Silky

Registered Users
  • Content count

    37,193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    65

Everything posted by Silky

  1. This looks pretty cool. GJ
  2. Personally, I wouldn't bother with a naval game, I don't think it can work in anything other than a limited fashion for that time-space reason. The convoy/escort naval game could exist, but primarily as content for the air game.
  3. Oh for genuine buy in to recreate the Air War in all its full glory. The Air War should be as much a draw as the ground game. High alt strategic bombing and interception should be a fully-fleshed mini-game a functional connection to the overall game, but capable of being almost a separate entity.
  4. Bingo. It’s not clear what TGTCWTF actually wants to be
  5. The problem being - if we're talking openly and transparently - that when I was actively moderating game forums, there were so many issues and errors that it was impossible not to ask questions of the competence and forethought unpinning the game. Now I don't know if that's still the case, but I would suggest that in order to protect and present the image of a professional outfit that confronts and locks down negativity, that negativity can't have such obvious justification. Otherwise you just felt like the Iraqi Information Minister "This is fine, no problems, everything is okay"
  6. Presumably there's a tool in the forum software to understand the metrics of forum activity - which areas are active in terms of views, posts etc? That would be interesting to see - which areas people are using and which are redundant
  7. I agree. I've always sought a vision of how the game would ideally play, and for all development to be in pursuit of that vision. And to me, the vision of attacking a town should be almost entirely about setting a Zone of Control and establishing that ZoC, within which there are offensive spawn points. Lose the ZoC, the attack falters. The idea of spawnable depots in town shifts focus away from the ZoC game, inherenty meaning a shift away from all the mini-games and systems that support the ZoC game - CAS, ATG, armour etc - the game simply becomes grab the spawn, inf zerg. Remove spawnables for the attacking side.
  8. We'd pay to look at the reality of how these events pan out before introducing any theoretical change. The pragmatic mindset trumps the idealogically-driven one. What actually happens when a town is cut off, how do the players respond, what would be the unintended consequences of making the cut off town a more viable fighting force? Would any changes be utilised by the playerbase?
  9. Make command roles valuable and full of utility and players will join. Command-Control tools and genuine leadership tools. Build it and they will...
  10. Mike’s post seems kind of lonely
  11. I won't labour the point but I made my views clear on 1.36 - the trajectory the game took wasn't one that appealed to me personally, so I saw no point in continuing as HC. I noted the recent mission waypoint development, I've said for years that the reason that TOES didn't maintain the heights of the 1.27 days wasn't down to a lack of HC coverage, it was because the game didn't sufficiently allow players in leadership positions to actually, practically lead, which made leading a battle against the game systems, which became tiresome and made leading a less positive experience. I'll again paraphase Gagamel - one of the game's most effective, fearsome field leaders - 'when the best command-control tool you have is the enemy boat mark, you're in trouble'.
  12. Sorry to hear this Doc. Chin up, we're all behind you
  13. Strong contender for General Discussion Post of the Year
  14. Fantastic news Doc. GJ and here's to the road to recovery
  15. As Karellean used to say "Blessed are the truck drivers"
  16. Imded Godspeed and RIP
  17. Make HC more attractive. Bring in command-control tools, allow HC to easily see what town a bde falls to and where it's going to fall. Allow moves to be stacked and timed, eg "move Bde X to town Y in 31 minutes". Bring back HC uniforms. Create better chat channels, more fit for the game. Tweak the TOES set up to mitigate JBWS So many things could have been done to retain the key advantage of TOES, namely a more realistic simulation of a front line and to provide complexity and variability to the game
  18. The major factor I would look to address is 'survivability', or - Give players more of a feeling that they're engaged in a battle before they die. Environmental clutter, cover, concealment, debris, even increased weapon sway and inaccuracy, terrain-hugging abilities to allow players to spawn in to a close quarters infantry fight and not die so quickly. The cover available in an infantry fight is minimal at the moment, so our players are denied the ability to hide, protected, where they can absorb the intensity of the battle going on. I recognise it's technically challenging, but it's a key battle to win if gameplay's to be improved. Developing the spawn mechanics and the UI are useful paths to push, but secondary to how the game actually plays. I'm a keen proponent of the devs developing a vision for how individual game sessions look and doing everything possible to then achieve that. For me, that initial trailer for PS blew my mind, just from the intensity of the infantry play, greatly aided by the suspense and adrenalin rush that was the pre-cursor to the actual PvP. Being safe but knowing there's a battle going on is a major reward of a combat game.
  19. Axis were spoiled over the years with TOES naming convention haha try remembering 4thmacrd or 2ndlmd or the various French brigade codes which were completely random
  20. Are there any plans to develop a XP/Ranking system that can reward and encourage players to play the underpop side? I'd suggest such a system would really help this game, across various different areas ripe for improvement
  21. The lack of meaningful points/XP system means we have a huge when it comes to shaping or incentivising game choices I’m sure it’s not on anyone’s road map as it seems like an irrelevance but it really isn’t. It would be a key element in getting players to do things that benefit the game
  22. I guess the thinking is that if you remove the map catastrophe element from overpop tz3 roll, it’s less of a problem
  23. So how are we not supposed to see this as ‘we trialled something, we didn’t like the results but we’re just going to live with it’
  24. So does this mean Antwerp will be returned to a single large city? @Merlin51