Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


vanapo last won the day on September 18

vanapo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

185 Salty

1 Follower

About vanapo

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
    Air Force
  • Preferred Unit
  1. Insider for the germans: FLAK-Plätze müssen verdichtet sein!
  2. Nice job guys!
  3. A very neat, useful but not game changing thing would be a "whiteboard" within the radio room that just shows some basic lists: Every CP + ownership, every town link + brigade momvement with timers. Just a quick info tool to help the officer in charge of the defense organizing things. Or you can put stuff like this into an intel section of the player's map that's only active within a radio room (and possibly within a CP or while driving a command vehicle like the 232 or probably the 251).
  4. The 109-E is such a beauty <3
  5. A switch only hero builders can flip!
  6. This is a profound and long answer. Wrapping my head around it took some time and I didn’t want to say something about it without thinking it through. Your points are valid and I agree to the general direction your pointing out. Especially that things going to change with town based supply and that what I suggested needs a serious reworking in regard of town garrisons. I still want to address some points of critizism before moving on to your proposal: Points to address : 1. With Factory Burden, it only compounds the issue by imposing a side-wide penalty. This can easily create a Negative Feedback Loop where one side always has less total supply for longer than the other side. - Keep in mind we have a system that completely replenishes all lost troops within a day (due to the timer caps) and completely replenishs “factory burden” or RDP damage in 1 ½ days. This is an extreme short period if you take into account that every day has a very long time span with very little fighting that in fact fills up all resupplies. If you play once a day you will never see the effects of what you did to the enemies supplies or vice versa the day before. To me this robs the game of a lot of depth it could have. It reduces the “campaign” to nothing more than a consecutive line of battles which have no interrelation at all other than map position. The only effect a stunning victory or a very hard fight has for the next day is that you have moved the map a bit – it gives you more FBs to attack from, it gives you an airfield, it moves you away from the river. But killing all heavy tanks of 2 tank brigades with your ATG trap, shooting down 30 RDP bombers at one day – those things have no value whatsoever for the ongoing campaign. The next day they are nothing more than a nice story you can tell. I always thought that this is kind of a downer and kills the ongoing motivation to some degree. On the other hand: It is always problematic to not allow people to spawn equipment. It’s always problematic to put one side into a disadvantage for a long time if it has lost a fight. This has to be balanced. I am just for putting the balance slightly more in favor of “consequences matter” but not too far away from “everybody has to have another chance”. There is at least one corrective: A side with reduced supply rate would automatically produce less resupply costs. Only an army with high resupply rate can burn through a lot of equipment fast. So the army with the built up “factory burden” should tend to lose it that way and the army with low “factory burden” is tempted to burn through it’s equipment because it has to use the initiative. 2. This would shift the whole point of the game away from territory control to who can severely attrition the opponent. - We already have mechanics in game that try to implement somewhat of an attrition war into game (resupply, RDP) so that the game is more than just a series of capture the flag fighting – yet they are so very small in grade that they are not worth thinking much about them. Attrition in this game is highly temporarily. You can’t build any strategy on attratition. I am always somewhat surprised when I read in text chat “let’s drain their supplies here”. It is very risky and it will only matter at all if you are fighting the next battle against exactly the same flag. RDP on the other hand is highly dependent on server pop and the intensity of the fighting. Bringing down factories has no effect whatsoever if there are only a few people online with plenty equipment. 3. If a town gets severely depleted, that contributes a side-wide penalty to resupply. But if the town gets captured, it suddenly removes that contributed penalty because the depleted garrison functionally no longer exists. - well: Burning all your troops to hold a town whatever the cost might be (Stalingrad)– can and should hurt your army especially if it’s just … some town. It does now, at least temporarily. HC might give the order to stop spawning or even pull out if they see the town is lost (AB is under cap) so they can save equipment to defend against the next attack most likely to happen in the fallback town. So if we get garrisons, you might see people just burning through all equipment even if they know it’s a lost cause because it’s “only the garrison” you are depleting and they know, with moving the map back there is going to be another garrison in reach anyways. The system I proposed would not offer a benefit for loosing brigades or garrisons as this won’t delete any “factory burden”. Supply costs only occur or become due when a unit is actually resupplied as I wrote. And it’s a digit. It won’t increase or decrease by taking towns. If the town falls, the garrison goes away, no more reinforcements arrive. That’s the only bonus. If you take a town, no replacement tickets will increase resupply cost because of this, so it offers no malus whatsoever. However: As I didn’t think of garrisons there is another problem with this as resupplied units are supposed to produce the costs within this system – and they are lost if the town falls (at least from my understanding but I might be wrong here). So with garrisons you would need some “cash back” effect for that. F.e. – you lose a town while the garrison still got units in it and the town is linked to a fallback? Then these units have to be “retreated” to the next garrison or at least “cashed in” to reduce the value of factory burden. - - - - To your proposal of a resupply timer that’s influenced by the units worth. This is an interesting proposal but it has a lot of things to consider with it. You named some yourself. As balance is done by equimpment numbers right now, the whole system would need to be overhauled. That means, if f.e. a Matilda tank needs longer to be resupplied, there will be initially more Matilda tanks in the spawn list as there are now. So the initial attack might look way different than the next one. If you ask me, this is a good thing. But his might be much harder to balance out than the system we have right now. Especially with all the “resets” back to full resupply and repaired factories – this is another unsatisfactoy point about the whole situation: With every tier change and every server restart, the whole supply and RDP damage gets reset to 0. This will become way more important with more emphasis on resupply and resupply being crucial for balancing things out. And to be honest I don’t know why some values like factory damage or brigade equipment numbers are not saved for the restart. Also: With the RDP system we have right now and your proposal, it would be the case that given the factories are destroyed, the resupply of an infantryman might be delayed for 8 more hours, the Matilda on the other hand could be delayed for 20 more hours. I think this is only realistic as bombardements hamper the production of heavier and “technical” equipment way more than the production of … soldiers. But this would also complicate a lot of balancing. The core problem of the game is that it can be played 24/7 and the same rules and mechanics have to apply 24/7. The most intense fighting on the other hand is reduced to a few hours every day. And in a lot of cases the best or let’s say most expensive equipment is lost within the first hour of a battle. The few mattys are lost rather quickly no matter if you got 30 people fighting or 300. If Tz2 spent all mattys and due to the timers they will respawn again in Tz2 - this could mean that Tz1 and Tz3 won't see a matty in weeks while Tz2 is suprised how many Mattys they got to fight with each day now. This is a serious problem your proposal faces. The Matty would most likely be killed as soon as it is available and stay unavailable for a long time while people have to fight on with the other stuff. I’d say that might be a good thing. But be prepared for people getting mad at you if a tank brigade is out of tanks for 2 days My proposal: The effect stacks and might hamper a side that’s constantly losing a lot of equipment after a while for a while if they keep losing more equipment even while on the defense. Your proposal: The effect doesn’t stack but kicks in right away, so if the guys that played a few hours ago spent all Mattys, they will be gone for you and probably for another more day. The base effect has to be much more drastic – but it wouldn’t stack. So I think both ways have their pro’s and con’s – I would love to see any of them and I am convinced it would make the game much more interesting over the stretch of a campaign. But this is my opinion. A lot of people hate every spawn restriction. And I am also convinced some folks won’t like either proposal.
  7. And 473 Mattys killed so far this campaign. The loss rate of our tanks over a week is not 10-20% but rather 200-600%, especially when it comes to heavy tanks. So you can never put as many tanks into a brigade as would have been available in total at a given time or this becomes a slugfest. Also keep in mind that the balance of equipment changed drastically with player numbers. A mix between medium and heavy tanks + ATGs can be quite balanced on a day with 100 players, it can be in favor of one side when 300 players are playing and in favor of the other side if only 30 people are playing. After all this is not just rock, paper, scisssors.
  8. nugx would say, it's ok if the 109 grinded to clipping HE ammo so he can have his "5 minutes of glory" with unrealistic and unhistoric but "fun" über-ammo - et voila: Welcome to Fantasy World War 2 online. Isn't it then fun ride we all lined up for!?
  9. I am with you on this @chaoswzkd - there are big changes yet to come. We should see how that works out - especially in game voice coms. Then we can recall this idea as I think it really could be a good way to balance sides out a bit more. I think it's much more effective and has more side benefits than the old proposal "autobalance the f2p accounts". New players should get a grace period of course, time to find a squad, look at both sides and just play around a bit. I am hopefull in game voice communication will accelerate the squad recruitement and learning curve for new players to a huge degree. We kind of have this problems allready and there is kind of a gentleman's agreement between both sides to interchange players or even whole squads when it's obvious one side has more veterans than the other side. It doesn't really work however. This campaign seems to be hugely unbalanced if you look at the TOM - and we only realized it when the map shifted quite a bit already. Having clear numbers of how many squads with how many players and how much TOM each side has could encourage the balance between squads further. "Last campaign had more axis squadmemebers - come on guys, we need people to step over for one campaign." I think this could work at least to some degree. And you would have an autobalance that would soften the effect in any case. Actually I don't think this is a solution for an ongoing campaign. People always want to play with the winning team. They even tend to vote more in favour of a candidate if they think he will win - even if this would not hold any benefit for them. And they tend not to vote at all if they think their candidate won't win. This is what happens with players as well. This effect draws players away from the loosing team and gives even more benefits to the winning team. Plus side switching is not for everybody as a huge part of the community, especially the squads, see the results of a campaign as something they worked for and they are responsible for. So they won't change on a daily basis. I don't think a lot of people would spend 50 hours on RDP runs to take down german factories - and then switch sides to spend 50 hours bombing french factories just for the sake of RDP bombing. The beautiful thing of a persistent ongoing campaign is that you can play in the same team for weeks. This is motivating. So side alignment is per se a good thing. But I agree with you that encouraging casual players to play the underpop side is a needed and good thing. If this does not work however, we have to use brute force :-P
  10. Is pasting the same proposal that has been discussed in several threads (with general negativ replies to it) over and over again into new or ongoing threads considered to be a violation of forum rules?
  11. Let me put it this way and you might understand it. 1. If there are planes from 1939-1945, than the most modern planes available are from 1945. 2. If there are planes from 1942 that have to fight planes from 1945 than there are players that have to fight with fighters that are outdated for 3 years against the most modern planes available. That is not realistic at all. And it is frustrating for the player that has to fly the outdated fighter. 3. If we start the German attack on France in 1939 and you have planes from 1945 flying around after a few days - That is not realistic at all. 4. If you can unlock a 1945 plane by skill in 1939, a player with a bit less skill will not only have a disadvantage in skill but also in equipment - and this disadvantage will stack over time. Which will drive a lot of people away from the game. Again: How do the games you named cope with this? By offering pay2win for the less skilled players. I hope nobody wants this in game. And I said all of this multiple times and you just open new threads on the same topic over and over again.
  12. When SOMEONE fights in a 1945 plane, the 1942 fighter IS NOT the up to date fighter anymore, because it is outdated in regard of the planes it is put up against. This is how a timeline works. You can't just call it a timeline, when everybody can spawn units from any year at any point.
  13. That's just wrong. People are better at the game will club the people who are worse. They will earn points easier, and the will be rewarded for that by getting the better equipment, putting the not so good player into even more of a disadvantage. He is missing the experience with his new toy, he will loose it soon. He will then have to grind back to it with the worse equipment. That's the most frustrating way I could think of it. Edit: How do other games cope with this? By offering the short route of pay2win. So you either proposing pay2win or the most frustrating game experience. What you are describing as "top clubbing everyone else" is basically the vets "clubbing" the green tags for their first hours of the game - temporarily. Which will allways be the case for every game. And which by no means is a problem. If it would be, it would be a way better solution to just delete the rank unlocks completely. But I guess you would make a lot of people angry then when a green tag with no tanking experience whatsoever will use up all the tigers in an ongoing attack because he grinded to them or can spawn him on his very first mission right away.
  14. Temporarily, temporarily, temporarily, temporarily. Again: playing a short time (temporarily) until you unlock everything forever (persitant equality) vs. grind the whole time (persistent inequality -> grind with the worse to play temporarily with the better). It seems like you don't get the difference between temporarily and persistend. As you keep talking about "playing a short time to unlock everything forever" like it is literally the same thing than "the permanent need to unlock everything you want to play" You want to fly up to date fighter? You fly it for free together with the rest And here we have another problem that is linked to your apparent misunderstanding of how a timeline works. The up to date plane is by definition the best plane available up to date. When I fly a 1939 plane against a 1942 plane, because 1942 planes are available - I don't care what the point system says about the year we are fighting in - because I hae to fly a plane that is outdated for 3 years against the up to date plane. What you are suggesting as a way to give everyting the same chance is exactly the opposite: It's making people grind for the better chances by spending time with outdated equipment against the better one. You really think this will motivate people to play? Sorry @chaoswzkd but this guy is repeating this over and over again without taking the broad critizism into account at all. It's really starting to get on my nerves.