Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MOTORMOUTH

BeachHead Breakout Mini-Campaign Discussion Thread!

32 posts in this topic

You linked an exciting, mezmorizing 3:42 minute video that was 3full minutes of us staring at another man's face........You sir are bound for Cannes Film Festival. GG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I filled out the survey, but I wasn't sure at the time if I'd be re-subbing. In the end, I'll not be re-subbing. Turns out my one good tanking experience was an anomaly.

1). Armor itself is scarce. So if I want to play the type of game I enjoy, I must endure a clickfest of searching brigades for a lone piece of armor.

2). When I do find armor, there seems to be little, if any support. It's hit and miss whether ET are marked. If the ET moves, again rare that its direction is reported.

3). Intel is often flat out wrong. OIC's will urge tanks to rush the town, when in fact the town isn't safe and you get decimated...and then OIC's will complain when tanks hold back because tankers don't trust the reports.

4). and did I mention the scarcity? So when the above happens and you loose a tank...time wasted.

Yeah, I know some players hate armor, and my complaints will fall on deaf ears. That's fine. Just relating to the powers that be why I'm not re-subbing.

And since I don't believe in complaining without solutions, here's a few:

1). There needs to be incentivized support for armor...either through the HC program, or within the average grunt.

2). Better OIC training for organizing attacks.

3). More opportunities for infantry and tankers to coordinate offline, or on training, so that they can work better together.

4). If a tanker makes a mission, allow infantry that join the mission in support to receive bonus kill points or xp or some such. Said tanker can then restrict players from joining, or kick them, if they prove not to be a team player.

5). And finally this is an old suggestion but having a separate armor ranking system that will weed out fly-by night one-off users. I mean, this exists in the AF and the Navy. High time this happens for Armor.

and as a final positive note, finally getting the anti-tank 'zookas was awesome. Funny how I don't mind dying to them at all, whereas the sapper was just annoying.

There you have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I filled out the survey, but I wasn't sure at the time if I'd be re-subbing. In the end, I'll not be re-subbing. Turns out my one good tanking experience was an anomaly.

1). Armor itself is scarce. So if I want to play the type of game I enjoy, I must endure a clickfest of searching brigades for a lone piece of armor.

2). When I do find armor, there seems to be little, if any support. It's hit and miss whether ET are marked. If the ET moves, again rare that its direction is reported.

3). Intel is often flat out wrong. OIC's will urge tanks to rush the town, when in fact the town isn't safe and you get decimated...and then OIC's will complain when tanks hold back because tankers don't trust the reports.

4). and did I mention the scarcity? So when the above happens and you loose a tank...time wasted.

Yeah, I know some players hate armor, and my complaints will fall on deaf ears. That's fine. Just relating to the powers that be why I'm not re-subbing.

And since I don't believe in complaining without solutions, here's a few:

1). There needs to be incentivized support for armor...either through the HC program, or within the average grunt.

2). Better OIC training for organizing attacks.

3). More opportunities for infantry and tankers to coordinate offline, or on training, so that they can work better together.

4). If a tanker makes a mission, allow infantry that join the mission in support to receive bonus kill points or xp or some such. Said tanker can then restrict players from joining, or kick them, if they prove not to be a team player.

5). And finally this is an old suggestion but having a separate armor ranking system that will weed out fly-by night one-off users. I mean, this exists in the AF and the Navy. High time this happens for Armor.

and as a final positive note, finally getting the anti-tank 'zookas was awesome. Funny how I don't mind dying to them at all, whereas the sapper was just annoying.

There you have it.

Almost all above is covered mostly by being part of good ground squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The actual beach assault like you're thinking is a Rapid Assault map. You'll be able to play when Rapid Assault comes out. I think it's called Dog Green or something similar.

If they cant get a decent crowd on one map how are they going to sustain two game play maps?

Frankly I think this Welcome Back Soldier To our Beta Test did more harm then good. All it did is remind old players why they left in the first place. Already the map is back to pre-WBS numbers.

You cant keep patching a 12yo game that needs to be totally re-written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1). Armor itself is scarce. So if I want to play the type of game I enjoy, I must endure a clickfest of searching brigades for a lone piece of armor.

During normal campaigns finding a tank usually isn't a problem unless you insist on always having the best tank available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hardly going to keep me awake at night, but I think it's pretty clear that the Allies should be awarded a victory for this campaign. Announcing new victory conditions just 2 and a half days or so before the end was ill-advised, not to mention the difficulty of actually achieving those conditions. Really, the only way the Allies could have taken the towns listed in such a short time period would have been if hardly anyone on the other side logged in, particularly considering the Germans knew exactly where we needed to go.

It's clear that we'd already established a very strong beachhead, we took an enormous amount of towns, in spite of losing an enormous amount of supply and having numerous attacks ruined thanks to server crashes. How can 3 towns be so key just because they have airfields? Oostende would have been better as a final victory condition since it's a port town and was near Dunkerque - realistically it would have mattered to take it since it threatened our supply. It would have been difficult to take, but much more fun to try and at least it would have made sense. Alternatively, how about Arras? It was one of our earlier objectives, and I think the only one we didn't manage to take.

On the whole, though, you shouldn't change the victory conditions mid-campaign without good reason, especially not near the end. At the start you said something like it'll basically come down to who 'kicks the most ass'. Giving us nearly impossible new victory conditions meant that the whole thing boiled down to the last few days and our earlier efforts counted for nothing. It struck me as a cheap way of giving the losers something to hold on to, but that's a rather hollow concept, especially when it disenchants the other side. Perhaps what you should have done was add new objectives which would decide whether the victory was total or only partial, since there wasn't really a doubt as to which side was winning generally.

It's a shame there were so many server problems, because this event could have been fantastic throughout, and we'd have reaped the benefits for years to come. Many of the battles were truly spectacular; too many others could have been if the server hadn't crashed. I'm sure you guys have been burning yourselves out trying to fix things. Hopefully things will soon be resolved and you can relax a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.