chaoswzkd

Registered Users
  • Content count

    407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

116 Salty

About chaoswzkd

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Axis
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit
    Anti Air Gun
  1. They're limited today. There are no mixed brigades today, they're all one country, one supply. The closest to mixed we have is French inheriting a lot of US armor supply, but those are all French variants. They're driven by French personas, and show up as French Stuart, French Sherman, etc. in stats. The game cannot handle mixed brigades at this time. Theoretically, we could mix the brigades, but then we'd have British P38s, French Spitfires, etc., which would get extremely confusing for stats and make a tangled mess of data and equipment on the back-end. So in order to get 1.36 out ASAP, the best that can be done at the moment would be to give some movable flags to the Allies (and in turn the Axis so there's no supply disadvantage) so they can diversify the supply at their airfields. Doing so might put way too much aircraft supply in the game, though, so it needs to be looked at. After all, every airfield across the map will be active.
  2. This could work, although I think it'd be better until some things with squads and infrastructure were changed up. We currently rely very heavily on squads and the community to retain new players. However, we also want new players to try out both sides so they see what they like. You can also only join a squad if you join a mission hosted by that squad, so you'd have to join the squad to be able to be side-locked, and waiting until one side isn't overpop so you can hop and get side-locked is gamey. I think maybe a short grace period for brand new players would be appropriate, and Integrated Voice Comms would be critical since we'd be tacitly discouraging committing to a squad until you figure out the side you'd like. Still, it doesn't solve the problem where if you have a lot of people in one side's squads then you're still pretty much stuck. You can flood the other side with newbies but quantity doesn't exactly compensate for quality. What the game really needs is more side-switchers and incentivizations to side-switch, as anathema as that is to basically every single vet. I'm not saying "play five minutes and switch", but "play for a couple hours, log, when you come back pick the underpop side please". Among those incentivizations needs to include some variety of community integration since almost all of the squads (if not all) play one side or the other for a campaign and boot side-switchers. So IVC is critical in those hat situation as well.
  3. Because it'd kill squads, and once squads are dead the game would follow.
  4. To my knowledge, the game currently can't handle dynamic capture objects. So each model would have to have its own capture area, which means separate models.
  5. What do you mean with "non mixing of bdes"? You'll be able to have a British brigade in a French town that has a French Garrison, and vice-versa. There just isn't a feasible way for the game to handle a garrison with mixed units inside it, at least not at this time.
  6. First thing I thought of with the building and the courtyard with the fountain: make the courtyard a capture point and add more clutter. Have to take cover from tons of angles, and attackers have to actually clear it. Probably a terrible idea for a number of reasons, though.
  7. Only for the person doing it and the person who shoots them down out of vindictive glee, not for any other casualties in the meantime. Doesn't matter. It's possible and that's a problem in and of itself. Categorically false. Largest persistent game world (that doesn't cheat because it's set in space), not instanced, no loading transitions, WW2-themed, entirely player-driven conquest, combined arms, focused on realism. The only game out there that comes remotely close is Planetside 2, and it's an arcade shooter set in the future. If you go for realism and WW2 then you're looking more at Red Orchestra. Red Orchestra + Planetside 2 doesn't exist. There's just WWIIOL. Steam players left for a lot of reasons: tutorials weren't fixed yet, controls were not modern at all, graphics are very dated, ideological opposition to subscriptions, confusion over "F2P" really meaning "F2P with limited access if you don't want to subscribe because it's actually Pay 2 Play", unwillingness to use 3rd party voice comms, and yes, a feeling of getting clubbed by vets. It's just one piece in the puzzle, though. And newer players do do those things, because there are a good number of people still around from Steam, and that's how all the vets got started as new players.
  8. That's a logical fallacy and a false equivalence. You're saying "Spawning a 1945 fighter in 1939 isn't realistic but thats fine because we don't allow friendly fire." Friendly fire being disabled is meant to address something that's also not historically accurate: soldiers randomly killing their buddies for giggles. You're still able to kill yourself, but that's the only person you can harm. Seal clubbing in a 1945 fighter against 1939 fighters and bombers is only fun for the seal clubber. It's the kind of thing that makes people quit the game. 17 years, and no, it's really not. Even if it was, it's not the game CRS wants to make, even if it's more profitable. If you want high profitability, go play something easily accessible. WWIIOL exists because nothing else on the market is like it, and the only way for it to remain on the market is to remain that way. Yeah, but you're saying no subscriptions, so you're advocating for single-purchase. Look at literally any MMO game that's single-purchase. Where is it? It's either dead, living by microtransactions, or so massively and wildly popular that it's still alive - for now. Every online game that isn't peer-to-peer and doesn't have microtransactions is moving to a Service-Based monetization model, which is basically a subscription. Players are kicking and screaming, but it's happening. They are returning to subscriptions because it's the only way to guarantee keeping the lights on for the game when they don't want to release the source code for fans to host their own servers. No, it's not a good suggestion, because it's not sustainable. WWIIOL goes 1-time purchase, it dies in 3 years or less, and that's optimistic. It will never draw the amount of players necessary to buy enough time to create enough cosmetics to be sustainable, and the cosmetics are a limited resource without going to ridiculous stuff like in WarThunder. It honestly sounds like this isn't a game you should be interested in, then. It's like going to Bohemia Interactive and saying "ARMA IV should be about cowboys fighting aliens. Not a mod, the actual game itself". That's not what they want to make, and it's not what you're going to get, no matter how much you might want it for some reason. No, they don't. With current rank, they play against a ton of other players that can fight them. Newer players that don't have the rank to fight them spawn lower tier equipment to run support missions, like bombing bridges and making FMSes and suppressing infantry. This adds to the combined arms feeling of the game, so not everyone is rolling around in Matildas or Tigers or etc. at whatever tier. What you're suggesting does away with that because it's no longer about running support missions to win a battle but about earning points so you keep your high tier spawns. Yeah that's not happening. There are currently some concerns with late tier supply imbalances, but if that were fixed pretty much no one would want a campaign to have a time limit by design. As I said previously, they can earn rank points and do things and have fun without having to worry about unlocking limited spawns to remain competitive. Yes, they die in a crappy little infantry support tank vs a bigger tank, but their goal was infantry support to suppress the enemy so they can take the town and win. It wasn't to earn rank points so they can buy higher tier equipment. The focus shift is critical here.
  9. Ah, misread some stuff on my end. Thought you were calling him stupid. To quote one of the pictures you've posted a couple times: "Armaments from 'the future' can be purchased with the point system" The game is based on WW2's European theater, starting some time in 1940 I believe. It attempts to simulate the war for its duration. This includes the asymmetrical warfare in which there were big equipment disparities between nations. Getting rid of that by explicitly allowing players to ruin the realism by having Tiger tanks in the 1940 conflict in France is antithetical to the game. It would literally be a different game as soon as that happens, and directly counter to what CRS wants to develop and what it I marketing. You can argue that CRS should want and market something different, but I'm pretty sure you're not going to persuade them otherwise. Suggestions to change the game in such a fundamental matter simply won't be received well because you're suggesting a different game. Oh, so this is actually just an avocation for a single-purchase system. Pay - idk - $50 USD and have the game forever and no additional charges? No. The game is not and will never be popular enough to be profitable from one-time purchases. The only possible way that could work would be with supplemental income from purchasables, and if we're avoiding Pay2Win, that means cosmetics. There are only so many historically-accurate cosmetics you can make before you run out, and CRS couldn't churn them out fast enough to remain profitable. Additionally, there are no hidden charges. You want full access? Subscribe. You want some supplemental access? Buy DLC. It's clear and straight-forward. Yes, so with their limited spawns they can seal club so hard they earn the points they need to buy more limited spawns. Regarding the timeline, once it hits max and everyone is on the last tier, what's the point of the system anymore? How does it remain interesting? While that sounds nice conceptually, as @vanapo pointed out, and as I mentioned in my post, higher tier armor and aircraft simply win in the vast majority of cases against lower tier stuff. Players at lower tier will be less able to kill things, and basically have to stop playing anywhere anyone rolls out something higher tier. Your argument against that thus far has been "but limited spawns and timeline will fix it", but again, higher tier can simply earn the points needed to purchase more higher tier with their higher tier equipment, staying on top forever. Additionally, as soon as the timeline hits max, your system is no different from the current one: uninteresting, with the added caveat that complete newbies and trolls can step in and waste precious equipment. Part of the reason we have rank requirements is so that people adequately learn the game before they can spawn in and potentially waste critical resources, like heavy tanks, engineers, sappers, etc.
  10. @nugx Thanks for the suggestion. I think most everyone shares criticisms with the current ranking system. It's just not very interesting at this time. There are numerous issues I've identified with your proposal, though. #1: In some of your posts, you mention purchasing a "future" tier level. This is antithetical to the game's core design (aka non-negotiable stuff). The concept of a timeline has been very important, and is also of absolute critical importance for balance. #2: It's not monetizable without going Pay 2 Win. You seem to criticize the Subscription model as Pay2Win, but every single subscriber has the exact same opportunities as every other subscriber; the only difference is time spent in the game. There is no incentive with the system you propose to subscribe to the game, and in fact appear to call subscriptions "the definition of a failed game system". The only recourse I see would be allowing players to purchase these spawn points, which in turn means purchasing higher tiers and "future" tiers, which means if I throw enough money at my screen I can seal club baby Hotchkisses in T0 with a Tiger, or I can take on the whole LW with just a P38. I'm not sure how you might think this is superior for balance and enjoyment of the game. #3: The system you propose encourages a permanent state. While lower tier infantry weapons can still wipe the floor with later tier ones (it's all about engagement range and being clever), the armor and air game basically require later-tier equipment unless you're doing a support mission. Since game actions will increase points, and kills are going to be a part of that, and it's easier to get a lot more points with later equipment: people who get access to higher tiers will tend to stay there and people stuck on lower tiers will have less opportunities to advance. In the best-case scenario, players will have to play a lot of infantry to grind points to be competitive as armor or air, and then hopefully use that to fund themselves remaining competitive. However, that is going to essentially kill what little flying community remains in the game, and will almost certainly [censored] off everyone who regularly plays armor. There are some other little things, but the ones I put are the big concerns. I would nominally support a path of temporary advancement for F2P players, but I don't see your suggestion as the correct way to handle that. @kase250 Please calm down a little and use less inflammatory language. You can counter nugx's ideas and points without going into personal attacks and such. Let's please keep in mind that we want to encourage a positive community environment and tone down some of the toxicity, man.
  11. ................... ....... .... You know, I actually kind of like this as a balancing mechanic. I have no idea how to actually put it into the game, and is probably a terrible idea for all sorts of reasons, but now I kind of want to see it.
  12. Thanks, and I'm glad you liked it! If I said AHC will only control Army Garrisons, I mispoke. The ownership of the town governs the Garrison nationality. AHC will be able to change the ownership of the town, which will flip all of the garrisons to the corresponding country. There are no plans at this time to allow AHC to further differentiate a town by having, say, French Army, British Air, US Airborne, British Navy. The game could theoretically support that, though. It's something we'll have to see after 1.36 drops and if CRS and/or the Allies would even want to do that, because it could cause some headaches with trying to arrange supply, overstock, and the like. Mixed supply, as in "One garrison with French, British, and US supply", is something that came up during design, but the game can't accurately handle that without a lot more work. What would happen is that the garrison, or brigade, or whatever, would be owned by a single country - let's say France. If we put UK supply into that flag (and you can think of garrisons as a kind of static flag), that might cause issues off the bat because UK supply is set up in the data to be owned by UK. Might cause issues to begin with, might just screw up stats, not sure. Even if there were no issues, the only people able to spawn from that flag would be French personas. So you'd have French Army players driving Churchills, for example. You couldn't have a UK persona do it because the flag is a French flag. So, it's not feasible at this time for the game to have mixed supply, because the game can't currently support it correctly. In light of the difficulties involved, there are no plans to pursue this. As far as Navy and Air goes, there may very well be some movable supply with that. I can't say one way or the other because the exact amount of supply and exactly how the movable flags will look and how many of them there will be are all up to OHM and XOOM, and will likely be based off of research done by Scotsman and Hatch (and whoever else may have been involved). The 1.36 work Development has been doing has been getting static supply back into towns and covering all the bases regarding that; nothing we're doing should be changing the behavior of the movable flags directly.
  13. I believe Xoom was speaking very specifically with the reversion planned to go into effect. HE penetration against soft targets won't be a part of that, thus unchanged. It doesn't mean that it's not being worked on, nor that it won't be a part of a future release.
  14. I really wish I was here earlier in the thread because most everyone missed the point. "How do we get a less toxic community, with less people hating each other?" "IMPLEMENT THIS LIST OF CHANGES OMG" That won't fix the problem being mentioned. The game could have every bug fixed, every bit of realism involved, and you'd still have people crying "Spies!", "bias!", pointing fingers, issuing personal attacks, crying about plug pulling or despawning before someone dies, people hacking, etc. etc. How does that get fixed? Other games censor their players. They go based off of a report system, and if someone is consistently toxic and ruining the experience for everyone, they receive a chat ban. They literally can't type in chat or speak in integrated voice chat. If their actions continue to be toxic, they receive temporary or permanent bans. Stuff like that. Other games have better methods of communication. We have map reports, but no quick command for "CP under attack!", etc. So implementing that kind of thing would basically be a temp ban anyway. The community is terribly anemic, and typically has the same five or ten or fifteen or twenty talking heads yelling at each other, and doing the same in game. If those players are censored, as other, more popular games and communities do, then that really hurts the game at a time when it needs every physical body's presence as is possible. So what's the solution here? It's not fixing issues for sure. That would help some cries of "bias!!!1!", but not all of them. It wouldn't help with everything else. The issue is about attitudes, and how they're poisoning the well and creating a hostile playing environment and a hostile work environment for volunteers on top of that. How do the attitudes get fixed? That's the question that needs answering.
  15. The problem last year was that the theater map was blindingly white. Need to find out how to tone that down a bit so it's not such an issue.