Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


nc0gnet0 last won the day on April 4

nc0gnet0 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

53 Vet

About nc0gnet0

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  1. Get rid of stats available to the player base altogether, suddenly people don't care (nor should they) about stats. Would improve game play by eliminating those only playing for themselves and help encourage team play, and (gasp) winning a map.
  2. forgive my ignorance but at times i can not keep up with all the abbreviation and slang. What is a Statmor? (no disrespect intended).
  3. Double the numbers of AOs available per population Great, so allies can lost towns twice as fast in TZ3, careful what you ask for.
  4. But how noise travels is greatly affected by solid objects such as trees, etc, not to mention if your behind a mountain. I don't think this is factored into the game at all.
  5. What is a PPOFB? And if both can set, then would we see PPOFB to PPOFB battles? Can tanks spawn in at a PPOFB? if not this is the worse idea I have ever heard, but if they can, I am listening........
  6. You left out communication and situational awareness.
  7. I am going to respectfully disagree, but that all comes down to just how Underpop and low pop you are. It doesn't take a rocket scientist on the Axis side to figure out they have the advantage in numbers (cap timers do that for them). So if Axis is trying to defend a town with 7 people and Axis are attacking with 14, losing two people on the allied side to go setup a fms, etc etc, wait to cap, etc, is all just wasted time while the DO town gets overwhelmed. They could get the same interaction (the players that wanted an AO, and at least serve some purpose, if they instead attacked an EFB that was supplying the town that was under attack. I am not going to claim it never works as you suggest, but I will claim it is much more often a liability than it is an asset.
  8. Fighting on only the allied side, and almost always in TZ3 (possible exception on some weekends), your dealing with philosophical differences of what the priority should be. When underpop and low pop, any AO is a joke, and has no business even existing IMHO. It's not an unwillingness to do the work for an AO, rather a belief that is not were one's focus should be at that particular time. In such situations the best thing one can do if not wanting to play defense is to work on FB management. But yet we are forced to have at least one AO.
  9. I think the vast majority of these players are the new players to the game, and a couple of stat mongers. The trouble is, communicating with the new player base is almost impossible in game, they don't respond.
  10. That's fine, but I am not sure you should cater to that crowd, as your far more likely (IMHO) to stay with the game long term if your vested in winning campaigns. short term thrill seekers are much more likely to eventually bore with the game and move on to other more recent FPS titles.
  11. Not sure I followed your post completely and one thing you said seems to contradict another. a 150 (?) vs 120 over pop can be managed (your time zone 2 example) it's the 15 vs 8 (or less) than become problematic ( time zone 3 example) Simply put, the lower the total population numbers, the more significant the advantage the overpop side has. Having two AO's in TZ3 would be a disaster. Soft capping in tz3 should be disallowed entirely, and when total population for a side hits a critical number (pick one) there should be only one battle being fought, period.
  12. The biggest issues the game faces are population issues, all the rest is just minor in comparison really. As such CRS's main focus should be on that first, second, and third. It's time to stop catering to the cry babies that want this or that fixed, wah wah wah, this side has more of this, that side has more of that. Maybe CRS focus's so heavily on the other stuff is because, for now, that is all they have the capability to fix? I dunno...... About a week or so ago, playing on an underpop allied side in TZ3, I watched as the axis proceeded to soft cap a town. The few allied players had no option to defend the town (no HC was on). I was shocked on a couple different fronts on this. While not a popular idea/suggestion I am sure, maybe to improve game play CRS needs to look long and hard at the way AO's are implemented. Less AO's = more action at a predefined place. Maybe when one side is severely underpop (>25%) they should not be allowed to have any AO, and the other side only have one, so the whole player base is focused at one location? And maybe the AO has an expiration time, if the town is not captured in "x" amount of minutes, then the AO expires and a new one must be chosen.
  13. Bah, nothing should be changed, that is just the nature of war, defending should be easier than attacking. the kicker is, you can't win by defense alone. Setting up an attack in the manner is which the OP illustrated, in which one-two guys setup and hope to capture a spawnable before detection, then rely on teammates to drop everything at precisely the moment that spawnable is captured, is just [censored]-poor strategy.
  14. Agree that intermissions have become pointless and boring. need to do something different. On a side note we got a 30 second warning that server was coming down and wham! What's up with that?
  15. Would the integration require headsets? This is a huge turn-off for me and why I don't use discord. In game voice comms broadcast through the PC speakers and a standing mic would be a nice option.