stonecomet

Registered Users
  • Content count

    667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 FNG

1 Follower

About stonecomet

  • Rank
    WWII ONLINE BUILDER [HERO]
  • Birthday January 13

Profile Information

  • Location
    CNY
  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit
    Rifleman
  1. 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.
  2. @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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Hi, I have never played HC nor have I played much lately. I was rereading this and it struck me that many arguments or observations are reliant upon the existing flag/brigade structure that is supposedly going away. There will be a few flags for HC but not enough to make major differences to the final map end. They may be decisive at times but the effect overall is a supplemental one. In other words the solutions presented here should be done with the new system in place because then HC and Brigade movements and flags and garrison flags will look much and play much differently. I'm a big fan of player base voting for operations (AOs) as it will either break a side up argumentatively (poor cohesion) or a side learns to communicate more effectively for voting (good cohesion). I'm sure there is a low grief way to implement it if CRS really wanted to. One of the reasons I do not play in game much any more is because of a few things. The first is HC in it's current form. Don't get me wrong I have nothing personal against HC or MOIC from a person to person perspective. For instance, I have great respect for dfadd when he is on as HC but it still bugs me that one person, whomever that is, is making the final decision about AOs and pulling or rotating supply. I do not get any kind of enjoyment jumping through the hoops that MOIC has to create in order to succeed. With a voting system (even though it is not militaristic or dictatorial realistically represented) you can get peeved at how the majority voted but that is it pretty much. We win and lose from a strategic point more as a group than by HC vision or will. I'll always believe that the strategic outcome should be more organically driven in game than from some other game layered on top. I'm paying for development right now not the status quo and I'm certainly not happy paying for or playing in a game where some other player because of some hierarchy has the ability to determine a significant portion of my fun factor in game. I'd rather the base game I pay for not some hierarchy within should be the major determinant. It is really not their fault it is my personal view of the system and frankly the system in general. For me AOs should be more dynamic and they should die not get pulled. In other words set some type of enemy presence condition if held drops the AO for the defender. I feel from observation of the flow of AOs that whatever the current formula is for AOs it should be plus one more. If AOs are limited then when we run out of AOs run out regardless of whether we keep a current system or we actually do make the change to a hybrid system. If there is no AO to vote on there is no AO to vote on. In a voting system, an AO gets voted and is viable or not and dies out if it is a good or a poor vote. I do like fidd's idea that AO have some kind of conditional nominating structure. From my point of view it is all about how an AO gets placed and most importantly how it gets removed. The current Flag/Brigade system is the biggest killer for me though. Pulling, stacking and rotating flags at such a rate I say why bother. Too many flags that move too fast and should have some form of stacking limitations. I'm hoping the new supply system does not allow movable supply stacking and of course limited movable flags. I read fidd's post and interpreted it differently. I felt fidd had minor issues with an AO voting system. I'm not happy playing in a dictatorship game world...hence I rarely play. I'm hoping CRS feels differently. @B2K I'm unsure of the timeliness of this post as the situation and best thought solutions might change under a different supply mechanic. We need to know what that really looks and functions like to make an informed opinion. Although the vote for an AO if implemented properly with a good nomination structure is for me a good option under a system where movable supply is limited and medium impact. on the situation. @bradynothing personal and I hope you take it in stride. Remember that the strategic layer you enjoy playing is at the pace it is now because of the way things currently are. HC's role will drastically change if we ever get to the new supply system where you will not have so many movable flags to control. AOs are another matter but you know where I stand there. Also, this is just one persons opinion on which way the game should go.
  6. Hi, I have never been a fan of FTP in this type of subscription model. FTP is a tool that most developers use to lure a customer in for micro-transactions to either enhance or personalize their experience. I'm OK with micro-transactions in games, just not this one. As stated earlier in the thread, the issue with charging for access to a piece of equipment means that it has to be accessible upon purchase and that does not work well with the supply model we have in game. FTP combined with subscriptions can be done but there is almost always some kind of buff involved. So we have a game that has a FTP model and the only buff you get for paying is access to more equipment models subject to availability within the games current supply condition. It just makes no sense to me, but I'm not running the company. I prefer the free 30 day trail period that automatically converts to the lowest subscription unless the user cancels the account beforehand. I get that "no credit card required" is compelling and gets people to sign up for FTP accounts that may convert to a paid subscription. I do wonder what the conversion ratio is but I suspect it is pretty low. Now you have users that most likely do not have credit cards or should not be using their credit card for a monthly subscription. If a customer has enough interest to look at the game and not having or not wanting to use a credit card is holding them back, the odds are that they cannot afford to put the sub on there even for a trial period or they do not have a credit card. STEAM being a different animal as you can pay through your STEAM wallet but still you have to get the prospective money from somewhere if you WANT to subscribe. Most customers, not all but most, have no intention of getting a subscription unless there financial condition changes. FTP does not change the fact that it is most likely personal financial reasons and not so much the lure of the games more powerful equipment. I could easily drop down to FTP since my main unit is the rifleman and save myself some cash and still enjoy what the game currently offers. I could have done that when FTP came out. I mainly pay for future development and I'll live with that decision as there are no guarantees. Other developers are starting to realize that there is a reasonable market for a realistic WWII simulation and they are running down the pike aimed right at WWII Online. I'm sure CRS is aware of this. I think sometimes we do not give them enough credit for what they do on an ongoing basis of looking at what else is out there in comparison. I kind of get why we went to FTP when we did but I'm not so sure it should remain that way. You should have to pay to play. There is something to be said for creating value for your product. I would love to see CRS revert back to a demo period which gives some meaning to having achieved rank. Unfortunately that would be a heavy storm to weather since the STEAM release is over. I've seen developers change the pay model before though and with relative success in the long run if managed properly with the community. It's currently just one of the oddest financial models I've ever seen. I also wonder how many curious starter subscriptions CRS may have lost out on during the STEAM release in comparison to how many they converted after the free period from the way they did it. I hope it all works out for everyone. 2 cents, P.S. I just fully realized that STEAM players got a 30 day trial and FTP in the end. That is some good hard data for CRS on how attractive FTP is in comparison to PTP and more access, giving them an informed decision on any changes to the financial model.
  7. This can be a tough forum to break into. Depends on your forum skills and sensitivities. From what I've seen it has gotten much better over the past few years due to a pretty good moderation team and moderation system. Also, I'd say the player base on the most part recognize the value of new players more and more. Everything should be looked at from time to time. Too many stickies is a common forum occurrence as a forum evolves. Might be time for some yearly forum maintenance. Of course, only if there is a hand to spare. They seem to work fine as they are. We have bigger fish to fry for now, don't we?
  8. Even if the development time was about equal I would still think sound over visual makes the greater immediate impact on this iteration of the game and would affect it greatly in it's play-ability aspects in a good way, as well. But alas we have no dedicated sound engineer contributing at this time. Sound Is Good
  9. @SCKING, "Sounds" like you need to hire one. Yeah, pun intended. I would do it if I knew how. Any takers or sound engineers out there? Thank you for the reply.
  10. Hello CRS, I was wondering if you have plans for an Audio or Sound Audit? Most especially truck and light transport and scout vehicles but all vehicles, guns, explosions, ambient noise and otherwise would benefit from a thorough Audio Review in a game where sound is such a critical part of successful game-play awareness. An Improved, Richer and Accurate Sound Profile is a better bang for the resource buck until the graphics can be freshened up or re-skinned. Just think you might want to move a Complete Sound Overhaul onto one of the front burners. I'd prefer a sound overall first, which should take less time over a re-skin overhaul which I imagine should take longer to implement. Maybe I'm off about the time investment for each though. Could be sound development takes just as long or longer. It just seems like it would be a faster process overall if it where a primary focus. Thank you for your consideration,
  11. @bmbm, I do understand that a Tiger is a superior option to an SPG and is essentially an Armored and Self Propelled 88, but I'm still saying that having real SPGs as historical options would complement what we have and give some cover to the ATG category. I imagine that the introduction of the SPG has given ATGs and AAGs some form of relief or operating space. I believe a sound audit will ultimately be one of the final key to many puzzles as non propelled guns need to be towed with accurately modeled truck audio signatures in order to function properly on the battlefield, especially in this game where audio is such a critical part of game-play. I'm guessing the Hummel or something similar would be an interesting addition. Of course bringing it in the appropriate tier. I'm a novice when it comes to knowledge of WWII Historical SPG representation but surely there is something pre 43 that could serve in that type of role. Would be the next logical step since we now have SPAAs in my humble opinion. Then I would begin with Tier 0 and flesh it out by fixing any existing equipment bugs and adding absent criteria and move up the Tiers and fleshing those out. Along with the Italians and Americans fleshed out as well. I would like to see all forces embedded in an alternate history of Alliance and Axis forces. You could even embed some Japanese forces in the later tiers in another twist in history late in the war when the Americans come in. The Italians should just be there in the beginning. Anyways I digress. An SPG as an option has to be more fun than just an ATG and it partially answers the OP's conundrum for the non propelled 88 from my point of view. Development resources set aside for arguments sake.
  12. Hi, I would agree that PPO's need to have similar survive-ability or damage thresholds as the FMS does itself to give them the meaning they deserve.
  13. Hi, OK. So the 88 as a SPG is a no go. Are there any German SPG's that would make the towed 88 not obsolete but more complimentary to the equipment list. I was really not trying to be glib. I would agree modelling the gun shield on the current 88 would be a great addition. I do however think SPG's in tiers 1 and up in alternative history in good supply would be fun to have in game. Their presence in adequate numbers would provide cover for the manually pushed and towed units we already have. I've never claimed historical or accurate knowledge of units and load-outs in WWII Online. When I do play, which is rarely if ever lately, I am just a grunt willing to do that it takes to play tactically and soundly with whomever is in the area. of operation. I'm still saying a complete audio overhaul would do the games wonders, including the 88s proficiency in battle.
  14. Hi, I'm guessing @B2Kis implying a non reliance on HC in it's current state. A more organic suggestion. Like @Pittpetevoting suggestion. I like the idea a lot. I would simply make it so that whatever number of AOs where available that number of AO votes would be SPAMMING for a vote across the logged in player base. You could even weigh an HC member who is online as two votes for each HC vote but that's a different discussion. I would have nominations actually start SPAMMING at 5% or greater of the player base and let a timer and majority rule the day. I would alter the later suggestion as to EWS to the AO gets placed and expires only if 15 continuous minutes of low infantry/armor EWS are registered during an attack. A warning is SPAMMED during the final 5 minutes that the AO will be pulled unless players reinforce. The OP sets the conditions as ...how to "convince" a portion of the player base. So unless we are following a physical player threshold mechanic then a voting system is pretty much required in order to fulfill or give meaning to any form of system where a memeber of the player base is using text and voice chat that is availabel to pursuade memebers of the player base to make an attack on a certain Town (Target) and not have it rely on an HC player or a single HC player only to decide. After all, with all due respect, HC players are just players after all and a part of the player base even when they are MOIC that are working hard to create content and meaning to the strategic layer and for the rest of the player base. A player gets 5% or more of the player base to nominate a Town (Target). The System SPAMS the town showing a count down that the town will be selected for AO placement in 10 minutes. Unless of course another Town (Target) gets nominated. Then at the end of 10 minutes, regardless of the amount if nominations, the Town (Target) with the most votes gets the AO. The seniority between any nominations breaks any ties in voting. Voting seems like the best way to go because it eliminates the requirement to get critical mass to a location. Often the numbers come after the AO/DO is created. If we go critical mass numbers then a low threshold like 10 within EWS range to trigger a 10 minute AO placement timer which has to be maintained continuously in order for the AO to be placed. Again if two or more towns are in the race, whomever can sustain the 10 number for 10 continuous minutes wins the race for any available AO. This requires a player leader or Squad Leader to convince 10 players to stay on target physically for 10 minutes. This becomes more of a challenge during Low Pop. Of course you could do a percentage of the population in a location starts a timer. Something like 10% of the player base whatever that is [10 players = 1 player trigger ; 20 players = 2 player trigger etc.] in EWS proximity for 10 continuous minutes. I still prefer the voting system though for a more organic placement approach that is easy and unburden-some. I would still like to clarify that not allowing stacking with the new flags and preventing flags from entering attacking and defending towns directly is crucial to allowing attrition to be a major factor. The flags will bring in the more blitzkrieg type of offensive win with overwhelming numbers. Stacking should be limited to 10% more units in my humble opinion. This keeps 90% of the original unit intact for real counter offensives. All supply trickles in. 15 minute delay before first units arrive. One hour for full resupply. Light stuff first 15 minutes and all the rest over the last 30 minutes.
  15. Hi, How about making the 88 into an SPG and remove or greatly reduce the pretty much obsolete towed/pushed 88? Also, a Truck Audio Audit or should I say a Complete Audio Overhaul Audit might be something worth moving onto the front burner for this iteration of WWII Online. Being that Sound is such a critical element of this game.