imded

Softcap timers in Low Pop

19 posts in this topic

I know it has been discussed, extensively.

But, has CRS said anything about it being worked on?

It is a game changer for me and I would like to know

what is being done.

:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea someone came up with (was that you?) of tying the cap timers to the current online population; smaller pop gets lower timer and larger pop gets longer timer -- or something like that. A trial or campaign with that in effect would be interesting to see, IMO.

just my dirty little ho

;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the idea someone came up with (was that you?) of tying the cap timers to the current online population; smaller pop gets lower timer and larger pop gets longer timer -- or something like that. A trial or campaign with that in effect would be interesting to see, IMO.

just my dirty little ho

;-)

Yup, me

:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think that the numbers should be a factor...if a side has a higher pop, they need, say 3 guys to cap a CP, instead of just 1. That would help even things out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still think that the numbers should be a factor...if a side has a higher pop, they need, say 3 guys to cap a CP, instead of just 1. That would help even things out.

At present they do have that covered. It appears they have that kind of pop.

Where as the Allies typically DONT. I would not change quantity as much

as the time to take the cp down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remove AO requirement for softcaps.

People who enjoy them can do them whenever they want. People who don't never need fear their precious AOs being used for them. Most of all, large swaths can be covered all at once, to move the map along faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just remove AO requirement for softcaps.

People who enjoy them can do them whenever they want. People who don't never need fear their precious AOs being used for them. Most of all, large swaths can be covered all at once, to move the map along faster.

So!! you want axis to win most of the time?

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So!! you want axis to win most of the time?

I'm going to assume that was sarcasm, because that's not how universal game mechanics changes work, despite what many fools around here think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to assume that was sarcasm, because that's not how universal game mechanics changes work, despite what many fools around here think.

typically over the past 15 years, it seems that axis benefit changes

most of the time. Ergo, the massive exoduses over the years from the

allied side.

That's kinda a hint.

:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and, in this case. during low pop, because the low numbers are not dealt with

in the game mechanics. axis have a massive advantage because

they outnumber the allied side during low POP

Ergo, they can cap many towns per day.

This is historic fact.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, me

:cool:

Me as well....the big three.... Capture , movement and resupply.....should all be effected by the pop and /or the difference ....heck right down to the point the actual lists take a hit.........l

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me as well....the big three.... Capture , movement and resupply.....should all be effected by the pop and /or the difference ....heck right down to the point the actual lists take a hit.........l

So for clarification... Are you suggesting that if, say one side outnumbers the other by 3-1, the supply , movement and capture should be adjusted to reflect that directly?

Wouldn't that pretty much guarantee that pop would always trump tactics, skill and effort? get enough numbers, and the other side can't win, no matter how well they play?

I am not trolling...I am asking if this what you are suggesting, or am I misunderstanding your statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think CRS's current stance is: lowpop sucks but let's focus on bringing in more players so the lowpop issue goes away.

I don't think we we can code anything that will solve lowpop issues, any sytem will break down eventually.. you just need enough players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So for clarification... Are you suggesting that if, say one side outnumbers the other by 3-1, the supply , movement and capture should be adjusted to reflect that directly?

Wouldn't that pretty much guarantee that pop would always trump tactics, skill and effort? get enough numbers, and the other side can't win, no matter how well they play?

I am not trolling...I am asking if this what you are suggesting, or am I misunderstanding your statement?

When a side is over popped....shouldnt they be chewing up supply faster then an under popped side. I mean the sometimes seemingly endless supply shouldn't exist in the lists like they do. If my side was way over popped I would not expect to see a lot of top gear left. Sometimes its not how ya get beat its what you got beat with. You will never see a post whining about how we got over run with infantry late in a fight....compared to a tank camp with tons of top geared equipment showing up at the end of a fight like it was the beginning.

As for supply.....again the wining side is moving away from their factories (Red Ball Express) and supply should be a bit more difficult traveling a greater distance...hence the longer resupply timers for the over popped side and or the side whos distance grows greater from the factories as they capture ground.

I could go on and on....again even the movement timers as well....

I think since its the population that drives this game (under or over pop) it should effect every single timer in the game in one way shape or form. The timers and the LISTS would scale up and down as does the variation between the two sides does.

!S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think CRS's current stance is: lowpop sucks but let's focus on bringing in more players so the lowpop issue goes away.

I don't think we we can code anything that will solve lowpop issues, any sytem will break down eventually.. you just need enough players.

That's not really a good way of looking at it, sure we all want more targets on the battlefield.......BUT again counting on the new players and the current player base to HOPEFULLY self balance itself will never ever happen.

Again bringing in new players is a beautiful thing....expecting them to help with the under pop issue isn't gonna happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look it boils down to this.

in a 3 to 1 odds during the time the total pop is low (TZ3)

You may see 2x AO or even 3x AO.

Now the side that has the 3x pop can attack SC and the low

side can do nothing about it. I have seen at times when there

was only 7 allied and the other side had at a min, 21+

So allied tried to defend a town. Couldn't go to the SC cause

not enough peeps.

One time I saw that the axis took 8+ towns. With the next nite 6+

Rinse and repeat.

In the end, this was not recoverable. Allied picked up 2x towns at nite

to have that totally blown away by the above.

So, that is why I suggested we need the game mechanics changed.

You cant beat the scenario above, if one side is way dominant in pop

during TZ3 Half the map was gone in 2x weeks.

If you think that we will get more people to play during the quiet times (TZ3) and play on the allied side.

I don't think so, because the thought of playing axis is more appealing to

the gamer. Just look at other games, you will see, a lot like to play the bad guy.

This is just the mind set of gamers in general.

Also, by allowing a returning brig to the map and being able to place in

any town capable of receiving.

You can then flank by putting it on an empty side and then do a massive cut. Seen this too.

:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soft Caps will not be apart of our future in the game, so while this is a good idea under the current circumstances, it's a moot point to implement. Resources allocated towards future initiatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.