• Announcements

    • SNIPER62

      64-bit is LIVE   03/27/2020

      CHIMM: 64-bit client is now LIVE and Campaign 172 continues!  
blakeh

No spawn delay

91 posts in this topic

I personally am very happy to see players on BOTH sides realise its a big issue and propose ideas to fix it....I know its boring as bat [censored] when any side is so OP that you don't even get to shoot anyone..run here, cap this, we win..woot

For me personally, its just tz3 that is remotely evenly sided and some of the best fights I have had are often during this tz - go figure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dropbear said:

I personally am very happy to see players on BOTH sides realise its a big issue and propose ideas to fix it....I know its boring as bat [censored] when any side is so OP that you don't even get to shoot anyone..run here, cap this, we win..woot

For me personally, its just tz3 that is remotely evenly sided and some of the best fights I have had are often during this tz - go figure!

Ummmm, the VAST majority of posters in this thread are Allied players complaining about no spawn delay (who knew!).  There was actually only ONE Axis player who was complaining about no spawn delay.

Don't even try to say that complaints about no spawn delay are bipartisan.  Not even remotely close.

VR

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, csm308 said:

Ummmm, the VAST majority of posters in this thread are Allied players complaining about no spawn delay (who knew!).  There was actually only ONE Axis player who was complaining about no spawn delay.

Don't even try to say that complaints about no spawn delay are bipartisan.  Not even remotely close.

VR

It’s not a question of sides. Delems has said one side is outnumbering the other significantly, if we use TOM as the measure.

The discussion is really whether the lack of map routing and other negative gameplay results of TOES-related supply shows that removing SD can be carried forward. 

Where side discussion comes in - the side enjoying 27% TOM says SD can be removed; the side not enjoying the population bonus - unsurprisingly - suggests not 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, XOOM said:

Not in any attempt to be disrespectful or ruffle feathers, though anything I say is scrutinized substantially more so than my fellow colleagues... I think we need more time to assess. The current Campaign's status cannot be contributed singularly to the removal of spawn delay. I believe it is being used as a crutch or means to justify the current Campaign state. 

I'll say again, I mean that most respectfully and in the most matter of fact way possible, not intended to insinuate anything other than what was stated.

I agree.  More testing without SD is needed.  However i do repeat my suggestion that we have an indication of over-pop and under-pop on log in.  It might encourage people to go to the under-pop side. Perhaps just have an initial delay to join a side that is over pop.

Something i have noticed is the 10 second de-spawn delay can be a bit of an issue for the under-pop side when they are under attack.  The 5 second delay is not really a problem. Perhaps think about making there de-spawn delay 5 seconds in all occasions.   When there are only 2 or 3 defenders against 15- 20 you need to spawn, de-spawn and re-spawn quiet frequently to offer a valid defence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be for a short SD just to help with players logging in to pick the underpop side, if we can't find another way to indicate which side needs players.

Also, while I think we should have 2 AOs at all times; even I believe there should be some threshold to drop down to 1.

If a side has less than 20 players on or so, pretty sure 1 AO is called for, much as I dislike it, but otherwise 2 AOs.

Not sure of exactly where the line would be, 16, 20 or 24, but at some point we should only have 1 AO.

 

PS one huge side benefit to having no SD, is finally the EnterWorld bug is solved, I can actually spawn units that only have 1 item in the list, the first try.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, blakeh said:

I agree.  More testing without SD is needed.  However i do repeat my suggestion that we have an indication of over-pop and under-pop on log in.  It might encourage people to go to the under-pop side. Perhaps just have an initial delay to join a side that is over pop.

Something i have noticed is the 10 second de-spawn delay can be a bit of an issue for the under-pop side when they are under attack.  The 5 second delay is not really a problem. Perhaps think about making there de-spawn delay 5 seconds in all occasions.   When there are only 2 or 3 defenders against 15- 20 you need to spawn, de-spawn and re-spawn quiet frequently to offer a valid defence.

 

It would be interesting to monitor how players behave when told the balance status. I have a sinking feeling that players would play overpop. 

The problem we have is the game is much more enjoyable and rewarding when you’re winning, and winning is heavily dependent on numbers. 

I really believe a major focus of dev time needs to targe on one objective - how to make the game more rewarding for players regardless of how the individual battles and broader campaign is playing out. 

I think there needs to be a major overhaul of points and XP, so there’s a reward system to chase after that isn’t necessarily related to town caps  

Share this post


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

I'd be for a short SD just to help with players logging in to pick the underpop side, if we can't find another way to indicate which side needs players.

There is a persona select delay which indicates to people which side to choose upon logging in. This usually is the first step for people going to help them.

1 hour ago, delems said:

Also, while I think we should have 2 AOs at all times; even I believe there should be some threshold to drop down to 1.

If a side has less than 20 players on or so, pretty sure 1 AO is called for, much as I dislike it, but otherwise 2 AOs.

Not sure of exactly where the line would be, 16, 20 or 24, but at some point we should only have 1 AO.

We're currently content with the minimum number of AO's available. The defending forces trying to manage two AO's is just too much on them and would, more importantly has via observation / data / historically, generated massive TZ3 breakouts that devastate the campaign's status.

1 hour ago, delems said:

PS one huge side benefit to having no SD, is finally the EnterWorld bug is solved, I can actually spawn units that only have 1 item in the list, the first try.

This is really encouraging, good side affect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Silky said:

It’s not a question of sides. Delems has said one side is outnumbering the other significantly, if we use TOM as the measure.

The discussion is really whether the lack of map routing and other negative gameplay results of TOES-related supply shows that removing SD can be carried forward. 

Where side discussion comes in - the side enjoying 27% TOM says SD can be removed; the side not enjoying the population bonus - unsurprisingly - suggests not 

My statement was in reference to Dropbear's insistence that complaints about spawn delay were bipartisan.  They are not.

As for your TOM issue, I could be indelicate and use the same response the Allied RDP bombers gave to us the last two campaigns, but I won't.  

PS......it absolutely is a question of sides.  If the Allies were winning, the complaint ratio would be reversed.  Nothing more.

VR

Edited by csm308

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, B2K said:

Let's leave personal shots out of the discussion

Fair enough, as long as you're even handed about it.

VR

Share this post


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

I agree.  More testing without SD is needed.  However i do repeat my suggestion that we have an indication of over-pop and under-pop on log in.  It might encourage people to go to the under-pop side. Perhaps just have an initial delay to join a side that is over pop.

Something i have noticed is the 10 second de-spawn delay can be a bit of an issue for the under-pop side when they are under attack.  The 5 second delay is not really a problem. Perhaps think about making there de-spawn delay 5 seconds in all occasions.   When there are only 2 or 3 defenders against 15- 20 you need to spawn, de-spawn and re-spawn quiet frequently to offer a valid defence.

  1. As I mentioned in another post here, we do have a persona screen delay which identifies which side is imbalanced / requesting reinforcements. 
  2. By going down to a 5 second despawn delay, you increase the chance that someone might be able to despawn more rapidly before a death / kill can be made. I am certain that is the root cause reason of why that is there. To be fair, this isn't that unreasonable and hasn't been a point of concern in my 8.5 years of doing this as a Rat now.

I appreciate your level headed state of mind and these sort of suggestions I will listen to and try to respond as good as I can. Even if it's not the outcome you want, please take note that I respect, and appreciate, players who are willing to communicate in a respectful and helpful manner. This means a lot to me. Thanks.

S! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, its very simple. We do not have a cookie cutter battlefield 1 through 5 game. We don't play COD  or DOOM or whatever.

BUT  we mostly all PAY  to be here. In the shoebox games the devs FORCE EQUAL SIDES as much as humanly possible. When there is a local numbers advantage to one side or another there is a benefit given to the low pop side and a downside to the over pop side.

In our game, XOOM and the rats have chosen to see if No spawn delay works. Blind freddy can see that it doesn't.

Yes it is a blunt instrument, yes we all hate it, but yes it is effective.

In the shoeboxes the sides are as even as the devs can make them. Of course they do not have the squads and dedicated one side players to contend with.

The other games have multiple million dollar budgets. If this us the best they can come up with,  why change it? To stop some childish whining? Give them a card game while waiting for the SD. FORCE the free players to the low pop side..done.

Natural evolution will remove the sort of players who think AB camping before AO sets is manly (both sides) .

Perhaps extending the no enter area to all cps and bunkers before an AO is set might slow down the camp. Keep the ews, and if one side still doesnt respond its A) their own fault, and/or B) they are extreme low pop.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Delems.  Thx. Have not played much but Sunday we did do a great job on defense during primetime.

I will repeat what I said.  The cap timer with no spawn delay works pretty well. Where it does not work is SPECIFIC to low pop, overpop.

A 40-50% op means 5-6 vrs 10-12. That's where cap timers only solution fail the game.  IF we could get a 15 vrs 25 situation as the low pop, op norm, I don't think the SD is necessary or at the line where I think would be not necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2018 at 3:27 AM, dropbear said:

@XOOM no disrespect intended but have you actually played allied for an extended period of time? Has any CRS representative  played allied for an extended period? And no I am not talking about AFK CRS reps. Remember, if a new player sees a guy in capital letters in game he or she will instinctively follow them.

 

I know that I play Allied most of the time and I'm CRS, I also see Chimm allied as well as B2k and Westy. So I'm not sure your hypothesis floats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I'm allied and can often be found causing trouble with my squad. I may occasionally need to switch axis to shift flags for them but for me that's part and parcel of the job.

@dropbearJust to answer your question, I've only ever been an allied player and have never had an axis sortie in the time I've both played or otherwise been involved in the game. As blkhwk says its primarily him, me and B2K who play allied, along with Hicksey and several others who are involved with the work we're doing. We're not always on at the same time, but we are here and we are visible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BLKHWK8 said:

I know that I play Allied most of the time and I'm CRS, I also see Chimm allied as well as B2k and Westy. So I'm not sure your hypothesis floats.

He's counting me, the Axis HC liaison and JCD04 who is Axis this campaign

Not a big surprise that i'd be playing Axis even though I do play Allied sometimes

Not sure I sway a lot of players because of my choice of sides to play, there are far more that play opposite me just to kick my ass (wstriker!) 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.