Zebbeee

Registered Users
  • Content count

    3,978
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Zebbeee

  1. From the 1st step of the brainstorming (link right bellow), from 45 answers we could conclude that: 37.77% (summed up) thinks that HATCH's production department alone can do wonders 24.44% thinks new gameplay can bring some renewed succes 24.44% wants efforts to be focused on a 2.0 feasibility study For step 2, I went into higher details for these 3 paths only. NOTE: it doesn't mean other options should no longer be taken into account (and most of these were fused within the production part). It's just a brainstorming trial here. NOTE2: nothing to be concluded/expected from Results, nor to be expected in 2019. Please take your votes and you're welcome to further comment bellow. Please, share your thoughts about the offered poll options. Please stay constructive regarding opinions you don't agree with, you all have great ideas we need to find a compromise for.
  2. Shields for AA guns! W000t!
  3. Updated initial topic: added Both HCs can place still place an AO for counter-orders: Both HCs can still place an AO for counter-orders: -sabotage AO: you can destroy it (only) when owning both flags of the bridge -save the bridge AO: side can repair it (only) When you don't own both sides (just one flag or none of it)
  4. <brainstorming> Starting point is to give more freedom to the playerbase without requiring HC to be available, but still keeping the opportunity for HC to put a constraining order if it can help a global strategic plan. Bridges are an important element of the environment and sound become real secundary objectives to fight for. Idea: 1. Each side of a bridge would have a capture building (bunker? Checkpoint?) 2. If your side owns both flags (sides of the bridge), you can rebuild it (only). If not, you can destroy it (only). This is valid for both sides, anytime, by default. 3. Both HCs can still place an AO for counter-orders: -sabotage AO: you can destroy it (only) also when owning both flags of the bridge -capture the bridge AO: side can repair it (only) also When you don't own both sides (just one flag or none of it)
  5. From what I read, so far 77% of voters would like to keep a large game world, since 23% said it wouldn't matter if it was limited. That being said, I wouldn't take ANY conclusion from this poll, aside that we all have different opinions and expectations to be taken into account
  6. I actually added - Simulation (statics, dynamics, ammo, ballistic, damages computation) - visual damages And it appears that 83% of voters since then have selected at least one of these. So global results are falsified and the poll should be restarted from the start. Which at some point will be through an official survey that may follow someday.
  7. Truck-only FMS would be nice as a new tactical ZOC component. Using the FB vehicle Spawn model. Something like 1km out of any enemy Facility, set by Truck. From there you can start real regrouping, hotdrops tactics, and planned ZOC progression. I speak as it being something separated from the existing FMS as no inf should Spawn from it. Eventually it could spawn at and AA as well, so that the FMS becomes inf-only and can have its model audited as a real rural fortification
  8. SOON (tm) multiple rats quoted work was progressing very well
  9. Capture points could be bunkers . although I wouldn’t make it spawnable as we already have FMS to do this . It should become a real secondary capture objective .
  10. This poll is not defining priorities for CRS nor is it asking for such detailed design ideas/expectations. The purpose is just to validate a list of answers to these complex questions, and see if it can somehow help CRS and the community better organizing their future discussions or contributions.
  11. I put together a list of requests that made 99% of forums' topics for the past 6 months. Could I please ask you to make the poll and validate if something is missing on the list? The objective is to help leadership getting a clear understanding of what is expected (VS what is technically and financially possible). You are free to share your comments about your wishes. You can also write down your top-5. And please stay constructive regarding opinions you don't agree with. EDIT : step 2 poll here:
  12. Awesome vidéo! good job on campaign !
  13. Please provide your opinion and don't hesitate to develop further bellow!
  14. Well that precisely answers the question, hence I know that *if* the game offers more opportunities to use big guns, whatever units they are mounted on, you will be happy
  15. Extra idea based on @Kilemall‘a concept of Area AO: Allow HC to « activate/deactivate » divisions that are authorized to start EWS-based AOs (thus only over adjacent towns of their brigades) If you deactivate a division, ongoing ews-AO setup from its brigades can continue but no new one can be triggered, so that the activity would slightly move to another division if required so. Whatever the design, it would however keep some kind of flag/HC empowerment
  16. With the perspective of 1.36 focused on spontaneous leadership and with the new UI that will make it easier to find action, what would you think of this modified auto-AO set up rule (brainstorming): Only if the attacker has an active OIC (linked to a town with 1.36): as soon as he continuously kept a heavy INF EWS on an enemy town for 5 minutes, the OIC would be free to activate his own AO. Capture would then be enabled after 5 min (instead of the current 10). Even if the town is still contested, the AO would however be withdrawn if: - no active OIC since 5min - no heavy inf EWS since 5min The "heavy EWS" rule could be audited and adjusted regarding the game population. example: The overpoping side could require 10 inf to trigger heavy ews, while the underpoped side would need 5. The inf EWS radius could also be increased to account for a whole area of operation. Expected consequences: Hence you FINALLY allow a squad or an organized group to take initiative but still avoid precamp or ninja contest. The OIC can decide to not activate the AO if the purpose of the squad/group is not capturing the town (but some uncertainty regarding intentions is the key). More liberty to set up a plan is IMHO a feature that might help squads gain momentum, based on "area deployment" like pre-2004. It would introduced a step-by-step battle activity which better fit each of our profiles (organized teams at the start, lonewolves when the battle rages). Shorter (more Dynamic) game sessions would also offer a better game experience for those who can't stay logged for 2 hours. Paras could also receive a more important role during battle setup or reinforcement (when fb is blown for example). I wouldnt limit the amount of AOs as there could still be a naturel limit based on actual ingame population. An AO would also mean that there are many players set up in the area (which is currently not Always the case as some AOs run empty). This would of course need the HC to accept to no longer be able to limit capture objectives and trust/engage the real field-leaders. What other positive or negative consequences would you see there?
  17. I really wished we had more poll options like a top-3 or so. Even survey monkey hasn’t that option.
  18. I want to be able to give a « community love weight » to these parameters , as to make a ranking of all weapons accordingly, so that it can help with some priority decisions. I re-formulate the question to make this list universally relevant and added the option «it always depends on the mission type »
  19. That would be very interesting for sure. I think only Xoom could write that down at a later stage though. At this stage the idea is just to start from community requests, trying to keep it as general as possible, and guess what part of the game would benefit from more detailed discussions or analysis before roadmap gets written in stone.
  20. Any weapon, considering that choosing armor is probably because you like higher fire power for example. Plane because of movement speed. Ships because of caliber and fire distance. No? Added! Thanks You are perfectly right. But if you could decide between different mission types with any supply?
  21. sorry I misread your post!
  22. Why another .command that no one use or understand, and that is unreadable in the chat window? A formal tab in the UI showing up active squads and some info would be better
  23. If LMG were able to shoulder fire IRL, I would be okay with these suggestions
  24. About muzzle climb,What if we removed customized mouse sensistivity while firing, tempirarily using a default one? So that the effect is the same for everyone.