Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


pfmosquito last won the day on April 17

pfmosquito had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

69 Vet

About pfmosquito

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. My daisy chained spawnable concept is designed to split the difference. You HAVE to give the twitch players what they want, reliably. A front line which is always 'hot' does this. My proposal also opens up the rest of the map, by creating action between towns which generally does not see much at this point. I don't know that I think we need to dispense with the CPs altogether. Once the front gets to the town you have street fighting and that would have been part of the war, too. Instead, once a real front line exists, make it so that the FMS or FRUs cannot be created on the other side of the front line. Thus, you could put up a FMS on your side of the town, but not on the side the enemy holds.
  2. Joined in 2001 right after the game was released, thanks to a heads up by xohorvath. I was pfmosq in those days, in the 101st Abn with Splinter as CO, as none of my Pathfinder clan (Rainbow 6) came to the game. Took a long break to write a book or two and came back, again, thanks to xohorvath. I'm still looking for zenbreak, one of the coolest cats I ever played alongside.
  3. Just one lil' bump to make sure folks saw it. Thanks for the salutes, folks. <S>
  4. I like Tater's idea. As for Kilemall's objection, it can also bet met by allowing squad specific missions. Or password protected missions. I can only speak for the Pathfinders, but I bet it is true for a lot of other squads, but when there are opportunities to provide cover/support or any kind of organized op, we like to take them. Then some greentag or even a blue tag with a different agenda jumps on our mission and it all goes to pot.
  5. I think dfire's vid pretty clearly shows something wrong is happening. You can see from the vid that he cleared the corners and the room was empty. He didn't watch the stairs 100% of the time, but he watched it pretty darn well. Certainly well enough that someone should not have been able to run in all the way to the far corner to get him. This seems different to me than some of the other stuff that happens. Annoying stuff, to be sure, but you can make accommodations. For example, if you don't like getting killed because your foot is sticking out of the wall, by all means, don't lie down somewhere your foot will stick out! But you can't make accommodations for this. I wonder if perhaps what we think we are seeing is actually an illusion created by the death screen animation. In both the vids shown, we only sense the disparity because we see something on the death screen that doesn't match what we saw in the in-game. I don't know how the death screen animation is generated. Does it really show 'real time'? Or, is it possible, like in the case of Dfire and Choad's second video, that the kill actually happened differently, and in the time between the death and the display, even if just half a second or so, the enemy has really moved that far away, or come around the corner, etc, and THAT is what we are seeing? Take the death screen animation out of it and we may be left wondering what happened to us, but we're not going to be thinking "INVISIBLE EI!" Also, I'm still laughing at 'shot him in the bum.'
  6. Thanks, Westy! I think you caught the spirit of it well. In real wars, people got to slog it out from Point A to Point B. They don't just spawn into the town. Its not practically possible to simulate all of that slogging but this is a case where we can simultaneously make the simulation a bit more realistic AND facilitate more continuous action. I appreciate you taking note and kicking up the chain.
  7. Ok, now I understand that you consider a change like this to be like those other changes designed to 'concentrate action.' I expected criticism from the other direction, that it spreads us too thin; that's what I thought you were going for. There is a big difference between what I am proposing and arbitrary schemes like AOs and their like. I delve into those differences in some of my past threads on this, which I again refer interested parties to. Nonetheless, insofar as this would 'concentrate action' it doesn't do so any more than the FB system does and certainly not more than the AO system does. Perhaps you are thinking that on my proposal I meant that we could only capture the DCS's when we had an AO on the town. I'm not. On my view, all DCS's throughout the theater between adjacent hostile cities would be cappable in daisy-chained fashion. On my view, areas of the map that don't get much play and countryside battles are finally a regular part of the game. The region between Allied and Axis towns... ALL OF THEM...would now see combat. But even if CRS were to limit capture of DCS's to the chains where there is an AO, this still does not 'concentrate action' beyond what the AO itself did. A good compromise would be to make all of the DCS's cappable at all times, but still not let the city itself be captured unless it had an AO on it, just like now. HC would likely choose AOs where their side had advanced far along the chain, just like they now choose AOs based on whether or not they own the FBs. I can see CRS wanting to do that early in the implementation. My proposal is still the kind of thing that would work best with increased population, but I am arguing that if you want to increase the population, you have to meet the needs of the Twitch. My proposal would do that. If not my idea, somebody's. It's gotta happen.
  8. " where some of that pop are fighters coming in from 10k, etc. " What I meant by this was that our major battles have the benefit of spilling over into an entire region. You've got fighters coming in from nearby airfields with other fighters interdicting, leading to fur balls breaking out randomly in the strangest of places. Or trucks running FMS in from adjacent towns, with the enemy responding with interdicting tanks, etc, also from adjacent towns. The actual town battle might be 30 v 30 but on the periphery, even more cool stuff is going on that you can jump into if you want. All this takes time to develop. After a town gets capped, its possible for there to be nothing to do except blow undefended FBs for 3 hours, until something else builds. Its this period of time that we need to fill with action somehow. If not for the old timers, for the new folk.
  9. My bottom line would be that after 10+ years of putting it out there--me, and perhaps others--it is worth trying. "but no major gotta haves either." I don't agree. While I think all of us long timers have found enjoyment in smaller, more isolated 'special ops' missions, bomb runs, etc, if that was ALL the game was I highly doubt any of us would still be here. It is the once every 3-5 hour major battle that all of the smaller things lead up to that makes this game as unique as any. The small sphere action of CoD with 12 guys going 6 v 6 is nothing compared to the 50+ v 50+ we sometimes get, where some of that pop are fighters coming in from 10k, etc. Maybe we can't get that more frequently than 3-5 hours, but my contention is that the missing link is the absence of intense action every 5 mins or so. The Twitch gets his Itch scratched too infrequently. I think bridging this gap IS a 'gotta have.' Whether its my idea or some other which accomplishes the same thing, I think we're always going to have trouble retaining players, old and new, if they can't be sure they're more likely than not to get their adrenaline fix when they login. "Many of the changes made over the years was about concentrating the action so there is excitement rather then a series of ships passing in the night as organized teams hit undefended towns." True. But part of that is because of the drop in population. Back in 2001-2003, there were more players, and what you described was less likely. Problems requiring changes like this are exactly the sort of thing I mean by 'all problems go away with more (paying) customers.' "The problem with all guaranteed action mechanisms is that they ultimately curtail freedom of action and surprise and negates the huge world immersion." I didn't understand this. Is this directed at my OP or a general remark? Because I don't see how my proposal curtails freedom of action. I think it enhances it, and as far as surprise goes, I think it adds some back. I think it enhances the asset that the huge world makes. I will reiterate that I don't think we need to change anything else. Keep the AOs, keep the FBs. Pick 6 towns that would be most suitable, and use that as an experiment. If the part of the campaign where those towns are in play is more enjoyable than the rest and players are sad when the fight moves away from them, then you have some good data to decide if its worth doing more.
  10. I've mentioned this several times over the years and have not seen a comment from CRS, whether positive or negative, but I STILL believe creating a real front line is imperative in helping this game go to the next level. My most recent mention is this one from 2017. Since I already discussed it there, I won't elaborate as much here. Check it out yourself. [this one is from 2014! And this one from 2012!] I wanted to bring it up again because after scanning through some more recent threads, it seems like a lot of main problems people have are resolved by implementing such a thing. Here are the main problems: game play is often slow [sporadic low numbers] with some activities being so tedious as to count as real work [guarding CPs]. New players get bored because there is no action, or can't find it; old players get bored because they know how to find action, and its not there to find. Etc. On the other hand, the game has some real strengths: combined arms, massive scale, etc. When there IS a battle, man there is nothing like it! My contention is that all problems (eg, gamey and laggy infantry play, etc) are ultimately solved by more (paying) players. A LOT more (paying) players = more money to solve the other problems. So, what you NEED is a way for there to be action, real action, pretty much every minute of the day. And the way you do that is to keep the two sides in close proximity CONSTANTLY. The basic concept of the 'daisy chain front line' is that the space between the towns would be punctuated at semi-regular intervals (200 to 500m apart) by capture and spawn points. Preferably, these would be creative and diverse, and not just depot buildings, but I'd take depot buildings for now. When you take the daisy chain spawn (DCS) closest to your town, you can now spawn from it. That puts you closer to the next DCS, which, if you take, you can spawn from THAT. IN THE MEANTIME, the enemy is doing the same thing, but from the other side. Eventually and inevitably, enemies will meet at adjacent facilities, where the goal of each will be to push the enemy back the way they came. At some point, your side will be close enough to the town that it decides an attack on the town itself is prudent. Now, nothing about this idea means we get rid of anything else. People can still run trucks to make FMSes and so on to try to flank or to escape getting camped. People can still do the things that they want to do. The big difference is that there will ALWAYS be people trying to push the line forward and that means that there will ALWAYS be people trying to stop them. Which means there will ALWAYS be action. I concede that I don't know what this would require from a technical point of view. I believe I proposed in the past just trying it out between 6 cities in the heart of the map where at the beginning of a campaign 3 of them are Allied and 3 are Axis, and just TRY IT. I assume (but it is an assumption) that we could do this while leaving the FB system intact. I further assume that people could find the action because we would get notifications like we do when a CP is capped. The thing is, there are always going to be 'twitch' players, but we don't have enough consistency of our big battles to scratch their 'twitch.' This provides it. And if someone ain't a 'twitch' player, they can still do all the other stuff. But let's be honest: all of us have a bit of the 'twitch' in us. Here submitted again, in 2019.
  11. I made a video for ya'll in tribute to our friends who no longer play and fight alongside us. Direct Link
  12. bump. Blake's message still stands.
  13. I'd like to think that the ten minutes or so I kept his guns trained behind him instead of on the town below, I managed to accomplish something for the team even if I couldn't take him out right away. It was that same thought that had me kicking myself for not taking out his ammo crates and opel before shooting him. Think of all I could have saved... "I could have done more."
  14. Well, I can testify that nothing I hit the Tiger with frontally, at any range, dented it. I needed some good ol' fashioned Tom Hanks Sticky Bombs maybe.
  15. Regarding the topic of the thread, and in response to Kgarner's comment about his sortie and the fact that his kills were not infantry, but rather armor, the perception could be that all of those tanks he killed came out of Hastiere. That would not be the case. I drew 3 shermans from Dinant to the north and 1 from Flavion. I know others were spawning from Flavion, too, although I don't know how many. A lot of the ATGs came out of various depots, and not the main AB supply. Don't know how that impacts the overall conversation, but I think its good to keep in mind that when players adapt to battleground realities, there may be unexpected decisions that transcend one town's supply lists, etc.