• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
caydel

American Flags need more Springfields

67 posts in this topic

Something I've noticed in a few fights - the US brigades are quickly depleted of rifles seeing as they start with 30 or 50 in infantry and armoured brigades respectively. This causes us to lose many of our greentags partway through the fight as they go somewhere else where there *is* supply for them, or they log out.

This is complicated by the fact that a good number of premium subscribers like myself prefer the Springfield, which puts more strain on the limited pool than just F2P alone. This is causing real-world issues for those who can't spawn anything else, and we are losing a chunk of our players - this doesn't help new player retention for the Allies.

I suspect that Rifles should always be available to spawn if we are going to have free rifle accounts!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, karecafree said:

How many do you need?

As I said above, I think the basic rifle should have more or less endless supply if CRS is offering a free rifle account to attract players. It's not good marketing if a side has only a single AO, and that AO only has trucks for a Free Play account to spawn in with.

However, since endless rifle supply isn't done anywhere else at the moment, let's pick a number. Practically, the French and British flags rarely run out of rifles with our current server populations, so this problem is mostly confined to the American flags. Since a good portion of the paying playerbase do use the Garand, we can probably get away with splitting the difference between the 150 rifles in other flags, and the problematic 30-50 rifles in US flags. Say... somewhere around 80-100?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When rifles are gone, give them a pistol and a knife. Call them Pistolmen. 

JK, carry on.

Edited by blggles
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I agree.

More rifles, and less shermans! ;):popcorn:

Are you insane :) , keep them in the Shermans, they can't cap . But it might cut down on the complaints of Axis winning the map, if they do get more Rifles and less Tanks.

15 minutes ago, xanthus said:

 

 

Edited by dre21
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Something I've noticed in a few fights - the US brigades are quickly depleted of rifles seeing as they start with 30 or 50 in infantry and armoured brigades respectively. This causes us to lose many of our greentags partway through the fight as they go somewhere else where there *is* supply for them, or they log out.

This is complicated by the fact that a good number of premium subscribers like myself prefer the Springfield, which puts more strain on the limited pool than just F2P alone. This is causing real-world issues for those who can't spawn anything else, and we are losing a chunk of our players - this doesn't help new player retention for the Allies.

I suspect that Rifles should always be available to spawn if we are going to have free rifle accounts!

Good point. I'll have a look at this (among other things). Thanks.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case someone wonders, there are numerous supply tweaks inbound for all factions based on customer input and ongoing monitoring. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously?

Unlimited supply of rifles for allies and this will be looked into?

Share this post


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

Good point. I'll have a look at this (among other things). Thanks.

No comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, formio said:

Seriously?

Unlimited supply of rifles for allies and this will be looked into?

1. Why do you assume the solution being looked at is infinite rifles, vs just adjusting numbers in US flags?

2. Why would you make the assumption they would give infinite rifles to Allies only if this was something they were going to look?

The bottom line is that in 60% of our flags, Rifle account players cannot spawn into our attacks and defences after the small supply of rifles is exhausted. This is both a gameplay issue (less numbers in these attacks) and it's both a marketing and player retention issue.

I really would not care if they bumped Axis rifle numbers accordingly. They rarely get exhausted anyways.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

 

The bottom line is that in 60% of our flags, Rifle account players cannot spawn into our attacks and defences after the small supply of rifles is exhausted. This is both a gameplay issue (less numbers in these attacks) and it's both a marketing and player retention issue.

I really would not care if they bumped Axis rifle numbers accordingly. They rarely get exhausted anyways.

The same thing happens with Axis tanks
in tier 0, 1 and 2..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The americans have only 30 rifles in their infantry flags probably because they have 150 semi-automatic rifles in their infantry flags .

The  axis have 180 rifles but only 30 semi-automatic rifles in their infantry flags.

So are are saying you want less semi-automatic rifles for more rifles???

I do not think the Axis would object to this change. :)

 

 

Edited by krazydog
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, enemytank said:

The same thing happens with Axis tanks
in tier 0, 1 and 2..

 

There is no equipment for those who PAY! (17.99US),

and have to play with rifle just like who does NOT PAY!

Edited by enemytank

Share this post


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

The americans have only 30 rifles in their infantry flags probably because they have 150 semi-automatic rifles in their infantry flags .

The  axis have 180 rifles but only 30 semi-automatic rifles in their infantry flags.

So are are saying you want less semi-automatic rifles for more rifles???

I do not think the Axis would object to this change. :)

 

 

Just another bad decision on supply that drives people off. 

Just like the SMG debacle. The amount of semis and bolt actions should be equal across all sides. 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Just another bad decision on supply that drives people off. 

Just like the SMG debacle. The amount of semis and bolt actions should be equal across all sides. 

Nope. Total number of riflemen should be equal. Divide between semi-auto and bolt action should be historical. Total number of LMGs should be equal.

Germans have a higher-ROF LMG, semi-auto rifles have a higher ROF. That tends toward balance.

If a nation (i.e. US) doesn't have an LMG yet, give it an additional number of semi auto rifles with the same ability to put bullets downrange per unit time as their LMG will have. Take those additional rifles away as soon as their LMG is added.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Nope. Total number of riflemen should be equal. Divide between semi-auto and bolt action should be historical. Total number of LMGs should be equal.

Germans have a higher-ROF LMG, semi-auto rifles have a higher ROF. That tends toward balance.

If a nation (i.e. US) doesn't have an LMG yet, give it an additional number of semi auto rifles with the same ability to put bullets downrange per unit time as their LMG will have. Take those additional rifles away as soon as their LMG is added.

 

It's a game and it needs to be balanced. 

That's the bottom line.  That's more important than a few people's views on historical accuracy. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya that semi to bolt ratio is a bit off too.

6x as many?  Even in my worst examples I gave brits 1/4 the semis.

Share this post


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

It's a game and it needs to be balanced. 

That's the bottom line.  That's more important than a few people's views on historical accuracy. 

Does balance mean equal side-to-side effects to you, or just equal numbers for each individual weapon?

It's really easy to say "equal numbers" if your side's individual weapons are faster-firing or better armored. The other side isn't going to see that as balanced, though.

Maybe the game should just go with red = blue? Then there'd be no questions about balance, and no concerns about historical accuracy...right?

What about when one side has a weapon type that the other one historically didn't have at all, or that CRS hasn't modeled yet...how do you think the game should be brought to balance?

The point of what I proposed was balanced effects, not historical accuracy. That, I think, is what marketing requires. Balanced numbers on this particular issue would screw the Allies.

In many instances during WWII, Germany had more lethal individual weapons, and Allied countries had greater numbers. Not always, though. When Allied weapons were more effective, do you want the Germans to just get an equal number of their ineffective equivalent weapon? Obvious examples are early tier HEAT RGs, and early tier armored cars. Or, should the Germans get a different weapon with effectiveness equivalent to what the Allies have?

IMO  balanced effects is the only way to make a marketable game. If that can be achieved with some degree of historical validity...just enough for flavor, not a re-creation...that adds some additional marketability. That's the way to go.  

 

Edited by jwilly
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only way for a historically accurate supply to be balanced; is if every single unit is already spawned and positioned. all 150 rifles, 30 MG's, 10 88's, 12 tanks, etc.

all need to be subdivided into their own platoons/squads as well.

 

 

it's impractical in-game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

As I said above, I think the basic rifle should have more or less endless supply if CRS is offering a free rifle account to attract players. It's not good marketing if a side has only a single AO, and that AO only has trucks for a Free Play account to spawn in with.

However, since endless rifle supply isn't done anywhere else at the moment, let's pick a number. Practically, the French and British flags rarely run out of rifles with our current server populations, so this problem is mostly confined to the American flags. Since a good portion of the paying playerbase do use the Garand, we can probably get away with splitting the difference between the 150 rifles in other flags, and the problematic 30-50 rifles in US flags. Say... somewhere around 80-100?

bolt rifles are ineffective under normal circumstances and laughable in the later tiers once semis come in, so you could put 500 in each brigade and not make a difference; most of the time the towns fall when the defenders are down to bolt rifles

outside of disciplined niche use by players with 1000+ hours in the game they are fodder to other units, and suicidal when trying to accomplish core game functions like capture depots 

though I'm sure someone will be along shortly to pretend that they are the best unit in the game

doesn't bode well though that new player engagement as well as FPS balance has taken a backseat to orbat realism, must be some really interesting marketing data to motivate such a decision

Share this post


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

Does balance mean equal side-to-side effects to you, or just equal numbers for each individual weapon?

It's really easy to say "equal numbers" if your side's individual weapons are faster-firing or better armored. The other side isn't going to see that as balanced, though.

Maybe the game should just go with red = blue? Then there'd be no questions about balance, and no concerns about historical accuracy...right?

What about when one side has a weapon type that the other one historically didn't have at all, or that CRS hasn't modeled yet...how do you think the game should be brought to balance?

The point of what I proposed was balanced effects, not historical accuracy. That, I think, is what marketing requires. Balanced numbers on this particular issue would screw the Allies.

In many instances during WWII, Germany had more lethal individual weapons, and Allied countries had greater numbers. Not always, though. When Allied weapons were more effective, do you want the Germans to just get an equal number of their ineffective equivalent weapon? Obvious examples are early tier HEAT RGs, and early tier armored cars. Or, should the Germans get a different weapon with effectiveness equivalent to what the Allies have?

IMO  balanced effects is the only way to make a marketable game. If that can be achieved with some degree of historical validity...just enough for flavor, not a re-creation...that adds some additional marketability. That's the way to go.  

 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, david06 said:

bolt rifles are ineffective under normal circumstances and laughable in the later tiers once semis come in, so you could put 500 in each brigade and not make a difference; most of the time the towns fall when the defenders are down to bolt rifles

outside of disciplined niche use by players with 1000+ hours in the game they are fodder to other units, and suicidal when trying to accomplish core game functions like capture depots 

though I'm sure someone will be along shortly to pretend that they are the best unit in the game

doesn't bode well though that new player engagement as well as FPS balance has taken a backseat to orbat realism, must be some really interesting marketing data to motivate such a decision

I guess I'll be that someone, and I'm not pretending. They are the best unit in the game, if you use them according to their abilities. Those abilities don't include rambo-capping depots, though with the large number of grenades, smoke and a satchel you can tilt the odds considerably in your favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always someone bringing up the old red vs blue argument like it's some kind of be all end all to everything. 

No, we shouldn't have red vs blue, but in some cases it's needed. Those cases are infantry vs infantry weapons regarding  99% of the infantry weapons. 

Maybe a sprinkle more here, a sprinkle less here. Not the ridiculous ratio we have right now. I don't know how anyone could think that is a good idea, except the historical accuracy orgasmers. 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Always someone bringing up the old red vs blue argument like it's some kind of be all end all to everything. 

 

Exactly like the highly subjective “fun” that gets thrown around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.