Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nugx

  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
  15. Lol you guys assume that everyone would be driving around in a tiger on first day - but the system would be made so, to make it impossible, all you need to do is tweak the price/use ratio.
  16. So it's this idea, just different wording - it's the same as rank requirement shifting down. Timeline moves up - the tiers go lower - more players get access to heavier equipment.
  17. But it's not, that's not the intention of it at all. Obviously before someone can purchase anything - he has to play for it, together with other players on the low equipment. There would never be a situation that hordes of late war armor go against the early armor - because the system would make it not possible due to cost/use ratio. And by the time that tigers are common, it would be 1941-1942, so everyone already would be on later tiers for free. + some players from allied side, already would be on even later equipment from 1943-1944
  18. It seems Rats are planning 'years'.
  19. I'll give you example: Game starts in 1939, you manage to have some very good sorties and in 1940 you purchase a tiger from 1942 for the points you saved up (let's say the game gives you 3 uses of the tiger). A tiger in 1940 would be better, then what rest of the players have - but if you die 3 times in that tiger, you go back to rest of the players from 1940 in their free tanks. And this process repeat ad infinitum - when you are back in 1940 with everyone else on their free tanks, you save up again to purchase a better gear. The points could also serve to purchase depleted armament, instead of purchasing 'better' gear. For example: All players used up the 'free' tanks from 1940, so instead of buying 'better' gear for high price - you can purchase more uses of the same gear for lower price. (untill the re-supply) This gives a lot of tactical options for every player. What tier I want to purchase? Do i want to save up for 3 uses of tiger? Or I want to purchase 10 uses of PZ4 ? Or i want to purchase 50 uses of pz3 in 1940 that is depleted ?
  20. In other way, one could think of this system this way: Every player has the potential to get his '5 minutes' of briliance once he purchases the 'better' armament - but that will end once someone blows you up, repeating the process.
  21. I mean overall, a bomb from a plane or anti-armor inf weapon and the tiger player is back to the free pz3, while matildas wait to run into the town - combined arms ops, inf-armor-air force, how it should be. There would be plenty of other scenarios, ofcourse the 'higher tier' the earlier purchased the less of those tanks/planes there would be, meaning it would be a rare situation where players in the free tank, get stopped by someone - and if they do, call for help from air force - just like in real life. 'Pilots we need you to kill that 1 tank and we roll into town !!!'
  22. You have to take also the whole system in account at this moment Merlin - the players in 'matilda' would have it for free, while the player in the 'tiger' played a lot to get the points to purchase it, and he would have only a few uses of it. At this point there is another factor - psychological, matildas don't have anything to lose, while the tiger player, a lot.
  23. That's why I thought of a system for you guys that would have a pretty open minded 'historical' aproach, combined with a 'gamey' system for a video game. The 'historical' discrepancies would be 'circumvented' by the players themselves - for example there could be a situation where 5 guys in matildas approaching a town would meet a tiger...... an unexpected situation, but it would create a situation where you on the fly have to come up with a new tactic.
  24. Vanapo we can agree on something