Differentiated Brigades, APC's and other thoughts

[PITTPETE 538]

Evil Dead?

[vasduten1 405]

17 minutes ago, Pittpete said:

Evil Dead?

Yup. The first one, at that.

1 & 2 are both good, but the first one is my fave... low budget, but still decent effects. Also, scarier to me.

The second one had the one liners though.

 

[fidd 33]

3 hours ago, odin67 said:

Does CRS even have the ability to force players to one side or the other AND do the HCs have the ability to funnel players to a specific AO/DO? from a personal perspective I don't mind being funneled to a AO/DO. As to population imbalance I would prefer to commit to a side for a campaign instead of the flavour of the day...but understand sometimes it is necessary for balance.    

I agree with this, personally. I usually commit to a side for 3-5 campaigns. I tend not to squad, because I loathe using voice comms. Years and years ago I suggested that player ability to choose a side when logging in be based on several metrics:

1.  Are they in a squad?

2.  Is that squad in % terms on the same side?

3.  Have they played in every tier, if so how much?

4. Have they remained on a side or hopped about?

5. When they log in, are they over-pop or under-pop?

This would give each player a score ranking them. The more their score is, the greater the likelihood they can log-in on their desired side. The tipping-point where players would be denied their preferred side would be continuously re-calculated, so that each TZ would naturally form some statis of balanced numbers. Those who only log in once tier 3 arrives, or worse, change sides to play their preferred unit, would obviously score very poorly relative to players in the that TZ. Un-squadded, occasional players who by definition cannot care about the result of a campaign would likewise be at risk. Once you were logged into your side, you would not be required to change sides. Ideally the increase to your "side-choice score" would be a consequence of the number of different  missions you're on, This to prevent someone logging in, hiding in a  bush and then going to work for the day before resuming play in the evening!

Regarding AO's, the numbers of AO's needs to be related not to overall server numbers, but to what the outnumbered side can deal with. So if you outnumber the enemy 2-1 towards the end of the campaign, the outnumbering side will have in all likelihood half the AO's relative to the overall server number count of AO's.

Spawn-delay would go. It's utterly pointless and probably counterproductive, as I'm sure their are players who use it simply to choose the side with the upper-hand. I normally make a cup of coffee if it's bad.

The Italians are a complete waste of time. The only way I can see them working in game is if they are infantry, truck and atg units only. Itlalian armour is so dire that they'll simply have to be combined in use with Panzers.

The irony is that 6 years ago, when I last played (I've not long resumed), the so-called "Breakfast Club" were inflicting defeat after defeat on the Allies who were losing not 3 campaigns in a row, but 11 out of 12. The result of which was AO's and variable numbers of them. I have vivid memories of being the sole French infantryman in towns as 25 pz's, numerous 88's and Opels beyond counting came over the hill. In the end CRS kyboshed it, and rightly so. So, balance remains a problem CRS are simply going to HAVE to implement some mechanism to address it and self-evidently the players who put the effort in, in all tiers. who are in squads on that side, who generally log in during under-pop, (etc) have a much more reasonable claim to choose than the schmuck who logs in for the first time that campaign just to play with "his" Tiger, having changed sides throughout the campaign.

One word of caution in this. It's most important that we recognise that as a side starts to lose a campaign, numbers naturally change from a previously balanced server-pop, so that players who have fought entirely  for the now winning side, whilst the server is balanced, should be treated much more favourably than those  who only commence playing in later tiers, or who play in a TZ where they've generally logged into an overpop situation. It's important, in other words, to recognise that as a side reaches a certain % of lost towns, or loss of RDP facilities, or tier-delay, that the losing sides population will naturally collapse. Therefore I suggest that as these conditions are met, the metrics for preventing routine over-pops are relaxed to allow the campaign to come to a natural conclusion, with no players who have played consistently for the winning side since tier 0 being at any risk whatsoever, of an enforced side change, no matter how grievious the imbalance becomes.

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by fidd

[odin67 0]

HCs need some mechanism to direct players to what they deem high priority AO/DOs. While I don't have knowledge of the tools at HC's disposal it doesn't appear to be more than the ability to place AO/DOs, move units, grab their pomp pomps, shout go team and hope for the best. I've seen HCs literally BEG players to go to AO/DO without much results. I can only imagine how frustrating this must be to them.

From a player's view point they don't have a lot of info to go on either. Basically how many players from that side are on that particular mission, if it is an attack or defense and  whether it is from a MSP. It is a natural tendency for players to want action so they're going to the mission with the most people on it. And from the map whether or not the mission will meet high, low or no enemy population. 

If HC had the ability to highlight (in red or fuchsia) a mission(s) they deemed important I think that would help let players see what missions were high priority by HC.  I tend to gravitate to missions made by players I recognize as I hope they have a better understanding of the situation than a player I am unfamiliar with. I don't think this is a complete solution but rather a band-aid until a better solution that allows HC to have the ability to direct players to AO/DO by either capping the number of players a mission can have or the power to direct players to missions HC choses. HC ought to have the ability to remove missions as well.  

[saronin 450]

17 hours ago, merlin51 said:

Fur Vas

I’ve gone to the pirate version. Six Yaaaaaaarzzzzzz!!!!

[fidd 33]

Frankly HC'ers should have a ton more powers and tools than they have now. Historically, when HC's were first introduced - as far as I can recall - about 3/4 of the playerbase accepted them without much comment, and 1/4 had a tantrum the like of which hasn't been seen since. All the toys were threwn from the cot! These were chiefly "egos" of the very large squads whose routine was to swamp a town in 2 minutes or so, covering every possible exit from the AB. This was called "good tactics" and "good organisation" and things like that, but it was ruinous for gameplay, and, frankly, rather boring! (this in the days before you could spawn from a cp).

However, the noise on the forums from the "egos" was so loud, that CRS basically bottled it, and no further development of tools for HC's, or indeed the most crucial aspect, am interim stage between being a fully-fledged HC'er and a regular player was created. This combination of errors and omissions has hobbled the HC system from the word go, it is to all intents and purposes, half-finished and wholly CRS's fault that they never completed what they'd started. It should therefore be unsurprising that ever since HC's train up lots of officers, but lose most in short order as they realise the responsibilities, the hours and the inability to really be effective in any way. Odin67's post above really nails it.

[saronin 450]

1 hour ago, fidd said:

Frankly HC'ers should have a ton more powers and tools than they have now. Historically, when HC's were first introduced - as far as I can recall - about 3/4 of the playerbase accepted them without much comment, and 1/4 had a tantrum the like of which hasn't been seen since. All the toys were threwn from the cot! These were chiefly "egos" of the very large squads whose routine was to swamp a town in 2 minutes or so, covering every possible exit from the AB. This was called "good tactics" and "good organisation" and things like that, but it was ruinous for gameplay, and, frankly, rather boring! (this in the days before you could spawn from a cp).

However, the noise on the forums from the "egos" was so loud, that CRS basically bottled it, and no further development of tools for HC's, or indeed the most crucial aspect, am interim stage between being a fully-fledged HC'er and a regular player was created. This combination of errors and omissions has hobbled the HC system from the word go, it is to all intents and purposes, half-finished and wholly CRS's fault that they never completed what they'd started. It should therefore be unsurprising that ever since HC's train up lots of officers, but lose most in short order as they realise the responsibilities, the hours and the inability to really be effective in any way. Odin67's post above really nails it.

The game during the time frame you speak of was completely different.  You are speaking as if TOEs and HC tools to run them is the only change that stands in the way to going back to those days.  That is a complete red herring argument.  Where was EWS back then?  Where were AOs back then?  You noted yourself that ABs were the only places to spawn in -- no depots. In fact, if you go back far enough there were no timers for caps and every CP was hot all the time.  The game has changes with features independent of TOEs.  If TOEs and HC running things is so great, please explain to me why the largest period of Axis dominance in this game was 2011 - 2012 with 10 or 11 of 12 maps.  Incidentally, not long after that CRS had to dump a bunch of employees.  That wasn't just ruinous for gameplay, it was almost ruinous for the game itself. 

TOEs did not change the tactics you speak of other than the fact that you can now throw endless supply at a camp until you can break it.  Aside from that Depot spawning and mobile spawns changed the dynamic and allowed players better opportunities to break camps.  In fact, I would argue 2 AB towns should be the norm since it's hard to muster the manpower to camp 2 ABs at once.  Generally those fights are the best fights in game.

The TOE system as implemented has put too much strain on HC players and created more frustrations for players than it's worth.  The endless softcaps, short maps, warping supply, no HC online disasters, and the rise ISIS are all effects from TOEs.  It's time for that to end.

[fidd 33]

21 hours ago, saronin said:

The game during the time frame you speak of was completely different.  You are speaking as if TOEs and HC tools to run them is the only change that stands in the way to going back to those days.  That is a complete red herring argument.  Where was EWS back then?  Where were AOs back then?  You noted yourself that ABs were the only places to spawn in -- no depots. In fact, if you go back far enough there were no timers for caps and every CP was hot all the time.  The game has changes with features independent of TOEs.  If TOEs and HC running things is so great, please explain to me why the largest period of Axis dominance in this game was 2011 - 2012 with 10 or 11 of 12 maps.  Incidentally, not long after that CRS had to dump a bunch of employees.  That wasn't just ruinous for gameplay, it was almost ruinous for the game itself. 

TOEs did not change the tactics you speak of other than the fact that you can now throw endless supply at a camp until you can break it.  Aside from that Depot spawning and mobile spawns changed the dynamic and allowed players better opportunities to break camps.  In fact, I would argue 2 AB towns should be the norm since it's hard to muster the manpower to camp 2 ABs at once.  Generally those fights are the best fights in game.

The TOE system as implemented has put too much strain on HC players and created more frustrations for players than it's worth.  The endless softcaps, short maps, warping supply, no HC online disasters, and the rise ISIS are all effects from TOEs.  It's time for that to end.

That presupposes that these measures worked. Spawns-delays, depot spawning and even AO's do not matter a jot if you find yourself one of a literal handful of players available to defend a town, as I did in my TZ for month after month. Spawn-delay has no effect. AO's are based on server population, not side population, so if one side has a massive imbalance, they don't work either. Spawn delay, which might have covered this scenario, is nerfed in respect that it doesn't work for respawns, but only on initial log-in, as far as I can tell. AO's do help a little, but do not address the core problem, and could be greatly improved.

For my money, there should be:

1. a great reduction in visual cover, and a lot more low colliders in the cover that remains. The chief function of these would be to generally stop ei and purely wheeled items from crossing them at speed. Visual cover should provide protection from one side only, in effect.

2. Brigades TOE's should vary with tiers, but also between each other, at HC's pre-campaign discretion.

3. HC need tools to indicate on a map, the rough outline of what they want to achieve, and move bde's to achieve that.

4. Senior players/ML's/Squad leaders should have same tools for map icons as the HC's, and be able to see both HC map commentary for an attack or defense, and also that of their mission. (we're halfway there on that one)

6. Normal players would just see ML commentary.

7. AO's would be based on side population, not server pop.

8. Change of AO interval would be based in same.

9. Ability to choose a side based on points scored in last campaign for metrics in post upthread.

10. If HC'er unavailable, AO's be placeable by any player (in order of preference)

• Most recent retired HC'er online on that side
• If none, then a player of Lt Col rank on the leader's course (see below), on a missions to or from or at a town, given a simple menu to choose from to move a bde into a town from such bde's as can make a legal move. He would not be able move around Divisions to accomplish this.

11. Creation of a "leader's course" as an interim rank between full HC-ship and regular player. Limited to Lt Col's, it would enable them to use HC channels on discord, and HC chat text, so that they can become very familiar with the reasons why bde's are moved in the way they are. They can also take off some of the leadership duties from the map CO. Ability to remain in the leaders-course limited to a calendar year, once complete they can either complete the HC course, or, revert to normal player status. This would greatly help Squads in terms of communication with HC, which might help them understand why a particular attack is ill-advised; but also help HC in having a wider pool of organised people who can undertake tasks to help the game generally.

 

[saronin 450]

25 minutes ago, fidd said:

That presupposes that these measures worked. Spawns-delays, depot spawning and even AO's do not matter a jot if you find yourself one of a literal handful of players available to defend a town, as I did in my TZ for month after month. Spawn-delay has no effect. AO's are based on server population, not side population, so if one side has a massive imbalance, they don't work either. Spawn delay, which might have covered this scenario, is nerfed in respect that it doesn't work for respawns, but only on initial log-in, as far as I can tell. AO's do help a little, but do not address the core problem, and could be greatly improved.

For my money, there should be:

1. a great reduction in visual cover, and a lot more low colliders in the cover that remains. The chief function of these would be to generally stop ei and purely wheeled items from crossing them at speed. Visual cover should provide protection from one side only, in effect.

2. Brigades TOE's should vary with tiers, but also between each other, at HC's pre-campaign discretion.

3. HC need tools to indicate on a map, the rough outline of what they want to achieve, and move bde's to achieve that.

4. Senior players/ML's/Squad leaders should have same tools for map icons as the HC's, and be able to see both HC map commentary for an attack or defense, and also that of their mission. (we're halfway there on that one)

6. Normal players would just see ML commentary.

7. AO's would be based on side population, not server pop.

8. Change of AO interval would be based in same.

9. Ability to choose a side based on points scored in last campaign for metrics in post upthread.

10. If HC'er unavailable, AO's be placeable by any player (in order of preference)

• Most recent retired HC'er online on that side
• If none, then a player of Lt Col rank on the leader's course (see below), on a missions to or from or at a town, given a simple menu to choose from to move a bde into a town from such bde's as can make a legal move. He would not be able move around Divisions to accomplish this.

11. Creation of a "leader's course" as an interim rank between full HC-ship and regular player. Limited to Lt Col's, it would enable them to use HC channels on discord, and HC chat text, so that they can become very familiar with the reasons why bde's are moved in the way they are. They can also take off some of the leadership duties from the map CO. Ability to remain in the leaders-course limited to a calendar year, once complete they can either complete the HC course, or, revert to normal player status. This would greatly help Squads in terms of communication with HC, which might help them understand why a particular attack is ill-advised; but also help HC in having a wider pool of organised people who can undertake tasks to help the game generally.

 

AOs, as far as I know, have been changed to be now based off the low pop side. 

I hate to break this to you but no matter what system is in game superior numbers are going to almost always rule the day. If anything the current system makes that worst because the overpop side can use their advantage to create breakouts that alow for massive amounts of territory to be taken without a single shot fired. 

Consider this... at least you got a chance to defend your town in the face of superior numbers during your TZ where you were out numbered. The current dynamic often does not allow the defenders that option. During that situation they may as well just log off. That is what they in fact do time and time again. 

[fidd 33]

Up to a point, superior numbers are essential - if all was completely even, the map would never move. What has always, since day one, needed addressing, is the situation, in any TZ, especially low-pop, where massive imbalances occur. It's interesting that CRS elected to relate - if you're correct - to lower popped side, as of course, that makes not the slightest difference if the over-popped side outnumbers them 3-1 or better. The number of AO's only works if there are players in game to contest such AO's as are applied.

I profoundly disagree with you concerning breakouts, they provide a fluidity and speed quite commensurate with armoured warfare of the period. Where I would agree with you, is if they occur as a consequence of massive imbalances caused by people changing sides or periodic large imbalances by TZ. If they occur simply because players of that side cease logging in for whatever reason, then they've only themselves to blame.

In other words, CRS need to successfully and actively manage numbers with a fairly complex algorithm that makes sides reasonably equal at the campaign start for all TZ's, and then only penalises players moving to the winning side, or who only log in with regularity once the later tiers arrive. And rewards those who continue to play for the losing side.

[saronin 450]

1 hour ago, fidd said:

Up to a point, superior numbers are essential - if all was completely even, the map would never move. What has always, since day one, needed addressing, is the situation, in any TZ, especially low-pop, where massive imbalances occur. It's interesting that CRS elected to relate - if you're correct - to lower popped side, as of course, that makes not the slightest difference if the over-popped side outnumbers them 3-1 or better. The number of AO's only works if there are players in game to contest such AO's as are applied.

I profoundly disagree with you concerning breakouts, they provide a fluidity and speed quite commensurate with armoured warfare of the period. Where I would agree with you, is if they occur as a consequence of massive imbalances caused by people changing sides or periodic large imbalances by TZ. If they occur simply because players of that side cease logging in for whatever reason, then they've only themselves to blame.

In other words, CRS need to successfully and actively manage numbers with a fairly complex algorithm that makes sides reasonably equal at the campaign start for all TZ's, and then only penalises players moving to the winning side, or who only log in with regularity once the later tiers arrive. And rewards those who continue to play for the losing side.

Logging in with regularity is not something every player can do.  Life gets in the way and play times can be limited and sporadic at times.  You are essentially penalizing people who can't devote their life to the game.  This is the same problem we have with HC now.  You can't expect people to devote their life to the game.  The game has to be able to work on their schedule and not the other way around.  If you start penalizing people for not logging in I can almost guarantee you will see a loss of subscriptions from people who don't have that much time to play.  Why pay for the premium subscription if they limit the content? 

As for the breakouts, we have to agree to disagree. Losing vast swaths of territory because a given TZ failed to have HC coverage is not good for the game.  It tanks morale for the subsequent TZs and players simply log out and play something else until the next campaign.  We have seen the pattern repeated over and over again.  When either side is on a complete soft cap fest my first instinct is to log out.  I know game play is going to suck at that point.  The only thing that keeps me in game at that point is if I'm on with my squad and I feel like yucking it up.  Other than that I log out and play something else.  Once the First Person Shooter is a First Person Stand Arounder with no opposition it loses it appeal quickly.

[fidd 33]

12 hours ago, saronin said:

Logging in with regularity is not something every player can do.  Life gets in the way and play times can be limited and sporadic at times.  You are essentially penalizing people who can't devote their life to the game.  This is the same problem we have with HC now.  You can't expect people to devote their life to the game.  The game has to be able to work on their schedule and not the other way around.  If you start penalizing people for not logging in I can almost guarantee you will see a loss of subscriptions from people who don't have that much time to play.  Why pay for the premium subscription if they limit the content? 

As for the breakouts, we have to agree to disagree. Losing vast swaths of territory because a given TZ failed to have HC coverage is not good for the game.  It tanks morale for the subsequent TZs and players simply log out and play something else until the next campaign.  We have seen the pattern repeated over and over again.  When either side is on a complete soft cap fest my first instinct is to log out.  I know game play is going to suck at that point.  The only thing that keeps me in game at that point is if I'm on with my squad and I feel like yucking it up.  Other than that I log out and play something else.  Once the First Person Shooter is a First Person Stand Arounder with no opposition it loses it appeal quickly.

If you'd bothered to read the post properly, you'd have noticed that there are several metrics that determine where you would stand in relation to other players when choosing sides at log-in. The reason there are several is precisely to cater for people such as yourself. If you're unable to put lots of hours in, then you can help "keep your place" by joining a squad, playing some of all tiers, playing the same side last campaign (I forgot that one in the original post!), and when you log-in, are you generally underpop (etc). All  these things would count in your favour. Properly calibrated, it would help towards, roughly balancing numbers throughout every TZ, and every tier. It would really only start to penalise those who fall foul of two or more of the metrics, unless one side or other was massively oversubscribed. More importantly, it would tend to act on lonewolves, who have recently played for the other side, ie arguably players who are not overly concerned about who wins the campaign.