Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Green Tag

About budder8820

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday
  1. Did this go anywhere within dev groups? I felt this is worth bumping as I have the same exact feeling and have posted similar concerns in the past. The spawn system problem was explained very in this post.
  2. In a language like C++ isn't that sort of thing abstracted in OOP? Do we really care how physically in memory it's being represented?
  3. I'd like to see mine craft in WWII online. Make PPOs only allowed to be placed by the mission leader and then only allow engineers to construct them.
  4. Let me explain better. Currently, you setup a mission, which has mission leader. Additionally, the game also has something called a "squad" which is really more or less a representation of what 'clan' you are in...we happen to call it squads. IMO with services like discord, it's essentially useless because good communication on discord should be the way of telling your squad/clan mates which mission to join and provide a dedicated voice comms for your clan. So instead, I'm suggesting we change the meaning of what it mean's to be in a "squad in game" not "out of game". Instead of the squad channel (and the data construct in WWII online) being everyone in your clan, let a 'squad' be a maximum of say only 5 players all participating in the same mission. Squads are created and destroyed after a mission is created/destroyed. You could have 2 -7 squads per mission let's say and those squads would work together to accomplish what ever the mission leader has set out to accomplish. When a player joins a mission he must then also join a squad which would have a squad leader. The squad lead can setup rally points which only allow members of his squad to re-spawn at the rally. Rally points have finite number of spawns, are dependent on supply, and cannot be placed within let's say 300 meters of an enemy player, and they require at least one other squad member within 5 meters of the squad lead to place. Obviously these are only suggestions and they can be tailored to WWII online. Agreed, I believe this is the way to go. Currently we have town -> FB -> FMS. Taking down any of the hierarchy kills the lower ones because it cuts off supply. So I'm basically suggesting that we add another level town-> FB->FMS-.>Rally point. Only certain players. What I'm suggesting is that the FMS mechanic require help from the entire mission group to help build. Currently, someone drives a truck, plops an FMS down and it's ready to go, everyone can spawn at the FMS. I'm suggesting that the process of creating the FMS be more team focused. Which would include not only setting up the FMS but adding another aspect of having to resupply the FMS in order to construct and spawn from it: 1. Only the mission leader can setup the initial location of the FMS and it does not require a truck only the mission leader. The mission leader places the radio (represents the FMS location), the radio designates the FMS location and specifies the center of a circle of X meters where PPOs can be built. However, the radio does NOT let players spawn into the location. 2. In order for the FMS to be built to allow spawning and a defensively position the FMS must be supplied by a truck which would deliver 'supplies'. So it must be supplied and it can be supplied by players driving trucks as often as required from the FB to the FMS location. And the supplies that are taken from the FB are drawn from global supply as per the current system. 3. Supplies can be used to build PPOs, supply Ammo for players etc. PPO types need to be increased: bunkers, emplacements, spawning tents/bunkers. So for example, once the FMS is placed by the mission leader, he needs supplies and then he can start having PPOs built that might for example act as defensive structures or tents that players can spawn from. 4. Finally, The PPOs: can only be placed within the FMS radius, require at least two players to build each one (the mission leader places a construction location down and then an engineer and maybe another kit has a tool to actually build it) and finally no cool down timers on placing PPOs). FMS should follow the same rules as they do now, basically they cannot be placed more than X meters from a town, enemy etc. That is my suggestion for changing how FMS are used and created. It requires team work yes. But we're talking about having just two people min to do it. Next Gen WWII online is being build on unreal maybe it's something that can go into that game. Not every member should have the ability to create their own spawns. Let's say a ratio, for every 5 player in a mission you are allowed one squad which would have one leader who could only place the rally (spawn point). Given the constraints I spoke of in the earlier part of the post. I don't think of it as sub missions...I think of it as sub-groups of player with-in a mission. For example, right now if you're in a clan/squad in WWII online, you can be in the squad 91st for example, and still be in a mission. But they are completely unrelated...I'm just suggesting that we change that mechanic so it actually means something to be in a squad in game. Right now you just get a tag on your character, you get to see if you squad mates are in a mission and you get chat channel. That's useless IMO for the most part. Agreed, but the games I mentioned are not 16 vs 16 they are 40 vs 40 or even 50 v 50 which is on par with the majority of engagements in any given town in WWII online. And while you can go all over the map depending on mission you can't affect one part of the map if you are a certain distance away from it's location...my biggest gripe of the game given it's emphasis on combined arms...Yet you can even shell towns with tank or artillery shells because they despawn before they even reach the target...let along do enough splash damage to harm inf targets.
  5. I would say just copy what other games like Squad and Hell let loose and add a WWII online twist to make it your own. But the game is lacking a way to make deployment faster. Something needs to be added to where infantry can deploy spawn points ...the game play is just too slow without them....ie. Rallys in Squad. The problem is that you'd need to add some kind of mechanic to only allow a sub-selection of players apart of that mission from spawning otherwise it's just the same thing as a FMS. FMS should become something more like a smaller version of a FOB where you can build defensive structures and emplacements...much quicker than what is currently allowed...Maybe use supplies to limit the amount of PPOs. Allowing some squads of 4 -5 people place their own spawn points from a squad leader might actually encourage tactical game play and when voice communication comes out, we might start to see something resembling coordination in attacks rather than just a mass bum rush at the AB.
  6. Why has Integrated Voice Comms development been stuck at 10%? Is it lack of resources, technical issues or have developers simply not been deployed to address the new feature? Are there any more specifics on what Integrated Voice Comms will include? Beside positional audio? Will there be any further sectioning of comms like by target? Mission? Or squad? Thanks
  7. I joined a squad. But the only time I felt like it was cohesive and useful was during FB bust missions. Otherwise, it's just people running randomly towards depots and army bases. There seemed to be no advantage to working in small units of 5-6 guys working together in close formation.
  8. lol wow I read through this entire string of posts and it ended with this....
  9. Let's give HE shells a large shrapnel splash damage before we bother increasing the load out. They might actually be useful then.
  10. Friendly Fire needs to be added eventually. For a game that is suppose to be realistic...this is one of it's worst sins IMO.
  11. Agreed as well. Make some more detailed buildings and make them unique for each town.
  12. Agreed. More non-town objectives would be good.
  13. I think adding better AI that can actually move around would help balance issues. Have them spawn and defend the town.
  14. Exactly. .I looked up the Unity engine and found that to my surprise it was a procedural engine. I'd rather see more realistic terrain, more cover in the environment and more varied cities/towns. But really, I don't feel like the game utilizes it's open world features. The majority of the game is fought fighting over generic towns and cities which are for essentially a bunch of cap points that are basically almost the same between towns. I'd like to see a game mechanic that encourages fighting on some of forest and open world terrain. I think having player placed FBs is a good start to this.