Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


aismov last won the day on June 3 2019

aismov had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

600 Hero

About aismov

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
    Air Force
  • Preferred Unit
  1. Glad you mention HG because I think it is a great example of taking the worst of both models (open world/closed map) and creating a hybrid that is even worse than the sum of its parts. The big game world seems secondary right up until you don't have it and then suddenly all the mechanics and tricks you employ to fake it and make it seem like the world is big are painfully obvious and immersion breaking. Simply things like seeing over chat "LW intercepting RDP bombers" or "navy diverting to assist attack on Kamperland" add more to the immersion than many players realize. Yes, you probably won't fly from London to Berlin, but the idea that you can makes it feel like there is a real war going on, rather than logging into an instance abd playing on a small map and then abstracting it to a larger strategic layer. Player feeling and perception are paramount. And for all the graphics shortcomings, one thing that players consistently speak positively about is the sheer scale of the game and feeling like one man as part of a larger overall war effort. You simply can't have that feeling without concurrent air and naval assets. Nor can you have that feeling if planes are spawning midair over s small constrained map.
  2. I agree. At the end of the day those rifle vets wouldn't be paying-n-playing anyway, so I would rather we have more players online than less. And as far as CRS not responding to criticism or squashing opinions. You must be on drugs, there isn't a company out there that lets as much opinion or interacts with the players base as here. When is the last time Chris Roberts actually interacted in a real way on the Star Citizen forums, or even smaller developers for that matter.
  3. And real flanking. Not the fake "flanking" where you go 500m to the left or right of an enemy tank.
  4. That has been the case from Day 1; it's just a case of numbers. Before let's say 10% aggressively capped and defended, there are your guys. Now the ratios are the same but the absolute numbers are lower.
  5. Worth a try IMHO. And like Nick and others have said there is a big difference from adjusting levels of damage for an object versus coding in a new change to the game.
  6. I think I every big benefit for any WWIIOL 2.0 is that there is 1) new development team and 2) CRS 2.0 has delivered on their road maps. Crowdfunding is all about excitement and developing narratives. A WWIIOL 2.0 will general create excitement on its own, but people won't fund if they are wary of the people behind the project. I think that the "clean break from CRS 1.0" and willingness to make big game changes (1.36, etc) co struts a very compelling narrative that would combat any people saying "don't give money to these devs! It's the same group from 2001 that screwed it up in the first place!" Im certainly more of an optimist but I think a well done crowdfunding push would be very successeful.
  7. I'll echo what other players have said about the popularity of milsims and the WWII genre vis-a-vis fast action. If you take for example Hearts of Iron 4, and WWII based grand strategy game (the very definition of slow paced and methodical) it has sold over a million copies and has an average daily steam playerbase of ~15000 (which doesn't include organic players who purchased via paradox store). There is a ton of potential to improve and get lots of players. Hearts of Iron is a great example where the premise is popular but it required iteration to keep players engaged. Had Paradox stayed at Hearts of Iron 1 or 2 the essentially same game would have nowhere near the same traction it currently has.
  8. Honestly I think most of the time it is well meaning players on your side, or new players simply trying to build stuff. Like other have said, it takes seconds to take them out and its a non-issue.
  9. There is a big difference from crowdfunding small improvements in a current game versus crowdfunding a completely new game. The first only appeals to current active players, the second appeals to anyone who likes WWII games.
  10. Yup agree here. If you coordinate and have a large strategy you can make big cuts, but we just really haven't been doing it on either side. Everyone is very risk averse with the new system. And as was mentioned all we need to do is adjust supply and the map can move much faster.
  11. I disagree, I think the current change is one of the best in a long time. Why should capturing an AB cause the whole defense go poof? I personally like it how you now have to physically capture an entire town, just seems more realistic to me.
  12. I don't necessarily see why crowdfunding is going to come from current fans. WWIIOL has enough of a large fan base who enjoyed the game at one point and certainly would get exited about at WWIIOL 2.0 and with a decent marketing push this could work to also capture a lot of other players who like the WWII and MMO genre. Realistically this game would need to raise closer to $5-10 MM to be able to get things done in a reasonable time frame, which is a reach but doable if it is done the right way. That amount of money gets you about 15-20 full time developers for a good 3 years plus all the associated costs (assuming the a developer with full overhead costs about in the $150k/year range). Even getting something like 50,000 people would get us more than half of the way there assuming they pledge $50 bucks. With some clever crowdfunding tiers you could easily get guys contributing much more, especially early in the development. Fortunately unlike lots of Indie games WWIIOL has some benefits: 1) established name (for better or worse, I think better) 2) popular genre 3) not niche product (sorta) 4) Dev team with established track record (again for better or worse) 5) maturing technology that makes the original vision more realistic to achieve than 2001
  13. Yup, I agree. Focus should start shifting to WWIIOL 2.0 with a planned Crowdfunding drive in 2020.
  14. Issue with infantry game is lag and the way the predictor code is implemented. Some players have learned to use their own lag and the predictor code to their advantage which is where a lot of the "the guy ran up the stairs and shot me" phenomen comes from. I wouldn't necessarily call it an exploit, but yes, it does many the infantry game frustrating. Ironically the worse your ping the better your advantage if you are an attacker (and vice versa as a defender).