ZEBBEEE

Registered Users
  • Content count

    4,177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by ZEBBEEE

  1. @Kilemall To add more targets for the bombers, we have added the ability for bombers to partially destroy a Forward Base. You will still need to get boots on the ground to finish it off, but bombs can now destroy the vehicle spawn and the others tents but can not damage the infantry spawn. This will also draw more bombers towards the FBs which in turn will give the AA guns more targets at the FBs. And maybe with more bombers in the air, it will spur on more fighters. Source : https://www.wwiionline.com/community-notes/reports/16634-upcoming-1-36-1-0-release-overview
  2. Oh, then I think the forum cannot list all the items that I would personally point out as well ship at full steam hard to turn around though. And stopping such an old engine to replace it by a nuclear propulsion brings the risk to never see it restart again if the maintenance operation fails.
  3. Can you help me understand by giving a list of exact points you think have had a negative effect? Not sure what has been changed since beta of 1.36.
  4. @taterI pretty much agree with your point of view regarding battle density . Wished you could support the project going premium some in-game polls are currently auditing a wide variety of ideas brought up in the forums and that might specifically influence battle frequency, duration and density. There is a list of 50+ Poll Questions waiting the initial results see here
  5. Or reversely, as soon as an enemy infantry stands close, the LMS should become inactive and spawned forces must handle it alone. Unfortunately that would require coding and the roadmap is already full Sure, the FMS camping is an issue when there are no much alternatives. Trying to evaluate pros and cons of fixes. We started with faster PPOs to support its defense. Trucks and guns should continue to spawn at depots, sure. I was thinking on an infantry perspective
  6. I would wonder how it would turn out if we removed depot spawning for everyone, but allowed ML to deploy a small LMS INSIDE any building =>Spawn where you want as long as you can keep it up.
  7. With the perspective of 1.36 focused on spontaneous leadership and with the new UI that will make it easier to find action, what would you think of this modified auto-AO set up rule (brainstorming): Only if the attacker has an active OIC (linked to a town with 1.36): as soon as he continuously kept a heavy INF EWS on an enemy town for 5 minutes, the OIC would be free to activate his own AO. Capture would then be enabled after 5 min (instead of the current 10). Even if the town is still contested, the AO would however be withdrawn if: - no active OIC since 5min - no heavy inf EWS since 5min The "heavy EWS" rule could be audited and adjusted regarding the game population. example: The overpoping side could require 10 inf to trigger heavy ews, while the underpoped side would need 5. The inf EWS radius could also be increased to account for a whole area of operation. Expected consequences: Hence you FINALLY allow a squad or an organized group to take initiative but still avoid precamp or ninja contest. The OIC can decide to not activate the AO if the purpose of the squad/group is not capturing the town (but some uncertainty regarding intentions is the key). More liberty to set up a plan is IMHO a feature that might help squads gain momentum, based on "area deployment" like pre-2004. It would introduced a step-by-step battle activity which better fit each of our profiles (organized teams at the start, lonewolves when the battle rages). Shorter (more Dynamic) game sessions would also offer a better game experience for those who can't stay logged for 2 hours. Paras could also receive a more important role during battle setup or reinforcement (when fb is blown for example). I wouldnt limit the amount of AOs as there could still be a naturel limit based on actual ingame population. An AO would also mean that there are many players set up in the area (which is currently not Always the case as some AOs run empty). This would of course need the HC to accept to no longer be able to limit capture objectives and trust/engage the real field-leaders. What other positive or negative consequences would you see there?
  8. Good catch, I checked the readme and you stand correct, The manned truck was available with 1.18 at Christmas of 2004, in 2006 we had unmanned mobile spawns. (Yes I meant 2005 and 2006 btw) I remind the still-stand and thought it had lasted much longer. Still, 2005 sorties drastically dropped by about 30% despite AO and mobile spawns. So their consequences might be considered as a failure and still affect our fundamental game play today.
  9. During the coming days and weeks you will notice a series of questions Regarding game play oriented ideas. This is somehow new since past polls have mostly gathered opinions about changes or gathered general information. Note that most of these questions are inspired from concerns shared on the forums and do no NOT necessarily come from official internal discussions/conclusions/priorities. I make the selection and write those up. If the trial is concluding. , It could help CRS poll all players to confirm expected/needed changes and have a first clue about how to approach the problem. This single-shot initiative could then be used to further identify (relatively) easy & popular changes to improve your game play experience, and thus improve CRS2's proximity and reactivity even more! Altough I can’t make any promise about it being broadcasted, don’t hesitate to drop your own in-game poll question suggestions. I will however continue to monitor all player feedbacks to further inspire questions. Questions must be: short focused maximum 8 answer options, giving a chance to any (extreme) opinion Results will however be kept internally. It should still be considered as another recognition of your contribution to this community-driven project. The new CRS DOES care about your feedbacks. Let’s just work on it in the most constructive way. Example of questions released today:
  10. My bad, copy/pasted from a draft and English isn’t my first language. Saw it too late (can’t edit once published). Thanks for the notification @GrAnit
  11. 2005 was the Annus horribilis as the average daily sorties dropped by 30% compared to 2004: - AOs decreased squad initiatives - depots decreased massive columns, fear of death and combined arms close coordination From 2005 little new squads were created.
  12. Indeed tiers are now per semester. Coming faster though.
  13. Orders are displayed in the chat bar when you join a mission on the UI, so that’s before spawning. You maybe ment « before joining a mission »?
  14. That’s a very relevant point, actually: do leaders step up when they know they have a good chance to win? Why did we have more leadership when we had no depots to spawn at, and no AOs? Maybe because the unpredictable opportunities combined to highly concentrated camping opportunities made it worth to group up and roll together. same when we had inf-placed mobile spawns, creating the opportunity to surprise the enemy and achieve a campaign-impacting victory. some don’t want to go back to that map and battle dynamics, but is another way of leading even possible in a virtual game? could our game play find a balance between the two: offer freedom for surprise, require strong settlement to give a chance to the defenders, but then reward the perseverance by making victory rules evolve to something more easy to achieve? (Battle finish)
  15. You probably missed my post of yesterday: A third part would be to make an absence of heavy Infantry EWS to instantly freeze new radio capture. owned flags remain owned but only defenders can capture at that stage. Attackers must reinforce over the AO.
  16. Still in brainstorming discussion. From what we can conclude from the dedicated topic in the general forum: There are actually 2 sub-parts to the concept: - allowing an AO to be placed when the heavy infantry EWS lasted long enough - initiating AO cancellation as soon as there has been no heavy infantry EWS for some time These can be implemented separatedly. Yet it doesn’t provide any clue about how many players should be needed to trigger heavy EWS, nor for how long, should it auto-place or just offer an option to do so by the AO OIC, how severe should the cancellation rules be, or if the number of concurrent AOs should be limited or not. Also, HC-placed AOs could remain in place in order to have a hybrid AO system offering complementary options. And what about keeping the ability for HC to pull off an AO even when cancellation conditions are not met. @XOOMis the only one that can tell.
  17. TZ3 will always remain difficult to populate. or it would require more Japanese and eastern Chinese to join our server. TZ2 and TZ3 are up. That being said yes I am not sure veterans and game owners from steam know about the WBS. Our mails may land in their spam. Could some of you ask old squad players not showing up?
  18. We could propose to let Air bombs destroy FBs, but only when these are not linked to contested towns (or AOed towns with upcoming proximity constraints) So pilots could again actively contribute to accelerating the ground war by preparing/hindering map opportunities. In counter part We could make FBs indestructible as long as an AO is up. Eventually giving these another role such as communications access and sabotage through the radio installations at veh spawn (or any other secondary objective keeping FB runs useful)
  19. We are still in beta and some points with developers might have been unclear to me. @Kilemall @goreblimey this is the correct answer : if the AB is captured: - friendly owned frontline depots now remain usable and continue to get (throttle) supplies from the garrison supply pool. - rear depots have two options: either continue to take (throttle) supplies from the garrison, either receive supplies from the rear, depending which garrison the mission has been created from. - the garrison’s total supply is however no longer increased by factories as long as the AB is not recaptured. So the depots will continue to get 20 riflemen for example, until the total remaining supplies are depleted. I mixed resupply and throttle supply.
  20. I agree with @Kilemall, together with the come back of attrition. Just note that if the AB is captured, the remaining supplies at (frontline) depots can now still be spawned BUT the depots are no longer resupplied. EDIT: depots ARE resupplied (throttle) but total garrison supplies are not until AB is captured
  21. 2 AOs indeed help keeping a ground to head to. With the current HC/system-placed AO it could contribute to favour ninja caps however. That is why EWS triggered (or sustained) AOs will help keeping players engaged, while guaranteeing sustainable forces in every AO. I also observed during 1.36 beta the issue of allied veterans having to sit in the bunker with newbies not playing/contributing/communicating like they should. Hence a handful of axis were flooding the town in TZ3 and were almost unstoppable until another veteran went to sap their FMS. Veterans guys were having fun though on a very dense area (bunker), while newbies kept falling like flies, running anywhere but the right direction. I have however checked the figures: there are no less (unique) allied players than axis. It is just a matter of how long they remain online. For 18 years I believe that it is really a matter of leadership and cohesion. our game concept has no sense without these. What could be done to further keep players busy and engaged? We can decrease AO setup timer to 5 minutes, and increase the bunker radio to 15 minutes, but still, I believe our whole game dynamics mostly relies on how spawn and objective locations are managed. We indeed can note that: - flags are 10m away of spawn depots - Bunkers are INSIDE army bases 10m away of spawns - some army bases design are literally camp traps, when not being in the center of town 100m away of most depots - objectives are spread out in a 360degrees arena, there is no real tactical battle frontline - FMS’ are deployed 360degrees around town with the objective of concealment instead of combined arms ZOC - FBs can become a battle killer when ninja sapped All these favor ninja actions and don’t promote teamwork nor generate localized battles. This generates poor situational awareness both for friendlies and enemies. Except when a very well organized squad (or with large numbers) gets involved. if numbers on the defensive side are high as well, these design errors become less visible since we enter a real attrition battle. IMO The core issue is just there. If we manage to find out a way to improve how spawns and objectives are made available, this should improve the experience for everyone in all timezones even with severe unbalance situations or population numbers. Keeping players engaged and thus keeping sides balanced. This is just my current analysis of the situation and I am still working on gathering evidences. That is why your feedbacks here are useful and important. And as @sorella said: Austerlitz bordel! (Amen to the 3eDLM)
  22. Where did you extract that info from, please? Can we do this for other campaigns?
  23. As you may have read from the new roadmap, in a couple of days we should be ready to release our new career-based subscription (ORGANIC ONLY). This offers a more affordable experience of WWII Online, and we hope that f2p and starter soldiers will take benefit from it, hence contribute to a population growth. Remind that premium is at 14.99$ and remains one of the best proofs of your support to this project. I drop a quick poll to gather your pre-release feedbacks about the announced options: All Infantry Subscription: $9.99/mo USD All infantry classes Includes all Airborne & Airborne Transports Includes Trucks / Haulers Includes Light ATG and AA guns Includes Fairmile Boat All Air Force Subscription: $9.99/mo USD All fighters, bombers and airborne transports Includes Airborne Infantry Includes Rifleman and Trucks / Haulers Includes Fairmile Boat All Ground Forces Subscription: $12.99/mo USDAll Army Persona access All Infantry All Tanks All Guns All Haulers All Airborne / Transport Planes Includes Fairmile Boat Please write down more feedback bellow. Thanks for your participation!
  24. Navy only had very very little sense right now compared to air only. 1.36 provides supplies everywhere but combats aren’t guaranteed for that branch. A gameplay overhaul is needed first. But meanwhile everyone can access fairmiles. Vehicle-only packs would have the opposite issue: supplies aren’t guaranteed. The good news from this poll is that you all keep supporting our premium offer!
  25. Thanks for the feedbacks! From surveys we know that the pricing is one of the top3 reasons why some don’t afford a subscription. They however have not mentioned any issue with the monthly recurring model. This is a MMO after all. From ingame stats we see that a large proportion of players never take a plane, and reversely that ace pilots rarely actively contribute to the ground war. Finally, f2p and starter accounts don’t provide a solution for those that want to enjoy a full career across all tiers. Especially for our veterans that know how to play the game. The Combination of all these points make these offers a potentially relevant solution since we can now attract and retain part of these inactive players, hence further increasing the population. I hope you will help us spread the word