Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by aismov

  1. If I take a honest look at 1.36 now tha we've been testing it for what 2 weeks now, I'm still happy and think it's a good direction. The battles feel a bit more dynamic, and I like that towns change hands more frequently and you have successful counter attacks. Players are already adapting by being more careful with supply, and there is less of an emphasis of banzai charging the bunker, and more emphasis on CP control. With supply being an issue there is certainly an incentive to camp an FMS, but I've also noticed that FMS that are effectively lost get pulled much more quickly now. Similarly, you can now also take a town by NOT capping a CP. Hirson effectively fell last night from Allied push that took out most high value infantry with the CPs abd AB quickly falling when we were down to rifles. Need some tweaks (tank numbers), bug fixes (FB flip bug, no supply selection bug, dFMS loophole), but overall I like it. In the HC were also having good discussion about strategy as what towns we need to attack and what towns need strong defense.
  2. I personally like the mix of having both the old tight cities as well as the spread out ones. It takes a different approach to capture those cities.
  3. Another clutch FB bust by the 31st Halle was under severe pressure with two exposed western CPs held by the Allies. Crack air assault team swooped in and took out both FBs and then liberated the town! w00t
  4. I was always under the impression that sounds wasn't instantaneous in this game. At least that is the impression I have when I see a plane drop a bomb (or crash)... it takes a second or two to actually hear the sound. And yes, shockwaves returning would be AWESOME!
  5. Not sure if you have downloaded the latest patch, but there are no more flags for Garrisons. Active frontline/rearline garrison towns have the name/miniflag, Brigades have the old school flags, and non-active towns on the map are greyed-out.
  6. I think that is actually a good option. Create a 3rd FMS option where there is a roof, back wall, and two zig-zag'd side walls so that when you spawn you are protected. And then leave it up to the players to decide the level of security they want for players spawning vs. the drawback of it being larger and easier to spot.
  7. Oh I agree completely. But I think it becomes an issue during very low server populations where one hyper-organized group runs circles around another because they have extra numbers. I don't mind players setting up the next AO and getting FMS as the first town is falling; thats smart gameplay. I think its an issue if you have a numbers advantage and the other side can't spare the resources to even give a token defense to the town that you just AO'd. I don't think there should be any mandatory cool down periods. I'm actually probably more extreme than most players in that I think that AO's should be eliminated completely and map movement should rather be controlled by variables like cap timers, AB timers, and the number of troops in a certain area to prevent moling and solo-caps. But letting one side decide the fate of the map in a single-server persistent world game that has hard victories/defeats (unlike say Planetside where each faction has an un-capturable territory they can always sally forth from) is also not good for the game. I think we all play this game for the tactical battles. But I also don't think anyone can honestly say that winning or losing the map doesn't matter to them outside of maybe a very small minority of players. This is a competitive game, and winning the campaign is the ultimate competition.
  8. Sorta have to agree with the one AO, especially if one side is overpop AND organized since you are attacking one town and as the AB is falling you AO the 2nd town and get opels running so that right when the AB is capped you already have a FMS set to go and players spawning to cap the town. It creates essentially an uncontrolled domino cascade of towns falling. I saw it happen last night and that was during US prime time where Allies traditionally have the population advantage.
  9. We all gotta find a way to play together on the playground. Kicking someone out of the playground or taking away their toys may be the easy solution, but it's not the real solution. It's just educating fellow players.
  10. Personally I love it... killing enemy actually means something; would say fewer tanks and fix the dFMS/resupply/overstock loophole but otherwise very good! I would tell a returning player that there are lots of new gameplay styles that you can enjoy but now actually make a difference in the battle due to supply/attrition.
  11. Submit a support ticket and they will get you sorted out in no time. The towing accounts need to be activated manually unfortunately.
  12. What!? More like it should be DOUBLE the premium subscription when you consider all the excess bandwidth they consume from all the hot air that is generated on those forums. /runs
  13. To continue with the theme of increasing player immersion and making WWIIOL more than just a hardcore battlefield simulator, but at the same time decrease the pressure on CRS to have to keep making new content at a frantic pace, I came across this video regarding Ultima Online and some of their design challenges. One of the most important parts I noticed was when Richard Garriott said that early on in the development of UO they realized that they would quickly reach a point where players would consume (and grow bored of) new content faster than the devs had time to make it. Since with 1.36 we eliminated one of the three reasons I feel players left the game (ToE/Brigades/HC control), and are heading in the right direction with one of the reamining two main reasons (AO system), I think its time to start talking and thinking outside of the box regarding new content. Lack of content everyone agrees was also a big factor in the game where there weren't any new weapons/map expansions/UI/etc introduced to the game for a solid 10 years. But I think we really need to work more on player created content. The PPOs are a great start, but I think we need to do more. And if we start talking about a potential WWIIOL 2.0 for real, I think we should work on a solid RPG layer for the game complete with some sort of battle point/economy/swag system. Give players something to work for and earn, and then be able to display and brag to others, rather than just an abstract running tally of whether the Axis or Allies won Campaign #XYZ. Some crazy ideas: 1) minigames that players can get together ingame (not at map screen, but physically inagame). Something as simple as checkers/chess/cards/dice where 3-4 players standing next to each other sit down and a 2nd screen pops up to allow the game to be played. 2) Rank points are converted into virtual "rank point currency" (ratio to be determined); these can be gambled away in games like in #1, or spent in behind the lines towns (probably capital cities or other major towns) with designated "RPG areas" for virtual swag such as creating an AI-controlled victory parade going own the main street, launching off fireworks, gaining entry into virtual competitions such as a grand prix race, purchasing LoA cards so your character can go to these RPG areas without being flagged as AWOL (this way players are incentivized to RTB and continue to accumulate rank points), stores where you can purchase (with rank point currency) stuff to deck out your ingame house (this would be a microtransaction that I discussed in a prior thread)... the list goes on 3) Grand prix racing, air racing, virtual sniper competitions etc 4) Native fauna running around in behind the lines towns that players can hunt (and have trophies mounted on the wall of their home). 5) theater transfer requests (for when there would be a NA theater and a europe one) would use your currency to be transferred out of the european theater and say to north africa .... yes I know all crazy stuff. But RPG elements and player created content is very important. Just look at the success of Eve Online.
  14. Yup thats the way I see it. What you consider fun/important isn't necessarily what the other guy considers fun or important. I think our goal would be to cater to the widest possible playerbase while keeping the historical feel and authenticity as much as possible. Essentially every persistent game has something like this because players simply need to switch off and do something else. You can only attack CPs and bomb targets so much before being exhausted by it. Well interestingly when you get enough players online you have a fair amount of redundancy and don't literally need every boot out in the field. If if things get desperate you can simple do a 911 call over side chat to get people to spawn in a pinch. I agree that the heart of the game is killing/capping, but at the end of the day this is a game and you sometimes need to take a break from the usual grind of it all. Some of my most memorable squad memories behind squad night operations was staging our Opel Races and other fun stuff like that. Its just something else to do ingame which adds to the depth of the gameplay experience. Yes, you can strongly argue that things like opel races detract from the historical/authentic nature of a WWII milsim, but IMHO, we can't forget this is a game for people to have fun. And if the RPG layer is designed thoughtfully (i.e. no red Formula 1 cars racing in the streets of Antwerp when you are trying to cap the AB bunker) this can make the game more appealing to a broader swath of players, and make for a deeper, more engaging player experience.
  15. Doc! Hang in there! Thinking about ya!!!
  16. Yup thats correct. If you cap the AB then the supply is still available at the CPs. The idea is that capping the AB doesn't "bounce" the "Garrison flag."
  17. My understanding was that if you lose the AB, all it does it shut down your ability to spawn tanks, but all the other CPs can still spawn the usual infantry/truck/ATG. Is this *always* the case and how do linked-CPs work? Example: today there was a long fight in Hastiere, lots of back and forth. But no matter what we did, there were still SMGs, sappers, etc spawning a solid 4+ hours into the battle. The ownership was thus: AB: axis City: axis Feschaux CP (axis spawnable): axis Givet CP (axis spawnable): axis Dinant CP: allied Flavion CP: allied In this situation does the supply first drain all of hastiere, and then when there is no supply left switch to the supply from the linked CP (in this case Dinant and Flavion)? If that is the case, its probably best to cap the AB last to not open up extra supply going into an otherwise exhausted town.
  18. So we have towns changing hands multiple times over the course of a day with dynamic fights and desperate defenses and successeful counter-attack occuring? Sounds like fun gameplay to me compared to the old system of mindlessly zerging the AB Bunker until you finally capture it. Now I can hang back and snipe high value infantry if thats my thing. Knowing I'm making a difference. Now I can interdict ETs trying to resupply/support a town. Knowing I'm making a difference. Now I can set up firezones and wear down the defenders. Knowing I'm making a difference. Now I can STILL zerg the AB Bunker if thats my thing. Knowing I'm making a difference. Now I can do logistics/trucking work if thats what I enjoy doing. Knowing I'm making a difference. Yes, with supply/attirtion you may not always find your favorite weapon. But it expands gameplay roles and makes for more dynamic fights. Its the give-and-take. Have infinite supply via brigades and all you can hope to do is rush the bunker... anything else is a waste of time. Now we actually cater to more than one gameplay style. EDIT: which is why I also think we need to move on to proximity AOs, that way players who for example really like one weapon system or type of combat role can create their own action and not hope that HC puts down the right type of AO. At the end of the day it's a game that people play for fun, and we can't forget that. But I also think from a gameplay design perspective having limitless or effectively-near limitless supply is very corrosive for gameplay. Yes, there will be times you can't get your favorite weapon and that sucks, but the flip side is limited supply/attrition creates far more gameplay opportunities than it takes away. Yes I know I'm biased since im a pure all-around player. One mission im bombing bridges in a He111, next I'm fighting with a Stug, followed by rushing a bunker with an SMG, followed by an 88 sortie. Supply never was a big deal for me since I play pretty much every unit in all the branches. So I u de stand where say a dedicated Tiger driver or SMG man is coming from. But I think my basic premise on gameplay design still stands.
  19. It does. Let's say you cap the city CP and then cap the AB. It will cause the FBs of the defending backline towns to open up and enable spawning in the linked CPs using the spawn pool of the backline towns. AND you canst I'll spawn from all the CPs of the home towns garrison, but can't spawn tanks u til you recap the AB. Best to cap the AB last IMHO.
  20. Claw and welcome to WWIIOL! If interested in a combined arms squad recommend checking out the 31st. We're combined arms so have roles to fill all the way from a simple rifle to a Navy Destroyer!
  21. BETA Just have fun, and try to break things to test for bugs
  22. BETA Just have fun, and try to break things to test for bugs
  23. LOL yeah I remember the HAAC firehose. Beyond silly.
  24. Interesting, I'm the opposite I like the dots compared to having a forest of flags everywhere. Makes the division's stand out more too.