Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
vasduten1

CRS: We Need a Fix for This

72 posts in this topic

But for some people the HC game is their bread and butter, it is fun and to ignore that ignores hubs nature.

As James10 says this is part of CRS's blue ocean strategy that differentiates them from others.

The HC system after approaching a decade as any system could do with a revisit but to remove it completely would dumb down the fame into a basic shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But for some people the HC game is their bread and butter' date=' it is fun and to ignore that ignores hubs nature.[/quote']

How many?

I want to hear exactly just how big the demographic for HC gameplay is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not going to be a big demographic at all. But there are some players that do enjoy the challenge. Few and far between, sure. The goal then is to increase the demographic if possible and CRS is finally in a position to attempt such an increase. If the tools where much easier to use and much easier to access would go a long way for those that have an interest but get burned out because from what I've heard the tools can be a bit cumbersome and frustrating. I do not think that's the main contributor to burn out but would certainly open the demographic up some in my opinion.

The alternatives might be to remove the TO&Es and go back to garrisoned towns with player base voting on AO's. I think if we went to something like this HC would still have an important role in guiding there side to making what they think is the right vote and leading the troops in the field and of course formulating strategies for large offensives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many?

I want to hear exactly just how big the demographic for HC gameplay is.

The key component to my response that you ignored (deliberately?) was this:

"As James10 says this is part of CRS's blue ocean strategy that differentiates them from others.

The HC system after approaching a decade as any system could do with a revisit but to remove it completely would dumb down the fame into a basic shooter."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're talking maybe TEN Axis players, and around 18 Allied.

That's it.

It doesn't work.

Over or close to 50 allies just in the army orbat.

Thats why you're losing. Thats why you had to change side to troll/protest.

Edited by Lob12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Over or close to 50 allies just in the army orbat.

Thats why you're losing. Thats why you had to change side to troll/protest.

So after years of refinements high command is no larger than a small EVE corporation, and it also means that who wins the game is determined by who has more players willing to fill out forms and take on a second job not average players working together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So after years of refinements high command is no larger than a small EVE corporation' date=' and it also means that who wins the game is determined by who has more players willing to fill out forms and take on a second job not average players working together.[/quote']

Wrong again. Allied HCs are mostly squad members/officers too. A couple of lonewolfs too, but with squad background (like me).

Oh and the whole point of the reserve corp is not having to do any administrative work. Thats why I'm in it.

Anyway. Free trolling account ftw.

Edited by Lob12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Over or close to 50 allies just in the army orbat.

Thats why you're losing. Thats why you had to change side to troll/protest.

I'm not playing Allied to troll or protest.

I'm playing it to enjoy this game once again.

I LIKE having all of those baby shermans to use against the IVG. It's so much easier.

It's also easier to fly and bomb, and fight in the air, (I suck, but still easier,) and the Thompson is an AWESOME SMG.

Easily twice the firepower of the MP40.

Really man, all of this balancing nonsense is just talk. It's not a playerbase problem.

It's a CRS problem.

I'm not gonna get all mad any more, I'll just play where I can have fun. I don't mind playing either side.

Just don't sit here and tell me that the Axis are "lacking" teamwork, HC participation, or ZOCs... They're lacking anyone who wants to get f*cked in foil tanks or sloppy SMGs, or planes that boom and zoom only.

(the part about planes is not a gripe, it's just what they were designed to do and makes them not as much fun -not LESS than, the obvious exception being the DB7, and Havoc light bombers... those are so good.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before christmas, allies rarely had more than 5 HCs on during TZ1 and TZ2. TZ3 was rarely covered at all. When we started winning, more officers logged on. Once axis starts winning again numbers will swing back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong again. Allied HCs are mostly squad members/officers too. A couple of lonewolfs too, but with squad background (like me).

Oh and the whole point of the reserve corp is not having to do any administrative work. Thats why I'm in it.

Anyway. Free trolling account ftw.

It doesn't matter if you are also in a squad, you are in HC so that means that you take on a second job as a content creator for a small game company, and you pay a monthly fee to be able to do so. You just admitted how HC-centric the game is by saying that the lack of HC was why the other side was losing.

HC is all that matters now, whatever problem in HC overshadows any effort from regular players and that is not good game design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11243875_931372583551096_1025337476_n.jpg

You can ignore me; but you can't beat me.

I broke your will to play AND to post.

Victoire totale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter if you are also in a squad, you are in HC so that means that you take on a second job as a content creator for a small game company, and you pay a monthly fee to be able to do so. You just admitted how HC-centric the game is by saying that the lack of HC was why the other side was losing.

HC is all that matters now, whatever problem in HC overshadows any effort from regular players and that is not good game design.

This game is all about player-created content. You think running a squad is an easy task? Lol.

Whatever. The side with the most committed people will always end up winning. HC or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter if you are also in a squad' date=' you are in HC so that means that you take on a [b']second job as a content creator for a small game company, and you pay a monthly fee to be able to do so. You just admitted how HC-centric the game is by saying that the lack of HC was why the other side was losing.

HC is all that matters now, whatever problem in HC overshadows any effort from regular players and that is not good game design.

This game is centered on player-created content. THAT is what makes it special. That's also what you advocate for in your HC-less, sandbox style, 1/2-scale-model-of-europe-for-100-players, whatever you call it idea.

All HC does is give a visible label to some of the people who are more than willing to create content for their fellow gamers. Except that it has the added bonus of providing an overall strategic direction for each side.

The game existed in an HC-less state before, and you know what happened? The players themselves created the HCs as a way to provide direction and centralize those people who create content.

When your players who create content stop logging in, you will lose. That will be true in this game with or without the HC label that you abhor so greatly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All HC does is give a visible label to some of the people who are more than willing to create content for their fellow gamers. Except that it has the added bonus of providing an overall strategic direction for each side.

If HC was a just a label and just gave guidance then the gameplay wouldn't collapse catastrophically whenever there wasn't HC or experienced HC online, and CRS wouldn't be obligated to sub in their own employees as HC when a team didn't have it's own.

Also there would be far more HC if all that was required was to wear a hat and give advice about "strategic direction", I can't believe that you're trying to pretend that HC aren't in control of and responsible for every major aspect of the game.

The game existed in an HC-less state before' date=' and you know what happened? The players [i']themselves created the HCs as a way to provide direction and centralize those people who create content.

You're comparing player-created leaders and voluntary cooperation with company-created leaders where obedience is mandatory as if they're even remotely the same thing.

When your players who create content stop logging in' date=' you will lose. That will be true in this game with or without the HC label that you abhor so greatly.[/quote']

Which is why it was such a terrible idea to systematically remove all ability for player guilds/squads to affect the game and give HC a monopoly over everything. It's a HC game now, normal players don't matter if HC isn't up to par and HC haven't been able to create as good or even as consistent content as squads used to.

Instead of "not enough players" or "not enough organized players" being reasons for a game loss it's "not enough players that want to go through a company approval process and take on a second job". Bad game design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If HC was a just a label and just gave guidance then the gameplay wouldn't collapse catastrophically whenever there wasn't HC or experienced HC online, and CRS wouldn't be obligated to sub in their own employees as HC when a team didn't have it's own.

Also there would be far more HC if all that was required was to wear a hat and give advice about "strategic direction", I can't believe that you're trying to pretend that HC aren't in control of and responsible for every major aspect of the game.

You're comparing player-created leaders and voluntary cooperation with company-created leaders where obedience is mandatory as if they're even remotely the same thing.

Which is why it was such a terrible idea to systematically remove all ability for player guilds/squads to affect the game and give HC a monopoly over everything. It's a HC game now, normal players don't matter if HC isn't up to par and HC haven't been able to create as good or even as consistent content as squads used to.

Instead of "not enough players" or "not enough organized players" being reasons for a game loss it's "not enough players that want to go through a company approval process and take on a second job". Bad game design.

Damn... David01 pretty much knocked it out of the park here.

Once upon a time, squads would log in and communicate with other squads and just hit areas. It wasn't set to a number of AOs, or flag movements... it was just voluntary, and people volunteered constantly to bring tanks and big guns up from the rear, while pilots flew overwatch.

This was most weekends!

During low pop times, people were free to do what they wanted. It was never much sense to just go attack some far flung town without a group of at LEAST five, and people always tended to congregate in areas of intense fighting.

The problem was that new players would hop in and not know where the fun was. That problem carried over to the HC system and persisted for years -until the Active Battles Tab was put in.

HC is less player driven than before, as CRS expects and requires both HCs to report in to them at regular intervals. Not that CRS tells anyone what to hit, but AOs are limited, Flag movements are a factor, etc.

In FACT...

Prior to the Christmas patch, GHC was asked to hold off on invading England until the patch came out. They did.

CRS would do well to just let it be the sandbox it SHOULD be, and focus on supporting the programming and maintenance of the servers for better reliability and less server side lag, offset, etc.

Also, the whole issue of "How many players are HC on either side" or "One side has way more playing than the other" are CRS' problems to solve; not ours.

We don't market for them, we don't advertise, we don't do anything but pay to play. Some jump on as programmers, etc., but most of us just play.

That's what we're here for; to play and have fun.

Edited by vasduten1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prior to the Christmas patch, GHC was asked to hold off on invading England until the patch came out. They did.

CRS would do well to just let it be the sandbox it SHOULD be, and focus on supporting the programming and maintenance of the servers for better reliability and less server side lag, offset, etc.

Also, the whole issue of "How many players are HC on either side" or "One side has way more playing than the other" are CRS' problems to solve; not ours.

We don't market for them, we don't advertise, we don't do anything but pay to play. Some jump on as programmers, etc., but most of us just play.

That's what we're here for; to play and have fun.

Shut up, you're full of ****.

**** and lies. You couldn't take Oostende with +20% TOM, its on you!.

CRS never said ****, this is a lie fabricated by some sour soul on the axis side.

And yeah keep waiting for others to step up in your stead. Meanwhile, you'll remain what you are : a gimp at the mercy of others.

Don't even try to take things into your own hands, like I did when we were getting rolled. no just flee to the victorious side like a moaning *****.

You're a pathetic player. You couldn't have turned this around even if you tried. You're no match for us. You will never be a determining factor in this game, no matter how much you whine and whine.

Gimp.

Edited by Lob12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how this david guy has 37 kills in career since 2012, no sorties this map but knows a lot about everything :rolleyes:

What do you even know about HC and what we do? lmao.

0 experience

0 credibility.

Doesn't even pay for his account.

F2P posting rights ftw.

Edited by Lob12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prior to the Christmas patch, GHC was asked to hold off on invading England until the patch came out. They did.

This rumor is false. It has been discussed and the Axis Commander in Chief has also weighted in on it saying that it was false. The Axis HC moved to go for a different set of victory conditions and their attempt failed, they lost a division. Todberg has made a statement on this subject in the axis forums some where at the time. It did not cause the collapse of the map, but it did hurt.

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.