• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


XOOM last won the day on May 22

XOOM had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

481 Salty

About XOOM

  • Rank
    President of CRS
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit

Recent Profile Visitors

3,894 profile views
  1. Getting our guys involved in managing in-game operations is very concerning. I agree with Chimm on this one, would rather avoid the blame on the organization and get a better solution in place, i.e. 1.36. I realize we've been talking about it a lot but in this last week we've made some decisions to help get some more attention and personnel on it to help progress it forward. We're just going to have to build a bridge to get to that point, then take a deep breath once that burden is removed off our guys. Until then, stay focused, you guys know what's needed, get folks in High Command so they can access the toolset to avoid problems. It's that simple and it is possible. We're working on it,
  2. This discussion has become completely unproductive. CRS acknowledges that we need to implement 1.36 to remove the burden on the High Command program. We need to achieve that and until we do, we'll have to stay within this current framework, sorry, it's what we have to do and no finger pointing will solve that on either end. With that, I'm closing this thread. We need to change attitudes around and be working as a team to solve these things, not going after one another.
  3. Always asking me the tough questions and holding us accountable Granit, I appreciate that you pay attention more than others . Lightmachine Guns, MG34 and M1919 are being considered to simulate crew weapons Currently in planning, we're weighing realistic usage and tactics employed in the war, details to follow Bren and FM29 were historically more mobile, but we're looking at these two as well FG42 and BAR are likely to not receive any changes, the STG44 implementation will be similar ATG's flipping and acting improperly We're currently testing some fixes, will deploy some ATG improvements when ready Abnormalities with the forests, rendering stuff (colors, LODs) Good progress being made here, in testing Death lag / managing poor connections Game Manager has tools to tighten up poor connectivity, will result into more auto-despawns Going prone and not being able to stand up We're investigating the details here but recognize how this could be somewhat frustrating There's more in our list of known issues but these are a few of the ones we're currently discussing and analyzing.
  4. I'd have to talk with our artists / devs to see what may be causing this, but I don't see it being a "game breaker" issue. More like a proper clean up thing.
  5. Until 1.36 comes out, the only real solution is to fill in the slots in HC in a concerted effort to take advantage of the toolset provided to them. HC senior leadership is willing to work with people as reserve officers who are there in case of emergency, but if you don't have the toolset and are online, you could be in a position to help avoid a massive cluster. I realize this has been said before, it's not an attempt to provide a default answer that doesn't have any meaning or to be shrugged off. It's really important, and if you're concerned about it, like you and others should be, the path is available and you know what to do.
  6. All we can continue to say is that the devs who are focused on 64bit are working on it. They are making good progress and recognize the significance of the "clock" so to speak. There's not much more we can do to energize the speed of it further. Caution your expectations with regards to the new 64bit roll out. It does not mean everything that we can achieve with 64bit can be achieved on day one of release. It means the door has been opened to make those things come to life. Part 1 is becoming 64bit compliant so can build our game clients and keep the ball rolling.
  7. You don't have to be a High Command officer in order to be a leader. Having access to those tools help, but, a single individual with the right attitude and energy can course correct a difficult situation. When you see a vacancy or a piece of the puzzle missing, be the one who steps up to fill it. You can create the WWII Online moment at anytime, it just takes one person to make a difference.
  8. Regarding training, we have very minimal time by which we can have a user in mandatory training. Continuous optional training would be good, but again, balancing resources. The reason we don't have so much time to train them on "WWIIOL as a game" is because our feedback suggested they'd rather get right to it and get into the action. Like most people, including us males working on projects to build or fix things, the manual goes right out the window and the "I CAN DO THIS" mentality kicks in. The reason I am responding to you the way I am is to re-affirm that this is a team deal, CRS and the Community is a team. Both sides have to help one another, and for the greater good of the game we're like a family, a very loyal and functional (imperfect) family. This messaging is for other readers as well, and I hope the key points resonate and we maintain the healthy working relationship / family that we have. Again thanks for your communication it is valuable and I am glad to have at a minimum give you my perspective on these things. Do take note that although we may not agree on stuff, the dialogue is critical and I am willing to talk to anyone in depth who desires to communicate appropriately and respectively, which you did.
  9. I'd suggest again that you reflect on providing solutions and direct recommendations by which we can incentivize and reward players for doing tasks which are beneficial to team play. And in that light I'd agree generally speaking, that is something we can and probably should do more of. Let me point out again that Steam going free, we need to get the new user experience better. We're working on it. Not just the weaponry they can access, but also understanding how to navigate the UI and know where to find quality WWII Online action is.
  10. Let me also be clear to say we're not considering dumbing the game down or working towards automation at this time. Our community (as a majority) prefers the freedom of movement and ability to organize based on what they want to do. We have work to be done, particularly to make squads more relevant and awesome again and one of the major intended purposes of 1.36 is to work towards that. So be sure not to take any of my questions as "a statement of fact that we are dumbing down the game," that would be wrong. (over emphasizing this point intentionally) We all have our own ideas of what should be done and why, we each have our own subset of priorities. So we have to work towards the biggest threats or take aways impacting from game and go from there with an end goal of having maximum positive impact. But I do hope that the people who have been sitting on the sideline who are quiet decide to step up and speak and make sure their voice is heard. These forums need to get active again and we need to engage in dialogue.
  11. The Community Manager @BLKHWK8 has been considering how to get Training going again. The Game Manager @OHM is working plans to create far more engaging intermission scenarios. @HEAVY265 has been preparing squad vs squad events and such which would be really fantastic. These are the guys to talk to about putting these things into play. We have updated our basic training and made it mandatory so that new players coming in have a better chance at knowing what to do. G3A3 was a player volunteer who recognized that there was a gap in the system and STEPPED UP to fill that role. Same thing can be said about a guy named (Tiger319 I think it was), Aomercy, Gvonpaul, Oldzeke and several other people who decided to take the initiative and do something about it. You're isolating your focus on this feeling of being offended and "lazy." I am glad to have caught your attention and enable deep thought to occur here because this introspective thinking is required if we are to find a way forward. Perhaps you yourself can be a really effective leader, you've at least demonstrated to be capable of an effective communicator. But rather stepping up and recognizing that there's a job to be done, you're simply putting it on CRS to figure it out for you. And that is the point I'm trying to make. When I was in High Command I learned very quickly that if I wanted something done, I wouldn't wait on CRS or upper command to help me. I'd knock it out to my satisfaction and within my control and capability. I find I use that same principle in business and particularly here at CRS. So what kind of game do you want to have, and what are you going to do about making that happen, within your realm of capability and control? I'd start there, and then work towards providing well thought out solutions. If you think that is inappropriate, then I'd say that's a serious concern to any discussion that needs to be productive. If you're wondering what my solutions are, check the Roadmap, it's the best that we can do and have come up with to tackle a wide variety of issues and that's the things we're working on. If there's something not on the Roadmap that you think may be achievable, let me know and we can see how realistic or low-hanging fruit it might be. If we have the resources to achieve it and it's not a huge time dump and has a big pay out, that's a no brainer. I am not biased when it comes to good suggestions, if I agree with you or not, it has no bearing on good decision making. What ever results into WWII Online and CRS's success being optimal is my focus and mission.
  12. So in essence, you would like the game to be more automated and directional to help facilitate that moment without any human intervention except to act as an optional participant. Thereby, reducing the humanistic value and interpretation for the outcome of how things are to be. That is your version of fun, does the rest of the community agree with this version of fun? To be sure, I have read your post, but I'm holding you accountable to the fact based reality that placing all of your hopes and desires on CRS to facilitate the game play that has been the core value of WWII Online, which has been highly engaged with humans determining the outcome, cannot be a singular fault, or solution. We can provide more tools, but if players are not exercising them, what good will they be? PPOs for example, are highly underutilized. Mission leaders, way points, .allied and .axis, mission orders, are highly underutilized. I live and breathe this game, and I do not act to know it all by any means, but I will not let you point the finger without holding you to account as well in this equation, sorry. My thoughts come from several different data source points, some of which are accessible to you, several which are not. I will re-affirm that we have a responsibility to take information and suggestions as presented to by the player base into the consideration pool. We own that and accept our role in all of this. We also take it very seriously and I appreciate your thoughts coming across in a productive and intended to be constructive manner as well, so kudos there (I mean that). Re-inviting players on Steam to come back for free will be an unlikely situation, at least unless we make some of the improvements as outlined in our Roadmap come to life, which they're in progress and taking longer than expected due to some turn over that was unforeseen. At a minimum however we really need to examine the new player experience so we can work to better retain newcomers. Bottom line, CRS cannot code in-game leadership. And without in-game leadership, or leadership in any organization, preferably an effective leadership team, things won't go so hot. So this has been a call to STEP UP, and really cling on to the fact that we've got to not just maintain, but to progress across the entire board. I think that's something we can agree with here.
  13. A whole lot of finger pointing to fix things without taking any responsibility as a community member to do so. We have to work together as a team, CRS and the community, that's what it is going to take in order to get the ball rolling, a total commitment on everyone's part to do what is required for the greater good of the game. That is the primary purpose I'm trying to illustrate, and particularly when it comes to the game, CRS does have a responsibility to game design and everything else in between, but so do the players. Players who are actively subscribing and participating in communication are ensuring our continuation in that regard. But I have seen first hand, good, knowledgeable and highly capable people decide to not step up and do what is necessary to maintain the core elements of what has made our game fun. We have veterans who demand that we make limited to no changes into how the game actually functions, in fear of things getting dumbed down. If that is the case, then your end of the deal must be stepped up. If that is not what you want, then we have to find methods by which we can automate them. A "case in point" example would be 1.36 and the evolution of balancing automation / game stability while providing still some manual interpretation for how things go. Using that methodology we may be able to apply similar fixes in other areas where applicable. My intent of saying "Hey, wake up, quit being lazy," was fair and it was not directed in a disrespectful manner. Rather, it is to be reminded of the important role that every human player here plays. Our game is most successful when there is organization and leadership. We should be working together, everyone, to foster the development of upcoming leaders and supporting them in and out of the game, on and off the field. My hope is that you, and other community members, do recognize your responsibility in all of this. Being apart of this community in your shoes gives me the experience to know that is required. Back then we stepped up and did what we had to do and we found immense joy in the entire process of creating the "WWII Online moment," particularly the pay off of everyone having fun and being a primary facilitator in that coming to fruition. That's called leadership and there's a lot of recognition to come with that. I think we see some of this still, in spurts, but the community collectively has either forgotten how to do this stuff or it just doesn't come around enough to experience. And that experience is vital to capturing the very best of what this game has to offer, which has kept us here for so long, actively in pursuit of doing it again. If you're saying you have no confidence in our players to be able to lead or to facilitate that moment, you're asking for me to consider to dumb down the game and find methods by which we can automate it. So I don't assume, which are you asking for? And another question, do you think this is entirely on CRS's plate to manage, and that the players have zero responsibility in this regard?
  14. Hey everyone, just wanted to pop my head in here and give you all a kudos for putting your concerns down. We have been and will continue to evaluate the feedback you guys give us. A couple of the items discussed here are part of our plan to correct. Please keep it up.
  15. Really glad to see this @xanthus thanks for putting the energy and effort into it. Keep it up, it may take a little time to see the results but people will start to show up and check out what you're doing.