thebacon

People unsubbing....

91 posts in this topic

I do have to confess that with the limited SMGS, i have started to use the Bren gun as an smg.  It is gamey, unrealistic, and a misuse of an LMG, but necessary now.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BLKHWK8 said:

playerbase asked for this type of supply and introduction

I'd say this is quite incorrect.

But respectfully I'd like to hear/read further details about this, because maybe I missed it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BLKHWK8 said:

THe thing to remember is that garrisons will have armor in them as well. 

 

What is frustrating on this end, playerbase asked for this type of supply and introduction, now after 2 maps they see that the grass is not greener. We are making slight adjustments and once garrison supply comes the town will have armor in it while the 2 divisions will be similar to current toes

You can show the statistics of this survey.
all playbase?

???

 

crazy idea..
It seems they want to end the game.  lol

 

Edited by enemytank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only explanation I can think of would be that CRS heard complaints about a lack of infantry action (aka action in general) and thought that meant players wanted more infantry-focused battles?  Hence the differentiation of brigades.

 

Maybe when they were working along those lines, that line got muddied up with the "let's make the game more historical" drive, which meant not only armor differentiation but automatic weapons differentiation, since the Germans historically used more automatic weapons with their infantry early in the war.  

 

And then they also said they wanted to test how they would build the lists for 1.36.

Share this post


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

Did they? When? Who? I dont ever recall reading anywhere on these forums a call to limit automatic weapons. I recall countless threads asking for semi auto rifles though, and those have been added. Stg44, fj42, lots of automatic or faster firing rifles adddd over the years yet you claim players wanted to reduce smgs?

It feels like some miscommunication and or someone's 'realism' agenda is being pursued and geberally feels out of touch wirh recent new weapons and player sentiment.

 

*edit* fwiw, many threads about the lmgs ability have been posted, i still dont recall a reduction being part of this though. As in numbers, its all about hipfire capability and rambo use.

AFAIK it was only me and cap, specifically we wanted less top quality tanks of their tier and much less pannies to rebalance axis's inf killing power

can't remember anyone even mentioning historically accurate supply, beyond side trolls

 

me and cap never once advocated removing tanks from inf flags...

 

 

not once did anyone say "balance matties! axis have too much half tracks!"...

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


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

Dont worry about it bacon, I mentioned that a few of our squaddies were unsubbing and I was told by a nice Rat that other people  were resubbing.  

 

So all is well.

It’s just frustrating boss

Share this post


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

Axis armor had been nurfed. We don’t have panzers. A lot of my squadies are tankers. The Stug in tier 0 is a joke now. I’m a day 1 player who comes and goes like most people. I only resubbed up again because guys were coming back. Now their leaving. Its frustrating. We’ve expressed our dislike to what CRS is doing in our Squad Facebook page which has members from CRS in it. You should of seen what their replies were. I was half tempted to screen shot it and post it but I’m better than that. I’d love to see the numbers on people unsubbing compared to subbing up.

What nerf?
Nothing has been done to the axis tanks outside of ALL ammo in game, HE and KE being audited for correct performance
which actually helps a few axis ammo types that worked very poorly. (And allied tanks had some that were in the same boat)
No armor has been removed, no horsepower removed from engines.
Heck the PZ38t and PZIIc actually got their commander fixed so that you can actually use them while firing.

As far as not having panzers, are you looking in game?
Here is an infantry and an armored brigade.
That they have gone off and been killed does not count, everyone is out of something if they are all dead, doesn't matter if it is rifle, tank airplane, interstellar spacecraft etc.
You either have to work with HC then to rotate more in, or bring them in yourself from surrounding areas or sometimes you just have to improvise best you can
That is just simply combat and attrition

INFANTRY
Vspkp1J.png

ARMORED
eiaV8ep.png

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really 

 

For the longest time i was hearing why do they have so many tanks, why unlimited SMG's , why we do RDP because it doesn't have an effect.

 

We go more historical and a supply that is more inline with population and now everyone screaming .....   sounds like everyone wants unlimited supply now 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is reasonable supply == unlimited supply? Having essentially no tanks last map wasn’t reasonable nor were the number of Matildas. It would have been a MUCH larger issue if the allies had numbers.

Having a tiny smattering of SMGs wasn’t reasonable either. 

Any real effort towards RDP until such time that the fishbowl gets ripped out and the ju88 is in for parity is putting the cart before the horse. 

I’ve also seen a few posts from the all caps crew about “same supply all the time = boring” ... again - to whom? Further, you sure you’ve got the right boredom here? Might it be fatigue over the same early war time frame that is the real fatigue? People would rather play with stuff they don’t get to play with a lot? Futzing with the T0 numbers doesn’t fix that.

instead of messing with the numbers, do an accelerated T0 and T1, have them in total last 10 days. Then T2 10 more.

or, add a lot more T0 stuff that freshens things up. Radically altering the TOEs though ... seems to have missed the mark and made things even more boring - counter to the ‘boring’ argument. 

3 people like this

Share this post


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

Really 

 

For the longest time i was hearing why do they have so many tanks, why unlimited SMG's , why we do RDP because it doesn't have an effect.

 

We go more historical and a supply that is more inline with population and now everyone screaming .....   sounds like everyone wants unlimited supply now 

 

I have NEVER heard any veteran player realistically ask for UNLIMITED supply as one would find in intermission. I can see noobs looking for it, but certainly not vets. I know of only one hc player who has said, "too many automatics." I suspect that was to make it easier for people to cap who can't otherwise compete. Wish granted. As if it wasn't easy enough with rambo lmgs/smgs, it's significantly easier now. 

No one is asking for "unlimited supply." We want to be able to play the game. Effectively play the game. And not have to throw helmets at our lagging, ramboing opponents.  That seems like a reasonable request when you specifically PAY to use automatics.  WE were told, that the limited supply decision was YOUR decision to help us adjust to the 1.36 hybrid system.

I took that to mean, and was not corrected, that [censored] poor smg/auto supply was going to continue into 1.36. I was not corrected. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, xohorvath said:

I have NEVER heard any veteran player realistically ask for UNLIMITED supply as one would find in intermission. I can see noobs looking for it, but certainly not vets. I know of only one hc player who has said, "too many automatics." I suspect that was to make it easier for people to cap who can't otherwise compete. Wish granted. As if it wasn't easy enough with rambo lmgs/smgs, it's significantly easier now. 

No one is asking for "unlimited supply." We want to be able to play the game. Effectively play the game. And not have to throw helmets at our lagging, ramboing opponents.  That seems like a reasonable request when you specifically PAY to use automatics.  WE were told, that the limited supply decision was YOUR decision to help us adjust to the 1.36 hybrid system.

I took that to mean, and was not corrected, that [censored] poor smg/auto supply was going to continue into 1.36. I was not corrected. 

WOW   Twice in one day   SEE ABOVE  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'all don't get it  yet? FTP was crying they have no toys to play with, they was jelly of the subbing PB. Then CRS said, mkey, easy peasy. And the rest is History(cal). Well, maybe also a bit comical. 

Share this post


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

You'all don't get it  yet? FTP was crying they have no toys to play with, they was jelly of the subbing PB. Then CRS said, mkey, easy peasy. And the rest is History(cal). Well, maybe also a bit comical. 

There was like 400 of those guys, most of them left. I bet you wish we had that population now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us like the historical supply, regardless of the complaint crew. I’m not against realism and or gameplay tweaks to get it right by the way. Keep at it CRS, not everyone is upset all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you hear anyone going to unsubscribe, please invite him to send me a mail with the reasons at zebbeee@corneredrats.com

altough each time someone unsubscribes, he is invited to complete a survey which is analyzed weekly.

With that new approach the team can be more agile trying out new stuff, and can see if it is going wrong.

About the supply changes mentioned in OP, it has had no impact on actual unsubscribes so far probably because the team is listening and adapting fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, raptor34 said:

Some of us like the historical supply, regardless of the complaint crew. I’m not against realism and or gameplay tweaks to get it right by the way. Keep at it CRS, not everyone is upset all the time. 

Historical supply/introduction dates I personally think is a plus. I have always been a fan of historical introduction dates and adjusting the supply numbers as necessary to balance gameplay. However, that said I was surprised and continue to be surprised at the number of Matty in infantry brigades. I think we see this ingame where the infantry brigades are used as armored brigades while the armored brigades sit around collecting dust holding a flanking town or anchoring a multi-AB town.

Hopefully as we move to 1.36 we still keep historical flavor in the game but work to balance out spawnlist numbers for gameplay. Lets not forget that with 1.36 there won't be any more infantry or armored brigades per se along the front. In that situation I think it is important to be able to balance out the respective offensive and defensive capabilities that each side has. I have nothing against the Allies having the Matty as it is a historical vehicle and they should have it even if the Axis have no heavy tank counter... thats history and WWII. But I do think the numbers need to be a bit more in line since even after some changes the amount of Matty in a brigade is still pretty high.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't CRS fix the the INF spawn numbers ? And brought the Allied SMG/LMG numbers to virtually dead even with the AXIS numbers.

I'm sure CRS did that, now just have to find that post.

Found it : 

, So if anyone should /is  loosing players it's probably the Axis side that like to play Panzers , especially in tier 0 to 1 . Cause really what's the point when a [censored]load of Matildas can roll in and can kill any Panzer that even make an attempt to roll out.

And now  what I read the Baby Sherman is supposed to get a Heat round to battle the Tiger.  

Might be OK if CRS will fix the glass gun and the silly detracking of a Track that was one of the widest ones on the Battlefield .

But to add a HEAT round along to the above mentioned might drive  the last Axis Panzer Player away. 

Heaven for bid the other Side should have to work a bit for 1 lousy tier to deal with a Tank . While Axis have to deal with that headache for 2 tiers. 

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your tears never dry up do they dre? its impressive you've managed to hold onto your tribal side bias since 2001. kudos sir!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God forbid that you would ever have to surmount a challenge with a bit of superior tactics, coördination and cooperation ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Capco said:

The only explanation I can think of would be that CRS heard complaints about a lack of infantry action (aka action in general) and thought that meant players wanted more infantry-focused battles?  Hence the differentiation of brigades.

 

Maybe when they were working along those lines, that line got muddied up with the "let's make the game more historical" drive, which meant not only armor differentiation but automatic weapons differentiation, since the Germans historically used more automatic weapons with their infantry early in the war.  

 

And then they also said they wanted to test how they would build the lists for 1.36.

The problem with this is we don't play the game and capture territory anything close to as it was done in WWII. I am sure the allies would have carried a lot more Auto's if they had to "cap" a depot or storm a AB bunker like we do to capture a town. And for that reason you can just throw all the historical crap out the window. You can't alter the way with the battle is fought and assume the Allies would equip their troops the same way, that's idiotic.  The allied LMG is complete crap when trying to be used to capture a depot, yet the Axis's version is quite good. People have been complaining about this for years, and CRS doesn't listen. Again historical accuracy means nothing when the game is not fought the same way. 

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bmbm said:

God forbid that you would ever have to surmount a challenge with a bit of superior tactics, coördination and cooperation ;) 

Lol , u been talking to former CRS members , I have heard that line before. 

Axis Tanks have and keep having to Flank , not sure how often you ever have played Axis Panzer,  I for sure never seen you on the Axis side but ran into you bunch of times I played Allied. Hell one time you even told me not to kill Laffies at an FB , I wonder to this day if it was really you guys trying to catch a cheater or just wanted to get finally a Laffy to town , cause shortly after that I had to battle you and Xoom at that FB .

But sure nothing to see here. You might not remember but I do .

 

@madrebel. No side bias here , I actually dabble on the Allied side once in awhile , but it's stunning to me that CRS is still has the same MO.  Once was asked if Axis get the PNZjgr 1 and the reply from a former rat was  it be to easy to kill by Allied INF but shortly after that the Laffy 15 came into play and the open turret M10 , kinda odd ain't it.

Now HEAT for baby Sherman I point to Bmbm post that should be more for you guys not us , cause we have been doing the Flanking , Team play thingy since 2001.

You are just pissed cause I can point exactly to the contra and can give you examples.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think dre nailed it.

Allies got all their infantry parity back, axis did not get armor back in return.

Ya still got 14 matties in every infantry flag.........  I suppose it will be fair if axis INF flags get 14 Tigers starting tier 2.......

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

Historical supply/introduction dates I personally think is a plus. I have always been a fan of historical introduction dates and adjusting the supply numbers as necessary to balance gameplay. However, that said I was surprised and continue to be surprised at the number of Matty in infantry brigades. I think we see this ingame where the infantry brigades are used as armored brigades while the armored brigades sit around collecting dust holding a flanking town or anchoring a multi-AB town.

Hopefully as we move to 1.36 we still keep historical flavor in the game but work to balance out spawnlist numbers for gameplay. Lets not forget that with 1.36 there won't be any more infantry or armored brigades per se along the front. In that situation I think it is important to be able to balance out the respective offensive and defensive capabilities that each side has. I have nothing against the Allies having the Matty as it is a historical vehicle and they should have it even if the Axis have no heavy tank counter... thats history and WWII. But I do think the numbers need to be a bit more in line since even after some changes the amount of Matty in a brigade is still pretty high.

ya, and  if you don't fight in the cps or bunkers consistently, or at all, and play with rifles anyway, why would anyone else care? Does anyone really think nily or other players who don't fight in the cps for the most part care about the limited automatics? Of course not. Thus, it's easy to cite, 'historical supply.'

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Le Sigh..Didnt we just meet in Brussels CP?

and how did my rifle do?

#CARE

S!

LIES

Edited by nily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.