For the developers, below are video samples of things that need adjustments/fixing within your game.
Fire through walls, and instant combustion.
Unbalanced matches
First example: Moscow
Second example: Berlin
Suggestion: At the end of matches, make your lobbies remain open and continuous, rather than booting players back to the homescreen. Allow players to remain in the lobby, and to continue playing with the other players.
Enable Map voting, and allow the players a choice of three maps (with random game modes). And keep the lobbies open during matches, so that new players are constantly filling empty seats as they become available.
Your servers are over-saturated with half-empty lobbies (games with only 50% human players, and 50% a.i controlled squads), and the solution is to limit the number of lobbies in proportion to the number of active players. If you keep the lobbies open and continuous (with players waiting in a queue), then there will ALWAYS be a demand for the next available seat.
Next:
Retarded Bots that are braindead. With exception to basic motor skills, they don’t act like they have any intelligence at all.
Part1
AP mines are not nearly as lethal as they used to be
Paratroopers exploiting the ability to strategically spawn anywhere they want on the map (including behind enemy lines, and cutting off reinforcements with their 100rd drum mags)
Part 1:
Part 2: Paratroopers on D-Day is ridiculous. Who ever heard of such a thing???
Part 3 Before the defenders even had a chance to get to the objective, the paratroopers captured 90% of it. (we killed them, and eventually won the match)
Assist points are worth waaaaaaay more than they should. Especially when compared to engineer points.
If you compare my score with Jamsheesh, I outperformed him in every category except for assists (and the same amount of kills)… Yet, he earned more points than me.
(I don’t really care about the points. I’m just saying that assists are way over-valued (especially when the majority of them are accumulated while using a tank).
So long as each lobby is unique, and keeps track of the maps that have been played, the problem that you mentioned could be remedied by implementing an algorithm/mechanic that excludes the previous map(s) from the voting system.
Then again… we need more maps/battlefields implemented to the game.
Well whatever the map rotation system is, that’s a separate feature than the focus of my idea (which is open lobbies/continuous matches.)
If we keep what we currently have (in the context of pre-determined map rotation), and incorporate continuous matches/open lobbies/player queue for open seats:
-Players will be just as likely to quit/abandon a match as they currently do now.
-With map voting, players will at least have a little more flexibility in their match tolerance.
-Sometimes players don’t necessarily leave because of the map, but because of the game-mode. (I think Conquest gets abandoned the most frequent).
Anyways, it’s just my perspective. As of right now, the lobbies are simply oversaturated non-full matches.
We’ll see how the new progression system/campaign merging all works out… But in the end, I believe the solution can be found in what I’m presenting.
People are going to quit for any and every reason a person can think of. From the most petty things, all the way to legitimate reasons. There’s not really much anybody can do about it, except develop the game in a way that will mitigate(reduce) the overall ratio of quitters.
Here’s an example of someone from the forum who openly admitted to quitting for this reason below:
And then there’s Conscript_Joe who quit as soon as the two of us were matched up against one-another. (From today)
By implementing map voting, this mechanic will entirely cater to the players who would like to have more options, when it comes to playing their next match. And if the wrong map is voted for, then the individual player is free to leave at any given time.
Which would be no big deal, because with a player queue, the next person in line would fill the empty seat in the matter of seconds.
(What we have now, is when a player quits, he/she is replaced with an A.I. controlled squad. Which is nothing more than cannon fodder, which becomes a disadvantage for that team. Especially when multiple people quit, and the match becomes 10 human players vs 7 human players.)
By having the lobbies remain open, all empty seats are filled by the player queue.
And we also need more maps.
More battlefields from WW2
I agree with pretty much everything you put up. Which believe me, that surprises me too. lol
Especially in regards to fire going through walls and landmines, in direct correlation with paratroopers. It is getting so ridiculously difficult to be able to defend objectives because you just can’t hold them out.
Even when there is a solid wall between you and the flame, it still burns you.
Using mines SHOULD be able to help stem the tides of enemies, but they are so painstakingly difficult to set in bulk, as each character only gets one, and you have to manually switch to them to place them. Not to mention that they cost 2 silver orders EACH!
Meanwhile, grenades are allowed to be carried 3/ person, and only cost 1 silver order each!?!
On top of these issues we now have to contend with paratroopers. Because it wasn’t hard enough to try to hold enemies back from just the front and sides, but now they drop in behind us too? Its getting ridiculous!
Solution to a lot of these issues is to change how the game progresses forward for defenders.
Show ALL defense locations that will be used (only shows to defense team) so that players have a way to know where to set up fortifications.
Make the greyzone creep forward after an objective is taken, so attackers whether on the ground or paratroopers, are not immediately allowed to go straight to the next objective. It also stops defenders from spending so much time camped in a building in the lost territory.
Don’t forget, they are doing the big update in just a few days, so the current map rotation system is going to be completely changed anyways.
Overall, I think you and I share alot of similiar ideas as far as how the game can be improved.
Whenever I read your posts, you’re always sharing great suggestions that would enhance the player-experience (in a balanced way).
Yes. I’m interested to see the new changes, and am hoping the benefits outweigh any issues/bugs that come with it.
I don’t mind ppl quiting really bad maps, that’s understandable.
But from what I’ve seen, voting causes playerbase to play the same 5 maps over and over again. Just because other are not as good (not even bad).
but thats the thing, instead of “voting what to play”, we should be getting a “ban what we dont want to play” mechanic - that way the really bad maps will get skipped, which also gives the devs a tool to see what maps need improvement.
Map voting would only beneficial if we had a wider variety of maps for each campaign.
Here’s a list of historical battles that could be implemented into the game.
If we had more maps, it would reduce the probability of playing the same ones over and over.
Especially if there was a mechanic implemented, where the previous three matches played are not included within the map-voting options.
They could create new game modes, where all players are dominately using aircraft (dogfighting battles), and defending objectives from the ground from aerial attacks (with AA guns).
-the attacking team would have no infantry or tanks (only aircraft). And their mission would be to bomb a series of targets while negating AA guns and enemy aircraft.
They could also create game-modes that are predominately tank battles (where there’s a larger number of available tanks, per team).
-They could have jungle/tunnel/trench battles in the Pacific
They could get very creative with the game modes, new battlefields.
They do not have to maintain invasion mode, conquest, and confrontation…
They can create soooo many more game-modes, and maps/battlefields, and create continuous lobbies…
And the game would be fucking awesome.
Especially if the maps were bigger, and we have 20 vs 20 or 30 vs 30.
That just sounds like two versions of the same thing. How does banning maps not to play not end up with the same map rotation of voting for maps to play?
