krazydog

Registered Users
  • Content count

    1,580
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

krazydog last won the day on June 20 2017

krazydog had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

255 Salty

About krazydog

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. If you are referring to me (not sure) - I don’t play in Tz3 more than 2-3 nights per month these days because I am back in the USA now. But 5-10 years ago, I used to play in TZ3 a lot more when I was working overseas in Europe. So I can relate to people who can only play in TZ3 because they have their own real life work schedules etc over there too... I know you want to squash the server capping when you, and your squad, are not in your squad’s prime-time online. But the whole server does not revolve around your squad’s schedule mate. sorry. The solution to TZ3 is to increase server population! - (At least in my personal opinion). You asked me for a solution, and that is what I honestly think is the best way to solve the TZ3 issue. (Not nerf TZ3). Cheers!
  2. Well we really need to start the conversation of developing WW2 Online game engine 2.0 and get the first concrete steps into the Road Map. The only real solution for TZ3 is to get population levels up! Not side lock or cap lock. I understand this is a big, big step. But its been 2 years now since the new CRS took things over. I have seen no serious comments from CRS on this front. Its the only way forward long term! Financing is one of their biggest obstacles I understand. But have the Rats spent time seriously exploring new financing options for Game Engine 2.0? Have the developled a business plan and at least had exploratory meetings with potential financers? I would at least like to see them do something like committing to developing a serious “feasability study of developing WW2 Online 2.0 Game engine with analysis of new game engine options and financing options.” I would like to see this in the roadmap with a goal of announcing what the feasibilty results of develiping a new game engine are - with a 6 month time frame for producing this study or something. And if the feasibilty study results show a WW2 Online game engine is more than they can handle, well ok, let us know that. I will shut up then, and they can continue to tweak the current game emgine forever. But at least I will know where they plan to go with this game in the future, and I will make my own decision whether or not I want to keep subbing to support them. Maybe the Rats are already studying WW2 Online 2.0 game engine in secret, but I have my doubts .that they have seriously analyzed this option yet... They have really made no big decisions on this front yet publicly. And they seem to be really oveloaded focusing on new billing systems, getting 64 bit out out for the existing game engine, adding brigade supply, and adding a bunch of other trivial stuff like HC FRUs to the game, etc, etc.,, I would really like to see some initial tangible steps on Ww2 Online 2.0. A serious “feasibilty study” with results on how this could be done would be a good start for a roadmap. Because a WW2 Online 2.0 game engine would mean pop levels back again in game, and large pop levels should fix all these TZ3 issues. This is my honest opinion, and I stand by it! cheers! Krazydog PS— Don’t get me wrong I am not totally negative on what the new CRS team has been doing. On the contrary ... I have been quite impressed so far. For me personally they have achieved two really impressive things: 1). They have managed to review thousands and thousands of lines of old game code with no documentation, and they figured out how to successfully manipulate it! (This is is their single greatest achievement so far in my opinion.) 2). They have also demonstrated an abilty to keep an ongoing live server running 24/7 for years now with very little downtime, and they have the ability to update the server and keep it running. If they manage to get this 64 bit code working too -(which is a very hard coding job I know) then I think there is really no holding them back. This is why I think the new CRS team has the ability to bring a 2.0 engine to market with success!
  3. I am actually not so upset as you are with the way things are now mate. Its not perfect I agree, but I can live with the current status quo for a while. Actually, I am more concerned about the RATS spending too much time, and too much resources constantly repairing and tweaking the gameplay rules of the existing game engine. I would rather see the RATS spending more energy and resources to start developing WW2 Online 2.0 with a brand new game engine! And this is where my focus has been if you have seem my other posts. The initial question posed by Xoom in this thread was how do we increase population levels to a massive multiplayer online game again? The solution in my opinion is get WW2 Online 2.0 with a brand new game engine onto the market. A new game engine means large population levels again. Large population levels again means TZ3 problems are fixed! You guys are all spending too much time and energy trying to fix an outdated, slowly sinking ship. I would rather if we all focus more on a conversation of how do we build a brand new ship! A brand new ship fixes population issues in TZ3 and many other legacy problems with this game. This is my point main mate! Cheers!
  4. If I am “locked out” from the side that I have been playing for the last 10 years. Then I will unsub. Need to find a different solution. Sorry.
  5. Maybe off topic here, but I think the first bunker would look visually a little more appealling, and a little more natural-looking in its surroundings, if the color of the bunker’s stones were a bit closer to the color of the stones on the ground, and the color of the stones of the AB walls. Right now the bunker kind of just pops out of the ground like its from a different color pallette entirely. Otherwise it looks nice of course! Ps: Maybe in different towns the color pallete is different and it looks more natural in other locations. I am only speaking about the top photo in this thread - and I know there are many towns with that type of AB so just thought I would mention it. Sorry to get off topic of this thred. cheers!
  6. Of course I know its a lot of money and a couple years of development. time too at least. But it needs to be done if this game is going to last into the future, no? I am just not sure if the current game engine “juiced up more” with new models etc.. will attract todays gamers and be competitive with other new games on the market - especially in the long term. CRS has 20 years of experience with running this type of game, they have all the financial data etc... needed to put together a business plan and attract investors. Of course they need to keep at least 51 percent control of the new venture so they can still control the development process. Alternatively they could crowd fund but that has its pros and cons too. Crowdfunding puts a lot of public pressure on the developers to answer a lot of questions to the public every week. Banks are another option for loans etc... but they would want collateral. Alternatively, they could use a part of current subscription fees to finance new development. (Maybe they have already secretly been doing this and we don’t even know about it - now that would be a cool surprise). Maybe they need to do a mix of all the above to raise capital - but raising capital is not impossible. This is what all companies do all the time to survive and grow their businesses.
  7. The problem is that the game is so old now, I am not even sure lowering price to $5 per month would bring in 4x the number of players. Hell, even when they tried to give FTP access to all the equipment for a couple weeks the server’s population does not quadruple. I really think CRS needs to think about starting work on WW2 Online 2.0 game engine while keeping this old game going for as long as they can still. The current version might stay afloat a couple years still - which is probably the minimum time you need to develop a new game engine for this game. But if they don’t start putting resources into the next big version of this game, then I doubt we will really ever reach those large numbers online again.
  8. I see only 2 realistic options to seriously create a massive multiplayer game again, and achieve large sustainable player population levels again: 1). Lower the monthly subscription prices significantly more (which is risky I understand)., or alternatively... 2). Develope WW2 Online 2.0 game engine - with a completely new game engine and graphics. (Also risky). But without one of these two above-mentioned big steps forward, I really think this 20 year old game will continue to die a slow death. .. What else do you expect? Its actually amazing this game has survived as long as it has with the current subscripion prices, and with nothing more than just tweaking the old game engine around, and the constant tweaking the old gamepkay rules, or just tweaking the strategic map layout a bit, and (or) just modifing the old buildings and old equipment models. You guys need to address one of these two big steps forward in the near foreseeable future - and you need to do it before a new competitor emerges on the market, and beats you guys out to doing this first. Its really the only way forward - (long term at least) - - - - - - - - - - - - I think its time to stop devoting so much time and resources into repairing an old boat which is slowly sinking. And time to start putting some new resources into building a brand new boat! - - - - - - - - - - - - Just my two cents,.... but this is my honest opinion. Cheers!
  9. This. I made this same comment in another one of these polls in axis secure forums. Too many of the polls don’t offer a broard enough range of options. They often assume we want a change to begin with, and just ask HOW the new change should look like, and not IF we want the change at all. Often there is no option to make a choice like “leave unchanged.” At a minimum these polls should always have an option like a “none of the above” option to choose from. The design of the questions in a survey is very important, and if the options available to choose from are too narrow, or have built in assumptions, then the survey results will be misleading.
  10. Excellent news. Cheers!
  11. Definately a good event for Stats lol.
  12. Yup, adding the HC Fru (HC MS) was a bad decision.
  13. ***** BUMP TIME: ***** CRS PLEASE REMOVE HC-FRUS (HC MS) FROM THE GAME —- PLEASE. 1). HC FRUs just keep boring one-man mole attacks going on 2nd AOs for too long. Totally boring game play if you try to defend these things. CRS should try spending 3 hours playtesting everyday a defense against walkable, movable HCMS mole attack on a town (2nd AO) . I think you guys will quickly see what I mean. 2). I also know a lot of Allies really don’t like HC FRUs too much right now, because HC FRUs Allowed the Axis to take England last campaign. Dear Rats:: PLease find a different way to encourage Players to join HC. Krazydog
  14. So these half-price subs can’t play when the pop is balanced? Also, what happens to them when they are guarding a cap. They die. And the server population switched to the other side during their mission? Also are you going to force them to use the 10 minute side-lock everytime they are forced to switch back and forth?
  15. If you have too many AOs at once - (more than the underpop side can cover), then you will get a lot of ninja capping of small towns by the overpop side. Ninja caps = towns that fall in 20 minutes after the AO is placed, because the defense is focused elsewhere on the map and it does not react fast enough to cover the 2nd AO. Ninja caps are almost as bad as soft caps (towns fall with almost no fights). We can all imagine the complaining that would happen if the map rolls even faster than now. Cheers!