riprend

Registered Users
  • Content count

    274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

riprend last won the day on March 22

riprend had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

65 Vet

About riprend

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday
  1. I meant, link the newly capped town's ticket delivery rate to the percentage of tickets outstanding in the victor's linking towns. So let's say there's a base 2 hour flow-in. This could be modified up to 4 hours based on the number of outstanding tickets in the victor's linking towns. I'd be supportive of a quick, 15 minute delivery of ~20% of the supply upon capture so that counters aren't quite so easy, to be followed by a more gradual system.
  2. This is the biggest thing bothering me about 1.36. Spend five hours slugging it out for a town, depleting 2-3 towns' supply behind you... take the town, and you waterfall in completely fresh supply over the course of an hour. If you resupplied from the towns behind the one that was taken, it can quickly become a new front cascade of completely fresh supply. Would be much better IMO if there were a mechanism that determined the speed of the incoming supply based on the linking flags' ticket count.
  3. Disagree! If that's what you're experiencing, you're probably in an unsupported depot capture where you're nearly immediately already back under cap. That won't be easy for rifles but it's still far from zero fun or impossible. If you're in a supported, organic depot capture, armor is pushing back the range of engagement to where rifles actually are the weapon of choice. I find fun in either scenario - I feel a big sense of accomplishment every time I trade or better rifling down SMGs - and if you find yourself in too many of the former for you to find fun... Be the change agent and bring armor to the party before the depot gets capped.
  4. Just thought of an interesting way to do the ARV through the PPO engine - create a one pixel PPO that the ARV can build that allows armor rtb. ARV pulls up, does a 2-3 minute "build", and there you go.
  5. I'm on board with reducing both overall armor numbers and Matty in particular. I think 3+2 CS would be reasonable. Part of my willingness to be gracious here despite that I am certainly an Allied partisan is that in resupply days, if you wanted a Matty, or if you lost a Matty, you'd drive it from backline. You whippersnappers need to do the same!
  6. Bouillon - not as straightforward shots into the AB as Haybes; an intriguing challenge for either side as defense fights in a big bowl BUT there's scant cover to ingress through and attackers are very visible at all points because they're always coming down a hill.
  7. Making sure this is working as intended: Right now, we can use transports to ferry in infantry (likely SMGs) from backline airports to frontline towns to overstock. Is coupling an air garrison with an army garrison the intended solution here, or will you be making an air garrison that includes an infantry complement for vulcher fighting that can't be overstocked?
  8. I was too!!! When I saw 32 baby sherms in an armor bde I was STUNNED. I think overall we're good with somewhat less armor, but I respect the idea that tankers should almost always be able to tank.
  9. Thank you. I know I was really nasty in the closed thread; this shows that you listened and took action. I think taking a curation and designer approach, rather than a fixed quantitative mindset, will pay dividends in customer satisfaction. It's already increased my satisfaction.
  10. Well... one side, at least. I always assumed someone on the Axis side had a script program like the HC fallback tool that was running. I offered $100 for it on side chat once (and that's a standing offer!) But apparently it's just people who have way more (offensive term removed) than me.
  11. We could! But I think it'd be better to do one then the other.
  12. I'd like to see us do the upcoming 1.36 testing with the lines set at the new towns! Would be great to do one week in deep France and one week around Rotterdam. The reality is that campaign play rarely takes us to these places and I think this would improve play numbers in these areas.
  13. I 100 percent disagree in full f2p because we don't have, and would find difficulty in implementing, cosmetics that could make up the game. BUT, I think Spring Awakening showed that there IS demand for the game... Just that the price point isn't there yet. I think the Steam DLC unlocks and pricing need a big overhaul (SERIOUSLY, the medium armor for 17.99 is a huge ripoff once a camp past Tier 0) and sub prices should be at least looked at. Gifting needs to be implemented with subs, and perhaps "user licenses" for squad subscriptions. I have dozens of thoughts in these regards lol.
  14. This likely represents too much novel code, but what about this: The most likely people to have a willingness to swap sides are the F2P players. What if you took a twofold approach to using that to our advantage: First, incentivize them to act in side-beneficial ways by allowing them to unlock, temporarily, additional infantry supply through captures and guarding points. Second, increase SD for F2P -only-. Give them a carrot, and a stick, at the same time.
  15. Bumping because I think this is worth some discussion... Surely someone at least disagrees?