HATCH

Registered Users
  • Content count

    251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

HATCH last won the day on December 19 2017

HATCH had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

86 Vet

2 Followers

About HATCH

  • Rank
    Production Lead
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    DFW, Texas
  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Air Force
  • Preferred Unit
    Freighter
  1. That's what seemed to have worked out the best last time... More active squads, more player participation, teamwork, communication, and squad recruiting. Just seemed to generate a LOT more cohesive and organized community alltogether. And the community then seemed to work with the HC's much better without the forced "firehose nozzles" of HC managed AO's and Flags. Most robust the community has ever been, and I think it had more to do with the then HC framework with local Division and Brigade/KG leadership that gave the squads in the Brigades/KG's ownership of their own sectors on the map rather than an OIC running around on each side trying to manage an entire map themselves with AO and flags (wth?), AND the great communications between HC, Squads, and the general pop that existed at the time. Official Disclaimer: What I said has nothing to do with 1.36 other than my hope that 1.36 and future dev will be able to revive some of the Esprit de Corps and HC teamwork we once had before the current AO and Flag system was introduced to the game. So far, what I have heard of 1.36 seems to be a good start. AO's and Flags are a GREAT idea for organized groups of players to use if done properly, but I "feel" the current iteration is arguably a great demonstration of terribly bad execution. We have to do better. Just my $.02.
  2. It isn't really about "capturing the radio" either, but rather eliminating enough of the enemy defending that "space/facility/area" to give you the unmolested time to take and hold it long enough to trigger it's ownership. I just tend to think that those kinds of results should fall more into the tactics of how a player uses the avatar, rather than because of some artificial advantages inherent in the the attributes of the avatar itself, other than the minimal differences in classes (like the difference SEALS/SForces would show in practice as compared to "standard" troops) like I mentioned before.
  3. I myself wouldnt be in favor of "buffing" one type of troop over another type of troop outside of small things that can be proven historically like better stamina/h2h combat/aiming/reloading/ etc due to better training. So making them faster cappers "just because", I wouldn't if just my call. But one thing I would think would be arguably doable, would be the lowering of their EWS and AI "draw" to represent their stealth capabilities a little better. Jmho.
  4. Where is the "Two Thumbs Up!" emoticon?
  5. Ain't THAT the truth!
  6. Just Steam
  7. I'd like to have a dedicated terrain builder. But no extra funds for a contract like that at the moment. We'll see where we are down the road a piece and possibly revisit that offer. :-)
  8. Lol! I didnt call you out because I KNOW how busy you are! Thanks for all you do man!
  9. Well, thanks for considering, and good idea just the same. I had forgotten about how well that program worked for us back then until you jarred my memory. So thanks for that. Hope you get off easy with the computer! Yes, I saw what he started. Very pretty. I meant to drop him a line and say something but been a little hectic around here as you can imagine...
  10. Back when we started that program, I think Snak was the volunteer that mainly managed us for Pyro. Was soooooo long ago, its hard to remember for sure. But I can still remember a lot of the trainers from then, RobinHood, Boa, Hardcase, Worr, Fletchman... Krod and Boa volunteered and helped me build a bonafide training web academy (I was good at flyin and teaching, not so much with html and visual media lol! And we could only dream of the tools available to day like zoom and discord... If there are some folks interested in volunteering a couple of hours a night, fer fun with the newbs, I'll see if we can get the CM team and whatever resources they can muster behind it.
  11. This is one of the best suggestions I have seen lately. Talking from experience in teaching advanced ACM as a volunteer in the WarBirds training program, it WAS a very successful program. Warbirds was considered to have a steep learning curve in its day, and it was only a flight sim. Our learning curve is on steroids compared to that! The WB training program started off only a couple of nights a week with two of us a night, but it was in demand and successful enough to end up running every night a week except for Sundays I think. (Been a looooong time ago). I can remember having up to 10 students a night between the 2 or 3 of us, and some "students" even going on multiple training nights during the week to get specialized training from the guys on board those nights, notorious for their style of combat tactics in the game. Like me for stall fighting, Fletchman for Boom&Zoom, etc... Was all volunteer run and a great retention tool. I'd be happy to step up myself to kick something like this off for WWIIOL if there was someone else that could take my place in production. It was a fun job and great community builder. What about you Jester? Zippy? Merlin51? Delems? (if not already busy volunteering for something else) Interested in helping to get something like this started?
  12. Haven't looked at horsepower and torque recently except with 109's and it is historical as I could get it from prop and electric/hydraulic prop hub measurements and mass data. Wasn't extremely far off from what they are running now, just a bit light. Might still be as I don't have crankshaft or reduction gear torque factored in at present. Its all prop and hub... But ahhh... "invisible flight surfaces"? What you talkin about Willis???? All the planes have the correct flight surface areas and locations for the airfoil components. What "someone" did to make them more stable at some time in the past, was jack up the weight distribution and rotational inertia values, and slow down control surface response time. They didn't add any invisible airfoils. Anyway, I put those values back to "normal" in the 109 series, and will do so with the rest as soon as I can. Same with damage levels... Almost done with ordnance audits, so we can see how they act with current damage models. Will adjust to mach historical data as best we can after that. And YES. I want structural damage on these birds so bad I can barely stand it... Have a couple of ideas to implement it without having to completely code a new system. Like tying it into the overspeed damage application model that the gear, flaps, and cockpits use. But instead of using a speed "qualifier" to begin applying damage, maybe we can just add a "G" qualifier to the component. We'll see...
  13. Thanks Scotsman. Outstanding work! And David01, Except for hip fired LMG's are going the way of the dodo bird as soon as possible.
  14. Just for the record, we DID have a professional soldier consultant working with several different military and LEO alpha and beta guys advising us back when all this was implemented and helping us with data (remember, this was before you could find it all online), and still do to some extent although now its mainly new weap dev and audits. I find it rather interesting that you're opinion differs so widely from theirs. All for now. Time for some yard work!