Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About nugx

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  1. Some players don't understand this, and/or don't want to understand this.
  2. Everything then can be balanced very easily. The more lethal gear like 262 which you mentioned, can cost even more. And it would be very easy for Rats to balance, because all you would need to tweak is 1 number - the cost from 100 to 10000000 and then you are sure it is 'limited' to give you an extreme example. So apart from the normal cost - there could be an extra cost from the 'lethalness' of the gear, so it costs more.
  3. Jwilly, how can I discuss this, if you don't want to hear what I'm proposing ? T 0 is the timeline - the 'years', which means that if it would be 1943, noobs would be in 1943 gear, if it is 1945, noobs would be in 1945 gear. At 1939, 1940, the systems would create limits, so the cost for late game tier is high and 'fear of death' is high also (due to small nr of personal spawn) There would never be a situation that a noob is in h75 vs 262, simply because the system would not allow it, and by the time a few players use 262, everyone would be on 1943 gear.
  4. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but this system introduces this. And this also, fear of death + personal spawn + players purchasing gear after they lost it for the points they earn Jwilly, models can remain realistic but mechanics which create gameplay need a leeway. (there are already many unrealistic things in the game, simply because full realism in a video game is not possible)
  5. And that balance would be very easy to achieve, because Rats would just have to alter the cost/use ratio of gear - it would be strictly coded into the game. For example the tiger in 1940 would cost a lot and would have only 1-2 uses. Once all the gear is potentialy available right from the start and then unlocks for everyone gradualy - it's much easier to balance it out, because you just have to manipulate the cost and personal spawn of it.
  6. If it would be only 'realistic' date then yes, it would be bad for balance, and no matter how much the gear would be limited, one side would always suffer which means unhappy players and unhappy players means people leaving the game. Stanky, however think about if Rats would make a similar system to the one that was described earlier, where people could buy few uses of higher tier for the points they earn for playing, everyone would be getting points, which means that anyone at any time could be able to purchase anything they want if they get more points. This way the realistic date would work - it would be a base line where at current point in time, the players don't have to purchase the gear and just use it from the supply.
  7. Thanks Xoom for explanation. Merlin - I understand, with the current mechanics and how the game works currently it probably would not be a good idea. But combine all the ideas put together so far and think about how the game would play out (that probably mean a lot of work for the team, but the game wouldn't be the 'same ol' anymore - and that's the point, isn't it ?). You log in to the game - see 2 sides - pick a side - on map, you see the 'front line' - there are no more brigades, because HC has been overhauled (there is Orbat) - supply is global, meaning you can spawn with any equipment anywhere - players themself at this point decide everything (where do they want to spawn, what super squad they want to attach to, where they want to supply) - and apply also the 'timeline+point' system to that, which balances out everything globally, so no matter at what moment in time or place on map, everyone has the same chances. And that's the point, because one side will always get rolled due to gear discrepancies, no matter how much someone will try to balance it artificialy by limiting certain gear etc - I will always be saying this: What works in real life or how real life went, does not work in a video game. There simply has to be a leeway on 'gameplay' - otherwise the number of playerbase will not go up again, because the more 'realism' - the less people play, because the game is only for a very small niche. The game can still play realistic and apply for a bigger audience and be easier to balance - all it needs to have, is a leeway on gameplay, but not on the realism itself (the damage models, flight models etc are still realistic) It would mean that it would be possible to meet french army at dover in 1944, or german tiger in milan at 1940 - but it would all depend on the players, just like Hatch said in other thread. 'Dunkirk doesn't exist in the game unless you guys make it happen. Exactly the kind of open minded thinking we are counting on from you guys.' The point of all the suggestions I've made so far, is specificaly for this, give all options in hand of people, if it can be achieved by 'realism' do it, but IMO it is impossible and the only way to do it, is to 'brake' the current game and then make the correct adjustments, to bring up the playerbase. So CRS team needs to ask themselves - are we doing the 'same ole', or we 'break' the game and re-adjust everything to create something new (in the spirit of WWIIOL) to bring in new and old people back.
  8. Wouldn't it be easier to balance out everything, if there were just 2 sides where all nations equipment is lumped into one ? Allies (french, brit, american,) and Axis (ger, italian). There would be one persona for allies, and not 2 (french, brit). So it would be also easier to balance out the players.
  9. If you can provide me with realistic approach that brakes monotony - then i'm listening And I agree with others that wild west attacks is a thing of the past - the 'front line' from 2012 should be finished Everything would balance each other out in the end - because players from both sides would be able to purchase better stuff, so when someone would have a tiger, someone else would roll out a ATG or tank from higher year that would blow off the tiger. Adapt to every situation.
  10. HE clips that lay waste to tank is a bad idea - that's what I would say.
  11. Ah but I understand this. Some elements of 'fantasy' would totaly brake the game - but some elements can be bended and the game can still play realistic. For example the flight models and damage models in WWIIOL are supposed to go in more realistic way than arcade - and I agree with that, but some gameplay elements need to be bended to introduce some sort of unpredictability, so the game is not stale - if the game is stale, people create META (i presume you know the concept? Most Effective Tactic Available) Having for example a tiger in 1940 by a player, would brake that META, because going out into the battle - you never know what to expect, the game is never the same, see where I'm getting at?
  12. Madrebel, it's pretty simple, WWIIOL 2000-2004 was not realistic, but was fun. See the paradigm? Sticking only to realism in games = not fun Non realism = fun For WWIIOL the best would be to be in the middle FUN ---------------------- WWIIOL --------------------- Realism
  13. Willy, Xoom said that in future Rats will not be doing 'same ol, same ol', if they don't want to be doing 'same ol' - then 100% realism need to be dropped. In history no, but it would be fun for the gameplay. lol, it's totaly the opposite, it's furthest away from pay to win it can be.
  14. Here, i've made a quick edit, to show you guys how it would progress