Quincannon

Registered Users
  • Content count

    3,241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Quincannon last won the day on May 27

Quincannon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

93 Vet

1 Follower

About Quincannon

  • Rank
    WWII ONLINE BUILDER [GOLD]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat

Recent Profile Visitors

521 profile views
  1. This is a pain in the kiester subject. On one hand, trying to set an FMS in a good spot can be hard to do... and way too many times, there is only one at an AO. True, it might get camped, but pulling it at the first sign of trouble can kill the AO. It's a tough call whether or not to drop an FMS when you know there isn't another one, people are trying to spawn in, and you are pretty sure there won't be another one if you drop your FMS/mission. A few points from my perspective... 1. This is the most important: Calling other players names... insulting their intelligence or ability... and just plain putting them down because they aren't as good as you when you have played for 5-10 years is the WORST thing that you can do to them or for the game. Period! 2. A LOT of players don't belong to squads. It will always be this way. That means that a LOT of players have to learn to play on their own. And there is precious little that will teach them the ins and outs of the finer points... example .orders Who exactly shows people about how this works? I know it exists, but have never really used it because I'm not sure what I'm doing with it. Personally, I watch what's going on and send such instructions over mission chat. But the point is that you can't expect everyone to know all the commands when there is NO overall basic play guide that includes those commands. Heck it takes weeks for some to learn the abbreviations we use. 3. I understand running a new FMS. It's a great idea. Taking someone else's mission because you don't like the way it's going? THEY did the hard work getting it there and setting it up. If you don't like it, set up your own mission. Personally, is someone grabs my mission and drops my FMS without even communicating with me? I will definitely be done helping with that battle, and I will remember that person and avoid playing with them in the future. 4. One of the problems is camping versus suppression. Suppression makes sense. Shut it down, mark it, call for engineers to blow it and take it down ASAP. That's decent play. Camping it just to rack up kills on new players? It's a great way to make sure that a day one new player never logs in again. The first time I was camped like that I got so frustrated I didn't log in again for over a week, and only logged in then because I had paid my subscription and felt I would be wasting my money if I didn't. The fact is that camping only hurts the game, no matter how much fun it is for you. 5. If everyone spawning into an FMS spent just long enough to build one defensive POI, they would survive longer and be a heck of a lot harder to kill.
  2. On the other hand, they have to keep the lights on. They need a certain minimum of the main accounts just to saty in business,. Ther aren't a huge number of people willing or able to get Hero accounts. Getting more low paying accounts can be good, but only if you get enough of them to overcome any losses from the Primary payment subs. Otherwise they lose even more money. They have offered Welcome back soldier subs at a reduced price relatively often. They offer the starter sub. Imagine if say 10-15% of current subs are air only players who never play ground? Now CRS offers an Air only sub at a reduced rate.... Why wouldn't an air only player switch to that sub? What if 10-15% of premium subs did that, and there weren't enough new air only subs to at least cover that loss? It would be a big risk. I agree that it would be great if there were ways to do things differently. I have a heard a bunch of folks who wish that their old accounts with favorite names could be swapped from pay tp F2P when they aren't subbed, and back again when they are, like other MMOs do. Unfortunately this isn't the case, and one reason that unsubbed vets have to play on a second F2P account. If I were CRS and working to modernize the payment system, that would be a priority. Then again, WoW has had a similar system. F2P up to level 20 and then sub or be stuck. At least here every campaign...every battle is a little different, and F2Ps have a variety of things they can do. No unrepeatable missions that leave you unable to advance or endlessly repeatable low level gathering missions. (Blech!) I think the Rats do a great job, and they try as hard as possible to provide a good play experience for as many people as possible.
  3. I know that this may sound dumb, but in the entire time I have played, I have only seen 2-3 ATGs that were willing to use these pits, and had some players tell me that they were actually a bad idea for ATGs. Now I always thought it would make sense for ATGs to have such cover; but assuming that the majority of players feel this way... The ATG pit would likely serve better and be more useful as an infantry position. At present a lot of infantry use them for cover. The PROBLEM is the massive hole in the center that exposed the inside. While that hole makes sense for ATGs, it leaves infantgry exposed. I would suggest simply redesigning this fortification with the center covered. It would then be very useful both as cover and for a firing position. I imagine LMGs would be happy to be ablt to use them if they weren't quite so exposed. All things considered, I would imagine that this would take little redesign. AS an alternate to this... maybe leave the ATG pit the same, but redesign it and make the inf version deployable by LMGs and the incoming Browning MG. It would make sense that they would use the equivalent of a "machine gun nest"; a purpose that the current foxhole PPO is simply inadequate for.
  4. CRS did begin development on High Command/ Mission Leader uniforms. Unfortunately, staffing concerns and more necessary projects have caused this to be on the back burner for now. Hopefully CRS will be able to look at this again. I would not look for it any time soon, however. That said, I like the idea that HC officers could be worth more points.
  5. Thanks to the GMs for what you do. It is appreciated. But I have to ask, and if it doesn't belonmg on an open forum would someone PM me.... WTH is a Buzzard sortie?
  6. The problem with ONLY registering a kill on a tank or ship (Even if you disregarded the Captain): If I am playing a tank and someone double tracks me and I can't get to an effective position....My unit is effectively useless. As a player.. there is no reason that i am going to stay logged into that unit until someone kills all 3 crew. I'm in a tank and someone kills my gunner and driver. Nothing I can do. If the enemy see that and doesn't continue to pound me until the tank blows or they get my commander... I am still helpless... again I will despawn... This is effectively the same even if just the gunner is killed. It works very similarly in a ship If you were required to kill the entire crew, it would take forever. And until I actually sink, I can get an RTB. I agree that the system coud use some revamping to consider what qualifies as a kill on a vehicle that doesn't allow an RTB. I guess it should have two factors: What stops the vehicle from being able to fight? Consider that a tank or ship with no engine/ driver can still effectively shoot at the enemy, but they cannot move. They are, in effect, sitting ducks. That said, one COULD surmise that until the unit is completely destroyed, the crew has survived to man another vehicle; hence the RTB.
  7. Happy Birthday/Anniversary Rats! Here's to another 16 years and more!
  8. The minimum number of hours ina 24 hr period to even get to vote puts this squarely in control of those who have a lot of disposable time on their hands. A lot of players don't have more than an hour or so a day to play... a system with a requirement that shuts them out doesn't sound like a really fair or viable option. Also, trying to ignore the potential for popularity abuse.... what would this really do or achieve? Players don't follow someone because of their in-game earned 'military' rank, so why should they feel obligated to follow players based on this proposed system? What would make players who log in to play feel like they should participate in this vote, and if it really had an effect, how would players know in-game?
  9. It's not just explosions in tanks... I can't remember how many times people have tried to talk to me while I was driving a truck and there was no way that I could hear them over the engine noise.
  10. XOOM has mentioned the possibility of Medics in the future. No idea when or how, but it has been mentioned. We can discuss it to death (and I have in previous threads); but right now all that some of us can do is hope that the company does better, can implement the current items on the road map, and eventually be able to look at the idea further down the road.
  11. Hey folks, Y'know, like it or not people swap sides all the time. Sometimes a few times a week, sometimes only every campaign. When that happens, if they really want to know what's going on and they are subscribed, they then have to request secure forum access on the new side, and request that they have their secure access for their previous side be removed. It then takes from a half hour to the next day (say the play TZ3 and no HC is on the forums) for the new access to be granted and old access to be removed, a period during which they are playing one side with secure forum access to the other. These changes need to be made manually. Now magnify that by the number of new Steam subs we are hoping to get. New players are going to be frustrated trying to navigate the system. I know some people won't like this, but remember that this iS just a agame. I suggest that we consider simply giving all subscribed members access to both secured forums. We make it an "honor system" not to log into the opposing Secure access while playng on one side or the other. This would help prevent more frustration for players who like to swap sides at will and who don't want to jump through hoops to do it.
  12. I have seen what happens when 4-5 Tigers enter a town. They destroy pretty much everything in their path. ATGs get taken out ridiculously easily. The Tigers sit out and play artillary until the Allied tanks that can spawn get chewed up, and then they roll in. At that point the only thing that can do much are the RPATS, and each brigade gets, what? 2-3? I have been in full agreement regarding getting rid of FRUs, which did a lOT towards getting rid of the instaspawn anti-tank infantry, but they are historical units, and they should have a place in the game. That said, i would be all for a mechanic requiring a reloader or an inability to move once loaded iF the number of Tigers in game were reduced to historically accurate numbers for the Western front.
  13. Unfortunately this has been this way fort a very long time. The stats reset at the moment that CRS starts to reset the servers for intermission. It would be great if stats from previous campaigns could be preserved, but I don't know if they ever will be.
  14. I've always thought that it would be a good idea to look at setting a time limit on campaigns of about a month. That would be a week per tier, and at the end of that time, if it's not over, they could declare a winner based on percentage of map ownership. I know it's not a perfect system, but it would allow for people, especially new players to get a feel for every tier. It would allow squads to plan schedules for play based on tier progression, and almost guarantee that we see the later tiers more often. This might be more popular with customers, as sometimes we go a couple of campaigns without ever having the Americans in play. Alternatively, have the first three tiers each last a week and then let Tier 4 take as long as it takes. (On the other hand, my personal favorite idea would be to introduce some sort of resource system that links rdp and tier progression per side. Each HC could decide how much of their resources go to resupply speed and how much to tier progression. choosing to have a faster resupply rate could give an advantage in resupply, but would slow down tier progression, potentially allowing the enemy to reach higher tiers faster. This would also make strategic bombing and inderdiction important. Neither side should be able to shut the other's rdp down entirely, but even a reduction of 10% could matter. But this is just a fairy tale thought)