reefmon

Registered Users
  • Content count

    1,006
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

reefmon last won the day on October 19

reefmon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

162 Salty

About reefmon

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. This thread is to discuss ideas that can be possibly used to help offset side numbers imbalance. This exchange is not to lodge complaints about the current system. Instead, this conversation seeks positive input and thoughts to help with the issue. Here are my ideas: 1.) Allow F2P accounts access to more equipment if they log into the under pop team. Especially stuff like SMGs and ATGs that help out with defense. Even possibly limit the better equipment to defensive missions only. 2.) Let players know how unbalanced the situation is and even suggest the best type of game play... maybe publish an "imbalance factor" or something (short of actual numbers) to give players enough information to know what the best tactical play would be. For example; "The imbalance factor is -2, your side is slightly/moderately/heavily outnumbered". 3.) Time zone 3 is where the most map movement takes place and even though this is when there are the least amount of total players on the server, the imbalance of 4 or 5 guys can severely alter the tide of the war. There are so few players on at this time attrition is hardly ever a factor in battles. Capture timers need to take total population, or even possibly how many are spawned into any particular battle, into account. 4.) Furthermore, especially for TZ3, Limit individual supply/spawn on the overpop team... something like personal spawn limits combined with spawn delay. If someone on the overpop side dies they have to wait some period of time to access a particular unit with rifles having the least wait time. These ideas may or may not appeal to you... just logically articulate why and explain your alternatives and/or tweaks... no need for you to loose your cookies over proposed ideas for discussion.
  2. You only make yourself look stupid by referring to everyone who differs with your opinion as CRS "fanboy has-beens". Nobody needs to own you, you did that all by yourself. You see, when all you have is name calling to present the credibility of your case, you essentially concede the issue. If you have an opinion, then state it. If you have a suggestion, suggest it. But know this, just like the rest of us, you speak for yourself, and only yourself. The mythical "silent majority" needs to speak up or be ignored like people who don't vote. You say this game is in need of fresh ideas (I totally agree so it can continue to improve), however, the crux of the dissent is about a mechanic from the past.
  3. The game is clearly BASED on REAL events. There is a reason we don't have goblins with magic powers or heat seeking missiles! Yes, it's a game and we don't really die either, but that does NOT justify adding completely ridiculously unrealistic stuff. This is a WWII simulation. Your suggestions need to be within this construct or you're simply not going to be taken seriously.
  4. I think you need to think in terms of what 1-2 man teams really would've/could've done in WWII. Like deep insurgency missions to effect the war effort like, for example, disturbing supply for a future strategic battle or destroying/damaging an airfield, etc. I really think the whole one man capping thing has been hashed out; forward thinking is what CRS will take seriously.
  5. C'mon man... simple logic tells us that would be a nightmare for the under populated team. Over pop team can just attempt to cap the whole front with 1-2 man teams and then the under pop team would not be able defend all of the towns "under attack" and would have to choose which to try and defend and which to loose with putting up no defense at all. I thought we got through this logic already... how would this game play be okay with you?
  6. First of all, I never ever said; "this game is not for you". I don't think statements like that are productive to reasonable discussion. And I speak for myself, not some mythical group somewhere trying to suppress anyone's fun... it's just my opinion as it pertains to me; others may agree, some may not. Fundamentally, I'm against making it easy for one dude doing anything that causes a bunch of other folks to have perform the "chore" (as you put it) of cleaning up; that is fun for one guy only. I've also been that guy when game play allowed it and it was a blast, but if you can't see the flaws of that mechanism you're gonna loose credibility in the discussion. I think automatic missions and AOs are a great idea and will make the front more fluid and less reliant on HC, but that does not mean to imply any one EI will be able to invisibly crouch sneak into a random town and cap something without anyone realizing. Did you partake in the battle of Dusseldorf (the last battle of the map last campaign)? That was, IMHO, what this game seeks to accomplish. A massive combined arms battle, bullets and shells flying everywhere (my wife yelling at me because of the volume!), infantry fighting building to building... it was a beautiful thing. And, multitudes more fun than "back-in-the-day" one man caps.
  7. You got a bit of a catch-22 here with the "radar" thing. AC used to take it out, however, inf or tanks need to take out AAA AI first? Furthermore, the idea of radar for inf not crouching or prone is just too "gamey" for me. Towns are filled with "people" and that is what EWS represents. And, unless you bring back the "insta-capping table humping" mechanism, no one EI is going to cap a town by himself. I'm all for automatic missions and AOs if you can bring enough troops to bear; i.e. more than one and based on the current population. I'm also okay with you capping behind the lines but you'll sacrifice supply, so what you bring is what you have.
  8. The only one that messed with me for a bit was left alt, which I use for alt-tab.
  9. Just a thought as I, personally, can't keep up with all your suggestions at this point and the main idea is getting lost. I think if you focused on just one or two aspects at a time, you'd have a much better time keeping folks attention and would have a much better chance of seeing the idea implemented. Right now we've got you suggesting a ton of stuff... if I was a CRS programmer I'd just be ignoring all of it right now. Not because the ideas are not good, the whole thread is just noise right now. I know there's a lot you want; nothing wrong with that; however, articulating your pitch clearly and concisely is what will convince others you're onto something. Prioritize and pitch the ideas one at a time; just a thought from a guy who comes from a family of lawyers.
  10. Thank you sir!
  11. This is the file...
  12. How do I link to it or upload it? Thank in advance!
  13. #1 Would only appeal to the most hardcore folks. I do not think this type of play will help retaining new players. Just guessing, but I also suspect this would lead to a lot more cheating for intel with alternate accounts. I'm actually with you on this concept, but I acknowledge that you and I are in a small minority that enjoy a more realistic approach to "fear of death". Most players want to get to the action within minutes and if we want a big player base we must accommodate those folks. #2 Seems to be there to help rein in #1, but okay, whatever. #3 Is not exactly clearly defined, if you could elaborate further please.
  14. Sure, watch me all you like! I just returned to the game after taking over a decade off for personal reasons. I really don't remember much of the politics of the game when I left (I still loved it, but RL had to come first). This perspective lends itself to a somewhat more objective view of this discussion. You see, we are at a point; how we got here does not really matter. We're here, for better or worse, that is our fate. How we go forward does, however, matter. You clearly love this game, why jeopardize your input on future features by focusing on lost battles from the past? I'm not saying forget what you enjoyed back then; rather, try to figure a way to implement things you enjoy or used to enjoy into a better future version of this game. Nobody is cooking up a conspiracy against you... just reasonable thought processes at work here.
  15. Agreed, this makes a lot of sense, but I think an element of control (maybe with the mission leader) as to the time of deployment. And I think you'll also need to muster a fair amount of team members (that number will have to hashed out) in order for it to work. Also helps solve the lack of HQ when that occurs.