gt3076r

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About gt3076r

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. A lot of it is frustration, likely. For example, the game's population is in pretty bad shape; and Steam, in which so many had perhaps an unfair amount of faith as far as being a solution is concerned, didn't go so well. On top of that you have the obvious other issues like HC and the HE issue. This is a platform to let that frustration out for many.
  2. A step in the right direction. It could use some refinement in unit choice and pricing, but that can be built upon once its own success is measured directly through the Steam numbers. Important question: do those purchasing the DLC have immediate access to the units paid for?
  3. If you read through the locked thread there's quite a few things noted from both players and CRS that contradicts your first sentence. Moderaters can be trained. Odds are quite good that at super low pop no-HC times they aren't busy responding to .reports so much so that they can't take the time to fix the situation. All I see are a bunch of weak excuses dismissing even the most basic ideas of possible solutions to a long-standing critical gameplay failure which is going to cost you players if it goes unaddressed, something you really can't afford. But hey it's your guys call.
  4. The ideal scenario would be that CRS member and GMs have access to two floating HC accounts - one axis, one allied - that they will use to correct zero-HC scenarios as a stopgap solution until 1.36 is implemented. Basically read all of Silky's posts in the locked thread. There is no way this is being implemented right now.
  5. Main advantages. 1. Partially takes this responsbility off of the playerbase. 2. Utilizes CRS staff which are otherwise unable to address this game-breaking situation - it is game-breaking don't forget this point. 3. CRS staff would be able to address a no-HC scenario regardless of which side it's occurring on, including up to both sides at the same time, likely anonymously.
  6. True, it's not foolproof, but it's a start. Another simple to do step would be to identify all individuals who can respond to a no-HC call and assign them a unique role on the official WWIIOL discord channels which could be tagged by players in a no-HC event. So even if they were not logged in, these individuals would receive a notification of 'no-HC, need help' and could respond accordingly if available.
  7. That thread was full of excuses and zero solutions. I disagree that there's no time to implement a stop-gap solution. Doing nothing in the meantime is telling a portion of the playerbase to deal with gamebreaking situations until 1.36 is released, which has no ETA currently and is probably many months out. I'd expect to see plenty more threads like this one if those experiencing these situations take the time to even write them.
  8. Thank you, I'll show this to some people who need to see it.
  9. Not having the tools is a simple fix. Keeping the identity from the playerbase is its own thing for sure. But maybe some things need to be changed for gameplay's sake
  10. Ehh, at least GMs should assume the HC responsibility during low population times when there's no HC on, if they are logged on during those times. Hard to argue they have other responsibilities which would keep them from helping then. One thing's for certain, the old 'players should just join HC, problem solved' bit hasn't worked for many, many years and is still not working.
  11. And what are the details on this marketing stuff?
  12. Community needs to come to an agreement with CRS/GM team on actions to be taken when need be. Every member of CRS/GM team needs to be taught the very basics of flag movement in the event no HC are on. Lipton more or less nailed it with his comment in the locked thread. The idea of the agreement would have to be something that exempts CRS/GMs from criticism for any map movement in those times. Bottom line: can't have timeframes of potentially hours with no proper gameplay.
  13. From my understanding, these are things being put in place to address retention, not population growth. From what I'm seeing we're back to square one when it comes to getting people in the door.
  14. Is there any plan that has been mentioned yet specifically and directly addressing growing the game's population? With Xoom more or less confirming no more free to play on Steam, I'm left wondering what other options there are. Look back to a year ago just before pre-Steam. We've got all the same gripes listed in here now as then: low pop, no HC, the same old. It's almost as if Steam never happened, and the game certainly isn't seeing 300-1000 new signed up members as Xoom guaranteed, assuming he meant subscribers sticking around and it wasn't just a hype post. There are two current-gen, realistic WWII FPS games coming out the door within the next month. This could very well mean even less regularly active users. Need to start thinking of ideas if it hasn't been done.
  15. I think the game has the vehicle crew system down perfectly. One man can crew a tank, but not in a do-it-all fashion like the Battlefield games for instance. The tank still acts as several different individuals which must be used separately though the system allows for continuous movement while outside of the seat (driver continues driving forward, turret continues turning, etc if chosen) No other sim provides this level of freedom to the player while maintaining an aspect of realism. Other sims just force tanks/AFVs to be used by no less than two people which always leaves someone doing the very exciting work of only driving the vehicle/maybe using a bow MG.