Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

admiral9
Lieutenant
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed 22 May 2013 18:48
Contact:

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby admiral9 » Sat 3 May 2014 12:50

Why dont we add a balance modifier in the lobbies?
We TD no TL people can have fun with increased availability and the people who play conquest 1 hour/ 30 minutes can have standart availability.
If you want really slow gameplay you can even put a negative modifier on it.
Everyone happy right?
Image
daywalkerzyx wrote:Elite inf really aren't a problem.

User avatar
praslovan
Major-General
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011 21:56
Location: Slav inhabited Alps
Contact:

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby praslovan » Sat 3 May 2014 12:56

This madness crawling out of the woodwork again?


So lets see... instead of staying with the game that let you play the way you play you came here and instead of adapting to the game you want to adapt the game to you. You and 3 or whatever # of your friends. Seems legit.

Why not staying with EE? It must be heavily populated with people that like long and spammy games. Be with your people.

What? There are only about 20 people that play like that? Yes it is totally logical that Eugen needs to cater to their needs. Why don't they? It must be some bias of sorts I guess.
Last edited by praslovan on Sat 3 May 2014 13:02, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
deadnation
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 349
Joined: Fri 9 Nov 2012 14:56
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby deadnation » Sat 3 May 2014 13:01

i have to say that i think that avaibility is too low in some catrgories. I miss my epic 2.5 h games in wee. If two good player play agains each other, the game can be long and in rd it goes to point were both sides are out of units and no one can´t attack.

One reason why i feel like rd and alb are too easy is that big mistakes can easily be covered with planes. if you or your teammate make a mistake and lets say lose key town or forest. In wee it took usually 5 min or more before you could get new units there to re built line and stop enemies attack. In alb and rd its so easy to stop enemy after they have destroyed your defensive line, just call lots of bombers and drop napalm, then you have time to wait your reanforces.

User avatar
PerArdua
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed 9 Oct 2013 20:48
Location: Evocati serving Under The Eagles
Contact:

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby PerArdua » Sat 3 May 2014 13:03

See I'd like to see a game mode called "Realisum" that would be an awesome DLC.

Cards come in "company", "battery" and "Squadron" strength elements
Image
Viva la Phallus

User avatar
Jawehawk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1206
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013 14:57
Location: Denmark

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby Jawehawk » Sat 3 May 2014 13:11

praslovan wrote:This madness crawling out of the woodwork again?


So lets see... instead of staying with the game that let you play the way you play you came here and instead of adapting to the game you want to adapt the game to you. You and 3 or whatever # of your friends. Seems legit.

Why not staying with EE? It must be heavily populated with people that like long and spammy games. Be with your people.

What? There are only about 20 people that play like that? Yes it is totally logical that Eugen needs to cater to their needs. Why don't they? It must be some bias of sorts I guess.


Wow.

Good game design is when a game offers options to the player. Red Dragon does not do this. Instead, it goes to great lengths to limit player options.
This is evident both by poor availibility, and by the awful deck types.

Also, do you have any factual numbers about how many people like this to play the game a certain way? Or are your numbers as ignorant as the rest of your post?

User avatar
D-M
Posts: 8794
Joined: Sat 23 Jul 2011 11:10
Contact:

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby D-M » Sat 3 May 2014 13:15

Jawehawk wrote:
D-M wrote:Because avaibility is pointless if you can't run out of unit at one point, especially if said unit are prototypes and top tier. And it doesn't limit any playstyle, it balances the playstyles. It's a damn balancing factor.


The only thing it balances is super powers VS minors, which in itself is stupid, as minors aren't supposed to be able to take on super powers on equal terms. Again, all the large countries have powerfull MBT's. So it would still be perfectly balanced with a major availibility buff.

Cause the super power are the only ones having top tier units ? Riiiight. Pls stop the bs, the balance isn't only done as a per-contry fashion.

And of course you're limiting playstyles. You literally have to play conservatively with the big nations, because their numbers are so painfully low.
Solving "your" gamplay "issue" by screwing up the balance ? Nice job.

This also means that even in conquest, your ability to launch attacks is hindered by the fact that you can't do anything large scale.
Because you don't take the units would allow you play how you want.

Having low income would achieve exactly the same thing as is currently the case with low availibility, as you wouldn't have the points to replace expensive MBT's. Thus increasing overall availibility and using the income feature allows for much more diverse playstyles.
Low points alone will never make you run out of unit.
Last edited by D-M on Sat 3 May 2014 13:18, edited 1 time in total.
Image

hanspeter_schnitzel
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue 11 Oct 2011 16:08
Contact:

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby hanspeter_schnitzel » Sat 3 May 2014 13:16

Keinutnai wrote:GAME MODES:
-Please give us at least 1000 point per player on all maps (or 1500 if possible, 1500 was standard in EE)
-Please give us a 90 minute option (because sometimes 60 minutes isn't enough to win a game)


I too want 1000 points minimum for all players on all maps. :(

I really wish the era of units would matter more in certain lobby settings, like, that you could set the lobby on "1985+ only" so you could only play with the units in service at that time. Which would then get a huge availability bonus to be able to make proper battles. Because having old T-34 fight along T80UMs or old Pattons along Abrams just doesn't seem right, does it?

So wish units would have an "enter service date" and a "exit service date" and there are decks and lobbies in which you could only use units of certain timeframes.

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby orcbuster » Sat 3 May 2014 13:19

admiral9 wrote:Why dont we add a balance modifier in the lobbies?
We TD no TL people can have fun with increased availability and the people who play conquest 1 hour/ 30 minutes can have standart availability.
If you want really slow gameplay you can even put a negative modifier on it.
Everyone happy right?


Eugen has repeatedly denied this as availability is one of the most important balance factors in the game. What you propose massively favours high end low availability units.
.
Image
Viker for ingen!

User avatar
praslovan
Major-General
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011 21:56
Location: Slav inhabited Alps
Contact:

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby praslovan » Sat 3 May 2014 13:19

Jawehawk wrote:Good game design is when a game offers options to the player. Red Dragon does not do this. Instead, it goes to great lengths to limit player options.
This is evident both by poor availibility, and by the awful deck types.

There are 3 Wargames around. Players can pick which one fits them best and play them.

If that is not giving players options then I don't know what is.

Jawehawk wrote:Also, do you have any factual numbers about how many people like this to play the game a certain way? Or are your numbers as ignorant as the rest of your post?

Small enough for Eugen to see them as unimportant. Only one that is ignorant here is the one that expects devs to go and change whole plan they set at the beginning of a project.

User avatar
Jawehawk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1206
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013 14:57
Location: Denmark

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby Jawehawk » Sat 3 May 2014 13:53

D-M wrote:
The only thing it balances is super powers VS minors, which in itself is stupid, as minors aren't supposed to be able to take on super powers on equal terms. Again, all the large countries have powerfull MBT's. So it would still be perfectly balanced with a major availibility buff.
Cause the super power are the only ones having top tier units ? Riiiight. Pls stop the bs, the balance isn't only done as a per-contry fashion.

And of course you're limiting playstyles. You literally have to play conservatively with the big nations, because their numbers are so painfully low.
Solving "your" gamplay "issue" by screwing up the balance ? Nice job.

This also means that even in conquest, your ability to launch attacks is hindered by the fact that you can't do anything large scale.
Because you don't take the units would allow you play how you want.

Having low income would achieve exactly the same thing as is currently the case with low availibility, as you wouldn't have the points to replace expensive MBT's. Thus increasing overall availibility and using the income feature allows for much more diverse playstyles.
Low points alone will never make you run out of unit.
[/quote]

Right. They're also balancing the game according to the idiotic coalition decks. Which is another bad game design decision. I specifically mentioned large countries, I.E. not just the super powers. So not sure where you're trying to go with what you're saying. The powerfull countries would not be imbalanced as a result of higher availibility, as they all have good equipment. Minor countries would remain what they are. Minors...

Essentially, all the availibility buff would do is allow players to focus on specific models, rather than have a bunch of different high end tanks. You're not even making it significantly harder on the minors, as even now, the USSR and similiar powerfull countries can already field a decent amount of very powerfull tanks. The difference just is that now, they have to choose a bunch of different models, rather than focus on one specific model.

You're sacrificing realism and different playstyles, and gain nothing in terms of balance. To top it off, giving the USSR proper availibility might actually result in people wanting to play them :o :o :o . 'Cause right now, almost everyone rushes to the NATO team, primarily because of the F'ing Eurocorps and Commonwealth (based on my experience, and reading on this forum).

Personally, half the games I've played online in ALB and RD have been done using Poland and Denmark. I like minors. I'd probably like the majors too if they had more than 4 units per card...

A lot of people have a problem with the availibility, so where exactly you get the idea that it's only my problem, is beyond me? And again, this doesn't affect balance in the slightest, as the countries that are equal now would remain equal.

I was under the impression that the game was set in 1991, unless you chose an earlier era. So how exactly am I in the wrong when expecting to be able to field numerous late 80's and early 90's equipment? How is it wrong to expect to field more than 12 (8 being more likely due to vet being so important) BMP-3's in a 1991 deck? These high end IFV's were never a problem in ALB. This is very basic logic. Of course, such basic logic is lost on some people...

Low income will achieve the exact same thing as low availibility, as you wouldn't have the points to field a large amount of high cost units. Again, very simple logic. It doesn't matter if you have 10 T80U's in reserve, if you can't afford to do it. With a low income, you'll have to play conservatively just like you do with poor availibility.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests