Steam installieren
Anmelden
|
Sprache
简体中文 (Vereinfachtes Chinesisch)
繁體中文 (Traditionelles Chinesisch)
日本語 (Japanisch)
한국어 (Koreanisch)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarisch)
Čeština (Tschechisch)
Dansk (Dänisch)
English (Englisch)
Español – España (Spanisch – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (Lateinamerikanisches Spanisch)
Ελληνικά (Griechisch)
Français (Französisch)
Italiano (Italienisch)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Ungarisch)
Nederlands (Niederländisch)
Norsk (Norwegisch)
Polski (Polnisch)
Português – Portugal (Portugiesisch – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (Portugiesisch – Brasilien)
Română (Rumänisch)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Finnisch)
Svenska (Schwedisch)
Türkçe (Türkisch)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisch)
Українська (Ukrainisch)
Ein Übersetzungsproblem melden
but yeah, i agree with what you say. even though laying some suppressive fire when they attack would be good too.
i wonder if in the meantime the devs can have the bot gunners take the rifle tier until they can learn to deploy and use the LMG?
of course the bots still need to do better facing threats from no-man's land.
Warned X for spamming and pretty much backseat moderating.
but the way you moderate can sometimes seem.... random. some threads that got merged without a warning to the 64x feedback while others that were literally feedback on the new update didnt, messages deleted because ''off topic'' even though they were written by the creator of the topic...
maybe warning more often before censoring, or giving more explanation when you do could really be appreciated.
a few weeks ago X was unconditionally supporting the devs in what they were doing, and now he seems to care less and less.
i get moderating that kind of community isnt easy, but the way some of you handle that seems unfair to many.
with the support website closed, these steam discutions is the only place verdun players can talk about what they all want for the game.
and yes they often want different things, so delete messages/posts when people are strating to insult each other (or insult the devs).
but maybe think about letting people go slightly ''off topic'' sometimes?
for the rest of your comment though, i understand (especially for the teamplay part).
i agree 64 players is too much verdun can handle. not only lag, but map arent meant for that much people. before the update, verdun maps felt empty because full lobbys were rare, not because maps were too big.
yeah, the update also brought more lag. that sucks too.
ik it feels bad to report a bug and never get a response, but getting angry at the modos wont help. for the best and the worst verdun devs now listen less to their community, we can just try to get heard and see where the game goes.
agreed we should get real answers sometimes though.
(i agree with X's post below, but im not gonna write a whole new comment about it as i think everything that needed to be said has been said for now.)
Not only do I believe that defensive AI should be able to have LMG deployment zones but I also feel that a trench capture should result in a full fallback to the next friendly trench. As it is, when a trench is forced the AI and players can simply turn around and hop right back in. This would seem unlikely because if trenches were taken it is usually because defenders could no longer hold the line due to heavy losses or they are employing a tactical withdrawal.
I think that counterattacks should not be initiated until the last defenders have fallen back or their stragglers have been killed, this gives time to reconsolidate forces for the counterassault. This will also allow the men who captured the trench to ready up to defend the taken ground.
The artillery of AI should be employed in two manners offensive strikes soften the enemy resistance and defensive strikes to reduce the morale of and suppress and/or rout attacking forces.
Attacking AI should have no artillery control while advancing because they are beyond their own lines
Defending AI should be able to rain hell on the attackers due to being within friendly lines
The artillery strikes of defending troops should cease as soon as there is a breach in the line because realistically armies would generally not intentionally shell their own men just to get a few enemy troops with them. If they did I guarantee you their commanders would be dodging handgrenades for the remainder of the war. The defensive arty can resume if the attackers are repulsed or they take the ground in which the defensive artillery would become offensive artillery and the process would continue.
I think if mechanics such as these were looked into a few of the "artillery issues" could be resolved.
This is an alternative to Tannenberg's landlines
i think the main problem with bots generally on defense is that they dont seem to cover no-man's land very well and seem to prefer to remain in the trench and wait for melee. until that is fixed the retreat after losing a trench would i think only delay time because once retreated and reorganized, the counterattack would easily reach that original trench if the bots can't defend no-man's land.
i still see lots of games with mostly bots with high capture scores of 5 to 4 or 7 to 6. this might be due to the bots unable to defend no-man's land. the trench is captured and then recaptured and captured and recaptured back and forth without end.