snipey

Registered Users
  • Content count

    520
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

snipey last won the day on June 18

snipey had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

22 Green Tag

About snipey

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday
  1. Join JG51 for German or 4wing allied. Then get on comms on discord with your respective side. All pilots are pretty helpful. Good luck!
  2. Who cares who wins? Everything resets and you know what? You get to do the same war with sitting in the same building with a flag on it all over again. Time to stop worrying about the mentality of winning and losing a game that has little competitive parameters. This is a simulation. It's about the battle, not the war. If your side is losing, you can't control it unless you play 24/7 and dictate who plays what side. Why for the love of God does everyone make a big deal about winning or losing a map that lasts weeks or months just to feel good about winning a map that has no reward or progression system? Just play whatever side you want. I for one only play axis. I prefer to play German equipment in every game I play. I think allied side is boring. That's just my preference. In turns out that most the axis dedicated players have always been more skilled on average in this game than your average allied player. That's just how it happened when this game hit the shelves. No need to quit playing or change sides just to even the amount of times a side wins or loses. Most of all, changing the effectiveness of equipment with the objective of side balance should not be happening either. This has nothing to do with my side bias. If I was an allied player, I would be equally disgusted if I could be invincible in a Matilda or fly a bomber that takes more hits than a tank. It's a simulation. Not an e-sports match. I think that a lot of the vets being dedicated to axis throughout the history of this game is purely in spite of the fact that it's the harder side to play. That or, they are like me and are complete wehraboos. More experienced and better organized squads rolled the map in early wars on the axis side? The reaction was to nerf rather than improve the gameplay. That was the mentality of early CRS. They thought that the allies winning more campaigns would make for a better gaming experience. But in return, it angered the player base over the years and has pushed people away because you are not simulating battles realistically, you are just trying to please people who get caught up on a trivial aspect of the game. My fond memories back in the early day was being a rifleman in the open terrain with Section II and staying alive for hours, I really never cared about winning or losing the map. I just logged on to have fun with my squad and employ good tactics when I played. Several years ago when XOOM took the helm, I had hoped that direction of side balance would change to improving the immersion and simulation of the game, but I'm not really sure the direction has changed. But it's not over yet, the mindset can still change and we can make it happen. Just need to flip the script and be our own game instead of trying to compete with games we can't compete with. I really do feel for the current CRS. As someone who thinks in the real world of business and marketing, I know it's rough. I am very thankful to all the hard work and labor of love the volunteer staff puts into the game as well as the subscribers and builders that support it. I know negativity comes out more than praises, but hey we are men with testosterone in our blood and we are playing a game packed with adrenaline. Anger is usually our first emotion. I just think that CRS as a whole going back to the early days lost sight of how to captivate the magic of this game. I mean, Post Scriptum is a beautiful and competitive version of this game on a small scale, but if you look at their servers, they are hurting in population themselves. There just ins't a big market for hardcore WW2 FPS. Hell Let Loose pretty much betrayed their backers and are trying to make it even more casual so far to attract that battlefield crowd. People cried that they had to walk too far, so they added more spawn points. People cried that there were too many objectives, so they made it linear. People cried that suppression was too much, so they made it non-existent. Gamers like us are just a dying breed. You gotta go against the grain and just embrace it. Be your own game. Let the soy boys play their fortnite. The grand strategy of pushing the map is just meant to roleplay the immersion of tactical play directed by a given strategic situation when the player logs into the game. Yeah it was pretty fun when I played HC. It was fun to move flags around and simulate armchair general in a way. But even that has taken a step back. Now this garrison system has made it even more stale in terms of being a high command officer. If I joined HC, what would I do? Switch an AO and sit in a building with a flag on it. When I can't capture that building with a flag on it fast enough, I just change the AO hoping to rush a different building with a flag on it quicker than the defender is able to react. Most the time it just comes down to a zerg rush mentality and spawn camping. Like I said, the current objective system is more fulfilling on other game titles than this. But, it's the scale of the game and the fundamental system of a sense of realism that gives us an advantage. It just needs to be improved upon and made the focus. Honestly, winning or losing the war has no effect on my ability to get out there and have fun. I mean, look at the German operations of Citadel and the Watch on the Rhine or the allied operations of Overlord and Market Garden. Germany was already fighting a losing battle, but these battles that happened late war are some of the most fascinating and fun experiences to simulate. When the map is almost over and you are defending one of the last german towns with a panzershrek trying to kill as many shermans as possible, it's like you are some volkgrenadier somewhere on the Siegfried line just prolonging the inevitable. You likely won't win the map, and who cares? But you are playing and fighting a fun simulation. At least that's how I think of it. Yes I'm a competitive gamer. You put me in a match of Post Scriptum or Hell Let Loose, yeah I'm going to try to win. But those are timed matches with sensible parameters and the battle only lasts a couple of hours at most. They are different games than this. WW2OL can never be those games. It's not meant to be those games. We could focus more on just having fun battles and simulating them if we abandoned this stale objective system and made the game more about tactical situations rather than giving a damn about who wins or loses. But who am I kidding? Even if anyone agrees with some of the points I've made, the ship has probably sailed and from a developmental standpoint, making changes now is probably impossible. CRS does what CRS does and the rivalry and endless bickering over who wins the maps will probably never end until the server shuts down for good. I'll still continue on. I'll get emotional, praise the good, rant about the bad, and contemplate whether to play or not on a daily basis. I just hope that whatever keeps the game alive and enjoyable is found because yall are okay in my book whatever the outcome. It's just a game.
  3. The game boils down to sitting in a building with a flag. What do the vets do? Sit in buildings with flags or drive trucks to put down a bunker with a flag so that you can walk to the building with the flag quicker. This is your game in a nutshell. WW2OL. Your .5 scale map of Europe be damned, it's all pointless. It's all about the same god damned building with a flag on it. Then you have the case of people moaning about losing the war of sitting in buildings with flags on it. So people quit playing and game changes become a debate and players switch sides all in order to balance the number of times a certain side wins the war of sitting in the same god damn [censored] building with a flag on it. This game is the special Olympics without a participation trophy if you think about it.
  4. I disagree, the focus has not been logistic or realism. It has been about trying to balance sides and cater toward the casual crowd. It's been about trying to make this a fast paced red vs. blue game trying to make it so that both sides are "balanced" when that should not be the focus. Should be simulation in my opinion. Either way, you can't compete with modern games that cater toward that. That's also not what WW2OL was intended to be. Or at least that was never my impression. Early days was full of people who wanted to simulate realistic world war 2 battles. Not spawn in a mobile spawn and run and gun over capture points. Just my 2 cents.
  5. Post Scriptum is truely a great game. But it suffers from a small player base too. It's map is still WW2OL light and it still has a simplistic approach to capture point objective system. However, their ticket system makes it a little bit more about attrition, which I like. Unfortunately though, those are not 4wing or JG51 flying overhead. Those are AI called in by a commander. It just doesn't seem to feel the same. Lacks the scale and magic. In the end, you are just fighting small arcade matches. But damn are those waffen SS uniforms sexy. Props on posting the panzer general campaign Kilemall. Now go play panzer corps grand campaign and come back to me months later if you make it through half of it. I'm looking forward to Panzer Corps 2, but I don't think it will capture the magic of Panzer General 2.
  6. Good old section II. I remember those little bushes we would kneel in around nearly every FB. It was so hard to be seen in those. Add that with no muzzle flash, we were like ghosts.
  7. In retrospect, the thing that made this game great was opening up a large map of immense scale. You watch any youtube video of people trying it out, and that is the first thing that they are amazed by. It's the SCALE! Ever since the brigade system, we mostly just have CP battles. I understand the move in that direction, it's what the majority of gamers wanted. They wanted to jump into the action quick. But this severely crippled the scale of your game by making combat focused on small areas of the map. It's the same criticism I have for all modern FPS games. I've been playing a newer game called Hell Let Loose. I also picked up Post Scriptum, another squad based game only a year old. They have decent sized maps, but the mentality of the gamer is just to spawn at the closest point and rush into combat like it's call of duty. These games don't give incentive to spread out onto the field. Why? Because of the focus of capturing small points on the map. They do the same thing WW2OL does, give the gamer the option to just rush into instant combat from local spawn points. The rest of the map, is for the most part, never used. Games like Hell Let Loose, Post Scriptum, ect... if you read comments, people always complain about walking. They hate having patience and tactics. I think patient players are what made this game great. It was the magic we once experienced. The scouting and the reward of actually finding the enemy on a massive map and eliminating him. Coming across a group of EI between a town and FB, not a stream of people spawning from an FMS. Modern gamers will call any FPS that involves more than a couple minutes of walking a "walking simulator" and that is always how that audience will view your game. That audience is and was always meant to be playing games like call of duty and battlefield. They want to log in for a few minutes and have thick brainless action. Not tactically employ their brains in the sprawling fields of europe on a large scaled map. So, screw them. You can't keep up with their instant gratification simulator. Your engine is outdated. Your graphics are weak. But you still have a big map. There still is a small niche of tactical gamers that like to be patient and employ tactics and scale. That RTS gamer that wants to get on the ground in a simulation. Tons of potential for strategy and tactics. Use it. Give incentive for more fighting in the field . I say reduce the amount of spawn points. Depots are boring. Fighting over CP buildings are boring. I can get that in any other game that does it better. What I can't get in those games, are large scaled maneuvers across a big map. Let's bring back tactical patience and slow down the combat. Let's get people walking between cities and driving trucks full of infantry again. Let's get paradrops actually being worth while again. Let's use this big map we have and get the fights out in the field more. Right now, it seems like every game in this genre of military FPS simulation, is nothing but Spawn and Capture Point online. It should be more about SEARCH AND DESTROY. I know all these things I've said are easier said than done, but I would just like to point out that WW2OL has a strength that no other game has: It's scale. Use it. Stop trying to be like those other arcade games and flip the script. Just a food for thought. I know back in the old days we had a big population and we are hanging on by a thread here in terms of player base. But you are fighting a losing battle by trying to be like other games. You have to use your strength. Then, if you can show what makes a big scaled MMO like this special, then who knows? Maybe someone would back the game for a 2.0?
  8. 2001 on my Dad's account, 2002 on my own account. I joined section II and just played rifleman. I miss Dr. Cairo, Dajammer, Scottman, and all those guys. I think Scottman still is floating around on the allied side sometimes?
  9. I'm not talking about historical deployment or equipment. This game will never be historical in terms of grand strategy or deployment. I'm talking about damage models and equipment. Axis equipment has been nerfed since 2001. What I'm saying is the answer has always been to make this game balanced to help allies win more campaigns. You can't control who plays more or the quality of players that plays a side. In the old CRS days the answer was to always nerf axis equipment. Not much has changed in that regard. Same song and dance for years. The game should not be about winning campaigns. Should be about having equipment and simulation that makes sense in terms of what they did on the battlefield historically.
  10. Problem with the game since the early years has been that changes are made to balance sides for the sake of winning campaigns. Focus more on the simulation and design rather than balance. The entire game's history has been a snowball effect of "help allies win more." Now you have equipment that is "overpowered" and a fantasy with horrible damage models. You can't and never will control who plays which side. Let the cards fall where they are and cut the bias for the sake of balancing one side or the other.
  11. On the subject of FMS. When you are mission leader, how do you "pull it" because nobody ever answers this question every time I've asked in game.
  12. Hey! I was in that Opel! I was reversing hoping to block you from putting down an FMS. I was trying to bring you closer to our FB so I could despawn and grab something to kill you!
  13. Doc is usually quite active on these boards, maybe he's hiding because all the old timers are back?
  14. On the subject of the operation itself: My knowledge is not really that extensive on the subject, but here is a documentary from a youtube gamer's channel that I keep up with. He just recently made this documentary on Market Garden, which surprisingly, I thought was pretty well done for somebody who mainly puts out gaming content. Part 1/8 (click on it or his youtube channel to find the rest of it) ZMxgSp8fors His channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfZz8F37oSJ2rtcEJHM2kCg