Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Think about this, fella Lets start off with the good stuff.

I like to read up on the Great War in my spare time, and get a lot of enjoyment out of your game. I get the impression that you folks do your homework pretty thoroughly, and I've even learned a few things on this forum from other members and the devs. ot a whole lot of wwi games floating around out there, espe!ially not shooters. The maps are pretty de!ent, the rifles and pistols feel just about right, and the rifle and pistol sounds are pretty good. "o here are some of my thoughts on what I'd like to see, and what I'd like to see different. I do understand that the dev team is small, and I have been very impressed at the speed at whi!h pat!hes and fi#es !ome out. "ome of the things on here will have been mentioned by other members, so !onsider su!h things an e#tra vote. $also forgive me I tend to ramble a bit% &udio' I mention this be!ause I feel that good audio !an add an enormous amount of atmosphere to a game. I suspe!t that the devs feel this way as well, and !ertain things are being worked on and will be improved over time. I like the rifle and pistol sounds, but the ma!hine guns, feel a bit weak. It also feels like they !ould sound a bit smoother in full auto, and it may be that some of the sounds don't always syn!h up with the animations$I'm assuming this will get better over time%. I have heard some people say that they would like to see more suppression effe!ts for rifle and ma!hinegun fire. I've seen this done in (ed )r!hestra *, and I !ant say that I !are for it. What I have seen work, and would very mu!h prefer, is rather than a whi++ when a bullet goes by, a super soni! ,(&,- of a high velo!ity bullet. ear misses would be mu!h more startling and unsettling to a player, espe!ially when being fired upon by a ma!hine gun. I would also say that gunshots being audible from further away would help, though I dont know how diffi!ult this would be to do. If you have played on any of the &rma games, you might know what this sounds like, though thats a different engine. .ut it seems kind of a dis!onne!t to see someone shoot at you from a distan!e, and !learly hear the whi++ and impa!t of the bullet, but not be able to hear the gunshot itself. Ideally, it should not be ne!essary to add ambient gunfire and artillery noises if the players are making enough noise. Gun balan!e' The rifles I think are fine how they are. /ou may !onsider adding in a little more sway shortly after shouldering a rifle, and maybe a small amount of wiggle the way red or!hestra 0 did things, but maybe not to the same length. I know that game is not this game, but the rifles did feel pretty good in that game as well. .ut really the idea would be to try and !ut ba!k on people making instant snapshots at *11 yards$the game is perfe!tly playable either way without this, it would just be for more depth%. I dont mind the oneshot to kill damage, really I kinda like it. I do o!!asionally get mad at !arbine wielders. While less so with body shots, they are still able to get 0 shot kills at long range$I am aware of the damage drop off%, and they seem to fire signifi!antly faster, giving them a massive bonus at !lose range. It does make sense that a !arbine would do better in a !lose in tren!h fight, but I dont know that it needs to be that mu!h different from the regular rifles. It is ok to have more weapons simply for variation and flavor$see .erthier 0213%. .ut perhaps !onsider this. I've seen it done before, but I do not know how mu!h of a !oding !hallenge it would be. .ut have you !onsidered making it so when you have a obje!t too !lose in front of you, you pull your weapon up and dont have enough room to shoot4 ,arbines, being shorter, would get a edge in tren!h !ombat, and it would also give a reason to )T use a bayonet, on a!!ount of adding * feet to your gun. 5istols, grenades, and melee weapons would be just about unaffe!ted by this. &s for the 6a!hine guns that we have, I do think they should be given full rifle damage. &s of !urrent, while a de!ent kill !ount !an be ra!ked up on o!!asion, they are not nearly

as effe!tive at !ontrolling an area as they should be, and !ompletely ineffe!tive at making snipers keep their head down. The thought being that as artillery improves, and we get gas atta!ks, and more assault weapons be!ome available, along with more players, ma!hine guns !an be allowed to be more powerful as the players will have all of the tools to deal with them. I have seen some people on the forums say that rifle damage ma!hine guns and tripod mounted ma!hine guns would make the game stalemate and unfair. Two things about that. In the !urrent state of the game, they are probably right, in that we don't have a!!ess to all of the tools that your 0207 poilu or soldaten had a!!ess to with whi!h to dislodge a ma!hine gun. "e!ond, if you didn't want ma!hine guns !utting down swaths of troops, why are you playing a WWI game4 8verything that WWI was, the tren!hes, the gas, the invention of tanks, was to !ope and over!ome the twin terrors of ma!hine guns and artillery$a!!urate rifle fire didnt help either%. I do not know if tra!ers were used by wwi ground ma!hine guns, but I would definitely like to see no tra!ers from rifle fire. .etween audio and mu++le flashes, one should be able to lo!ate snipers at the minimum loss of guinea pigs. What about firing ma!hine guns from the hip4 This one will make more sense as the game progresses and more weapons be!ome available. If someday we have sub ma!hine guns and semiauto rifles running around, it makes a little more sense to allow someone to go 9ean (ambeau# with a !hau!hat. I do think the !hau!hat should be better from the hip, and I also think it would be good to be able to use the sights while not set up to fire, though probably with lots of sway:re!oil$enough to make rapid aimed fire from the shoulder impossible%. Think of it this way. If someday we get &meri!ans with a .&(0207, and you !ould )T use the iron sights while standing, you'd be pretty pissed. ;un!tionally, the ,hau!hat is the same weapon in game, but with a slower rate of fire. The 17:0< on the other hand... I'm pretty !onfident it weighs too mu!h to be fired using the sights while standing. .ut that's ok= Why bother aiming when you have a 011 round belt4 If one had to deploy to be able to hip fire the way you do in ()* that would be ok, I don't e#pe!t to very a!!urate that way. While I would keep it so that the 17:0< gunner !annot sprint, I would allow the !hau!hat gunner that privilege on a!!ount of a far lighter weapon that was intended to be used in the assault in the walking fire role. &gain, this is with the idea that other assault weapons will be available in the future. Tanks' o. &nd here's why I think so. 8ven games from big !ompanies often fail miserably at vehi!le physi!s. .attlefield 02>*, battlefield *, good games, but abysmal physi!s$no one remembers jets falling down ba!k and forth like a leaf4% The impli!ation being that even rudimentary physi!s are a her!ulean effort, and even then it doesn't usually !ome out well. I like the I?8& of tanks in a wwi game, !ourse I do. .ut same with airplanes, it just isn't a realisti! thing to ask for. )ther Weapons' &s I understand it, Gas will be !oming at some point, and I believe the plan is to have the 6507 for the Germans, and the (",0203 for the fren!h as the balan!e weapon. I am ok with this. I also don't know that the (", has ever been in a game of any kind before $I !ant remember if it was in battlefield 0207% 6y only @uestion about those is how they are going to be balan!ed against everything else. The mp07 !omes out a bit better in this one. Its easy to see how a pistol !aliber weapon wouldn't do as well at long range, but be the king of tren!h !ombat$though they will still be one shotted by rifle users%. .ut the (",, whi!h would be good at the same range as !urrent rifles, and also have the rate of fire and power to kill < men in rapid su!!ession up !lose or afar, I'm not so sure about. 6y thoughts on how to go about that get into some other thoughts I have on s@uads, whi!h I'll get to in a minute. "in!e I was

talking about tools to dislodge ma!hine guns earlier, why not rifle grenades4$e#plosive and smoke rounds% I do not know if this is something the devs are planning, but I'm kind of hoping so. The reading I've done implies they were a !ore part of tren!h ta!ti!s in the .ritish and ;ren!h armies, though I've not read as mu!h about the Germans yet. 6y thought on that is pretty simple, the player would sele!t the laun!her$would be ni!e to be able to atta!h and remove the devi!e%, and be re@uired to !rou!h and not be moving to fire. /ou might !onsider making them deploy the weapon first, but this isn't stri!tly ne!essary. ?amage would be the same as grenades, just out to further rea!hes. It would be ni!e to have a system to allow players to aim and fire indire!tly, but I don't know how to go about doing this. Giving offi!ers a e#tra !ommand to re@uest fire$and to stop firing if we get friendly fire% on a lo!ation would be a start. .ut why not go one step up again4$this is also assuming we have something like A1 people to a team someday% Light mortars. The Granatenwerfer 0B for the Germans, the "tokes Ain for the ,ommonwealth, and for the ;ren!h4 I've been doing some reading and the best thing I !an !ome up with is the <7mm ,rapouillot whi!h seems to be some kind of spigot mortar. If someone has a better thought on that I'm open to suggestions. .ut the thought here being that with teams that large, we !an devote a few of them to support roles. This will be your heavy ma!hine gunners, rifle grenadiers, sappers:pioneers, ammo !arriers, and mortarmen. 6ore so than the rifle grenadiers, the mortarmen would need a way to aim without line of sight. There is probably more than one way to do this, but one way that would $hopfully% be simpler, is to have offi!ers, instead of being able to !all artillery from off map, would use the same marker as a marker for artillery$it might also be good for the offi!er to re@uest smoke rounds, and if your really naughty, gas rounds%. This in itself would be of little help for the mortars, but what if, within their range, the mortars automati!ally !ame down around the mark4 $I've seen something like this done in a old mod for halfClife !alled firearms, if anyone remembers that% This would mean a !ouple of things. ;irstly that mortarmen would be useless without a !ompetent offi!er, and no shells would fall without a target$I would strongly en!ourage friendly fire on this one, whi!h would make the mortars have to !ease fire in order to atta!k an area they were shelling%. I would also mean that artillery would, although mu!h slower and sporadi!, nonCending for as long as the mortars were firing$I'd have a hard time imagining more than one or two of these to a team%. I'm also making an assumption that the mortar and the spotter have some modi!um of !ommuni!ation between them. If both sides have mortars, then the de!ision must be made of whether to shoot at enemy troops, or !ounterCbattery the enemy mortars, whi!h may have to be lo!ated by sound$or perhaps a smoke trail, though I dont think thats realisti!%. It might also be of some utility to give offi!ers a map, and allow them to dire!t artillery using it, whi!h would allow them to sear!h for targets out of line of sight. The thought here being that if the mortarman gets a kill, the offi!er would get points as well. ow I understand if some players hate the idea of player !ontrolled artillery, but I'm a big fan of giving more power to the players. )bviously there are weapons too large to tote around muddy !raters. We !ant e#a!tly pa!k a ;ren!h 3< on our ba!k. .ut if the maps are big enough and we have enough people, why not allow the players to !all the shots rather than !alling mortar shots from off map4 That said there would still be room for that as well. The se!tor artillery and !reeping barrage are obviously to mu!h for a player to !ontrol. ?oing this would also allow light infantry$!hasseurs:jagers% s@uads to !all for player mortars. /ou may !onsider allowing players to see the markers from other s@uads, but !olor !ode them so players know whi!h marker is from whi!h s@uad. )ther things... Grenades. Would you !onsider adding a greater variety of hand grenades at some point4 This !ertainly isn't a pressing issue, but there were a staggering variety of grenades available to the various armies of the great war. "ome !ould be added just for flavor, but what I'm really looking at is grenades that operate differently. We !urrently have timed grenades, but what about grenades that e#plode on !onta!t4 Would you !onsider fiddling with shrapnel for grenades and artillery4 This way you !ould differentiate between offensive$potato masher% and defensive$;0% grenades. )ther fun options to spi!e things up in!lude smoke grenades$another good tool to get by ma!hine guns% and tear gas grenades, whi!h I know the ;ren!h had, and I'll have to look, but I would suspe!t the Germans had at least one model of.

;lamethrowers. &s I understand it the devs would very mu!h like to have these someday. I remember reading somewhere that the .ritish, ;ren!h, and the Germans all developed portable 0 man flamethrowers during the war. The "!hilt for the ;ren!h, the We# for the Germans, and I !ant remember the name of the .ritish one$I have a feeling the devs already know the answer to this%. I also don't know that any of them were used in large numbers at all, but would make for some !ra!king great fun, wot4 )ther ations:"@uads' We all know that wwi was a war of nations, and most players from parti!ipating nations would like to see their own for!es in!luded at some point. In!luding absolutely everyone in every theatre for starts is a little far fet!hed. /ou !ould probably spend years$and have% just fleshing out everything that just the ;ren!h and German armies had, to say nothing of the ,ommonwealth and others. I understand that the ,anadians are due to make an appearan!e in the game at some point. While I am happy to hear this, I think your !urrent s@uad system is going to shoot you in the foot on this one. If you !onstrain yourself to trying to make a separate s@uad for not only nations, but spe!ial units within those nations, you would go mad trying to in!lude just a tiny fra!tion of the parti!ipants. Imagine trying to represent ea!h flavor of ;ren!h !olonial troops with a !ompletely separate s@uad, along with s@uads for .ritain and all of her satellites4$,anadians, "!ottish, Irish, Welsh, &ustralian, ew Dealand, "outh &fri!a, India, epal, and others%. (ather than trying be be that spe!ifi! with s@uads, why not just allow us different uniform options to be able to represent the different nations4 ;or the most part, all of the ,ommonwealth used the same pattern of uniform and web e@uipment and rifles to my knowledge. If you wanted to be a s!otsman you !ould get a kilt, if you wanted to be a ,anadian you !ould give your soldier ,anadian arm pat!hes, and e@uip yourself with a (oss rifle. There really isn't any reason to not give the option to have either one, other than the time it takes to make the rifle and get it in game. "ame for different ;ren!h troops. (e!olor the uniform khaki, and we !an play as ;oreign Legion or ,olonials$&lso !onsider giving the option for different skin tones, so one !ould play a orth &fri!an, Indian, or &sian%. 8ven the 5ortuguese !ould be in!luded by simply re!oloring .ritish uniforms. I do feel as if gameplay is highly restri!ted by the !urrent s@uad system. I think we !an all agree that players should be able to form s@uads$and have s@uads be persistent from map to map%, and fill various roles in that s@uad, but I do not like the idea of tiny four man s@uads with limited !hoi!es and e@uipment. (eally, for the most part, I don't !are for for !lasses at all. 6ost of what we have, is variations of rifle, bayonet, and grenades. I dont see any reason why it !ouldn't be up to the player as to the e#a!t layout of those items. The line between a grenadier with a rifle and a bayonet, and a rifleman with a rifle and a bayonet seems pointless. That and as I understand it, the grenadiers as we have them, are not really grenadiers. In the ;ren!h army, a grenadier was the man with the rifle grenade laun!her, and the man with a bag of of grenades and a pistol was a bomber, or at least that's my understanding. & rifleman with a pair of a grenades and a bayonet was a rifleman, be!ause everyone was issued grenades for an atta!k if they were available. There's only a few things that seem like they should be restri!ted for availability, being off map artillery powers, and the assault weapons that are to !ome someday$mostly just the (",%. .ut if your regular rifleman wanted to give up one or two of his grenades for bino!ulars, or a pistol, or wire!utters, or some other e@uipment it doesn't seem like that would imbalan!e anything, provided the point value of items was balan!ed. This might also be a good way to test to see if there are any weapons or !ombinations that players favor over everything else, to help with balan!ing. &lso is there a reason that s@uads are only > men4 &s I understand it with !urrent si+es, our entire team of 0* men should be a single s@uad, although with only * !orporals instead of A. I am unaware of any plans to release this on !onsole, whi!h is the only reason I !an think of for the > man s@uad. The inability to swit!h teams or s@uads during a mat!h seriously hampers the ability to maintain balan!ed teams.

The !orporal at the moment seems to be treated like what should be a Lieutenant, with the fan!y hat and e#tra gold braid. Eave you thought about adding higher ranking offi!ers4 If we ever get voi!e !hat a !hain of !ommand might be a ni!e thing to have. I !ould see the utility in having a single !ommanding offi!er for the entire team to dire!t traffi! and form assaults. Ideally this would also !ome with an option to vote out a useless !ommander. I'm not !ompletely sure as to why, but the trend I see in other games with !ommanding offi!ers, is that most players don't a!tually want to be in !harge$.attlefield *, atural "ele!tion%. Whi!h really, if there is a limited number of offi!er slots, is fine. &nother problem the > man s@uad with !lasses poses is it inevitably for!es players into roles they do not want. Fsually sniper, ma!hinegunner, or offi!er. I !an see putting limits on !ertain !lasses:e@uipment, but I see no reason for everyone not to be able to play a rifleman. "pawnpoints' I know you are aware that some of the spawnpoints need some tweaking. That said, it would be ni!e to have spawn points that were in the !enter of their se!tor, as opposed to all the way on one side or the other. ,ontinuously spawning all on one side enfor!es a artifi!ial ta!ti!al infle#ibility. The only reason I would do this on a map, was if there were not enough players. The spawn areas also tend to be out in the open in seemingly random shell holes. Why not make !overed areas like dugouts to spawn in4 This way players wouldn't have to suffer being shot or blown up immediately upon spawn. The ideal would be to either have one !entral spawn for ea!h tren!h line$not no mans land%, or if you wanted to have one on either side, allow us to pi!k whi!h one we want to spawn at. &lso, if you want infantry atta!ks to happen in planned waves, you may !onsider removing the ability to spawn on friendly troops, so that you !ould only spawn in designated spawn areas. This would give you massed rushes of infantry all from the same point, rather than having men appear out of thin air I the enemy's tren!h be!ause one offi!er was lu!ky to make it. )ften defender's don't end up having the same advantage, and have further to run to get to their own tren!hes than the atta!ker does. Tren!hes' ;rom the design for some of the tren!hes you have now, I've seen some of the photographs I think you've based them off of and they do look neat. Eowever almost none of them are a!tually any good for defending from. "hould we not have, at the front line, a almost !ontinuous fire step to shoot from4 The !urrent system of only a few pla!es to fire from makes it very easy for the atta!kers to fo!us fire and artillery on those points. The German roofed bunker in the deep tren!hes on 5i!ardy stands out in my mind. /ou will often see half the German team jo!keying for position to try and find a pla!e to shoot from. This shouldn't be a problem for the defender's to have. Tren!hes are supposed to be diffi!ult to take. The ideal is, if your team isn't working together on some level, you probably are not going to su!!eed. Goi!e !hat would help a lot with this, giving ,orporals the ability to !oordinate artillery$&s a side not I have a burning hatred for light infantry s@uads. If I'm trying to take a tren!h, I do )T need a biplane to telepathi!ly tell me where the enemy is. What I 88? is for A different offi!ers to all be dropping artillery to allow my team to !lose the distan!e%. &nother thing that would help is to provide pla!es to shoot from with ma!hine guns in mind, with embrasures that are aimed obli@uely a!ross the lines, or down a probable lane of atta!k, that is )T open to the front where the entire enemy team !an see it. o ma!hine gunner !an wat!h the entire front at on!e, and are huge fire magnets. In some pla!es this !an be done at the moment, but often times its by finding !over in a pla!e that isn't even in ones tren!h. It's also my understanding that this is how it was a!tually done where possible for the same reason$and to have withering !rossfire%. The Germans never simply pointed their ma!hine guns straight out at enemy positions.