Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by aismov

  1. They are probably hitting you with HEAT rounds, that or shooting at the tracks with HE (it works for that).
  2. The way I see it we only need "missions" for two reasons 1) dedicated mission chat channel 2) required by game for FMS placement restrictions etc I think a lot of this can be done by simply having custom chat channels and geographic restrictions don't need to be tied to missions at all but simply be part of hard coded game rules (i.e. can set FMS to enemy FB from any mission, not just an FB attack mission). A good example of this is the old resupply system which required a dedicated mission versus the system now where you just despawn from any mission. Dunno, to me it just seems that missions are superfluous. They are a good idea in theory, but in practice nobody really uses it (not even my squad, we just do everything over squad chat or voice). Might as well just junk it and avoid an extra layer of confusion and less clicking.
  3. Exactky kill credit is total pay to win if you offer it to some players. I remember doing a Hail Mary shot in a Stug at 2000+ m on a Sherman that had back behind a slope and was completely obscured by trees. Got a lucky hit. I know because the green text popped up telling me the tank that I couldn't see and didn't know if I even hit was dead. As an ATG I routinely let myself auto despawn since I want the ETs to waste as much ammo on me and spend more time giving away their position.
  4. I feel much the same way. Although I would love that have more Stuka targets the old system was pretty unsustainable with crazy ping pong. Making the FB unbomble when the AO is on is an interesting idea but feels a bit, meh, gamey. I would be a fan of allowing bombers to do damage up to a certain threshold, and then leaving engineers to do the rest.
  5. No different from 2001 with the exception is players now spawn from a FMS that can be planted anywhere in a 360 ring around town. Geographic FMS limitations to face what would normally be the front line would help cut down on mole tactics.
  6. I run multi accounts all the time... But like others have said the ingame sound will make you go slowly insane. Dont forget to set CPU affinity to different cores for each game instance.
  8. Welcome to the game a great questions. The best way I could explain this is that many of the ingame tasks to veteran players come as second nature as for example you would cross the street for the walking man sign and stop for the red hand sign. So for example we know which CP to attack based on (often years) of experience. That said it would be good if the tutorial were expanded so that they explain how the game works and not really basic stuff like how to throw a grenade etc etc. At this point in time the best way to go is to get together with a squad or ask a question over the general chat and start PM'ing a veteran player via the .m command over ingame chat. Many of us vets are always willing to help out new players, so don't feel bad about asking any questions. This is honestly one of the nicest communities out there and lots of us want to help new players out and enjoy the game since we know how hard it came be being a new guy.
  9. Been thinking a lot and still agree that armor numbers should be high. Xoom made good point that with WBS coming not bad idea to keep armor numbers higher so players can junk some equipment.
  10. Very valid point. The way I see it, is that by removing outside core objectives you effectively decrease the size of the game map. We've seen this with calls for closer FMS, and other mechanics. By eliminating the FB out of the equation, you effectively compress down the map where players need to be to find action. And at that point if you are fighting effectively only over a 1x1 km area of the game world, why not just go and play Post Scriptum instead? In a persistent MMOFPS there is no way around boring objectives since those same objectives are targets for the other side. The key is designing the game in such a way that you don't force players to play only that one role but give them options. And let's not forget that with a big enough population the FBis full of action which caters to AA gunners, air players, and truckers. Back in the day if you wanted a good time trying to shoot down EA with an AA gun the FB was usually your first stop.
  11. Yep agree. This is exactly how the HC would use it. I personally think we are making the FBs into an issue when they are not. FBs and holding/losing them are no different than holding an FMS. Or holding acspawnable CP. Or not losing the AB for that matter. They fundamentally represent some aspect of player control over territory. Now I understand that at times it's frustrating that losing the FB can stop an attack, but it is part of the game. We saw this to a degree prior to TBS that with effectively infinite supply the only game you could play is the rush-the-bunker game. The same would happen with any ideas of making the FBs unimportant to the prosecution of attack/defense. You are effectively elimination alternative play styles, something which any game should never do (always cater to more playstyle a, not les). And also TBH losing an FB doesn't happen all that often. Yes it's frustrating, but consequences to your actions (or inaction) is what adds to the tension and gravity of the game. Eliminating this part if FBs may make the game less frustrating in those rare cases where the other side takes down the FB, but the entire gane would be poorer for it.
  12. From a marketing standpoint it's actually a really good idea. Why have each brigade split under generic KG1/2/3 names when you can make it more marketable to players. So hypothetically rather than this (current) system: 16th Infantry Division KG1 KG2 KG3 You would have: 12th Army 1st Panzer Division 7th Panzer Division 116th Infantry Division Its just a name change. It's a good idea actually.
  13. Which is exactly why I think it's a great place to start since even if it doesn't look that great it's not that big of a deal. Plus it would run like a contest open up to the playerbase so wouldn't take any resources.
  14. Yes, new campaign starts tomorrow per the System Message in game.
  15. Personally don't see this as an issue, the rate limiting step for FBs is getting the FMS set up. Placing a few more sachels doesn't affect how long it takes to blow by very much.
  16. Good idea. Just dump the DD textures and make it a contest. Winning player/team gets to decide the name of the DD to be painted on the hull.
  17. I know we've PM'd ingame already One euro squad is 250 Hispana, it is primarily Spanish players but worth a try. I'm sure Hungarian can't be THAT different
  18. Any returning players coming back for 1.36/Welcome Back Soldier can get in touch via the website, especially if you have fallen off the squad roster! See you in Haybes!
  19. Have to agree with this point. There is a subset of players that simply like to grief for the lulz. That said, if it's any easy switch to flip I would give it a try for a map just to see. I personally think it would be less of an issue than some think, however.
  20. Lol I have nothing against players dedicating themselves to win the map... It's a competitive game and we should work to have that. To slightly rephrase I didn't mean fanatic in any negative connotation. I was simply referring to having a gameplay design principle where a single player can't become a 20x or 100x for multiplier since it opens up the whole system for abuse if there happens to be a few let's call them "overly dedicated" players. For example if you can resupply town by spawning a truck that has 10 AI infantry aboard you can 100% overstock a tow by yourself in ~45 mins, get a side that has a couple of these types of players at it can be a deciding factor. But if you make players physically sit on the truck for the 5 minute rearline drive you both create risks (getting straffed), incentives (oversupplying), trade offs (we could be attacking something else), and most important of all it's something that SCALES LINEARLY with player effort. The last thing I think is critical from a gameplay design standpoint since it's an internal check against player abuse. The more players on a side resupply the bigger their effect, but at the cost of fewer guys at the frontline attacking/defending. But if you allow force multipliers via say AI infantry in a truck one player is worth 10, 5 players are worth 50. The scale quickly becomes unsustainable since 5 dedicated guys get all the reward (resupply 50 infantry) with minimal risk (only 5 guys are off the front line doing logistics). Effectiveky it creates a situation where a few "overly dedicated" players can break the whole supply mechanic. Which is why on design principle, IMHO, think resupply must always be 1) manual and 2) in a 1:1 player ratio.
  21. Capco pretty much said it all. When the AB is capped it will open up the rear town FBs for the defender, and if the defender recaps the AB the FBs will close again. There is one other thing that happens: on AB capture you can spawn front linked CPs from rear line garrisons at the frontline town (you have the option of creating missions from the rearming garrison at the link CP, or the frontline garrison at the same CP). This effectively opens up a big trade off for the attacker... You can shut down tank/ATG spawning by capping the AB early but you effectively give the defender some CTRs supply, which if say you are down to rifles may sway the battle decisively in the defenders favor who can use fresh supply from the linked CPs to spawn SMGs. It sets up some interesting what if strategic/logistical scenarios that the attackers/HC need to consider and makes the game far more multifactorial than the old model of just cap the AB as fast as possible and boot the flag.
  22. Seems related to the "can't recap or communicate when town lost" bug. Personally I haven't experienced this though.
  23. Not to mention it's actually better when everyone is trying to figure things out a bit versus players spawning in and facing veteran killing machines that know every angle and capture timer down to the decimal place. I'm not one to advocate for rushed releases, but I think we've done a healthy open beta test and the major show stoppers have been quashed both in closed and open beta. For example back in 2018 there were a bunch of us advocating not to try to push 1.36 out for a Christmas release. I think CRS has done a solid job working out the kinks. Only thing I would do is in the yellow system MOTD in giant capital letters say that the spawn lists are still in testing and WIP subject to change. It will help head off some of the inevitable whines.