aismov

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    4,832
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by aismov

  1. My response will be in 2-parts, one as a dedicated Axis player, and two, as a supporter of WWIIOL and the game we are trying to have here. For starters, I personally support this change. I would personally like to have firing enabled while walking, but its really not a big deal for me either way. I use the LMG pretty much exclusively with the bipod deployed. Now, I think there is no denying that players primarily on the Allied side have been pushing for this adjustment and at the same time have the most to gain for it as well. But at the same time, I don't think this is the disaster some are making it out to be as most CPs are capped by rifles and SMGs, and not by LMGs. I can understand that a few players really enjoy using the LMGs in this way and have gotten very proficient at them. But lets me honest here... the way that they were used was flat out gamey and immersion breaking. I honestly think it will do zero to affect the flow of battles, so just as Axis players are overdramatisizing the loss of this, the Allies similarly have made a mountain out a molehill regarding the effectiveness of the LMG turning it into the bogey man that caps all CPs and clears out bunkers stacked with 10+ defenders in one spray. Both are false. Now to give a further couple coins of opinion. In a general gameplay sense I think the most important is for both sides to just fess up to their feelings and move forward. Just like it is disingenuous for Axis players to threaten subs over an adjustment to one weapon, it is similarly disingenuous and smacks of condescension if Allied players now all of a sudden rush to the "its historical" argument and deny they have gotten the adjustment they have been asking for purely for gameplay reasons. The opposite side will see right through it and it will breed simply another cycle of recrimination (as can be seen in this post and other posts with Axis players now looking at Top Bomber stats, Top Fighter stats, and insert-your-weapon-du-jour to complain about here unit as well). We should all work to try to be more level headed with everything. Try not to see things with side-blinders on, and when something happens to benefit your side, just man up and admit it that you wanted a fix and it will benefit your side. Honesty may not heal all wounds, but it will at least make a more constructive atmosphere that a lot of the BS and faux ex post facto explanations we see on these forums.
  2. So far all you've been able to do is repost the same 3 things over and over, and make excuses when players who are actually working to enact positive change call you out on you're trolling. Nobody would have an issue if you had constructive criticism and actually back up your words with actions. Many of us, myself included, were unsubbed for years and came back because we saw positive change and have been working to bring about more of it. Sorry, but the ball is very far in your court.
  3. Agree. The reasons people leave are multifaceted and there is no quick answers or fixes. Saying people left because of boredom is like saying the Hindenburg crashed because of fire. It's an oversimplification and doesn't give any prognostic information on how to fix things. Its just quarterbacking from behind the chain link fence and criticizing the coach with having a the guts to step in and make a positive change. For all those ex-subs complaining here on a daily basis how about you step it up and help organize battles to reverse this perceived boredom of yours. How about you try to rally old squad members and actively work to recruit new ones? ask players like Augetout how much work that is. Has only here complaining of about CRS "abandoning" the Steam community spent the fraction of the time they blow hot air in these forums to engage the WWIIOL steam community? Nope, because me and Zeb and the only ones who post on those forums. There is a lot players can do to help the game that doesn't even require a subscription. But most seem to be more interested in trolling the forums with negativity without any constructive comments or seemingly any intention to do so.
  4. Honestly noob, at times I wonder if you live in an alternate reality. The FMS has been changed. You've beaten this dead horse down to the bone, and pulvarized the bones too. The Spitfire has been the same plan as it has since it was modeled. The new TOE has gotten a ton of developer feedback and player input, both ingame and in the forums. There have been several ratchats about it too. And removal of hip-fire? Nobody has every said anything like that.
  5. Have to agree with the sentiment. If you have a constructive opinion by all say it. If you don't like the game then by all means leave. But don't start a free account and lecture everyone else day-in, day-out on how this or that should be done differently, or else you aren't coming back. That is about the most selfish stunt you can pull.
  6. I voted 3 as well. Things need some tweaking here and there, but the general idea of historical weapon rollouts balanced by numbers available in the spawnlists is a good direction IMHO. If some cases its too big of a jump because we don't have full half-tiers yet, then we will simply have to fudge it the best we can.
  7. Yup. All info is on the squad tab ingame (under message of the day). Website is in process of being ported over to our old address (31stwreckingcrew.com)
  8. That's a great point actually. Limit side to actual important information and not the millionth Matty whinefest.
  9. Check my stats....
  10. It's not. Allies have their fair share of Rambo LMGs. It's just that the MG34 fires faster so it is superior to the BREN. Just like the Thompson fires faster than the MP40 and is the superior weapon. FWIW the way LMGs are used by all sides is gamey and we should tweak the model to be more in line with historical use. I think a lot of good fixes have been proposed: 1) decrease turning speed with LMG to model the heavy weight of these weapons 2) no firing gun when going from standing to prone (or drastically increase dispersion) 3) increased dispersion when moving and firing 4) allow hip firing 5) all undeployed firing And finally lets be honest, most kills are made by rifles and SMG. The LMGs may inflame passions, but their dominance is way overstated and usual more due to lag than the actual weapon.
  11. I couldn't disagree more. Turning this into red vs blue would drive away many players since the reason many of us play this game is to realistically recreate the weapons of the war with their national characteristics, in a balanced manner, but not foreshadow any inevitable result. If you follow your proposal to its logical conclusion that means we have to eliminate the Char and Matty from Tier 0. You then need to eliminate the 88 as well since the allies don't have anything equivalent. The Allies can't have the Lancaster or B-17 since the Axis didn't have a heavy 4-prop bomber. You can't model the Me262 because the Allies didn't have jets. We have to give up on the Navy since the Axis never fielded aircraft carriers. Also eliminate submarines since the Allies never fielded an equivalently advanced submarine. Essentially we end up with a game where all we have is Pz38t fighting A13s and H39s, with some Pak36 ATG against 2 pounders. Essentially what I'm getting at is if you go down the red vs blue rabbit hole you quickly eliminate WWII out of WWIIOL. Much better, IMHO, is to model national flavored as they historically came out but balance the spawn numbers so the weapon isn't too overpowering. So you don't give the Axis 24 88s or 14 Tigers, and similarly don't give the Allies 30 Chars. But keep the vehicles ingame, in reasonable numbers, to make it feel like the war, without necessarily requiring the same strategic outcomes as they happened during every year of the war.
  12. Are you ready to give up the Matty or Char in Tier0? Because if you follow your logic that is exactly what needs to be done. And when the Eastern Front is modelled the same logic has to be applied to the T-34 and KV1. And when Tier5 comes we won't be able to model the King Tiger because the Western Allies have no effective counter. Just saying that if you go down the road of "balanced triads" you dig yourself into a hole you can't explain yourself to the playerbase out of. Nobody is saying we shouldn't have balanced numbers. Quite the contrary essentially everyone wants exactly that. Nobody is advocated superior weapons Ono e side compensated by overpop on the other. This is a game after all, not a hardcore simulation of the Eastern Front circa March, 1945.
  13. Great point on the exchange rates. Regarding fixed costs my understanding is that the evidence has shown that drastically decreasing sub prices is not financially sustainable, without other monetization options in place *and* proven to bring in revenue. Never saw of the branch you have your safety line attached to. Closing down the only revenue stream you have in the hopes that an alternate model will work is not good business strategy. It's gambling with your financial sustainability. There are lots of things that could and should be done. Most important is seeing if you can get the premium subscription price down to $9.99 and the starter to $4.99. Next would be F2P monetization, and lastly would be to monetize ingame billboards and the physical game environment. As a Hero Builder I'm doing what I can to support the project. Hopefully more do the same!
  14. Yep, a la post Scriptum. As well as death animation so you know you killed it.
  15. I think what he was saying is that the side chat rather than right now being a dedicate channel that takes up a slot rather be hard coded like a dot command. Simikarvto how .axis and .hc works for the HC members. If players want to broadcast something to the entire side they could type .side and everyone gets it. That way you open up an extra channel slot. My own view is that this may be hard for new players to grasp. Dot commands and their functionality are very esoteric and there are lots of them. I would say keep the side channel but increase chat slots from 6 to 8.
  16. Most games that don't bank on subscriptions also don't bank on staying around for very long. Developers know that you can monetize colored hats and weapons skins for some many years and these games often have a shelf life. Some break out of this mold, like Planetside 2, and have a healthy subscriber base. But many go belly up after a few years when developers run out of bells and whistles to sell to players, the game gets abandoned by the studio, and a new game is designed to repeat the process. I agree with you that we need alternate revenue streams and to monetize F2P better. But that requires a lot of code work to have it function properly. So realistically, at least in the 12-18 month horizon all we can do is tweak the cost side of things and continue rolling out the map expansions and new content because that is what gets players back in the game and gets them staying. I had a recent squaddie come back after a long hiatus and the two things he mentioned was how the 88 had nice textures and a modern looking model, and that there was a ton of new equipment modelled. We need to build on that because better graphics and new content will bring players into the game.
  17. For people who dont like historical introduced tiers/weapons, there are many who do, so it's not a one-way street. Furthermore it seems the biggest concerns aren't the basic principle of historical introduction dates, but the specific spawn numbers that were chosen. For every Allied arguing and saying they will unsub over the SMG numbers, there are as many Axis saying the exact same regarding Matty numbers. FWIW I think that we should have half-tiers and weapons should have historic introduction dates and be balanced by spawn numbers. So that would mean Tiger in Tier 2.5 but balanced where there are 1-2 per AB. Similarly British keep the Matty in Tier 0, as it has always been (and get their 1-tier of gameplay advantage), but the numbers are balanced to where to facilitates equal gameplay for all sides while keeping national flavor/characteristics in play. Its like modelling the Eastern front and not putting in the T-34 and KV-1, because it is too good of a tank. Craziness IMHO. Balance it by numbers available, not the presence of the weapon.
  18. Thanks for the update doc! In my thoughts!
  19. I don't really know the ins and outs, but is it possible that Top Lists such as too sniper reflect kills only against certain units. (I.e. Possible that top sniper only counts infantry kills and some of your total probably includes AA abd ATG). For example top fighter pilot only counts air kills, not ground targets you may have strafed.
  20. Agree on just naming the army/navy/air. I would still keep custom channel options though since they have good value. I think 8 slots would be a good number. 10 is probably overkill since really you only need 5-6 channels to keep informed on what going on in game, with a few extra channel slots for things like help channel or a custom channel for whatever you are doing. Spying really isn't an issue since most planning goes on via squad or HC discord, or on the HC secure ingame chat or secure squad chat. When an announcement is made all the assets for the attack and pretty much in place.
  21. @Merlin51lol getting there We only had 6 last night, but it generated a lot of excitement we they saw us forming up on the road. One bluetag vet despawned his truck and said "holy [censored] haven't seen a form up in ages, going to join you guys!" (My rough paraphrase) Gotta start from somewhere. Ill post screenshots later today Plus you should be done modelling Paris soon no? Gotta make sure we are in top shape EDIT: 6 tanks
  22. I agree that a PPO theoretically could be quickly done, but do the current deployed LMG have an effective movement arc to be able to properly engage EA? Ny own view is if we are going to do it, do it right, and don't rush a stopgap solution. I can very easily see a ton of whining from players with the PPO. "OMG! CRS... Don't you play test these things before putting them in game?? I don't have enough traverse to engage EA!!!" The classic example of a good intention by CRS to get something quickly into the game which then get slammed by the players. We've survived 18 years without it. Although I personally feel it should have been modelled back in 2003 when LMG were introduced, let do it right the first time out! Without full vertical and 360 degree traverse I think we shouldn't either bother modelling the unit.
  23. For Axis at least ground persona would be 10, air persons would be 20. Navy is 30. Not sure what the Allies have but I know we both use the same basic system.
  24. 31st armored columns are steadily getting longer...