Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by stonecomet

  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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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,
  19. 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,
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. Good to hear from the CINC of CRS. Snap to it ladies and gentleman! Sounds promising!
  24. Hello, With all due respect. I guess I should not have stepped in to defend the FMS. I mean the thread is about one fix, one feature. I'm not afraid of changes to the FMS. We all know where the old FRU leads and we are in the midst of seeing where the FMS leads is my point of view. If CRS thinks that reverting back to infantry placed spawns is better for the game who am I to stand in their way. CRS has many years worth of data of how well the game stood up when hardly anything was changed, including the infantry placed FRU. Just to be clear, I personally would be happier with FB and City spawn points only with better and larger area capture. I do understand, however, that having my own personal preference is not necessarily good for the games population. That is CRS's decision to make. That being said, the move to the current FMS was the first major change in game mechanics in quite some time. It seemed to not only stabilize but increase the paying player base and the hero builder program. Maybe I'm wrong but it seemed that way. I could see a couple of improvements to the current FMS without a reversion. Originally CRS was going to build a whole new structure but ran into some coding issues trying to model something from scratch. I think I recall that they wanted to try the truck placed FMS and see where it would go and wanted to make the change sooner rather than latter. Then someone on the team had the idea that we already had a structure that could viably stand in for an FMS with some minor changes, temporarily I hope. So here we are with the FMS and I could list some improvements to help with both camping and give the ML some more maneuverability and power. Infantry could spawn inside or all spawned units could be invisible, invincible and weapon restricted for 5-7 seconds. The FMS model could be reworked by simply adding in some sandbags during creation for better defense. A new and better model could be introduced. Truck noise could be reduced and or shortened. Trucks could spawn from the FMS. Engineers could be given the ability to build much faster. An ML could be given the ability to place a single FRU within 500 meters of the FMS (still restricted by enemy facilities of course). The FRU would help with camping some if you have the supply to counter armor. Your still going to need Armor support unless we revert to hide in the bushes and resurrect and outflank. The attached FRU could either go down simultaneously if the FMS is taken down or could stay until destroyed but not moved. An APC could be modeled to place the FMS instead of the truck, even an armed one. Or let armor or some types of armor place FMSs. I'm open to changes and improvements to vehicle placed FMS mechanics. Even though I prefer FB and City spawning only. You could even let the ML replace the FMS with a FRU but then we are back where we were. Run truck in as distraction and then pull the FMS down or wait for it to go down and build an FRU somewhere else. I always thought Armor and Infantry where on the same side if they were from the same side. I thought the idea was to work together closely. Which we could have more of if we wanted. If the old FRU is your FIX or FEATURE fine. But I'll still point out, we've been there. I really do not believe that all of the new players that are more than willing to walk in from FB's or hop on trucks for transport are going to stick around long term if we revert back to the FRU. What I have seen as some veterans concerns is--- get these green tags off my truck, they make too much noise and won't listen. As if we could not have foreseen that. Let them make noise, throw grenades, whatever for a few campaigns. Take the time to drive them in a ways and drop them off. That used to be me, that used to be most of us. We have to let them figure it out and we have to take it on the chin. I could be wrong about it all but we have some pretty hard data where the infantry placed FRU eventually leads. I'm not defending the FMS. I'm just saying I do not believe reverting back to the old infantry placed FRU is the best fix for retaining players, while improving upon the FMS might. I just do not see reverting back to the old FRU as a Fix or a Feature. THat's my bad. Go ahead try infantry placed FRU's for a couple of many campaigns as you want. CRS does not nor does anyone else require my permission. These are just my own personal views and not intended to offend anyone, really. As I stated earlier, supply and flag movements are the game mechanics that I believe require the most attention from my point of view. Which might actually help the FMS and getting to higher tiers as well. Carry On.