sublimesw

Registered Users
  • Content count

    135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

sublimesw last won the day on December 2 2016

sublimesw had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

42 FNG

1 Follower

About sublimesw

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. I don't know. I don't usually post negative things (I don't think). Maybe a suggestion or two, but I think that's normal. After all, we love to play the game!
  2. Yes, some of the new guys I've been training in my squad had problems with finding the game on Steam, too. You can eventually find it, but it requires typing in "II" or "2," I can't remember. I just tell everyone to download the client anyways, at least at first. It's more stable in my opinion, and you can always go to Steam later if you decide the game is good and you'd like to buy the DLCs.
  3. Sure, I happened to have the time and also teach at a university, so I'm used to doing it :-)
  4. To the Rats and other generally informed folks: I was watching gameplay videos of the new World War 2 game, "Post-Scriptum," and man, if we had those graphics in WW2OL, you all would be millionaires. Any idea as to when, in the far future, the conversion to the Unreal engine would happen? Will it happen? Just out of curiosity. I still love the game as it is.
  5. Oh yeah! I almost forgot about the Valentine and Lee tanks. One day, one day.
  6. Hey Y'all, Just another tutorial I made today. I had a bit of extra time and decided to go for it. An overview of the basic elements you need to mount an attack, and how to advertise it!
  7. Hey Everyone, So I've noticed the tank variants they are working on for the future patch. However, I feel that there is one important tank missing from that list: the Cromwell. Kind of a crucial piece to add, no? I'm pretty sure they had an important role during the war. Then again, I'm not a historian . . .
  8. I don't know, this is something we've been talking about with my squadmates recently. I enjoy playing on the underdog side, but one of my guys told me that a developer-related person mentioned that the population difference was 5 to 1 between the Germans and the Allies this campaign. That's a little much. I think there should indeed be side-locking. In fact, I think that unless you're playing in a squad, the server should automatically assign you to the side that needs players. By "playing in a squad," I mean you need to have a special invitation from the leader of that squad with some sort of code--proof that you're actually participating and not just clicking a prompt that asks you "which squad would you like to join?" There are too many people running around in "squads" that don't even know how to use the F3 chat. Once you've been assigned, you stay there until the campaign is over. This would encourage people to play in active squads if they want to choose a specific side. If they don't care, the server will just do the work for them. WW2OL isn't like other games in this respect. It has a campaign which can last several months. It's not a simple battle like Verdun or Heroes and Generals, where having an imbalance is a temporary thing. Imbalances in this game last months, and it gets tiring when despite well-organized efforts by your team, you just get rolled and rolled and rolled, and four to five Panzer IVs are just driving nonchalantly into your army bases, every time. There's a problem there. The customer argument is a valid one, but I should add that customers should find the game enjoyable, too. If letting certain customers choose their side makes other customers unhappy, what is the benefit? I think it's better to have players know how the game actually works, how it is a long-term process and simulator, and how important balance is to having that simulator do its job of recreating the war. This could be part of WW2OL's branding, since it would be one of the only games where choosing a side actually matters in the long-term scheme of things. There are loyalty and friendship factors involved in the squads. Also, it may be fun to just continually win as the Germans, but eventually, after you do 10 campaigns and the outcome is the same--you win every time--it will get boring. That will draw customers away as well. It won't be WW2OL anymore, but rather "German Victory Simulator."
  9. Augetout's method of having players pay more to play both sides sounds like a good choice, too. Or even better: measure the amount of paying players on each side and make sure THAT it as even as possible. After all, free-to-play players don't really stay unless they're tutored, and they don't have a great effect on the campaign in the long-term.
  10. I don't know, this is something we've been talking about with my squadmates recently. I enjoy playing on the underdog side, but one of my guys told me that a developer-related person mentioned that the population difference was 5 to 1 between the Germans and the Allies this campaign. That's a little much. I think there should indeed be side-locking. In fact, I think that unless you're playing in a squad, the server should automatically assign you to the side that needs players. By "playing in a squad," I mean you need to have a special invitation from the leader of that squad with some sort of code--proof that you're actually participating and not just clicking a prompt that asks you "which squad would you like to join?" There are too many people running around in "squads" that don't even know how to use the F3 chat. Once you've been assigned, you stay there until the campaign is over. This would encourage people to play in active squads if they want to choose a specific side. If they don't care, the server will just do the work for them. WW2OL isn't like other games in this respect. It has a campaign which can last several months. It's not a simple battle like Verdun or Heroes and Generals, where having an imbalance is a temporary thing. Imbalances in this game last months, and it gets tiring when despite well-organized efforts by your team, you just get rolled and rolled and rolled, and four to five Panzer IVs are just driving nonchalantly into your army bases, every time. There's a problem there. The customer argument is a valid one, but I should add that customers should find the game enjoyable, too. If letting certain customers choose their side makes other customers unhappy, what is the benefit? I think it's better to have players know how the game actually works, how it is a long-term process and simulator, and how important balance is to having that simulator do its job of recreating the war. This could be part of WW2OL's branding, since it would be one of the only games where choosing a side actually matters in the long-term scheme of things. There are loyalty and friendship factors involved in the squads. Also, it may be fun to just continually win as the Germans, but eventually, after you do 10 campaigns and the outcome is the same--you win every time--it will get boring. That will draw customers away as well. It won't be WW2OL anymore, but rather "German Victory Simulator."
  11. I don't know, this is something we've been talking about with my squadmates recently. I enjoy playing on the underdog side, but one of my guys told me that a developer-related person mentioned that the population difference was 5 to 1 between the Germans and the Allies this campaign. That's a little much. I think there should indeed be side-locking. In fact, I think that unless you're playing in a squad, the server should automatically assign you to the side that needs players. By "playing in a squad," I mean you need to have a special invitation from the leader of that squad with some sort of code--proof that you're actually participating and not just clicking a prompt that asks you "which squad would you like to join?" There are too many people running around in "squads" that don't even know how to use the F3 chat. Once you've been assigned, you stay there until the campaign is over. This would encourage people to play in active squads if they want to choose a specific side. If they don't care, the server will just do the work for them. WW2OL isn't like other games in this respect. It has a campaign which can last several months. It's not a simple battle like Verdun or Heroes and Generals, where having an imbalance is a temporary thing. Imbalances in this game last months, and it gets tiring when despite well-organized efforts by your team, you just get rolled and rolled and rolled, and four to five Panzer IVs are just driving nonchalantly into your army bases, every time. There's a problem there. The customer argument is a valid one, but I should add that customers should find the game enjoyable, too. If letting certain customers choose their side makes other customers unhappy, what is the benefit? I think it's better to have players know how the game actually works, how it is a long-term process and simulator, and how important balance is to having that simulator do its job of recreating the war. This could be part of WW2OL's branding, since it would be one of the only games where choosing a side actually matters in the long-term scheme of things. There are loyalty and friendship factors involved in the squads. Also, it may be fun to just continually win as the Germans, but eventually, after you do 10 campaigns and the outcome is the same--you win every time--it will get boring. That will draw customers away as well. It won't be WW2OL anymore, but rather "German Victory Simulator."
  12. Hey Y'all, This is the second tutorial I've made explaining the basic concepts behind town defense. It's indispensable for you new players because you don't learn this in the tutorial. Have a look so you can better understand what's going on in the battlefield!
  13. Add the 90mm M36 Slugger for the Americans, their halftrack gun-carriers with the 57mm / 75mm anti-tank guns, the quad .50-cal unit (stationary and mounted on the halftrack). The SHERMAN 105mm tank. For the British, the 20mm Oerlikon, Humbler armored car, universal Bren carrier (can tow), THE CROMWELL TANK PLEASE. The French had a Hotchkiss stationary machine gun, I believe. Kind of like the tripod MG42. And everyone's respective medium-caliber mortars: 81mm, 3-inch, 8cm.
  14. An update to the buildings. Just a basic update to the textures so that they don't look like Tetris. I think that would go miles for new and old players. Think about it: ruins that don't look like pancake batter.