Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
stonecomet

Frustrated for the right reasons

69 posts in this topic

I've seen some complaints about the new MSP truck deployment method. One of the ones I've seen is that it makes Infantry tougher to play. True. Another is the complaint that the MSP can no longer be placed as close to town at the start than it used to be. True. Another is the frustration of attacks stalling and expressing that the attack is stale or never going to happen. True. Another complaint is during low population times it is difficult to move the map or capture. True. Those are actually all good things in many ways.

After playing for a few days and observing I'll give you StoneComet's advice for setting up and continuing attacks but first a word on the above frustrations.

Infantry is tougher to play. This is true and everyone will not like it. However, the new system has brought Armor and Large Guns back into their rightful place as major deciders in battle conditions. Infantry gets easier to play if you actually play infantry as they should. More on that later.

MSP (FRU) placement. It is very true that MSPs are very difficult to place and sustain less than 800-900m from a town, especially at the beginning of an attack. I've seen players/squads use them well and others just banging there head against the wall in their insistence on placing an MSP in a poor relatively open, close to town, strategic and tactical area and expecting armor, infantry, guns and emplacements to carry the day. While this can be done with an organized and highly superior force it is wiser to take your time and assess the town and it's geographical components and place the MSP with support from the rest of the PB in the area.

Attacks stalling or useless. I've personally seen 3 towns that I can think of that took a few failed attempts, mainly because of poor attack organization and overextending lines, where the town was eventually taken with better attack organization and execution. Attacks that were decried as useless and stale. Taking a town on the first attempt will be rare and regrouping or even coming back to that attack later can be very rewarding. Besides, some of those failed attacks are fun anyways. Frustrating, yes, but for the right reasons.

Low Population time zone difficulties. 24/7 365. The new mechanic makes it very difficult for map movement during server low pop and even at times creating battles can be a challenge. While this is bad for some low server pop players and unfortunately for some that play the game only at odd hours (odd only compared to the rest of the PB), it is good for the game overall. This is an area where a change to the MSP delivery makes no sense simply to alleviate these concerns. Perhaps there are other areas of the game that could be tweaked to make these time periods more enjoyable. Bottom line we need more players during those times. I think it is something we live with in a 24/7 365 game like this.

StoneComet's advice. I'm sure there are more experienced players that not only realize some of my advice but some probably practice some of it.

Setting up an AO.

First of all, unless a couple of active squads (something of a rarity these days), have pre-planned, organized at the FB before the AO is placed in great numbers we are not going to surprise the town and overwhelm it.

Take your time. Look at the map and the geography of the town. If unfamiliar then you might have to make adjustments on the fly during placement. Communicate before you leave, get ATGs and or Armor support before moving out if possible. A little patience goes a long way these days. When driving in look for high ground areas with concealment from the town if possible or use a ridge line for cover if feasible.

Ideally, in most cases, you want to place the initial MSPs or FRUs 800-900 meters out, possibly even further out . Communicate, get armor and infantry support. Infantry should be concerned with scouting and securing the area around the MSP first. Infantry should not be trying to breach the towns defenses at this point. Form up into fire groups and have clear objectives (area defense, scouting, support and CP capture only when warranted and have a fair chance at success). Get organized in the ZOC MSP area.

Once the initial MSP is placed and the area secure place a new MSP under the over-watch of the first MSP closer to town as some of the armor moves up. Effective communication is more important than ever.

Do NOT overextend. Armor and infantry should be working within the same area until a relatively safe and clear path into town is established by the ZOC. Once Armor and infantry have established such a path infantry can now breach into the town in groups with a clear objective. Most likely any spawn-able CP which have become more important than ever (expect heavily guarded, attack in numbers) but it should be clear to the fire team what the objective is.

Once an enemy spawn is captured focus attention on securing that area and on the nearest enemy spawn(s). Never leave an enemy spawn behind your lines, even if they are not being used by the enemy. Hold your lines and secure the spawn first. The nature of the new MSP system requires area capture, through securing a ZOC before advancing into the next area.

These are just a few of the behavioral adjustments that need to be made in order to have the greater chance at success. Is this always feasible? No. Will battle plans fall apart once contact is made? Probably. But by adhering to some basic military principles and executing them with superior communication give that side an advantage over the other in most cases.

So we now have a system which can be frustrating for a couple of reasons such as poor communication, poor organization, poor execution and increased difficulty for infantry movement and survive-ability. All of these reasons are not only acceptable in a milsim like BGE but give success for the right reasons and frustrate players for the same as well.

Infantry role play. The role of the infantry has changed some. While still the only unit that can capture, the infantry are more vital now as scouts and supporting other military elements. The new system rewards groups of fire teams that work together with all supporting elements and move cohesively and decisively. Infantry should be scouting, securing areas of control and supporting armor and atg/aa placements and movements. I'm still seeing a good bit of straight line to town philosophy and not enough fire team groups working towards a common objective. This behavior only frustrates itself. Take your time (relatively speaking), communicate with other members of the mission and work in groups. It is no longer all about Town fighting, at first you have to advance with the armor and supporting elements, not out in front and out of contact. Unless you are a scout in which case you would not be charging the city. Bottom line, shoot less and look and report more. It's no longer run and shoot most of the time, although those time will come once Towns are breached considerably.

Armor role play. Armor has finally returned as a primary piece of equipment on the battlefield. However, armor will be required to communicate with each other and the infantry to support each other. Armor in certain situations needs to move more slowly and in tandem with infantry movements. Armor will also be more successful in teams of 3-5 that work together in the same area with the goal to advance slowly with the infantry to breach a Towns defenses. I said that twice because it is very important under this system.

Where does this leave the lone wolf? A little out in the cold really. It will be more important than ever for mission leaders to have a plan and communicate it effectively. Lone wolves once on mission should be at least communicating with each other (something some lone wolves really don't like to do) and working together towards a common goal. Some times lately I've been on missions where there are no comms and everyone fans out and becomes relatively ineffective. Then the comms come on as gripes and negativity but mostly because of their own behaviors.

Combined arms will be required to work more closely together and move together and have the same localized objective. Maybe that is why some are getting frustrated. Because they have to rely on more communication and more coordinated movements between elements rather than mass spawning.

Mission Leader communication and organization will be critical. Communications either through TeamSpeak or at least the Mission Channel will be required. Coordination with other MLs and/or the OIC will also be critical. Mission Leaders have the best set of in game tools to coordinate forces. Use them.

Instead of relying on poor military planning and coordination and a flood of MSPs to overwhelm, each side will have to get it's team together and use proper military reasoning to win the day. For me all those frustrations are for the right reasons and the rewards for proper play far outweigh those that refuse to fight in a sensible way.

Everyone will not like the effects the change has made but it is a better game overall from my point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truck only place FRUs is a 0.5 stepbackward in the game, I personally don't have the patient or time to make a mission and have a 90% chance to die when I approach the town and a 99% chance dieing while I approach an AO which is already being fought, sometimes I just want to play solo to blow some steam or have a short game session and I don't have time for more coordination.(Based in what I see, I think I make part of the majority)

I never been able to take a town with trucks and 3-10 coordinated players(No TS) but I was able to take a couple with FRUs.(3-10 players means FRU placers, Tanker Commanders (not bulk inf and tanks))

With FRUs I can as infantry and with binos scan faster, stealthier and more accurately look for the ideal location all these by myself at pretty much any life stage of an AO.

With Trucks you have to go in circles sometimes go in dead ends always with audio, after spotting a good place if you want to angle or rotate the fru you have to put in reverse, turn, forward etc.. Then you spawn only to see it's not entirely well placed. If you spot a better place you have to respawn as a truck go to that place again with audio.

FRUs are the future and these can simply be fixed and become vastly superior just by:

1- making them fortified,

2- only destroyable by satchels,

3- allowing to spawn Guns and possibly trucks

4- dividing every current brigade by 5 new brigades.

This way you can maintain ZOCs easier with few players, to overcome that ZOC you need to really conquer and use engineers, you have a limited supply so you wont have entires armies spawning there and since the supply runs faster it would force new trucks to be driven while rewarding squad play by being more coordinated and maintain every Pro of the infantry place FRU.

This is the ideal solution at the current stage and level of dev resources CRS has.

The current system you probably loose as much as you gain but it's amplified by the lack of players.

Unless the playerbase(real active players) approve of this change by 60%(not 51%) it really should be reverted back, ideally subscribers vote should count for 2 while F2P count for 1 since one of those are paying the bills.

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allied side has been running trucks to town and killing engines ~1.5k out and rolling in. Beyond normal audio pickup. Good tactic and forces defense out to watch for them. Downside, imo, is the high visibility of a fru. If you drift in you only get one chance to hide the fru correctly. I say change the fru design to make it look more like the bushes we already have scattered about. It should be something you really have to hunt for. Not visible by air or from a distance. Make people use map marking and follow the ant trail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't have the numbers to support truck fru's Period !!

Double this.

Also we don't have the numbers to use truck frus in england.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truck only place FRUs is a 0.5 stepbackward in the game, I personally don't have the patient or time to make a mission and have a 90% chance to die when I approach the town and a 99% chance dieing while I approach an AO which is already being fought, sometimes I just want to play solo to blow some steam or have a short game session and I don't have time for more coordination.(Based in what I see, I think I make part of the majority)

I never been able to take a town with trucks and 3-10 coordinated players(No TS) but I was able to take a couple with FRUs.(3-10 players means FRU placers, Tanker Commanders (not bulk inf and tanks))

With FRUs I can as infantry and with binos scan faster, stealthier and more accurately look for the ideal location all these by myself at pretty much any life stage of an AO.

With Trucks you have to go in circles sometimes go in dead ends always with audio, after spotting a good place if you want to angle or rotate the fru you have to put in reverse, turn, forward etc.. Then you spawn only to see it's not entirely well placed. If you spot a better place you have to respawn as a truck go to that place again with audio.

FRUs are the future and these can simply be fixed and become vastly superior just by:

1- making them fortified,

2- only destroyable by satchels,

3- allowing to spawn Guns and possibly trucks

4- dividing every current brigade by 5 new brigades.

This way you can maintain ZOCs easier with few players, to overcome that ZOC you need to really conquer and use engineers, you have a limited supply so you wont have entires armies spawning there and since the supply runs faster it would force new trucks to be driven while rewarding squad play by being more coordinated and maintain every Pro of the infantry place FRU.

This is the ideal solution at the current stage and level of dev resources CRS has.

The current system you probably loose as much as you gain but it's amplified by the lack of players.

Unless the playerbase(real active players) approve of this change by 60%(not 51%) it really should be reverted back, ideally subscribers vote should count for 2 while F2P count for 1 since one of those are paying the bills.

Why do the players that want to give truck based MSPs (FRUs) a chance need a super majority to get it or keep it. The other 49% (sound a bit like Mitt there) have had it pretty good for the past several years without a super majority.

The MSP is going to be fortified but making it destroy-able by satchel only would be a mistake from my point of view. It only needs to be fortified to the point that it is difficult to take out (10 bombs, shells and pretty much impervious to small arms fire) but the defense needs to have the ability to stall or break an area of attack from a reasonable distance if they can break the ZOC surrounding the MSP. Defenses should not be required to overextend their defenses in order to break or stall an attack, at least I don't think they should. Satchels should do a lot of damage but should probably take at least one more than one sapper can carry.

Allowing guns and trucks in some form, limited or not, from the current MSP system would be a great compliment to the system, at least the trucks would. In your system, you silently sneak in and using your glass you find a nice close location for your infantry placed FRU and bang an ATG walks out and starts hitting the town. I'm pretty sure that mechanic would be abused. Even if we did not allow

Why does CRS and 51% of the player base have to provide a game mechanic or any rules so you can play pretty much a single player game experience or a small player group coop game to satisfy your urge to blow off some steam. This is an intensive military World War II MMO experience.

There are plenty of games that fit the bill for myself when all I want is a short session and want to blow off some steam. BGE is not one of them so when I'm in that mood I never get near BGE. I play something else and come back to BGE when I can invest some time and expect to work together with the rest of the players on my side. My expectation of BGE has never been one of a casual game experience. My expectation for BGE has always been that I'd be in an intense and time consuming World War II military environment where I would be required by game design to work with all or as many of the players on my side.

Lastly and first in your post. Your numbers 90% and 99% do not add up at all from my point of view and observations. Maybe you are just throwing high numbers up to make a point. Over the past few days I have successfully placed MSPs (FRUs) with a truck during a hot attack somewhere about 70-75% of the time without getting killed getting in and about half that time my MSP stayed up for a considerable amount of time. I have driven trucks into new AO's and reversed and all that jazz but I'm placing my initial MSP further out than we are used to. Once the attack heats up I can usually get a truck and move it in closer with all the noise and hopefully some cover from my teammates and when I do that I use reverse or whatever to place the MSP. Only once can I remember getting killed on the way in and that was because the defenders had pushed out and ZOC'd the area between the FB and town. I then stopped running trucks and a good old FB fight ensued.

We don't have the numbers to support truck fru's Period !!

That has not been my experience when I log on. Sometimes things are a little strained and other times almost beyond frustration. This was relatively the same case before. Usually during server low pop. But over all, most times I log on there is a good fight and sometimes spectacular ZOCs and combined arms fights. Attacks have been successful. The map still moves. Your an XO for the Royal Lancers and I've seen you in HC as well. Yet you come out and make a blanket statement like that. Are you saying if we had numbers you would approve of the truck deployed MSP or are you just totally against it?

I'm not sure if we have the right population to have truck deployed MSPs (FRU), at least I'm willing to admit some doubt and I am a strong proponent of truck placed MSPs. The results I have seen so far are promising.

I remember when we had the infantry FRUs, not that long ago really, we had the same complaints about server population. What I do know is that this system feels and plays better in a milsim environment such as BGE and I'll put dollars to doughnuts that if we keep this model for STEAM release we will retain more long term than if we reverted back to infantry placed FRUs. Your statement just says flat out no, when my experiences since the change have not even come close to reaching that conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was wondering why we had so few fru. I didnt know they changed the rules. i love town fighting . i wont keep playing if there no action. i can only spawn a rifle so game play now sucks in the fields chasing trucks with at guns and dodging tanks. yes im frustrated, we need more fru not less and just trucks wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

For the most part I do find what you have written to be good advice and should be taken into consideration while playing the game under its current Truck Only placed FRUs system.

However, in regards to the following comment I must take you to task, as I (and possibly others as well) find it to be bordering on insulting. . .

Low Population time zone difficulties. 24/7 365. The new mechanic makes it very difficult for map movement during server low pop and even at times creating battles can be a challenge. While this is bad for some low server pop players and unfortunately for some that play the game only at odd hours (odd only compared to the rest of the PB), it is good for the game overall. This is an area where a change to the MSP delivery makes no sense simply to alleviate these concerns. Perhaps there are other areas of the game that could be tweaked to make these time periods more enjoyable. Bottom line we need more players during those times. I think it is something we live with in a 24/7 365 game like this.

First and foremost, in a “24/7 365” game, there are no “odd hours”. There are only High and Low Server Population times. The PB is everyone that plays the game no matter when. All of the PB should be able to affect the course of the game regardless of whether they play during High or Low Population times.

To quote the Battleground Europe home page:

One Server - One War

Source: http://www.battlegroundeurope.net/home

To even suggest:

Perhaps there are other areas of the game that could be tweaked to make these time periods more enjoyable.

Infers the people who do play during the “odd hours” as you have indicated, would be interested in engaging in a pursuit where they are unable affect the course of the game by their endeavours is outright false.

The prise for ALL of the Player Base in Battleground Europe IS Map Movement.

That is to ultimate objective of the players engaging in their sides AO. The players engaging in the other side’s DO’s principal objective is to deny the Map Movement the attacking side appears to desire. Take that away or substitute that for something lesser then those players will most likely find something else to do with their discretionary time.

Yes, Massive front collapses during Low Server Population times is a serious issue and does need to be potentially addressed, but as you have said “I think it is something we live with in a 24/7 365 game like this.” To even be “OK” with the concept that, during Low Server Population or “odd hours” the Campaign Map doesn’t move is quiet short sighted.

Bottom line we need more players during those times.

I completely agree. . .

However, the sentiment you expressed within your comment would not encourage people who do play during “odd hours” to join in, when their time schedule allows them to. Players who do play during “odd hours” should have exactly the same ability as the players who don’t play during the “odd hours” or you will be creating a second class player who, quite frankly, won’t be a player for long.

Battleground Europe:


  • One Server - One War.
  • All players are on one game server.
  • Persistent Campaign - Online 24/7, 365 Days a year (mostly).

Maybe the impending Steam release will improve player numbers all over. We will have to wait and see on this front. Although player numbers will potentially increase, there will still be High and Low Server Population times.

Please consider your comment in the potential light that you may then fall into the “odd hours (odd only compared to the rest of the PB)”. I’m not saying it will happen but it might. Your sentiments would then potentially apply to you and not someone else. How would you feel then? Would you be prepared to take one, if “it is good for the game overall”?

In conclusion, I’m not going to peruse silly and petty responses as I have said exactly I feel I need to say on this subject. Please consider what I have said to be presented without any malice or disrespect, but I did feel it was necessary to take to task this comment as allowing it to stand unopposed would be a step in an inappropriate direction.

Cheers

James10

Edited by james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't have the numbers to support truck fru's Period !!

I didnt read the other posts but just a question directed at you, exlax. The ultimate result of your assumption would be the map being at a stalemate, correct? If there is no population to drive in FRUs for attacks = there wont be a successful AO.

Isn't the opposite happening right now? We do have rather a lot of movements on the map? Isn't it a sign that the there is a population to support truck frus, so basically contradicting your assumption?

bb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

For the most part I do find what you have written to be good advice and should be taken into consideration while playing the game under its current Truck Only placed FRUs system.

However, in regards to the following comment I must take you to task, as I (and possibly others as well) find it to be bordering on insulting. . .

First and foremost, in a “24/7 365” game, there are no “odd hours”. There are only High and Low Server Population times. The PB is everyone that plays the game no matter when. All of the PB should be able to affect the course of the game regardless of whether they play during High or Low Population times.

To quote the Battleground Europe home page:

To even suggest:

Infers the people who do play during the “odd hours” as you have indicated, would be interested in engaging in a pursuit where they are unable affect the course of the game by their endeavours is outright false.

That is to ultimate objective of the players engaging in their sides AO. The players engaging in the other side’s DO’s principal objective is to deny the Map Movement the attacking side appears to desire. Take that away or substitute that for something lesser then those players will most likely find something else to do with their discretionary time.

Yes, Massive front collapses during Low Server Population times is a serious issue and does need to be potentially addressed, but as you have said “I think it is something we live with in a 24/7 365 game like this.” To even be “OK” with the concept that, during Low Server Population or “odd hours” the Campaign Map doesn’t move is quiet short sighted.

I completely agree. . .

However, the sentiment you expressed within your comment would not encourage people who do play during “odd hours” to join in, when their time schedule allows them to. Players who do play during “odd hours” should have exactly the same ability as the players who don’t play during the “odd hours” or you will be creating a second class player who, quite frankly, won’t be a player for long.

Battleground Europe:


  • One Server - One War.
  • All players are on one game server.
  • Persistent Campaign - Online 24/7, 365 Days a year (mostly).

Maybe the impending Steam release will improve player numbers all over. We will have to wait and see on this front. Although player numbers will potentially increase, there will still be High and Low Server Population times.

Please consider your comment in the potential light that you may then fall into the “odd hours (odd only compared to the rest of the PB)”. I’m not saying it will happen but it might. Your sentiments would then potentially apply to you and not someone else. How would you feel then? Would you be prepared to take one, if “it is good for the game overall”?

In conclusion, I’m not going to peruse silly and petty responses as I have said exactly I feel I need to say on this subject. Please consider what I have said to be presented without any malice or disrespect, but I did feel it was necessary to take to task this comment as allowing it to stand unopposed would be a step in an inappropriate direction.

Cheers

James10

I apologize to anyone who may be offended by my comments on low server population. I apologize for labeling low server population times as "odd hours". I did say "odd hours" was in comparison with average or high server population levels. Players do have the same abilities and constraints mostly regarding game mechanics. That is because we are all on one server with roughly the same rules at all times. We do, however, already have some special rules that try and help players during low server population times.

Maybe I just worded it incorrectly and I really do apologize if any offense is taken because none was intended. All I was trying to say is with the new system during low server population levels the play will be difficult and require some creativity and lots of patience. I still believe the map moves but much less than before the change during low server population times. I'm not advocating that the map should not move at all during low server population levels. The quality of play will suffer some during low server population play. It did the same thing before the change because we still had forum posts and concerns about low server population and even then players were calling for rule changes that would help the situation. These concerns will be magnified some with the new system. Also remember that I was responding to comments I have seen in the forums and in game stating concerns about the truck deployed MSPs and the effect on low server population times.

My point is that we should not change the spawning mechanic back, something so fundamental and far reaching in terms of overall game play solely to accommodate low server population times. My point was also that in a game that runs all on one server and runs pretty much 24/7 365 (you know what I mean I think) with all the same player base working off that one server we will always have fluctuations of low server population. If the player base as a whole grows then those times become fewer and the effect lessens. However due to the rotation of the Earth and time zones there are certain times when this result (low server population) occurs more frequently, so I do not think we get rid of the issues that arise from low server population completely.

Obviously "odd hours" was somehow very offensive and borderline insulting as you use it to take me to task and prefer the use of low and high populations on the server. I apologize again for that. You'd be wrong though to think I have no regard for players that usually play during low server population times. So I also apologize if I made that impression.

I used to play the game at all hours, not lately, but I've been known to play during low server population times. For me that is usually between 1 AM to 6 AM local time. Sometimes the period is shorter and some days are better than others but it's almost like clockwork. TZsomething. That is all I meant by odd hours. What I am OK with is not changing or creating rules that hinder the quality of play for everyone simply to accommodate low server population times. I just think it's something that we have to live with in certain respects to the game and that possibly special rules that come into effect only during very low server populations might be a better approach than changing the spawn mechanism back to what it was for everyone.

I took no offense with you taking me to task and thank you for pointing out a possibly offensive passage in my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do the players that want to give truck based MSPs (FRUs) a chance need a super majority to get it or keep it. The other 49% (sound a bit like Mitt there) have had it pretty good for the past several years without a super majority.

1 - The problem with a 51% majority is that pretty much 50% is ignored

2 - This is suppose to be a public test not a feature.

3 - The game lived and people play with FRUs, good tankers were still good tankers, ATGs and AA were used more by the defenders(a loss but in real life they were also better in this roles plus ATGs look ugly and are pretty buggy and sitting ducks against infantry, it's not wise to shed much light on this side of the game). Forcing another divisive feature in a already small player base is not a smart move.

The MSP is going to be fortified but making it destroy-able by satchel only would be a mistake from my point of view. It only needs to be fortified to the point that it is difficult to take out (10 bombs, shells and pretty much impervious to small arms fire) but the defense needs to have the ability to stall or break an area of attack from a reasonable distance if they can break the ZOC surrounding the MSP. Defenses should not be required to overextend their defenses in order to break or stall an attack, at least I don't think they should. Satchels should do a lot of damage but should probably take at least one more than one sapper can carry.

Having an all damage HP is bad since you can comfortably destroyed at distance without generating any content and will required few to no teamwork.

As you may know taking down an FB requires teamwork and coordination and/or skill, some FB's are only possible to destroy with combine arms.

This basically adds some of that FB gameplay to the game, since it's closer to town the defenders will be able to experience and more easily organize a combine arms push cuz AB is closer.(Having a combine arms push/progression is definitely where this game shines)

And even in real life "ZOCs" could be bombed and shelled but this would only disrupt rather than eliminate them.

Allowing guns and trucks in some form, limited or not, from the current MSP system would be a great compliment to the system, at least the trucks would. In your system, you silently sneak in and using your glass you find a nice close location for your infantry placed FRU and bang an ATG walks out and starts hitting the town. I'm pretty sure that mechanic would be abused.

Ideally the max should be 1 Gun and 1 AA but I think having not the full access to the supply list has been said by rats to be difficult to implement. So having more brigades with less supply would limited that negative impact, the min FRU distance could be increase to 400m as well(this is the most efficient solution)

The problem with FRU's is that most of the time it can be harder to tow an ATG or AA to defend the FRU.

Allowing an ATG or AA to spawn makes it easier to defend the FRU from Air and Tanks and players can spawn them when it's secure or when there is a need for it requiring less players and more generate more content to experience, with trucks you can more easily reposition those ATGs that spawn.

*It's pretty bad gathering a handful of guns with players expecting to enjoy some content but have them all killed by a lone flanker.

(The ideal system for me would be that each gun by pressing a key would spawn a truck that the player could control. It would add a more realistic life to the battlefield, more targets, more flexibility and no 10+Guns being towed by a single truck. But this is beyond CRS capabilities.)

Why does CRS and 51% of the player base have to provide a game mechanic or any rules so you can play pretty much a single player game experience or a small player group coop game to satisfy your urge to blow off some steam. This is an intensive military World War II MMO experience.

There are plenty of games that fit the bill for myself when all I want is a short session and want to blow off some steam. BGE is not one of them so when I'm in that mood I never get near BGE. I play something else and come back to BGE when I can invest some time and expect to work together with the rest of the players on my side. My expectation of BGE has never been one of a casual game experience. My expectation for BGE has always been that I'd be in an intense and time consuming World War II military environment where I would be required by game design to work with all or as many of the players on my side.

This game is very very far from a small coop or singleplayer game.

This is the most accurate definition of the game strength:

"Massive Combine Arms Fully PvP Non-Instanced Game with some Depth"

You should never force in a game a style of play you should promote it,

the more people you can include with the more styles of gameplay without compromising the game strengths the better, since you have more players you have more money and generate more content.

Good teamwork does not require a mic or TS, these are required because there isn't good enough tools to allow teamworks. In other games I can said easily what I'm going to do with 2 keys, set a waypoint or draw my plan of attack on a map.

Lastly and first in your post. Your numbers 90% and 99% do not add up at all from my point of view and observations. Maybe you are just throwing high numbers up to make a point. ... I then stopped running trucks and a good old FB fight ensued.

Obliviously but in some AO with some age you will be killed 99.99999% of the time. 70%+ Is quite high and I'm imagining that particular time was against an U.P. Side.

I remember when we had the infantry FRUs, not that long ago really, we had the same complaints about server population. What I do know is that this system feels and plays better in a milsim environment such as BGE and I'll put dollars to doughnuts that if we keep this model for STEAM release we will retain more long term than if we reverted back to infantry placed FRUs. Your statement just says flat out no, when my experiences since the change have not even come close to reaching that conclusion.

Really? Are you telling me that most steam users have the patient to be killed over and over again 70% of time or spawn in a camped FRU or trying to deploy a FRU in hot AO 1km and Run 1km to get in a CP and be one-shotted. Doubt it but negative feedback will come from many more other aspects of the game.

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didnt read the other posts but just a question directed at you, exlax. The ultimate result of your assumption would be the map being at a stalemate, correct? If there is no population to drive in FRUs for attacks = there wont be a successful AO.

Isn't the opposite happening right now? We do have rather a lot of movements on the map? Isn't it a sign that the there is a population to support truck frus, so basically contradicting your assumption?

bb

I think he's saying that not all sides have enough to support truck frus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didnt read the other posts but just a question directed at you, exlax. The ultimate result of your assumption would be the map being at a stalemate, correct? If there is no population to drive in FRUs for attacks = there wont be a successful AO.

Isn't the opposite happening right now? We do have rather a lot of movements on the map? Isn't it a sign that the there is a population to support truck frus, so basically contradicting your assumption?

bb

Map is moving because there is a strong unbalance since last patch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Map is moving because there is a strong unbalance since last patch

Why was it moving before the patch ? Axis had 15-20% more TOM.

Where did they all vanish to ?

And for the record allies held the line pretty much the week before the patch and cut an axis divison 2-3 days BEFORE the patch came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why was it moving before the patch ? Axis had 15-20% more TOM.

Where did they all vanish to ?

And for the record allies held the line pretty much the week before the patch and cut an axis divison 2-3 days BEFORE the patch came out.

OT: What does TOM mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And for the record allies held the line pretty much the week before the patch and cut an axis divison 2-3 days BEFORE the patch came out.

The Axis were rolling so hard prior to Tuesday of that week I did not even write about the campaign in the community report. I had figured it would be over before the community report was published. I write the reports starting Sundays. The map stopped on Monday. I think it was Tuesday or Wednesday that the unit was sent to training. Many towns bounced back and forth prior to Thursday's patch release day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to Truck-ONLY FRUs ie the old "MS/UMS" was a not so ideal move at this point in time for several reasons:

a.

Population: lower than 2010 when FRUS were introduced - before 2010 we only fought from truck-based FRUs but the games population supported that mechanism - the decline in pop ever since as well as the desire and goal to keep the action going would have forced CRS to introduce a new spawning mechanism anyway before the remaining population would have left as well on account of being bored to tears.

ATM the population levels are still NOT up to the point were truck-ONLY FRUs can be supported by the amount of players on the server at any given time EXCEPT US Prime Time - which, in turn, is kinda what Low-Pop was back before the introduction of truck AND infantry FRUs ie 2010 and prior.

b.

Equipment differences / Mentalities:

Axis always relied MORE on Infantry than Panzers due to the fact that Axis Pz stick out like sore thumbs in the field* - can be blown up/disabled by anything larger than 12.7mm, at distance too. In conjunction with point a (see above) this reliance on infantry over pz was less obvious / pronounced and therefore less noticable overall BUT it became more and more prominent over the last 4 years due to population numbers dropping.

Allied Tanks OTOH are INDISTINGUISHABLE from bushes if only halfway properly placed in-between them to the point where you can not see an allied stationary tank, until he either fires his gun / starts his engine or makes any noise at all, unless you flat-out run into him denting your helmet on his hull armor.

Combined with the fact that each and every allied tank can kill any Axis PZ, even at distance, it is obvious why Tanks are favored on that side as opposed to axis.

Now combine the low population numbers WITH the Equipment differences AND a mechanism (truck-only FRUS) which worked ok-ISH during times when we had, on AVERAGE, 2x the # of players on the server at any given time and you can see, i hope, why it was not the best point in time to re-introduce this mechanism.

Axis weapon is/was primarily Infantry - Allied weapon is/was primarily Tanks

- To get a Axis FRU up you have to drive a loud, noisy, 3000m EWS vehicle towards the objective and deploy / secure / advance / eliminate threats

- Allied tanks are far easier to hide / ambush those loud, noisy opels trying to set up a FRU with, any axis panzers trying to accompany said opel attempting to establish a ZOC are the same easy prey for above-mentioned reason

- Every Axis AO, from experience, first unit spawned in allied DO was and now for SURE is: tank(s) before inf

-Result = hardly any FRUs and if it lasts 2-4mins TOPS before camped to death or destroyed and Attack is over 15mins in at the latest

Allied attack

- Drive Tanks to town first ("XYZ full ET EWS, single EI - 10 sherms and single capper inb!" - Running joke on Axis)

- Take advantage of superior camouflage and start suppressing defenders trying to intercept incoming loud, unwieldy trucks etc

- Set up Trucks in ZOCs established by Tanks

- start spawning inf

Since Axis primary tool of choice was and is Infantry over Panzers - the decision to make the object necessary to deploy that tool a vehicle and vehicle ONLY in combination with low population numbers and superior tanks as well as the mentality based around the deployment of said tanks on the allied side - was a poor one.

With Infantry FRUS you had the chance to dance through the ET skirt and set up a FRU and get an attack going, even during low-pop and/or underpopulated, so as to pull some attackers of the OP side back on defense - NOW all it needs is 2-3 players of the OP side to spawn a tank/armored car and sit around town towards the FB covering 270deg listening for the inb truck, then flock towards it and kill it/the FRU and nothing goes - that goes for both sides actually so im wondering why the "zomfg axis gangbanging 7:1" Low-Pop Brigade hasn't raised a crapstorm here by now.

Needed:

Infantry FRUS back in game - spawn list = depot spawn list & trickle, to simulate platoon sized skirmish/small unit engagement

TRUCK FRUS = full spawn list

*yes, even after the camo "update"

Edited by gsc4free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Stonecomet on everything. This is a change long over due and is heading in the right direction. As long as sides are somewhat even I don't see the problem. If everyone is teaming up and working together things can happen. High population or low population. Even if it's fighting for one town to be captured during low pop it should still be rewarding if it was a team coordinated attack. And everyone online at the time was working together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the majority of players complaining are the freeplayers and the Axis?

Freeplayers should sub up or shutup.

Axis players complaining that the patch is Allied bias is just a riot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didnt read the other posts but just a question directed at you, exlax. The ultimate result of your assumption would be the map being at a stalemate, correct? If there is no population to drive in FRUs for attacks = there wont be a successful AO.

Isn't the opposite happening right now? We do have rather a lot of movements on the map? Isn't it a sign that the there is a population to support truck frus, so basically contradicting your assumption?

Obviously there is more to it but I'm not one to right a damn book on the forums.

Everyone saying work as a team, work zoc.....there are too many times you can't do this because of lack of teamwork, population.

How about the lone wolves ? They pay to play this game as well.

Most everyone knows where I like to play....in the field searching for armor, my game is gone. Who cares ? nobody really I will just find somewhere else to spend my money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all those complaining about population nose diving, how do you explain the consistent 3 ao's we've had the last week? And don't say the truck based fry screws you out of hitting England and the zees when the allied side successfully hit the zees this week? You can't expect go play like you were before the patch. It's like banging your head against a wall then complaining to the neighbor that he's giving you a headache.

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.