kemiozz

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About kemiozz

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. I like this idea.
  2. What if the players could set the AO's by themself ? This would require a change to how HC works I guess.
  3. Maybe changing how HC works would be the solution ?
  4. ' I do not really like the idea to delete the strategic part of the game and this make the game much more unrelistic. ' Do not delete it. Just an idea: Separate AO from HC, make HC do logistics work only and care about equipment and giving tips on map where to attack, but leave AO for the players. Make HC some kind of pool of equipment that they control and give the equipment to specific towns/airfields where they would deem most necessary so players are advised to spawn there but they don't have to. Make each town/airfield have a basic equipment pool and HC would assign the extra pool where they would see is most needed.
  5. ' The HC in place are there to support the players to have fun and get to the fights. ' AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH EXACTLY ! You hit the spot. But the current HC orders everyone..... this is what HC should ONLY do, they should SUPPORT and HELP get to the fights, and not MAKE the fights. ' As a player you should figure it out that the current system in place is to direct players to meet each other and fight ' This would be ideal, but it is ordering you where to go, a proper one should only give tips to everyone what do to be most effective. ' i want to drive a tiger.. or fly a spitfire.. how is that possible if im not on that side that has that equipment ' That can happen now also. ' Not to go anywhere you like and wonder in a town alone and dont see any action at all (booooorring). ' The point is to win the war, a player capturing town helps the war effort, someone would eventualy come and defend, you say it's boring..... but this game is already slow paced, besides no one tells you would HAVE to do that, you would do what YOU want, you want big battles only? Go to the big battles. ' See the current HC as people who try to organise this. If there isnt enough equipment ' Separate AO from HC, make HC do logistics work only and care about equipment and giving tips on map where to attack, but leave AO for the players. Make HC some kind of pool of equipment that they control and give the equipment to specific towns/airfields where they would deem most necessary so players must spawn there. Make each town/airfield have a basic equipment pool and HC would assign the extra pool where they would see is most needed. ' It just feels you are more frustrated that you are not in HC and cant set the AO ' I don't care about HC, i only care about AO which makes you go and attack and capture - player freedom.
  6. ' Campaigns can last months. If every time you log in you're sent to whichever side has the least players then the game loses almost all of the point to it for a lot of the players. ' Make the balance for the whole campaign. Every player that did not start to play gets assigned to a side, the system remember the players in the pool, and if a side needs more players the new players get assigned to the side. If a player has not logged into the battle for a week he gets removed from a side.
  7. Yes but they are game methods. This is the most simplest and most effective method that every game that needs it uses and it works 100%. Do you want sides balanced or not? If someone wants sides balanced then auto side balance is the best option there can be.
  8. ' other methods of auto-balancing INSTEAD of forcing people to play a side just because the system wants you to. ' And those methods are ?
  9. balance out the rest with players that are not in a squad. A 80 vs 70 balance would be much better than having a 100 vs 60 without balance for example. ' What about High Command? Would you exclude those people from the auto-balancing? ' can't comment, don't know how they work currently and how many are there.
  10. Just drop the whole squad on other side. I'm advocating for player freedom, but I also understand the game needs population balance to work correctly. Population balance is more important than playing your 'favourite' side, because playing 30 vs 6 is just playing a broken game, which makes people quit and not play. So what is better, having a 20 vs 20 and a side which you have to learn, or 30 vs 5 and having a broken game where people will leave out of frustration?
  11. ' The population dictates the number of ao's we can have at this point, wich you may think is bad ' I think that current HC/AO is bad ' Ah yes dropping into underpopped side.. there goes your "freedom" now you are being forced to play a side that you maybe not want, so then you go play something else.. also not good. ' But it is essential for gameplay, which I can understand as a player myself. I would have no problem to be dropped into axis or allies, because I would know the teams are kept equal. It is different kind of 'freedom'. If you are on allies or axis, you can still play like you want...... but with HC/AO you are limited in the game by someone else which is frustrating. I would say having personal AO and team balance would be 80% less frustrating than choosing your own side which is 30 vs 6 players online and on top of that, someone telling you what to do. ' This game is not intended for shorter and smaller fights ' The original game design allows this, the current HC/AO does not.
  12. Auto side balancing that equals out teams. Yes, there will be whiners, they should learn to play on both sides.
  13. ' Ehrm no i dont want 4vs4 fight... i want bigger fights... go figure you get a 4 vs 4 fight in antwerp.... great.... ' You want a big fight, you can join a big fight, but at the same time in other place on the map, there would be a 4 vs 4. Why would you neglect this option? This does nothing to your gameplay in your big battle, this is potential subscribers lost for CRS because currently this is not allowed and potentialy this could bring new subscribers who want shorter and smaller fights which they cannot do now. ' and the allieds have 30 guys on .. axis 10... then its a 6 vs 2 fight ' There needs to be side balancing also then, with plenty of new players who would not be in a squad, they could just be dropped into the underpopped side.
  14. There are so many towns on such a big map, there is plenty of space for everyone, there would be no problem if 4 vs 4 fights would take a town, and this would allow for such people to have 30 mins or 1 hour fight. The original game design for the first few years allowed for all of this, but like some poeople say with some problems. this IS the game, it just needs to be tweaked. I would say that the current mechanic, went away from the original game design, because instead of the whole front and the big map, you fight in small part of the map, with 2-3 towns - this is no different from other similar games. WW2 online lost what made it unique - the scope of the game and freedom - bring it back!
  15. ' if everybody does it like this the whole map will be lit.. and you get 1 guy on an attack.. so its back to back in the day u can attack all over the map and with the numbers of the playerbase you have now. ' That's why I said to have a limit on AO's a player can set daily, or have a big time limit. This way everyone would have to be smart about how they set their AO's. ' would be like (i only play axis) at times that we have 8 guys online trying to defend 20 towns ' Maybe let defenders, defend wherever they want without limit. You cannot be at the same place twice, so you can only defend one town anyway - only the attackers could be limited.