aismov

Registered Users
  • Content count

    4,832
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by aismov

  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).
  15. That would be a complete disaster... in real life the defenders had prepared defenses already set up. If you had players bring a tank or other heavy equipment from a rear FB it would be way to easy for an attacker to set up and lock down the town. Similarly we have depot spawning because in the first iteration of the game mechanics in 2001/2002 spawning only happened from the AB, so it was easy to camp the town and many tactics revolved around getting as many tanks as possible to rush the AB and pre-camp if before defenders had a chance to respond.
  16. Maybe adding concrete vehicles or something that would happen when we hit X% would be helpful.
  17. What if one of the turtles is a snapping turtle? Has anyone ever considered that? ....
  18. LOL the reward should be a sleeping bag and some ambien
  19. Some fun FB busting and Antwerp attacking
  20. I'm surprised you are saying this since your join date is 2001... and we played this game for 5 years with no AOs or effectively any HC tools outside of a HC Forum, HC-affiliated squads, and the .Axis/.Allied chat command. Somehow we managed to police ourselves and manage supply just fine. Yes, towns did fall because players used up too much supply. But towns have fall from innumerable HC and non-HC reasons... that will always be a fact of the game. I tend to be personally more skeptical at the idea of HC superiority vis-a-vis the playerbase. If anything if a fight is going nowhere, players will abandon it sooner rather than later and often it is battlefield leaders or HC pushing people on to stick with it. Personally I vote for the mob, becayse at the end of the day it is actually two competing mobs, and no matter what, each mob wants to win and will learn to adapt and improve themselves. With the HC leash-and-collar system players have no incentive to learn these things and just follow where the Red Boxes are set.
  21. Honestly I don't buy that for a second. Everyone burns out on HC... its just too much work and dealing with the craziness of the playerbase takes its toll. I think its telling that if you look at the list of past CinC very few of them maintain an active subscription anymore... much less participate in HC. And the CinCs were the most hardcore/dedicated within the HC structure and were able to deal with the nonsense that come with it better than most. The vast majority of KG commanders, and even Army commanders would call it quits after a few months, few lasted a year or more. Thats why the whole HC system imploded eventually. It was essentially a gigantic revolving door that relied on large numbers of new players cycling in to replace those guys dropping out and amongst the pile you would fine the crazy few (saying that in a good way BTW) who we're able to stick through it all to get to the upper levels. When that influx dried up... well, we know what happened. I'm in the Luftwaffe HC but since we are so understaffed I do ground work essentially 99% of the time, and especially now where we don't have set AOs (compared to the old days) it is exhausting to try to keep track of the entire map all at once. There are simply too many objectives to keep track of to do a truly effective job; 1.36 made it MUCH easier, but without squads its up to the shoulders of HC to still do a lot of the heavy lifting to set up attacks and sustain them with FMS and do generally leadership duties. EDIT: And lets also not forget that many in the HC are also pulling double duty doing a ton of work with their squads as well.