Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About carlz

  • Rank
    Free Play Account
  • Birthday
  1. With rear supply interdiction, tracked bombs, and more development of bombers as an integral parts of the game, we really need to start looking at ways to develop Polycrewing so that weapons platforms can perform to their maximum abilities. It's very frustrating to invest time into using these weapons only to be killed because you can't jump from position to position fast enough. Very few can pull this off successfully. The ability to develop camaraderie among platform crews will pay off handsomely with additional subscriptions.
  2. My advice isn't to stop playing the game. I'm simply pointing out the realities of the current game play, and offering a solution to the problem raised by CRS in this post.
  3. Playtime, The point of your post is kind of all over the place, but I guess it refers to my suggestion that veteran players don't see the value in subscribing to paid accounts without the tools to conduct a more mature team style game play built into the game. You recognize that squad based game play where affiliations and dependencies between players are important and model real life attributes. But, then query how anyone can be board when so many role alternatives exist in the game. This is apples and oranges. What you play and How you play are completely different animals. Yes, squads are great and provide the support and interaction needed to provide optimal game play. But being in a squad means supporting your squad mates by regular attendance. For many mature players who can't maintain regular attendance with a squad or can't dedicate a 3 hour block to squad night objectives, those affiliations are a disservice to the leaders who are struggling to provide meaningful team objectives without proper organizational tools. How many mission leaders have planned squad missions only to have a whole horde of unaffiliated players ruin it by running directly to the objective without proper support? Happens every time and does not support the strengths of this game. The UI addition I am suggesting can be used by Squads to strengthen their mission planning, but also be used by unaffiliated players to organize meaningful and fun tactical missions outside of the overall strategic goals of the game. It is the perfect way to train new subscribers to embrace the social aspects and organization of the game that lead to the long term subscriptions needed to keep WWIIOL alive. If CRS were to add these tools into the game, but limit them to paid subscribers, I guarantee veterans would resubscribe and retention rates for new players would increase dramatically.
  4. Joined Bose26 in Airwarrior in 1998. I was accepted as a Beta tester when WWIIOL came out...however, my system couldn't handle the game and I let a squad mate play with my identity. Joined game shortly after it went live in 2001.
  5. THANK YOU! I am not proposing changes to the current mass spawning UI because many love this type of action, but the addition of an alternate UI that embraces team play. By adding in a mission interface that can be used by small groups (around 15 members) that gives command and control over to the mission leader would produce a much more immersive game play atmosphere for those who want the Band of Brothers experience that the game is ideally suited for. By limiting the amount of members on each mission we prevent large squads from running the map as CRS had feared several years ago and hijacking the experience. Good squads know that any larger missions tend to loose command and control of the objective and could easily coordinate several missions. The missions would be open to anyone to join. This means that newbies could join the mission with experienced players to learn the ropes without the risks. This also means that a squad would need to be more organized regarding planning and execution. This would be an excellent recruiting tool and a great way to retain subscribers in a game that has a very steep learning curve. It opens up the possibility for busy veterans to log into the game for just an hour or so and enjoy several meaningful spawns. Yes, there will always be idiots who use second accounts to spy or just irritate others, but with the much more intimate social climate that the small dynamics provide, these guys will quickly gain a bad reputation. So will the good leaders. This UI could have the following tools: - The ability for the Mission Leader to plan the mission before opening it up for members. - A Map with markable icons that can be taken into battle. These might include new icons which mark staging or fallback options. Perhaps give the mission leader the ability to draw on the map. - Ideally the map could have overlays that would allow several missions to coordinate with HC or each other two other missions. - A toggleable interactive Notepad where players could use the keyboard to mark down com channels, attack coordinates, timing, or any other pertinent info. Also provide the ability for mission members to remove marks they placed on the map. - The opportunity to change out ordinance from inside the ready room before spawning so that a proper weapon balance could be established before spawning. - The ability for the Mission Leader to launch the team to spawn together from a forward base and to set up a spawn point for only his/her team. The Mission Leader should coordinate the transport of his team to the objective. (Yes, this is different than using a forward spawn point- those who are in a hurry can post the original mission types). An interface such as this could be used by all service branches to produce more quality game play.
  6. I realize that and yes, I could log into one of the com programs used with the game. But, this still does not offer the same immersion and gameplay that could be afforded on multiple levels by producing a UI that allowed (and guided) mission members to work more efficiently towards a common and achievable goal. This game is ideally situated to be a very socially interactive game in which players work together to achieve tactical goals (ae...dominating choke points, interdiction, capturing FB's, bombing factories) towards strategic objectives. Yet, the mechanisms and tools are not in place to encourage players to work together. Instead of logging in for an hour of stimulating game play to achieve a sense of satisfaction working in an organized fashion towards a limited mission objective; most game play is overwhelmingly similar to 5 hour Viking berserker attack in which players use up all the axes and swords in short order and fight a battle of attrition with knifes. Same old scenario almost every town. Multiple missions from different spawns all with the same lack of coordination. We play this game because it's a simulation of WWII, yet the very precepts which governed the battlefield are ignored. It doesn't have to be this way. With some very simple adjustments CRS could produce ready rooms where mission leaders (and squads) could have the tools to prepare the mission, brief mission members, assign personal objectives, assign ordinance, mark secondary targets or fallback positions, organize armor support and transportation. The game was created with choke point's in mind to simulate WWII conditions. Veterans have been very patiently waiting for these enter the game. We know that things like visible supply, impactable ammo, fuel, and maintenance facilities are very technical issues that will take more resources to achieve. We are willing to overlook the graphics, slow weapons development, and minor technical issues that may be beyond the capacity to improve at the current time. But, veteran players have evolved beyond being part of the hoard. They want to support the game but they can just as well die as a rifleman without paying for a subscription if every battle comes down to rifleman anyhow. Throw us a bone and build a more immersive UI and you will see player subs increase.
  7. I was a day one player who now only plays occasionally as a free player. I was very active in a huge squad for a very long time. The game changed when developers turned against squads and to their credit are understanding the important dynamics of squad play and the huge benefits that the social aspect provided the game. But life is busy now. I don't have time to cultivate squad relationships when I can't play consistently enough to support them. I don't really enjoy being fodder in a massive attack with no purpose. However, I would subscribe again if WWIIOL had a way to organize missions so that they had a mechanism where I could interact with my mission team members towards achievable goals. This provides the immersion that is the strong point of the game. CRS needs to reorganize the UI so that groups of players (and squads) can plan missions effectively...
  8. Better UI. Ready rooms for mission planning before spawn.
  9. True and Not too far from real life. So HC's should take this into account when conceiving a battle plan. Don't demoralize your player base with grand strategies. Stick with small winnable goals.
  10. The game needs a better UI for mission spawning that has the tools to allow the mission leader to guide his players. (Ready Room) This should include a way to brief mission members, organize load outs, assign duties, plan fallback contingencies and secondary objectives with maps and way points. Many people don't have the time to commit to joining and actively participating in a squad, but miss the quality of game play that teamwork brings to the game. This means yearly subscriptions are down because the value isn't there. I only have a few hours a week to play and it takes all that time to find and get vested into an organized game play. This would be great for squads too as it would build leadership and recruitment. The old fear of squads taking over the game can be eliminated by limiting the number of mission members per mission.
  11. I don't know about any TOE issues, but I saw some unbelievable leadership, teamwork, and perseverance in this comeback. Kudos to Axis leadership!
  12. The reason squads started pulling out of the game is because CRS at the time started an overt effort to diminish squad effectiveness in favor of catering to the instant action FPS market which they thought would draw in more players. As a consequence they lost the role playing and social aspect of the game that kept many individuals drawn to the relationships they had formed. Many subscribers would log in every night and perform seemingly mundane duties simply to reinforce their "team". Members of a squad would maintain memberships even though they could not justify paying for the actual time spent doing game play, and family members who did not enjoy or could not master FPS combat bought subscriptions because it supported the squads overall success. The trap became that those instant action FPS's were never satisfied with how quickly they could attain personal success and without the role playing aspect of the game to reinforce the lowered graphics, weapon development, and software development of newer games quickly moved on. Older players who were drawn to the original concept of strategic game play were dismayed and disgruntled. I am excited at many of the recent developments that the new management has put in place. I think they "get it". WWIIOL has enormous potential even without the latest graphics and weapons array. But, if the goal is to develop leaders, then providing the correct tools and objectives is paramount. Mission Leaders need a purpose and making more small objectives in which to utilize tactics towards the overall strategy goals in the game will be a great start. To be good leaders they need the organizational tools to organize groups of mission members towards those objectives. an enhanced UI that offers mission leaders an opportunity to brief members, detail maps, rally points, set communications, assign duties and ordinance, offer contingency plans before spawning would not be difficult to build and would be a great start in developing both leaders and long term players.
  13. Great Ideas! Here are some oldies but goodies-
  14. Dropping Acurate Bombs from 5-6 K isn't child's play. In Real Life a hitting a moving Bomber at this altitude with Anti-aircraft was a calculated uncertainty. Rather than reinventing the wheel with coding or adding more AI, why not add some player based high altitude AA guns based on the German 88 and British QF 3.7-inch AA with player adjustable mechanical timed fuses and wider diffusion patterned ballistics. This would add a new dynamic to the game by modeling existing technology.
  15. Dropping Acurate Bombs from 5-6 K isn't child's play. In Real Life hitting a moving Bomber at this altitude with Anti-aircraft was a calculated uncertainty. Rather than reinventing the wheel with coding or adding more AI, why not add some player based high altitude AA guns based on the German 88 and British QF 3.7-inch AA with player adjustable mechanical timed fuses and wider diffusion patterned ballistics. This would add a new dynamic to the game by modeling existing technology.