Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Quincannon

  1. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. It messes me up any time I try to make a different mission. If I get in a hurry I wind up spawning in and then having to spawn out and when that happens I have to create a new mission. If I die...It cancels my mission and I have to create a new mission... every... damn... time.
  2. First and foremost: If I misunderstood your statement, I apologize. Your focus on localized imbalance suggests the concept that the game should care only about that point; especially when you say that such imbalance is the only imbalance that matters. This is where we must have a disconnect, and misunderstanding. You have stated something to the effect previously that the minimum effective defense force is 1 player per CP and bunker. Well...this not exactly true. it somehow assumes that 1 defender in a CP is able to defend it against 2 or more attackers. If the attacker works in groups of 2 or more... the defender had better have ungodly skills, or they will own that CP... now things change instantly. It's still 2-1, but now the attackers own 1 CP. the 'extra defender' now has to try to retake that CP by himself (unlikely) or try to help another defender. Each time this happens; assuming the attacker leaves 1 CP guard... the attackers can devote more to each group attacking each CP. They can easily camp the spawns, roads and AB to prevent the defenders from being able to do anything. Any defensive force to be effective has to have CPs guarded AND have people outside those buildings. Or an attacker can simply cut them down and win. This would be with a local imbalance... at least 2-1. And on sides MSPs would not be a factor unless the defenders could have a chance to destroy them. I have been in a battle... defending a town with 4-5 people (All we have online). But then, at the same time, the OP side was busting FB after FB. (A major factor in moving maps) Simultaneously, I noted that there was EWS in the next town, where someone was already setting up the enemy's next attack. In one TZ3 period, I have seen the Axis hold us pinned defending on the ground, have extra people flying and bombing us from the air, take town after town, regardless of supply, and STILL take every single FB on the map. This was more than localized population imbalance, and it mattered. But I'm going to step away from that. The fact is that this game needs to have players dedicated to both sides. It has to gain new players on both sides, and it has to have vets to teach them how to play the game. Right now, that only really applies to one side. The number of dedicated Allied players is growing smaller, and we're not getting many new ones, if any. I can't speak for the Axis, but I doubt that they have this issue. Heck, I see vets who play Allied...we get hammered for a few hours, and a few minutes later those same vets are killing us as Axis. Why? So they can win. They know that they are adding to the imbalance, but they reach a point where they don't care. Something has to be done to level the playing field long enough so that we can get some new blood who feel like they can have fun playing Allied. Because if we don't, then sooner or later, we're going to run out of dedicated Allied players. Maybe my idea is not the best one ever...but I am trying to help make the game population find a way to stabilize as a whole. That means more dedicated Allied players and squads, so that the Allies can have fun, and so that the Axis have opponents to actually fight. I don;t necessarily care WHO comes up with a suggestion that works... I'd support almost any viable solution. As far as your statement about game play? I DO love this game. I think it's the best overall experience that I've ever had in a game. So what if it doesn't have all of the new bells and whistles? WWII Online has it's own feel... it's own style. I'm not against some changes, as long as they enhance the game that exists. I don't want to see it become a new game. The one that we have is fantastic. It's outlasted most other online games for a reason, even when it couldn't grow or improve at all. That says something. And as far as staring at a wall? I'd be all for looking into small scale area capture if we could find some relative pop equality. I think it would be fun to guard Capture Points that are both inside like we have now, or a combination of inside and outside in a small area, where a defender has to be hunted down and can keep moving within that area before the attacker can begin to cap it. I respect some of your ideas, Tater. I really do. But I can't agree that local imbalance is all that matters, neighbor. I just can't. Have a great day.
  3. Simply put. This will never be another BF 1942. It will not be Forgotten Hope...It will not be CoD, You can use terms like Location solution, but what you are really saying that is that WWII Online needs to become just like those and that we need to start playing the same kind of small map deathmatch mode that they all do. Why do you keep arguing for our game to become just another twitch clone? If THAT was what the rest of us wanted... Why the Hell would we here in the first place? I played all the other multiplayer WWII shooters out there for years before I came here. Seven years later, and I haven't played any of the games I played semi-religiously before I came to WWIIOL since. Maybe... Just maybe many of the rest of us want something different... Now, honestly, I would agree with about POP... but if we are having battles of 3 to 1 and worse... than there are obviously players on one side who COULD be playing on a second server... maybe fighting each other... instead of playing the whack a mole game. The sad thing is that your posts say that you don't think that it's a bad thing, that one side constantly gets clobbered IF the game works the way that you want it to. And your posts keep saying that we have to do things your way. No room for other suggestions...no room to even consider another solution. Fact... any fight where it's 30 versus 5 is so far out of whack that any of the five who doesn't log out is just asking for it. Fact... Say you get your deathmatch... Why in the Hell would any Allied players agree to it? It makes OUR situation just as bad or worse; AND it allows only one kind of gameplay; which also loses us a good n umber of players who don't want what you want... The Allied side is severely underpopulated. It needs new dedicated Allied players. THAT is a fact. Not side swappers... but new ALLIED players who aren't planning on playing Axis. But the current situation is about ten times harder on new Allieds than the game itself, which already has a steep learning curve. New Allied players keep having the same experience that the three guys did last night... and many never get to have any fun playing Allied. So they quit or try Axis and join the zerg, usually for good. Add to that most Allied vets are gone. Who is left to train new guys? Your suggestions might be great IF we were willing to throw our game into the crapper and start over as a deathmatch clone, This thread, however, is dedicated to finding a solution that lets us keep our game and help fix the pop; which is what we want to do.
  4. OK... This was inspired by something I saw in Breskens yesterday morning during TZ3. Allies had 5 players on at the time, Based on active missions, comms and observation. The Axis was camping and capping the bunker about 10 minutes after they declared the AO, and I was done feeding their stats. Then I noticed that we had three new Allied players (Riflemen) running together in a circle hiding from the Axis. They had some good ideas trying to stay together, and were using local chat. Something vets know better than to do, but it let them communicate. I heard their conversation, and it caught my attention. It went something like this: R1: WTH, We're getting killed out here! What are we supposed to do? R2: WTF man? The Germans are everywhere? Where are the Allied players? R3: The Germans are SO OP. We're getting our a$$e$ kicked. I wanted to play Allied but this is F*****d up! R1: I didn't sign on for this. We don't have a chance. The other two agreed. I thought about talking to them but then I got shot. When I looked at the mission screen they were gone. When I thought about it later, I could only imagine that they either quit or decided that the only chance they have at winning is to go German. It sucked, because these were NEW players who had the bad luck to play TZ3 at the start. I can imagine it's pretty common, and would not be surprised if Axis gets a bunch of new players from this situation... which of course, makes the population imbalance worse with the loss of every dedicated Allied player. But listening to them, I realized that in the middle of it all... they might have had more fun if they had a squad and were trained. They had good instincts, but no idea of what to do or how. But realistically speaking, it's currently IMPOSSIBLE to train new Allied players in TZ3. The fact is that we almost always run with less than 10 players,we have no dedicated TZ3 squads, and if we took 1-2 vets to train new players... that would reduce our PB more, and, in addition, there is no way to train them against a live opponent, because all they can do is get creamed. I then started thinking about the training server... and thought about how it would be easier to train them there, except for the fact that there aren't any live opponents there... but what if there were? I also thought about the comments by many players that they care more about battles than the campaigns. And this got me thinking... We have two servers. So... after all that... Here's my rough suggestion. It's in multiple parts. Part 1. We make one section of the map on the training server a training town. Trainers can go there. We could have training for both sides and even combat events to practice. New players can come here to learn how to play, in addition to the basic lessons in the intro. Part 2. CRS implements the idea of Campaign side choice ON THE CAMPAIGN SERVER. When a player goes to log in the first time on the Campaign server, they are offered a choice of Axis or Allied or neutral for that campaign. Members of a Squad can simply choose the side their Squad is on. Neutral players can freely swap sides during the Campaign Part 3. CRS implements a priority logon for the Campaign server during a Campaign AHC/GHC, then Builders, Heroes, players who have chosen a side and neutral players Part 4. When the Campaign is ongoing, the system monitors the population. If the population gets beyond 2-1 (suggested number), the server locks additional logins for the OP side to maintain this pop ratio. AHC and GHC are exempt. Second accounts may not log in to the Campaign server while a lock is in progress, so as to allow as many individual players to participate in the Campaign as possible. No Spawn delays. No special timers. Campaign pop remains relatively fair. AHC and GHC members and Free Trial members are exempt from the pop lock. Part 5. CRS makes the Training Server a Freeform Server. Intermission supply. Anyone can log in at any time, and if they don't want to play the campaign, they just join into the local battle scenario. System sets AOs and DO, and players play in those areas. There is no pop cap...but if players want someone to fight, they will have to set up sides. Either some will play Allied, or the Germans will have no one to fight. A totally Freeform server. CRS or players can organize events and contests or whatever as well. Utilizing this concept would create an environment where everyone can log in and play, but the Campaigns become free of the pop issues that we have suffered fwhat seems like forever. If a player is part of the OP side, and it is locked on the Campaign server, they can simply log onto the Freeform server, and play intermission style. If a Neutral player is locked from one side, they can log on to the underpopped side and play the Campaign. This is just a rough suggestion of the concept... but it might work...
  5. While I agree that there is a lot pf repetition, that's what a war is. Troops move, they fight the enemy. The Generals try to out think one another, and move things around. Rinse and repeat. Honestly, this is one of the only games that actually tries to do that on all of those levels, and maintains player accountability (Unlike H&G). The battles do change,as each one is fought by different people, with varying levels of strategic and tactical skill. And here, unlike BF or FH, the battle outcome has an import. Maybe YOU don't think so, but a lot of us do. Which leads to my most important point: Your posts take into account what YOU think. Maybe what others who share your opinion think. But, with all due respect, you are wrong! The biggest myth that came out of your post is "100% of the play that matters is twitch." Sorry neighbor, but that is YOUR opinion. It is not shared by me or others like me. I suck at direct combat. I'm 53 and had carpal tunnel for the past 20 years. (Not sure if the surgery will help my skill yet or not). I'm not necessarily the guy you want inside guarding a CP. But in a night, I'm the guy running FMSs and then handing them off to better combat guys so I can drive another one. I'm the engnineer who actually spends time building defensive PPOs around the FMSs. I'm the mortarman shelling the CPs to keep the enemy jumping. I'm the NCO who runs out to the ATGs and AAA to place ammo boxes. I'm the engineer who repairs AI during an attack while under fire and builds defensive FMSs inside the ABs at the bunker when I can. I'm the HC setting the AOs and DOs and trying to rally the folks. I blow bridges to stop enemy armor and rebuild them for ours. In short, I'm every support player who spends hours and hours doing the support stuff that you stated doesn't matter. Sorry neighbor. That statement is an slap in the face to every player who busts their A$$ to make sure that the fighters get to the battlefield, and have the support they need while they are there. Sure a lot of it's sneaky play. I have crawled through more bushes than I can count for hours to set up a FRU back in the day, and an HC MSP in the current campaign. I don't want to turn this into a bad feelings flame. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm just stating the facts as a LOT of people who play this game see it. Kill/ cap stats are great. I give out a lot of awards to those who earn them. I also give out a lot of awards for those actions that support those killers and cappers. Yep, they are very important. But so are we. Have a wonderful day, neighbor.
  6. First, I'm going to say that most of your suggestions seem to be optimized for large scale forces regularly playing on both sides. I think that we both know that's not likely to happen. If ideas that favored large scale play were introduced, then the pop issues would be even worse. For the game to survive, pure numbers advantages MUST be mitigated. This game cannot devolve into another BF clone. I really want to keep discussing this... with you... but we see the very concept of a game entirely differently. From what you are saying, you apparently see this as a game where, if you aren't a combat player whose skill set allows you to get into the thick of it on the front line, then you should GTFO. You just seem to want straight up combat, and the rest is inconsequential at best. Consequently, this makes play styles that differ, and the players who use them, inconsequential as well. I am not saying this to insult you. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have met folks in the game before who feel that way, and what you are saying echoes the things that they have said in the past. Fortunately, one of the wonderful things about this game... the only game I would have left BF1942 and Forgotten Hope for, is that support play and other non direct combat play is available. You can find any number of games that offer JUST what you're arguing for; but precious few that offer what THIS game does. That's one of the things that makes this game unique and in my opinion SUPERIOR to all of the others. It's easy to make a game where you have small matches and the point is to get the most caps or kills. It's NOT easy to make a game where everybody gets to play. This is a game where the less twitch capable players can still have fun. It's a game where someone like me can field 63 sorties with zero caps or kills, and STILL contribute to his side. I can't agree with you on the way things should be. I actually LOVE most of this game as it was designed. I would see some changes, but none that would remove gameplay from anyone. But it's also the kind of game where we can all respect each other. So you play your way, and I'll play mine. Just please don't try to take MY game away because you don't want to play that way.
  7. No one knows more about not having enough people than me. I play Allied TZ3. I understand the issue with guarding, but I will be darned if I can see how the FB is any less important than any other CP (as it were) in an attack. But it doesn't HAVE to be guarded all the time. I know... because every time I start an FB bust whether it's near an attack otr not, it starts out unguarder, and I get a lot of bombs on, and then one johnny on the spot who typed in .own and sees my 30 minutes of work pops in with am SMG and wipes the floor with me. They didn't GUARD the FB... They weren't BORED at the FB... they typed in a code to check the status. For me THAT sucks.... I don't find that realistic in the slightest. But as it is no one has to guard the FB all the time. Even planes can only damage the vehicle tents. Well, both sides had special missions to take out specific enemy installations. Call em Commando raids... Call em sabotage... call it what you will... but IRL. I will never forget the impact that one solitary US Marine had in helping the French underground and frustrating the heck out of the Germans all by himself. If the FB represents the forward fire base for a brigade, then it is possible for a small force to destroy that base if it's not guarded well. Since everything in our game is representative... we have to look at each player as essentially representing a squad of soldiers, flight of planes, squadron of ships anyway. And let's be honest... since they made the FBs as hard to destroy as a bridge, the number of them destroyed by defenders is very small. It happens... but it's uncommon. And it allows great FB players like Bloodybill to play the game their way, while players like me try to emulate them and die in droves. I don't like the 360 nature of MOST attacks either. I agree that, realistically speaking, most conflicts worked from one direction. Then again, General Anthony Clement "Nuts" McAuliffe was well acquainted with a 360 degree defense when he defended Bastogne. It happens. I wish that there was a much more fluid CP design stretching out from towns... take the farmhouse.... then take the gas station at the edge of town... then an in town CP... and so on until the AB gets taken. It would allow for more of an advance. as it is we have 360 fighting AND the godforsaken warping and link spawn depots. Actually I don't have an issue with FBs having to watch the perimeter. It's a camp. If it gets attacked, half the time it won't be by a force of tanks and trucks full of soldiers. Then it will be by covert operations. (A tried and true military tactic). And there were a LOT of good commanders who had their guards taken out and their installations destroyed by good covert units. As far as sneaky play... Maybe you don't like it. But there HAS to be room for more than battlefield charges. The war encompassed a LOT more than fighting in the field. And this is a game. You may want fronts of massed soldiers. And maybe a few large squads will do that. The rest of us have to conduct guerilla warfare just to survive. Consider that every FMS has to be somewhat sneaky on an attack, or the enemy will kill it. ATGs and AA in the field have to be sneaky and use terrain to hide. Every unit has its sneaky aspect. The truth is that it just sucks being the one who got outsneaked. Everyone has a different play style. I suck at CQB AND fighting out in the field... so I play sneaky ... but so does Boudreau when he picks me off from 500 yards with that sniper cannon of his.
  8. Indestructable FBs are a bad idea, IMO. I can never understand how folks have no problem with the idea that CPs that they capture should be guarded, but are against the idea that their forward base should be guarded as well. In real life, attacking an enemy town would have vital targets that the attacker would need to deal with. Communications center. Munitions depot. Motor Pool. Fuel depot. Docks. Airfield.Now in our game, The AB serves as the Motor Pool and Munitions depot. (Armor can't be spawned and most supply is unavailable), and the airfield and Docks can be captured. But what vital targets do the defenders have that they can attack to stop the attack? FMSs and FBs. There's very little option for interdiction from an FB, and none TO it. Allowing the FB to be a target allows defenders one major vital target. And it's not easy to kill. It is easily monitored. Trying to kill one while an AO is in progress is hard to do... but it should be an option.
  9. I apologise for the misunderstanding. And I agree... Fairmiles aren't designed or capable of being a lot of use for protecting DDs. I don't know why, but I was under the impression that the midships AA gun on the FMB was a 40mm. I completely agree with upping at least the midships gun to meet the historical one.
  10. I don't know how often you play Navy ; but I completely disagree with your assessment of the most "game-useful" version of the FMB as having no 3 pounder. True, the model in the game seems to be armed as they were at the Normandy invasion, but I fele that it's MUCH more useful. The cannon is the only thing on board that can even put a dent into a tank on the shore when they ambush you. Heck, it's the only thing on board that seems capable of sinking a DD, assuming you can get close enough that is. Now, It may be that as far as you're concerned, the only in game use for the FMS is to run circles in the harbor when a town is being attacked, and fight each other or act as a floating AA gun. I can see it. In this game there is no reason to patrol the coasts and watch for subs. But as someone who likes playing Navy, yet, even after a few years, has had little real chance to hone my DD skills, I like the FMBs. It allows Navy play during campaigns well after some history only folks want to see them out of play. And I am all for that. Like it or not, we all know that history has to give way for gameplay, at least to an extent. The Fairmile has to somehow remain relevant, and I think that CRS has done a great job, all things considered. As far as destroyers, I think that you know there is no way that we will ever see many DDs "Realistically operated". Most will almost always be solo manned. This means, just like the tanks...when firing the guns, no one is at the wheel. Now maybe someday CRS will come up with a great naval war scenario that they can implement, and will really allow Navy players to enjoy the war at sea every day. Until then, it makes sense that they allow us the ability to play throughout the campaigns in the limited fashion that is left. Maybe no new models will ever come, and maybe Navy will remain as it is...but until them I wish people would stop arguing to get rid of what we DO have.
  11. They did speed it up (Not that I wouldn't like to see it go even faster. And removing the main cannon would remove its ability to try to deal with armor or actually sink a DD at all. The Fairmiles have little reason to try to escort a DD, JUST to provide AA...It would make more sense to multicrew the DDs. All that said, if they actually replaced the cannon with one 20 MM, added torpedoes and increased the speed, I could get behind that; as it would make them much more useful on the ocean against DDs. But I think that instead of replacing the current model, it would make more sense to introduce the "improved model" PT boat/Eboat.
  12. So numbers have zero to do with it? You need people to have tactics.
  13. First. Link spawns are one of the most unrealistic parts of the game. Period. Star Trek spawning inside a town you don't even own is crazy. To me it's one of the only things I actually hate about the game. But I was looking at a reason for the city to be useful. And I have no idea why you feel that losing depots stops an attack in its tracks. Attackers have to have FMSs up to attack in the first place. They don't lose those FMSs if they lose the Spawns now, so why would they lose them based on what I suggested? The best way to have that handled would be for attackers to have to move in and be able to establish mobile spawns to spawn inside a town, the way they do in the large cities. And recently, entire Campaigns have been ending before we ever hit Tier 4, so I personally would like to see them last longer. I'm actually tired of seeing a town fall in a half hour or less and the next town have full EWS a mere 15 minutes after that. People keep talking about how boring it is for defenders to guard a CP... Well honestly, guarding CPs should be even more crucial to attackers. My thought here is just what I suggested. An attacker should have to take and hold a CP... then get the City CP, and then they can spawn. The defenders should have central points to defend. My idea creates that...
  14. While I a opposed to Delems' suggestion (especially indestructable FBs), he like many have a point. The City SHOULD have a purpose. It should also not just be another standard CP building. I would suggest the tall 3 story city building or a new 2 story one. Honestly, I would personally like to see the tall building as the City CP in cities and bigger towns, and see the current bunker building repurposed as the city CP for smaller towns. The we could start using the redesigned bunkers in all the ABs. Make them indestructible and give them radios like bunkers. I would suggest making it so that the City must be held by an attacker or defender before Link spawns can activate. That would turn the capture of a town into three stages: 1. Cap the Outer CPs 2. Cap the City and hold it 3. Cap the Bunker Now I know it would involve more, but it's a simple plan, and it turns an open fight into a more staged one... even if a small force can't hold all the perimeter CPs, they can focus on the city, and then fall back to the Bunker. Guarding becomes more focused. If you don't own the bunker, you need to own the city if you want to use linked depot supply. This makes sense, because the City hall was often the hub for trains and roads leading into cities, and communications between cities were often put in such buildings. Another point is that the City doesn't have a spawn. Everyone has to go there to defend it. You can't just run out of a spawn and run into it. Both sides would have an equal chance at trying to capture and hold it; and it would become a central focus of town and city battles.
  15. I'm sorry, but the idea that capturing depots should reduce the supply of a defender each time one is captured is a ridiculous penalty that would greatly favor attackers. So would your idea of a Flag between the town and the FB reducing supply. It's one thing to slowly lose a town...it's another to have the ability to even try to defend reduced as well. It pretty much guarantees that the majority of attacks will succeed, and fairly rapidly. Unless they greatly outnumber the attackers, no town can hold out if they lose chunks of their supply each time they lose a CP. It's hard enough to defend a town as it is. . And also... what would happen if the defender recaptured those non spawn CPs? Would the lost supply become immediately available again? I can see that dynamic changing back and forth too rapidly for defenders to be able to regain supply. To be honest... if the defender's supply was penalized in the way you suggest... then it would quickly become a case of... 'why try to defend?', as defense would be almost impossible. And how do you envision this making the campaigns take longer? In this case, towns would fall even faster. The closest to what you suggest about the flag out of town that I could envision would be making the FBs persistent and either capturable or repairable, instead of flipping them.
  16. Actually, once the attacker captures a spawn THEY get the JWBS supply INSIDE a town that they don't even own. All of your points here apply to ALL link spawns on both sides. I would agree with your argument if it wasn't one sided in view of ONLY the attacker. And ALL warp and link spawning makes the game fall short. What you are suggesting favors the attacker only... Attackers who should never be able to use a depot in a town they are attacking as a spawn. FMSs and UMSs sure... but Depots? That already creates an unfair advantage to the attacker.
  17. I'm sorry, but that would make no sense. I know that sometimes we sacrifice some realism for gameplay; but you're suggesting setting FMSs with tanks, none of which were designed to carry troops, no matter how many jumped on when they could. Let's be honest...if they really needed to, it wouldn't really be much harder for CRS to make a couple of allied halftracks than it was to create new tanks. The question would be if it would really be worth the time and resources? I think that if they went to all tat trouble...the most likely result would be that most folks would just stop using trucks very much and start using halftracks all the time. With the exception that the halftracks would be more limited. And roads would still be ambush spots for tanks... Like I said...I personally like where your concept is headed... but in the end I see it as slowing down game play, at least as the game is currently set up. We already have insane things like spawn depots from other towns just to make sure that folks can spawn directly into the action.
  18. I see your point. Unfortunately with the current system. It's all too easy to know exactly where an enemy has to go at any given time. There is no Fog of War worth mentioning. This means when a side grabs an FB to attack, it would become incredibly easy for a defender who has a few tanks to setup and start blowing up trucks, potentially shutting down an attack almost completely. As there is usually only one road between towns, camping one becomes child's play. In addition (and I am NOT sreaming bias here), currently only one side has a tracked vehicle capable of setting FMSs. It would create a serious side advantage if the Allies could only drive FMSs along roads while Axis could still drive them offroad. Things would be different if the Allies had halftracks of their own, but that's not on the roadmap yet. This doesn't mean that I don't agree that it would make sense to slow offroad trucks and halftracks down. In my opinion, it would. Unfortunately it would also really slow down game play, as it would be harder and take longer to get any FMss driven out and set up. I don't see a lot of folks being too happy about that.
  19. I don't get it. I have spawned missions both from garrisons and from the moveable Brigades, and have noticed nothing different about creating or joining missions in 1.36. To be honest, it seems absolutely no different, save that i have to join a Garrison instead,
  20. I think Odolf was seeing it as that you don't get an avatar at all without a Hero subscription. @Odolf you can add an avatar in your profile. (Apologies if I misunderstood)
  21. The cover is for anyone inside protecting the gate. Without those sandbags there, a single attacker can just camp that entire opening area. It also slows down anyone entering
  22. Well the sort of things you describe are much more possible when all you have is a smaller map. I have played a lot of other WWII games, and to be honest, they kind of have a similar concept. There are spawns and points to capture and hold. To win, one side has to capture an advancing line of points, and once they do, they advance instead of spending much time guarding the ones to their rear. Usually the difference is that the sides don't have to protect from 360 degrees, making it less important to cover your rear all the time. In our game, the scale of the campaigns changes all of that. You still have those capture points, but they are towns and cities; which in turn have their own capture points. This means that cities and towns become the focus, instead of just the single capture points. I admit that the system gets more than a bit repetitive... with so many towns, many are very similar. I myself have felt that at least the CPs need to be changed up, with multiple types of CP buildings in towns, so that it would be harder and more varied to capture and defend them. I also dislike the fact that ABs have walls like swiss cheese, Sure the holes in the walls can allow defenders to get out of the AB, preventing them from being surrounded completely, but the holes also make ABs almost impossible to defend, as enemy can consistently penetrate the walls, making defense hell for the defenders. But these are some of the very tactical problems that need to be solved. As far as twitch play... this is an FPS... you'll always have it in some form or another.
  23. We know you're on it Rats! Thanks!
  24. Then please explain how a seriously underpopped side could even hope to attack or defend an area capture position. The OP side could just flood the area and capture it. The OP side could easily take out the few UP players who are trying to find them. The ONLY chance might be if the areas had to be completely cleared of the enemy to cap or recap, and that still gives an almost insurmountable advantage to the OP side.