XOOM

CORNERED RAT
  • Content count

    10,888
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

Posts posted by XOOM


  1. Recently the Community Management and Quality Assurance team conducted a series of important tests and found some bugs that need correction. Those have since been ticketed for our developers and they're now working on them.

    Recent ticketed items in progress include...

    1. Town ownership issue when restarting game cluster (flipped to the other side)
    2. Joining a Garrison mission from the Active Battles Tab not working
    3. Dots identifying units in a town (UI) reporting an extra
    4. Capturing a Garrison and creating a new mission from it would show enemy supply
    5. Pocket (Surrender mechanism) related rear Garrison issue

    These have been issued out for assignment and our developers are currently debugging. Then this will go back to our QA and CM team to confirm and make sure it's resolved. 

    My goal here is to maintain transparency with you guys and re-affirm attention and considerable focus is being given to push 1.36 to completion. Will report more as we go along.

    4 people like this

  2. 3 hours ago, lutenint said:

    I think they're arguing semantics, obviously you cannot sprint and fire with any weapon. The run and gun is when you're sprinting through a cp/ab with an LMG and stop holding down shift (still holding down W to move though) and then spray while moving. Just because you're not holding down shift when firing doesn't mean there's not an inherent advantage of getting close and still moving while firing in a short amount of time. The LMG and especially the fire rate of the German LMG just decimates those in front of it regardless of the minimal climb/recoil, your target will be gone with simply holding down the fire button. 

    This is no doubt achieved with the Bren and FM24/29 on the Allied side. Regardless of how you slice it, it's just not great for game play. It doesn't work to improve anyone's experience except for the person exploiting the keys in the fashion that they do. It's gamey across the board.

    2 people like this

  3. Look, the LMG fix is coming because there's an obvious immersion killing issue at play. It's not because the Allies don't like the MG34, and it doesn't permit the initiation of a witch hunt of weaponry that you die from routinely. 

    I have said it very clearly: We are not going out of our way to target weapons, as being described in the case of the Modello or other weaponry that may be receiving some thoughts on.

    So stop right there with this seeking to sway the development or production team to make intentional biased oriented tweaks that fit your goals and desires.

    4 people like this

  4. On 2/20/2019 at 4:56 PM, ian77 said:

    This is worrying me, I keep finding myself agreeing with Merlin51, Aismov, and Jwilly........ I need to find a thread about too few panzers and too many Matties to get my mojo running properly once more!

    This gave me a pretty good laugh LOL :D.

    It is during these times we find out just how close we are as a community and how hanging on, being patient and not assuming the worst can get us through.

    Let's not lose sight that we have a really excellent game and community, that is a family. And like all families, sometimes we disagree. It's getting through it and coming out stronger that makes us different.

    5 people like this

  5. 28 minutes ago, gavalink said:

    When this subject came up (again), I got on the training server with an axis lmg and tried to run and fire. It couldn't be done, neither could reloading be done. Can someone make a video demonstrating running and firing with a lmg?

    Sprinting with the LMG and firing indeed does not work.

    However because our standard W key really acts like a jog (not a walk, which is W+T), I think that may be what they're referring to.

    2 people like this

  6. No other changes to these weapons other then that has been described by me here will accompany the LMG class.

    As I’ve said the small arms audit will see some modifications / enhancements but will be released in full and will cover all the infantry weapons. Some limited testing on this has made things better.

    3 people like this

  7. 3 minutes ago, ian77 said:

    Got to agree.

    I suggested in another thread that we don't have side chat as a default for new players to shelter them from some of the bile.

    Not enough players have tried playing both sides, too many think the other side is easy mode without really ever trying it out.

    CRS are not biased, neither side is designed to be easy mode, but axis OP may make it seem that way.

    Much of the toxicity comes from senior vets and some HC (both sides) who should know better, and set an example.

    We need to call BS in chat when we see it.

    S! ian

    It’s closing in on that time to offload the bs for sure. My team and I are doing everything we can to stay patient and realize the passion involved here. But the levels some guys are going is beyond reasonable.

    The side chat thing... definitely looking at removing that as a default channel.

    3 people like this

  8. Just now, xanthus said:

    Aw shucks, I'll resub. For better or worse, I'm with ya.

    This means more than you can understand right now. I really appreciate your willingness to stay with us.

    To anyone who is feeling the same, please speak up. Come talk to me. I will make a point to communicate and hear you, and express my gratitude for your continued support.

    WWII Online's continuation is dependent on all of us. We cannot give up. If you do that, we'll lose :(.

    #staythecourse

    3 people like this

  9. Well, instead of bailing... what do you recommend we do? I won't argue that there's no doubt some toxicity and it's eroding things (we really need to get that checked). We don't want to be too heavy handed of course, but we also can't have some folks stomping all over the place. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't in most cases.

    It can't all be on CRS's plate to ask for civility, that's just something that we do. And fwiw, this community is still far superior than any I can think of out there. We have some great people here and I am glad to have had the experience of being one of you all. It helps me understand and guide me.

    But surely we can do better, and I think that's what you're advocating for.

    4 people like this

  10. 1 minute ago, blakeh said:

    oh i hope you are not serious about this.   The BAR was the standard SAW of US infantry squads in WW2.  The 1919a4 was issued to paratroop forces because it was felt they needed more firepower.  While some 1919a4' .30 cals may have ended up in regular infantry units, it was not the norm.   There is a lot of talk about historical realism, so we should really try and follow it.

    Also, providing regular US infantry units with a firepower they in reality did not exist, is a little unfair to the axis side in game.  I can live with the fg-42 being in standard german infantry units, despite that they too were only issued to para units, if this makes the axis happy.

    The BAR is not going away. I am simply saying right now it is supplementing LMG numbers for US Forces due to their lack of a proper LMG (which is the reason of the 30 caliber) in the first place.

    So it is a very reasonable expectation to have that there would be some alterations made to undo the current work around to give US Forces some semblance of an LMG. That shouldn't be taken out of context any further and is very fair / reasonable.

    2 people like this

  11. 18 minutes ago, xanthus said:

     

    @XOOM

    All fair points, but this is not accurate (presumably a bug?).

    When I try to log in after my premium subscription expired, I get a message saying something to the effect that my subscription is expired and my account can no longer log into the game world.

    EDIT: Just checked. I get a message in red text saying "Your subscription is not currently active." and it won't let me proceed.

    icrSo2b.png

    Hmm well it should've been done, I know thousands of users received access to it. We're more than happy to add that access accordingly if someone fits into that category.

    1 person likes this

  12. 13 minutes ago, gavalink said:

    The FG42 saps stamina so quickly, I avoid it if I have to move far and/or fast. Also, I avoid it if far from resupply because it eats up ammo so quickly.

    Not sure on stamina off the top of my head. It had a high ROF. My favorite WWII weapon.

    1 person likes this

  13. Just to be sure here... the M1919A6 will fall into the same category as the LMG's we've already outlined and will not be possible to be rambo'd around. If that was already understood, great, just being painfully certain that the main message is being received by all readers properly.

    1 person likes this

  14. So I hopped on channel with @xcas and he asked me a great question:

    Xcas: "What about firing while prone / undeployed?"

    I went in and tested it... so I updated my main post to include the following:

    "One exception is being stationary, and looking left - right, and up-down. You can shoot and reload and provide stationary 360 degree hip fire cover or suppression, should you choose."

    And I am okay with that btw, so no intent to make a change there.

    2 people like this

  15. I've been really thrilled and impressed by how this has progressed. It shows the amazing advancements in technology coming into our world. 

    I'd also like to publicly commend and express a high level of appreciation to @markec for taking the initiative and demonstrating the quality capability of a new "Free Player" and how they can be a useful contributing member to our game community. An example for us all.

    S! 

    6 people like this

  16. 1 hour ago, rote7 said:

    Now now ... now you are insinuating. If i wanted to be smug I would say that I am simply interested in historical correctness but I won't descend to that. ;o)

    Since the whole argument seemed to be centered around the weight of the weapons I was simply curious why the, weight wise admittely somewhat inbetween, BAR is not classified as an LMG even if the official US army doctrine called it an automatic squad support weapon.

    Also, as csm said, the BAR is available in much greater numbers than the FG42 (which is historically correct)  but I fear we will have heated discussions in a few weeks about bunker rushing BARs while the MG34 can't do that anymore and there are not enough FG42s to counter that.

    I mean it seemed like a logical progression, but if you're not, then awesome. :) 

    So regarding the supply... at this point in time, these LMG fixes are not live. I will ask our guys working on the supply numbers, to factor this into their thoughts and consideration. We are committed to providing a balanced game and that does not come in the form of 1:1 ratio for numbers as there's so many different underlying factors that truly create the term: balance.

    That said, I think we can find some wiggle room here to make sure we're being fair about things. I again do not foresee a 1:1 ratio between BAR's and FG42's, but automatics to automatics can likely be done.

    @OHM @Bmbm Please consider the above when this goes live.

    2 people like this

  17. 12 minutes ago, csm308 said:

    So, the BAR goes away when the M1919A6 gets in game, right?

    VR

    I foresee (but please don't quote me because we have other guys working on supply numbers) that the need to supplement the BAR's for US Forces will drop, and the .30 cal will take on the full role of US LMG. Hang in there man. Like I said, we got something cooking to help.

    1 person likes this

  18. 2 minutes ago, rote7 said:

    Is the weight difference BAR vs. FG42 taken into account when calculating stamina loss and inertia?

    I would have to review the data to be sure about this, but I am pretty sure that stamina consideration is already accounted for on a per-weapon basis.

    I will tell you, as I have in this thread, I do not intend to target weapons and intentionally nerf them. I understand your point and seeking to level the playing field, don't get me wrong. But you're on the path of validating a vengeance and that is not at all how we came to this decision for the entire LMG class.

    1 person likes this

  19. 8 minutes ago, rote7 said:

    So the BAR is almost twice as heavy as the FG42 and still considered as maneuverable?

    Well it's not quite half but it's still 10lbs lighter than the other LMG weaponry. I wouldn't say it's "as maneuverable," but more so than the other LMG's where these changes are being applied to.

    1 person likes this

  20. 30 minutes ago, Psych0 said:

    BAR is an automatic rifle. hints the name Browning Automatic Rifle

    Just as the fg42 isnt on the list.

    The BAR and FG42 carry the same designation as each other in our game which is the Automatic Rifleman. If the insinuation is to go after the BAR, we're not going to do that. The above example describes other Squad mates managing the supply for the BAR, while the FG42 is actually being referred to as an LMG itself. That argument almost makes it look more like the FG42 should be placed into the same pool as the LMG... but we're not going to do that. The FG42 was around 9.3-10lbs depending on the configuration and was easy to reload and highly maneuverable. Knowing you all have seen the movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and the "Band of Brothers" series, among likely many online videos, the M1918A2 BAR represented in-game was pretty maneuverable as well weighing in at only about 16 pounds. Please note: These Hollywood movies are not the basis of our decisions... it was the easiest example I could give to illustrate a point.

    The FM24, Bren and MG34 have been WWII Online's Lightmachine Gun's for probably the last 15 years-ish, and they're all receiving the same unbiased treatment. The Allied 30 caliber coming in, will also fall into that category and receive the same automatically.

    1 person likes this