aismov

Registered Users
  • Content count

    4,832
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Posts posted by aismov


  1. 11 hours ago, Kilemall said:

    Bigger then H&G's linked cookie cutter arenas, but still limited resolution.

    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 people like this

  2. 38 minutes ago, raptor34 said:

    If anything more F2P should be encouraged - Look at the population difference WBS vs not. This new lower price point sub (Starter) is a good way to go, but I'd stand by the idea of WW2OL going completely F2P for the numbers if a way to fund it could be found.  

    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.

    5 people like this

  3. 17 hours ago, Kilemall said:

    DO know that what appeals to crowdfunders is specific desirable goals and measurable results, which requires transparency.  In most cases I think CRS 2.0 has fulfilled their campaigns, so if the cause is good I could see ponying up again.

    I imagine the problem with crowdfunding in this case is they want to hire a programmer and it will be that much more difficult to do so with a variable crowdfunding result deciding whether the job continues.  That and these builder accounts are probably more of a commitment to steady cash flow.

    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.

    1 person likes this

  4. 4 hours ago, Randazzo said:

    Unless WWIIOnline takes a drastically different path, it is a very niche game. Successful modern games, particularly shooters, are all about the availability of quick action. Very few people are willing to spend 20 minutes driving/flying/staring at CP walls and not doing anything but. This is made worse if a person only has an hour to play. Games like World of Tanks/Warplanes/Battleships also provide the quick action fix. What is the draw of WWIIonline to "modern" gamers?

    Edit: This is not a rhetorical "my opinion is superior" question, but a real one.

    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.

    1 person likes this

  5. 40 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

    Course, the real problem is some people sincerely may do the same thing cause they think it helps.

    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.


  6. 22 minutes ago, jwilly said:

    I don't see getting 50K individuals to donate an average of $50 each as anything more than a fantasy. 

    None of the crowd funding efforts to date have validated that level of optimism.

    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.

    1 person likes this

  7. 1 hour ago, choad said:

    Why? Why do you have to move the entire front? Why can't you push specific areas of the map? You no longer have to worry about too few flags to cover your cut's flanks. Just make the cut a few towns wide right?

    Seems to me this is where HC as a whole needs to adapt and march to the same beat. 

    Develop a strategy ... have all of your HC members get on-board and carry it out 24/7. 

    Place AO's exclusively in a consistant area of the map. What is stopping you? During underpop times, turtle up and protect what you gained until pop turns in your favor. I know it is easier said than done. Normally, i see AO's all over the front .. normally just placed for convenience in regards to what fb's we have and how many attacking town links there are. If that is your criteria than yeah, it is just gonna see-saw all along the front. 

    Your cut isn't going to happen overnight like it used to happen, but i don't see why it is impossible.

    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.

    3 people like this

  8. 1 hour ago, jwilly said:

    An alternate viewpoint: raising $1mil or more is pie in the sky. Crowdfunding for this game means the small crowd that already cares about it.

     

    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

    1 person likes this

  9. 1 hour ago, raptor34 said:

    Absolutely- In my opinion, I’d stop work on WW2OL 1.0 and refocus all efforts to bring it 2.0 to life, which will require crowdfunding. That said, if a team where able to apply all the lessons learned on 1.0 to 2.0 and communicate that vision to a new, wider audience, I’m sure it would be successful in finding funding. 

    Yup, I agree. Focus should start shifting to WWIIOL 2.0 with a planned Crowdfunding drive in 2020.

    2 people like this

  10. 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).


  11. 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.

    1 person likes this

  12. On 5/9/2019 at 0:50 AM, kazee said:

    During a proximity AO setup, 15-20 guys move into Namur from Eghezee, spring the AO. Attack for 60 mins draining all Eghezee supply. GHC calls for the attacking group to stop because Eghezee has no supply with to defend if AHC places AO on Eghezee from Jodo. AHC places AO, Eghezee falls in 15 mins because there is no supply to defend. 

    Thats a problem, a serious problem not because of the Eghezee being capped but because you have tension and major disagreements between the pb and HCs. People will quit playing and this would just become a mob mentality game without the best features we currently have now.

    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.

    4 people like this

  13. 5 hours ago, Capco said:

    It's fun to do if the burden is shared.  He'd never burn out if there were enough guys like him.  He probably didn't mind those 8-10 hour map stints.  In fact he probably enjoyed them.

    But he probably minded that he had to do them 8 days a week.  That's what causes burnout.  

    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.

    1 person likes this