aismov

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    4,832
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by aismov

  1. Excellent post! Another example of what the new production/costing model doesn't take into account. We desperately need a balanced spawn list that takes a common sense approach (yes, even if it isn't 100% quantifiable and you can't fit a linear regression curve to it) to the weapons we have in game and they way we actually use them. I think we have seen ample examples with Allies not having SMGs, or the Axis having assault guns and no way to use them because we dont have damage able/deformable terrain making their HE useless in an urban environment. To take this one step farthur, I personally feel that one of the worst weapons for the Allies has been the Spitfire. It's poison disguised as a gift since it's so dominant in our low-alt deck TnB environment the Luftwaffe simply doesn't bother even showing up. I many towns you have desperate defenders trying to hold back the grey hordes while 5-10+ players are buzzing overhead pretty much doing nothing. That isn't to say we should remove/adjust/whatever a specific unit, but that there are a lot of unintended consequences in something as simple as spawn pool design. Hate to hijack a thread, but the new production based spawnlists need to go.
  2. Capture timers need to be faster. Nothing wrong with a town changing hands back and forth quickly. If anything it adds to the drama and tension of the battle. Main thing we don't want is late night map rolls. I'm partial to decreasing capture timers but slightly increasing timers until the AB is hot. Would do 15 mins standard and increase this to 20 mins when down to one AO and a large numbers imbalance. At the end of the day losing CPs is no big deal and it's fun to fight over them. By slowing down how long it takes to capture a town when one side is severely underpop it at least a limits the amount of towns that can be taken. Right now if there is hardly anyone on you can have 10 towns fall Ike dominos. Just by double the AB table hot timer this not decreases the number of towns that will be lost, but frees up defenders from bunker duty to fighting it out in the streets.
  3. I would be against bushes/camo netting etc that lets your tank blend in more because that is getting right over the line into pay2win territory. one other thing that I would consider buying if available would be a PPO flag type object with my squad that we could plant down. Again would have to be period soecific and approved by whoever at CRS would be the point person to approve designs. Pretty useless but fun in the sense that it is one more thing that gives squad a sense of ownership.
  4. Like all of these. My one thing is that LMG deployment needs to be adjusted so you don't stick out of the open ending by 1m showing everyone where you are. Oh and some type of suppression effects.
  5. I was there the last time we tried it. Imagine every spawn point is camped by your own side by a bunch of players for the lulz. That is exactly what happened and what will happen again.
  6. Since I only play Axis and see Antwerp from my side, why do you prefer the old layout of one big town? I would think that it's a moling nightmare to defend abd sucks away a ton of defenders to keep in check. This way you do t have to really ever worry about the entire S part of Antwerp until the rest of the city falls.
  7. I like it. It should also have the camo netting like the new-old AB bunkers so EI don't stick out like a silhouetted sore thumb turning it into a death trap.
  8. At one point in time the plan was to have secondary roads and make off-road terrain generally impassable to all but tracked vehicles, but that would be something more for WWIIOL 2.0. But I agree have the OD be player place able is a nice idea.
  9. Second this. On chat ingame, even between level headed players there seems to be a fair amount of frustration. I was pretty open to the new changes and some parts of it I still support, but I think both sides are feeling with needle frustrations in their spawnlists.
  10. I think we can't get tunnel vision and think systems aren't interconnected. While I agree that improving graphics would be the#1 thing that can be done to have new players stick around for a bit versus quitting after 20 mins and posting a negative "graphics sux Lolol" steam review. But it's not all since without gameplay good graphics are just lipstick on a pig. And those negative graphics reviews will turn into reviews like "wannabe PS but with bad gameplay" reviews. So while new players don't necessarily know, understand, or care about HC, TOE, etc, it does affect their gameplay experience, which is why things need to be addressed as a whole. I wasn't subbed for the steam release, but talking to guys in my squad who were, they said that a major complaint of new players was that they didn't understand the HC/AO system and were frustrated they couldn't start their own attacks and didn't understand why.
  11. Good infographic. I agree that backline towns should be able to be flipped at will. I do t think it's a big issue because if a town gets captured and it was French and the backline town is British, the backline town is now frontline but stays British. At least that is my understanding of how the system works.
  12. I like the idea of them and I think it's worth exploring even with 1.36. It could be theoretically combined with enabling FMS placement. Need to cap the OD to open up FMS spawning so you can actually have real front lines. I also like how it has nothing to do with bunker timers since that would be a huge headache.
  13. Even more painful when it happens in the Stug
  14. We have had a lot of discussions about ToE and balancing spawnlists. What is the current system is that we have historical e try dates to determine when a weapon gets in game, and historic production costs to see how much of it is in the spawn list. We know that the hard numbers are proprietary and cannot be released. I propose releasing a de-identified list that normalizes the production value as a ratio of some standard unit we arbitrarily pick and assign a production value of 1.0; this way we could then comment on the system with more educated posts and give more thoughtful opinions when asked for example hard numbers of how to balance the list as was in the prior thread: EXAMPLE: A13 is set as an arbitrary standard and given a value of 100.0, then the production costs are compared and ratios are constructed. Hypothetically let's say that the PzIIIF along with S-35 is slightly more expensive and the 38t along with H-39 is less expensive. So it would look like: A13: 100.0 PzIIIF: 115.0 S-35: 120.0 Pz38t: 95.0 H-39: 92.0 And simply go down the list. This way we compare units and it doesn't release any proprietary CRS hard production data. The decimal point can be moved in either direction to increase/decrease sensitivity.
  15. And that's my very concern. We are only looking at hang of the equation. You *have* to take into account how weapons are used ingame and how WWIIOL combat works.
  16. That's exactly how they do it. Scotsman looked up historic data and found how much these things cost to produce. Each side has an equal "budget" to spend, so things like a Tiger are more expensive than a Panzer II, hence you can't have as many of them. On its face it's a very good and equitable system. Where it breaks down and where many players are having big concerns is that equal production costs do not necessarily equal WWIIOL combat effectiveness. The classic example is the Matty vs StugIIIB: very similar production costs but 5 Mattys against a town will mop the floor while 5 Stugs will have the defenders laughing as sappers stroll up to them and take them out.
  17. Just have to say that this direction worries me very, very much. You can very easily flip the argument around and say that it is very easy for an average tanker to jump in a Matty and do serious damage. Place an average player in an 88 and most won't last more than 5 minutes on the battlefield. I wholeheartedly disagree with this model. It leads us into these silly situations we have seen the last few campaigns. I won't belabor the point since I've said it before, but I can't stress the importance that production costs are not the same as WWIIOL combat effectiveness.
  18. Not not sound disengenuous, but it is pretty tough to recommend spawn list numbers and then be told that it is "30%" unbalanced without knowing any of the details. What makes the determination of balance? K/D? Production Cost? Battlefield effectiveness? Without knowing some more details this conversation is pretty moot. It's asking us to participate but saying we can't actually step out onto the field. If it's unbalanced because Axis have 1 extra StugB die to its production cost I think many would argue that in WWIIOL combat, that wouldn't be all that imbalanced. But for example one extra Tiger may make a bigger impact. EDIT: I understand a lot of the hard numbers are proprietary, so not asking for this to be released.
  19. Comment wasn't directed at you! No offense intended
  20. Agree that there should be a minimum number of players needed to get the AO running. This is important to prevent moling and solo-caps. But there number of AOs can't be limited because if you do that you are going to run against the problem of squads wanting to do an operation, spending all the time doing set-up, and then greeted by a system message that they can't have an AO. Thats a perfect recipe to have squads who are coming back with some goodwill to the game to leave and not bother with it. Now I think there are some real technical issues that need to be looked at and creating a system that can't be gamed, so for example the same 5 guys (or 10, or whatever the auto-AO number would be), don't go around the map tripping AOs, despawning, and then moving to the next town. One fix I could see would be that 5 players trigger the AO, which stays active for 5 minutes (table timers stay at 10 minutes), and if there isn't an average of 5 attacking players within say 1 km of the AB, the AO gets auto-removed and there is a cooldown period of say 15 minutes before a new one can be tripped. This way you allow players to attack where they want, but they have to put in the legwork to maintain the AO active. If it drops below X players it automatically gets cleared within 5 minutes.
  21. Agree that it is a very difficult balancing act. I'm the type that likes to grab a rifle and Rush CPs, defend CPs, and keep on pushing forward. My stats are terrible and I could care less But there is another player for whom stats are important and they are here more for the physical battle than the meta game. Those of us who post on the forum generally have a interest in the meta game to some degree, be it the historical feel all the way up to hardcore HC strategic stuff. But n00b raised a valid point that many vets often look down on the guys sniping in the bushes. I certainly do more than a few times. They just have a different version of fun (though it is true that they shouldn't whine that the town/FB/FMS was lost while they were out stat padding). That is why I think TBS is important and why all vehicles should be in every town and the movable brigades kept to a minimum and more of a sideshow. Most players don't care about the meta game to that regard. They just want to spawn the weapon they like to play and have some fun. Not giving players the opportunity to spawn whatever they want no matter where the battle is, or whether HC is on, or whether the right type of flag was moved into town is like opening up a movie theater and saying you are only going to play RomComs and Thrillers with one Action movie showing in the 2nd Tuesday of every month.
  22. Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting in OT
  23. Yes I would want/expect that every vehicle is available at every town on the map. The numbers can be tweaked but I think that way it was in the far past is a fair way to do it. If there is a weapon that doesn't have an immediate counter, then you have less of them in the spawn list. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the spawnlists were pretty balanced out around 2008ish (I didn't play much in the early/mid 2010s except for a brief foray during Campaign 100 and some campaigns here and there). I remember that back in the day, my favorite tank (StugIIIG) was actually a pretty rare vehicle. The worst IMHO would be to put the heavy tanks and "better" equipment in the movable brigades. Creates a situation where players ability to play with what they want is dictated by the vagaries of where flags are now and what HC has decided to do.
  24. I'm sure one argument is that it gives incentive for new players to subscribe to access the forums (and the handful of OT posters who sub just to post in the forums). Think it would be more beneficial to open the forums up for everyone and that way get players to subscribe for the game because of what they read/saw on the forums.