• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Crs Wants You!   01/18/2019

      CRS is looking for some volunteer live support chat staff.  Are you up for the assignment?  If so,  please send an email with your interest to,  Jobs@corneredrats.com
fiambre

Impressions about no SD and the capture timers

78 posts in this topic

SD... only one tiny issue. The biggest issue is the balance insanity. You want allies spawning in... GE rid of the stugG tiger parity. The allies don't see an effort or the strongest priority of balance as a objective in this game. You want us in? Give us a reason. I have said it till I'm blue in the face.  Reap the whirlwind because the decisions of no sd and the future date entry is going to single handily destroy this game. All you Axis players, you want to continue this insanity, keep to it.  if you truly want this game to succeed this crap has to end.  Ever really wonder why Scotsman left? Look back at his parting demand.. make your own conclusions, but he spelt it out.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on stankyus, i dont think the axis players have any responsability on this.

We are all players, and i am an axis afiliated squad one, so i play exclusively axis. But you cant tell me that i should not play axis because we are killing the game.... please....

I am not going to enter in the eternal material discussion. We have a 3g without MG, for example, you have a pan/dac that can kill a tiger and you have the maty and the char who are the kings of the beginning of the map. I never played allied so i cant speak about your side, sure you have some handicaps like we the axis also have. About the numbers of supply, well i think that there is many supply, about tanks numbers... well it could be tweaked.. i hope, to satisfy both sides.

I am not a "NOSD FAN" I am a fan of a solution that benefits the two sides and all the players. I have played a lot this map and Im liking the new system but i dont know how it is in the UP side and maybe the system is not as good as it appears in the winning side. I would like to test it being the UP side, then I could speak. At this moment i only can say that takes a LOT to cap.

I think like Malvoc in a recent post about this topic.

S!

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SD or no, numbers and TZ3 will always win...

Allies won last camp with numbers, Tiger/Stug had no bearing on the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bus0 said:

SD or no, numbers and TZ3 will always win...

Allies won last camp with numbers, Tiger/Stug had no bearing on the result.

Come on bus.. you changing tune now?  SD is just a symptom.

I have said that the cap timer only is not a BAD thing, I said it was BAD during low pop.  Huge difference between 20 vrs 40 with cap timers than 5 vrs 10.  The 20 will lose but not a route because you have coverage.  Still SD should not go away, hopefully that will be obviouse but we could not have a third axis lose now could we.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kase250 said:

Come on stankyus, i dont think the axis players have any responsability on this.

We are all players, and i am an axis afiliated squad one, so i play exclusively axis. But you cant tell me that i should not play axis because we are killing the game.... please....

I am not going to enter in the eternal material discussion. We have a 3g without MG, for example, you have a pan/dac that can kill a tiger and you have the maty and the char who are the kings of the beginning of the map. I never played allied so i cant speak about your side, sure you have some handicaps like we the axis also have. About the numbers of supply, well i think that there is many supply, about tanks numbers... well it could be tweaked.. i hope, to satisfy both sides.

I am not a "NOSD FAN" I am a fan of a solution that benefits the two sides and all the players. I have played a lot this map and Im liking the new system but i dont know how it is in the UP side and maybe the system is not as good as it appears in the winning side. I would like to test it being the UP side, then I could speak. At this moment i only can say that takes a LOT to cap.

I think like Malvoc in a recent post about this topic.

S!

 

 

 

 

 

I NEVER EVER said you had responsibility for this. You are given what you are given.  However if we upped the matty numbers to the same numbers as the 4D, you would hear from me and the Axis would scream bloody murder.  Complicity comes with silence also.  I warned against doing the parity crap since they entered it and the allied numbers till are falling. I find it very interesting that several of the top allied stats the last two maps where from axis players. The allies get to win by the good graces of those AXIS players who switch sides.  Open your eyes, we have to have balance, be it on the field or by the spawn pool.  The Allies need to have a reason to be here. We don't which is why the allies in the past year and a half or mb 2 have only won maps where the AXIS squads jumped sides. You want to know who gets to win, follow the Axis squads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 What's ultra frustrating is, that the OP side can play like [censored] and still win. We had AB and link cp at Albert and still couldn't take it. It's not like one side wins three towns and the other just one, no it's like one side wins all towns for seven days. 

One thing that could be changed: No delay when you switch from overpop to underpop side, currently there is a delay, this wasn't there in the past. 

The other thing that should never happen is that one side wins 9 months. I fail to see, how this can be anything else than extremely destructive. The aftermath is still what fuels a lot of the anger imo. There have also several players permanently switched from allied to axis since that time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ebert100 said:

 What's ultra frustrating is, that the OP side can play like [censored] and still win. We had AB and link cp at Albert and still couldn't take it. It's not like one side wins three towns and the other just one, no it's like one side wins all towns for seven days. 

 

Sorry mate but that was not "play like ........".

It was a tenacious action, to continue trying it again and again until we got to put the FMS in the north zone. But the key was that I and Hamza took an FMS to our AO in Seclin where we captured the spawn, I think I killed Martigan a few times and finally managed to take it. But you do not moved players to Seclin, as it happens to us too many times, it was a planed move for our part. Only martigan and 1 allied more were defending that town, you have to move on defense and comms. In the DO of Albert, I tried to personally take 3 or 4 Opels to the north zone (strike69 killed me on all occasions). After several attempts we managed to place an FMS in the north zone, that FMS made it much easier to neutralize the FMS that you had north and that helped us a lot to take the NCP. It was an operation with a great communication in the chat, a great coordination between the players and the HC. I'm sorry but I think we played very well and we deserved that victory. We do not recapture Albert for any gift, we take it playing as a team, not giving up, trying to take opels again and again until we got it, having excellent communications, marking and, in short, playing very well and, therefore, we take back the city.

It seems that when we win is because there is something that fails in the game system and that is not fair. The map before summer where we made a big cut also had problems .... It seems that the game works only when you win .... I totally agree to improve the balance between the sides, but what we have won we have won working as a team and not giving up when everything seems lost as in the case of Albert on Saturday morning (Eurotime).

I would like to play as allied one map to see how is it..... 

 

 

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should always be a form of SD, the main purpose of SD is to remove the higher concentrated groups of players spawning in where the opposing team can't match it, increasing this too much may make things balance but hurt the gameplay, so I think there should be at least 15 seconds limit to the max of 30 secs (this is standard in the industry), considering the larger maps WW2ol could probably be ok with 15secs.

As an example with no SD a single player that is camping a FMS will get overrun very fast while with SD this will at least allow him to maintain and be able to control more the enemy.

I think SD was already at the max with 30 secs and with longer capture times for the OP side the game will still be tending to OP, has it should but fast steamrolls don't happen compared to the past, so I think this is no longer the issue.

 

The objective should now be how to make the Underpop more attractive and for me that should be by giving premium equipment to players who are playing the UD side, like a FPA unlocks the Starter account equipment and the basic accounts get the premium equipment.

Taking down FMS should also be looked at maybe instead of requiring 4 satchels you only need 2 satchels to the Underpop side..

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kase250 said:

Sorry mate but that was not "play like ........".

It was a tenacious action, to continue trying it again and again until we got to put the FMS in the north zone. But the key was that I and Hamza took an FMS to our AO in Seclin where we captured the spawn, I think I killed Martigan a few times and finally managed to take it. But you do not moved players to Seclin, as it happens to us too many times, it was a planed move for our part. Only martigan and 1 allied more were defending that town, you have to move on defense and comms. In the DO of Albert, I tried to personally take 3 or 4 Opels to the north zone (strike69 killed me on all occasions). After several attempts we managed to place an FMS in the north zone, that FMS made it much easier to neutralize the FMS that you had north and that helped us a lot to take the NCP. It was an operation with a great communication in the chat, a great coordination between the players and the HC. I'm sorry but I think we played very well and we deserved that victory. We do not recapture Albert for any gift, we take it playing as a team, not giving up, trying to take opels again and again until we got it, having excellent communications, marking and, in short, playing very well and, therefore, we take back the city.

It seems that when we win is because there is something that fails in the game system and that is not fair. The map before summer where we made a big cut also had problems .... It seems that the game works only when you win .... I totally agree to improve the balance between the sides, but what we have won we have won working as a team and not giving up when everything seems lost as in the case of Albert on Saturday morning (Eurotime).

I would like to play as allied one map to see how is it..... 

I'm merely brainstorming and provide some feedback as to make it better.  I know perfectly well, that most only cry when they lose, but i still think the Albert example was good. Two weeks ago allieds also lost but it was ok, you had some chance. Now it's nothing short of unplayable.

Maybe there should be more pressure on the OP side depending on the Overpop ratio:

- to go for the factories (why is the map still alive)

- to have a functioning attack AO (often just sit back and defend with OP)

- to have a FB defence and attack

- to guard own ABs( losing albert AB and link cp during overpop is not good),

but i don't know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kase250 said:

Sorry mate but that was not "play like ........".

It was a tenacious action, to continue trying it again and again until we got to put the FMS in the north zone. But the key was that I and Hamza took an FMS to our AO in Seclin where we captured the spawn, I think I killed Martigan a few times and finally managed to take it. But you do not moved players to Seclin, as it happens to us too many times, it was a planed move for our part. Only martigan and 1 allied more were defending that town, you have to move on defense and comms. In the DO of Albert, I tried to personally take 3 or 4 Opels to the north zone (strike69 killed me on all occasions). After several attempts we managed to place an FMS in the north zone, that FMS made it much easier to neutralize the FMS that you had north and that helped us a lot to take the NCP. It was an operation with a great communication in the chat, a great coordination between the players and the HC. I'm sorry but I think we played very well and we deserved that victory. We do not recapture Albert for any gift, we take it playing as a team, not giving up, trying to take opels again and again until we got it, having excellent communications, marking and, in short, playing very well and, therefore, we take back the city.

It seems that when we win is because there is something that fails in the game system and that is not fair. The map before summer where we made a big cut also had problems .... It seems that the game works only when you win .... I totally agree to improve the balance between the sides, but what we have won we have won working as a team and not giving up when everything seems lost as in the case of Albert on Saturday morning (Eurotime).

I would like to play as allied one map to see how is it..... 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry Kase   but we just did not have the numbers to take Albert on Saturday morning, yes you played well but there where hardly any allies on at all, so  I was the one the captured the bunker and kicked the flags  but it took serval attempts by myself goreblimey, with no real support  from others  and at most I saw 10  other players in town  meanwhile we where also trying to hold the north cp  and Marty on discord informed us he had gone to Seclin and was defending there  but no one else showed up  until I arrived but that point it was to late and the AO failed and  Seclin fell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok guys, @foe2 @ebert100

I just wanted to show you from the axis POV, it was not a walk of roses and if you were so short of people as you comment, I take my hat because it cost us a lot. We were not many people either ...  I only want you to know that I am with you,  I want a happy, motivated and competitive allied side. Ah yes, gore was there too... i did not remember. 

I play squad, arma..... and for me this game is the best, is a BLAST, we have to paddle together to keep it alive and make it stronger ALLIEDS and AXIS. :)

S!

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First this

 

Now, no SD (something present in EVERY and I mean EVERY single online PvP shooter). Now we have impossible cap timers and are always able to insta-respawn immediately after death (something that even the most unrealistic online games don't have).

Slowly but surely moving further away from sim/realism type gameplay and more firmly toward twitch-style *aim-at-the-door-like-a-zombie-and-wait* gameplay. Oh, and BTW, the old bunkers are coming back (*cementing* the core of the game, which is and always has been gamey spawn camping)....man....

 

I'd hoped that near 20 years later we'd have gameplay mechanics that attempt to simulate *something* approaching real world battlefield tactics on the ground in realistic, dynamic battles where death actually means something.

Meanwhile, Axis players want a game where they can respawn and rush the same cp and kill and die over and over within a span of seconds (because despite the fact that they're playing WWIIOL of all games, they apparently don't have the patience to wait 30 seconds to respawn after they die), and Allied players want a game where bombs insta-kill tanks because the notion of anything less doesn't match their ill-informed ideas about what actually happened during WWII.

Ugh...man, this hurts... :( 

Edited by xanthus

Share this post


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

I propose that the underpop side always wins.

+10/ as they always have.

  Related image    Related image

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jwilly said:

I propose that the underpop side always wins.

The conversation always revolves around ‘winning’. This is the problem. There’s no reward in the game other than winning. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Silky said:

The conversation always revolves around ‘winning’. This is the problem. There’s no reward in the game other than winning. 

Well, it is a wargame, and wars have winners and losers.

But CRS defines how to "win". Seems like that should allow a solution that's population-independent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It’s all in your head. You can make up your own victory conditions. 

2. The map is too small. Double or triple the # of CPs and campaigns will have more opportunity for back/forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

1. It’s all in your head. You can make up your own victory conditions. 

Ummm, CRS designed the game with a victory process and mechanics. Those are the only victory conditions that matter. Customers play the game per its mechanics, and there they are.

Quote

2. The map is too small. Double or triple the # of CPs and campaigns will have more opportunity for back/forth.

If the number of CPs was doubled and the number of maneuver units was not correspondingly increased, the inability of the underpop side to keep up with the overpop side's pressure-everywhere tactic would be worsened. I think the mechanics of a game like this result in the advantage of the overpop side increasing as the number of CPs increases, and (importantly) decreasing as the number of CPs decreases.

In engineering, a useful way to analyze systems like this one in regard to how they behave as a key parameter is varied is to look at the extreme cases or end points. One end point would be only one CP. That for sure is the easiest case for the underpop side, because there's no chasing around at all to keep up with the overpop side's probes.  

***

Another possible solution would be to eliminate the campaign game as currently implemented. That of course was the CRS-strategic intent for Rapid Assault. Rapid Assault was to be a game that for any given player would be a continuous series of battles (i.e. a large number of maps would be created, so that repetition of a map would have a long time cycle), operated as instances so that each instance could be precisely population balanced. I don't think the "campaign game" aspect of Rapid Assault was firmed up yet, but Gophur was soliciting flowcharts and tactical map concepts for historically valid flows of battles for a given campaign, starting with all the options that realistically existed at the start of the historical campaign. At least the beginnings of a plan for the Western Europe 1940 campaign were being discussed when everything stopped because of economic decisions.

Of course, that actual solution can't happen. I think it would have worked, but it's too late for that idea now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key to overpop's power is in the freedom to maneuver into an advantageous firing position over and above a straight 1:1 kill ratio, and the underpop without mitigation generally can't, tied to running in an undying series of desperate Alamo defenses until overwhelmed.

 

The point of variable cap timing is to create a similar population capture player-time so once the play gets to cases inside town the underpop can frustrate or deliver threatening attacks without having the manpower to do it with superior firepower in superior position- or to multiply any firepower's effect.

 

The point of spawn delay is to slow down the overpop so they are not collectively as fast streaming back in for an FB/spawn defense, spawning armor/air, and give underpop a little bit more time to get that ATG/tank out on attack/defense without being autosmothered.

 

You have to use both together to get the right mix.

 

My current recommended numbers?

 

Base 60 seconds cap time, every 10% pop discrepancy adds 6 seconds to overpop cap time and removes 6 seconds underpop time.

 

So a 200% overpop advantage would be 3 minutes, but the usual capturing pop cuts down time so it's not so bad, just soaks up overpop side players.  The underpop in similar conditions can almost instantly cap things.

 

SD start at 50% pop and adds 3 seconds per 10% overpop advantage, 30s maximum.

 

Note this means you lose a depot battle, likely the underpop will cap/recap because you can't spawn in fast enough to kill him before the cap.

 

Another mechanism could be to back off some of these harsh numbers and have pop minimums to cap- so an overpop might have to have 2 3 or 4 in the depot for the clock to even start.  Probably add an extra for every 100% advantage.

 

Share this post


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

Ummm, CRS designed the game with a victory process and mechanics. Those are the only victory conditions that matter. Customers play the game per its mechanics, and there they are.

Just speaking out of my own way of playing the game. I feel victorious when I succeed in my mission - i.e. RTB, preferably with a bagful of kills. I don't attach too much value to ownership of terrain. I realize I may be in the minority here, but it's a way for me to enjoy the game regardless of map state.

2 hours ago, jwilly said:

f the number of CPs was doubled and the number of maneuver units was not correspondingly increased, the inability of the underpop side to keep up with the overpop side's pressure-everywhere tactic would be worsened.

You're making assumptions. With more CPs and correspondingly more manoeuvre units (or garrison frontline), there will be more land to fight for and thus longer campaigns with more prospect of back/forth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/09/2018 at 4:45 AM, fiambre said:

For me, the system its much more adequate than the SD.

Its true that the underpop side normally is screwed, but hell… any underpop side is screwed 95% of times!

The SD is gone and its very very very positive for me.

Great advance CRS!

I totally agree.!!

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/10/2018 at 4:53 AM, stankyus said:

SD... only one tiny issue. The biggest issue is the balance insanity. You want allies spawning in... GE rid of the stugG tiger parity. The allies don't see an effort or the strongest priority of balance as a objective in this game. You want us in? Give us a reason. I have said it till I'm blue in the face.  Reap the whirlwind because the decisions of no sd and the future date entry is going to single handily destroy this game. All you Axis players, you want to continue this insanity, keep to it.  if you truly want this game to succeed this crap has to end.  Ever really wonder why Scotsman left? Look back at his parting demand.. make your own conclusions, but he spelt it out.

 

CRS can take out all the tigers.. and the  88mm....
... not need!

lol

Edited by kareca
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you are so underpop that you can barely get out of any spawn point without being mowed down then the game stops being fun, that's how it's been a lot for me lately on the Allied side.

Something has to be done about it otherwise we are just losing more and more players.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nick said:

When you are so underpop that you can barely get out of any spawn point without being mowed down then the game stops being fun, that's how it's been a lot for me lately on the Allied side.

Something has to be done about it otherwise we are just losing more and more players.

 We just had overpop and cut them off. The cutoff was recapped ninja style, while we overpop. The stuff you see in this game man. I don't know, i can't imagine a more worst case scenario for player motivation or retention.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Bmbm said:

Just speaking out of my own way of playing the game. I feel victorious when I succeed in my mission - i.e. RTB, preferably with a bagful of kills. I don't attach too much value to ownership of terrain.

 

You are definitely NOT alone. I couldn't care less about ownership of terrain or what happens at the map level. I NEVER have. I'm positive the vast majority of players (i.e. not simply the minority who post here) are exactly the same way.

Edited by xanthus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.