• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by XOOM

  1. At this time these changes do not open up an additional channel selection. Those are a bit more heavy duty than we're ready to tackle at the moment.

    I can appreciate some hesitation expressed about it and I understand that for years the Side channel has turned into a defacto dump-all comms into it. That's largely part of the reason we're stepping back to emphasize OPS usage and localized chat.

    If you want to tune side chat and stay on it, that's up to you and that choice can be made at any time.

    @Kilemall asking CRS to increase moderation will result into further backlash from players. I of course encourage peer correction (self policing) where ever possible as you see fit and appropriate. These changes at this time are necessary and will go forward.

  2. In the near future we'll be updating our default chat channels to include the following:

    • F1: Mission
    • F2: Target
    • F3: Origin
    • F4: Squad
    • F5: Operations
    • F6: Help

    The big change comes from resetting F3 from side to origin. We want users who spawn from the same town to work together, hence "origin" chat. 

    Operations will therefore become the Global "Operations / Organization" channel. It will be very focused and High Command officers and veterans should have it tuned to work together and share mission invitations, battle planning and other operationally important information.  CRS will be working hard to make sure the new users understand what this channel is and how it is valuable to them. It will therefore become the new staple of operational organization for your side globally.

    What will happen to Side channel?

    Side channel, will still be available for you to tune should you choose. But do note, that upon deployment of this update, everyone's default channel listing will look like the above. It will override your current selection to make sure we properly reset the standard globally. Again, you can easily modify your channel selection as you see fit.

    Side channel will continue to be somewhat of an undefined "General Discussion" channel where users discuss a variety of topics. 

    This is part of an effort to keep comms centralized and focused on the best game play and community support experience we have to offer. We want new users to receive guidance and for veteran players in their local area to help them out. New users joining our game should feel comfortable and optimistic about their new experience learning about WWII Online as we all have over the years.

    This channel selection puts them in the best position to be exposed to helpful targeted information that gets them into the organized game experience faster.

    1 person likes this

  3. 4 hours ago, caydel said:

    Just to get back to side channel for a second - I have to assume that it's used differently on Axis and Allied.

    On the Allied side, it's the way that side-wise coordination happens. Sure, there's some OT talk, but I've never really noticed it being 'poisonous' the way @XOOM indicated. I'm sure we could do something like replace 'Side' with 'Ops' for team-wide Coordinator, but the OT discussion would follow there as well. In other words, I'm not sure detuning or removing 'Side' would really impact things.

    The only thing I can see is moderating OT discussion into a separate channel... but most players would still tune it, as that is the lifeblood of our in-game community.

    Most players will still likely detune it, but we'll be resetting the default channel selections to prevent new users from being affected by it.

    I'll provide some more clarity on this very shortly so you can understand better. We have another patch not too far out and I'll discuss it there.

  4. 3 hours ago, choad said:

    IMO breaking up the large towns makes it much much easier for low pop times to take a large town. They take one part of it ... move a flag in, and are well positioned to take the next piece, where their armor and trucks only have to drive a small fraction of the distance. Plus .... fewer flags for attackers to cover. Defenders really only need to hold certain key points to keep the town from changing hands., whereas attackers need to keep all that they cap regardless of it is some pointless cp.

    That seems to be the case. The hopeful intention at the time of introducing this was to make the fighting much more difficult and bring action closer, to aggregate more people in tighter zones so they could see each other instead of walking around all of Antwerp on foot without seeing a whole lot. 

  5. 5 hours ago, dre21 said:

    Huh?  The US Forces their own set of factories? 

    What do you mean by that?

    They way I read that it makes no sense, the US had no factories in Europe .

    I meant that the Americans need a factory equivalent of some sort, could be a depot or warehouse facility. Point is, something like that needs to exist so we can more appropriately integrate them into the total campaign experience.

  6. Just now, Silky said:

    Breaking up Ant and Brussels has changed the ebb and flow of the initial parts of each campaign. When might we expect Lux and Liege to be deconstructed into smaller chunks?

    Not currently on the books. I don't really want to break up all of the big towns, we did want to add some variety for others however. Can't really provide much detail beyond that. Right now I am more concerned with getting the US Forces their own set of factories in terms of terrain development.

    1 person likes this

  7. 6 hours ago, Jsilec said:

    I think a small change in starting lines would be welcome instead of fighting over same towns at map start every campaign...

    This is definitely something we've discussed. I'd like to see some updates to it as well to avoid monotony. 

    Perhaps even, we can consider who ever won the last campaign, might start a little behind their normal starting line (not excessive, but a little). Regardless, we definitely want to keep things enjoyable and not too routine.

    2 people like this

  8. All of that said, every member part of our CRS team, does care deeply about not just the game, but its community. So we strive to do the best we can. We fall short on occasion, but we try to make up for that. Perfection is not promised. But consistency, not giving up, and staying positive about the future are things we've been able to hone in well.

    2 people like this

  9. 9 hours ago, Capco said:

    That's kind of how I view the forums tbh.  

    That's exactly how I feel about it as well. And as I mentioned above, we're open to that. But we need to keep the game fun and separate some of those comms. It's simply correcting and establishing new standards for the heath and benefit of the game.

    Side channel really isn't productive, it's a quick vent and gets quickly lost and forgotten. We can't act on that sort of stuff. Typing a .report does get logged but similarly doesn't offer us the ability to interact with and move a discussion into something actionable. 

    3 people like this

  10. I'd also like to point out, that the quote I have made above, is exactly the stuff that shuts down my willingness to read and respond to @david06. When your persona becomes an agitator, writing hip-fire responses that are unproductive, you lose credibility. 

    You're responsible for putting structure and thought into your posts, if you want an appropriate (or any) response back. Communication is a two way street.

  11. 11 minutes ago, david06 said:

    also lol @ resolving the side chat problem, maybe there should be more concern about the former builders posting long, extremely negative reviews that sit at the top of the Steam reviews than a text channel that has 35-50 viewers

    We do what is possible to work on those reviews, and with Zebbeee as our Steam Community Manager, we often go even further these days to try and connect with those users. We have been able to meet some of the requests but we certainly can't fulfill them all.

    In terms of the side channel, it is a toxic place. It's a place to aggregate frustration and open ranting against other players, bias, or cheats what ever it may be at that given time. We have people who are showing up to the game and reading this, and they walk right out the door. We have veterans, who don't want to hear about this and just want to enjoy their time with us.

    Any opportunity to produce improvements to the game and community is our priority.

  12. On 3/6/2019 at 9:58 AM, enemytank said:

    In my country has a popular saying that says:
    "Dirty laundry is washed at home"
    that is, the domestic problems must be solved in the house and not in other people's homes
    I'm watching players post their sorrows on outside forums,
    This is not good.
    But why are they posting in external forums?
    I asked some who did this and the answer was the same:
    We can not post in the CRS forum. We are deleted or banned /
    suspended from the forum.
    Would not it be the case to change the rules of the forum?
    Let complain, cry, put your hurt (no personal offenses and racism etc ...) here in our forum.
    Let's settle things here!
    I think it would be a lot better.

    Where there are no contestants there is no progress
    If everyone agrees with everything, nothing will change.

    CRS needs to lose fear or lose players.


    Our team has been extremely lenient over the years with a multitude of hardcore attacks against us, as described by Elfin, which exceed any sort of normal sense. Being here in these forums is a privilege. We want to engage in discussion with you all, even if we don't agree with what you're saying, we hear you out and want to come to some sort of common ground. We can't always do that, compromises are made where possible, otherwise things happen pragmatically. 

    The Rats including my predecessors have been very open to discussion more than any other developer I've engaged with. I've tried to continue that tradition and have personally been on the frontlines, because I know as a player what it means to see the "Head Rat" out there talking. Not long ago that wasn't a thing, I hope you guys find it valuable as I do enjoy it (mostly :D) and recognize more so the need to be transparent and communicative.

    My leadership within CRS might give you a some clues on the environment that I try to cultivate. First, it's inclusive: opinions that are constructive and intended to produce a good outcome for all MATTER. Second, I am capable of admitting that I don't have the right idea always. You can see that demonstrated with the initial implementation of 1.36, I budged, greatly against my own code of not having move-able flag supply. I stopped, listened, processed and agreed. Third, I intentionally do not surround myself around YES-MEN. This doesn't help me stay balanced or therefore my decision making process. Yeah it can get brutal at times, but I appreciate strong people who step up and say what they believe / who have good intent.

    Now to the subject at hand: Everyone has an opinion. Not everyone is capable of demonstrating those practices as described (inclusiveness, accountability, appreciation of differing opinions). Stating an opinion does not mean it's the right way to go. Saying it louder, with some four letter words, doesn't change our mind. Saying it louder and losing your ability to have a productive discussion (aka: toxicity) typically ends up in a break from here. Why do we do that? Because the people who are here don't want to see someone who gets toxic and turns into a WWII Online basher.

    I have said this before and I truly mean it... we don't intentionally go out of our way to displease anyone, or not listen to you and your specific opinion. We value our entire community, and it is our duty to protect the community. Yes... our community expects us to do something about people who are ruining their experience.

    The question should be: Why is it unattainable for these people to have a productive civil discussion? Why can't they restrain themselves from losing it? If they haven't tried to have a discussion with us, they might be pleasantly surprised in how we respond, providing they don't go full ape crap on us. That won't last very long, and we can't.

    You want to encourage the productive and discourage the destructive. Isn't that just common sense?

    Managing a gaming community can be pretty difficult. Just be sure to know that there's two sides to every story, and not everything you hear is accurate. We're a forgiving company and want only the very best for our community and game. We share this project with you guys immensely in a way that no other developer that I can see does. Because we value the entire experience with you that much. Honor that, take pride in it, but don't take it fore-granted, please. S! 

    8 people like this

  13. I think the general statement I can make here is, anything that we can consider at CRS to improve player fun, happiness, therefore retention and conversion, is worth consideration and discussion. Therefore I have asked our team internally to discuss and review this topic. 

    By saying this, it's purely an acknowledgement, nothing more. 

    4 people like this

  14. S! WWIIOL Community,

    We're getting awfully close to 1.36 Hybrid Supply coming to CLOSED BETA. We'll be inviting our Builders and High Command officers simultaneously to try it out, for up to a week, and we have a hopeful goal to be in CLOSED BETA of 1.36 by the end of this month, March. Barring any major item popping up, we reserve the right to be in April if required on this. But that's our goal, end of this month - YES it is getting closer!

    Our developers and testers have been working on this hardcore and understand how urgent it is to stabilize the WWII Online Campaign experience. So this should be wonderful news to you all.


    We'll be going into Open Beta immediately following Closed Beta / any fixes required during that time. Open Beta will be 1.36 deployment on the LIVE CAMPAIGN SERVER and will require a full-stop interruption of the Campaign. Regardless of the Campaign's state, when Open Beta is ready for deployment, we will be calling the Campaign to a DRAW. So be ready, you've got the heads up.

    The decision to place 1.36 on the Campaign server comes from me directly. Not to upset anyone, but to ensure maximum play-testing and getting you all up to speed with what is happening.

    Open Beta should be considered a "soft-release," and after that two week "burn-in" period, we'll be calling 1.36 officially live and run it alongside a Campaign.

    I need everyone to understand how important this is and be excited about what's before us. This is the most anticipated release of WWII Online in a very longtime, as it impacts the way the Campaign is played out. So we need maximum activity and positive / collaborative feedback rolling throughout. Everyone should be stoked who has been looking for this.


    Once we've passed Open Beta and our team has knocked out any last things that creeped up, we will go into the regular Campaign. We will run a "Welcome Back Soldier" so that all of our players can come back in and check things out, alongside our new product plan offers (which will be announced shortly).

    I hope you're ready - it's almost here!

    3 people like this

  15. 4 hours ago, krusty said:

    Imagine this scenario:  Brit brigade attacks German brigade for a few hours but supply runs low so they stop AO and switch town to French.  Meanwhile the German brigade is still depleted and won't be resupplied by lost units for over 12 hours.  Seems to me like a town should only be able to switch countries within the first 10 minutes of capture or X amount of hours after a DO or AO has been turned off which linked said town.  X being whatever the default resupply timer is.   Will there also be a system in place so there is always a minimum or percentage of towns from a country?

    We've done our best to consider how this can be gamed and not walk into this blindly. Have a little faith :)

    When the Allied forces change ownership of their town, there will be a penalty, and that is a total delay of supply trickling in. It should only be done if absolutely necessary.

    We originally discussed adding in a system in place to manage supply percentages by country type, but we don't think it'll be making the first iteration. Remember our original design of the game had a significant barrier between supply (North vs South). So we want to be careful and evaluate how things go upon initial implementation.

    It should be very safe to assume that the Allied player base will encourage their HC officers to provide different country supplies throughout the game world not just for the sake of diversity, but for their effectiveness. 

    1.36 being implemented as soon as possible and as clean as possible is the key goal here. We anticipate some minor corrections needed throughout BETA and even when it reaches the Campaign server (which for the first week or two will still be considered an OPEN BETA).

  16. On 2/26/2019 at 0:10 PM, xanthus said:

    FWIW, I recommend removing the head-shaking and text when attempting to fire an LMG while moving. I know it *seems* like this is a necessary prophylactic against player confusion, but it's really unnecessary. Players will intuit that they can't move while firing when it's obvious that they can't move while firing.

    Not to harp on other games, but it's worth mentioning that implementation of restrictions like these just doesn't involve text that flashes on the screen or an annoying involuntary POV-head-shake. Players (old and new) will quickly figure it out without these things.

    In fact, if anything, I predict a flood of angry posts from players on both sides once the LMG fix goes live; they'll be complaining about the fact that even an accidental mouse click now brings up unwanted text and an obnoxious head-shake unless they time their shooting *exactly* right. I realize that there's an argument that this could further serve to pigeon-hole the LMG into being used the way it was meant to be: deployed from a fixed position (the only reliable way to avoid the text and head-shake). Fair, but still, just as a question of elegant UI design and player experience, I still think the text and head-shake should be omitted....

    And while we're on the topic, the head-shake should be 100% eliminated from other situations too. Just totally unnecessary.


    I have not ever seen any commentary regarding the head shaking as a problem until this post. 

    It is the only tangible way that we currently have to let people know that what they're doing, is not an allowed action.

    So, I don't plan to rip it out. Solution: Don't spam an action you can't perform.

    2 people like this

  17. If we can stick to being civil and having a productive discourse in our communication, being respectful to all and with an intention to improve things... we can then have a much healthier game community and forum commentary.

    I'd like to also indicate, that on my exuberant off-time (Sarcasm alert :D) I have been scanning some other game forums.

    No where, not even kinda close... can I see the same level of attention that CRS Staff pays to its community to discuss the game with enthusiasm and candidness on the internet. I'm not saying it doesn't exist anywhere else as a 100% bullet proof statement, but please don't lose sight of just how important these communications are.

    When you're wearing this Rat tag, you're under constant bombardment from all angles. We accept that we have lots of passionate members of our community around us. One thing you guys (the community) now have working in your favor is that most of us were in your shoes first. So we understand how valuable those comms are even more so.

    But it is discouraging as hell after some point and it wears you down. Addressing the community in general, your individual conduct and keeping your cool / not going off the deep end is going to help with maintaining CRS being here in the forums and in the game world to happily answer your questions. Or the alternative is you can push the guys away from wanting to say stuff. Because that's how it goes after awhile.

    I think it all boils down to everyone maintaining enthusiasm about the game and the potential. Can we please not forget, so easily, how far we have come, how close we got to things coming to an end, and how grateful we should all be (yeah even us at CRS) that we still have this opportunity to go forward?

    The negative rhetoric is much louder than the positive support. I wish it were the reverse. We have a lot to be positive about after all. 

    2 people like this

  18. On 2/20/2019 at 10:38 AM, krazydog said:

    I am not sure what to call the FRU, but we used to call the truck MS just a “FRU” before the FMS came out.

    And we already can deploy these TFRUs (truck FRUs) right now in big cities like Antwerp.  - when you press Z - to deploy a FMS, just hit (Backspace) to toggle between the FMS, ammo box etc... and you will see the TFRU is right there too - its just not available anymore outside of big cities because Xoom wanted us to use the FMS only when it was a new thing in game.

    But the FMS is not so new anymore, so maybe we can have the Truck FRU back again as a fallback option to solve the new deployment issues with the FMS?

    To clarify...

    The Fortified Mobile Spawn (FMS) we thought would help sustain battles longer and the investment of deploying a mobile spawn. We've buffed it, added some Light ATG's and Light AA guns to be spawned from it so it could defend itself. 

    We provided several fortifications for players to use to deploy around it to keep it alive.

    We made the roof top recently the same as the top fo the gun emplacement to further conceal it from aerial bombardment.

    The FRU was converted into the UMS, Urban Mobile Spawn, with the purpose of allowing it to be placed in urban environments because it was more nimble and easily deployable around the buildings / terrain objects within cities.

    What recently changed with the FMS was the angle tolerance because of the reported issues of clipping - this part is correct. It was made harder to deploy because it was really bad scenarios where clipping occurred unfortunately.

    I'll think about the UMS being able to be deployed in the field again, but it would only be truck deployed. I wouldn't go back to having Infantry walking them up. The HC Mobile Spawn is an exception but is in limited form.

    1 person likes this

  19. On 2/19/2019 at 8:46 PM, thebacon said:


    We all have "Mission Leader Orders", /order.

    Anyway to add something like /OICorder which attaches its self to every mission in that brigade? Might help AO's and DO's.

    Even /HCorders might work too. List P1's and D1's.

    Just an idea. I am trying to think how we can get green tags to not just run around with their heads chopped off. 


    Anyway we can make a marker for the CP's on the map? Any vet player knows what buildings are what just by looking at the map. Greentags done. I am pretty sure they don't know where to go to cap most of the times.

    Just some suggestions.



    What we recently discussed was giving the option for Mission Leaders to place a special waypoint that shows up both on your game map, and on your Heads up Display (HUD) so you can see it like mission markers right now. But you could redeploy it as a mission leader as needed. We're hoping this will help those leaders better guide their soldiers. That would of course be able to be had in all branches.

    1 person likes this