Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
tyrdaimp

Hate to say this, but this game sucks now. (allied point of view)

20 posts in this topic

Being under pop 1:6 sucks.

We're constantly steam rolled, our AO's lack proper units, if we are lucky to get a spawn cp, axis throw multiple (5+) enemy tanks to camp the depot.

And it literally sucks, being steam rolled to tomorrow land. Even if you get that one guy to take a Sherman or another tank to try and support our AO, axis already have multiple OP panzershreks sniping our tanks. Due to this heavy allied under population, many of us just "gave up" because there is no point in trying to fight back. Its like a smart car vs a Semi jousting each other. There is no point because even if we get back up on our feet, we're thrown back down. I also hate to see all our "new" players spawn in on the allied team, and get steam rolled, then leave because of rage quit.

There should be a population lock for a team which throws the ratio wayyy off like it is now. This is to prevent massive map changes over a hour.

Im sure it has been brought to the CRS attention in regards to the imbalance going on at this time.

As much as the game is fun, its a major killer logging on and seeing the allies lose 3+ towns.

I am not going to lie though, i can get many many kills, that does nothing for us. They mate faster than we can slaughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being under pop 1:6 sucks.

We're constantly steam rolled, our AO's lack proper units, if we are lucky to get a spawn cp, axis throw multiple (5+) enemy tanks to camp the depot.

And it literally sucks, being steam rolled to tomorrow land. Even if you get that one guy to take a Sherman or another tank to try and support our AO, axis already have multiple OP panzershreks sniping our tanks. Due to this heavy allied under population, many of us just "gave up" because there is no point in trying to fight back. Its like a smart car vs a Semi jousting each other. There is no point because even if we get back up on our feet, we're thrown back down. I also hate to see all our "new" players spawn in on the allied team, and get steam rolled, then leave because of rage quit.

There should be a population lock for a team which throws the ratio wayyy off like it is now. This is to prevent massive map changes over a hour.

Im sure it has been brought to the CRS attention in regards to the imbalance going on at this time.

As much as the game is fun, its a major killer logging on and seeing the allies lose 3+ towns.

I am not going to lie though, i can get many many kills, that does nothing for us. They mate faster than we can slaughter.

In the last year the Allies have won a significant majority of the Campaign's. I'm not sure if I understand that your AO's lack proper units, supply? Bazooka's are as effective as Panzerschrek's. Reviewing the logs, there does not appear to be a 6:1 advantage in any time zone, nor does there appear to be any significant overpopulation supporting the above claims.

Population in general has increased (on both sides) now that summer is coming to a close, our recent development efforts as well as the 30 second maximum spawn delay change which has been overwhelmingly favored.

I can see your frustration but from the non-biased perspective and observing the grand scheme of things, it appears that there isn't anything significant going onto support the claims made here.

The campaign sways around back and fourth, from one side to the next. Based on who is online, their knowledge level of strategy, the player's willingness to execute the orders from High Command, and organization / communication are always decisive factors into the overall war effort.

I wish I could provide you a quick and easy solution, but neither are possible. It takes hard work from the community to make your side more successful. That requires a total investment from (in this case) the entire Allied side, in and out of game, every ounce of effort, leadership and followership is incredibly valuable.

If you have some constructive solutions you are able to propose, we can consider them. I don't have anything to work from with this though.

S!

Edited by XOOM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that happens when allies have 5+ planes in the sky and 5+ tanks on the ground but nearly no infantry on ground defending CPs.

aka TZ3

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we as allies are just all over the place recently. Too many leaders and not enough followers. That has been my observation over the past few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big difference is that this campaign SD is capped at 30 seconds and the culture differences in game mean it seems one side had always seemed to benefit from such a reduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point with respect to planes and armor. Really seeing the Allies in the sky and in armor more than on the ground overall. Can't cap or defend cps that way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a zero sum game. For every winner, there is a loser. Sometimes we just have to take our licks with silence when it's our turn.

But it will be their turn again soon enough ;)

Especially if we can get Allied RDP to be a factor once again (but that means having a fair amount of DB7 supply, which we have not had for many months).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XOOM, that response was way too coherent. If you want to follow in DOC's footsteps, you need to seriously up the mushroom intake before replying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
post

From what I've seen recently almost every attack still fails(someone should have the AO success % it's probably abysmal). Axis attacks are also really barebones, most are 1-3 frus, some infantry and whatever assets trail in randomly. On both sides tanks are used overwhelmingly on the defense, usually to camp depots it's standard cheese. Of course there are stat padders but the brigade system massively encourages camping over capturing objectives, it's literally better to let the enemy have a depot and camp in a tank than defend the depot.

Three towns are only big deal because it's so hard to capture a town. A town should flip each hour(at least) during prime time but it seems like one a day or even less if you discount softcaps, so when one team gets three quickly it's like "woah" despite there being hundreds on the map. Also the brigade system means that you can't just keep fighting you're forced to be at a disadvantage(for some stupid reason) 18 hours now instead of just spawning at the next base and fighting. You get your butt kicked once and it actually becomes easier for the enemy to roll you thanks to this system.

A population lock would punish the team that has free players or new players, or really any team that has people spawning anything but the absolute most efficient unit for what they're doing. This could easily be the losing team instead of the winning team. Allies already had problems earlier in the year when they were getting hit with spawn delay while on defense and losing, a pop lock is far more poweful than spawn delay. Probably most importantly you'll have many situations where the better decision will be to log off and pop lock the other team than stay logged in and defend the town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the only diference is that alies dont need to be overpop or tz3 to win! nuts for the future!

S!

Let's reexamine something Xoom has said.

Reviewing the logs, there does not appear to be a 6:1 advantage in any time zone, nor does there appear to be any significant overpopulation supporting the above claims.

I can see your frustration but from the non-biased perspective and observing the grand scheme of things, it appears that there isn't anything significant going onto support the claims made here.

I wish I could provide you a quick and easy solution, but neither are possible. It takes hard work from the community to make your side more successful. That requires a total investment from (in this case) the entire Allied side, in and out of game, every ounce of effort, leadership and followership is incredibly valuable.

It's easy to blame overpop Axis for "losing" or "getting rolled" [as of lately], but I think the issue needs to be examined deeper at the strategy level.

Edited by dexlysik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy to blame overpop Axis for "losing" or "getting rolled" [as of lately], but I think the issue needs to be examined deeper at the strategy level.

You mean the 2 AO's in low pop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright. Lets make something very clear; whenever one side starts to gain momentum in a campaign many players migrate to the other side. Happens all the time. Right now Axis are doing well. We also are active through all time zones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This camp has been a grind. Axis is advancing slowly but allies are taking towns every day. We lost 3 or 4 yesterday...3 or 4 the day before that...

You picked up Chokk which help your chances immensely.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright. Lets make something very clear; whenever one side starts to gain momentum in a campaign many players migrate to the other side. Happens all the time. Right now Axis are doing well. We also are active through all time zones.

While I am against side locks, THIS issue always drives me absolutely bonkers. It's like people are ONLY willing to play if they are winning. Which would make sense if the wins didn't get skewed by it.

Don't get me wrong, when a side wins, it's not primarily because of the switchers, but the switchers do have an effect.

My thought is this...Are you really winning if you have to do it by jumping ship when things on your original side start going downhill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I am against side locks, THIS issue always drives me absolutely bonkers. It's like people are ONLY willing to play if they are winning. Which would make sense if the wins didn't get skewed by it.

Don't get me wrong, when a side wins, it's not primarily because of the switchers, but the switchers do have an effect.

My thought is this...Are you really winning if you have to do it by jumping ship when things on your original side start going downhill?

Amen to that! I personally look at defensive missions when we are losing as a challege. Now grant it I play Axis 95+% of the time but we lost campaigns 112, 113, and 114. (though we put up quite a fight) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the lifetime of the game, 57axis/54 allied wins with 4 camps truce or missing data = 115 campaigns only a difference of 3 wins.

Hard to get much evener than that.

Yea it sucks to be on the receiving end but rocks to be on the top end.

That's gaming, you win some/lose some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Over the lifetime of the game, 57axis/54 allied wins with 4 camps truce or missing data = 115 campaigns only a difference of 3 wins.

Hard to get much evener than that.

Yea it sucks to be on the receiving end but rocks to be on the top end.

That's gaming, you win some/lose some.

Those are some great stats oldzeke. Thanks for sharing them. I understand the disappointment by the losing side when some of their members either defect or surrender (when I say surrender here it means a sides player just not playing much after a certain point if at all), it is just part of the game. Sure I'd love to see some miraculous breakouts and comebacks. But there is a tipping point in just about every war.

Our victory conditions are very stringent and demanding and the defections and surrenders (not playing) actually help to end the campaign much more quickly than otherwise near the end of campaigns. I'm all for longer campaigns up to a point, there is a balance that must be met here. It's just natural for this to happen. I'll be honest I don't play a whole lot near the end. I just hop on every once in a while to make it a little difficult and provide some targets for the Axis players. It gives me a chance to put some breathing space between me and the game.

I would not mind an 8 hour side lock restriction and think it would be good for game play but not necessarily good for subscription rates in the short term. Of course that comes from a player that self imposes a side lock for the entire campaign as I only play Allied. So for me any side lock is no big deal. But that is my choice and I would not impose such a burden on others in a subscription based game. I also understand that a fair amount of players DO NOT want to see any amount of side lock. I'm OK with that too, it's not a deal breaker for me.

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.