Jump to content

Photo

Dev Update - Jan 25, 2017


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1
Con

Con
  • 4,111 posts

16265454_1832869690283631_66733399768705

 

Checking in again to let everyone know that we're getting really close! Just a few loose ends to tie off and we'll be ready to go into Early Access. 

 

Here's what we've been working on. 

 

- The final map before early access (shown above) is pretty much done

- Tutorial is complete with it's own custom map

- "Practice missions" are in, you'll all need to play through practice for a bit

- XP rework and balancing is underway

- Units will gain XP differently than in beta, less about spamming 

- Russian Commander and Riflemen voices are in (lots more to come)

- Outpost explosion effects and sound updated

- Lots of fixes to Unit Unlocks that were broken / incorrect

 

As I said, we're getting really close. There's lots more to add to the game as we continue developing, like more units, support assets and nations etc. But that's all in the future!

 

We can't wait to fire the servers back up, I found myself sitting at home over the past weekend wishing I could play online. Not long now.



#2
geras

geras
  • 23 posts

Can't wait to play!

 

Also: Russian Commander? That's something new :)


  • 0

#3
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 806 posts

So I've thought more about balance and gameplay, this is what I've come up with:

 

1. Range: This thing is like a dichotomy, either it's the dominant factor in the game, or it's nerfed to be horribly useless. Unless there is a mechanic change that doesn't allow range to be dominant, it's going to be dichotomized.

 

Another interesting proposal is to completely remove range from unit upgrades, but that would make the meta a bit bland imo. Maybe just reduce the amount of range increase?

 

2. Main Battle Tank (MBT) could use coaxial machine guns.

 

Problem: As it stands, the MBT with just the main cannon is very underwhelming, necessitating the usage of CROWS weapon systems.

 

Now, this means that if I don't run CROWS, then my firepower is at a huge disadvantage, and no other config offers me nearly as much as a CROWS weapon system does. This is sad because some things could really have a niche, but without CROWS, the tank just doesn't offer enough firepower.

 

What I propose is that we have a coaxial machine gun as default which allows it some degree of firepower, especially during main cannon reloads. This means that if you want the additional firepower of CROWS, you can have it, but if you don't run CROWS, the tank is still a formidable force on the battlefield, allowing for more variety in config versus just always using CROWS.

 

And yes, we're all waiting for the servers to go up so we can bask in the glory of a new Conartist Game.


  • 0

#4
Fur Dozy

Fur Dozy
  • 26 posts

I'm not a forum mod but feedback on the beta should probably stick to that thread. 

 

And what makes mbt's something that should be good against infantry? That's not how it works IRL. 

 

Related to the update, will our gold be available when EA starts?


  • 0

#5
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 806 posts

I'm not a forum mod but feedback on the beta should probably stick to that thread. 

 

And what makes mbt's something that should be good against infantry? That's not how it works IRL. 

 

Related to the update, will our gold be available when EA starts?

I'll use the most current thread because well, it's where the discussion is. Until the game comes out and the forums are populated by WO players, i'd like to keep my feedback to a place where other players and dev team can discuss.

 

As for MBTs, IRL they have a plethora of tools (HE, cannister shot, coax, CROWS, etc.) to shred infantry.

 

Real life aside, I'm not sure what the vision is for MBTs, to be niche vehicles or dominant powerhouses with a long wait time, and that's not what i'm discussing.

 

I'm just saying that CROWS weapon systems are a versatile config in which no other config comes near in terms of versatility, and a coaxial machine gun will make the CROWS less necessary and open up new choices in configs, since if you aren't using CROWS, there aren't a whole lot of options without giving up your remote MG.


  • 0

#6
Con

Con
  • 4,111 posts

Related to the update, will our gold be available when EA starts?

 

Yep, absolutely. Gold and premium time will be returned for Early Access. We're going to do another wipe after EA most likely, so you'll get it back again once we transition into full release. 

 

Reason for a second wipe is that we're making sure the progression isn't too short. We had people finish some of it within a week! So we'll be seeing how that balance goes and making a call on if we need to adjust it again before we launch.



#7
Con

Con
  • 4,111 posts

As for MBTs, IRL they have a plethora of tools (HE, cannister shot, coax, CROWS, etc.) to shred infantry.

 

The way the MBT's are at the moment is down to how I initially balanced the game, which was to just nudge very slightly in different directions. Especially when it came to damage. 

 

CROWS on the heavier armor is massively overpowered at the moment and needs some heavier downsides, which will most likely come in the form of buffing a lot of the other upgrades. Armor upgrades for example only give 10-20% extra health, they could potentially go as high as 50%. 

 

As for your earlier comments about range, it's definitely something we're still examining. There's a good chance we'll add range indicators prior to EA to help convey what's going on better. We're also looking to make some changes to how units act when they're engaging targets in cover, giving ranged units some slight advantages. For now, we're looking at accuracy debuffs to bring the range back in line. The design philosophy with this game is "reward preparation" so we want to arrive at a scenario where if your ranged units are in the right place at the right time, they win. If they're not, they get minced. 



#8
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 806 posts

Yep, absolutely. Gold and premium time will be returned for Early Access. We're going to do another wipe after EA most likely, so you'll get it back again once we transition into full release. 

 

Reason for a second wipe is that we're making sure the progression isn't too short. We had people finish some of it within a week! So we'll be seeing how that balance goes and making a call on if we need to adjust it again before we launch.

Maybe we could have individual progression trees per platoon, so you could individually grind out platoons for a specific build or something, but I don't know.

 

Increasing the grind massively (so there is more to progress through) seems deterring since many upgrades like the grenade launcher CROWS are really nice, but are at the end of the tech tree. Maybe perhaps more CROWS options at the start instead of just the GPMG/HMG combos.

 

 

The way the MBT's are at the moment is down to how I initially balanced the game, which was to just nudge very slightly in different directions. Especially when it came to damage. 

 

CROWS on the heavier armor is massively overpowered at the moment and needs some heavier downsides, which will most likely come in the form of buffing a lot of the other upgrades. Armor upgrades for example only give 10-20% extra health, they could potentially go as high as 50%. 

 

As for your earlier comments about range, it's definitely something we're still examining. There's a good chance we'll add range indicators prior to EA to help convey what's going on better. We're also looking to make some changes to how units act when they're engaging targets in cover, giving ranged units some slight advantages. For now, we're looking at accuracy debuffs to bring the range back in line. The design philosophy with this game is "reward preparation" so we want to arrive at a scenario where if your ranged units are in the right place at the right time, they win. If they're not, they get minced. 

Glad to hear that we are buffing competitors instead of just nerfing CROWS (I'm a large proponent of buffing to make other options viable instead of just nerfing x thing).

 

I also wonder if speed configs/builds need a buff, since as of now, all speed does is help your armor for example, get to the front line faster. But the health loss in exchange for speed is just massive, so once your armor moves to the front, it just gets shredded.

 

Is speed just intended for getting to the front? Or could there be a better utilization of the speed configs that i'm not getting? Since other configs (especially CROWS) are just more useful.

 

 

---------

 

Another potential balance issue is the rifle squad undermount grenade launchers, which basically make a 5 man rifle squad a more versatile AT squad after you changed the damage type to AP.

 

After that, enemies who kept on sending in riflemen could not only counter your infantry, but easily take out your heavy armor as well, except they could keep sending in low time riflemen compared to a high timer tank.

 

------


That's what I've been able to come up with; my "concerns" about balance are really hard to place, since I have no idea what your "ideal" balance is; whether x unit should be stronger/weaker/dominant/etc. compared to y unit.

 

In general, my feedback has been geared towards eliminating "crutch" setups to allow for more variety in the game, although understandably, some things will be stronger than others, but as long as it's overall balanced and isn't a "necessity" to run anything, then that's as far as my feedback can go.

 

Crutch setups [possibly] include things such as: Rifles Ready to Go, High Spirits, CROWS, undermount launchers, offensive supports (defensive ones are rather weak atm).

 

All these are either a strong pure benefit or are a necessity (read: easy pick) to counter the enemy.

 

The first two operation cards, unlike the ones like roadworks, or the one that increases outpost supply, instead of as you said "taking up a slot will be the downside" for pure benefit cards that give a small benefit, these are ones that give considerable benefit at little drawback.

 

CROWS is necessary to increase firepower, undermount launchers to counter enemy vehicles, offensive supports since other setups (excluding unit stacking ones) like defensive ones aren't viable.

 

Just some examples.


  • 0

#9
geras

geras
  • 23 posts

---------

 

Another potential balance issue is the rifle squad undermount grenade launchers, which basically make a 5 man rifle squad a more versatile AT squad after you changed the damage type to AP.

 

After that, enemies who kept on sending in riflemen could not only counter your infantry, but easily take out your heavy armor as well, except they could keep sending in low time riflemen compared to a high timer tank.

 

------

 

I was under the impression that this was a bug, as the said under-barrel grenade launcher description said "good against LIGHT vehicles". A tank is not a light vehicle.


  • 0

#10
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 806 posts

I was under the impression that this was a bug, as the said under-barrel grenade launcher description said "good against LIGHT vehicles". A tank is not a light vehicle.

Mind you, before the damage change to AP, the damage to light vehicles was already minimal. 

 

It was only good for knocking out people behind cover whilst having longer range than handheld nades.


  • 0

#11
Fur Dozy

Fur Dozy
  • 26 posts

To be fair, I have had so many riflemen out that the just shot a tank to death with rifles. In such cases the rifle squads with 320s only get better.


  • 0

#12
MarkoMiladinko

MarkoMiladinko
  • 14 posts

Actualy will there be some crew bonuses for MBTs such as:

Angling(Driver)(Takes less damege)(chance to bounce)

Faster Reload(loader)

Expirienced Driver(drives faster)

Commande/gunner view range(incrises range a little bit)

 

 

As unlocks for crew.

Or you could give this ,,Upgrade,, to only one crew member?


  • 0

#13
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 806 posts

To be fair, I have had so many riflemen out that the just shot a tank to death with rifles. In such cases the rifle squads with 320s only get better.

The time it took for them to take a tank out beforehand meant that your own troops could counter them. Now the tanks get almost instantly vaporized. At the end of the beta, the best (and one of the only) good tactic left to use was a pure infantry assault.

 

 

Actualy will there be some crew bonuses for MBTs such as:

Angling(Driver)(Takes less damege)(chance to bounce)

Faster Reload(loader)

Expirienced Driver(drives faster)

Commande/gunner view range(incrises range a little bit)

 

 

As unlocks for crew.

Or you could give this ,,Upgrade,, to only one crew member?

There's only one "crew training" since we don't want to stack a ton of bonuses on tanks, defeats the purpose of making a meaningful choice when speccing your units.

 

And I doubt you want to wait 3 minutes for your tank either.


Edited by MW3ProPiper, 26 January 2017 - 08:48 PM.

  • 0

#14
Fur Dozy

Fur Dozy
  • 26 posts

The time it took for them to take a tank out beforehand meant that your own troops could counter them. Now the tanks get almost instantly vaporized. At the end of the beta, the best (and one of the only) good tactic left to use was a pure infantry assault.

 

 

There's only one "crew training" since we don't want to stack a ton of bonuses on tanks, defeats the purpose of making a meaningful choice when speccing your units.

 

And I doubt you want to wait 3 minutes for your tank either.

You are wrong there. I had at least four well built decks at the end of CBT and two of them worked quite well against the Inf rush. What I had was:

 

Rifleman rush, good against most uninspired decks.

 

MG squad Defense with reinforcement and fire support cards, beat Inf rush and most uninspired decks.

 

Vehicle rush, Beat most decks well but is kinda susceptible to the RNG.

 

This is a game about building the platoon as much as playing them. The play is somewhat flat if players couldn't choose how they wished to prepare. With some fire support and operations for units in cover, a few mg squads could make quick work of the inf rush tactic.

 

I can't wait to get back into the game and try some new decks to see what other good options there are.

 

P.S. The fourth deck I had was a base rush deck that just dropped 3 strikes on the HQ and won the game that way. only had to play 1 unit. That WAS broken.


  • 3

#15
Con

Con
  • 4,111 posts

You are wrong there. I had at least four well built decks at the end of CBT and two of them worked quite well against the Inf rush. What I had was:

 

Rifleman rush, good against most uninspired decks.

 

MG squad Defense with reinforcement and fire support cards, beat Inf rush and most uninspired decks.

 

Vehicle rush, Beat most decks well but is kinda susceptible to the RNG.

 

This is a game about building the platoon as much as playing them. The play is somewhat flat if players couldn't choose how they wished to prepare. With some fire support and operations for units in cover, a few mg squads could make quick work of the inf rush tactic.

 

I can't wait to get back into the game and try some new decks to see what other good options there are.

 

P.S. The fourth deck I had was a base rush deck that just dropped 3 strikes on the HQ and won the game that way. only had to play 1 unit. That WAS broken.

 

Should note that Riflemen on both sides have lost their Battle Rifle unlocks, so no more M14's and SVK's for them. It was changing the purpose of those units far too much.

 

Interested to hear about your defensive decks, Fur. Unlocks you chose for the MG's etc. I'm working on buffing up the defensive play as it needs to be available and viable to contain the rush / aggro meta. 



#16
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 806 posts

Should note that Riflemen on both sides have lost their Battle Rifle unlocks, so no more M14's and SVK's for them. It was changing the purpose of those units far too much.

 

Interested to hear about your defensive decks, Fur. Unlocks you chose for the MG's etc. I'm working on buffing up the defensive play as it needs to be available and viable to contain the rush / aggro meta. 

I think that'll solve the brunt of the range issues since riflemen are so prevalent.

 

Now how will the M14s for example differ from something like the M110 SASS on the snipers? To have them differ in stats while in real life were similar in the DMR role would be rather confusing.


  • 0

#17
Glock59

Glock59
  • 80 posts

Should note that Riflemen on both sides have lost their Battle Rifle unlocks, so no more M14's and SVK's for them. It was changing the purpose of those units far too much.

Wait so no SCAR-H too ? (US side)


Edited by Glock59, 27 January 2017 - 07:03 PM.

  • 0

#18
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 806 posts

Wait so no SCAR-H too ? (US side)

Oh god, this is one of those awkward times where Con's terminology is not up to critical gun "enthusiast" specifications. (And I don't blame him, the term battle rifle can mean multiple things and be used colloquially to talk about any rifle that fires full sized cartridges).

 

While the SCAR-H is technically a battle rifle, it wasn't removed because it doesn't give a range increase, only a damage increase in return for a longer timer.

 

I would guess that Con was referring to the SVK and M14 as "DMRs" with longer range than battle rifles, which caused riflemen to deviate from their intended role.

 

Real life terminology!


  • 3

#19
Con

Con
  • 4,111 posts

Wait so no SCAR-H too ? (US side)

 

Ah yes, misspoke as MW3 pointed out. I meant DMR's.



#20
MarkoMiladinko

MarkoMiladinko
  • 14 posts

So i wonder will you be able to costumize you squad more.Example

You have rifleman squad

You can set one soldier to wear mask

Other soldier to wear helmet

Third dosen t have enithing on head.

 

Will this be avelable at some point 

It would be awsome to make your squad unique.


  • 0