Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by kgarner

  1. 2 minutes ago, tater said:

    How short of 100X as many people, and all of them willing to sit and wait without ever seeing the enemy?

    We already have this, BTW, it's called fixed spawn points.

    The enemy controls a bunch of contiguous towns, and we control a bunch. Include the FBs, and connect the dots. That is the meta "lines." Presumably you are against that, and you think we should all spawn in some capital city of our side, then walk/dive to some place where whe hold our ground, and wait for the enemy (or attack, alone)? If not, you are for "lines," but a different abstraction. You're fine with them abstracted at 3km resolution, but not 1km resolution, or 500m resolution?


    In most attacks from Prof to Anhee, you'd also own the town East (if German), or West (if Allied). Draw those circles, and only the SW or SE would be "no go" zones for the attackers (SW if Germans attack from E, SE for Allied from W). For some towns this might be really useful for defense (since any enemy coming to attack you in the rear areas has to actually approach you, instead of teleporting to you). Note of course that there is a similar circle the other direction, so the Venn diagram of the 2 means a football shaped area where both sides can set MSPs.

    sigh...... we all understand what you are suggesting


    just no one but delems thinks its a good idea

  2. 2 minutes ago, tater said:

    Nope, since you have exactly zero data on the alternate suggestions. The only way to see how it works is to try, and iterate.

    This is why gameplay changes should ideally be using tools that are as easy as possible to mess with. Set up MSP rules once, then try them. It's not like campaigns are lasting months. Try, see what works, change it, try again. Perceptions don't matter, data matters.

    You claim that I am advocating a hardcoded point. A point is a single place in space (that's the definition of a point). I just showed you a map with a finite number of placement points every possible place inside that circle where an FMS fits minus terrain like trees, etc. It's not infinite, but it's a very large number of places, certainly not ONE, and certainly not hardcoded.

    So your assertion is demonstrably wrong. Or did you mean to use some other word, other than "point?"

    Perhpas you meant to say, that your idea fixes where people can attack to a single point (the spawnable CP, so we will include areas as big as a CP in "point" which makes sense), and my idea limits attackers from spawning to a very large number of points, but not all points.


    sure....... but who's suggestion would you rather listen to when opinions on changes are suggested

    More experience?


    Less experience?

    1 minute ago, choad said:

    Changing it so msp's can not be set 360 degrees from town is silly IMO. So is limiting the amount of troops allowed to be spawned from one. That kind of idea is made for a version of this game with 6x the playerbase.  

    yes and it annoys me that this isn't just common sense for everyone

  3. 13 minutes ago, delems said:

    *** changing the game mechanics to make your style of play more enjoyable for you

    It isn't just more enjoyable for me ( I can now actually play outside the CP instead of sitting inside it).

    It is more enjoyable for everyone - more joy, more play, more subs.


    Everyone complains about the random ei picking off their ATG, or sapping their tank - behind the 'line' so to speak.

    It is total random, not like a battle that has frontline and flanks.


    Im sorry if I get a bit flabbergasted in my replies to you delems

    I have to constantly remind myself that your style of play is about as far away from the average style of play that is possible...... and that your perceptions and advocations are focused threw the lens of that experience.

  4. 3 minutes ago, tater said:

    This is an assertion made without evidence, so it can be dismissed without evidence. I am not seeing any obvious problem at all.


    Assume the Allies control Profondville (or vice versa) (snapshot of current map, but wanted 2 close towns to show facilities in 1). The attacker from Prof can place an MSP inside that circle (minus whatever the enemy facility limit is now X hundred meters).

    So limiting. Note that nothing prevents driving a truck full of men to anyplace you like, or driving armor anyplace you like, or having ATGs have to take a tow---anyplace they like. This ONLY limits where armies of men can spring forth.

    bro I have spent more time in this game in the last month then u have in the entire existence of the game........

    yes my assertions are opinions

    but, I dear say ,opinions put forward with a wealth of understanding and experience 

    4 people like this

  5. 1 minute ago, delems said:

    Heh, funny, but not quite :)

    I'm often in CPs for 3 reasons:

    1) The enemy always comes there eventually - guaranteed combat - as little as it is.

    2) Few others are in CPs, so I do it.

    3) I've tried guarding from outside, but when I guard N, enemy comes in S, when I guard E, enemy comes in W - only way to guard is to be in CP.

    Now, with on sides MS - I could most likely guard from out CP a lot more - and be more in the game fighting.


    1 for sure.... I wish noobs took to this ideology

    2) YESSSSSSSSSS kind of my main point ...... this is a problem..... most dont do it cuz its boring

    3) yes...... but changing the game mechanics to make your style of play more enjoyable for you....... is a dangerous endeavor to advocate for 

  6. 6 minutes ago, choad said:

    I do like the garrison (hybrid) supply change. It isn't yet perfect ... but makes for better battles. I would tweak the garrison supply lists a bit lower and add a couple more moveable flags to supplement. Give the moveable flags more of the high end toys. Lesaer so in garrisons.

    Yah I agree that the tweeking of spawnlists could have a good impact on gameplay 

    thats a darts-at-the-dart-board sort of thing though

  7. 1 minute ago, delems said:

    Interesting points dfire.

    But, this is exactly why on sides MS would create so much more battle.

    If I'm attacking you, I know you are going to flank, so I will flank first with my left and right flank teams.

    (You don't know I'm attacking yet)

    Then the main assault will move up the middle or to one flank or the other.

    I will also assign air to patrol backline roads, or just drop a para team on the backline road, to interdict :)


    All of a sudden, both sides kinda know where they coming from, each can try and out flank the other.

    Wala, battles, action, engagement.


    Or, I can guess where your HCMS guys walked to - anywhere around the town, completely silent - and set MS to spawn entire army 200m form town - blech.


    I am glad that in your imagination there are 30 or more players on each side playing out your fantasy 

  8. 2 minutes ago, tater said:

    I'd rather the attacker be able to chose what they attack, but be slightly limited in where they come from. I think the 2 systems (small MSP limitations and your time limit system) are not incompatible, either.

    of course, they are not comparable....... they are complete opposites in the outcomes they would produce........ so suggesting they would have similar outcomes is absurd 

  9. 3 minutes ago, dfire said:

    I dont have a problem with most of the current game mechanics so im going to let everyone else keep duking it out over that. Just some outside the box things to consider though with some of the proposed ideas:

    -If you could only make an fms in the general dir your fb is, then the first thing I would do as a defender would be to drive a dfms in from a backline town for extra supply since you know that direction will be clear of efms and likely clear of ei.

    -Makes it 50% easier to find an ems since half of the directions are out of the equation. I would immediately flank a dfms out perpindicular to the dir of the fb and flank it. Or just push it with tanks right away. These would be easy to shut down especially in later tiers when you can only spawn ligjt atgs vs heavy armor


    yes causing a complete failure in game mechanics that would be no fun for anyone

  10. Just now, tater said:

    Better gameplay can't hurt. The only way to get more players is either better play so they try it and stay, or maybe lower price. <shrug>

    The MS rules are basically a way to change one small set of rules, without changing the entire capture mechanics. Your idea up the thread has some real merit---but I think it is likely more work (MSPs already have some rules, after all, so change them a little), and interestingly your idea is an on-sides sort of gameplay. You take spawnables, then move across town away from spawnables... almost like, what to call it... a front.

    I agree with the first part

    yes Time limits would be more work than MS's restrictions.  But it would be work well spent in a gameplay direction that would foster a more fun experience for everyone.  MS's restrictions would not.

    Time limits and MS's restrictions ARE NOT comparable in the OUTCOMES each would produce.

    Time limits would open up the battlespace and offer game mechanics coded chunks of time set aside for killing each other.

    MS's restrictions would limit the battlespace to the point of making battles nonexistence

    OUTCOME is the only thing that matters

    and the OUTCOMES of these 2 different suggestions would be DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT 

  11. lack of player numbers = killing the game....... somehow you pondered this question and came to the conclusion that the lack of MS's restrictions is the cause/MS's restrictions will increase player numbers and fun all around

    if the reductio ad absurdum isn't obviously clear here...... then I don't know what to say

    Its like.... ok you wanna make some gameplay mechanics suggestions that will increase PB numbers?  OK cool........ but at least make suggestions that aren't insane and ridiculous