Kyrie626

Members - Veterans
  • Content count

    2,358
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

179 Good

1 Follower

About Kyrie626

  • Rank
    Colonel

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
    All
  • Soldier
    All types

Recent Profile Visitors

1,359 profile views
  1. I believe the game is in maintenance-mode/lifesupport... unlikely we will see any major improvement in the RTS unless they secure funding for whole new game.
  2. They definitely do care. It is community frustration on the lack of progress in the RTS that fuels a lot of the anger.
  3. This issue is one of the examples of the statistically negative expectation for the RTS (absent veterans). Fixing it would be nice, but not likely.
  4. Thanks! I have posted it in bits and pieces over the years across the forum, and practice is improving it. You are quite likely correct that the RTS has been shelved, but only insofar the company itself is struggling to survive. I choose to remain vaguely optimistic something may change in the future, but I fully recognize its unlikely.
  5. Kyrie626

    AT management

    Adding to the list: Grouping ATs together in structures such as battalions, brigades, etc. Free renaming of ATs.
  6. (raises hand) I suggest-- delete skirmish mode and maps. Add 4 different flat, very low cover maps... for tank battles. Control of the line would naturally favor tanks in this map... because of the phenomenally beautiful lack of cover. Victory is achieved by controlling the opposing home-base, making blitzkrieg quite possible. Tanks then become zone-clearers, and infantry battles clear everything else. Blitzkriegs then win lines to attack cities, and infantry soldiers to win city battles like they were meant to do. Tanks gain a meaningful role in blocking or opening paths...
  7. Kyrie626

    RTS balance

    It ends up with the necessity for random queuing for everyone, to prevent the mismatching. Limiting number of pre-formed squads in each match the way WoT does.
  8. Kyrie626

    RTS balance

    Implementing a formal clan system and fixing matchmaking has long been dream for H&G.
  9. 1. What I meant by scarcity is that there needs to be a correct balance between assets on the map and the size of the map. Since the size of the map never changes, and ATs in the database only grow endlessly (even if inactive), this leads to a very bad situation. Let us consider briefly the issue of command-point/AT inflation: -Even without spending a single cent, someone with a lot of time on their hands can build a significant army within 6 months (new character, grind to LT, buy AT, rinse and repeat, use that AT to gain XP for the commander, etc, etc). -If someone accelerates this by buying officers and generals, it is literally limitless as there are no restrictions. (Its not P2W, but can definitely be P2F! :-). -premium membership helps a ton of course, some xp ribbon boosters can make the grind less painful We've had two really different systems, and each has borne out the same result: AT spam grows at rate that is beyond easy scaling of the existing map/battle-space. The original system of 10 ATs per account in a much smaller map still produced vast spam of ATs relative to the map-space available (hint: f2p, multi-account). When this was scrapped for the present unlimited system the map-space was expanded massively... and not massively enough. Linear vs greater-than-linear growth. On this point what has changed is that as the game ages, there is likely to be an attrition of generals leaving the system (with their ATs sitting idle in the database). However, the database is dangerous Pandora's box that threatens to overwhelm the RTS if the game-mode actually becomes popular. What this means is that in a fairly short period of time after each map-system change, the game reverts back to a WW1 trenchline. This is highly unappealing to me. 2. Unfortunately I must disagree as one of the main problems in the RTS is that there has never been a sufficient volume of players to fill the battles created. Therefore, I have posited the need to have a system where the RTS battles can be resolved in a fun and intelligent way (three main contenders were some form of auto-resolve, tactical-exercise-without troops, player-control over droids (think MOBA type), or hardcore all-out total-war type sim where generals move their units around inside the town map. The point being that FPS may get to decide to play out any particular RTS battle, but we acknowledge the fact that battles need to be resolved in the face of insufficient war-mode FPS'ers And, of course, if I spend hours moving yellows on the map, I feel it right and proper to get progression and rewards for it. Especially when the game is otherwise too low-pop to get battles started. RTS needs to have its own legitimacy, not be the red-headed step=child of the FPS... 3. I have no real concern on the issue of algorithms. I would prefer a tactical resolution of each battle wherein generals control their troops inside the map, but I would take algorithms over the current void. The key being that the RTS remains playable and relevant 24-7. 4. Not clear on what this point means. Do you mean having FPS players pay for RTS resources in the battles? 5. No argument here. 🙂 Returning to the issue of scarcity, map-space, and player participation: the RTS as a commercial product can only succeed when the framework it is built on permits endless growth. The RTS needs to be able to seriously scale -- even beyond the war-mode FPS population. The RTS will never be a money maker unless it can be a legitimate game-mode, with a minimum of equal relevance to the FPS. The RTS as a successful F2P product has to plan for its success, the forced enslavement of the RTS to the FPS renders it ineffective IMHO. to my knowledge there is no legit grand-strategy MMO out there; it simply doesn't exist. Now either this is the case because there is no demand for it, or there is simply an untapped market. I prefer the untapped market theory....
  10. Kyrie626

    Give WF bonus for generals

    RTS is perhaps P2F, but definitely not P2W.
  11. Kyrie626

    Skirmishes

    I should preface this by saying I haven't been active in H&G for a very long time, but I'm assuming the issue remains the same: the war-fps community does not like playing them. I would be shocked if this has changed, that it is routine for the random-queuers to remove the mode from their opt-in filter. I honestly am not sure why this was (is?) the case. Some likely candidates are: -likelier short duration by design -less interesting maps, smaller size and reduced complexity -less available points overall to potentially cap/re-cap, no line closing xp -perception (right or wrong) that if a play-session of one hour in skirmishes is compared to 1 hour of a regular battle, the regular battle gains more for the soldier in terms of xp and ribbons The mode, to my limited knowledge, has never enjoyed great success. When I was playing the game I would definitely prefer to watch them from the RTS map than be inside it in the FPS -- more time to move the yellows around. 🙂 But I am the worst source to ask about FPS things -- to me the grand map was the only thing.
  12. Kyrie626

    Skirmishes

    The skirmish mode is not very satisfying -- that is the entire root issue. I would swap it out with something completely different... like a tank v tank battle in a flat plain to determine who gets to advance, take some of the specialist-spam out of the general queue and redirect it to skirmishes.
  13. To the OP, if you do a search on the forum you will find several lengthy tracts explaining the economic system of H&G, why it was changed to its current state, and the negative expectation in the H&G RTS casino. Summarizing: -the outcome of a battle, absent veterans, is a zero-sum transfer between the generals involved -The last spawn not killed is never credited back to anyone, so the net-transfer is always negative absent veterans -economic payments only occur based on kills-destructions as credits, spawns as debits. Each event is assigned randomly. The system is statistically negative by a small margin absent veterans, with outliers based on the random nature of credits/debits for kills-destructions/spawns. The correct way to play the H&G RTS casino is to bring a competent team to play your battles, have all or the majority of all resources used in the battle, this stacks the odds vastly in your favor. If the K:D ratio overall in the battle is exactly 1:1 or worse, you cannot make any warfunds unless you have veterans. Stacking the team on your side can improve the K:D and thus generate warfunds for you -- at the expense of the enemy generals. The tragedy and missed opportunity here is that victory is irrelevant, K/D is everything. To abusively paraphrase a dune quote, LONG LIVE THE SNIPERS! EDIT: The above assumes perfect RTS play -- no encirclements, no morale-destructions, etc. If you factor human-error in the RTS, the expectation is seriously negative.. but even with perfect RTS play, you aren't going to make much if anything unless you stack the FPS team.
  14. The game-mode is designed on the premise that tanks should not be directly at the objective, but should be supporting it from a distance by killing other tanks and shelling/MGing the infrantry from afar. It is somewhat like a MOBA, you are supposed to be helping your bots to win not winning directly by yourself. That being said, a bot-less version could be fun, pure tank v tank....
  15. I think it would be great if Reto can in fact develop the RTS. That is the only game-mode I care about 🙂 By default, Reto has stopped work on the RTS and has been focusing on the FPS -- I conjecture as a survival mechanism due to the financial pressures. If I recall correctly, there was 1 person who did any work at all on the RTS, and that person went on extended leave while ago, not sure if/when he or she is returning. The trello card for the RTS is ""on hold"". Its already in the cards, so to speak... all we can do is hope they figure it out. A brief review of the issues and why it is logical to conclude Reto was forced to acknowledge reality and stop work on the RTS: 1. Participation in the RTS, and even war-mode FPS, is a fraction of the player base 2. The endless server refactoring likely revealed all kinds of problems during testing, forcing them to acknowledgee it in the trello card status 3. Even when the server refactoring is complete, I suspect there are no real plans, given only 1 developer potentially maybe sometimes working on it, to fix the issues. There are some hard-problems to be solved, and even if developer resources were available, solutions begin not in code, but in design. Let us review briefly the "hard problems" I am referring to: player-population imbalance in the war-mode, inter-faction and intra-faction balance of resources, the need to fully integrate the RTS with own battle-resolution system instead of FPS only, re-defining role of specialist ATs and corresponding matchmaking problems in war-mode, restoring legitimacy to the war-mode by curbing some of the rampant abuses, and many others. There is one truth that I've come to accept: given current scale of the RTS (lets call this linear RTS with only paths and towns), there has to be scarcity for the RTS to be relevant. If all resources are always available in all battles, the RTS is not really meaningful. Scarcity is, unfortunately, an important factor that needs to be re-implemented. A general's decision to commit to 1 battle over another must be meaningful, not simply add another AT becausee we can. 🙂 It should be pretty obvious that when most of the players are playing, the RTS is not meaningful because there is no scarcity. I would think there are two fairly clear solutions to this issue: vastly expand the battlespace available, or vastly curtail resources. I am not a fan of curtailing resources, because it ends up being a non-play scenario. To begin a fix of the RTS, I believe a vast expansion of the map is necessary, on the scale of the fractal model I presented earlier. This means that passive fortress front-lines would be impossible, maneuvers would be required to meet forces in the field. If the RTS is expanded along the lines I envision, the following would necessarily follow: FPS would no longer be the primary way to resolve most battles; instead, players would *choose* the battles they want to play in that they feel are important. There would never be sufficient players present in a fractal-map to resolve all of the possible conflicts. Consequently, the RTS would needed a fully legitimate way to resolve RTS battles when FPS is basent, such as TEWT, control of droids in a total-war style minigame, or fully automatic battle resolution.This needs to be fully legitimate in that generals and commanders gain progression and rewards from this. On the subject of inter-faction RTS balance, this brings us back to the original sin of making a WW2 semi-historical game with Germany in it. My suggestion here is fairly simple -- implement a scaling system such that performance in the RTS is scaled up or down based on population imbalance in the RTS and war-mode fps queue. If, as a simple example, 100 germans are participating active in war-mode in some fashion (rts + fps) and only 20 soviets are, then scale the effect of the battle so that an axis win counts 1/5, and a soviet win counts 5x. This means that towns would not change ownership in 1 battle, but a series of battles based on the scale-up effects involved. This restores some semblance of balance. On the issue of intra-faction balance, this boils down to how a faction allocates resources to its generals. The current system is either feast or famine -- either there are too many resources, or none at all. The biggest sin here is that its boring to simply wait for resources. This is a fatal flaw. Something must replace it. Years ago there was discussion of a resource mini-game that would fuel the capacity to deploy -- excavate raw materials, bring them to a reining point, and eventually through some magic, ATs are born on the map. I have my objections to this, but it is a damn sight better than click-wait. In a nutshell, thats a ton of work to be done--cycling from design, implementation, QA, and finally live balance testing. Each one of these could be a team of people working on it. EDIT: Forgot to mention, we need special war missions for the specialist-spam. Armor to conquer flat-field maps, recon missions to gather intel, air-supremacy/air-bombing missions....get the spec-spam out of the general queue, reserve it for special battles.