Quincannon

Registered Users
  • Content count

    3,710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Quincannon last won the day on April 5 2018

Quincannon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

219 Salty

1 Follower

About Quincannon

  • Rank
    WWII ONLINE BUILDER [GOLD]
  • Birthday 09/04/1966

Profile Information

  • Location
    Under my Rock
  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat

Recent Profile Visitors

1,236 profile views
  1. When I spawned into the same spot YEARS ago. I didn't know what was happening. I thought that I was not completing spawning in. Why does no one get that? If I had understood that I was spawning in and then dying...I would respond appropriately. If I believe that the spawn in is not completing properly,,,that is then a TECH issue with the game, and requires a different response. One does not respawn somewhere else in response being unable to spawn into the game in the first place... which is what I believed was happening at that time. I had no one to ask questions... Try to realize that before saying it was "on me." I was a brand new player dealing with something I didn't know was possible. If it appears to be a tech issue... why would I try to spawn somewhere else? If any other computer program doesn't seem to work right I reboot it. Why should this game have been any different? It's one thing to completely spawn in and then die. It's another for the spawn in to appear to not complete, and if this is complete with incomprehensible graphics... it will make no sense and may appear to be a bug or glitch, especially if you are new to the game. TRY to imagine you are a FIRST day player (This is my baseline for considering how any of this crap really affects the game) Imagine being NEW and trying to spawn in for the first time, and not only not being able to do so, but then seeing the camera swirl around and it looks like you are inside a tank...The graphics make no sense. You didn't get into the game and THEN die... OK you try that again... same result...no spawn... swirling graphics of the inside of a tank? (IF you know what the inside of a tank looks like) You weren't inside a tank...why would you be seeing inside a vehicle? You were trying to spawn a rifleman... OK maybe you try one more time... the same thing happens... You are now convinced that something is buggy and you can't log in... you don't know anyone in the game... You CAN'T ask questions. You don't know how yet. At best maybe you should delete and reload this new game... Maybe something didn't load right... At worst you say " the hell with it" and delete it and move on. Either way, your first impression of the game is a bad one. Preventing new players from spawning into the game at all is bad... it only takes one bad experience to lose them.
  2. I get killed at an FMS all the time but there is a visual and I see that I got killed. INormally when spawning into a spawn camp, there is at least 1 second to know you have made it into the game. But when someone is doing what is described...it can prevent that verification. THAT is the issue. If I'm trying to spawn in and can't make it all the way in to GET killed...then to me that is a tech issue. Several years back when I was new, I started to spawn into an army base. But I died. I didn't hear sound... just dropped dead inside the spawn. I attempted to respawn about a dozen times... sometimes I just went black... sometimes I ragdolled...my graphics flipped all over a few times. I did hear a couple of explosions, but died so fast to tell if they were related, and they were a staccato sound, instead of a big one. As far as I could tell I never fully spawned in. I reloaded the game and tried again... same thing... My response was to delete the game and reinstall and check my whole system... but I didn't get on again that night. The next day I found out that an ET had a firing bug and had somehow got the right angle to just whammy the inside of the spawn point like a giant HE LMG. But I had no way to know that.
  3. Did you miss the part where it's impossible to know what's going on if you try to spawn in and die before you can even render visually? If it happened to me...I'd try again a couple of times...if it kept happening, I'd have to assume my game was screwing up...That requires me to 1. Shut down the game. 2. Reboot my system (Why take chances?) 3. Check the game files for a virus. 4. Reload the game. This is about a TWENTY MINUTE process. If I'm not really into the game... the odds are it's better for me to call it a night and reverify all my drivers as well. Killing other players in such a manner doesn't always let them know they are camped. It IS a great way to make them worry about their computers and game files though, and to get them completely out of the game for at least half an hour. Multiply that by say two regular players and 2-3 new players...well them, you have got 2 regulars out of the game for 1/2 an hour or more and potentially guaranteed that 2-3 of the new players find something else to play and post a "very buggy game. I couldn't even spawn in. 10/10 Would uninstall again" review on Steam. Congratulations!
  4. Not just an overall population increase. If one side normally outnumbers the other side say 3 to 1; and the overall population rises by 20 percent across both sides evenly... the problem will still be there. Granted it might not seem that way if there are enough players online all the time, but 3-1 is still 3-1. What needs to happen is that there needs to be an increase in the number of dedicated players for the side that is normally underpopped. Unless the disproportionate side populations issue is addressed, an increased population would help the overall game numbers, but would completely fail to have any effective impact on the side imbalances.
  5. I remember fondly the days when spawn camping was the kind of thing that got players banned from games. It's amazing how the gaming culture has almpst come to revere and admire a once totally loathed and reviled practice. Ah well. Actually, though...With FMSs, I admit that it's a different thing... players can still spawn or bring up other FMSs. With the goal to suppress until it can be blown...it's reasonable to cover the spawn and kill anyone using it. Heck, depending on how it works.. some folks might still get away if you have to reload... They might kill the suppressor. I DON'T understand putting a vehicle on the spawn spot and killing people before they can even finish spawning in. Heck some will try it a few times before they realize that it's not a glitch. When I spawn and get shot that I get. If I die AS I spawn and see nothing...I assume it might be a tech issue... This type of thing can cause a player to log off... reboot their computer... check their settings... who knows? And why? Because they don't really know what happened...and as I always say...If they are a NEW player and die every time they spawn in and don't know how or why... there goes a customer. If you're going to camp... at least do it the usual way... This vehicle thing is a messed up move. That said...If you go to all the trouble to drive and place a FMS.. why the heck don't you fortify it? A ATG pit to the rear and sides would provide cover for inf, ATG and AAA, and help fool air attacks. Barbed wire walls make it more difficult for engineers to place charges... If you take 5 minutes after you build an FMS to protect it... it just might help prevent some of this crap.
  6. I'm running s NVidia GeForceGTX970 at 1360x768x32 resolution. Upon double checking.. I found 2 references to F10. Both mentioned Offline. One said "External Rubberbanding" and the other said "Change field of view". I was unable to find any other mention of F10 in the game Preferences.
  7. Unfortunately I have no way of testing that unless I find someone who has the time to help me test it out. I do know that, as I said, in the past, I have seen shots from enemy ships coming at me without ever seeing the ships to return fire. Now if the towers can only detect to 3.7 Km that would explain what i have found so far, but I have no way to know.
  8. I'm really not sure what to do then. Nothing I can find in the settings even refers to F10,,, so I have no way to access or reset it. My settings are pretty much maxed with the exception of no radial clutter when flying. However, and I'm not trying to be argumentative (I truly appreciate your help) 3.7 KM is more than a little less than even 5KM.
  9. Hi all. Not sure why it took me this long to realize I had an issue. Maybe it's my computer, We were having a discussion in the Harbour about how ships fight at 5 Km and it occurred to me that I haven't ever had that kind of visibility. So i went online in both a Fairmile and a DD. I used a Guard tower on the sea wall as a vis target and set sail. I had the same issue in both units: My max visibility at sea seems to be about 3.7 Km. At that distance, I not only did I lose sight of the target, but I couldn't even see the coast at all. I checked game settings and found no option to increase my render distance. I checked the Wiki and didn't see anything either. What can I do here? Someone suggested hitting F10 but all that did was make my screen flash brightly for a second.
  10. It was from the AB...It was not capped. I had issues the whole first night. I still don't like the new system. It slows me way down, because I have to stop and verify that it didn't auto insert a mission destination. Nothing like driving several KM to find out that it autoset your mission as a defense mission. Grrrr.
  11. Teleporting INTO and behind a defender's lines, making it almost impossible to defend is in my opinion, about as Star Trek teleporter as you can get. Sprry, you will never be able to change my mind on this. Spawn CPs are a nightmare. I usually do my best to defend, but it's not uncommon for me to feel like giving up the moment we lose a Spawn. Sometimes I log because of that alone. I hate making a completely futile effort, and IMO, once an enemy has one or two spawns inside my town...everything else is just waiting for the inevitable. Sure, part of it is that I'm incapable of recapping a Spawn depot... but unless numbers are relatively even, something I have yet to experience... loss of the Spawn CP is the death knell for defenders. There's no more interdiction. No searching for FMss outside the perimeter... no setting up a spot to catch enemy trying to get into the town... Just endless spawning and running into the spawn and dying while the attackers waltz around to all the other CPs and suck them up like Jello. No thank you. It's hard enough to defend... having the attackers take the City CP and then having to run out of town a Km to set a DFMS is insane. This would guarantee that the attackers never have to worry about their flanks, while that's all that the defenders DO. It's a mechanic that would pretty much guarantee the success of any attack, unless the attacker was severely underpopped. Attackers don't need any more advantages.
  12. I speak as a TZ3 [player as well. 7 years and it's really the only game I know. And speaking from that perspective, I don't ever remember being part of a good "even" battle in TZ3... Not once. And I'm aware of the 4-6 attackers paradigm. It's the thing that hurts our defensive efforts...when you have 7-8 people and 4 of them insist of trying attacks that they can't POSSIBLY succeed at, and then get upset with the rest of us for being on the defense, it does no one any good, and will certainly NEVER help the Allied PB grow. Your focus is on the attack. OK. Unfortunately an incredibly large number of people seem to believe that if a player isn't attacking, he's playing the game wrong. A great idea...if that didn't mean that all we would have would be both sides attacking empty towns. I don't see that growing the game in any way. If you want a game you have to have defenders as well. Those defenders need to have a chance to succeed. Warping and spawn depots make those defenses at LEAST 50% less effective once an attacker has a spawn depot. Everybody starts freaking out screaming "They have the Spawn| instead of merely being able to hold what they still have and then trying to recap slowly...The Spawn suddenly expands the enemy inside the town... it's no longer effective to have a guard in a CP who can call for help. Now it's a CPs being flooded and the defenders dying over and over again trying to retake them. The attackers now have the advantage, because they can attack from inside AND outside the town. And instead of defenders taking the time to run defensive FMSs from supporting towns... they rely on linking Depots for supply... and the new program doesn't let them just recap the town.. People scream at anyone who tries to go after the bunker... The attackers know this, and can basically leave the bunker empty until or unless the defenders get all the CPs again. None of this is what I consider believable or good gameplay. People talk about offsides... people talk about perimeters... people talk about fronts... None of these are really possible as long as warping and link spawning are in the game. Instead of Spawn depots. attackers should have to take a piece of the town, and set up an Urban MSP. The Urban MSP should have it's range changed to like 10 meters, so it can be placed almost anywhere in a town. A town should not fall in 15 minutes...It simply should not. Yet it happens regularly, partly because people don't think defending matters. As far as starting in different tiers... Each time you change the tier,,, you take stuff away from players. Let's say I were a French tanker, for instance,,, who loved playing French tanks, and stayed around in later Tiers to help out after I had a lot of fun in the early ones... Now the game starts in late Tiers.. What incentive do I have to play in a campaign when all the gear I enjoy playing is unavailable? Why shouldn't I go play something else that I WILL enjoy until the next campaign? At least when we start early and go late, everyone gets to play what they like. It may be a non-starter for you... but the game is a whole lot bigger than you or me...It has to take the entire PB into account every time something is changed or modified.
  13. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. It messes me up any time I try to make a different mission. If I get in a hurry I wind up spawning in and then having to spawn out and when that happens I have to create a new mission. If I die...It cancels my mission and I have to create a new mission... every... damn... time.
  14. First and foremost: If I misunderstood your statement, I apologize. Your focus on localized imbalance suggests the concept that the game should care only about that point; especially when you say that such imbalance is the only imbalance that matters. This is where we must have a disconnect, and misunderstanding. You have stated something to the effect previously that the minimum effective defense force is 1 player per CP and bunker. Well...this not exactly true. it somehow assumes that 1 defender in a CP is able to defend it against 2 or more attackers. If the attacker works in groups of 2 or more... the defender had better have ungodly skills, or they will own that CP... now things change instantly. It's still 2-1, but now the attackers own 1 CP. the 'extra defender' now has to try to retake that CP by himself (unlikely) or try to help another defender. Each time this happens; assuming the attacker leaves 1 CP guard... the attackers can devote more to each group attacking each CP. They can easily camp the spawns, roads and AB to prevent the defenders from being able to do anything. Any defensive force to be effective has to have CPs guarded AND have people outside those buildings. Or an attacker can simply cut them down and win. This would be with a local imbalance... at least 2-1. And on sides MSPs would not be a factor unless the defenders could have a chance to destroy them. I have been in a battle... defending a town with 4-5 people (All we have online). But then, at the same time, the OP side was busting FB after FB. (A major factor in moving maps) Simultaneously, I noted that there was EWS in the next town, where someone was already setting up the enemy's next attack. In one TZ3 period, I have seen the Axis hold us pinned defending on the ground, have extra people flying and bombing us from the air, take town after town, regardless of supply, and STILL take every single FB on the map. This was more than localized population imbalance, and it mattered. But I'm going to step away from that. The fact is that this game needs to have players dedicated to both sides. It has to gain new players on both sides, and it has to have vets to teach them how to play the game. Right now, that only really applies to one side. The number of dedicated Allied players is growing smaller, and we're not getting many new ones, if any. I can't speak for the Axis, but I doubt that they have this issue. Heck, I see vets who play Allied...we get hammered for a few hours, and a few minutes later those same vets are killing us as Axis. Why? So they can win. They know that they are adding to the imbalance, but they reach a point where they don't care. Something has to be done to level the playing field long enough so that we can get some new blood who feel like they can have fun playing Allied. Because if we don't, then sooner or later, we're going to run out of dedicated Allied players. Maybe my idea is not the best one ever...but I am trying to help make the game population find a way to stabilize as a whole. That means more dedicated Allied players and squads, so that the Allies can have fun, and so that the Axis have opponents to actually fight. I don;t necessarily care WHO comes up with a suggestion that works... I'd support almost any viable solution. As far as your statement about game play? I DO love this game. I think it's the best overall experience that I've ever had in a game. So what if it doesn't have all of the new bells and whistles? WWII Online has it's own feel... it's own style. I'm not against some changes, as long as they enhance the game that exists. I don't want to see it become a new game. The one that we have is fantastic. It's outlasted most other online games for a reason, even when it couldn't grow or improve at all. That says something. And as far as staring at a wall? I'd be all for looking into small scale area capture if we could find some relative pop equality. I think it would be fun to guard Capture Points that are both inside like we have now, or a combination of inside and outside in a small area, where a defender has to be hunted down and can keep moving within that area before the attacker can begin to cap it. I respect some of your ideas, Tater. I really do. But I can't agree that local imbalance is all that matters, neighbor. I just can't. Have a great day.
  15. Simply put. This will never be another BF 1942. It will not be Forgotten Hope...It will not be CoD, You can use terms like Location solution, but what you are really saying that is that WWII Online needs to become just like those and that we need to start playing the same kind of small map deathmatch mode that they all do. Why do you keep arguing for our game to become just another twitch clone? If THAT was what the rest of us wanted... Why the Hell would we here in the first place? I played all the other multiplayer WWII shooters out there for years before I came here. Seven years later, and I haven't played any of the games I played semi-religiously before I came to WWIIOL since. Maybe... Just maybe many of the rest of us want something different... Now, honestly, I would agree with about POP... but if we are having battles of 3 to 1 and worse... than there are obviously players on one side who COULD be playing on a second server... maybe fighting each other... instead of playing the whack a mole game. The sad thing is that your posts say that you don't think that it's a bad thing, that one side constantly gets clobbered IF the game works the way that you want it to. And your posts keep saying that we have to do things your way. No room for other suggestions...no room to even consider another solution. Fact... any fight where it's 30 versus 5 is so far out of whack that any of the five who doesn't log out is just asking for it. Fact... Say you get your deathmatch... Why in the Hell would any Allied players agree to it? It makes OUR situation just as bad or worse; AND it allows only one kind of gameplay; which also loses us a good n umber of players who don't want what you want... The Allied side is severely underpopulated. It needs new dedicated Allied players. THAT is a fact. Not side swappers... but new ALLIED players who aren't planning on playing Axis. But the current situation is about ten times harder on new Allieds than the game itself, which already has a steep learning curve. New Allied players keep having the same experience that the three guys did last night... and many never get to have any fun playing Allied. So they quit or try Axis and join the zerg, usually for good. Add to that most Allied vets are gone. Who is left to train new guys? Your suggestions might be great IF we were willing to throw our game into the crapper and start over as a deathmatch clone, This thread, however, is dedicated to finding a solution that lets us keep our game and help fix the pop; which is what we want to do.