• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by XOOM

  1. I have provided new solutions and demonstrated them visually to show the conservative approach on the upcoming LMG fixes. Please direct your attention towards this thread and continue the discussion in a civil and productive manner there. http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/421494-lmg-solution-planned/
  2. Hey all, Tonight I dove into the code and our data directory, and I'd like to discuss the following as a compromise for the light machine gun class, which covers the: MG34, Bren Gun and the French FM24/29. Proposed Changes: Disable firing while moving under ANY conditions Increase non-aimed (hip fire) dispersion Increase hip fire muzzle climb Make reloading a stationary task (only) Firing LMG will reduce stamina some (does recover) This would still enable some sort of firing, but you need to either be stationary, or otherwise deployed supporting your Squad. The BAR and FG42 are considered automatic rifleman which is why they're not included in these changes. The other option would be completely disabling firing of the LMG's unless you've deployed your bipod. We think the proposed change can help quell this option however. These really are the options at this stage other than to maintain the status quo, which we do not believe will be ideal. Okay, discuss, but be productive.
  3. I have provided new solutions and demonstrated them visually to show the conservative approach on the upcoming LMG fixes. Please direct your attention towards this thread and continue the discussion in a civil and productive manner there. http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/421494-lmg-solution-planned/
  4. As long as we're moving down the right path (arguably the wrong by some, which is reflective of 24% of the voters)... that's a good thing. Sure wish we could get 100% consensus but, that's why they coined the term pipe-dream.
  5. Yet here you are. I suppose being in the forums telling us how to do things is entirely more entertaining than actually being part of the solution.
  6. @choadSweet thanks dude.
  7. When someone asks a question with the intent to learn, and you shut it down as obliviousness, that is completely unproductive. My guys probably know what you're referring to, but I cannot keep up with every little detail around here. I try, but it's a lot from my vantage point.
  8. I will say this again. Any changes to the LMG class will affect the Allied LMG's exactly the same as the Axis. We will not pose any changes that favors one side over the other. The intent is to make the LMG class more oriented towards its historical support role. I will in the not so distant future unveil precisely what that means. It will be conservative and I think well received by both sides. But please note, I, or CRS for that matter, will not go out of our way to target one side or its weapon.
  9. You were talking about it maybe for several months but that doesn't mean we decided to intentionally ignore it for that period of time. We were still collecting and analyzing data to make sure it's what we wanted. We made the changes accordingly. What's wrong with the Spitfires? The new Tables of Equipment modifications are pretty favorable according to the in-game survey's we're doing, feedback directly from the game interface for those who are logging in and experiencing it. I will announce the LMG changes soon. I think it's conservative and fair, standby for more momentarily.
  10. There is a series of events involved with managing WWII Online, and it is not quite as simplistic as you make it out to be. I will agree with you that the root to increased fun and customer happiness is more players on the server. That is not purely price point driven, or at least one that is sustainable and achievable. For example, the primary beef for new users is the "Subscription." However as all of our veterans know the Subscriptions is the root reason we've made it for approaching 18 years of continued operations. If we did a one time buy totally, boom, game over. 3 players paying $6.00 a month is requiring 3x the effort for marketing and managing those players interests and "demands." There is no guarantees to their retention or interest in the product. The $17.99/mo price point is only here out of necessity, and can possibly be replaced by lowering paying accounts to build up a base. However we cannot just go "Okay, we're changing the price point and boom here we go." That will create a financial vacuum creating instability for our continued operation. ~ I'm going to keep using that term, because that is our primary goal: continued operation of WWII Online. We have some product plans that are currently in development, which are subscription based, at a lower price point, providing specific gear and access. I am waiting on our developers to push that through entirely before announcing much about it. I think it will be well received and customers should be happy with it, as it's more clear than a Starter account and not as expensive as a Premium account. These will be available for both organic and Steam customers. DLCs remain with Steam only and there's no plan to change that yet.
  11. I would strongly recommend adding a % symbol next to the individual numbers on the line chart when a user highlights their mouse over it. If not it will be misinterpreted as an actual hard number for population. This may not seem like a big deal, but to me it is. I don't want to see this sort of tool get misinterpreted and weaponized to illustrate someones goal in attacking us.
  12. I'd say the smartest thing to do is to re-utilize the effectiveness of the "OPS" channel. Side channel: Has really become the "dump-all" communications channel. It's mostly filled with people yelling about hacks and complaining most of the time. ~ I've seriously considered detuning this as a default channel on the UI because of how toxic it gets and turns away new customers. OPS: Was designed, and is not currently utilized, for Battle Comms specifically. It precisely meets what you're calling for and is available for all users right now. Adding more channels means more UI work and I don't think we've touched the chat server code too much to be able to make any promises right now.
  13. I hope the impression is not that we just blow things off. Our continued involvement in the forums is recognition that we do care to talk about these issues and provide solutions where we can. Each of those changes you listed, have not had unanimous support fyi. The only thing I can think of recently that had unanimous support was the scrolling in and out of the map screen, server support, and the general buy-in that we all need to chip in to the success of WWII Online and its continuation. Those are things we all rally around.
  14. I understand that the game has been around for awhile, and therefore several players have. However it is essential to have some understanding of where we really truly started to rebuild, and that began when I took over in March of 2015. At that time we still couldn't even build a new host fyi. So when you say "decades old problems," it's really an unfair insinuation in every respect towards this team. I get it from a customer perspective, but I hope you can at least be honest in recognizing that I or the rest of my team cannot be held responsible for the past mis-steps or the lack of correction when our resources were incredibly more viable. Make no mistake, we recognize it is now our responsibility to do something about it. But it's not a snap of the finger, it's not even weeks or months sometimes. Over the last year we have really truly started to be able to develop the game again. Remember how long it was before we had new Terrain for example? This reverse engineering effort is extraordinary and the complication of managing such a huge and diverse (aging) code base is not for the faint of heart. Ultimately what I have to say will not appeal for your desire for action, but it is the truth and it needs to be understood at a minimum.
  15. Is this more sarcasm? Because you can’t do that in anything but as infantry.
  16. Good! I was hoping that be the case.
  17. As I have said in another forum thread... Any changes made to the Lightmachine Gun class will be unanimous and without bias. Any changes to how the class operates will impact the Bren Gun, FM24/29, MG34 and the eventual .30 Cal coming in. We will not be going out of our way to nerf any of these named weapons performance, climb rate or attempt to render these weapons useless. All of those options are counter productive and cause negative harm towards their users. We do however recognize the harm in the run and gun nature of these weapons (all of them) as they currently function. That is the extend of the feedback we're going to offer for the interim. Please be patient meanwhile as we're trying to roll out a Terrain Pack and 1.36 Hybrid Supply asap.
  18. I hope it is, and if so Zippy, sorry. But I do fully believe in and support my statement which is applicable throughout much of our forum boards. WE CANNOT lose sight of the understanding that the WWII Online community is the ONLY reason this game continues on (by your financial support, and the folks who have stepped up to assist CRS - God bless you all). By yanking support, you're signing its death warrant. Don't, friggin, do it, if you want this thing to stay here. What will CRS do? We're going to continue trying our damndest as we have been. Please see the progress we've been making and understand that WE ARE IT with you. Sometimes I wonder if that truly resonates and is understood. Hoping to break through for some reality... We have servers, people, and a variety of expenses to keep things going. It's not just some random magic happening to keep things going. It requires real work and effort, substantially more difficult than a lot of other game developers who offload their server and engine support off to third parties.
  19. Side note / observation: These unsubscribe threats are getting pretty old. Threatening to get your way and bailing on the game really doesn't hold a lot of weight with me or the team, and it just is counter productive. We obviously all care a lot about the game and want things to be a certain way, but we have to have an appropriate approach to it all and be patient. We're all in this together. I don't want to see people go, be super upset about things, or be unrealistic about what we can and cannot do. We are legit doing the best we can and while we are making progress, we're still in recovery mode at CRS / WWII Online. It's not all sunshine and rainbows. So we need to talk about issues with civil discourse, consider the options, see what we can viably do and then incorporate it. That is the atmosphere that we're trying to create. But by folks stomping and being irrational, they seize that from being possible. And this hurts the whole community's interaction with CRS. Would strongly recommend against this approach.
  20. Genuine question here... is this a legit post or were you just trying to make a point? Because the size difference is considerably more so (the model itself) as it was in real life. It also therefore carries a higher fragmentation count, meaning it can do quite a bit of damage to my understanding (I am not a data guy loaded with all the fragmentation counts so don't quite me entirely that).
  21. Our official position is this: Any solution(s) for the Lightmachine Gun class to be more oriented as a support role weapon will be applied without bias to the whole LMG class, in the exact manner across the board. This means the Bren Gun, FM24/29 and the MG34 (and eventually the .30 Caliber when it's ready) will all have the same treatment.
  22. I'd just like to thank @Capco for kicking the hornets nest . Appreciate that! LOL.
  23. Glad it was helpful and hopefully shed some light on the progress being made. It's coming together well and is nearing readiness for closed beta.
  24. That's pretty much how things go unfortunately.
  25. We've done this before, where we go straight to the entry of the US forces and people usually get a bit ticked about missing the earlier tiers.