Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Green Tag

About david01

  • Rank
    Free Play Account
  • Birthday
  1. You're the company, you mandated that all game activity revolve around these volunteer game admins called HC. It's you're responsibility if customers aren't enjoying themselves because of a deficiency in HC, and trying to pawn off a bad customer experience on HC isn't going to work. You're also desperately short of ingame leadership, and ingame leadership apparently is the solution to all the gameplay problems. So you had better do everything you can to increase ingame leadership (squads) instead of disregarding squad concerns.
  2. When you type in variations of the keywords, or even pretty much the exact title wording this game still doesn't come up as a suggestion. It doesn't even look like the game is listed because the only offerings available are the subs which are classified as DLC. The DLC gets kicked below the listings classified as games it seems. Also the DLC doesn't have any price listing.
  3. There was some 1.31 beta that seemed really good for awhile. Although the hardware was different then, and I wasn't sure if they ever put 128+ players in to a small area before they made changes. For reference the best Planetside 2's servers can do is around 250ms. So for that game it's 250ms server latency plus the latency of the client. But separate from lag is the movement tracking/prediction which is far worse in this game despite infantry movement being more sluggish. Some larger battles are unplayable with a bolt-action rifle.
  4. There's no need for concessions. If something with the equipment is bad or wrong then change it. Keep exceptions to the minimum and state why they're exceptions. There is no good reason why a later war SMG can't be kicked to the later tiers, or why LMGs can't be made to not fire while on the move, reloaded on the move or have their hip fires adjusted. Hell just make it apply to the MG34 as preventing players from using it in close-quarters assaults is really a stealth buff anyway. There is almost total developmental paralysis of this game. I had multiple subs for years and watched the same whining about M10s and tigers monopolize every minor suggestion just like now. It's just a few values and lines of code but people are worried about concessions and some holistic notion of faction balance.
  5. Hysterics and failed reasoning like this is why the game hasn't made any real progress in years. The OP made a good point about a SMG getting timewarped when there already exist SMGs. If something gets timewarped it should be for a good reason. There are other good points in this thread. Saying that there needs to be a tit-for-tat approach to changes is killing the game via paralysis. CRS should change a bunch of stuff ASAP like making some weapons more accurate, some less accurate, reload timers and ability to be reloaded etc. Using your reasoning the flak 30 can't be changed to the flak 38 despite it being an upgrade to one of the worst guns in the game because there's not equivalent buff to the allied side.
  6. It's something on the server end. I still have an old video from 2010 during an axis squad night where 100+ players are pouring in to an AB that is being defended. There's a bunch of action and chaos but little packet loss, and none of the bizarre warping that you see now. It also used to be that friendly units would disappear during every main battle on squad night and it was no big deal. It was only really annoying when enemies began to disappear and even then only for the AA gunners. Now all kinds of rendering issues during large battles and even not-so-large battles. Around 2012 CRS did something (if I remember correctly it was 1.34), broke their rendering engine and probably more stuff that players didn't notice. They patched things up but if it required rebuilding a host from scratch or especially reverse-engineering anything then that would explain things.
  7. It's not nearly that expensive to kick out some new units, even with this game's reliance on .flt files and a relatively expensive Presagis software license.
  8. The German faction needs stuff just so the game stops using the same units for both sides. For instance their 37mm flak gun and some kind of E-boat for the navy. They really need the Ju 88. That was one of the most-produced aircraft of the war, and it nearly fits WW2online gameplay perfectly unlike the He 111. The US needs its own armored car and AA, such as the quad .50 mount. If someone thinks that they need a tankette then give them the M2. They also need at least once iconic fighter like the P-47 or P-51. They really need paratroopers. The entire faction was slapped on to the game for marketing value, it’s still here for that reason but it’s missing much of the best-known US equipment of the war. If people ever get stumped on what to add they should just look at the War Thunder unit trees. I don’t think that the game really needs more infantry weapons unless the devs are planning another Rapid Assault thing, because there are already many weapons that are just direct upgrades/downgrades to existing ones, or even redundant. Just in the tier-0 German infantry brigade I see a MP40 SMG unit, a MP34 SMG unit, and a MP34 “reserve” SMG unit. When they add assault rifles they're just going to play like more accurate SMGs, and you won't notice much of a difference except outside depot combat.
  9. I don't think that I've ever taken lead from another mission leader and deleted his spawn, except maybe back in the pre-nerf infantry FRU days when we were handing off lead routinely. I'm not sure how it became an accepted practice, but something is up because arbitrarily deleting the mission's FMS without the mission leader's consent was the main action suggested for a camped FMS in my thread. Conflicts like the OP occur because there are no private missions. If HC asks for someone to check on a town, and you respond quickly and set a defensive FMS you are going to be one of the only existing missions if/when the bulk of defenders begin to spawn in. They will all click on your mission and spawn away from the army base. No one here seems to believe that a mission leader might have a good reason for making his mission private/squad only; from what I've see it's always assumed that players want their own missions for selfish reasons. Excluding random players is sometimes vital, but it can't be done here.
  10. What's devastating is sending all of the Steam recruits in to little kill boxes where they get helplessly camped by veterans in tanks. And you're doing this intentionally thinking that it makes good gameplay. Well the game already has a poor rating on Steam, and at the current rate will go from "mixed" status (already bad) to the "negative" labels in a week or two which is even worse for the game.
  11. The advice given here is literally anti-leadership. How am I leading the way by destroying and deleting my team's only spawn points to an attack? Is there something preventing CRS from allowing the medium ATGs to spawn from the FMS, or do you disallow this because you don't think that it would be balanced?
  12. All the PPOs need to have their build times decreased drastically. The devs need to recognize that they have a FPS world made of nothing but flat open fields and nearly zero cover, only bush lines every 2-300 meters. When they have too many PPOs being built at a battle then the PPOs can be tweaked, but right now there are too few. As far as I can tell the devs are actually afraid of PPOs becoming too powerful, as if a wall of sandbags placed next to an ATG bunker to provide infantry cover would break the game. Yeah I noticed that after I got some greentags to actually press 9 and X and start building cover, and a lone DB7 nukes the entire area with a single bomb. Stuff like this is why I don't have any confidence in CRS's ability to balance. It's like they get all of their balance feedback from a handful of tankers and pilots, and go live with their suggestions without any further consideration. They say they want "ZOC gameplay" and post about how the best way to capture a town is to park outside of it and build PPOs, but with bombs the way they are building a group of PPOs is basically piddling around instead of trying to win.
  13. I think that it was last Friday sometime when I logged on and saw four AOs, and five axis HC online.
  14. Sometimes I wonder if these people are playing the same game "Just blow up the FMS" "take lead and delete it" lol both those things can easily get you .reported and/or accused of griefing, especially if it's a random like me doing it and not a HC officer.
  15. It's the biggest mission on the map, it's either the only or one of the few missions with a FMS to the priority attack. The mission leader might be in town and has put in at least several minutes of his time to set it up. There is no way that I'm going to do a .takelead and delete the FMS without arguing for several minutes during a battle. Even if I did think it was a good idea to do this I shouldn't have to manually fix bad gameplay. Okay then what was the point of releasing on Steam then? At any rate these situations come about because the game is too easy. It's too easy to roll tanks to a FMS and shut down an attack. The defender has so many advantages the only way to take a town is to rush tanks and camp town before he's spawned. Doing the proper thing and fighting out, and trying to make your way in to town leads to gameplay like in to the video. Attacking is very hard and defending is very easy. Also this game isn't anywhere near a competitive PvP game it's heavily curated and arranged little battles.