pfmosquito

Registered Users
  • Content count

    729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

pfmosquito last won the day on April 17

pfmosquito had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

85 Vet

About pfmosquito

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. at least i learned where my game installer downloads go.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?)
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Maybe I should be regularly updating the last frame where the fallen are listed. I think I saw we had some new ones.
  7. Yes. Just a large PPO. 'A Player Placed Object of Unusual Size.' I agree that placement could be an issue. On the other hand, for the size object that I am envisioning--your conventional walled AB--I think we could find plenty of places to put it without it being too difficult. I think we would come to know the best places for the PPOUS just like we come to know the best places for FMSs etc. I do think that just creating a PPO that can basically spawn the entire brigade list would screw up gameplay. It needs to be tied to actual brigades (not garrisons), and bounded by distance limits. But as I was thinking about it, I was thinking that we could do the whole thing without much more coding (unless making very large PPOs requires coding and allowing tanks, etc, to spawn, requires coding) by having 2 distinct PPOUSes, and herein would require just a little coding. There would be a forward PPOUS and a rear PPOUS. The rear PPOUS is the one closest to your town. It can only be set within X and Y distances from the town. The forward PPOUS can ONLY be set if the rear PPOUS exists, and only within X and Y distances from the rear PPOUS. After the forward PPOUS is set, the rear one CANNOT be blown (and maybe it can't be spawned from, either). This would have the effect of most PPOUSes being set not too far from the road simply because of player choice. You wouldn't have to code it. The enemy would be doing the same. Presto, front line! I don't think you need to mess with FBs, or CPs, or ABs, or anything. Just leave them alone. Just add the PPOUS (one or in series as I just proposed) and see if it works. The only problem I'm seeing with this revised idea is that a PPO is tied to a player setting a mission, and if there are no players on the mission, the FMS disappears. I don't think we'd want that for this. But maybe we'd find a way to work around that easily enough. I also assume that we wouldn't want one of these suckers to go up as easily as driving a truck. But I have no ideas on how they would be set.
  8. Folks, just imagine in your mind that what I'm proposing is the EXACT same thing as a FMS, only 20 times larger, and able to access more items from the supply list. I know it leaves some questions unanswered, like how is it built in the first place, but that's really all it is. The only innovation is the idea of 'daisy chaining.' But I have some ideas on how even THAT could rely on existing game dynamics related to the PPOs. Not a bad idea, Elfin. I think the Active Mission tab is supposed to allow for that, but yea.
  9. @tr6alRe: spawning in at different points. I didn't catch where that was mentioned. I don't think I mentioned it. Maybe you are just making a general remark. I think the PPO can be designed in such a way to handle that. Like I said, it could be a giant bunker complex of some kind. Maybe as simple as a visualization of the walled AB that we see in many cities, right now. To protect spawners, it can be designed to shield them, like the infantry spawn of a FB does right now (until it is blown). I don't know how hard it would be to make it so that the enemy can't shoot from within the PPO, just like you can't shoot from inside the enemy's depot or barracks. I think there are many ways that problem can be handled using existing concepts, if not merely by expanding existing code for PPOs. But I think I do agree the 'capping' might not be the best way to think of this. On the PPO scheme, we should just be thinking it would be destroyed. Not like a FB, which is hard coded to the tile somehow, it seems. But like PPOs already are.
  10. Now, this is more like it! Discussion! Re: @Quincannon Re: the never killing a FB thing, I take it you mean because there wouldn't be enough engineers to go around? I just threw out engineers; riflemen also carry satchels, and on the PPO-OUS scheme, it would often be the case where riflemen are relatively close to the enemy PPO-OUS. Perhaps more riflemen would need to be added to the brigade list, and perhaps the PPO-OUS would be vulnerable to some extent to HE and bombs from the air like the FBs are now. Re: killing the truck. I didn't spell out any thoughts on how the PPO-OUS would actually advance, but I don't think whatever it is should eliminate the supply altogether, just as now if you kill a truck trying to set a fms, you don't eliminate the supply. Re: spawning from a truck; No, I mean spawning from the PPO-OUS itself, just as one spawns from a FMS or FRU now. This is a mechanism we already have. I'm just proposing a MUCH BIGGER object. You can already do what I'm proposing with with a FMS, and people are. They set an FMS, people spawn out of it, the truck then moves to a different location and sets a new FMS, where people can spawn again from the new FMS. We can also control what things spawn from a FMS, so I don't think that would require additional coding either, to just add the whole brigade supply. (I assume, with all the risks that entails.) Really, functionally speaking, the only thing novel about my PPO-OUS proposal is that since I'm trying to create a real front line, I keep going back to a 'daisy chain' concept. There seems to be different ways to do it, but my point is that to advance a real front line, your PPO-OUS would be tied to the previous one in some way. The first one could be built only within (say) 5k from the Origin and the second one would have to be built within 5-8k from the first one. When your PPO-OUS is blown up, the previous one pops back up like a FB. I have some ideas on how I think this could be done within the existing coding scheme, which again is an assumption on my part. But we already have it so that PPOs cannot be set within a certain distance from certain items, and those PPOs are of various sizes, so I think its safe to say that they could figure this out for a very large PPO.
  11. bump for CRS eyes
  12. bump for CRS eyes
  13. @rico77 good to see you! Get back in the game and I'll get you right back into the Path where you belong!
  14. Although probably not to tater's liking, inspired by kilemal's criticism, I came up with this: http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/423112-daisy-chained-front-line-whole-armies/
  15. I have been arguing for many years that the game needs to satisfy the twitchers more reliably in order to retain them so they can enjoy some of the more endearing aspects of the game (60 minute laffy rides, like I enjoyed in 2002?), and frankly, I also sometimes have just a bit of time to play the game, and I would prefer to login and enjoy some quick action rather than 30 minutes staring at a wall. I have proposed a 'daisy chained' front line of sorts several times, eg the most recent: http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/422809-daisy-chained-front-line/ A conversation in the 'rural cps' thread (http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/423078-rural-cp-concepts/) had me thinking about this again, and JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE... because I'm not saying MY idea is the only way to accomplish the goal, but something LIKE IT... and so here is perhaps ANOTHER way of doing it--without placing lots of new objects. I don't know what this would require from a coding standpoint, but I am sensitive to what can actually be done and I know that placing objects requires time and energy no matter how you slice it. SO, without further ado: Keep everything the way it is right now with garrison supply and the few remaining divisions each side has now. Create a 'new' object, which, admittedly is very large, corresponding to a brigade. Right now, when a brigade moves from town to town, it just 'leaps' across. Well, how about we have the sucker 'physically' move? Basically, you have the whole brigade 'moving' along the road from one town to the other, allowing spawning of all available units as you go. Inevitably (though not as persistently and reliably as my daisy-chain front line concept), a brigade will meet an enemy brigade and be 'adjoining,' say, 1k apart. There, they battle it out until one side or the other or both decides to fall back to lick their wounds, while the other chases it back into the town, where, perhaps, it can re-supply a bit faster. Basically, you'd have the entire army facing the entire army for an extended amount of time, with all the adrenaline that entails. If we figure out how to do it right, it never really goes away, because the retreating army still has the attacking army right outside its doorstep, a mere 1k away. This adds a strategic layer to the game that is simulated by brigade movement but now becomes quite real in its consequences. If the enemy manages to sneak an army in around behind your lines he can really do some damage. I would suggest to maximize this, make it so you can't simply see where the brigades are on the map by little circles, but would have to ascertain it by scouting and intelligence gathering. Now the tricky part: just what does this 'object' look like? I guess I'm picturing a GIANT PPO, which has the apparatus for spawning the whole list, but includes walls and maybe even a 'bunker' which can be captured or destroyed which sends the enemy's army back one step on the 'chain' whether they wanted to move or not. A side could advance their PPO of UNUSUAL SIZE (P.O.U.S.es), to within 1k (example) of the enemy's P.O.U.S. Can make it automatic somehow, like a move on the map by HC, or in game by a fleet of engineers. But my thinking is that its really just ONE new object using existing infrastructure related to the PPOs. Some of them can already spawn things and we can already adjust what things they can spawn, and the distances from the enemy they can be placed. Just design a really large one that we don't care too much if it doesn't set just right on the landscape (kind of like how FMSs right now sometimes are placed at obscene angles), and make it play by the existing rules. If it don't work, just take it out of the list of possible PPOs. No harm, no foul. Can it be that easy? Well, I don't know what I don't know, so I don't know exactly what I'm asking. But I nonetheless maintain: if not THIS, then something LIKE IT. Scratch the Twitch.