krazy888s

CRS

30 posts in this topic

How about a sidelock campaign...a guy that I was playing with 2 days ago shouldn't be killing me today. Or you guys afraid that population will get even worse, I mean no HC half the time on allied side and when I log in only a dozen of us on trying to defend vs 36 people cause people want to play the pop side. What type of motivation to new players is it to get rolled town after town after town. You think people want to have no chance? I already see the argument, they will just load a alt toon. That is cool more money for CRS if they want to be anything but a rifle. Just one campaign make it so if you log in allied or axis you play allied or axis for the campaign. What do you have to lose not like the current system is working as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the current system isn't working and it is becoming apparent that eventually we're going to need to take a good look at it to see what we can do in terms of balancing population. Its a difficult situation to be in at this stage of the map which everybody at CRS appreciates and acknowledges. I want to stress that this is on our radar. Hang in there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRS' answer may remain unclear or, worse, ineffective as long as the definition of the issue itself remains unclear.

Lots of solutions have been suggested in the dedicated topic but if we don't want it to become a drastic political decision let's think more.

 

I have a few questions to help with:

What is actually the MOST frustrating Experience in a context of unbalance?

-1- attacking with insufficient manpower and:

A. not being able to lock down defenders

B. not being able to start/hold contest

 

-2- defending with insufficient manpower and:

A. having spawn points camped; not being able to setup a defense

B. not being able to freeze/cancel the contest

 

-3- losing:

A. By too much deaths over kills

B. Towns ownerships over a stretched frontline

 

Also, is unbalance frustration the same when you have a local balance of:

- 10 vs 15

- 40 vs 60

- 80 vs 120?

Do we feel a frustration only when unbalance lasts X duration of time in our unfavor?

In other words can we define a formal rule for when it starts to become an "issue"?

 

IMO (number) unbalance isn't necessarily a negative thing as long as it moves back and forth. The right answer is probably to keep a "balance of unbalances". 

Share this post


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

CRS' answer may remain unclear or, worse, ineffective as long as the definition of the issue itself remains unclear.

Lots of solutions have been suggested in the dedicated topic but if we don't want it to become a drastic political decision let's think more.

 

I have a few questions to help with:

What is actually the MOST frustrating Experience in a context of unbalance?

-1- attacking with insufficient manpower and:

A. not being able to lock down defenders

B. not being able to start/hold contest

 

-2- defending with insufficient manpower and:

A. having spawn points camped; not being able to setup a defense

B. not being able to freeze/cancel the contest

 

-3- losing:

A. By too much deaths over kills

B. Towns ownerships over a stretched frontline

 

Also, is unbalance frustration the same when you have a local balance of:

- 10 vs 15

- 40 vs 60

- 80 vs 120?

Do we feel a frustration only when unbalance lasts X duration of time in our unfavor?

In other words can we define a formal rule for when it starts to become an "issue"?

 

IMO (number) unbalance isn't necessarily a negative thing as long as it moves back and forth. The right answer is probably to keep a "balance of unbalances". 

The key for me is that the game remain rewarding when outnumbered. Currently, the rewards in play centre too much on tactical/town and strategic/campaign success 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For answers to the questions you asked which have nothing to do with my actual request of side locking players for a campaign are as follows

1) B, for if we get lucky enough to have someone on that can set a AO.

2) Defending a town where we actually have more inf than the enemy does tanks would be nice. I mean we had maybe 8 defenders and the enemy had over 8 tanks not including their inf etc. 

3) I would have to say losing to people that were on my side the day before but decided that they wanted to go to the enemy and kill me instead due to they are winning map.

4) your numbers here do not match what we are facing on the battle field, as I stated in 2 it is more like 8 to 30 on just the AO, now I could not confirm the 30 inf but the 8 ets were easy to figure since they were in town and surrounding it. And since most cps feel fast at the same time even with slow cap timers leads me to believe they had a good force of inf. These numbers don't include any ea, eatgs or etrucks etc that might have been out there. And this is not just one town or night but several.

 

Now back to what I stated, can CRS lock a campaign to avoid side switching for that campaign? You guys say one of the greatest things about this game is teamwork. Well how is getting shot in the back by a guy I was just defending a cp with counted as team work. How can I trust my fellow players to care if the can leave at the drop of a town for the opposite side. That is not team work but arcade style play and it is allowed during a campaign.

Edited by krazy888s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give the F2p and DLC players for the underpop Side more Stuff to play, then man off them will join the underpop Side.

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRS you are seriously fooling yourselves if you think the local pop imbalance is ONLY 2:1

The fact that you have stated this is laughable and disturbing at the same time. The problem is A LOT WORSE.

New players (and ONE SIDE has a HUGE AMOUNT of them) are great to get but they are ONLY GOING ONE WAY.

SERIOUSLY, DUH!

2 hours ago, sajuk said:

Give the F2p and DLC players for the underpop Side more Stuff to play, then man off them will join the underpop Side.

 

 

^^^^^

This is a seriously good idea - easily implementable AND swinging numbers either way. On death, the game checks again for pop imbalance and POPS UP A MESSAGE - Do you want to FIGHT OR CAMP? Play <INSERT LOW POP SIDE> and get some new supply!

 

Plus the fact that you are SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THE ISSUE? REALLY? The same issue we have been complaining about for YEARS?? The one that you ignore because you don't want to [censored] off the current players?

Well no SD seriously worked - it proved your PLAYER BALANCE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit excessive Dropbear. What are we going to do, force people to play a side? Because I won’t if forced. I think campaign side locks isn’t a terrible idea for one campaign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I say force? There is a need for incentivising the low pop side, that is all.

If you WANT TO KILL AI - go for it. 

It is YOUR MONEY - you may spend it as you will but if the game has any future you needs TWO sides playing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for campaign lock.

Sure, new players should get some time to be allowed to switch (3 months maybe?).

After that, you pick a side and play it through.

Want to swap sides 3 weeks in?  Fine, get another account and go play other side with it.

 

Not fully sure this will solve this issue, but it may.

And of course, the option where FREE account player would have to go to under pop side if at some threshold.

(so maybe 55-45 they could spawn either side, but 56-44, they'd have to spawn under pop side)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, lipton said:

I suggested F2P be locked to the underpop side.  CRS decided to get rid of F2P. :rolleyes:

actually there still exists a free to play option for anyone who has ever had an account.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are beating the dead horse into oblivion here we have had this conversation oh 100 times in the forums!!

Here is the problem …. we are all human and we want to win no one likes to lose so if you are on the team that is losing most people cry nerf and just quit playing that campaign or goto the other side because they want to win.

This will never change unless we as a COMMUNITY stick it out and just keep playing the game. There always has to be a loser there will always be someone that killed you even though you think they are hacking ect...

I have played both sides for a long time and I see the same thing always …..why didn't that guy die he is cheating there tanks are better than ours there planes are better than ours yada yada yada.

Well its not true the fact is sometimes people just get the better of you and you don't like it so you blame the game and quit playing which hurts your side even more.

Its like a vicious cycle over and over again lol.

One thing I know that can be fixed is relying on other people to make sure there is supply and AO's and people leading attacks and defenses. 

I think the game system should be changed in that aspect and I believe CRS is working on it, because having to rely on someone else to even be in game to make sure the game is running properly is a bad idea for sure to many people (even me) sometimes get mad and don't want to play for awhile then you have no one to rely on and count on to make sure everyone is having the best gaming experience they can. This is where CRS needs to step in and have Leaders assigned to each side to make sure there game is running properly like supply attacks and defenses ect… we have what at least 12 CRS staff that actually play the game? Those people need to be the ones we can count on to make sure the game has what it needs to be fun for everyone.

But as far as winning and losing hey we all lose sometimes so get over it and just try to have fun its what I am doing now....if you quit you just hurt your team that much more...…..

Malvoc out.....

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2018 at 0:46 PM, malvoc said:

You are beating the dead horse into oblivion here we have had this conversation oh 100 times in the forums!!

Here is the problem …. we are all human and we want to win no one likes to lose so if you are on the team that is losing most people cry nerf and just quit playing that campaign or goto the other side because they want to win.

This will never change unless we as a COMMUNITY stick it out and just keep playing the game. There always has to be a loser there will always be someone that killed you even though you think they are hacking ect...

I have played both sides for a long time and I see the same thing always …..why didn't that guy die he is cheating there tanks are better than ours there planes are better than ours yada yada yada.

Well its not true the fact is sometimes people just get the better of you and you don't like it so you blame the game and quit playing which hurts your side even more.

Its like a vicious cycle over and over again lol.

One thing I know that can be fixed is relying on other people to make sure there is supply and AO's and people leading attacks and defenses. 

I think the game system should be changed in that aspect and I believe CRS is working on it, because having to rely on someone else to even be in game to make sure the game is running properly is a bad idea for sure to many people (even me) sometimes get mad and don't want to play for awhile then you have no one to rely on and count on to make sure everyone is having the best gaming experience they can. This is where CRS needs to step in and have Leaders assigned to each side to make sure there game is running properly like supply attacks and defenses ect… we have what at least 12 CRS staff that actually play the game? Those people need to be the ones we can count on to make sure the game has what it needs to be fun for everyone.

But as far as winning and losing hey we all lose sometimes so get over it and just try to have fun its what I am doing now....if you quit you just hurt your team that much more...…..

Malvoc out.....

Nice thoughts Malvoc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2018 at 7:55 PM, lipton said:

I suggested F2P be locked to the underpop side.  CRS decided to get rid of F2P. :rolleyes:

That's actually not true.
You can go to steam, get a free rifleman, and then add one time purchase DLC's to expand him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not a fan at all giving people incentives to switch to underpopulated sides. What it does is tears down your unit cohesion when you have some of your guys jumping sides simply because they can use an SMG over there. The system doesn’t help populations it will only hurt it because you have large group of people migrating constantly instead of growing relationships and possibly subscribing. Do I have an answer? Nope. But in my opinion incentives aren’t the answer.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2018 at 3:01 PM, Merlin51 said:

That's actually not true.
You can go to steam, get a free rifleman, and then add one time purchase DLC's to expand him.

 

and F2P was never removed from the organic side

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, viper69 said:

I’m not a fan at all giving people incentives to switch to underpopulated sides. What it does is tears down your unit cohesion when you have some of your guys jumping sides simply because they can use an SMG over there. The system doesn’t help populations it will only hurt it because you have large group of people migrating constantly instead of growing relationships and possibly subscribing. Do I have an answer? Nope. But in my opinion incentives aren’t the answer.

Unit cohesion with reservists is a myth. At least I never have had the chance to witness it.

Furthemore, if it attracts players that are currently offline, everyone wins.

If too much reservists change side, the advantage desappears. 

So I wouldn't be worried about that matter.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2018 at 11:46 AM, malvoc said:

You are beating the dead horse into oblivion here we have had this conversation oh 100 times in the forums!!

Here is the problem …. we are all human and we want to win no one likes to lose so if you are on the team that is losing most people cry nerf and just quit playing that campaign or goto the other side because they want to win.

This will never change unless we as a COMMUNITY stick it out and just keep playing the game. There always has to be a loser there will always be someone that killed you even though you think they are hacking ect...

I have played both sides for a long time and I see the same thing always …..why didn't that guy die he is cheating there tanks are better than ours there planes are better than ours yada yada yada.

Well its not true the fact is sometimes people just get the better of you and you don't like it so you blame the game and quit playing which hurts your side even more.

Its like a vicious cycle over and over again lol.

One thing I know that can be fixed is relying on other people to make sure there is supply and AO's and people leading attacks and defenses. 

I think the game system should be changed in that aspect and I believe CRS is working on it, because having to rely on someone else to even be in game to make sure the game is running properly is a bad idea for sure to many people (even me) sometimes get mad and don't want to play for awhile then you have no one to rely on and count on to make sure everyone is having the best gaming experience they can. This is where CRS needs to step in and have Leaders assigned to each side to make sure there game is running properly like supply attacks and defenses ect… we have what at least 12 CRS staff that actually play the game? Those people need to be the ones we can count on to make sure the game has what it needs to be fun for everyone.

But as far as winning and losing hey we all lose sometimes so get over it and just try to have fun its what I am doing now....if you quit you just hurt your team that much more...…..

Malvoc out.....

I have said it over and over that it's down right silly that one has to join HC to make  map desicions . Yes have HC as the 1st line but when no one is online from HC we have enough players in game that have max rank and have played this game long enough that they are very capable of making some desicions . 

Most of these long time players might have been HC look to them as a fall back option if none HC or former HC is on look for the highest ranked longest playing player to make a desicion. 

Many of us don't join HC cause of the hours we can commit to the game but in crucial moments in game would not mind stepping up if we are in game.

Now I wouldn't mind the side lock idea .For players like Merlin it would be a horrible idea cause he always goes to the underpop side and a sidelock will take that option away if the tide would swing all of sudden.

Maybe have a hybrid system .

You log into your side you get a screen that gives you the option .

1st option Sidelock to your chosen side for entire map.

2nd option 10day one side before you can consider the other side and if you switch you are locked for 10 days before you can switch again. ( that would definitely cut down on the hey I just defended with that guy now he kills , also would cut down on the spying allegations ).

I might come up with another idea which I will add if I do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK im a returning vet 

Its a shame the game is still underpopulated.

Im not sure Side lock is the issue. Perhaps we should look at resources and make it increasingly harder for the German side to get supply as time goes by

Reflect the fact that as the war progressed in other theatres German supply became problematical

The other way of adding some spice might be giving HC some wild card options that can be played to add a bit of uncertainty 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I kind of disagree that limiting player choice to that level is a way of solving this issue, and you probably can't convince me that "side switchers" are really causing a problem here ... unless they are spying/cheating, and that's a whole different story. And I say this as someone who does NOT switch sides during camp (for a couple of different reasons that might not apply to the next person). 

If anything, side loyalty could be more to blame for an overpop side ending up more overpop, and some lopsided fighting. If twice as many allied "loyalists" happen to want to play on any given night, against a minority of axis loyalists, then there is going to be an imbalance and nobody is going to do anything about it because they want to play their side. And vice versa. And some who might care about pop imbalance may just decide not to play rather than go to the other side and be criticized for it. 

jmho (at the moment, anyway)

Edited by hillstorm
added to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side lock the game. Then offer the option to purchase the ability to move from side to side....let's say .... a couple of dollars per map. 

;)

Hey who knows...might help out...for those who do wish to hop back and forth.

Ya never know. 

:)

S!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple fact that a player can play in the original game client at the SAME TIME as playing in the steam client, is simply astounding.

Is there any wonder there is a griefing/spying issue???

I was simply amazed that CRS  would not have coded that out.

In all honesty CRS will probably delete this post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I like the side lock per campaign idea. If someone is on the losing side they're either going to switch sides or not play at all. If they can't switch sides and decide to not play then that gives the losing side a better chance against (possibly) more even numbers. Perhaps set a limit for free to play players at the same time. If we have one side that is grossly underpopulated then all free to play players have to join the underpopulated side OR subscribe/get DLC. That is, of course until population balances out again. 

 
  •  
Edited by jokur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.