schweize

next campaign and balance

34 posts in this topic

I was the same way, but I played Allied when it became apparent that they needed players. Played three straight campaigns Allied.

You're missing half the game if you keep thinking this way and you'll never understand your digital enemy. I'm a diehard Axis player as anyone on this forum will tell you, but I played Allied when it was needed. If you'll quit if you have to play Axis, then I don't know what to tell you.

VR

And when you came over it was really appreciated.

Tbh, if it wasn't for the HC commitment I made 2ish years ago, I'd probably switch side way more often between campaigns.

Edited by Lob12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're one of those players that switches to the winning team in counter-strike, day of defeat etc. I hatchoo HATECHOOO! I know you're here too... cowards... *glares around*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see the Loosing side have the opportunity to offer a surrender once some clearly defined conditions have been met in-game.

I for one, dislike the "grind" at the end of the map just to meet the victory conditions. I do feel the end of maps are not promoting the game in a good light mostly because one or the other side has effectively "thrown in the towel" and usually, on the loosing side, very bad play is common.

Look at the month of July, it had two of these periods of about a week long because it caught the end of one campaign and had another begin on the 13th which was lopsided and over quickly. So if you bought a subscription you wouldn't be getting very much normal play time at all.

With fewer players on it should at least mean more good equipment to spawn, but the brigade system means that frequently there are fewer top units available for the team getting rolled because brigades are drained and cut-off. So in addition to playing outnumbered they have to play with a gimped list. When CRS implements the the FMS it should be easier to keep small skirmishes and some action going, and if they ever go to town supply there will be consistent lists all the way to the end so maybe the end-of-map period will be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less stick, more carrot.

The trick is to have voluntary locks with perks for those who take them, such as SD immunity. So you no one has to stay loyal to a side, but those who willingly submit to side-lock for a campaign never have to deal with SD. Or pick some other perk.

You're not restricting anyone against their will, merely rewarding people with more self-discipline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there the possibility to help balance a large population imbalance of either 1. Bot CP guards, to help re-balance the numbers. (Irealize it is probably not posible due to the very large programming effort it would require)

2. A proportional increase in cap times replacing all spawn delay. A combination of reduced cap timer for the underpop attackers and an increased cap timer for the overpop attackers.

There is nothing worse than seeing spawn delay go up and up and then people logging because they don't want to spend 30 seconds twiddling their thumbs every time they die. Stopping your player base from playing the game is the worst possible outcome for both the game moderators and the players.

Regards Cannontow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

removing SD completely would just make it worse.

there's no side switching issue, awhile back CRS said side switchers have a negligible effect on the campaigns.

2. A proportional increase in cap times replacing all spawn delay.

this is the best idea we had in the balance suggestion thread

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello david01,

Look at the month of July, it had two of these periods of about a week long because it caught the end of one campaign and had another begin on the 13th which was lopsided and over quickly. So if you bought a subscription you wouldn't be getting very much normal play time at all.

With fewer players on it should at least mean more good equipment to spawn, but the brigade system means that frequently there are fewer top units available for the team getting rolled because brigades are drained and cut-off. So in addition to playing outnumbered they have to play with a gimped list. When CRS implements the the FMS it should be easier to keep small skirmishes and some action going, and if they ever go to town supply there will be consistent lists all the way to the end so maybe the end-of-map period will be better.

I’m not really sure what your point is.

FMS or Fortified Mobile Spawns may or may not keep the skirmishes going but is entirely unrelated to the “end of map grind”.

The basic problem at the end of the map is: one side is effectively absent, while the other side is required to dot the “i’s” and cross the “t’s” to fulfil the victory conditions. For the last couple of campaigns the victory trigger has been mostly the percentage of towns controlled. I would predict this trigger will become a rarer occurrence as usually big slabs of terrain (towns) surrender as a result of a cut of one form or another. One claimed benefit of Town Based Supply is that cut-offs would be more difficult to achieve.

In my response to cooperhawk original post:

...

IMHO: I think the winning conditions should be met sooner, or the side winning should be able to call for the enemy's surrender.

...

I suggested:

...

I would like to see the Loosing side have the opportunity to offer a surrender once some clearly defined conditions have been met in-game.

...

As an attempt to allow players from both sides to participate, rather than wait till the next campaign starts. They are already not actively participating in the current campaign because they have decided “all is Lost” for this one, rightly or wrongly. Additionally it is not just an open option. The in-game conditions must first be met, whatever they turn out to be.

Cheers

James10

Edited by james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is to many allied players and side switches combined with inferior equipment equals axis loss after axis loss. Getting rather tired of it myself.

Why was the new camp started at tier 3 right off the bat with americans already in also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.