krazydog

Why are the Rats adding SMGs to HC FRUs?

133 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, tater said:

This.

I have frequently seen a poll where I don't want any of the options, or rationales presented.

This.

I made this same comment in another one of these polls in axis secure forums.

Too many of the polls don’t offer a broard enough range of options.  They often assume we want a change to begin with, and just ask HOW the new change should look like, and not IF we want the change at all.

Often there is no option to make a choice like “leave unchanged.”  At a minimum these polls should always have an option like a  “none of the above” option to choose from.

The design of the questions in a survey is very important, and if the options available to choose from are too narrow, or have built in assumptions, then the survey results will be misleading.

Share this post


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

Hmmm, it's not me and my opinion I'm concerned with, I can speak quite clearly for myself here on the forums.  It's the business decisions based on results from odd choices that skew results from X people ingame that concern me.

I agree and Ingame polls are just one component of multiple sources of feedbacks and aren’t influencing decisions alone. Ingame polls are often inspired from forum or offline survey information, with the purpose to get a wider perspective.

Analysis happens only by comparing multiple questions between each other. Also, since there is always a balance/mix of opinions, a suggested idea is never applicable without further thinking anyway.

The alternative is to not even wonder what players might answer and keep decisions based on an internal vision. Like CRS1.0 did. That would be easier of course.

so I don’t understand what you meant, if you could develop more or give an example?
if it is about the question/options, please submit your suggested polls in the idea forum. We only have 8 lines and a very limited amount of characters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how hard would it be to let a Truck set 3 FMS ? It can set one now or reset it.

Should not be that hard to make them able to set 3 in one run. The tough part would be once you spawn in there needs to be then an option of mission

Alpha

Beta

Gamma .

So the player could choose which one he wants to spawn in. 

We are trying to achieve an ongoing attack and it's known one FMS doesn't cut it especially when it's found and camped right away.

Imagine 2 trucks could set 6 FMS the action would not dry up as quick me thinks.

Share this post


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

So how hard would it be to let a Truck set 3 FMS ? It can set one now or reset it.

Should not be that hard to make them able to set 3 in one run. The tough part would be once you spawn in there needs to be then an option of mission

Alpha

Beta

Gamma .

So the player could choose which one he wants to spawn in. 

We are trying to achieve an ongoing attack and it's known one FMS doesn't cut it especially when it's found and camped right away.

Imagine 2 trucks could set 6 FMS the action would not dry up as quick me thinks.

Disy chain, multiple FMS per missions or shared FMSs between missions are all example of ideas that would require lots of code overwrite. So the question is « how sure are we that this would be the optimal solution among all possible ones and is there no cheaper alternative? ». 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the HC FRU an all or nothing option?

What if you just limited the number of HC Fru's to one or two per AO?

They do serve a purpose, which is to jump start a battle, but there should be a limit, perhaps even a timer on them. None of this set a normal fms 1.5k out and keep walking in HC Frus. 

A few things you might want to consider when you drop the HC Fru is to reduce the audible range of all trucks, and roll back the recent nerfing of certain vehicles when off road. 

The harder you keep making it to setup attacks, the more players this game is going to lose due to lack of good battles. 

And also, for the love of god, why can't we be shown location of a friendly FRU before you choose a mission and spawn in? I logged in the other day, Allied overpop (gasp) look at the active battles, spawn in a FRU only to discover that particular Fru is 2k out and useless. Now I have to wait 10 seconds to despawn, another 30 to spawn back in, get the grey button bug, so on and so on. You want to know why players are leaving? reasons like this. Too much down time in this game. 

Edited by nc0gnet0
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

** The only thing they need to put back into the game is the Brit HEAT grenadier.

How come this is so hard?

Remove 3 sappers from every brit flag and replace with 2 Brit grenadier.

Or some other ratio if that isn't a good one.

 

Regarding HCMS, could maybe just limit, have only 1 officer per flag/garrison? (none in HQ, maybe not even in garrison, just TOE flags?)

Not sure this is a great idea, but it would at least curtail its use, while giving the chance for surprise covert type ops occasionally.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's already too much surprise/reactive defense in the game. I realize it's a balance between enabling attacks to succeed (which has to be a thing), and defense having a reasonable chance, but having battles is also a goal. Everything is worse in game with lower pop, too, and regardless, whatever is in place needs to work at low pop times, even if prime time has acceptable population.

The problem is that all the things are connected. We all know what works for attacks, what won;t work, and what coin toss attacks look like. Really successful attacks are rapid, and there is no battle to speak of. Some people pad the attacker's stats, but the result is a foregone conclusion where the initial defenders spawn in, and the town is already effectively lost. The claim that there somehow should have been defenders there before the attack, particularly when population is not insanely high is absurd. It's bad design. Any gameplay which requires that a % of players otherwise happily playing in one AO need to switch to another is terrible. I see the chat calls for defenders some town, or we lose it, and I'm in another town where we might have more than we need, but I'm actually doing something I feel like doing. Sucks that I have to feel like I need to stop having fun so I can go stare at a wall in another town that desperately need people to stare at walls.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we need to let the defending side know when a depot/Ab is under cap, eliminating to some degree the need for guards. Could only be implemented during low pop situations. I know for a fact certain players are gaming the system with their second accounts to do this vary thing anyways (making it a pay to win scenario). 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.