Availability needs to return

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[bromly]

Availabilty was created to stop spam.  It was an effective counter and control mechanism.  People would cry when they couldn't have their tiger/kt by losing it, but they also wouldn't be able to spam them, nor would they throw away any form of unit.

this really needs to come back into this game, the current system was built with availability in mind, it should continue to use it!

this would also fix stormgrenadier spam, m8 spam, heavy tank spam, airborn spam, ranger spam, mortar and mg spam aswell as KCH spam..

so in conclusion I would say this system was designed with availability effecting how many of each type of unit you could have, we have tested without it, and from the majority of the feedback we see, its not working the same as when it was in the game.

[DeadlyShoe]

2.0 will have an anti-spam system, supposedly.

[salan]

stupid bromly account, gotta remember to switch to salan to post.

shoe, we're not playing 2.0, are we?

as I said, the system we ARE currently playing was built around availability being one of the key balancing features.

[DeadlyShoe]

Well....no.

[Mobius]

I second this. Availability can work to counter nearly all spam (though it may take some time to get the numbers tweaked acceptably) without the need to constantly modify unit and upgrade prices, pop caps, and doctrine abilities quite as much to deal with the same problem.

[salan]

thats exactly what we are seeing now, they are trying to control spam through pricing and popcaps, instead of a function they had running very well up till halfway through the first part of this war.

[Unkn0wn]

Exactly, 2 KTs every game would not even be an option with availability.

[DeadlyShoe]

It wouldn't fix elite unit spam, you could still achieve that just by playing enough games.. or simply by retreating a lot.  That is one of the problems with availability, didn't really work on infantry.

[salan]

It wouldn't fix elite unit spam, you could still achieve that just by playing enough games.. or simply by retreating a lot.  That is one of the problems with availability, didn't really work on infantry.

they could have easily have made it MAX in company, instead of max resupply, would have fixed that a billion times over.

[Unkn0wn]

Completely agree, this way, everyone would be equally effected by it.
In addition, they could make it so that it takes x amount of ticks to resupply ONCE you lose that unit.
(So wether or not I'm a better player, it'll take me just as long as a newbie to get a KT back once I've lost one)

It should only be implemented for elite infantry & vehicles/tanks imho.
(Airbourne, Rangers, Panthers, Tigers, Pershings, Howitzers, Calliopes, etc etc)
This way, there's ALWAYS an alternative unit available to use and people will not stop playing the game.
Out of tigers? Just get Panthers. Out of Panthers? Get PzIvs for a while! This also promotes variety.

[Mobius]

It wouldn't fix elite unit spam, you could still achieve that just by playing enough games.. or simply by retreating a lot.  That is one of the problems with availability, didn't really work on infantry.

they could have easily have made it MAX in company, instead of max resupply, would have fixed that a billion times over.

A combination of both max in company and max resupply would probably be the best way to go. Max in company should probably still be pretty high (around 20 for general infantry like Volks/Rifles, less for more elite units) so as not to limit company composition too much, but still prevent horrible spamming.

Having some doctrine abilities affect the company and resupply availabilities would be nice as well, and could bring more attention to some of the less-used paths.

[Draygon]

I think with Availability back in alot of the "OP" things we see that get nerfed wouldnt happen, because you couldnt spam it or couldnt do much with it for fear of losing those units.

It needs to be back in, and in a more limiting way than it was before IMO.  Make players pay for their mistakes, their losses

[DasNoob]

Salan, I fully agree with this statement.  I know the devs thought that most people would not like to play with that restriction.  But once new players figure out that they cannot spam like VCOH they would adapt.  It didn't turn off everyone that was currently playing the mod.  In fact it added an extremely important amount of realism that is now lacking.  I really should feel my losses more.

[Mobius]

Hate to derail, but why is this in the replays and screenshots forum? Should be moved to Alpha testing, shouldn't it? I am strongly in favor of this idea and hope this gets noticed and addressed.

[scrapking2]

I don't want to imply empowering the playerbase through "democratic design", but...

/agree

So many issues we have now are a result of unlimited availability.   I'm not saying that the old values were correct either, but they could be controlled, and in some cases having a better result than adjusting other values like cost or effectiveness.

[DerangedGerman]

I just played a game with a teammate with over 60 motorcycles. It was spamtastic, and pisses me off, because that effectively sabotaged any chance we had of winning.

And look at that replay a few threads ago! 6 KTs against 75 Rangers? WTF? Spamtastic! Availability needs to come back.

Sure, we all complained about it when we had it, but now that we've seen what this game turns into without it, we need it back.

[DBSights3]

lol.

that was the point.

ironically, I did much more than you.

[slowzo2]

This thread is pointless, to my understanding, theres no availability in 2.0.  I'd rather not have FL waste his time.

[salan]

This thread is pointless, to my understanding, theres no availability in 2.0.  I'd rather not have FL waste his time.

when people play with 60 motorcycles, or 26 greyhounds, or 16 MGS (my defense company) or 20+ stormgrenadiers, or 2 KT or 3 pershings in their company


this thread is NOT pointless, and while 2.0 obviously needs work, you can't maintain what you have if you don't maintain it, and this is what we have right now.

[AmPM]

The problem isn't infantry, its the vehicles and support units being unlimited thats causing problems.

50 AB are annoying, but my infantry could deal with it. 26 m8's or Puma's is OP in a much more serious way, you can't bring out enough AT to counter it.