• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by XOOM

  1. 4 hours ago, bogol said:

    Thats what I read from your post. Clearly. So no, I cannot infer even a hint of a plan. Just a hint of disappointment with the same community that you all CRS call the greatest community of all games, when they promptly answer the calls for funding. When us -same community, maybe different apples, maybe some of them same apples- start expressing displeasure about certain things in fora, then suddenly we are not that great anymore. Which is it?

    You're taking what I am saying out of context. I am saying that the forums as an atmosphere can and should do better, and that comes down to folks not treating each other poorly. And you what I am talking about, you've been here long enough. So let's not pretend I am making this up, and don't paint me out to be some bad guy. I'm trying to address the elephant and the room and re-adjust things so we can come out ahead and all enjoy our time here better.

  2. 1 hour ago, halsey said:

    Xoom, you need to fly T1 French before you start making asinine statements like that.  You may be the big rat, but you obviously don't have your finger on the pulse here. 

    My statements do not come from flying one side or the other at Tier 1. It comes from our methodology that we're employing and our overall approach. I am here, I am taking notes and I am going back to the team. I am not trying to pretend to know better than others, and I don't think you should assume I don't have the game's health (overall) as my top priority - it is. Also, you don't know me very well, but my ego is in check. I don't go around swinging the big Rat tag in people's faces, I am often on Discord communicating with squads, speaking with players by phone daily and am in the game almost daily checking on things.

    10 minutes ago, thedog said:

    Almost,  the 190s in 1941  (A1 & A2)  had a smaller engine than both the A3- A4  and the 190's of 1941   A1-A2   didn't have a the centre bomb rack either 

    the  and while A3 had the same engine as the A4 that engine didn't begin production until  spring  1942  so its overpowered for tier 1  ..... and the A3/bomber  had  FFMG cannon removed. so it's not an historical plane. 

    the argument that takes out the spit ix  from tier1  historically  also applies to the FW190A3/b  in tier 1 ...as  it didn't exist.

    as much a zoom likes to think  its ...a side bias thing..its not...its a it didn't exist thing.

    "Fw 190 A-3
    Beginning in the spring of 1942, series production of a more powerful engine version BMW 801D-2 that replaced previous versions in the Fw 190 fighter created a new plane version designated as Fw 190A-3.The increase in the BMW 801D-2 engine power (to 1730 kW) was due to a higher compression ratio and higher pressure two-speed compressor. A higher compression ratio and charging pressure made it necessary to use high-octane (96 octane) C3 fuel in place of B4 (87 octane) fuel. Armament of standard Fw 190A-3 planes was the same as in the previous version.

    Starting from this version, A series airframes were widely used in a big development program with the aim of finding the optimum armament and equipment mix that made it possible to broaden the operational capabilities of the plane beyond fighter operations. The largest part of these modifications were in the form of Umrustbausatz kits, but some did not have special designations and can be recognized only from photographs. The total number of such modified planes is unknown. The best known are the Fw 190A-3 with an under-fuselage mounted bomb rack ETC 501 for carriage of 500 kg of bombs (1x500 kg, 2x250 kg or 4x50 kg on the ER4 adapter) or an external drop tank of 300 litre capacity for long range fighters.

    Some planes used only for fighter operations (without bomb racks) had a reduced armament by removal of wing mounted MG FF cannons, which was not reflected in a designation."

    With that being said, this thread is going to be closed. We're still evaluating the Stuka G-2 tier implementation and I remain committed to resolving any issues in this regard. I also remain committed to having productive constructive discussions.


  3. 2 minutes ago, jwilly said:

    I'm winchester and bingo in this discussion.

    Try not to get discouraged, they're communicating from a position of passion (emotion) and are doing their part to advocate what is best for THEIR team. 

    You are communicating from an impartial standpoint using logic. Keep doing that, it's what we need around here.

    I am looking into the Hurricane Mk II D & Stuka G-2 concerns they have behind the scenes meanwhile.

  4. 2 hours ago, thedog said:

    you can say that.....but it loses credibility  when you pull out the spit ix  half way through a tier.after its been in for three maps  and call it "a mistake"....but  leave the Fw190 A-3/b  in  with the FW190 A4 gun package  on it  that came out at the same time as the spit ix and compound it by  leaving  the Stuka G2  in in tier one that didn't come out until 1943 but put in its equivalent  HIId  that came in earlier.

    The Spitfire IX was not supposed to be there, @OHM went into detail that it was done in error and should not have been. Our re-worked spawn lists using historical implementation timelines hav been in longer than three maps, so the fact that you just indicated a timeline that is lesser than our initial changes only further goes to demonstrate that it is an accurate statement. I can completely understand how this became desired and how the withdrawal was not well received, but it was without argument there in error, and therefore should've never been.

    Again, I am seeing responses that suggest a desire for historical accuracy, as long as it doesn't affect game play. That will not be achievable, and it is a methodology doomed to failure as it is not impartial but rather opinion based which works against what history actually was. In this case we're referring to the actual year(s) that equipment was introduced, not necessarily the total number.

  5. 37 minutes ago, timeless said:

    Are we still using those words? "historically accurate" I thought we threw those out of the WWII dictionary. j/k I want whats best for the game. I pay you to make that happen. If Red vs Blue makes better gameplay would it not be better financially for both sides to go that route? I don't get those numbers xoom. I know that we need balance and we need it for multiple maps. Not changing every campaign.

    The thing is we have what seems to be a growing split between who wants a Red v Blue and those who want an as-close-to historic game. We're trusting real historic values as an impartial judge. To date, everything else has been "what we think is best" which then gets heavily scrutinized because one side manages to do better than the other. So the goal is get CRS to an impartial position by following impartial evidence of historical values. It doesn't exactly fan the flame of emotions (which would either be good if you're winning, bad if you're losing), but the logic of our methodology is sound / fact based.

    1 person likes this

  6. On 3/28/2020 at 1:01 PM, Capco said:

    I can see the discussions and read them just fine, but I can't post and I noticed that no one else with a Free-to-Play account status is posting either.  

    Is that intentional or a mistake?  What's the point of having a forum open to Free-to-Play if we can't use it?  

    It is intentional and more changes will be coming as we consolidate the forums. We want Free Players in the game and getting the support they need to get in the game and desire for more with our community. We are not interested veterans creating second free accounts to fan the flames at our expense.

    As long as the Free Accounts remain Free, we will continuously evaluate ways to improve that experience for mutual benefit. Although they did lose some forum posting privileges in the General discussions area, they did gain several new pieces of equipment to spawn in and play with and all of those accounts were activated indefinitely. A worthy trade imo.

    1. We have come up with a balancing act, which includes historical production costs for all vehicles and infantry, and provided each country with their own budget. That is how we are determining how much of what equipment type each side is receiving.
      1. Which type of game do you want?
        1. Red versus Blue?
        2. Historically accurate with production balance?
        3. Can't have both, and you can't have an in-between.
    2. When I was in HC I always did my best to exemplify and teach my officers to treat "orders" as customer service, tactful suggestions and leading by example. Anything less won't motivate the troops or will come off as intrusive to the game experience.
    3. Couldn't agree more, working with new players requires a patient hand and not an assumption that they're spies intentionally smoking their FMS's or shooting randomly because they have ill intentions. Yes, they should know better, but many of them don't and need guidance.
    1 person likes this

  7. 7 minutes ago, milo said:

    What about limiting the number of forward mobile spawns?

    The mobile spawn logic is driven by missions, we'd have to look at limiting the number of missions to a town or add in some other (new) logic. I'm not sure that is the answer as I don't want to interfere with the players experience. And to conclude, I really don't think we have a sufficient number of mobile spawns for this to be an issue at present.

  8. So I met with the Community Management team, and we will be meeting again. One thing stood clear: we want to keep the forums, but we all recognize that the original bullet points I had placed up were a shared consensus - no surprise.

    That being said we are going to be meeting again and we're drawing up a forum consolidation plan, along with evaluating our terms of service and evaluating our current moderation practices. There may be too many forums, and not clear enough areas to drive discussion. We'll be aiming to find a happy-medium with moderation practices, where we can enable constructive criticism that works to help the effort, but we will be taking a more proactive approach in removing severe cases that are inconsistent with the environment that we're trying to foster. We'll come up with a mission statement on what this is for better clarity, but I think if you read my initial post you can put it together.

    I have asked our Community Managers to get more involved with the forums, and I myself will also pick up my activity here to better communicate with you all.

  9. 30 minutes ago, jwilly said:

    Because a large percentage of players want to be on the winning side, a causative relationship between larger population and winning is a positive feedback loop.

    And, because a PvP game is not marketable if the larger population side has an insufficient number of opponents to fight and therefore not enough fighting fun is delivered, a causative relationship between larger population and winning is an assured pathway to business failure.

    Such a positive feedback loop must be broken. Customers must be convinced that they'll have equal opportunities to win and to receive tactical-success game-fun whether they're on the larger-pop or smaller-pop side.

    I can buy-in to that thought process, it was the driving force behind the Hybrid Supply mechanism and returning supply across the game world so that the underpopulated side had a fighting chance with or without HC online. This also included resurrecting important game play items like overstock, interdiction, etc. And we went a little further with those who were on defense (predominately those who are underpopulated or lesser organized) so that when an AB was captured, the battle wasn't instantly over.

  10. 1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

    The AOs are allowing the no-EWS truck placement to occur and then spring two full battles on 2-3 AO times. 

    In what scenario is EWS not being triggered by incoming Trucks?

    1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

    The other would appear to be that in single AO times the underpop doesn't get enough cap time to make up for their situation.

    I wouldn't increase highpop timers that much nor undercut the multiple player cap bonus.  I think what is needed here is faster recap times for the underpop- possibly use the same slider/calc as now but say add 1-3 people value capping to 1 underpop capper especially in TZ3 outnumbered multiples times.

    Interesting, so you're essentially suggesting that the underpopulated side's recapture should be multiplied to a higher degree so that they can recap faster while keeping the overpopulated capture timer functioning as it currently is?

    Let's put that into perspective for a moment.


    • Imbalance is currently 10%
      • Underpopulated side has a 10% faster capture rate
      • Overpopulated side has a 10% slower capture rate


    • Imbalance in this scenario is 10%
      • Underpopulated side has a 20% faster capture rate
      • Overpopulated side has a 10% slower capture rate

    Is this a correct assumption?

    1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

    The other thing is the historical spawnlist paradigm vs.  happiness.  I think both sides need to allow for the other to have some advantage tier in certain categories related to individual equipment capability, asking for exactly the same firepower in all categoreis all the time is counterproductive to accurate modelling and historical feel intro.  But it IS up to CRS to maintain total force viability in spawnlist building and while I see some of that going on, I don't think it's there and seems to me like there is a tin ear towards allowing for effective fighting every tier.

    I think @OHM has been doing as good of a job as we could ask of him. Been doing this for awhile now and there's NO WAY we're going to be able to find a balance that everyone appreciates and enjoy - unless it is to their advantage. That muddies the water for us quite a bit and it's a constant dance. The reason we've implemented the historical spawn list was so primarily drive by two factors:

    1. To provide an impartial balancing act, not based on a 1:1 ratio of equipment comparison, but based on deep level research of manufacturing costs. We provide each country with a total balance that they can spend, then we evaluate the cost per vehicle, and we do our best to make sure percentage-wise of equipment is available for certain vehicle types and infantry. 
    2. Historical roll-outs had to be reconciled as there were several out of place equipment roll-outs into the campaign. This basically means we had to accurately reflect history and our tier release timelines.
    1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

    The spawnlist thing is more troublesome, the community needs to grow up and let people have their toy time while allowing for the other side to have equal chance, and CRS needs to design/enforce it through the spawnlists.

    Can you expand on this more?

  11. Easy there Aomercy, I get upset when getting my butt kicked in game too, I can relate. There’s still a lot of campaign left. Germans won last campaign, Allies won the two before that. The allied spawn list has never been more filled with newer equipment over the last couple of years and more supply is available with the hybrid system. Fight on, rally up.

  12. At no point in my post (or my thought process in general) have I thought about killing the forums. 

    I am saying our core is eroding and we need to step back and evaluate. My request for this discussion was to come out and say something get your feedback and then go back with the Community Management team and see what improvements can be done. 

    To that end, I will say that I am committed to keeping the forums operational (this was never in question) and I am also committed to making sure that there is added value and healthy discussions taking place. I will be meeting with the CM team this weekend and this will be the priority topic of our meeting.

    Expect to hear back from us soon about anticipated changes in the atmosphere, potentially the terms of service and overall moderation practices. I remain committed to enabling genuine discussion to take place but not at the expense of hostility or total smearing. That is coming to a swift end.

    Stay tuned as we'll get back with you on this topic soonish. My hope is, by pressing into this we can increase forum activity for all and that we all have a better experience discussing the game.

    Thanks for all of your feedback, I am actively reflecting on it.


    2 people like this

  13. 3 minutes ago, bogol said:

    Please read my entire EDITED reply. 

    I read the points you have made, and they are good points. I am still not convinced, that it is enough to "call it good." We need a reset, in our whole approach in how things work here, and above everything, our mindset, mutually (CRS and the Community).

    This place can be a lot more valuable and inviting and productive, how do we do it?

  14. 6 minutes ago, bogol said:

    WTF? After I chill - might need a drink or two - I will read the rest of this post. But let me be blunt and say that. No matter what follows in the rest, the shock is too great to bare.  The fora were and always will be the best way to get the pulse of the game. A healthy fora means a healthy game. Also, how else are you all going to get a sense of what the community wants, if not through discussions in the forums? Oh, you say, via the RAT Chat? No... those are too constraining in so many ways I won't even start talking about. 
    Ok rant over, now I go read the rest of your post. But I don't have much hope...

    The forums indeed hold an important place for listening and understanding what the community wants, but there are some deep-rooted issues at our core that needs solving (in these forums). And I am bringing the elephant in the room to the forefront for review by us all.

    The forums are NOT supposed to be a place where players dump their demands and slap each other across the face because someone holds a different point of view. ~ In that light I hope you can better see what I am trying to say. Because it sure looks like, for the most part, that's what has become of it.

  15. 2 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

    Ot must remain let the mutants complain over historical ammo/angles of engagements/armor thickness/bias blah blah blah...ot must be the beacon no matter what happens....seriously negativity has been constant since i been playing and it will always be constant and 99% of it is not as serious as it looks its just ball breaking....i dont know of any person ingame that has unsubbed over forums posts it is always game/gameplay related which is not the forums fault...these forums hold alot of memories including those not with is anymore while social media posts can disappear a day after without people even seeing it....i vote to keep em

    The question is not a vote whether to keep the forums or not, the question is what the forums are going to mean for the game, short and long-term. The forums regardless of our historical memories are on the pathway to becoming obsolete. I have tried to start the dialogue in isolating a couple of very high level known issues that most of us should acknowledge quickly and say, Yes those are definitely legit.

    The forums don't have the same value they used to, there's a reason for that, and it comes down to the culture and conduct within here. How do we improve on both of those here in these game forums?

    The data, not opinion or belief, shows that forum activity is extraordinarily low and that most users are not engaging. WHY? And then, how do we (as a whole community) solve that?

  16. S! WWII Online Community Members, I want to take this opportunity to address something heavy and related to the very core of our gaming community. It has been bothering me for a while, and it's now time to have a round table discussion. Hear me out for a moment.

    I hate to say it, but from my perspective, the forums are on the pathway to becoming obsolete. At one point this was the single greatest place for all of us to come together to discuss the game and its future, it was a primary communications hub and I just don't feel that anymore. It is disappointing, but it might be something we can correct.

    There are a few things that come to mind as to why that is, and it's going to be a bit blunt, but I think we need to be direct in trying to solve this problem - if there's still time to do so.

    The first major problem is: NEGATIVITY

    It seems like the forums have turned into a soapbox where all of the latest complaints go. While that is to be expected to some degree, it is not supposed to be that exclusively.

    Second major problem is: MINIMAL-NO PROACTIVE DIALOGUE

    While CRS is actively pursuing solutions to the known problems of the game and reporting on that through our home page announcements, we're not seeing a high degree of proactive dialogue underway. CRS has never been more transparent in communicating with folks, but there's an obvious disconnect from my position, and that my team is primarily responding to problems rather than talking with you about great things coming.

    We have a team full of problem solvers who want to do well, I'm not throwing them (or anyone) under the bus. But somehow, the normalcy of these forums has turned into a fire fighting job rather than creating a great out of game experience. I think everyone is responsible for that, and it happens when we realize that we're all here because we love the game and have the best intentions to see that go forward.

    The third major problem is: TOTAL LACK OF RESPECT TO PEERS

    I think everyone is guilty of losing their cool at some point (raises hand), but there is a massive lack of respect, followed by a total over-reaction if you step out of line (as in attack another community member, staff member, or some other TOS violation).

    The fourth major problem is: WE'VE ALL BEEN HERE AWHILE

    Kind of like in a marriage, it's important to be working at it with good intentions 110% of the time otherwise things can degrade. We are blessed to have so many people who have been part of our game stick around and actively contribute and stay subscribed ~ seriously, it's awesome.

    But in some cases, this has turned into a chip on the shoulder and a right of passage to go full-tilt on rage against fellow members of our community. And to further that, the software and rage against CRS. This makes community members less likely to participate in the forums because it creates a hostile environment, and removes the incentive for our Community Managers to engage because there's a bit of being gun-shy. Yes, they're people too and while they have signed up to help support the community, they didn't get signed up to be treated like trash and it makes them less likely to engage.

    So I ask you, how do we keep the forums from becoming obsolete?

    We're on that path now, I can see it. Our Facebook group has a whole different atmosphere to it and our fans are having a great time with it. The hostility doesn't exist and everyone is more engaged.

    Where do you stand, what can we do? I genuinely want for this place to be valuable, like it was for everyone, and I want the tone to go from hostile arguing and constant complaints to people having a safe place to be part of our community in a positive way (you know like discussing how to make the game better and helping each other).

    WWII Online is the best gaming community I've ever been apart of and I want our core to be preserved and improved. These forums are very much connected to that core and it pains me to see its current state.

    3 people like this

  17. 3 hours ago, snpscout said:

    Throw me in as infantry where needed.

    Username : Snpscout

    Email : kevinmiken@gmail.com

    Got you in as KG Xoom, Spec Op XO. 

    3 hours ago, Kilemall said:

    I am working til 0300 in the AM, so don't know that I can make it.  General assignment.

    Got you in as Inf.

    3 hours ago, icemanmg said:

    put me in as PZ Commander or wherever needed

    Got you in as a PZ Commander. Check roster.