cooperhawk

Registered Users
  • Content count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About cooperhawk

  • Rank
    Starter Account
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. I just want to point out the fact we don't want huge swaths of ground taken too fast. Its just to hard on the player base morale. I don't like the trickle timer either because it allows for unearned counter attacks. we can have counter attacks anyway without one side spending hours attacking, capture the town only to lose the town to a lighting fast counter attack due to lack of supply by no fault of their own. We tried this once in the past and that's why its how it was before this map. Maybe we should lower the % it takes to win the map also. I think its 95% right now so lets try 90%. Depot timers are too fast given the amount of players coming from steam. Rear to Front line bgd timers should be very slow while rear rear bgd timers move fast etc etc. Every depot should be captured before the ab goes hot which will cut down on bunker duty and keep the battle going longer. (but may be a coding thing though) I don't think any bgds should go to training. CRS your goal here is to allow one side to win while keeping at least a good portion of the losing side in game.
  2. I have not been in game much lately. But here is my 2 cents having been a player since 2002 under other accounts. CRS needs to do everything they can to slow the flow of the map and create long lasting battles and not quick ways for towns to be overrun and Div, bgds from being cut off. Lets require that all cp's be captured before the ab goes hot in 1 ab towns and sections of larger towns abs go hot with adjacent cp's (unless lots of coding is required) Manage supply in a way that slows battles down and lets newer HC guys react and that could also mean limited tank supply which would be historically accurate. Maybe even delay Campaign'n all together to let new player's learn the equipment a bit, or allow new players to try the game in another server kinda like a intermission with limitless supply. My point here is we need to influence campaign's ( to mitigate the loss of 1.36) in a way that prevents large sections of the map from being cut off and then you will prevent a situation on Steam that pits one side from having a huge amount of players gained from momentum playing against a much smaller demoralized side with less supply IMO.
  3. With all due respect xoom, I invite you to look at the missions from time to time in low pop and when you see a few guys trying to hold off 25+ attacking then remember this post and ask yourself if if anything has changed with AO's and is this game you envision. The reasons for the imbalance are not as important since they will always be there more or less. So come and see for yourself that nothing has changed here and needs looked at again, excluding weekends maybe. This WILL happen on both sides so maybe steam will fix the numbers a bit but you still need a automatic system that at least helps keep the balance and creates battles and insures things are earned, not exploited.
  4. But how often do you look at the orders before you spawn in since most of time nothing is there and we're creatures of habit.
  5. You just made the point without knowing it. 20 players with a possible 4 AO's placed (2 on each side) means FIVE PLAYERS per AO. And so I ask you, does that constitute a real battle in your mind ? Or a real flaw in the game mechanics relative to the underpopulated side? Sure the outcome will be the same(for both sides) but it will be earned more with 1 AO each with these numbers. now try to imagine new players spawning in and dealing with this.
  6. That large attack you mentioned was about 4 allies on offense. Don't take my word for it, come see how few players there really are in auro peak time on the allied side. The Thing I don't understand is the amount of AO's available hasn't changed even with this few players on the allied side. Just look at the missions of People spawned in for a bit (all three branches) and you will see.
  7. That's all well and good, but what about the times when one side or the other simply has a shortage of leadership Or maybe the times zones are such that they are just underpopulated and unable to overcome the number swings we have in game. for whatever reason it will happen to both sides. So We still need a automatic system that will allow the side that's in bad shape to still have a chance. Hate to beat a dead horse here but again today I saw the allies defending 3 AO's with 9 defenders in one, 4 in the other and 0 in the 3rd. they could not hold one town with that and no matter you how you shake a " see what you guys can do together stick" you still won't/don't always have the leaders,tools,experienced players and numbers 24/7. We should address this problem the best we can before the game goes live on steam. I started paying this game in 2002 under a different in game name and I always would have liked to see better leadership tools other than shouting on TS.
  8. The best thing we can do is already in game. I helped take a town(with a flag) yesterday without a shot fired . Every town has to have a minimum of about 20 defenders to hold it and create a battle depending on many things like the size of the town, amount of players attacking etc. So what i'm saying is we should require more players to be spawned in on the underpop side before that AO is available to the overpop side. I'm seeing 2 def AO's when many times the underpop side can't manage one. So that's just asking too few to do to much and it makes things stress full. I also think the spawn delay should be capped at 10 sec ( the time it takes to despawn) and shoot for a spawn delay average instead by offering the ability for the attacker to spawn at 10 seconds instead of the unpopular 30 sec, or wait a little longer and spawn in as a group of say five in say 35 sec. This will also address the need for the attacker to have a 2v1 advantage and promote grouping , but now they will meet a less spread out defense. Long term we really need a new UI that will promote the best HC to lead and gives them tools to provide incentives for players to work together via Medals, squad points, ribbons and EXP points top to bottom to gets players where they're needed while leaving the option to still do whatever they want IMO.
  9. Tuesday 11:48 pm 12/8/2016 CST allied population ( all three branches) 15 players. However we still have 4 AO's (2 each) 4 total and that comes to 3.75 players per AO. Even at 2 AO's you only come up with 7.5 players per AO. Would it better serve the game to at least be at 1 AO per side in game right now?
  10. Tuesday 2:25 pm CST 4 AO's total (2 each) placed on the map. Allies with a total (all three branches) of 18 players spawned in and not many idle. Would it serve the game better if we were at 1 AO each at this point ? Its not a stretch to get the correct answer here.
  11. Although I think AO's saved the game at one point in its history(and we still need them). We still have too many AO's at any given time even relative to the underpopulated side. Not sure why CRS is still trying to put up 4 AO's( 2 each )most of the time when you have maybe one battle and 3 towns with maybe a couple players in them or none at all. It hurts the game for new guys looking for action and makes it impossible to do so many things at once for the vets without a player base imo.
  12. Yes, that was just covered in the above reply. Don't sound so surprised to hear the numbers in game are really down. All you have to do is check the missions(in all three branches). I suspect CRS has some things in the works for this and eventually STEAM will be just what the doctor ordered IMO.
  13. Nope, none flying or navel just a few afk and that's it I counted them correctly.
  14. Last night around 1 am CST we still had 4 AO's on the map (2 on each side). So I went through all the missions to see how many players were spawned in and counted 13 on the allied side. Very few were not spawned in ( a few asleep at the wheel) so I did the math and it came to 3.25 players for 4 AO's. even if you only had 2 AO's (1 on each side) you come up with 6.5 players per AO. So how can the underpopulated side be expected to fill 2 defensive AO's let alone 4 AO's in total with 13 players. It should have been down to 1 AO and that's a stretch so its not possible that anything has changed with AO's based on these numbers period. I said the same thing when the allies were winning last map (look it up). I'm just trying to show CRS how bad it is in TZ3 and really numbers in general right now so they can avoid the same mistakes the Legacy team made IMO. Increase the numbers it takes to justify an AO in the future to make a fair, player filled battle for the sake of this game.
  15. So what if we changed the unpopular 30 sec max spawn delay to this: We cap the SD at 10 seconds max for a single players to spawn in, or they have the OPTION to wait in a queue 30 seconds or more to spawn in collectively with others . what this does for the game is it gets people to volunteer for the spawn delay, or spawn in alone at 10 seconds. It also allows squads on offense to spawn in groups for CP or AB attacks etc. (not one at a time like now). This will all depend on the amount of players that are in the queue after they die, and the delay times can be adjusted but you get the idea.