stonecomet

Registered Users
  • Content count

    648
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Green Tag

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. Greetings, Just Say NO to Stacking. No More Stacking. Would make things interesting. - Join the "REDUCE THE BRIGADES" Campaign. Less Moving parts make it more interesting. A small reduction until 1.36 might make things more interesting.-
  2. Hi, Bridges and Rivers lose their true war significance with an infantry placed supply model in action. For this reason alone I consider the truck placed FMS or MS a superior one. In my humble opinion of course.
  3. Greetings, A decision does have to be made and implemented one way or the other before we can move forward or backward, depending on your point of view. Plus things need to be tried and refined so implementation of something reasonable is key. I'm hoping that we are making some headway into the supply and command mechanics at least at the decision level because the game really needs this to be resolved as quickly as possible in my humble opinion.
  4. Hi, We do have Game Managers. We also have ourselves to police the situation. Lets say the AO set rule is the presence of 10 players in EWS for 10 continuous minutes otherwise the timer begins to reset or it resets. That would mean that at least 10 players would have to collude and switch sides and set off EWS somewhere new for 10 minutes with the new side poking their noses into the situation. GMs should always have AO veto capability. Why would they not, as their primary function is protecting live game content. Hopefully in addition to PPAO, if an HC officer logs on they are granted an AO with placement timer to place. If they do not place it in 15 minutes. Player population can place the additional AO if conditions are met. The opposing side gets an additional PPAO even if they have no HC on. If both sides have HC on they each have one population independent AO with a placement timer. Each time the HC AO is given or resets the HC officer present has control of the AO for 15 minutes or if it has not been placed by the player base after the 15 minutes has expired. HC officers are unable to Pull or Veto any AO including the HC given AO with a command. AOs are only closed organically by lack of player presence. The additional HC AOs expire 30 minutes after no HC is logged in on either side. I imagine AFK would be considered logged off for HC or for that matter anyone. As for AOs coming down. I would think that if the player count fell below 5 for 5 continuous minutes then the AO would remove itself in 60 seconds with RTB system messages during that minute and for a minute after: "RTB AO RESCINDED" and "RTB NO AO PRESENT". This could happen by defensive repulsion or even running out of supply or attrition. What could be more natural than; we run out of supply on an attack and fewer and fewer players spawn in and the AO gets pulled or the defense is strong and repulses an attack. Of course enough players and a counter attack could occur either way down the line. I do not foresee AO high-jacking being a major issue within the gaming community if we had player activated AOs and I do foresee more cooperation on a side with player activated AOs. The population will adapt to what works well for the game rules and have a tendency to police themselves with Game Manager assistance eventually. We will always have events that mar campaigns from time to time. I think the benefits of player activated AOs will outweigh any negative aberrations. Someone made a statement about the need for referees. We have referees. Game Managers and ultimately CRS. Do we really fear that our own community and player base will collude on such a level and do so on such a level that we fear it will ruin our game? The mechanic of player triggered simulated warfare sounds great to me. The one feeling this game brings out the most for me is that sense of playing war in a backyard or field as kids with all kinds of cool toys. Player base triggered AOs just fits right in to that type of game play. It's going to be OK in my humble opinion.
  5. Hi all, Since it seems we have run the gamut of direct questions and are now speculating and suggesting I'll go ahead and join in. I was wondering if we could have something close to the following system: Player mass activated AOs are always available. AO's are still population dependent but with a special rule. During very low population if there are no HC on either side the population restrictions are active and normal. Whenever a single HC is on either side both sides regardless of population levels get an additional AO. The side that has an HC officer online gets the AO that is place-able only by the HC officer. If the officer does not place the additional HC only AO then player base population determines the outcome. The side without the HC officer has the additional AO but have to make due on their own by placing the additional AO through player mass activation. No matter how many HC are on each side only gets one HC only place-able AO. HC has no veto rights over player activated AOs but they always have one to work with when online but only when they are online of course. The additional HC AO is always added to the population based AO determination. This would mean that at the lowest population level if an HC officer was online on either side 2 AOs would be available for each side. The single HC situation could be griefed by an HC officer logging off to remove an impending AO but that can be combated in two ways. 1) a 15-30 minute delay before the system recognizes the sign off. 2) HC disciplinary measures such as removal from HC for pulling such a stunt. The first one handles incidental disconnects and allow the lone HC officer to log off when desired. It sounds kind of complex but we already have the code for HC placed AOs and we are adding player base activated AOs. As to all that stuff about revolts within a side or squads on the same side getting angry at each other. I'd say that is a detriment to that side for not working together in compromise over a game. Sure there will be plenty of finger pointing whenever a side loses but that happens all ready doesn't it. Think a little like EVE online. The side that does not play well together usually loses together. That's just life and should be emulated in this type of game. As it already kind of does. Anyway, I'm sure there are some flaws somewhere in there but it is a hybrid system of AOs. What I'm wondering is who moves the flags when no HC is on? I'm guessing the player base somehow because then a side with an HC officer on will dominate, no? Which we are trying to avoid. I'm also wondering how AOs end without a victory? My guess is once the player mass from the attacking side drops below a certain threshold from the attackers the AO gets pulled by the system.
  6. Hi GrAnit, This is not an official statement but I do not expect regular Friday updates to resume until after 1.36 and the Holidays are over. I did see a post from OHM I think, that stated that the STEAM release took a lot out of the team with the work they had to put in to get there and follow up after release. Plus, I think since they are reworking 1.36 they are probably not ready for one. That is just my guess though. Weekly development diary updates across the gaming community seem to have an ebb and flow dynamic within each game that has them depending on what is going on. I would be surprised if we do not hear anything next week. So maybe we are on a more every 2 to 3 weeks right now.
  7. Hi, I like a lot of what is happening with the supply dynamics/mechanics in the upcoming update. I do have overstocking concerns and have always had concerns about the movement speed/rules for flags. Stacking might not happen a lot if there are not many flags, I would still like to see some limits on flag stacking as in two flags only are allowed to stack. I know I will not get it all my own way. The latest questions are more about making sure the team thinks everything over. I'm sure they mull this one over a lot. Just some things that I would like them to either reconsider or add them into the new dynamics/mechanics if it makes more sense. I also understand the new supply system is something that will evolve. I'm glad we will have a hybrid system and I'm glad it is being designed with the player base able to make things happen even when no HC is on. I'm excited about a lot of what I see up top. These latest are just my own personal concerns that I hope may be considered / reconsidered and I felt better putting them forth as questions. I do not pretend to understand the overstocking that we are going to get. Maybe that is my real concern. How will it work? Is it Garrisons can only overstock Garrisons? Can Garrisons overstock Flags? Can Flags overstock Garrisons? Can you create a juggernaut supply given enough time? I'm just trying to wrap my head around what it will look and work like. So, yes, a little of both question/suggestion going on to be honest.
  8. Hi, Can we think about eliminating overstocking in the game by keeping all supply separated? Can we open spawn links from FBs and rear FBs all the way through to the linking CP? Can we make the only way to stack supply is the from invisible flags with a single stack limit. Only two total flags may combine with any town garrison? Can we restrict supply from entering into contested towns? [Then make the attacking side have to hold off; AO/DO flip for at least 30 minutes before a flag begins arriving and before any garrison supply starts to trickle in, I believe CRS has a plan for this] Can we make existing flag supply automatically fall back one town back or by HC command with player base command back up.? Can we make surrounded or trapped supply or totally destroyed supply get routed to and then have to leave from training? Can we have all supply subject to realistically represented movement rules? [for example...move command for new flags issued; after 30 minutes light stuff starts to trickle in; at 1 hour heavy stuff starts to trickle in; at 1.5 all light has arrived and within 2 hours the last piece of heavy equipment and for the flag arrives. 30 minute cool down timer in-between moves.] Overstocking rules are my only concern moving forward. I would rather see depot spawning of rear supply linked through the FB between the towns including a mission with light supply into a front line defended town through the depot and not allow overstocking from garrisons and flags should be out of bounds as well. Of course move forward as you think is best. Maybe just keep the heavy stuff out of garrisons but that doesn't sound right either. Clear supply differentiation with some organically driven supply flags. Whether that is through HC command with a player base back up command or with actual command vehicles that resupply in- game. If we have overstocking,it will have to be managed well. I would rather reinforcements be more organic and depot link specific/limiting. In my humble opinion, that is.
  9. Thank you for putting it all together.
  10. 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.
  11. Hi, How are the victory conditions handled?
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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.