stankyus

New TO&E try out

149 posts in this topic

While I am on the fence with the idea.. please keep in mind, tanks dont cap cps, infantry do.  Though tanks help and can make the difference.. nope.  I challenge matamor about ppl not logging in.. no I disagree with his assesment it was 24 hours but he is correct. Vets log in and log out on the allied side. I am sorry but imballance does not make good game play. I Yelled from the roof tops about it prior to this little experiment, but now after tonight, serious damage is being handed out.  There was a time where the allies spawned in and could win a map with out Axis sideswitching... 2 years now and the map only swings when the Axis squads switch sides.  Infantry cap, tanks dont.. and TBH I can count on my hands and toes for the first time how many guys logged out tonight because they had to defend spawns with rifflmen vrs SMGs and LMGs.  Open your eyes and get a clue, imbalance does not work. It does not for the alllies now and wont for the Axis IF there is such a thing of imballance there and it by far will not work when the last RDP happens.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

situations where people log out don't get the attention they deserve.

 

players would rather log out than work. if there's nothing to do they get bored and log. if a battle is utterly one-sided they leave.

the longer the situation lasts: they don't even bother logging in

Share this post


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

While I am on the fence with the idea.. please keep in mind, tanks dont cap cps, infantry do.  Though tanks help and can make the difference.. nope.  I challenge matamor about ppl not logging in.. no I disagree with his assesment it was 24 hours but he is correct. Vets log in and log out on the allied side. I am sorry but imballance does not make good game play. I Yelled from the roof tops about it prior to this little experiment, but now after tonight, serious damage is being handed out.  There was a time where the allies spawned in and could win a map with out Axis sideswitching... 2 years now and the map only swings when the Axis squads switch sides.  Infantry cap, tanks dont.. and TBH I can count on my hands and toes for the first time how many guys logged out tonight because they had to defend spawns with rifflmen vrs SMGs and LMGs.  Open your eyes and get a clue, imbalance does not work. It does not for the alllies now and wont for the Axis IF there is such a thing of imballance there and it by far will not work when the last RDP happens.

I salute your honesty. Imbalance is also made by a side that don't play in numbers. Usually we top population on the first 24 hours of a opening campaign but it looks like a massive boycott was orchestrated before the opening and we even hit 1 AO limit two nights in a row this week during US prime... Fighting with rifles is a challenge, did that so often to clear cps & bunker when drained and I think you are right, automatic guns are rarer in the pool for the allied side this campaign for their reasons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, matamor said:

I salute your honesty. Imbalance is also made by a side that don't play in numbers. Usually we top population on the first 24 hours of a opening campaign but it looks like a massive boycott was orchestrated before the opening and we even hit 1 AO limit two nights in a row this week during US prime... Fighting with rifles is a challenge, did that so often to clear cps & bunker when drained and I think you are right, automatic guns are rarer in the pool for the allied side this campaign for their reasons.

There was no "massive boycott orchestrated" or anything of the sort.  The lack of players is a natural consequence of side fatigue and frustration avoidance, and that phenomenon exists on an individual level, not as some top-down plot.  

 

This is what the Allied side is nowadays.  Any Allied players left who aren't playing don't owe the Axis anything.  It's not the Allies' job to make the game fun for the Axis, or vice versa.  That's CRS's job.  

Edited by Capco
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents and remember I have been with the game since the start.

And with that I say it once again, CRS did the Allies no favor giving them the Char and Matilda, I remember the Char and Matilda overkill on the battle field.  Axis had really nothing to do Tank on Tank so most went INF while the Allies had the fun of killing and had the higher K/D ratio , but when it came to winning the maps in was in Axis favor cause we were more or less forced to play INF , anything else was a exercise in frustration. 

Even yesterday in Nouvion, Axis capped spawn , NO tank support on Axis side but the CP had ET around it , cause killing is more fun then recapping let's be honest. 

Well then a Stug3b showed up and took the only tank out that was really dangerous and the rest of the R35 didn't stand much of a chance , then a 2nd Stug3b showed , but instead of going INF players spawned ATG , hint Stug3b has no MG , well long story short Allies lost Nouvion not because Axis had more men but because the wrong equipment was spawned in on the Allies side.

Allies could have 200 more INF in each category but when you get players that rather sit in their heavy tanks and are not willing to do the grunt work then so be it.   Its not the Axis fault , maybe CRS should take all the heavies away , maybe only have 232 , vickers and R35 and see what happens .

But I bet then the Allies players will [censored] cause they don't have their K/D machine in their arsenal. And will log too.

All this new Spawn TO&E has taken us back again to 2001 , where Axis have to play more INF cause our Armor bites .

Allies don't even know how to play without Heavies and you can see that [censored] fest everytime the Tiger came in and Allies actually had to figure out how to kill one cause your side is so used to killing everything from the front ( and don't tell me different Stankyus you played Axis) 

The complaining worked and CRS gave you the Firefly another Tank that can any Axis tank from the front .

Please list all the Axis Tanks that can kill the Allied Tanks from the front at a distance . There are not many cause we need to wait till we get that flank shot or get the rear shot.

Like A famous Rat once said to the Axis player base , * LEARN HOW TO FLANK as an Axis tanker vs Allied Armor.

Maybe they should have said that to the Allied player base too once the Tiger came out. 

But nope there  otherthings get overlooked like the shedding of the Tracks in one hit ( have you seen the battle tracks that tiger had due to the shear weight of the 52ton beast. They exchanged the tracks only for Tansportation . One shot should not throw a Track on a Tiger like we have in game , also the glass gun no other Tank in game gets degunned faster then the Tiger. 

 

These are my thoughts , my observation over the years , even the few times a due play a campaign on Allied side.

So you can take it as you wish , rip me a new one or whatever. But I stand by my statement. 

3 people like this

Share this post


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

There was no "massive boycott orchestrated" or anything of the sort.  The lack of players is a natural consequence of side fatigue and frustration avoidance, and that phenomenon exists on an individual level, not as some top-down plot.  

This is what the Allied side is nowadays.  Any Allied players left who aren't playing don't owe the Axis anything.  It's not the Allies' job to make the game fun for the Axis, or vice versa.  That's CRS's job.  

Capco, when last time did we met in game? I have met a lot of allied vets last campaign multiple times which are almost invisible since campaign started. Come on please. Log more, put efforts along in your comment and make it count. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dre21 said:

Allies could have 200 more INF in each category but when you get players that rather sit in their heavy tanks and are not willing to do the grunt work then so be it.   Its not the Axis fault , maybe CRS should take all the heavies away , maybe only have 232 , vickers and R35 and see what happens .

But I bet then the Allies players will [censored] cause they don't have their K/D machine in their arsenal. And will log too.

This could be interesting as well to try out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, major0noob said:

situations where people log out don't get the attention they deserve.

 

players would rather log out than work. if there's nothing to do they get bored and log. if a battle is utterly one-sided they leave.

the longer the situation lasts: they don't even bother logging in

It is a "game", after all.............

Share this post


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

While I am on the fence with the idea.. please keep in mind, tanks dont cap cps, infantry do.  Though tanks help and can make the difference.. nope.  I challenge matamor about ppl not logging in.. no I disagree with his assesment it was 24 hours but he is correct. Vets log in and log out on the allied side. I am sorry but imballance does not make good game play. I Yelled from the roof tops about it prior to this little experiment, but now after tonight, serious damage is being handed out.  There was a time where the allies spawned in and could win a map with out Axis sideswitching... 2 years now and the map only swings when the Axis squads switch sides.  Infantry cap, tanks dont.. and TBH I can count on my hands and toes for the first time how many guys logged out tonight because they had to defend spawns with rifflmen vrs SMGs and LMGs.  Open your eyes and get a clue, imbalance does not work. It does not for the alllies now and wont for the Axis IF there is such a thing of imballance there and it by far will not work when the last RDP happens.

I do not play until I change that toe....

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, matamor said:

 allied vets last campaign

yep that's called being on Christmas vacation, now its back too work and weekend play only...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like to wade into side arguments. But are we sure that this is a ToE issue and not just a numbers issue? It's not uncommon for the winning side from the previous campaign to log in less the next campaign.

Most towns fall well before anything in the spawn list is depleted. But I can certainly understand the frustration of being outgunned. As a player who primarily uses the rifle I've been playing with that feeling since 2001. S!

 

Share this post


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

While I am on the fence with the idea.. please keep in mind, tanks dont cap cps, infantry do.

Good point! (and the Axis mantra). The first thing that came to mind when I read this is that maybe capture mechanics need to be redesigned to reflect the "different but equal" aspect of a more historical based TO&E.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, stankyus said:

While I am on the fence with the idea.. please keep in mind, tanks dont cap cps, infantry do.  Though tanks help and can make the difference.. nope.  I challenge matamor about ppl not logging in.. no I disagree with his assesment it was 24 hours but he is correct. Vets log in and log out on the allied side. I am sorry but imballance does not make good game play. I Yelled from the roof tops about it prior to this little experiment, but now after tonight, serious damage is being handed out.  There was a time where the allies spawned in and could win a map with out Axis sideswitching... 2 years now and the map only swings when the Axis squads switch sides.  Infantry cap, tanks dont.. and TBH I can count on my hands and toes for the first time how many guys logged out tonight because they had to defend spawns with rifflmen vrs SMGs and LMGs.  Open your eyes and get a clue, imbalance does not work. It does not for the alllies now and wont for the Axis IF there is such a thing of imballance there and it by far will not work when the last RDP happens.

Said this on the 1st day. 

When one side has a big advantage in SMGs, it's going to decide the map. 

I refuse to defend CPs with a rifle vs autos. You just die 85% of the time. When the autos are gone, so am I, at least playing infantry. I'll go ATG or armor or somewhere else, and I see a lot of people doing the same thing. 

The rats (and their forum sycophants)  can defend this nonsense all they want, but reality is reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I almost exclusively use the rifleman kit, I also understand why SMGs are preferred for CP action.  

 

The problem isn't the lists on their own per se.  The concept might work with a different capture system or mechanic.  But at the end of the day you need to get inside of these small buildings for X minutes in order to capture territory, and automatic weapons will always shine in CQB over a bolt-action rifle for the vast majority of players.  

 

That's just how the game works right now.  If a battle actually burns up all the auto supply and both sides are down to rifles, and then a fresh brigade with autos arrives for one side, that side wins the battle almost every time.  

 

We probably take notice of enemy auto supply more than we take notice of tank supply.  Once your side notices that the enemy isn't spawning autos anymore but your side still is, that's a massive psychological event.  Every vet knows that's "the moment"... that's when the battle finally turns one way or the other.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I said it before my break and I'll say it again - you the players have to decide what the fundamental nature of the game will be. Is it red vs blue, historic accuracy, or a blend? Be careful for what you ask for because you may just get it - which always seems to leave someone ticked off regardless of the initial desires. You asked for more infantry only fights - you got them. In this case the initial TOE departure point for the new tools was historic accuracy and correct costs. 

The Axis had more smg early on...it's not CRS opinion...it's the historic TOE and History. The allies catch up quickly, but what I'm reading isn't that the allied players don't have equipment. They do - it's just they don't want to use what they have. (Not fun etc etc)  Later on you will see the Axis inferior in semiauto rifles. 

Ok - so the slider can in turn be moved to to more red vs blue with more smg even though that's not historic TOE ratios any more. If that's what the players want I'm sure Ohm and Bmbm will happily comply after discussion. It's a game and has to be fun. Thats why everyone is here, active in the forums and paying attention. The tool set now allows that to happen quickly without creating an imbalance elsewhere. 

Area capture has been and will continue to be discussed, but it won't happen tomorrow.

What I can say with authority is that the old TOE was not only not correct but had a distinctive tilt towards one side in two tiers..particularly in French vs Axis lineup. That is gone now.

so - make your opinions known...if the desire is more red vs blue so be it...but don't start yelling in the forums about historical this or that if you opt for red vs blue. 

The goal is to find the ideal mix..but to do that the old disparities had to be destroyed...and a new cycle begun. I know changes are already bring made and discussed, so have at it and post away. 

Please just don't ask for something, get it, then say you want something else. That's the short road to insanity on the other side of the fence because no matter what is done, someone is always ticked off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

Said this on the 1st day. 

When one side has a big advantage in SMGs, it's going to decide the map. 

I refuse to defend CPs with a rifle vs autos. You just die 85% of the time. When the autos are gone, so am I, at least playing infantry. I'll go ATG or armor or somewhere else, and I see a lot of people doing the same thing. 

The rats (and their forum sycophants)  can defend this nonsense all they want, but reality is reality. 

No mate - the reality is that it's hard to have it both ways - you can't scream about historic accuracy if what you want is red vs blue. If it's a mix, so be it, but come to a consensus that's what you want and give up on making any other arguements about specific historic matchups. Same goes for weapon characteristics...does this mean you want everyone to have the same smg round to round dispersion? Thats red vs blue and can be done...but don't come to the forum and argu for historic weapons accuracy if you already asked for something else.

It's hard to see through the noise at times... what you are saying is that in essence the disparity in players minutes and numbers is due to the TOE structure and it's effects on defense and capture. (Smg) Is that the reason for the play time and player imbalance or is it that the allies for too long labored under an unfair balance dynamic forever...which was the issue with the old TOE structure. I assume both sides want a fair fight free from side bias. 

All I can say is let the guys make their adjustments after the campaign...they will do so happily I'm sure...but the existing disparity had to be destroyed because it was, imho, destroying one side of the game in the long term, which helps no one.

 

Edited by scotsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, scotsman said:

 

I said it before my break and I'll say it again - you the players have to decide what the fundamental nature of the game will be. Is it red vs blue, historic accuracy, or a blend? Be careful for what you ask for because you may just get it - which always seems to leave someone ticked off regardless of the initial desires. You asked for more infantry only fights - you got them. In this case the initial TOE departure point for the new tools was historic accuracy and correct costs. 

The Axis had more smg early on...it's not CRS opinion...it's the historic TOE and History. The allies catch up quickly, but what I'm reading isn't that the allied players don't have equipment. They do - it's just they don't want to use what they have. (Not fun etc etc)  Later on you will see the Axis inferior in semiauto rifles. 

Ok - so the slider can in turn be moved to to more red vs blue with more smg even though that's not historic TOE ratios any more. If that's what the players want I'm sure Ohm and Bmbm will happily comply after discussion. It's a game and has to be fun. Thats why everyone is here, active in the forums and paying attention. The tool set now allows that to happen quickly without creating an imbalance elsewhere. 

Area capture has been and will continue to be discussed, but it won't happen tomorrow.

What I can say with authority is that the old TOE was not only not correct but had a distinctive tilt towards one side in two tiers..particularly in French vs Axis lineup. That is gone now.

so - make your opinions known...if the desire is more red vs blue so be it...but don't start yelling in the forums about historical this or that if you opt for red vs blue. 

The goal is to find the ideal mix..but to do that the old disparities had to be destroyed...and a new cycle begun. I know changes are already bring made and discussed, so have at it and post away. 

Please just don't ask for something, get it, then say you want something else. That's the short toad to insanity on the other side of the fence because no matter what is done, someone is always ticked off. 

it has to be a blend and I think infantry specifically needs to be much closer to red-vs-blue. the arguments for historical adherence to realistic TOE have NEVER been that loud.

 

10 minutes ago, scotsman said:

No mate - the reality is that it's hard to have it both ways - you can't scream about historic accuracy if what you want is red vs blue.

are you sure you guys understand the argument and you're not conflating the player arguments with your own internal biases? players want weapons PERFORMANCE to reflect history as closely as possible, pretty sure this is punto numero uno within the context of 'historical accuracy' arguments. after this, players want it to be fun.

actual realistic war, as you know (better than most), isn't fun.

Edited by madrebel
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During last intermission we played a lot in that area 51.  In that part of the map, I forget what city, had what I am assuming a mock up of sorts of the new bunker that is supposed to make it in game soon.  I think defending that with a rifle is much easier than it is now.  If we could incorporate a building like that for a capture points (as well as the bunker itself), I think that would go a long way to appeasing those who won't/don't defend with a rifle. Maybe make it a smaller building than the bunker itself, but keep the same tight quarters with the narrow hallways that a rifleman can shoot down.

For the record, I defend cp's with anything.  I've held off attacks with a sapper.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the main issue with the change TO&E structure is it better suited for capture points that are not in cities.  Perhaps some of the Cps need to be moved out of town a bit-- SMGS are best for city fights but not so great for open areas.  I think I would like the push to make the rifle more dominant on the battlefield if the battlefield was more suitable for rifles.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, madrebel said:

it has to be a blend and I think infantry specifically needs to be much closer to red-vs-blue. the arguments for historical adherence to realistic TOE have NEVER been that loud.

 

are you sure you guys understand the argument and you're not conflating the player arguments with your own internal biases? players want weapons PERFORMANCE to reflect history as closely as possible, pretty sure this is punto numero uno within the context of 'historical accuracy' arguments. after this, players want it to be fun.

actual realistic war, as you know (better than most), isn't fun.

That's fine...but if you ask for it in small arms, then you give up any form of historical infantry TOE. That's the fairness and fun factor vs history arrangement you are making.  That means 'balance' will always be imposed regardless of what the players think of the specific solution in best manner CRS can pull off. ....It certainly will never resemble what was there. That may mean for example >>the axis surrender the historic LMG advantage once and for all<< for a position of enforced balance. No use arguing about grease gun dates or the number of thompsons given to balance this or that, Is that what you are asking for?

If its not that and simply a partial correction (SMG numbers) then let the guys make their adjustment and see how you feel afterwards. 

And no - I only look at what the statistical math says. Trying to sort out real player desired from contradicting positions in the forums is an exercise in insanity and futility because frequently players talk out of both sides of their mouths without regard to whats best for the overall game. They are concerned about their own play style or side all too frequently. If the recent months have taught me anything it's that. Its simply human nature...no one does it intentionally with a desire to cause harm.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, copeman said:

During last intermission we played a lot in that area 51.  In that part of the map, I forget what city, had what I am assuming a mock up of sorts of the new bunker that is supposed to make it in game soon.  I think defending that with a rifle is much easier than it is now.  If we could incorporate a building like that for a capture points (as well as the bunker itself), I think that would go a long way to appeasing those who won't/don't defend with a rifle. Maybe make it a smaller building than the bunker itself, but keep the same tight quarters with the narrow hallways that a rifleman can shoot down.

For the record, I defend cp's with anything.  I've held off attacks with a sapper.

good point... new buildings ARE coming...I'll ask if we can somehow work multiple capture points into a given large structure too. 

I guess my own frustration is that we really are getting the wheels turning - the game is going to evolve much more rapidly than it has over priors years. I keep hoping the players can and will change with it... if progress is what we all want, CRS cant make an omelette without breaking eggs...meaning the gameplay will change as code, assets, etc change. 

Its not peculiar to our game...other titles wrestle with this too. If everyone simply digs in and refuses to change or give though, Im not sure what CRS can do about that. 

Share this post


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

the main issue with the change TO&E structure is it better suited for capture points that are not in cities.  Perhaps some of the Cps need to be moved out of town a bit-- SMGS are best for city fights but not so great for open areas.  I think I would like the push to make the rifle more dominant on the battlefield if the battlefield was more suitable for rifles.  

That too is a good point...Ill ask...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** When the autos are gone, so am I, at least playing infantry.

It's interesting that you say this.

Yesterday, the LeCat AO I think, we had 3 flags attacking it; all low.

Players were asking for more supply, so I checked the flags; sure enough most all autos were gone from all flags.

Might have been a couple left, some reserve, DLC etc. but for the most part gone.

But, all those flags had like a 100 rifles left still, so we didn't move anything in, 3 flags was enough.

It took a while, but eventually the town was still overrun, with rifles - that was an eye opener for me.

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

That's fine...but if you ask for it in small arms, then you give up any form of historical infantry TOE. That's the fairness and fun factor vs history arrangement you are making.  That means 'balance' will always be imposed regardless of what the players think of the specific solution in best manner CRS can pull off. ....It certainly will never resemble what was there. That may mean for example >>the axis surrender the historic LMG advantage once and for all<< for a position of enforced balance. No use arguing about grease gun dates or the number of thompsons given to balance this or that, Is that what you are asking for?

If its not that and simply a partial correction (SMG numbers) then let the guys make their adjustment and see how you feel afterwards. 

And no - I only look at what the statistical math says. Trying to sort out real player desired from contradicting positions in the forums is an exercise in insanity and futility because frequently players talk out of both sides of their mouths without regard to whats best for the overall game. They are concerned about their own play style or side all too frequently. If the recent months have taught me anything it's that. 

I'll argue again, the majority doesn't really care about historical TOEs all that much. They want to see the weapons evolve, they want to see x/y/z, and they'd like those things to happen as close to realistically as possible within the context of a balanced over all game. You mention the german LMG ... seriously how many players has this cost us? why wouldn't you force the balance here? sitting on a historical high horse may be 'right' but you're riding that pony in a parade with nobody watching as you pass by.

perhaps lets turn this back around, what do YOU/CRS want for the game? more players or more historical accuracy? in the past when this game was healthiest, how were the spawn lists organized? historical adherence or best attempt at balance? use that statistical math of yours, comb through the old subscription stats, do some comparisons. graph unsubs alongside patch releases and game wide decisions. what cost us players? do the opposite of that. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, scotsman said:

good point... new buildings ARE coming...I'll ask if we can somehow work multiple capture points into a given large structure too. 

I guess my own frustration is that we really are getting the wheels turning - the game is going to evolve much more rapidly than it has over priors years. I keep hoping the players can and will change with it... if progress is what we all want, CRS cant make an omelette without breaking eggs...meaning the gameplay will change as code, assets, etc change. 

Its not peculiar to our game...other titles wrestle with this too. If everyone simply digs in and refuses to change or give though, Im not sure what CRS can do about that. 

Ohhh, maybe degrees of capture for a given building. We own 2 floors but need the 3rd for full capture? No idea what would be involved for that but it's interesting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.