Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by aismov

  1. Common mo... no need to get nasty. Try to be construcitve. And augetout regarding that poll, I think there are some issues with how it was worked. For example I voted exactly the same way you did... because I assumed that it referred to historical introduction dates (which I support), but I think that the spawnlists need more than a little tweaking... but it was the best option of the 3 to pick since I didn't want the old spawnlists (I assumed that meant no historical introduction dates) and I wasn't perfectly happy either. Dunno but I personally think that poll should be broken up into its two keys components and redone: 1) Do you support historical introduction rates balanced in spawnlists by adjusting the number avaiable to spawn or would you prefer spawnlists constructed to provide counter-weapons with no preference given when the weapon was historically fielded. 2) Do you support spawnlists to be based on what was historically used, or would you prefer they were balanced based on effectiveness? And those two examples aren't very good. It goes to show how hard it is to make a poll that doesn't bias the answer in one direction or the other.
  2. Dunno, but honestly I have yet to see any of what you describe and I play a fair bit. And the 2nd account spies... gotta say haven't seen that period.
  3. Well TBH I think that in the past what players who wanted historical spawnlists were referring to is not having red vs. blue by using more historical introduction dates and not the mish-mosh we had before. But I don't think anyone was really asking for the British to have half the SMGs in their infantry brigade or the Axis having essentially no tanks that can effectively kill infantry in their infantry brigades.
  4. Don't want to sound negative, but you need to work on editing your post down to just consice key points and not wander off on tangents. I honestly tried to read it but gave up after paragraph 4 because ideas were flying all over the place. Intetested in reading your idea, but often less is more when it comes to conveying ideas.
  5. I think he's saying that the people who will come in and post a lot aren't the ones who are happy with the changes. Have to agree with him that there is selection bias on the forums. But rarely have I seen both Allies/Axis essentially on the same side of argument along with the volume and duration that this has been a hot topic. Hell its even crept into the secure Axis HC forum as a hot topic.
  6. I guess the real question is how long does the average subscriber stay subscribed versus how much would the average F2P player spend? As long as F2P spending more than average player remains subscribed it's a good deal. Naturally subscriptions will stay as every major MMO has them, and probably for a good financial reason (probably to smooth out cash flow). Lots of ways to montize F2P in the future which I hope will be done but for now I think F2P helps th game overall.
  7. I agree with you, personally I think a 20 minute timer is more appropriate since it can be night impossible to keep a town contested for 40 minutes. That would slow progression to a halt.
  8. Would you care to expand how F2P is ruining this game? How come Eve Onlne and Planetside 2 are successeful and have a very large F2P contingent? I personally can't tgink of a single time that a F2P player somehow lessened my gaming experience.
  9. Have to agree here. Players have always fallen back to spawnlists as the ultimate arbiter of balance and ultimately whether they stick around. Players can live through a tough Matty/Tiger/Spitfire/whatever engagement, but people don't take to spawnlists that are more on the esoteric side (even if it a more historical force makeup). I think there have been a lot of good arguments here to explain why forcing a certain historical brigade/force makeup without all the historical nuances like behind the lines supply etc. makes for a tough playing experience. I've played for 3 campaigns now (I'm sure my stats will get posted) and I was pretty open minded to the changes. I still like historical entry dates personally, but think that the spawnlists should be unified and balanced. Essenrialkt I'm Saint we should just go back to a well balanced spawnlist prior to ToE and the differentiation between armored and infantry brigades. I think it just causes unecessary frustration with players which has only become bigger with the historical ToE.
  10. But what is your solution to map rolls then? I don't like the cap timers either. But its also not good for the game when one side spends a lot of work capturing 1-2 towns during primetime, and then lose 10+ towns during late night. Its a serious issue that simply needs to be addressed in some way, and IMHO making capture times faster (even though that is what I want) and faster AO placement (which again gives a huge advantage to the attacker) without some other system in place is not the answer.
  11. Please keep squad F4. Agree on the origin channel, target is much more important especially if multiple FBs attack a town.
  12. Maybe one thing that would help is that for the Friday updates have a bunch of bullets of the ongoing projects, even if there is nothing concrete that week ppl will see that things are being done. For example I doubt many people realize that xl2ripr is working on new buildings. Most players don't even know who he is probably. So for example: Modelling: Ripr continues to work on big city block building model with the rest of the environmental team. ... And so on down the line. That way people maybe have a better idea of what going on.
  13. I will take a stab at it looking from a 1.36 perspective where there is no more flag shuffling and soft capping. First and foremost I think it is important to realize that if we really want squads to make a comeback, there has to be a 100% guarantee that at the time and place of their choosing they will always have an AO to place. No squad is going to roll the dice and hope that maybe this squad night they will get lucky and finally get an AO. If this is any short of 100% you will see squads wither away again because nobody wants to take all the time to plan an operation and then not be able to execute it. At the same time we have to think of ways that the system can be exploited and how to take into account special situations such as low-pop and numbers imbalance. The solution to this potential issue, however, is not to place a ceiling on the maximum number of AOs for the reasons I stated above. Hard limits would be a deal breaker for squads, and interestingly, for new players as well since during the steam release my squaddies said how many new players wanted to start their own attacks but were frustrated they couldn't and that they didn't "get" the whole HC system. In other words, the system has to be simple and understandable by your average players and especially new players. If we can't communicate to new players in less than 10 seconds how to attack a town there is a problem. That said here we go: BASIC PRINCIPLES: 1) AO automatically placed when EWS above threshold (don't complicate by adding in an OIC middleman) 2) No concurrent AO limits (see above reasoning) 3) EWS with active (non-AFK) players needed to sustain AO 4) AO automatically removes when players fall below certain threshold (with time lag/warning) 5) Time lag to allow placement and smaller lag to prevent it from being immediately lost if someone logs off NUMBERS/TIME: 10 players within 1000m CP to initiate AO, 5 players within 300m to sustain AO (players must no be AFK to avoid 2nd accounts gaming the system) 5 minutes between EWS going off and AO being placed No change in table/AB timer rules (not point of this thread but would be tweaked) Players drop below maintenance threshold, there is a 3 minute warning, then AO goes away and need to get 10 infantry. 10 minute cool-down timer between AO going away and repeat one being placed. Ways to prevent the system of being exploited: currently if a group of 10 players sets an AO and they want to immediatly despawn and set up another AO this happens: 00:00 10 players in EWS range Town A > 5 minutes until AO placed 00:05 AO placed Town A > then 10 minutes until tables are hot (15 minutes for defenders to respond) 10 players despawn in attempt to exploit system and set another AO in Town B 00:06 System registers players in Town A AO are below threshold > 5 min warning timer starts 00:07 10 players get into EWS range at Town B > 5 min AO timer 00:11 AO removed Town A 00:12 AO placed Town B > 10 minutes until tables hot The idea is that you have the timer set where it takes longer to get the AO placed than it does to have it removed. This way anyone trying to exploit it will be chasing their tail with AOs going down faster than they can put them up. A few other points: players would likely try to exploit this system by having a FMS pre-set within range via a 2nd account, so that you could fast switch. However, it still takes some time to despawn, get in another mission, and spawn in. Another important point is that AFK players do not count toward the minimum number needed to sustain the AO. How to solve the issue of population imbalance? The AO # required to set and sustain and dynamic and change with the population balance. The idea is that you want to have roughly the same amount of AOs and DOs per side. I would adjust both the initiation number as well as the sustaining number for the overpop side (more needed to initiate and sustain). So the way it would work is look at the underpop side and see how many total active players there are and then normalize it, so that if the overpop side has 10% more players, they need 10% (rounded up) to initiate the AO and to sustain it; so in that situation it would be 11 and 6.
  14. Allies push east and axis push west... What more would you like to know
  15. I agree that there are tons of examples, but it still isn't infinite like Fortnite. No matter how much we want it I won't be able to model and purchase an umbrella skin for my paratrooper. But I agree with you that there are so many skins that can be done that in effect they are essentially infinite. I think for the Tiger alone there are something like 50+ camo variants. Now regarding subscriptions the one issue is we don't know the finances of many of these companies. But that fact that no Tier 1/AAA MMO that is a true MMO with critical server infrastructure for a single prissy ant world (so Post Scriptum is out) has ditched the subscription model I think is very telling about the underlying finances. My guess is that it has to do with cash flow. Microtransactions are likely very episodic with players buying them when they first come out or on special occasions. Companies may rely on subscriptions in order to even it out so they don't need to have as big of a rotating line of credit or some other high(er) interest method of making payroll and network costs every month. Uneven cash flow is a huge killer for businesses.
  16. Even with that fixed we would still need suppression effects modeled in order to make the fixed emplacement worthwhile.
  17. My own personal hope is that in the future the spawn system would be nothing more than a map with available spawn points, you click on one, select unit, and spawn in. Naturally persistent mobile spawn points would be a great addition to this system. However, a lot of coding changes would have to be done to rework the entire spawn system because it is currently based on the principle of an active mission being placed. I personally think that the whole active mission thing is a useless middle man between wanting to get in game and physically spawning at a location, but having been here since 2000, I know they reasons and design rationale why it was done this way originally. Just no sure how feasible coding wise it would be.
  18. Proximity AOs without any concurrent AO caps (with protections to prevent obvious exploitations). Hopefully soon. Just saying/hoping
  19. Honestly its not all that bad, but it is the same cast of characters repeating the same old tropes over and over again.
  20. Not a bad idea to add in an auto-handicap like that. I think airfield balancing will become an issue though along with the RDP war.
  21. I think this is a very good idea in principle and I support it. My only concern is that as a PPO a gigantic concrete bunker appear in the middle of nowhere seems pretty immersion breaking to me. One thing I really like that CRS did way back when was make the bunkers more realistic feeling. So that you didn't have gigantic concrete monstrosities inside a tiny French hamlet that look completely out of place, but something more realistic like the current "fortified chateau" and the large AB bunker "farmhouse" building. I would keep what you have but make it out of dirt, rocks, sandbags, and logs. That way it would look more believable as a field fortification. EDIT: and for the love of all that is holy, we really need to lower the height of the bushlines so that ATGs can fire more than 50m because they can't see anything. I would be for turning many of the bushlines into the low white stone walls and obstacles like that... something that you can hide behind but allows ATGs and tanks to actually engage each other at range. Vietnam 1940-1945 really needs to be taken out behind the barn and put down. I'll do an @XOOMand @HATCHon this one to what he thinks about lowering the bush line height and changing parts of the current bushlines into low stone walls.
  22. The one problem that WWIIOL has with consmetics is that we are constrained by historically plausible stuff. Games like Fortnite has it much easier since its pure fantasy. That said, there is still a TON of stuff that could be sold via microtransactions. Subscriptions are here to stay I think in some regard since they give the development team a stable financial base from which to maintain critical infrastructure and continue working on the game. Although F2P monetization is all the rage these days and microtransactions are currently a hyped up term recently, there is a reason why all MMOs/game with critical server infrastructure still have subscription plans. Something tells me that they are more important than the popular press had led other to believe since F2P monetization in aggregate is mostly by game with no or minimal server upkeep costs.
  23. Yup, wouldn't be complete without an Order of Lenin!
  24. In my ideal world I would have a model similar to PS2 where everything is F2P and simply monetized by microtransactions with subscribers getting special percs like no side locking or spawn delay along with other social features and HC access. But that right now isn't possible. I think DLC is actually a hole we don't want to be digging ourselves into any more since it creates havoc with building out the spawnlists because they have to account for DLC players.