kgarner

Historical Spawnlists....

256 posts in this topic

16 minutes ago, augetout said:

Do you and Kgarner have a count on how many Allied players (and axis players) have left the game over the years due to the lack of historically accurate spawnlists?  I bet not, but shouldn't that matter just as much as the current griping about 'stugs in Infantry brigades'?

 

It's cherry picking to look at the sortie counts for the last 3 campaigns, while ignoring the thousands of posts from players asking for more accurate spawnlists and/or equipment modeling, and while ignoring the hundreds of our fellow community members who eventually gave up during the CRS 1.0 era of constantly trying to artificially balance the gameplay while taking the game further and further away from that which makes it the best wargame on pc.

 

Folks who were here in the old days might want to take a look in the mirror, and remember how many times they drove 4 towns behind the lines to spawn a magical army, without a care in the world to what negative effects it had on the campaign-play, or community as a whole.

You can say whatever you want, but from what I've seen in the forums and ingame you are in the minority. 

You and merlin and bmbm can play all you want when this all plays out, because that's all that will be left. Sycophants who will defend anything CRS does no matter what. 

PS: That "four towns behind the lines" BS was pre-2003. Ancient times. Keep grasping at straws. 

Edited by Mosizlak
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kgarner said:

If so many people wanted historical spawn lists....... where are they??? Why are none of them raking up sorties in-game right now????  Why have none of them come on this thread and said "I, with 500+ sorties during the historical spawnlists, think they are great because x, y, and z???

The 1 surefire way to kill a game........ make decisions based on what people think they wanted a long time ago, and dont pay a subscription anymore....... and ignore those that do pay and actually play RIGHT NOW.

You are reaching conclusions not based in fact.  

1.  Posting in these forums is not required, and (newsflash) most players don't post very often if ever, here.

2.  You are presuming to know the 'pulse' of the players, but are doubtful that this game lost hundreds of players due to a lack of historically accurate spawnlists, etc----it doesn't do much for your credibility on this issue.

3. You are ignoring the poll results, that sat at around 75% being for historically accurate spawnlists  (including those who like the historically accurate spawnlists but are of the opinion that they still need tweaking, myself included).  That poll wasn't 'a long time ago', by the way, as it ended less than 10 days ago.

4. You are presuming to know what CRS is basing its decisions on, when that simply is not the case.

 

See you ingame.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, augetout said:

You are reaching conclusions not based in fact.  

1.  Posting in these forums is not required, and (newsflash) most players don't post very often if ever, here.

2.  You are presuming to know the 'pulse' of the players, but are doubtful that this game lost hundreds of players due to a lack of historically accurate spawnlists, etc----it doesn't do much for your credibility on this issue.

3. You are ignoring the poll results, that sat at around 75% being for historically accurate spawnlists  (including those who like the historically accurate spawnlists but are of the opinion that they still need tweaking, myself included).  That poll wasn't 'a long time ago', by the way, as it ended less than 10 days ago.

4. You are presuming to know what CRS is basing its decisions on, when that simply is not the case.

 

See you ingame.

Sycophant. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

You can say whatever you want, but from what I've seen in the forums and ingame you are in the minority. 

You and merlin and bmbm can play all you want when this all plays out, because that's all that will be left. Sycophants who will defend anything CRS does no matter what. 

PS: That "four towns behind the lines" BS was pre-2003. Ancient times. Keep grasping at straws. 

You should know better than to speak before your brain is engaged, Mos.  Perhaps you can convince new folks, or veterans with poor memories that I am some 'sycophant' of CRS, but those with good memories know you are speaking directly out of your sphincter.  While I have never been as rude as you have been when disagreeing with CRS, I have and will continue to disagree with CRS----every time they move towards a red v blue setup, as I have since before the game went live some 18 years ago.  I know, 'ancient history'...

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Sycophant. 

Common mo... no need to get nasty. Try to be construcitve. S!

And augetout regarding that poll, I think there are some issues with how it was worked. For example I voted exactly the same way you did... because I assumed that it referred to historical introduction dates (which I support), but I think that the spawnlists need more than a little tweaking... but it was the best option of the 3 to pick since I didn't want the old spawnlists (I assumed that meant no historical introduction dates) and I wasn't perfectly happy either. Dunno but I personally think that poll should be broken up into its two keys components and redone:

1) Do you support historical introduction rates balanced in spawnlists by adjusting the number avaiable to spawn or would you prefer spawnlists constructed to provide counter-weapons with no preference given when the weapon was historically fielded.

2) Do you support spawnlists to be based on what was historically used, or would you prefer they were balanced based on effectiveness?

 

And those two examples aren't very good. It goes to show how hard it is to make a poll that doesn't bias the answer in one direction or the other.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Not only do most players not post in here..... many of the ones that do..... dont play very much..... so yup totally agree, thanks for illustrating my point.

2.  No one has ever accused me of not having a healthy understanding of the pulse of the players...... Im not presuming at all.... I 100% in fact, have a pulse read on the players that actually play the game.  Its hard not to when you play as much as I do.  I think my credibility on the matter is iron clad ..... Ive been paying and playing since 2002, im HC and have more TOM than any other player in the game for the last 2 maps.

3.  Needs tweeking is the entire subject of this thread..... and the number 1 poll result..... so yup
 

4.  I dont presume to know why CRS is doing things....... I simply care about the game....... right now, and it's future.  The past is over with..... I presume to influence CRS with relevant information to that end

Edited by kgarner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BMBM keeps saying in posts over and over:   well you guys wanted historical spawnlists and now you got them so don’t complain.

And I keep thinking to myself : who has been requesting these historical supply lists?  I don’t think I know anyone.

Sure, personally I know I have referred to historical accuracy of some paticular equipment or historical aspects or gameplay mechanisms.

But historicsl supply lists?  

I never requested that personally.  Lol I know it would mean Allied (4 to 1) ratio in tanks and airpower to the axis in 1944.  Not sure how fun that would be, and I am pretty sure I would never want to see that in a game!

Don’t get me wrong:  I don’t want to see Red vs Blue lists, and I like historical flavor to the lists., and I think the current changes are not bad idea in principle.  But there are limits to how far I want to see historical accuracy go too!  I just think more serious tweaking is needed.

Also, I think its probably the allied players who would want historical supply lists more than axis players - given the implications that implies for the late war game. Not stating this last point as a fact, but it would seem logical.  Just my 2 cents.

Cheers!

Edited by krazydog

Share this post


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

im not gonna post some obvious noob.... like matamors stats...... im not a monster

Did you just said - matamor stops killing me please, i am your biggest fan - ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

come back to the dark side matamor........ until then I am content shreking the s**t out of you..... like in mouzen the other day :)

Share this post


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

come back to the dark side matamor........ until then I am content shreking the s**t out of you..... like in mouzen the other day :)

it was in gembloux... yeah I never griefed so much armors in 13 yearzzz, i was testing allied ability to cover their armors... total failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im 41-1 this campaign so far against ets and atgs with tanks and the 1 is from when I was leaving an armybase matamor was sitting up in an apartment building pre-ao with a bazooka. dang it matamor!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You both kick asses now stop picking my newbs up and go to bed past midnight k?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The voice of the negative is louder than the positive  

This unfortunately will always be the case ... If players are happy  they will be not that vocal ...   So the  negative nancy , debbie downer  of the world will be heard more than the Polly Positive  

 

a4c4f7db8c9b5a2bd910b209a3a9f5d7.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a big difference between catastrophizing, and good solid advice 

Share this post


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

BMBM keeps saying in posts over and over:   well you guys wanted historical spawnlists and now you got them so don’t complain.

And I keep thinking to myself : who has been requesting these historical supply lists?  I don’t think I know anyone.

Sure, personally I know I have referred to historical accuracy of some paticular equipment or historical aspects or gameplay mechanisms.

But historicsl supply lists?  

I never requested that personally.  Lol I know it would mean Allied (4 to 1) ratio in tanks and airpower to the axis in 1944.  Not sure how fun that would be, and I am pretty sure I would never want to see that in a game!

Don’t get me wrong:  I don’t want to see Red vs Blue lists, and I like historical flavor to the lists., and I think the current changes are not bad idea in principle.  But there are limits to how far I want to see historical accuracy go too!  I just think more serious tweaking is needed.

Also, I think its probably the allied players who would want historical supply lists more than axis players - given the implications that implies for the late war game. Not stating this last point as a fact, but it would seem logical.  Just my 2 cents.

Cheers!

I might bear some responsibility towards that impression, as I often commented how it felt weird looking at the average spawnlist and it's 'wrong'.  But my comment was always suffixed with 'but there are reasons it's not that way', and never in my wildest imaginings did I think they would ever take it this far. 

 

I always looked for 'feel while maintaining gameplay', not 'actual and entire missing sim components' peg slammed into a mismatching spawn castle hole. I still think that's doable, just not with the current principles in the decisionmaking process.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having trouble with the term "historical spawn list". My dad was a WW2 vet and he never mentioned spawning. 

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean in RL they didn't spawn???? wtf..... I wonder what else could be different in RL compared to a video game???? I'm utterly flabbergasted 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I'm having trouble with the term "historical spawn list". My dad was a WW2 vet and he never mentioned spawning. 

He was probably ashamed that he couldn't set his FMS on that hill he really want to set it on cuz of the angle... 

4 people like this

Share this post


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

 Lol I know it would mean Allied (4 to 1) ratio in tanks and airpower to the axis in 1944.  Not sure how fun that would be

It would not, that is why you dont see anyone doing some kind of literal by the numbers TOE.
It would suck to be axis from day 0, because by the numbers, france had more gear than germany did, with out britain, and you'd never convince anyone to do a repeat 
mismanagement of it like happened in WWII.

Might make for a neat event/scenario, if set up right, for about a day.
Not so much after that.

Share this post


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

Have to agree here. Players have always fallen back to spawnlists as the ultimate arbiter of balance and ultimately whether they stick around. Players can live through a tough Matty/Tiger/Spitfire/whatever engagement, but people don't take to spawnlists that are more on the esoteric side (even if it a more historical force makeup).

I think there have been a lot of good arguments here to explain why forcing a certain historical brigade/force makeup without all the historical nuances like behind the lines supply etc. makes for a tough playing experience.

I've played for 3 campaigns now (I'm sure my stats will get posted) and I was pretty open minded to the changes. I still like historical entry dates personally, but think that the spawnlists should be unified and balanced.

Essenrialkt I'm Saint we should just go back to a well balanced spawnlist prior to ToE and the differentiation between armored and infantry brigades. I think it just causes unecessary frustration with players which has only become bigger with the historical ToE.

+100% !

I fear 1.36 will see many old players checking out the game, seeing the "new" spawnlists, hearing the moaning chat, experiencing having to reset their keymappers because crouch, lie down, etc changed from when they last played, and I would worry that they will just not bother to come back again once they log out. In fact, there is probably so much negative posting on squad forums right now many may not even bother to try 1.36.

And to go back to the OP, my alt had most TOM in game for map 158 (I played allied). My TOM was very much reduced in 159/160 (played axis), and so far only 585 sorties this map before I just gave up logging in (allied).

I have kept trying to play with the changed supply, but I just end up very frustrated and log out rather than join in the "CRS hates us" tidal wave on side chat.

 

S! Ian

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I always looked for 'feel while maintaining gameplay', not 'actual and entire missing sim components' peg slammed into a mismatching spawn castle hole. I still think that's doable, just not with the current principles in the decisionmaking process.

+1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.