehicle to fulfil it's task . What comes as well is the tier, as in the current game some vehicles are "boosted"^10 to fit a tier, while doing this, the balancing will be even harder without losing their logical approach to the game.
Tier
- capabilities of the vehicle (possible upgrades and version)
- production start / age / upgrade capabilities
- in real life downsides of the vehicle
- weapon system
1)
To start things off, the possible upgrades is a big point, as it will somewhat decide on what tier you will end up. For example a engine or armor change can be huge, depending on the tech which is used, and this can change a vehicle to put in up or down a tier . A good example could be the Leopard 2A4 here, which can be tier 6 and if rated high, tier 7, but if you add for example the Evolution Armor kit or the RUAG kit ( should be same level as the Evo kit, but not that sure), it should be rated tier 7 minimum, better tier 8, due the performance of the kit itself and the upgrades which are available to those kits.
2)
Not every vehicle is basically designed to be friendly to upgrade, as some are just developed to either skip a time window or overextend the time window while suffering mechanical problems or being rather fast obsolete in terms or armor, weapon system etc. . Production start , age and the options decide on what tier you should start looking for. If a vehicle is developed in the same ERA / AGE as other vehicles , it should be in the same tierrange , depending on upgrade capabilities.
For the last point it is important to notice that the time of introduction of the upgrade is important as well.
3)
Within the time of service vehicles have most likely some downsides next to their up's, those should be reflected as a balancing parameter and a reason on why you do so. Most vehicles have downsides and with further upgrades you will add some downsides as well. For example if you add additional armor kits without upgrading the engine, the vehicle gets heavier by nature and slower, which should be reflected in game .
4)
Last but not least the weapon system is a major decider on weather it goes up or down a tier. If a vehicle starts with a 20mm cannon and with newer upgrades you can add a 40mm cannon, the result should be either, make 2 vehicles out of it or balance the vehicle to fit a higher tier, which means if you start with the 20mm cannon you will be somewhat restricted to what you can do, till you end up having the 40mm cannon, on which the vehicle itself is balanced for.
Both decisions have downsides, as if you split it up, you will have almost 2 identical vehicles , where the difference might be the weapon system + some armor upgrades, which is the best case scenario, though the worst is, you just have the weapon system as a step up. On the other hand if you balance it for the 40mm cannon in this case, the vehicle will have a tough grind and most likely result a free EP to the 40mm to be useful .
I'd like to see the 2 vehicle variant more often, but make sure you get a lot of upgrades ready for this type of choice, as researching the same things over and over again, might be boring .
Classification
- in real life role / task
- size / armor / maneuverability
- weapon system
1)
The real life role and task of the vehicle should be shown in game, while it is clear for most vehicle's , for some it might be different. Yes iam looking at you IKV 91 / 105 . Its classification is a Tank Destroyer, but for me it is more a Light Tank regarding the game. Another one is the Centauro 155/39 LW , which is designated as a SPH , but in game it was a TD as the developers said the limited arc of turret rotation , made them believe it is better to be a TD .
While iam clearly against this choice, as i don't see a reason to not "buff" the arc a bit to make it viable as a Arty as they have "fixed" other vehicles as well to fit tiers etc. , so i don't see a problem with that. Another reason on why i'm strictly against this choice, is the caliber which will cause a more "nuke" style of play, which is not fun to play against .
2)
This point is somewhat difficult to explain, as for example a "wrong" classification would be the Leopard 1, while for me it is clearly a MBT, it's play style and maneuverability should be classified as a LT in this case. However i wouldn't mind if the MBT class itself gets at least 2 roles like "light MBT's and heavy MBT's" or something like that. (AFV's have for example IFV's and Recons as a role)
Size itself is a good indicator on what camo value you have, though it seems it is not like that at the moment, sadly. I mean it is not that important as a point, but a box looking vehicle has a better camo rating than a vehicle that is half the size of the box looking vehicle, makes me feel awkward.
3)
A really big decider and like mentioned before in the tier section , it will decide not only what class you will end up, but the tier as well. If we break it down i would handle it like this, at least for the most part.(mid to high tier)
- 105mm, 115mm, 120mm and 125mm should be MBT caliber, while i would like to see 120mm and 125mm only in high tier. (bye bye M1 Abrams on tier 7)
- 90mm, 105mm, 120mm and 125mm should be the range for TD's, while the 90mm stuff should be ending on tier 5 like it is now. Though i don't know about the 105mm and 120mm LRF performance, but it shouldn't be less than a 60 year old 105mm rifled one :^)
- 90mm, 105mm, 120mm and 125mm is the range for LT's, even though i would say , depending on the vehicle the 90mm could go up to tier 6 max, due the overall play style maybe . The 120mm and 125mm should be high tier only ,as for reasons.
- AFV's are different as most of them come with a ATGM, which actually decides on what tier they can be . However only bigger calibers like 35mm / 40mm + etc. should be seen in high tier for the Autocannon , with the exception of having a ATGM which is capable of the tier in a dual weapon system. (AC+ATGM and not AC or ATGM )
My thoughts
In general the weapon system is just a part of the whole thing for the classification, but it should be reflected in the class and later on in the tier. I don't want to see things like i need to see right now with the CRAB (30x113mm) vs the DRACO (76x636mm)[not sure actually about the cartridge length but it is a naval gun] , while the only difference is that the DRACO deals more damage. For me this is just the reason why these points should be considered and checked before picking anything for the vehicle .
Their current balance of tiers and probably some class choices (Cent.155 maybe) doesn't make sense or has any logic, due i question the guys who are in charge of this, since they really need a clear direction of what they want to have on what tier in what class and how they want to have the high tier game play . Reading the forum from time to time and the current feedback is exactly what i have foreseen and said before, but i guess we are all humans and like to do mistakes even if we told so, that we shouldn't do it :^)
No comments:
Post a Comment