Scking

Tier Progression

22 posts in this topic

CRS, please stop manually changing tiers. It feels to me that its like a change of the rules in the middle of the campaign. I understand why you change tiers manually, but it has the perception of not being fair. Historically in this game, the tier0 equipment set has always been the best tier for the allies and the tier2 onward equipment set typically favors the axis. To manually shorten the tiers gives the perception that you are changing the rules mid campaign to favor the axis. I have heard many times in chat "Dude, RDP was just at 60% last night and now we are in another tier".

If you are going to make tier changes, then please make the adjustments to the tier timer (or whatever it is) prior to the map start, notify the player base and stick with it. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

problem with that is, at map start they do not knopw how long it will last, so map going to take 8 weeks, no need change tiers, if maps rolls 70% in 3 days, tiers have to change, because tier 0 over and over again and not reaching tier 2+ 

nothing to do with BIAS, just why bother having 100 models if can only use 50 90% of the time

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, petie said:

problem with that is, at map start they do not knopw how long it will last, so map going to take 8 weeks, no need change tiers, if maps rolls 70% in 3 days, tiers have to change, because tier 0 over and over again and not reaching tier 2+ 

nothing to do with BIAS, just why bother having 100 models if can only use 50 90% of the time

 

 

As I said, I understand why they do it. Thats why you make the rule at the beginning of the map. "Hey guys, since last campaign we didn't even get out of tier[0,1], this campaign we are going to start at tier2 and progress from there" or "Hey guys, since last campaign seem to be really long between tiers, this campaign we are going to speed up the tier timer so it will take 1 week between tiers".. Its really the fair thing to do and not do it mid campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idk, seems ok to me atm.  They only accelerate tiers if the map moves to far in one direction to fast - seems reasonable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, delems said:

idk, seems ok to me atm.  They only accelerate tiers if the map moves to far in one direction to fast - seems reasonable.

 

then just get rid of tiers.. lets start every map at tier4.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scking said:

then just get rid of tiers.. lets start every map at tier4.. 

why? because earlier equipment then doesnt get used as its obsolete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, petie said:

why? because earlier equipment then doesnt get used as its obsolete

then lets just stick to the .rdp tier progression from the beginning of the campaign and where the campaign ends, it ends. Then on the start of the following campaign make a decision on making changes. Don't change the rules in the middle of the campaign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been a fan of a strict schedule over manually changing the tiers as the map flows.  

 

We shouldn't hit all tiers every map "just because we should".  7 days per tier is good.  If a map ends in 2 weeks, no Tier 2 + 3.  

 

Then, start every 5th map in T2.  Do it on C140, C145, C150, etc.  

 

Keep it simple stoopid.  

Edited by capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a bad idea cap, though might as well start in tier 3 every 5th map?

Guess would have to look at all maps and how long they lasted to see if the base tier should be 7, 8, 9, or 10 days long to make this idea work out good (i.e. not to much time missing early tiers)

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Scking said:

CRS, please stop manually changing tiers. It feels to me that its like a change of the rules in the middle of the campaign. I understand why you change tiers manually, but it has the perception of not being fair

I think, their doing it to be fair, though after suffering through Tier 3 it feels like we (the allies) were shortchanged, but in an effort to be objective I probably still feel a bit to raw after tier 3 to be objective about that.

16 hours ago, Scking said:

Historically in this game, the tier0 equipment set has always been the best tier for the allies and the tier2 onward equipment set typically favors the axis

I prefer the earlier tiers because they seam the most historically accurate and feel better balanced, In tier 0 the fms and its AT gun mix are the best match gameplay wise imo. Tier 3 is the real issue for me personally.

....................................

I would rather they just stick to the programed progression and let the chips fall where they may, but again to make a stab at objectivity, I need to acknowledge that Tier 3 needs to played so, we need go their some way some how at some point, and the present map progression with the axis running the map super fast is robbing them of their best tier, sort of a fitting punishment :)

...................

Part of the issue with their 3 for me is I spent 2/3 of my time in tanks last tour and it I left me "done" with tanks for the foreseeable future, so I will reserve judgment on tier 3 till the end of this tour as I am playing only infantry and possibly air this map.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, delems said:

Not a bad idea cap, though might as well start in tier 3 every 5th map?

Guess would have to look at all maps and how long they lasted to see if the base tier should be 7, 8, 9, or 10 days long to make this idea work out good (i.e. not to much time missing early tiers)

The reason I suggested T2 was because it's the last tier with the French and British as major players. One week maps are extremely rare, so T3 should still be seen and the majority of the campaign would be T3+.

 

Not only that, the Allies usually get good pop with the Americans. If we start in T3 that might just guarantee an Allied win every 5th map lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think their are too many American brigs in Tier 3. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GrAnit said:

Personally I think their are too many American brigs in Tier 3. 

Ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I've always thought that it would be a good idea to look at setting a time limit on campaigns of about a month. That would be a week per tier, and at the end of that time, if it's not over, they could declare a winner based on percentage of map ownership.

I know it's not a perfect system, but it would  allow for people, especially new players to get a feel for every tier. It would allow squads to plan schedules for play based on tier progression, and almost guarantee that we see the later tiers more often. This might be more popular with customers, as sometimes we go a couple of campaigns without ever having the Americans in play.

Alternatively, have the first three tiers each last a week and then let Tier 4 take as long as it takes.

(On the other hand, my personal favorite idea would be to introduce some sort of resource system that links rdp and tier progression per side. Each HC could decide  how much of their resources go to resupply speed and how much to tier progression.  choosing to have a faster resupply rate could give an advantage in  resupply, but would slow down tier progression, potentially allowing the enemy to reach higher tiers faster. This would also make strategic bombing and inderdiction important. Neither side should be able to shut the other's rdp down entirely, but even a reduction of 10% could  matter. But this is just a fairy tale thought)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, GrAnit said:

Personally I think their are too many American brigs in Tier 3. 

Tbh, anything more than the 7:1:1 division split in T3 would be a tactical and strategic liability for the Allies.  The 2 non-American divs are already targeted enough as is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Capco said:

Tbh, anything more than the 7:1:1 division split in T3 would be a tactical and strategic liability for the Allies.  The 2 non-American divs are already targeted enough as is.  

They are not, there is no conscious effort on behalf of GHC to target non American flags! full of conspiracy theories over there?

Town are targeted based on strategic need, whether it is doable in current numbers, momentum, morale etc.

Never once seen any HC say or even mention, lets target that town it's only has a Brit or French flag in 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it would be the case, I don't think it isn't a BAD thing that English or French can still be used during T3.

At a moment, people are just sick of using Shermans.... If only we had captured material...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2017 at 4:38 AM, Quincannon said:

 I've always thought that it would be a good idea to look at setting a time limit on campaigns of about a month. That would be a week per tier, and at the end of that time, if it's not over, they could declare a winner based on percentage of map ownership.

I

The center of the map would be more overplayed than it is now.

 

I wish the Rats would vary the frontline at the beginning of the map so we would have more variety in playing unused or little used portions of the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2017 at 5:59 AM, petie said:

They are not, there is no conscious effort on behalf of GHC to target non American flags! full of conspiracy theories over there?

Town are targeted based on strategic need, whether it is doable in current numbers, momentum, morale etc.

Never once seen any HC say or even mention, lets target that town it's only has a Brit or French flag in 

I have been a member of GHC in the past and I saw the discussions in bluechat with my own eyes, as well as having one-on-one discussions with other officers.  

 

Granted, this was before the British Garand, the Lee update, and the MAS40 were put into the game.  But weaknesses are still present for both the Brits (no long range AT-capable armor) and the French (MAS40 <<< G43/G41).  Like you said, there are multiple factors that go into targeting, and it would be foolish to attack these divisions to the point of getting your own divisions caught out of position, etc. ... but to ignore these weaknesses completely is neglecting to factor in every detail.  

 

For example, if I logged into a stale map during T3 and took MOIC on the Axis, and I wanted to get something rolling, I would start looking for any "low hanging fruit" and the British and French divisions would be part of that equation.  Maybe there is a better target occupied by the Americans and is therefore lower hanging fruit, but hypothetically speaking if all other factors are the same I would choose to AO where that British division is located.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2017 at 4:38 AM, Quincannon said:

 I've always thought that it would be a good idea to look at setting a time limit on campaigns of about a month. That would be a week per tier, and at the end of that time, if it's not over, they could declare a winner based on percentage of map ownership.

I know it's not a perfect system, but it would  allow for people, especially new players to get a feel for every tier. It would allow squads to plan schedules for play based on tier progression, and almost guarantee that we see the later tiers more often. This might be more popular with customers, as sometimes we go a couple of campaigns without ever having the Americans in play.

Alternatively, have the first three tiers each last a week and then let Tier 4 take as long as it takes.

(On the other hand, my personal favorite idea would be to introduce some sort of resource system that links rdp and tier progression per side. Each HC could decide  how much of their resources go to resupply speed and how much to tier progression.  choosing to have a faster resupply rate could give an advantage in  resupply, but would slow down tier progression, potentially allowing the enemy to reach higher tiers faster. This would also make strategic bombing and inderdiction important. Neither side should be able to shut the other's rdp down entirely, but even a reduction of 10% could  matter. But this is just a fairy tale thought)
 

Well, then it's not actually a player-driven outcome.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 11:09 PM, GrAnit said:

Personally I think their are too many American brigs in Tier 3. 

Yup its very hard to find a 17pdr in T3. I think now that the BEF has Garands its later tiers infantry game has improved. That being said the Churchills armor leaks and lack of long range firepower is a VERY big issue for calling for more BEF brigades. Fix the armor leaks and add the Achilles and I would bet you would see a demand for more BEF brigades. The CH3 for heavens sakes runs at about a .65 to .7 vrs the PZ4G for instance on a regular basis... we are talking about the 4G the one the Axis say is a POS... Tell me then how attractive the BEF is?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.