pfmosquito

Registered Users
  • Content count

    740
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

pfmosquito last won the day on April 17

pfmosquito had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

96 Vet

About pfmosquito

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. "Sure, great idea if you want to turn this game into a warping lag fest. For every 2nd,3rd, 4th account you have in game, that account is still monitoring everything in it's field of vision," + "Have not seen one person in this thread deny playing two or more accounts introduces lag." Actually, in the nicest way possible, I was doing just that. I don't think there is a connection between the number of accounts in game. And I think 99% of the time, there is no intentional exploiting of anything going on. There is lag, certainly. It is a problem, certainly. It is something that CRS needs to continue to refine, certainly. "Have not seen anyone deny that some players are misusing it either, rather we get the "few bad apples argument". " I didn't make a 'few bad apples argument.' I said that your idea, banning multiple accounts, would do absolutely NOTHING... and by NOTHING I mean zero, zilch, NADA, about what you are describing. Your other ideas which you posted just a few posts ago were much better. That was constructive. Now you're being combative. You are conflating malevolent actions which can be circumvented by anyone interested in being malevolent with unfortunate but NOT malevolent game play issues. Banning multi accounts will do NOTHING about malevolence. Your other ideas might. Multi accounts MIGHT introduce lag, but that can be addressed at the technical level rather than the moral level. I think you would get a better response if you kept those two parts separate, rather than mashing them together into a single contention, come hell or high water. I say 'MIGHT.' There was a day when the multiple accounts = lag, etc, was more plausible. Despite there being a big difference between uploads and download speeds for most people, it still the case that people have much, much better access to high speed internet these days. And this game requires a computer which is no slouch, too. I think lag is real, but I don't think it has much to do with the person's computer, or their internet, or the number of accounts they might have logged in. And I certainly don't think, 99% of the time, whatever weirdness we're seeing in the game is intentional malevolence. CRS certainly has work to do on this side of things. No reason to impute malevolence when its a technical issue. And if its a technical issue, then it matters whether or not the proposed technical solution would actually achieve the desired goal.
  2. I like that idea, Tater. I think you may have mentioned it before, too, but it didn't quite register to me how it would work. I think they'd all have to be out of the same mission at least, though. Might give 'missions' a real purpose, finally... especially if more teeth were given to mission leaders to ensure that the people spawning the mission are fulfilling the objective of the mission. I wonder how kills of the temporarily unmanned clones would be registered, though. Should they count as regular kills, or only as kills after they are manned. Or half kills. And do each one pull from the supply list? I ask these questions because this could be a griefer or stat-monger opportunity. But generally, it might work. I might even welcome it when the pop finally reaches 5,000 players again.
  3. "Want to play on two accounts? Play on two computers." FYI, they would still have the same IP address. What they would actually need to have different IP addresses are two different internet connections. Unless, of course, they use software to spoof or have VPNs to avail themselves of. You could even have a virtual machine going, or an emulator. This stuff is all free on the net. I use an android emulator to run android apps on my Windows 10 box, for example. My objection is a little different to what has been stated so far. Anyone with the mindset to cheat will easily circumvent even the ban on multiple accounts. If they are already willing to PAY for the second account which they plan on cheating with, then there really aren't any lengths they won't go to. A ban on multiple accounts just won't achieve the desired goal. From a technical point of view, though, there might be more robust detection measures that could be implemented. For all I know, some of these already exist. Personally, I've seen so many weird things in this game that I'm inclined to doubt very much that 99% of the suspicious stuff is truly malevolent.
  4. Bump. Picked up 2 new trainers thanks to folks following up on this post. I sure would like about 18 more!
  5. Ladies and gentlemen, you may have observed news this summer that I have been appointed leader of the training corps. You may have further observed numerous remarks diffused through the forums and your own experiences, to the effect that we need to better retain new players. Many proposals are out there that one way or the other boil down to helping to train them. Indeed. CRS is very aware of this, which is why they have sought to revitalize their training programs. Giving me point on the issue illustrates their commitment to addressing this need. Well, my friends, I need you to step in and step up to help me. While there are many things under discussion and even in various stages of implementation, right now I am asking you to join the training corps. Preferably, I'd like 10 allied and 10 axis to join my team and become trainers. Trainers get an additional set of commands to help bring new players up to speed. This is their primary duty: reach out to green tags and try to get them hooked on the game ASAP by removing obstacles preventing them from having enjoyable game play. Here is what you need to understand: by helping others, you are really meeting your own selfish needs. The more people playing, the more fun you have. While being a trainer is thankless work in some respects (even establishing comms with a green tag can be a chore), everyone understands that these new players represent the future of the game. I'd invite you to be one who does not merely understand this fact, but one who owns it, and joins the training corp with me. Interested? Email is best for me at mosquito@warpath.us however you can send me a private message on this forum or chat with me in game. -------- Quick notes. Strictly speaking, you don't HAVE to be an 'official' trainer in order to help a green tag. Right? If you see one, reach out to him. Explain what CPs are, how to find action, and how to communicate, including how to PM. Don't bad mouth them. Also bear in mind that whatever it is you were doing in the game when you encountered an aimless green tag is temporary--forgotten in a day, probably, and after a month just a faint memory. But SUBSCRIBING new players are potentially forever...
  6. "*** The success of any video comes down to dopamine. Simply put.... the game needs to be addictive. Agree, needs to be more consistent battles." Daisy chained front lines.
  7. Thank you, @sorella, for following up in a way to salvage my dignity after my brief descent into abject silliness. You had some ideas I hadn't considered, which makes me glad I wrote what I wrote. The idea is to create an ownership mentality. Owners behave differently than users. Example: when I was kid, I was made to do yard work and various chores. This was work I detested, and I did a [censored] poor job of whatever it was I did. But now I am an owner. The yard work is a joy. I wish I was doing yard work right now instead of writing this post! My kids, on the other hand, detest the work I give them to do, and do a [censored] poor (but improving year by year) job of whatever it is they do. Ownership brings to the table an entirely different outlook. Investors also have different mindsets. An investor says, "If I put $5 into this game, I might get $20 out of it up front, and $1 a month til I die. Aw, heck. Let's give that a shot!" And to get that sweet deal, you need to get 4 peeps to sub for $5/mo for 6 months; you get their sub money on their sixth month, and henceforth you get .25 cents from each sub for however long they are subbed. An investor then realizes, "Hey, I've been incentivized to follow up with my recruits and help them along in the game." Providing you have a working system here, now you have an investor say to himself, "Self, I've sent $1,000 to CRS in donations in the last 24 months. Glad to have done it. But I bet with $1,000 to spend on advertising, etc, of my own design, I might get me 100 new subscribers because of my access to [insert here], etc. I potentially could get my money back and then some. Heck, I bet I could score 250 new subscribers with an outlay of $2,000 and get three times my money back in a year..." Now, merging these mentalities, what you have here is a situation where that owner mentality is combined with the belief that one might get a return on their investment beyond enjoyment. But remember this: investors put their own money at risk. So, all you have to do is build the affiliate system, and let them do the rest. People might be willing to pony over more dollars for the cause if they feel they can direct it how they please, and have a belief they might get their money back over time.
  8. " Well I have some skin in the game, I have been paying for a long time (off and on since 2001) and want the game to be successful and grow." Throwing a very random thought out there, but maybe there is a way that the players could be invited to be investors. Not donors, but investors. And an absolutely insane, crazy stupid idea, maybe a cash incentive for recruiting. How about finding a way to make into a MLM! That's the dumbest thing I've ever said, but I offer it seriously, in the spirit of generating some ideas. But not so dumb... I played from 2001 to 2005 and then took a few year break. When I came back, after awhile I did a post just like this. I strongly recommended free to play. I still do. I know its hard on the pocket book (at present), as experience has probably shown CRS, but the bottom line is that this game NEEDS PLAYERS. That, I think, is a baseline requirement for future success. In other words, if it were possible to lose money for a time but build up to a steady 500-750 people playing all the time, I think it would have to be the choice that was made. Look, the game can appeal to us die hards and survive a while longer thanks to us, but eventually we're gonna die, even if just from old age. We need the boots. Now, retaining them is a problem, and finding a way to generate revenue from them is an additional problem. But my point is that they're not going to stick around or fork over some dough for 30 folks online at a given time. I stand by my daisy chained front line idea as the number one way to bring the thrill into the game (on a consistent, reliable basis) for the twitch players--without whom, we won't have a game. (And we all have a little 'twitch' in us.) That said, I will do some more thinking and brainstorming in my mind to see if I can come up with something. Hopefully it'll be better than World War Two Online, the Advocare Edition.
  9. Ok, just one thing here. I've been here since 2001, and peeps have NEVER guarded spawnables. In fact, one of the things that the Pathfinders have prided themselves for is that they've been willing to do that thankless chore, when others haven't. I just don't see unguarded spawns as a fair barometer of things. That said, it is undeniable that a game like this needs numbers in order for it to be maximally entertaining. I have proposed some ideas that I think would do this in the long run (daisy chained front lines), on the view that we have got to win over the twitch players without selling out our soul. However, there are moments in this game which are indescribably amazing. No other game can compare because no other game allows for the potential confluence of so many simultaneous players bringing different units, tactics, etc, to the table. I will continue playing, and paying, until the game goes under, or Jesus comes back. Not that I'm not disappointed that the frequency of these amazing moments is on the decline, but the brutal truth is that if I walk away... if we all walk away... we will NEVER see the promise fulfilled. Maybe we disagree with certain decisions that have been made, but as long as they've been made in 'good faith' (and I think for the most part they have), it is, in my opinion, worthy of my attention and 2 Netflix subscriptions.
  10. at least i learned where my game installer downloads go.
  11. Sorry, I see now that the exact language was 'hot fix.' But that suggests a file even smaller and effort even less than when I need a patch. To me, anyway.
  12. I must have an entirely different notion about what a 'patch' constitutes. I knew that there was a patch inbound tonight, so I dutifully waited until it was ready to go. I logged in and connected to the patch server, only to discover that I had to download the FULL PROGRAM. Thankfully, my internet is not metered, but I don't have 100mb download speeds, either, if you know what I mean. So, ok, I come back in an hour, and start the install. Goes all the way through and then... cancels the install because I needed (apparently) to uninstall the game before installing the 'patch.' And wouldn't you know it, since I downloaded through the installer, the file was not saved to my computer (at least nowhere that I could find after a scan of the typical places my downloads go). That means that I have to do it ALL OVER AGAIN. Which, is what I'm doing as I write this post. My strong preference would be that if we know that we are going to have to do a full uninstall/reinstall, it should be prominently displayed in several places, not the least of which would be right at the top of the 'news.' Then, I would mosey on over to the website and download it that way, instead of through the installer. At least that way if I run into any surprises, I already have the file to go back to. I miss the old days, when a 'patch' was just that... a patch. (I see no one else complaining about this, so maybe I'm bugged somehow?)
  13. I've provided quite a few ideas on this over the years that I think would go a long way of resolving the issue without adding gamey, ad hoc tricks. A side lock of any kind is a gimmick. That said, I think there is merit to Nc0g's adaptation where the total pop is factored in before Delem's proposal kicks in. I think the problem with gamey gimmicks is that there are always unintended gamey consequences. But, if the thresholds were reasonable so that they disappeared altogether after, say, 30 players is on, I'm not sure there is much room for too many unintended consequences to sprout up. But that's the thing about unintended consequences: they are a bear to predict. A better way of resolving the issue is to try to ground the game in even more realism. In this context, that means giving more things for people to do instead of shoot each other--and for the overpop side, they would have EVEN more things to do, and thus by natural player behavior, players would disperse to do the greater number of things, easing up the concentration in one area--ie, the camping of an AB, etc. For example, make the overpop side more vulnerable, and thus force it to commit defenders to more locations. The FB for a side that is significantly overpop might require half the satchels to bring it down. Even MORE overpop, make it so that only 4 can take down the whole forward base, vehicle and infantry spawn both. You could make it so that its only for the FB connected to the overpop's AO, or you could make it for any and all FBs, suddenly allowing the underpop side to have a FB advantage and thus get a spawn. Well, you could say that even on this, a very underpop side might not be able to spare even one guy to go and kill the FB. But the solution, ultimately, is to create even MORE vulnerabilities. For example, you could have it so that the underpop side always has double the number of AOs to place as the overpop side, which if added to the glass jaw FB's, means that the underpop side could open up a new front--drawing away concentrated overpop players--relatively quickly and potentially in several places at once, if the underpop side snaps up spawnables in two different towns. We already have faster cap timers for the underpop side. You could expand on that even more, so that in ADDITION to the above, you speed up the capture radically. So, yea, maybe the underpop side gets hammered and rolled over taking a town, but maybe the underpop side snags TWO towns while losing the first town. The overpop side learns its lesson fast, and the next time, the roll doesn't happen so fast or overwhelmingly because the overpop side has dispersed more guards to 3-5 other towns where it has now become possible for the underpop side to get a spawn. True, these are gamey tweaks in their own way, but then again, CPs and FBs are gamey. But in the real world, armies had to do more than just shoot at each other. They had to defend supply lines, gas up tanks, do repairs, etc, etc. Which brings me to the idea of incentivizing moving gear from one town to another, for example, by train. (Trains!) Trains, even if run by AI, which carried supply from one place to another, would be cool no matter what. Cooler still if you could spawn an AA gun on one. But my point is that let's say you had your supply trains, but for the overpop side, after they take a town, the new town does not automatically get garrison supply. No, the supply train has to leave from the rear town and arrive in the captured town before the garrison supply is shown in stock--and planes, tanks, etc, can shoot that train while en route. Which means, yes, you guessed it, the overpop side would have to commit soldiers to defend it, diluting the number available to roll the next town. If its deemed worthy of an idea to keep 24/7 and not just during pop imbalances, then you can slow down the trains for overpop sides, or make it so that after the train is destroyed, it takes longer for it to try again; an intrepid bomber on the underpop side could keep an attack from ever materializing unless the overpop side dedicates 3-5 times the number of underpop players required to stall it in the first place. Ie, make it so 1 underpop guy can ruin the overpop's day, but it takes 5 overpop to root him out. Another quick example: over the years the idea of a 'medic' has been discussed. If the pop is balanced, both sides have the medic in the list. But if there is a big imbalance, only the underpop side gets one, potentially extending their supply (eg, a medic in the bunker bandaging up the lone SMG defender X number of times), while it drops from the overpop's spawn list. What I'm talking about here is a philosophy, a different way of viewing the problem altogether. Just increase the number of things that people have to DO, which in real wars they actually would have had to DO, and then give speed advantages to the underpop side. Hopefully, the net result is going to be reduced big swings in times of big pop imbalances but also increased player retention because it will be more fun to 'role play' even more aspects then we have now. Each new thing to DO becomes another tool in the tool box for gamey manipulation, should it prove necessary. But in the long run, I would think that under this philosophy, it would come to be more immersive and less gamey as time went on, hopefully resulting in a bigger player base altogether and (can we dream?) the disappearance completely of gross imbalances at any time of day.
  14. I only recently saw his name, too. I also noticed solid game play. Makes me think its a vet with an alternate account. But could be a returning vet. Or, he's been around forever, and I suck at observing. At any rate, when I see him, I will pass along the message.
  15. Maybe I should be regularly updating the last frame where the fallen are listed. I think I saw we had some new ones.