aismov

Registered Users
  • Content count

    3,770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by aismov

  1. This was given thought when flags were first introduced. It was decided against keeping them "hidden" primarily due to spying/griefing issues and that fact that knowledge or lack there of would have little effect on the general player base. The other major issue is that there is no way in-game to tell if there are six flags in one town or just one. In real life there would be massive amounts of logistical activity and other telltale signs that a major operation was brewing... none of which we have.
  2. Very well said porsche. We need to get the Smokey the Bear attitude back in the game, not just HC on both sides, but squads, non-aligned players, and returning vets. Things won't magically become better unless we work hard at making them better. I see a ton of improvement on that end, and 1.36 is only going to help
  3. Hoping all goes well and you are feeling good tomorrow!
  4. We just hit the goal today. Thanks to all that donated!
  5. I agree with Madrebel's assessment in that it is a question of how much of the original June 2001-era lightning in a bottle we can capture. Remember back in 2001 massively multiplayer online games were the new "thing." Ultima Online, the first true MMORPG had just been released in 1997 and Everquest was release in 1999. First-person shooter games were a thing (Counter-Strike, believe it or not was release 2 years before WWIIOL in 1999 as a mod), and Day of Defeat the WWII-themed Half-Life mod we all played was released in 2000. There was simply no such thing as a MMO that was a first-person shooter, not to mention a combined arms MMO where you could fly a bomber, over a guy in a boat who was shooting at a tank, who himself was trying to kill infantry. Add to that a gigantic zoneless map which provided true tactical depth versus the linear multiplayer maps of online shoebox shooters at the time (and don't forget that 16 player limit on most online multiplayer games), and there was a ton of things that WWIIOL pioneered that we now take for granted. I still think the one ace that CRS has up its sleeve is the huge zoneless map. Maps are getting larger every year, but they are still relatively small and you end up doing the same old attack routes and some routine. Except for the frontline towns at map starts, there are still places where I log into today, in 2018, having played this game from Day 1 where I don't really know where the hell I am going. That type of replayability is veritable gold for any developer and something that I think has kept so many people playing this game long after DoD, Red Orchestra, Battlefield, ARMA mods, Heroes and Generals, PS, etc have bitten the dust. I also agree with the low hanging fruit. We should grab as much of it as possible. But I think that we firmly should be looking to the future with a WWIIOL 2.0
  6. Moxin always loved everything from the rear
  7. I think we need to separate the notion of "better graphics" being synonymous with "the best." I agree that MMOs are based on gameplay and that graphics are secondary. But looking at games like Minecraft and Fortnite which have simpler graphics, but they also have an art style which makes gamers look over those flaws. It is the same that The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is considered to have decent graphics, that players accept, because it has a very unique art style. WWIIOL doesn't have a unique art style; it has dated graphics. And unfortunately since this is a simulation we have to be on the side of realistic rather than stylized graphics (which requires more GPU power). That said, WWIIOL doesn't need to have Battlefield level graphics with full Ray Tracing and the works. But it needs to be more in line with games released in the last ~5 years. So things like texture quality, lighting, shadows, and draw distance need to be improved. Whether that can be bolted on to the current game engine is a big question. That is why my vote is that we should invest into WWIIOL 2.0, with a custom game engine if necessary. IIRC, the original game started conceptual development in late-1998 with coding work beginning in mid/late-1999. and was released on June 2001. But correct me if I am wrong.
  8. As long as you have squad buy-in, the whole "HC system" more or less solves itself. When the game first started the earliest HC was nothing more than a list of names and a special forum. The lower levels KG/Division Commander spots were filled by squad members, and the upper level Army/Theater/Side was filled up by CRS-approved HC that rose through the ranks. Never did a squad "get ordered" to do anything because 1) it wouldn't work and 2) you didn't have to do it since squads policed themselves. We would routinely have players checking on EWS, monitoring FB status, or flying air recon. If you didn't have a picture of what was going along your sector of the front you were bound to be caught with your pants down. All of this was created organically with squads taking care of their sector of the front. You can say that technically the "HC ordered" someone to do something, but it was really a squad member to another squad member. The status of HC in the lower levels such as KG commanders and even Division commanders was pretty gravy and just there to fill out of the roster so that we were staffed across all time zones. I would say of the 16 or however many officers were under 1st Panzer, maybe only 5% were genuinely interested in climbing up through the ranks, the rest was just squad members filling out a dual role that we already did as a squad.
  9. Have been trying to get my hands on a copy of the Butcherbird's Guide since 2001!
  10. At this point in time I think we need to make a big push towards WWIIOL 2.0; the amount of marketing that a WWIIOL 2.0 would auto-generate on its own would far exceed whatever we could do with trying to hype up the current version of WWIIOL. Since a brand-new game would take several years to develop next year would be a good year to explore the possibilities that exist out there (including making a new custom engine if necessary). With the gameplay changes coming with 1.36 and the units/artwork that is being done there is already a lot around the corner that will keep the current game fresh and interesting.
  11. I think a good solution would be to limit the turning speed of the LMG and that would probably solve almost all of the rambo LMG issues, as well as slow down the reload speed. Personally I get killed by rifles and SMGs more often than LMGs, but thats me I guess :/
  12. Fair enough. A LMG certainly should move slower and sprint less far than a rifleman. Isn't this already modeled however (the stamina part)?
  13. I would support dramatically increasing dispersion when firing from the hip. But I would still allow firing from the hip as you can operate the weapon that way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is LMGs firing from the hip that big of an issue anyway? Sure I've been gunned down by a few infantry in close quarters firing from the hip, but the situations are pretty rare. A SMG is a far better choice of weapon for CQB and more versatile overall as well. I guess I'm failing to understand why this is such a huge deal :/ EDIT: just saw Merlin's video, and honestly I can't really see what the issue is here guys. The guns seem wildly inaccurate at even very close range. Will it gun down players when they are 3 feet away? Sure. But in that case pretty much any automatic weapon fired blindfolded would be the same.
  14. Not to mention the white knuckle ride in the truck when there are strafing EA overhead or you see ATG rounds flying over the truck. And mind you, I am trying to look at the situation objectively and avoid as much "back in the day" nostalgia as possible. The truck-only paradigm had its faults like Hatch said, namely having to go all the way back to the FB and try again, which if you just got unlucky was indeed a downer. And players did feel that at times the truck ride was too long, particularly if they just got taken out 500m outside of town on the previous run. But I also think that it was one of the few times there was time to have some social interactions among other players. It is one thing to be a lone infantry and be shot at. Its a completely different experience when it happens to you in a truck full of other guys. People who didn't know each other quickly became the best of friends. Just like there are no athesists in a foxhole, I'll add the WWIIOL corollary to that saying and state there were no lonewolves/bluetags in trucks under fire. We were all in the same kettle. We all shared the "whew that was a close one!" on the chat, or the agony of being killed. Were there times when a driver rolled over a berm and did an idiotic banzai run into town and wiped out the whole truck and stirred up bad blood? Sure, but it really didn't happen all that often. Overall it was a good system and better than what we have today. I'll give you a good personal example of the social benefits of the game from the current campaign. Of the bombing I did some of the most fun I did was randomly finding a 1st LB member and we flew a few He111 bombing missions together in formation. Chatted a little bit during the flight, congratulated each other on the runs. Its little things like that which make the game feel alive. At least to me, but I suppose many others feel the same way.
  15. Good list! I second Q and E for head turning.
  16. donate if you can!
  17. To clarify the FMS would have to be set by one truck which itself spawns from the FB. Once the FMS is set infantry can spawn from it, but no further trucks/vehicles are allowed to spawn. Infantry that spawn from these FMS can either ride into battle on a tank or truck through a safe attack corridor their side has created, or try to make a longer run in. So essentially the trucks/APCs would be going between the FMS and the target town as a type of shuttle, with trucks that get shot out having to come from the FB. I think the strengths of this system are that it utilizes what is already in place with the exception that the distance it tweaked (minimum distance increased to 1.5 km), and there is essentially a grid type system where FMS can't be placed as this would in real life be deep behind enemy lines. As far as the UI, I envisioned that rather than choosing a mission, on the main screen you would see a list of cities with activity. You would like on the city of interest, and the next screen would open a map that shows spawning options such as FB, or FMS, and you would just double click on where you want to spawn. That said, I like your system a lot as well, and probably actually even more than my own. I think it does a great job of keeping player together as a whole and like you said the one-shot FMS options makes it easier for the poor guy who happened to get shot when he was on the truck and missed the action. In your system do you invision a similar type of "no mans land" grid where you can't drop an FMS or would you keep the map completely open for behind-the-lines FMS placement? Another strength of your system is that it is completely obvious what as a new player what to do. See that truck with all the other players? Hop on it and you will get briefed on the plan. Get killed? No problem, we have one chance to regroup and try it again.
  18. Agreed that number of SMGs should be equal between the two sides. But I wouldn't jump on the conspiracy wagon and assume something nefarious is afoot. Probably there was a goof in the math and there ended up 5 extra SMGs. I highly doubt that will make the difference between winning and losing. But yeah, it should be equal. As for the number of rifles it should be that way. WWII was a war that was fought primarily with bolt action rifles and later on with SMGs in greater numbers, but rifles and semiauto rifles in late war were the main infantry weapon.
  19. Yup completely agree. In many of those GDC talks I linked to, one of the common themes that they mentioned was that the social aspect of MMOs actually requires some down time. One of the devs from Eve said how for many guilds mining as a group is actually a fun experience in this odd way you woudn't expect (but not if you do it alone). It is very similar to what we would do on resupply. Just do some low stress driving, shoot the breeze on chat or voicecoms, some guys had beers open. One thing I always wished we had was stupid little minigames like a deck of cards you could put down and do a hand of blackjack or any number of short dumb things to pass the time. It sounds stupid but all those little things are interactions between people and build up the social aspect of the game. I personally can't remember any campaign wins or losses really. I can't remember any real battles except for some hazy recollections. But I can remember clear as day the small, fun, unexpected things I did with squad mates. Like the time me and Krafty flew to the Alps and did a landing on snow. Or the time the whole squad spawned 109s and we flew to Maubeuge. Or when we loaded a transport to the brim trying to invade England. What made all those times memorable, and the game fun to play, was the social bonds and good memories you formed. For example on the last one we couldn't stop laughing when we got ambushed by a DD and we were running out of the holds to escape the sinking ship but forced Plastic to go down with the ship as CO of the squad. lulz all around. You win battles and lose them, but its the friends you make along the way that really make this game.
  20. Xoom confirmed.... dynamic weather with weather balloons and attackable weather stations in the North Sea for 1.36!!!!!1!!