Forums

What % of people actually use the ML tools (either as MLs, or as grunts)?

Looking great but as you say radical ideas sound cool but may be too difficult to accomplish Keep up the good work

At today's RAT chat we unveiled the current progress of one of our Roadmap items, the "Mission Leader Waypoint" update. The objective here is to provide users of all skill level better guidance and direction of where the critical objectives / rally points are. This is in keeping with CRS's intent to improve the game experience for everyone. What other Mission Leader Tools can we develop? Do note: Radical ideas sound cool but may be too difficult to accomplish. So post with the thought of minimum viable product to the best of your ability. I realize it's our job to help you discern that difference, so post away and any sort of sketches or concepts will definitely help us better understand your idea. Here are the pictures from today's work in progress, Mission Leader Waypoints.

This is no solution, anyway, it's not like we even want someone with an account open on each side. Imbalance is part and parcel of the game. People tend to switch sides at the campaign level, generally, right? Or they don't switch sides at all. The "solution" is to steer the fights to the available player population. If the server odds are 2:1, try and set up 2:1 fights (based on Map level units---like you'd say the odds were 2:1 if 2 Divisions attacked 1 Division at some part of the front. Generally, vs any sort of defense, attackers like to have more forces than the defenders. The map tends to move based on side balance anyway (during the different times of day), so the Rats should embrace it. While I still like my ideas about limiting linked facility spawning, let's just look at the AO concept...   1. Substantially reduce Garrison size. Instead of being ~BDE size, it needs to be a fraction of that. A company at most, so like 150 men (count ATGs are 2 men each, and count tanks as 3 each, so maybe 2 platoons inf, plus a few tanks) 2. Possibly increase the number of BDEs, as they are going to take longer to resupply when attritted (see #3). Possibly change the time it takes to move them (ideally a time cost per link (town) they move through). 3. Substantially increase resupply time for both BDEs and Garrisons (I want those best tanks you lost 2-3 towns ago to matter, that sort of long resupply). The goal is for logistics to matter more, since breakout will be more of a thing, full BDEs will attrit and move though Garrisons much faster than now---but any damage done against the attackers will also matter more. Rolling a town at the cost of half of your SMGs, when they will not be replaced for a long time might not be desirable. 4. Base allowed AOs on the relative spawn lists between linked, attacking towns and the target. Not the BDE count, the actual spawn lists (total # of inf units, + total vehicles (maybe each vehicle counts as X inf). That way an attritted BDE counts for less. If you are OP, and need 2:1 odds, you might have to move a fresh BDE forward. The idea here is that you need at least the relative supply of your OP level. If you are OP 2:1 in players, you can attack with 10:1 supply if you like, just like the UP side can attack anywhere they like, even though it won't likely work out. If you were 2:1 you could NOT attack 1 BDE with 1 BDE, though, since you can possibly spawn at least 2X as many people as the players in the defensive BDE. Note that if the sides are close to even, the game is identical to what it is now AO wise. 5. Eliminate spawn delay. How would something like this look in practice? Perhaps (there's been talk of a new UI anyway) the UI for HC peeps could show any town that is ALLOWED to be AOed (for both sides) as a new color (one for Axis, one color for Allied). This makes AO selection easy, and the HC can see how it changes via moving BDEs to the front, when the linked potential target town changes color, you're good to go.  Note that the OP side can likely attack Garrison towns pretty much at will, you could be ridiculously OP, and if a Garrison is only 33% of a BDE, then 1 BDE (town also has a Gar) vs a Garrison is ~4:1 odds---so as long as your OP level is under or equal to 4:1, you are allowed to place the AO. So the OP side can break out in multiple AOs, since they have the pop to do that. Yeah, the UP side will get rolled, just like now, what have I added? The defensive players in those hopeless battles can do real damage, since resupply is much longer. The more important units you knock out, the fewer they have at the next town. If they hit a town with a BDE, the attackers might be in trouble, and since the AO placement rules require they attack where they are locally OP, if they hit an area fortified with BDEs, and they have only a few attritted BDEs, they might not be allowed to advance (place an AO there) until they move fresh units to the front (they've outrun their logistics). Clearly they can then just go around, and pick AOs on the flanks that are vs soft targets (garrisons). This allows complex "map level" play, and actually allows "blitzkrieg" to be a thing. When the side that had been advancing goes under pop, then they are consolidating, and moving up fresh troops. The other side can then counterattack for a while. Where sides decide to stack BDEs and eliminate possible attacks might be strategically very interesting (likely places with lots of links...). Everyone can play, no SD, and the side getting rolled can at least feel like their fight to the death matters. Nothing else up to this point has worked, and we ALL hate SD... it's worth trying something novel.   I thought this old comment was worth adding, and it's true. The goal is for people to have fights. People getting rolled is no fun, we've all been there. Spawn in, and even if you kill a couple, "winning" means booting the attacker's AO if you are on the side getting rolled, anything short of that feels like losing all the time. The above system I suggest would result in many of these fights (we have many of these anyway, remember!), but the longer resupply, etc, would mean that you could fight a Garrison vs attacking BDEs, and you KNOW you will lose, just as I know we'll lose when 3-4 defenders spawn into a town already crawling with ei, but you'll also know that they will either advance with fewer forces than you were just attacked with, or if they stick around, the town has a weak BDE in it. Your damage to them should matter more. When the UP side knows that they'll lose this town, then the next, and all with a zillion units in supply... what's the point?

I didn't mean that you would have multiple accounts playing on each side, c'mon man! if your side is Op you can't play 2nd or third accounts unless you move all of them to the Underpop side (including main account).     

  ***When the application tools are taken off line, send applications via email to imbrutus@corneredrats.com*** Please include: Game name  // time zone // preferred branch // year started playing // squad name (if a member, encouraged, but not required )

Got it ahhtookk, welcome to a whole new world    

That might help, but it depends on the number of FTP people, how effective they actually are, etc. I think the AO rule change really does have a good shot at making things feel the best in game. One thing I think we all know is true---the game is better at higher player densities. During a lower pop period, it would generally be best for all the players on both sides to be in one AO (gotta have critical mass of players). If you are just at that point where there is a minimal effective defense (guard all the CPs, plus some recappers and maybe extra units (a tank or 2, and maybe even an aircraft)), then at least when the enemy attacks at 4:1 it feels less unfair and "rolled again" when you know that they were attacking you with 4X the supply. Also, it seems like you could immunize certain parts of the front from low-pop rolling by stacking defenses on them.