Profile of Sturmpanther

Avatar Area

Offline Germany
Posts: 5441 | Subs: 37

General Information
Register Time: 17 Jun 2013, 15:24 PM
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/soe_sturmpanther
Steam: 76561198046481660
Residence:

Germany
Nationality:

Germany
Timezone: Europe/Berlin
Game Name: SoE-Sturmpanther

Show Latest Posts


Thread: Maphacking as blatant as this.7 Aug 2018, 14:07 PM Jump back to quoted post7 Aug 2018, 12:48 PMUKai This dude (Feteli) don't give a flying F about it. Just watch through the eyes of him. He was the same with Caeser which was being mentioned in game chat. Is this the right replay? Because here he did nothing wrong In: Replays
Thread: I failed, wrong replay5 Aug 2018, 18:55 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Aug 2018, 18:51 PMVonIvan Whoops, wrong replay. No worry I changed the title already In: Replays
Thread: Rzhev Winter 3v34 Aug 2018, 21:53 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Aug 2018, 16:34 PMRosbone 4. Found more hills and smoothed them. They are everywhere... Oh yeah its crazy as fuck. I really think everytime mapmakers and unit patch designer did not worked together there^^ In: Summer patch 2018
Thread: Steppes4 Aug 2018, 21:51 PM Jump back to quoted post16 Jul 2018, 14:11 PMLordRommel In: Summer patch 2018
Thread: Rzhev Winter 3v34 Aug 2018, 08:53 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Aug 2018, 08:48 AMOsinyagov Khm...khm In: Summer patch 2018
Thread: Rzhev Winter 3v34 Aug 2018, 08:04 AM Jump back to quoted post3 Aug 2018, 23:41 PMRosbone Latest Version (6) Rzhev Rosbone (v2) LATEST BIG CHANGES 1. The other big imbalance on this map is that the North has to cross red cover near the frontline of the map. North red cover not changed. South red cover removed from right in front of the base. Added roads that lead to the new TP and then curves to the south (BLUE). This creates the red cover balance shown by (GREEN lines) Another shot to show how the new road changed the map layout. Small house moved south a little. Added another break in the fence (YELLOW) because the new fence was made slightly longer. Added a sight blocker by right VP to help flank MGs (AQUA). 2. Modified base MGs. Both bases had MGs that covered the closest point to the base. North point was moved as well to get clear of MG arc. The bases are too small for a 3v3 so large vehicles can only get out of the base in two places. SHOULD I FIX THIS? triple usa bases makes always problems xD When you find an easy solution go for it. In: Summer patch 2018
Thread: (6) Oka River Frontline4 Aug 2018, 08:02 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Aug 2018, 04:28 AMRosbone Updated but still v1 (6) Oka Rosbone (v1) 1. Munition placed back on left side. 2. For the east, I Focused on the church too much. The buildings around it (1,2) are balanced at about 218m to each base. The right side is now balanced as well with buildings (1,2). The right side distances are close to 230m with building 1 still farther away from north base by a few meters. Buildings 1+2 were spaced apart so the will not interact with each other. They act more as a line-in-the-sand fall back position. They both cover the fuel. Buildings 1+2 were rotated so each has 3 windows facing the fuel. They both can be attacked by the sheds nearby. 3. Cover around the VP was better balanced moving the truck to the approx center. 4. Cleaned up the cemetary area. Removing the truck seemed best. Added a few more headstones so there is splattered green cover everywhere. 5. Smoothed out a lot of hills. They were everywhere. 6. Opened a path by the river so North can access the southern cutoff. Matched the distance with the northern cutoff. In: Summer patch 2018
Thread: General Mud3 Aug 2018, 22:24 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Aug 2018, 21:27 PMThe Quban In General Mud, there is an uncached entity just under the terrain near the central victory point. However, it becomes visible as a big yellow block at some point in almost every match due to terrain deformation from shellfire. This is old and known yes. On minks it happend as well. The reason is because of the elevation - how high-deep the ground it. With indirect fire and tank shoot, you kill some ground, so it appears. To fix this problem you would need to complete rework the map at all, which is too much. So people have to live it that. Sorry. In: Summer patch 2018
Thread: Rzhev Winter 3v33 Aug 2018, 12:20 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Aug 2018, 00:51 AMRosbone Its not updated yet or? Can't see it. - middle vp houses should be ok then, when i see it ingame. - You convicned me with the ice. Let it there as it was in automatch (sorry^^) - on the new TP the north house is still too strong. Thats why i said but it back to the fences and remove the small wood things to get place. It is not only that it covers very well the bridge and co. Units in houses give more View on the battlefield. Or do i miss seeing this? A. https://prnt.sc/ke8psi B. https://prnt.sc/ke8qxp In: Summer patch 2018
Thread: 1vs1 Removing map from automatch3 Aug 2018, 10:02 AM Jump back to quoted post3 Aug 2018, 09:25 AMSiphon X. For what it's worth, here are my two cents: Whiteflash, I agree that the process as laid out in your post would be great to have implemented. Problem is that this would require a serious commitment from Relic in terms of money and personnel (i.e. money again) and frequent patch cycles (i.e. money). None of that is going to happen given where the game currently is in his life cycle. Secondly, regarding the numbers (btw, newer numbers are here, I could get even newer numbers, but I don't think Vilshanka has settled yet): You know I like numbers, but I think it is actually a bit more complex than this. I thought I could lay this out in a stringent argument, but there are a lot of points that are sort of interconnected to each other, so a list has to do: The term "competitive" is thrown around a lot, but I don't think it is clear what it means. I guess you want to say that the map would be fit to be used in a competitive environment. Still, not clear what that entails, really. Given that most tournaments are played as BO3 or up, any map would do, really, if you set up the faction/map pick rules properly. I guess tournament organizers pick maps based on what they hope gives them the most versatile matches, with most factions being able to compete with varied strategies so that matches are potentially more interesting to watch. and which have reasonable balanced starting points. Fair enough. Still, I'm not sure if I like A_Es approach of limiting the map-pool drastically is really my preferred option. If I look at older tournaments, that e.g. had Semoisky Winter in the pool: Sure, the map got picked only a few times, but each match was special because it was played on this rarely used map. Ok, assuming that "competitive" has something to do with "what you would use in a tournament environment", I don't think that this is what the majority of players actually want from a map. They want a map that they can have fun matches on. Now, that's obviously very subjective. For a lot of folks (particular the players that visit .org) this will mean that the map is "competitive" although views will differ on what that means. For others cosmetics, or certain layouts that are generally not considered competitive (Sittard Summer?) might be more attractive. The automatch map pool has to cater to different types of players. It might be that top 100 players veto different maps than people with rank 2000 and up. The latter might not play as often, but still probably spend about as much on the game as the others. If there is a map the top 100 player doesn't like, he might open a "what a crap map" thread on the forums. If the rank 2000 player doesn't find a map he enjoys he might simply leave the game completely (yeah, generalizations, I know, but I guess you get my point). So relic has to cater to different types of players. And that's not captured by simple statistics on vetoes. Regarding winter maps: As MB mentioned there is the whole skin issue. But even more than that: The game was marketed with the whole snow thing. A lot of work went into developing this (sidenote: Deep snow reads great: Snow fields that would slow down infantry, can be flattened by vehicles and are refreshed by blizzards! Too bad this doesn't go well with other aspects of the game (what if retreats wouldn't be slowed down?)). So, getting rid of cold tech in automatch could be viewed as bad for marketing, having basically no snow maps is worse. So I totally can understand why relic wants to keep at least a token number of snow maps in the automatch pool. Regarding using new maps: Well, the problem here is that I think everybody basically has to operate under this assumption that this is the last patch that this game will ever see. I'm not saying that it is, just that chances are it might be (actually, I had this impression already before DBP so I was surprised that we got the number of patches we got this year, including the announcements of more substantial patches later). This means a couple of things: We can't use a process that requires multiple iterations. And any change bears the risk that we might end up in a situation that is worse than what we have now. Now, where is the chance of screwing up higher: Using maps that have been in the rotation for a while with known flaws and trying to improve them. Using maps that have never been in the rotation. Whiteflash goes through great lengths when it comes to refining his maps and props for that. But you would have to do the same effort basically to every new map that is added. Again, not saying that no totally new maps should be added. But you have to be aware that the risk of doing that is (I think) is greater than reworking an old map. Sure, given enough iterations, in the long run you might be better of taking the risk with a map that has potential. But if you have basically just one shot to get it right? Regarding the process is being not transparent: Well, it was never explained really, but reading the post on these forums, it is pretty self explanatory how things are going down so far: Sturmpanther made the thread about the summer map patch. It was clear that he would coordinate stuff. He specifically asked for feedback in the newly created subforum. People created threads in these subforums with feedback. Eventually, a mapper (well, mostly Rosbone) picked up the task and started to implement the changes in several iterations while getting more feedback. The three maps asked about in this vote are maps that are low in the statistics and did not get a rework. Two points on this: You might question the sturmpanther's approach here to only include maps that are not worked on and not maps that rank lower but are worked on. Thing is, the idea is that the reworked versions hopefully end up being slightly better than the somewhat higher ranking ones that are not reworked. Problem is there would never be enough people that would objectively look at the reworked version before voting here. So, what do you do then? Secondly, it is stated that this will not be the sole criterion to exclude maps. So why do this in the first place? Well, asking for feedback and community involvement is nice (again, one of these politics things) and it totally helps justifying your decisions later on. So, in essence: I'm not saying that the current process is perfect. But maybe you try to rethink your suggestions with these constraints: Rework the map pool so that the game yields a higher player retention across most player profiles. You have only one patch to do so. Resources are sturmpanther and Rosbone (additionally the mappers whose maps are in the current pools for a rework of their maps; not that anybodies contribution would have been turned down, but seems like that is the yield this time around; also sorry if I forgot anybody working on this behind closed doors). You have 2 months (which btw, have passed now). Go! Well done written! In: Summer patch 2018