chaoswzkd

Registered Users
  • Content count

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 FNG

About chaoswzkd

  • Rank
    Free Play Account
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Axis
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit
    Anti Air Gun
  1. But that would ruin the amazing Kentucky Windage & Elevation skillz good AA gunners have going on!!1!
  2. @sixpence Don't forget that cap timers are also scaled down the more players are simultaneously capping a facility. This is naturally far more of a buff to overpop than underpop, because overpop can afford to fill up a cp with more bodies. So the changes to lengthen the timers for overpop is compensated by the fact that overpop can have more people simultaneously capping.
  3. Would be nice to see the Hull Break mechanic from WT be incorporated for such light vehicles in WWIIOL. The only way such a light vehicle would survive a heavy caliber round is if it penetrates so cleanly that none of the excess energy goes to the penetrated components. There's no way for that to happen with HE, so hitting with HE of sufficient caliber should absolutely wreck the internals, even if you hit the bed. Twist the frame, lock up gears, displace belts, cause bearings and seals to fail, etc., and that's before you even see if the vehicle flips over from the force.
  4. It matters in how easily sappers can keep up with tanks on the move. Yes, they need to stop to actually place a charge on them, but getting into that position should be easier more often than against the Tiger. I am aware of the 88's strengths and shortcomings, though I admit I can't recall ever using one against a Matilda or Char; I typically don't spawn 88s at all unless on defense where EI aren't in town, or if we've run out of AAA. Again, the point isn't whether or not the 88 excels at taking them out; it can, and we have the statistical records to prove it. Although there are apparently some lower-caliber Allied guns that can de-gun a Tiger, so they technically do have ranged options even without an early M10; "desperately shoot at its gun before you die!" isn't a great argument in favor of game balance though. As for "play axis when underpop tier 0", I have, plenty of times. Your comment seems to suggest you think I'm an Allied player, but I don't play Allied at all. I got recruited into Windhund when I fired up the game while at university, and I never left the Axis-only squad. Took a break for some years because I got burnt out on some of the F2P decisions CRS made back then, though.
  5. Problem with that idea is a vet makes f2p, spawns a tiger or S76 at a fight, dies, respawns until they run out, log off, log on w/ new F2P account, spawn tiger or s76, rinse, wash, repeat. Unless you mean a common F2P supply pool that all F2P draws from, like the reserve SMGs, which has its own problems (giant pain in the gastrointestinal tract to program and have it not be displayed horribly if we apply it to all supply in the game; at least, that's my impression.
  6. Apparently you didn't read what I actually said. I said that the Char and Matilda were more vulnerable to sappers than the Tiger, and I also said that Axis would at least have a long-range option against Chars and Matildas, which the Allies wouldn't have against the Tiger unless an early M10 was involved. The statistics you laid out only prove my point that Chars and Matildas are vulnerable to sappers (though not a comparison with Tigers vs. sappers) and that the 88mm is in fact a long-range option against Matildas and Chars. Nowhere in any of that did I say that the 88 was more effective than sappers against Chars and Matildas. Thank you.
  7. The problem is we cannot currently go for that route in historical balance. If we did, then we need most of France's flags on the Maginot Line, add in Holland and Belgium forces with a handful of insignificant flags, and then split Germany's flags between Maginot, Belgium, and Holland. That is not something we can do for quite a while, because it involves expanding the map SIGNIFICANTLY (see: tons and tons of work) and basically setting up the Allies for failure at the beginning. It also goes contrary to the direction CRS is trying to take with the game which is preventing softcaps. We can't contextually balance the exact scenarios in history as a game, because one side obviously lost and one obviously won, and it wasn't even a contest. No one's going to want to play Allied in a game that repeats the same 46 days over and over where all of their units are out of position, and when they aren't out of position, they're surrounded and have no information about what's going on because the chain of command has gone to hell. So the historical realism has gone for rough timelines for equipment introduction in the form of tiers, and balance has been with equipment available. Axis's complaint is that the Tiger and the Sherman 76 are out of place, and I think that's a very fair complaint because CRS tries pretty hard to otherwise abide by the tier timelines. However, it also means that we need to find some solution for having OP as [censored] Tigers for Axis with no counterpoint, because, unlike the Matilda and Char, it's more difficult to sap (mobility) and Allies don't have a long-ranged counter to it at the tier it'd be introduced in (unless M10s count, but the M10s came a bit later and it took months to sort out various, significant issues; Axis has 88mm FlaK to counter Matilda, Char). So the ideal solution is introucing things at the right times while also balancing them for fun. That's the really difficult bit.
  8. The problem with this is that giving them access to higher-rank items means that players with little experience get access to very limited supply, spawning some of the best stuff for themselves without knowing how to effectively apply it and robbing it from vets who can effectively apply it. Giving Premium Trial players their own supply has its own consequences, including people who want to game the system by creating new accounts just to have more toys at a battle. Players, including F2P, have full access for Intermission, Training, and Offline, because that doesn't have any large negative expense to anyone. Lengthening the Premium Trial is definitely a possible thing to discuss, but I don't think granting access to limited, high-value supply to brand new players is a good idea at all.
  9. Well, you should be suggesting things to fix that rather than tripling down on the squad flags. This is something that would need a cost-benefit analysis to the playerbase as a whole, because I'm not sure how many squads actually get that complicated. I'm a member of Windhund, and we are split up into 60th (infantry) and JABO (air). So, only two "groups". The leaders of those groups are the ones with the second-highest rank, and so very easily identifiable in-game on the squad tab. The current system is a non-issue for us. However, I know there are more active and more populous squads. If they also face similar challenges as you do and are wanting to have more organization in their squad setup, then that means that it's more beneficial for CRS to prioritize that. On the other hand, if most squads are perfectly fine with the current system, then there's not much benefit for prioritizing those changes for CRS. It might be worth it for you to start a new thread (as this has deviated away from squad flags) either here or in Game Suggestions asking other squads if they are also sorely needing the squad system to be fleshed out more.
  10. DB7/Havoc durability is a question of HE effectiveness (receiving an audit) vs its damage model. Let's see what happens with the HE changes and then check into the damage model if necessary.
  11. I don't really get where this is coming from. You look at any other game, with few exceptions, and all clans/squads/clubs get is a chat room of their own (squad channel), a membership list to see all the other members, and a tag on their username. Some games offer hotjoins and such. Rarely there'll be group vs. group mechanics (which isn't realistic in this game). The whole point is to build a community, not to get super special unique doodads X, Y, and Z. That doesn't mean we can't be different and make squads in WWIIOL something special, but we also have to avoid giving them so much they break things. Giving them unique gameplay mechanics that put every player not in a squad, or one side with less squads than the other, at a disadvantage is a bad idea, so special supply and PPOs and such are right out unless they have 0 gameplay effects. Not sure what you mean by "structure of squad, ranks, and sub units". The game definitely has that (other than sub units). I'm guessing you want more than Recruit -> Member -> Recruiter -> CO -> XO?
  12. ...??????? So squads only get it if the CO is online, and only at the town that the CO is spawned into? A platoon would be ~15-30 units of supply, yes? Handing out 20 x [15-30] supply to one side and 5 x [15-30] supply to the other is still a horrible idea and very easy to game. Encourages many small squads. That balances the numbers, but that's some crazy pay-to-win stuff right there. Even if it's an insignificant advantage, it's still an advantage, and you can buy it. Really not a good direction for this game. Also, since it would be first-come-first-served, you could have some squads monopolize it over others. This would be especially bad if the squads that do have the flags don't utilize them well, are on at non-peak timezones, etc. I'm just going to have to completely disagree here. Supply advantage is supply advantage, no matter how insignficant. If the Allies arbitrarily got 1 more rifle than Axis, you had better bet every Axis player would complain, and vice versa. Even if it's extremely unlikely that single rifle would decide the fate of a battle, there's a theoretical situation where it might, and that's all that matters. You're talking about a lot more than 1, and 15-30 supply, especially if you can stack that with multiple squad flags, can absolutely decide a battle. It would likely be best if you just disassociate any supply advantages from this idea; it complicates too many things, between trying to balance, satisfying the customers, etc. It may be better to think of other advantages that could be given to a roaming presence that might be worth monetary investment or sufficiently large squads helping to keep the game alive. Perhaps all units spawned in a town with a squad flag has that squad's insignia somewhere on it? Insignia is bigger or different or something if the player is an actual member of that squad? Maybe that's a better direction to pursue. Or if you absolutely must have it have supply, maybe each squad gets a flag, but it has no natural supply and doesn't resupply. Instead, HC could be given command tools to be able to give up to a platoon's amount of supply to it taken from the town it's in, or for a squad CO/XO to send a request for HC to approve to do that, or something. Would avoid side supply imbalances, avoids too much favoritism by HC for one squad over another by not having it be too much supply, encourages squads with healthy membership to be able to actually use the supply given to them, etc.
  13. @gters Excellent suggestion.
  14. One thing that I really don't understand is the disconnect between mediums of media and their cost. Movie tickets cost $10 - $15 USD for 1.5 - 2 hrs of entertainment. Let's be generous and say it's $10 for 2 hrs. So right now WWII OL is selling starter accounts that say that you will get at least about 1.5 hrs of entertainment in a month, and about 2.5 to 3 hours of entertainment a month if you go to full premium. I'm pretty sure people are playing the game WAY more than that. They're getting their money's entertainment worth. I realize that I'm not including a cost/benefit analysis vs. other games, but that's the point: games actually worth playing are very de-valued for what you actually get out of them.
  15. War Thunder has a similar business model to World of X games. Their business model is a pretty decently executed combination of Anti-Grind and Premium Content. War Thunder and World of X games rely on two types of regular currency and two types of premium currency. The regular currencies are Research and Money (Silver Eagles for WT), and the Premium currencies are Free Research and Gold (Golden Eagles for WT). As the player progresses their account, they will find it harder and harder and harder to progress because the next thing costs exponentially more currency to unlock. What once took a handful of games now takes dozens if not hundreds to get further. This is "The Grind", and it frustrates the player. To ease their frustration, WT and World of X games offer "Premium Time" to purchase, which gives substantial boosts to those in-game currencies. They also offer one-time purchases of individual vehicles that have those substantial boosts whenever the player plays with them, even if they don't have Premium Time active. Sometimes these are well-balanced and aren't pay-to-win. Sometimes they aren't well-balanced, and it's easy to find some recent-ish community meltdowns for World of Tanks over Pay-to-Win premium vehicles, and there has been some controversy with WT in the past. Furthermore, World of Tanks offers premium ammunition and other premium consumables that provide extreme advantages over opponents. To War Thunder's credit, they do not offer premium ammunition. Instead, they offer premium cosmetics. The premium currency can also be used to convert bonus research points you've earned but can't use into points you can use. Their business model is very clear: "Entice the player with quick progression at the beginning. Frustrate the player by hitting them with a virtual wall so that they will hand us money to make it less frustrating. To make sure they keep handing us money, make it temporary." Even if it is well-executed, popular, and profitable, it is still predatory in nature. It encourages an emotion in players and then exploits that.