Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Green Tag

1 Follower

About stonecomet

  • Rank
  • Birthday January 13

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
  1. I see your lurking about...hopefully I'll be on a bit later. My daughter is coming into town for the Holiday. We'll see.
  2. Hi, How are the victory conditions handled?
  3. Hi, In regard to the new system, I do not think any of the vital questions about where it all leans can be answered yet. Implementation and balancing will have to be considered and changed/tweaked in order to strike some sort of balance. That being said, and it's easy to say things after the fact/campaign etc., Overstocking, Garrison Weight and Flag Weight will have to be managed. In addition, let's say that things are weighted that flags do have a big impact [Although that would be determined by the current condition of the map, population, skill of population or CONTEXT], We could still have a Hybrid HC system where when the system detects that no HC is on there are mechanisms that allow the player base to make do. I'm not following an attitude that states, which is easy to say, @david01 : "It's just stated that CRS is going to get the best of both worlds with no problems." I do not think anyone anticipates any transition to be so smooth that there are no problems. This is one of the fundamental natures of change, it causes problems with existing conditions and attitudes and expectations. Nor is @david01 "Oh, under the hybrid system HC isn't needed 24/7. You have some supplies in every town to defend :p" any kind of actual portrayal of CRS's attitude or conceptual mindset. @david01" Which is obviously what some people want. " I'm not even sure how credible this statement is other than lot's of people want lot's of different things. My question is, Do you have a credible and respectful question?
  4. Hi, @fidd, I don't think the point was to specifically and maliciously take points away from dedicated pilots as it was a possible solution against griefing a non AO/DO bridge situation. Although I clearly see the concern from a dedicated pilots point of view. I believe the whole points system could use an overhaul, especially the air game. But I'm not much of a pilot in this game so not much to contribute there. Anyways, I though infantry were called squishies and ground-pounders were pilots that attack ground based objects like bridges and squishies. I don't think squishies do care about the amount of points a pilot gets for bombing a bridge. Probably do not give it much thought in that context. I consider STO bombs to be pretty high up there on the development list. Only problem I see there is we do not have friendly fire. Way too much greifing opportunity if we had friendly fire in this game in this game, without campaign side lock, FTP accounts and a harsh but fair punishment system. That is why the current system is difficult to change because it affects many areas of the game. I get why we need AOs and DOs on bridges. I do think that some of the more thoughtful and knowledgeable players could come up with a better system. Whether and when CRS could implement such a system is another matter.
  5. Hi szyporyn, Thanks for the invite. See you in game or on the forums. Do we use the Allied Discord with our own sub-channel? I'll catch up with you soon.
  6. Hi @szyporyn, I signed up at the forum up top. Is it still active? Otherwise, I'd like to join the squad and see if I fit in. Maybe I'll catch you on discord or in-game. I'm assuming the qualifications up top still stand.
  7. Hi, It's just an analogy. You have the right to vote with your feet and wallet. I worked in the restaurant industry for 20+ years from dishwasher to general manager. I've seen many a restaurant concept recover under new management or even the current management making adjustments and doing a reopen. They do not all close within a year after a rough start. It is a tough business though and things can go bad very quickly for a number of reasons. Maybe it is a poor analogy. The point is the doors of WWII online haven't closed in how many years? That with all kinds of bad publicity. Have you seen or read some of the old reviews from when the game launched or throughout it's history? The latest metacritic is 73%. In my humble opinion that is not bad. Some folks are very rigid once they sour on something. I've never gotten any of my friends to stick to this game, no matter what I tell them or how many times I've gotten them to try. It's a unique game for a unique set of players. Fortunately, no one is going to get violently ill for eating bad food in WWII online. I can easily say that even if the doors close tomorrow the game has been a great success from my point of view. The game has not changed enough yet for your friend to take another look would be my guess or their is some deep seeded grievance that they are unwilling to let go. I don't know, their your friend so you would know better why. As long as the doors remain open their is ALWAYS a chance for anyone to change their mind. I just think CRS is doing the best they can to move the game forward, even though I question things sometimes...I give them the benefit of the doubt.
  8. Hi dre21, I would prefer to let the transport plane, if it is able to land, to place an FMS like the truck placed ones. Reason being that if it is infantry placed, folks will start dropping a paratroop ML near a front-line AOs just to be sneakier than a truck. I think it would be overused or abused. A plane landing in the field is another matter all together. I'd also prefer it if the supply was limited to only infantry paratroopers as I'm unsure how a load of ATGs fits into a plane with the troopers (maybe one or two light AA but the plane has to land) or in an ML paratroopers pocket. We do have to bend realism in certain areas like spawns but there has to be a limit from my point of view. With the new Hybrid system coming and each town having supply available in the background for line movements and with player triggered AOs, allow a smaller number of para be able to trigger an AO by doubling or tripling their unit count rate for such a thing. Then once the AO is triggered allow the garrisoned supply start trickling in for defense. I would give the paratrooper FMS a good bit of infantry supply. I would then allow a separate transport plane be able to deploy a supply box that parachuted down with a few (3 tops maybe) very light AA to help with air and antipersonnel defense at FMS. Or the transport plane could drop a crate first then land nearby to set an FMS. For bridges you need paratrooper engineers to make sense but they could resupply at the dropped supply crate if we had one and they would have to trigger a bridge AO if one where available. Bombers would be easier. Paratroop assaults need to be inherently dangerous, require coordination and have limited supply unless some form of air drop logistical support arrives, and hopefully nearby. The mission should be able to be shut down with a moderate defense unless the paratroopers work quickly and efficiently. That is jut my point of view. But I do agree that they should be used mainly for behind the lines operations instead of dropping them into a hot zone. Why I rarely join unless I'm familiar with the operators of said mission. Some vets can speak to this more than I can but I always thought paratroopers where rarely dropped directly into a known hot zone historically. I'm also unsure of the kits available in game. Are there paratrooper engineers and sappers? It's been a while since I've played a paratrooper. Some good food for thought though.
  9. Hi, I'm liking almost all of the answers so far. Could not ask for much more a this stage. Thanks again @blkhwk8 for taking the time to organize everything! Thanks to all of you working hard at CRS! @XOOM, I admire your effort, skill and daring. Full Speed Ahead,
  10. Hi, You do make some valid points at times. There is truth in that most of a population will quietly leave something they do not like, but unlike a bad restaurant, and even then, I'd say a lot of these people will return from time to time and if the game or restaurant does improve over that time some of them will change their minds and remain. It's a game and most of those quiet departures got to try it out for free. At least it's on their radar somehow. If you take a snapshot now, anyone can make the case that the launch may seem unsuccessful. Fortunately most of those silent majority folks can be won back, because by their very nature most of them have open minds. We can still get there, I believe. Only CRS knows if that is a viable statement. I'ts easy to second guess the timing of the release but it can still end up being a success story. Ultimately, success has a way of washing away past mistakes. We'll see. With all due respect,
  11. Hi, I would agree that there may be a better way. Perhaps some form of EWS/Different AO system. Allow the mission creator/aviator to target the bridge. This sets off some form of EWS/DO warning. System broadcast along chat as well but generic like a bridge has been targeted for attack. Set a limit on targets like 5 or 6 so spamming is curtailed. Same goes for missions created for repair. Give HC the ability to countermand orders if they feel it's a strategic mistake but have an auto PM go to the player who created the mission so the two can hash it out. In other words, players with enough rank can set the new bridge AO/DO. Game managers curtail griefing from side switching violations and secondary account violations. To curtail direct side switching violations do not allow a player that switched sides to create these types of missions for some length of time that makes sense. It gets more convoluted in the code but that is why we have what we have because it is the easiest path to take. CRS would have to decide if it is worth the effort or come up with a way to do something similar or effective within the confines of resources and time management. These are just a few ideas to create a different system. Just removing AO's and DO's on bridges does not seem like the proper solution if it is simply done that way. As for repair, I'm hoping we eventually get an armored SPAA / engineering truck that would accelerate bridge repair or any other engineering function. The mission is set on the bridge and the proximity of the truck does the repair itself while the player mans the AA gun or the commander position while repairs are underway. Otherwise, get a team together to do it more quickly the current way with some over-watch of course. This leads me to having types of missions a player can create, such as setting an FMS displays a mission tab with a specific equipment and unit layout to be filled. It's not mandatory but an ML could wait for the loadouts/vehicles to be filled before staring the mission (if the ML has not started the mission players have to wait for the ML to spawn) or the ML could start the mission at any point that they wish with then suggested load-outs for joiners to fill but certainly not mandatory that a joiner selects that unit. Have them select the suggested loadout and then have a change unit option. You'd have to track available equipment and positions that become available during the mission so it stays updated. Kind of leading them into it. More convoluted coding so maybe that's for 2.0. War is messy, so remember that if you cannot find something completely ungreifable just try and make it something that Game Managers can track relatively easily and take action. There is a reason why most sports have referees, otherwise everything devolves into a lot of griefing or a smack-down. Always a balance that is hard to strike.
  12. Hi, Thank you for taking the time to organize our questions, thoughts and reviewing our suggestions about 1.36. Q: Will the speed at which new hybrid flags be looked at and made more realistically represented in their movements? Q: Will Flags be unable to move into contested towns? Q & T: If flags cannot move into contested towns will we then be able to only spawn in supply from the back-line into the linking CP like Spawn Captures do on attacks now? Q: Will the offensive or passive (not routed) movement of flags be more organic using a command vehicle mechanic? T: Instead of by a .command. Q: What will be the routed flags mechanic? T: Fallback to the back-line linking town(s). Q: What happens to routed garrisoned supply? T: Forfeited as surrendered. Q: If a garrisoned supply town is taken and no flag is moved in, how long will it take to resupply with the victors equipment? Q: If re-garrisoning with the opposing sides equipment is time related and not instant, will it be tied to factory production rates? T: Same questions regarding garrisoned supply if a side repels an attack. Q: Will it take time and will it be tied to factory production? Q: Will there be an HQ supply flag and how will it behave or what are it's mechanics in 1.36? Q: How serious is the team about critical mass, EWS or player-base triggered AOs? T: I really like this idea. Q: If we do get player-base triggered AOs, will HC retain at least one place-able AO to influence the game? T: This would require a minimum of 2 AOs always available to be placed or triggered. I apologize for my plethora of questions. Thanks again.
  13. Hi, For me in D&D it's more about the class and using a race that accentuates it. I enjoy playing a Cleric, usually a dwarf; a Druid, usually a human or a Ranger, usually an Elf or Half-Elf. Occasionally I play as a Thief/Rogue as a half-ling. When I find some time for Neverwinter lately, I have been fleshing out my Thief/Rogue character. All my Neverwinter characters are 30+ and got there by mostly by playing the SP content while sometimes connecting with others, no clan though. If I'm in a group, I play the Cleric cause it's usually most players last choice and it was my first character back in the day. I'm hoping for the next MMO from D&D to use the 5e ruleset. Yeah, I'm a bit of a D&D geek. Played it off and on since the beginning, including Pen & Paper games. I'd be more interested in what classes people like to play the most.
  14. Good to hear from the CINC of CRS. Snap to it ladies and gentleman! Sounds promising!