Quincannon

Registered Users
  • Content count

    3,744
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Quincannon last won the day on April 5 2018

Quincannon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

231 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

1,281 profile views
  1. That is not necessarily true. If there is a population imbalance,,, say 60% Axis / 10% swappers/ 30% Allied The we increase the overall population across the board by 20 %... All ratios remaining equal... The imbalance will always remain at the same percentage... The reason some folks think that the imbalance is helped by greater population is because the numbers increase, and the imbalance is not so glaringly obvious.. If we have 60 Axis, 10 swappers, and 30 Allied... the pop is 2-1, but there are 30 Allies... not necessarily that bad. if we have 30 Axis, 5 swappers and 15 Allied... the pop is still 2-1, and 15 Allies can still potentially hold out/ But when we drop to 6 Axis, 1 swapper and 3 Allies... things get pretty grim for the Allies... Unfortunately, it's rarely that specifically even.. when the numbers drop, the ratio tends to get greater in my experience... often putting the axis at a 3-1 advantage or better during TZ3. This is often because there are TZ3 Squads on the Axis side, and none on the Allied side.
  2. It only affects the Axis side when Axis players swap sides. I have been playing TZ3 Allied for 7 years. I have missed out on a few campaigns. but in that time I have never played in a campaign where TZ3 Allied was anywhere near equal to the Axis overpop unless Axis groups swapped sides. THAT's what your list is missing... it doesn't take that into account; therefore it is a flawed population model. Show me more than two or three campaigns that the Allies won purely on their own in the past few years... Then maybe you can convince me that I might be wrong.
  3. I don't know where you came up with that list... but before you use it for proof that the imbalance doesn't exist, I suggest you look at every time it showed Allied overpop and see if there weren't a significant of people who normally play Axis swapping to the Allied side. You can't use a swapover campaign as proof that the Alllies were overpop. It's a false positive. I personally have been of the belief that there needs to be a moratorium on Axis players coming to the Allied side for at least 6-7 campaigns, so that everyone can clearly see how a purely Allied side performs. Regular side swappers are generally an insignificant percentage, but I would assume that they can affect the numbers by 10-15%. It's unfortunate that it's unlikely to happen, when it is so clearly needed to make the issue unquestionable to everyone. The imbalance is not a joke or conspiracy. It's a fact that has been recognized by folks on both sides. From what i have seen, with a VERY few exceptions, any time the Allies get the better pop is when Axis folks want to "help" or decide that the Allies need to win for the sake of the game. There have been a few times when the Allies were able to make substantial sacrifices of time that they normally cannot dedicate to the game to help out in TZ3... but it has never been sustainable. People have real lives. The Allies have to gain real dedicated Allied players who can play during TZ3 on a regular basis, or nothing will be solved.... ever.
  4. There could be some options... but none would overcome the main problem.... Most people who play WWII games come into the game intending to play German. It's not just this game...it starts at from what I can guess is at least a 70-30 Axis vs Allies preference before anyone even logs in. Then... because of this base imbalance... and the fact that most players are not willing to play on an underdog side... many of those who DO come in planning on playing Allied in TZ3 learn just how unbelievably hard it is, and either quit or go over to the Axis because they want to win. Add to that there is no way the Allies can invite new players in TZ3 to join a squad or take the time to train them... if we get 1 in 1000 players who stay... we are lucky... Meanwhile Axis players come in.. get invited to squads... usually have the freedom to play any units and have people free to show them the ropes... get to play and not be overrun all the time... and have time to just chat and have fun... and the Axis squads recruit aggressively as well. So, of course the Axis side continues to grow, while the Allied side shrinks... because the Z3 issue also disheartens the main Allied pop in other TZs who decide that what they do doesn't matter because it all goes away in TZ3, and we lose players from that player base as well. Sooner or later, people are going to have to decide to join the Allied side permanently, or the Axis are going to have to start fighting themselves. I have mentioned the only way I think that the Allies can gain any new permanent players... but we need more Allied players and a perma TZ3 Squad to do it. I would have tried to start said Squad but I couldn't find enough unaligned TZ3 Allied players to meet the minimum membership requirement to create a squad.
  5. I get what you're saying, but we already KNOW that the majority of players would choose Axis. Asking them to choose a side would not have much, if any, effect on the population. I'm pretty sure CRS already knows, at least in the ballpark, the numbers on how bad the imbalance is. Sidelock only has an effect if it is somehow a limiting factor.
  6. I don't think that's it. People like having a large variety of units. I think a lot of players could always mention a few more that we want to see. But the poll asked what we felt mattered AND made WWII Online seem unique. When playing a WWII game, most folks expect to see a lot of WWII weapons... so having them doesn't make the game unique in and of itself. Now some of our missions ARE unique...most games don't have Naval units to patrol rivers or provide coastal bombardments; Most WWII games don't have Engineers that can build and repair fortifications and AI; This is the first game that I've played where players can organize Strategic Bombing missions that effect overall supply production. We love all the units. I don't think many folks would be unhappy with more units. Some would prefer more unique units (expand the Italian units available, for example). But most of our units aren't really different from other WWII games. And as far as new players are concerned, I'm pretty sure most will view one M1 Garand the same as the other, even if ours IS more historically accurate than those in other games. Also, the poll said "weapons" and not units. I think most people will see the two terms differently. That said, map expansion is important, as well. Having such a large WWII ETO map but not having Paris has raised a few eyebrows over the years. But if asked, I think may people would consider map revision just as important as expansion. (New CP buildings. more of the revamped Bunkers... the new city blocks)
  7. Ability to play 5 different factions - US, UK, French, Italian, German Most games have only 2-3 (US, UK, German)
  8. I hate to say it, but I fail to see how side lock would help. One: If the side lock simply has a player locked to a side... it doesn't change anything except for side swappers, who would have to choose one side or the other. Two: If the side lock was set to a percentage, and then prevented players from signing up for the side they want until the opposing side is equaled out, people will get VERY upset, especially those who belong to side specific squads and can't sign up for the side their Squad belongs to. Three: If CRS attempted to mitigate #2 above by giving priority to those who belong to side specific Squads, then lone wolf players would become very upset. Four HC members would have to be given a pass.
  9. I have to ask... what's the niche? What reason to add them? What unique aspect do they bring to the table?
  10. There has been discussion about allowing TTs to have their own FMS capability. I am all for that. That said, I think that normally the Axis tend to use paras to cap spawnable CPs in England. This is yet another reason to get rid of link spawns. I would MUCH rather see a seaborne invader either have to sail TT over and set some sort of Naval dock FMS, or see them have to bring a truck over and disembark it. The fact that they can drop paras, grab ONE CP and suddenly have a foothold in England is ridiculous. I don't see the destroyable must be brought across the sea FMSs as the real issue...They can be destroyed.
  11. OK... It's bad enough that people are willing to try to actually physically interfere with the FBs. But the suggestion that the FBs become a no build zone would prevent us from trying to build PPOs to protect our own FBs as well. That sort of thing is exactly what PPOs are supposed to exist for. Making it so I can't build walls and fences to protect my FB would just make things worse. This is not a reasonable solution.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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!
  15. 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.