Quincannon

Registered Users
  • Content count

    3,536
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Quincannon last won the day on April 5

Quincannon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

162 Salty

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

880 profile views
  1. OK... I think that this is a different argument compared to the "Guarding a FB" one. I am a bit surprised to hear so many only mentioning that guarding CPs requires one to stay sitting inside a CP. I have defended many towns and been almost constantly on the move. The fact is that a town's CPs can be defended by patrolling Guards who run between the CPs and constantly report on the status. Now of course this would change if the enemy stared pressing a spawnable. Heck, if 2-3 CPs are close to each other, a single guard could keep them monitored. Now, as to Ninja-Capping? Well yes teamwork is a huge part of this game. But so is playing solo. I hate to have to say this folks, but no one is ever going to be able to get all of our population to join and play in squads. No matter how much you might want this,,, It's NOT going to happen. there are a lot of folks who either don't want to join a squad, or who can't because it's simply not worth it. This really applies to some TZ3 players. For over 2 years , even though I technically belonged to a squad, I rarely saw or played with them because they weren't on when I played. Now the game COULD attempt to make any attempt at solo capping completely useless. But consider that every time you curtail the ability of a lone wolf player, you are risking the loss of that player from the game. While some pro Squad players would applaud their departure; it would be a bad business move for CRS. You can't force a paying customer to play in a group if they don't want to. Part of this game's appeal is that it can be played using different tactics. If it were to become nothing but 'run and gun" for example, then anyone who wasn't a straight up take em on directly top combat player, would quickly find out how little they have to offer the game. I really doubt that making players feel like there is nothing that they can do to contribute unless they join a squad and work with them is the best way to go to keep those customers. Patrol more, Hunker down less.
  2. For once I'm with you Sudden. I think this will be....
  3. You heard the man folks... Zebbeee's providing waffles and chocolate for the Memorial day celebration! !S to all of our fallen, from every country. We owe them a debt than can never be repaid.
  4. Attention Allies! In recognition of gallant and distinguished service, the Allied High Command hereby presents the following: Allied Officer of the Week to Praevus Awarded by the Allied CinC to any Allied officer for actions above and beyond the call of duty. This officer displays team work, honor and dedication to the Allied Community on the battlefield. Allied Player of the Week to Maxq Awarded by the Allied CinC to any Allied player for actions above and beyond the call of duty. This player displays team work, honor and dedication to the Allied Community on the battlefield. Allied Squad of the Week to Whips Awarded by the Allied CinC to any Allied squad for actions above and beyond the call of duty. This squad displays team work, honor and dedication to the Allied Community on the battlefield. AAR of the Week to Dragoz Awarded by the CinC to those individuals who submit the best written, highest quality After Action Report of the week. for outstanding achievements in service of the Allied Forces The actions of these service members were in keeping with the highest standards of the military, and reflect credit not only on themselves, but on their countries and the Allied Forces. Allies Salute! Commander Quincannon Public Relations Officer Officer Cinc Administrative Staff
  5. That would be great if we were one of those games with small instanced maps, where everyone is in a limited area and IF all you want is fighting with no physical goal. If all you have are player spawns and nothing that you can cap, then terrain points such as cities lose all meaning. You might as well put everyone in a big room and say," just shoot each other until you're done." Now this is how your statement reads to me. I'm hoping that i misunderstand your meaning somehow. Because if you can't capture cities or similar points on the map, then having a large map is a waste of time. I LOVED... absolutely LOVED the Battlefield 1942 and BF2: Forgotten Hope games... (which also had points to capture, BTW) .... but the battles were just quick 20-45 minute matches with no relevance to each other. While fun... winning one map didn't mean a darned thing. No continuity. THIS game, however has that continuity. Winning a town, or bombing a factory have intertwined effects. IMO capture points on a map matter when you're trying to play a campaign based war game, versus an instance based independent match game.
  6. I have been a proponent of adding Jeeps and Kubelwagons for a long time. They are not on the current road map. We can still hope. It would be nice, and IMO, more interesting than another tank variation. No offense to the armor guys, but it would be nice to have this in between tank roll outs.
  7. 1. I don't know what ANYTHING costs in Europe. But I personally checked WOW, LOTRO and DCUO, ALL of which I play. They ALL charge $14,99 USD per month for a 1 month sub. I didn't do the specials, which could be different, but the base price is the SAME IN THE USA! If necessary I can post the links to prove it. I am NOT a liar. 2. You are posting the monies that they raised for specific purposes and which have been used. I would wager that pretty much ZERO was used to build up a War Chest of capitol that they can fall back on like the big boys have. Posting those numbers did nothing to disprove my statements. 3. You are stating that the income model is a failure, and that the current subscription model cannot keep the game running. But the truth is that it already has and does. True, the game cannot GROW very much, if at all with no new subs... but unless they start hemorrhaging current subs, they are not going under in the immediate future. 4. Yes they raised it, but not in the fashion I was talking about. In response to some other suggestions... considering the current engine... Is it even possible to make the graphics good enough to please new Steam customers without a completely new engine? I guess the question is this... and I personally would never want CRS to make any decision based on the response to any question that I ask.... BUT... We have a game now... with a small pop and slow growth... But it is here. Do people REALLY want to risk the company going under and the game going away on this extremely super duper risky proposition of halving sub prices and hoping and praying that NEW STEAM players will ride in to save the day? If, at the end of the day, do we want to risk losing the game, having CRS go under and put XOOM and the rest out of a company? Because if they tried what is being suggested, it would be an all eggs in one basket situation with VERY little guarantee of success... even with a lower price... the new customers would have to sub and stay by the thousands without new graphics and gameplay.
  8. Look. You're a decent guy and probably know your coding stuff. I'm not a coder. BUT.. and no offense... I will believe that it can be done and will be done when CRS.... and ONLY CRS... says so. That goes for any suggestion that anyone ever makes, including me. I wouldn't care if Bill Gates and a still living Steve Jobs both showed up at my door with teams of developers and told me that it's possible. It's not their game. It's not my game or yours... It's CRSs baby... And they are the only ones whose word I will take as gospel regarding what can and can not be done on THIS game. But no matter what... none of this stuff is a weekend fix. CRS and others have made it clear that even with the new program... they are still learning, and sometimes still undoing what was done years ago. Easy isn't easy until they have done it. So even if what you say is possible, you cannot KNOW that it won't take a ridiculous amount of time and effort to do what you are suggesting. !S
  9. I buy the Each G4000 Headphones off of EBay for about $15. They have great sound, look and feel great. You can illuminate them if you want to. They last very well. I'm on my second set in about 5 years, and the last one only died because my kids messed with them. Here's a pic just grabbed from ebay
  10. That's a really wiiiide blanket statement. SOME things... and even some pretty amazing things are possible. But I do not believe that one can just go. I want this to be possible, and have CRS go. Oh OK... We can do anything..... NO game can do anything and everything. EVERY game has forums where people are asking for things the game was never designed to do. There comes a point where the effort and investment in trying to fulfill customer expectations overreaches the abilities and resources of the developers of any game. I honestly think that the nested spawn PPOs being suggested would likely involve as much work, if not more, than the development required for CRS to begin and complete WWII Online 2. (assuming that it would even be possible then)
  11. I don't know of any that are MORE expensive, but I do know that WoW, LOTRO, DCUO and others still charge $14,99 each month for their subscription pricing, and people ARE paying that price. Here's the thing that some folks are not saying, so I will. BIG companies can take the kind of risk that you are suggesting. Why? Because they usually have a ton of resources, a larger customer base, a large paid team, and often a second game either already up or in the works. CRS has NONE of these. CRS has pretty much made ti clear that, at the present price, the current subscriptions keep the game going, and are even allowing for new additions to the game, if slowly. Now, if they lower the game subs, that money has to come from somewhere, and they need to be able to count on it. That means that they first have to get enough PERMANENT new subscribers to make up for a reduction of a third to one half of the current pricing, and then get enough more to actually make a difference. And those folks need to STAY for a long time. So who here has a few thousand new subscribers who they know will subscribe and stay if CRS were willing to take a risk and lowered the overall price? And what if CRS lowered the price to $10 or $7.99, and it didn't work? How many folks are going to be willing to pay more again? Imagine the guys who pay for 6 months... what if a few days later CRS says, "sorry folks but we need to raise your sub prices and have you make up the difference right now if you want the game to stay in operation?" I'm sure that would go over really well. And of course there would be the emergency fundraiser... I don't blame CRS. Not only are they not the only game charging $15 a month, but people are asking them to risk everything on one throw of the dice, hoping that the EXTREMELY fickle Steam community will suddenly come flocking and will stay in numbers that will keep the company going. One of the reasons that long term customers have invested in the game, and continue to do so, is that we want the game to survive. We are invested in the entire deal... The game, the community... friends.... The new Steam customers won't have that. It takes time... and to be quite honest, many of them won't care if the game keeps going or not. If they like it and it stays, they will likely stay with it. If it were to fail, most wouldn't even blink. They would be off to the next game. I'm NOT insulting them. As a long time Steam customer myself, I just know how Steam works.
  12. Those are NOT spawn PPOs. Here's a thought. Why don't we actually find out if something is even possible before we ask CRS to gut the game entirely and start over between campaigns what say?
  13. Attention Allies! In recognition of gallant and distinguished service, the Allied High Command hereby presents the following: Allied Officer of the Week to Boomstuk Awarded by the Allied CinC to any Allied officer for actions above and beyond the call of duty. This officer displays team work, honor and dedication to the Allied Community on the battlefield. Allied Player of the Week to Strike69 Awarded by the Allied CinC to any Allied player for actions above and beyond the call of duty. This player displays team work, honor and dedication to the Allied Community on the battlefield. Allied Squad of the Week to 101st Airborne Awarded by the Allied CinC to any Allied squad for actions above and beyond the call of duty. This squad displays team work, honor and dedication to the Allied Community on the battlefield. AAR of the Week to Hateract Awarded by the CinC to those individuals who submit the best written, highest quality After Action Report of the week. for outstanding achievements in service of the Allied Forces The actions of these service members were in keeping with the highest standards of the military, and reflect credit not only on themselves, but on their countries and the Allied Forces. Allies Salute! Commander Quincannon Public Relations Officer Officer Cinc Administrative Staff
  14. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. The basic point is that we're NOT juts talking about a single FMS, but the FB. But to make it mobile we would have to completely drop the concept of an FB and move to mobile spawns, ALL of which would have to initially come from the originating town. There could be no FMSs that come from the PPO FB because you can't have spawn missions inside of a mission. What we would be doing is scrapping the FB entirely and making MSPs the only option. You seem to think that there could be one primary mission, where someone drives out and spawns an FB, and after that everything works like it does now. That's not an option. I don't think it could be an option. It's one thing to spawn a mission and go build a PPO. It's another to spawn a mission, then build the PPO, then have other people join THAT mission, and then from inside that mission they create their own missions and then go and build their own PPOs close to town. That's where I see everything becoming truly untenable. At this point, you're basically asking CRS to scrap the entire current game mechanic for spawning and build something new. That's even assuming this sort of thing CAN be done. It would probably be easier and less time consuming for CRS to develop and release the next game. And IF such a mission could be developed. it would still make an entire FB's existence rely on keeping people in a certain mission and it not just going down because of a logout or disconnect. Also, WHO is going to have the authority to make such a decision for the entire side? If we make it an HC mission, we have to have HC on or no FBs. If we make it Squad, then we let one Squad dictate to others what and where to attack. As I said, the only feasible option that I could see being possible without gutting and rebuilding the game would be to scrap the FB system and go with an ALL MSP system, where there are only Infantry and Armor Spawn PPOs; and we have to hope enough people volunteer to drive them out AND we get them placed. But this would involve every mission driving all the way from town to town. This would make every attack essentially start at the attacking town, and allow the defender to spend their time trying to interdict MSPs before they can drive all the way to the town they are defending. Sure, it SOUNDS like the countryside fighting that some folks are asking for, but it would really be a game of truck hunt. Let the attacker spend an hour trying to get truck PPOs deployed without success and watch that attack die as people log off. Now while I personally could live with this approach, many players, especially new ones, don't deal well with anything except rapid action. For this reason, We need FBs that exist reasonably close to the enemy town, are not dependent on a single mission to keep it up, and can spawn MSP missions. The current FBs do all of that; even if they have numerous issues. I find myself amazed that I am defending the current design at all, but we need a better design that does everything the current one does before we scrap it.
  15. PPO FBs are untenable. They make the entirety of an AO rest on ONE person. If that person leaves a mission without naming a new leader or disconnects, the entire FB goes down. Even IF CRS were to be able to completely overhaul the mission system and make it so that another member would be automatically made mission leader, there's no guarantee that the mission would always have members. You are also suggesting that a PPO FB would be built by a number of Engineers. A PPO has to be built by a single person, and if it is a spawn, (And an FB is certainly a Spawn) then it has to be built by a Mission Leader. The ONLY potentially feasible version of this would be to do away with FBs entirely, and Have the FMSs made much much tougher, and at the same time create a Vehicle Spawn version as well. The hope would be that enough people would be willing to set these MSPs up to make an attack succeed. However, there would be no guarantee that people would work together on location or placement. No guarantee that anyone would be willing to guard the MSPs. For instance, I have driven any number of INFANTRY FMSs to the front, but as I do not drive tanks, there is no way i would attempt to be a Mission Leader for an Armor MSP. We could easily wind up in situations where NO armor MSPs ever get set, meaning the only reliable way to get armor to an attack is to drive it all the way from the attacking town. And in trying to figure out how a PPO FB might work, i even envisioned them as HC only placeable PPOs, but the same problem exists: There is no way to make sure that the Mission Leader stays on mission or even logged into the game.