Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 FNG

1 Follower

About stonecomet

  • Rank
  • Birthday January 13

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
  1. I would have chosen both Initiating Attacking Maneuvers and Holding Defensive Positions. Personally, the pleasure of defending a position and breaking an attack wins over scouting and initiating offensive maneuvers but only just barely!
  2. Greetings, I enjoyed the presentation. I have always thought that what has become the new development team, RATS, pulled off nothing short of a miracle so far. I stumbled onto the game right near the end or the new beginning, so that is my perspective. I am excited about the future if CRS continues to be funded properly by the dedicated few still around and the dedicated new that find there way into the fold. This is the time, right now, for an opportunity to be part of something special if it succeeds. We have a new team of many past players whom have lived through the old days and the new that is actually completely indie funded by a dedicated player base that they actually listen to and consider their ideas. What the heck is everyone waiting for. Get in here and support the project, even if your not playing a lot currently, if you can afford it. I'm excited about the new textures and 64-bit. Many will be glad to see 1.36 come out and start rolling and adjusting. I'm glad to see the focus shift to the first iteration of 1.36. We all know it's just the first step towards better gameplay. The experienced player base and the developers know 1.36 will have to go through live campaigning in order to tune it properly. New models, I run around with a rifle or submachine gun most of the time, observing and getting shot most of the time. It will be nice to see them and get shot at by them in game. Terrain and Object additions and improvements have me stoked as well. Awesome work, must have been some wizard that pulled it off. Anyway, it is unfortunate that creating variance with the CP models has apparent limitations. If I understand correctly, if the game wanted to use one of the building models showcased as a CP the the CP would have to be coded into the model. Would it not be possible to make some new models with CPs built in separately and start placing them in game when time allows. Or is it possible to duplicate the current models with a CP version, essentially creating two different models that appear similar and swap them out where needed. I'm guessing that historically most Command Posts where commandeered buildings as there were not structures in towns that we have currently in game representing CPs. Something for the future maybe to think about or solve as I may not understand the blocking limitation fully.
  3. Hi XOOM , I still think you do a great job with what you had to work with from the start. From your perspective you should probably be thinking of forum negativity levels more like a team morale problem. Look at the player base as your players, your the Head Coach. We are all waiting for the new equipment and game plan that we can, or at least the vast majority, buy into. I know. It's a tough sell. Just be as transparent as possible. Forum Positivity I know there are posters out there that do try and maintain some sense of decorum. Game development results at this stage works wonders. 1.36 is the next big milestone from where I sit. It will fundamentally change the way the game is played and at least temporarily improve forum morale, most likely improve morale for a significant period as 1.36.01...etc. start rolling out. The only ways for a development team to affect the team morale question and diminish negativity in game forums is three fold from my point of view. 1. CRS/RATS Always and I mean always take it on the chin. That is the one cross you all bear from my point of view; it comes with the territory. Always be professional and always execute discipline professionally and dispassionately. 2. Execution and Results. There is no getting around this one. Transparency goes a long way here. 3. Moderators for Obvious TOS Violations. There is something to be said to having a very small (2-3) team of dedicated Community Moderators that manage the forums daily for Obvious TOS Violations. There is really very little else you can do that I can see. Of course your TOS really sets the tone and of course your leadership as an example.
  4. Greetings, 1. Localized Weather? 2. Simulated Realism with Brigade Movements (Minimum Standard should be 60 minutes to move with a movement cool down of 60 minutes upon arrival. Have terrain triggered time delays (+15 - 30 minutes) and possibly a trigger for localized weather delays, if integrated, represented by a random generated time delay (+30-60 minutes). You could even simulate these scenarios randomly and just have the system report the delays to the side or possibly only to HC rank officers if localized weather and terrain delay triggers are a no go. 3. Equipment arrives in a simulated realistic order. Scout cars, light infantry trickle in first; trucks, heavy infantry, light tanks start to trickle in after a moderate delay (15 minutes) then another moderate delay (15 minute) for anti tank , AAA and heavy tanks to arrive and trickle in last. At least 2 and 3 with 1.36? Would make the game more deliberate and interesting from campaign to campaign. i know there are fewer moving brigades but they should still move in a realistically simulated manner, imho.
  5. This game makes a history of it's own. In my 31 years of playing video games, no game has quite gotten under my skin so deeply and indelibly than WWII Online!
  6. I would prefer more immersive and expanded audio cues. Snapped twig sounds, coughs...etc. instead of flashing visual cues. Of course this depends on the capabilities of the current sound engine/coding and the capabilities of what sound set up is on the other end.
  7. *shrugs...thinking..."the usual intermission thread that comes with just about every intermission..Allies won near the weekend...that's war I guess"...* Might have some time to actually participate in this one a bit.
  8. February 8th 2011 at 13:31 hours EST. 13th Infantry Regiment...lots of good times and memories.
  9. Hello All, I should be returning and making a nuisance of myself in a few weeks. Lots of life changes finally starting to settle for a bit. Hopefully I'll be able to contribute financially to the cause again *soon*.
  10. Hmmm....
  11. Geez, This thread reminds me why I rarely play anymore, not that anyone cares really. I thought @XOOM's goal was to make threads like these irrelevant. Softcaps...seriously. HC dictates and affects everyone else's game content, explicitly? Join HC to solve the problem? Seriously? Please tell me we are not trying to keep things the same or even same-ish with the new supply and command model? I would prefer to see leaders naturally and organically lead from the field not behind some .commands.
  12. @augetout, I do apologize for making you feel like I am an acidic element of the forums. Although, I'd hope most members of this forum would be hard pressed to believe that. Perhaps I did misinterpreted your intent, if i did please accept my apology. I'm rereading my post and am having a hard time finding the heavy toxicity of the content. I used your statement to make a point about argumentation merits within the statement. I still stand by my view that the statement which I highlighted in context is a poor argument against a AO voting system being put into the hands of "people" [some of the player base] that are unable to stay in a bunker for five minutes to paraphrase out of context. Then you go about and put words in my mouth. I did not state that the veteran player base, whom I believe would be the main drivers of a voting or vote by feet system anyways, as it should be and as it is today under the current system. The veteran player base always drives the map and the game-play and will always by their very existence and influence on the game. This negates your concern about putting the AO system in the hands of some group that cannot cover a bunker for five minutes. It is a poor argument from my perspective. That is not a toxic statement it's an observation. The veteran player base driving the decisions and the map is a statement of fact not an opinion and has no ancillary or additional meaning or innuendo. I'm not accusing the veteran player base of anything here but having greater control over any decision making allowed in the games rule sets or game environment. They always will. That is OK. You made some type of implication out of a pretty straight forward statement. I've played the game enough that I understand what is trying to be accomplished here. From my point of view you wanted to clarify your position on an AO voting system (something the developers might not even consider or implement) with this post. It was in response to a post where I proposed it was possible you had misread another members intent as you were agreeing with their position that you felt was against an AO voting system which I am for at least exploring. The rub being I'm not even sure how exactly the original poster really felt it was just my opinion. You were careful to isolate this statement and it is very brief and direct. It's my opinion that is Ad Hoc reasoning. To me the highlighted statement is a contradiction of the initially highlighted statement in green. So you can see how I missed your point from my point of view. The last statement with the strike through it is also poor argumentation and obvious in its tactic to re-brand me. The issue is can an unorganized group that may or may not care about the campaign have a enough negative impact or any impact at all over the more organized veteran players online in a AO voting system. All other arguments aside. I don't actually look at players in the game as "ne'er-do-wells". "ne'er-do-wells" = "folks who cannot be counted on to stay in a bunker for more than 5 minutes". Which I use to explain my position. If you ever played with me you might know that. I'm not sure what you are getting all riled up about, so I'll try and stay out of your way from now on.
  13. Greetings, Just had to chime in here as I find it laughable that the generation or two that have had the real power to affect change try to blame the worlds woes on a generation that has not even come into their own. If anything did fail it failed under the old guards watch. Millennials have nothing to do with it. Come back in a 50 to 100 years and then we can talk about their actual effect on society. It's bizarre. If we would just get out of their way in most cases we would be better off from my point of view. Too bad fear is such a great motivator. I'm in the pre Gen-X generation but just barely by a year or so. the very end of later half of the boomers. Really feel like I'm somewhere in between boomer and Gen-X and belong to neither. I have greater faith in the younger generation than I do in the majority of the older generation.
  14. Well, The fifteen guys had fun on their own terms basically, if its vote by feet and they were able to trigger the AO I'd say. The johnny-come-lately group that carry on for another 30 minutes...who knows maybe they succeed or maybe they like the other group realize eventually that it's futile are also having fun roughly on their own terms. Are they somehow ruining someone elses fun and how? If it is the only AO available then everyone is there as it is. I will say though that I would prefer a voting system over critical mass although I do believe that either could work if well thought out and implemented correctly. How can it be declared the killer if it's never been implemented and with what rule set. The amount of AOs allowed and how the AO closes all would effect the AO ping pong effect where by I mean the actual ping ponging of AOs not the player ping ponging between AOs/DOs. If you are referring to the manual switching between different active AOs I consider that a different issue with the UI. of course it would be better if we had a smoother and more intuitive way to despawn and change locations. In this game, in my opinion, only so much can be done to help that issue because of the open sandboxy persistent world the game operates under. Hi, This statement I highlighted in red is very interesting to me. Are all of the people on the map considered "the map folks"? From my perspective the "folks" most on the map are the veterans and it is the veterans that are most likely to be more coordinated, reliable, informed and communicative. If "these map folks" cannot even stay in a bunker for 5 minutes how are they able to muster near a town for whatever the time it takes and trigger an AO. Could be the rule says it takes 10 or even 15 minutes, could even be 5 minutes ;-) for the AO to trigger, during which EWS is going off and the defense is hopefully being prepared. Heck the fighting could be going on before the AO even gets set. It represents one of the common arguments I see put forth. Call out some generalized group of supposedly inept players and use this figurative group as a foil to promote a viewpoint. It really is without merit and it's Ad hoc argumentation at best. The core veteran players are always what drives the game and the map. Let's stop worrying about this group of ne'er-do-wells as by definition they are relatively ineffective within the game and certainly we do not pretend that they can organize enough to make any kind of significant impact on any kind of critical mass or voting system for AOs. Let them be, hopefully they are happy paying customers. HC and the veteran base on either side would then be more organically organizing their side for critical mass deployment and activation or garnering the right votes for nominations and selection of an upcoming AO. Hers is something completely off the rails. Another alternative would be to remove AOs altogether and changing the capping dynamic. You could require a certain amount of players to be in EWS range for a specified amount of time in order to enable capping (no AO placed just capping is enabled) if the defense can reduce that number and keep it reduced for a specified amount of time capping is suspended and if a lower threshold is held for a specified amount of time any captured facilities immediately revert to the defender. You could then extend the cap timers for facilities quite a bit more. Also, once a side captures an AB it no longer grants immediate ownership. A side would have to maintain ownership of the AB or ABs for 15 minutes before ownership and even then garrison supply just starts to trickle in, its not instant. Now it's not about finding the hot AO it's about finding the mission type you prefer or the hottest mission. I'm guessing we would still have DOs on the map to help defending side know that a town is in the cap-able condition. Before we go on about underpop...if a side cannot muster enough online to trigger caps then that side starts to incur heavy territory loses although the scheme above does favor the defender a bit, at least I think it does. I would say that for a significant amount of players that winning the map is nice but somewhat inconsequential, it's more about the quantity and quality of battles. The way it is set up now, winning the map supersedes all other considerations when it comes to crunch time. Sometimes when I do pay attention to the macro game it feels like I'm just some AI bot in someone else's grand strategy game. I mean, they make games specifically for that don't they.