HATCH

CORNERED RAT
  • Content count

    413
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by HATCH

  1. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. As I said before, we already did that. While it may have increased pop by a little, everything else was the same. Reviews saying nothing they had was good enough, anything worth having locked behind pay wall, yada, yada, yada... We wouldn't have made the f2p changes if the numbers would have shown they were more beneficial the way they were. As it is now, you get the same rifleman everyone else gets and have the ability to kill everything in the game a rifle or a satchel can kill, change the map by capturing facilities, give rides/tows/plant MS, etc. So you can definitely participate on an equal level and see what it's all about. There are special promotions all the time that allow more equipment to experience, not to mention every intermission... Everything you mention can be had indefinitely in a DLC pack for less than a decent meal...
  2. Duck! Or support the game. You support the game, it supports you. Statistics showed that when we gave free players basic everything, the majority chose to remain free players, not supporting the game with even a starter sub. Like the cost of a friggin burger combo or a cup of starbucks... It's like opening up a sandwich shop and offering the basic sub sandwich for free... If most just take advantage of the free sub, yeah, the place might be hopping, look and be popular with all the patronage, but with no revenue because of too many taking advantage of the free stuff and not enough supporting the business by purchasing from the main menu, there simply is no way to pay the bills and keep the place running.
  3. And THAT is sort of the whole point of following a historical timeline with as realistic equipment as possible.
  4. Couldn't have said it any better myself Chimm! Merry Christmas Everybody! God bless you all!
  5. All good thoughts Merlin. Maybe we just have too many HEATs running around at the moment?
  6. Totally agree with this. Like every infantryman is walking around with "SPR sticky bombs" loaded and at the ready. Regular infantry should fear tanks, not proliferate in hunting them solo. We should remove the satchel loadout except for a specific and limited class of trooper. But that's just my personal opinion. Also think tanks should be enlisting some sort of infantry support to protect them from such.
  7. ROFL! You just HAD to do it dintcha? Just couldn't stand it and restrain yourself? I was hoping to listen to this great example of the truck leaving as well, but nooooooo. You just HAD to turn the mic guy into a hood ornament! LOL! JK! Good work! Definitely an improvement.
  8. Interesting. From what I understand, those are the real deal rather than what Corn had managed to scrabble together 20 years ago...
  9. Could be. I couldn't find the image I was looking for which has some crusty old Sgt. doing it full auto in front of a group of new recruits. Lot more shells in the air in that one.
  10. For the record, we WILL be getting back to completing the small arms audit which will include the AR's SMG's and LMG's after the new year. Just have had too many other priorities for awhile to get to finishing it.
  11. Several of us are getting entirely off track with the labels I'm trying to use to differentiate between the weapon classes in code and game. For instance, "automatic rifle", "light machine gun", medium machine gun", etc. The fact of the matter is that they can and have shared a myriad of definitions based on such things as the nationality creating the label, weight, ammo load, rate of fire, operating crew, etc. Other guns like the MG34/MG42 that can and have served in both light and medium "roles", with the passage of time are now classified as a General Purpose Machine Guns or GMPG's. So yes, in the context of this thread, semantics. We are not here to waste time arguing such. Sorry for the confusion. The point of the matter and why we are having this discussion, is that we need to break the automatic weapons from one class into two. From here on out, we will be using the class labels "AUTOMATIC RIFLE" and "LIGHT MACHINE GUN" because those are the classes already available in the code that we will be using to differentiate them based on certain operational capabilities between them. All of the rifle caliber "machine guns" currently available for infantry use in the game except for the MG34 will be in the "AUTOMATIC RIFLE" class. The MG34 will be in the "LIGHT MACHINE GUN" class. I hope this clarifies things for everyone to the point we can keep the focus on the proposed in-game functionality of the weapons in question rather than the labels loosely used previously in the discussion. That's the last I'll be saying on the "label" or "class" bit, so lets talk functionality! Carry on!
  12. THANK YOU MERLIN!!!
  13. That's another reason why the "original plan" (with more development resources available) was to also make the "sprint" the current "walking jog" and make the walk, a "regular walk" (sorta like current "crouch walk"). But not sure if that's gonna happen... However we WILL be able to drain your ATP faster (tiring you out) with the current sprint.
  14. "Light Machine Gun" like the BAR, BREN, FG42, (working as they do now), and the "Medium Machine Gun" like the MG34, M1919 (in-game or in development), Vickers MG, Lewis MG, MP42 (not yet in development) " Without getting into semantics or too many details.... I am just using the above as clear example of two different classes needed based on similar mechanics and operational ability.
  15. Lets just make sure we are making clear the distinction between the "Light Machine Gun" like the BAR, BREN, FG42, (working as they do now), and the "Medium Machine Gun" like the MG34, M1919 (in-game or in development), Vickers MG, Lewis MG, MP42 (not yet in development) getting the treatment we are discussing...
  16. This has been "on the board" for awhile, ever since we started work on the M1919A6. Basically we need crew served LMG's to operate differently than their BAR style brethren. Since then we are a little short in the animation department but are working to rectify that situation. But here is the primary functionality that WE agreed upon at the time. "When we in production worked this out, we did not completely take away the option to hip fire. There are too many examples of this being possible "in real life" to support. We DID however want to limit non-deployed firing and reloading to being stationary tasks so that if they are walking or jogging, they would have to stop and "plant" to fire or reload. That and wildly increase dispersion (historically speaking) when not deployed." Now Xoom is getting it very close to what we are looking for...
  17. Hmmm... Sounds like someone wasn't managing player resources very well. These channels were set up for a purpose. When we initially set them up, you could lose your HC position for refusing to utilize them properly, and players that didn't follow protocol could earn some GM attention and time off. I'm all for general BS'ing in the game, but not on reserved channels. You have to keep some channels reserved for game use, specifically for current in game news and communication. Somewhere published that everyone knows is primarily free of "noise" and can be counted on for real-time ongoing developments/actions comms your team needs to share.
  18. Love to see talk of tactics being used a What? Talk of strategy, teamwork and tactics? Awesome!!! Who said there were no natural leaders left on the VR battlefield?
  19. That's a bit of an exaggeration in my opinion. I fail to see how it would be any different as far as troop capacity goes when compared to current FMS's except for the fact that at least for the initial assault (truck run that plants the FMS) you actually have a consolidated group of soldiers on the attack rather than a bunch of "rambo" stragglers that you normally get out of the current FMS's simply because everyone is there at the same time. Everyone on the Truck can assault as a single entity either after the truck driver plants the FMS and respawns to join the rest of the guys, or even while he is planting it. After it's been planted and the troops that came on the truck with it start getting killed, it operates no differently than the current ones do until it gets destroyed. How is that "less spawning potential" than what you already have? Want 3 FMS's? Load up three different trucks... As far as underpop goes, 1) IMHO, that should be handled via game mechanics and strategy. 2) Aside from whatever we can do to "support underpop/hinder overpop" via timers, delays, and what-not, if too many of you are trying to run off and start new capture offensives while the enemy is in the middle of taking your CPs, maybe your towns should be falling since it's awful hard to assault enemy CP's while defending your own. From my personal experience, I've never seen a more powerful in-game ice breaker/squad catalyst platform, getting people together for both existing initial squad founding OR natural and organic squad growth (as well as green tag welcoming vehicle) than the trucks and convoys that used to be how you had to play. And that was without any of the FMS sharing I'm talking about now where you had no choice but to go all the way back to the FB if you were killed (I agree, worst part of old truck riding paradigm).... Since that catalyst/platform has been gone and AO control has been delegated to the few even with almost unlimited FMS availability, the results speak for themselves. I have no idea what "task force" you are talking about, but if it doesn't include a game mechanic that forces people together for a short period of time like a truck ride does, you're going to have a tough time convincing me. Refer to the articles Asimov posted earlier in this thread. And in our game, besides the obvious camaraderie of your colorful peers, you're enjoying the scenic countryside and the virtual world around you while team-building instead of waiting at a some kind of glorified chatroom or spawn countdown screen waiting for the group to spawn...
  20. Yes on recoil and dispersion from a working/operational perspective of the weapon, but that doesn't mean the graphical animations will in all cases follow suit. We need an animator that works with "Granny2" to be able to change the animations that we are already using. I'll be thankful if I can just speed them up or slow them down to more closely match what the "actual" gun is doing, ie: cycle time, reload time, rise, settling, etc. Looks really cool, but don't see any additions or modifications to current animations without some experienced animation help joining the team, and/or a new animation routine implementation altogether.
  21. @Aismov The only thing I'm not a big fan of in your diagram/proposal is the trucks setting FMS's, and then spawning from those same FMS's? So we end up back where a bunch of indies are running around setting FMS's that just like now show up on the UI/map interface that we have no real clue about who set them and why? Are they in a good position? Are they camped, etc? (As a side note: we are not opposed to the idea of a forward PPO that can spawn trucks, AT/AA, and other vehicles. As a matter of fact, we have discussed and are open to the idea of developing limited player placed FB PPO's. Swap the "Attacking FMS's" in your diagram with player placed Fire Base objects that had the same spawn capabilities of the current terrain locked FB's (and sharing the same supply pool), but a little more restricted to enemy CP proximity to keep them from being too close to, or behind the enemies CP, and instead of coming from a FB, they would have to be initiated from the AB of a controlled CP as well as have some sort of player/group requirement in place to keep em from being too prolific.) And I think we would be regressing a bit in the context of keeping people together once enroute to where the battle is. As an example, once I drove a truck to set your FMS, then I despawned and spawned another truck from the FMS I just set, who knows about the FMS I just set? What tells other players that they should spawn at MY FMS, and what is the incentive for doing so? Assuming I do get some folks to spawn at my FMS, and hop on my truck, I don't see what addresses the issue of separation that always happens when some people get shot off the truck enroute or get killed right after disembarking once at the battle... I have part of the group still fighting where we disembarked from the truck, and others stuck at least 1.5k away with no other option but to hoof it back to where the rest of us are... That's why in my proposal above, I want to keep the FMS at the end of the truck ride into battle instead of at the beginning. If I limit the use of the FMS that each truck/group sets (one per truck, per trip), to the passengers of that truck, I can reduce the time it takes to plant the FMS because it isn't an insta-spawn army from a box set by a single dude anymore, but more like an in-close rallying point only spawnable by everyone that was on that truck (truck/group capacities to be determined). If I can create a semi-permanent list of all the players simultaneously riding on that truck once it starts moving, it allows me to assign those players on that list to the FMS that truck will "plant" and besides the team building aspect of just spending a little time in the back of a truck, introduces some really nice and seamless team/group opportunities. This "game mechanic" allows several nice features for the "adhoc" group of guys on that truck, such as allowing the group listing or roster to expand each time I stop the truck to pick up more guys and start moving again, allowing an easy and natural way to grow the "group" without extra UI/game interface interaction. It promotes communication amongst everyone in that group by means of shared chat/voip channel they automatically receive when they jump on the truck joining that group. It allows cohesion of the group on each truck by automatically assigning every group member riding on the truck to the FMS the truck sets so if I get killed enroute (shot or fall off truck, lose connect, etc), I can instantly spawn back with my group as the character I was (assuming supply allows) as soon as the FMS is set/available by an autospawn routine, or by simply clicking the "go/enter world" button rather than having to "find my way back", or going through the UI trying to find that particular FMS out of all the others that might be available/presented. It could allow the entire "group" to all re-spawn at the same time from the same facility should the FMS go down. Those already KIA, automatically as soon as anyone in the group spawned another truck, those still alive and fighting still, via pop-up box alerting them that their group FMS was down allowing them to exit and spawn with the group, or to spawn automatically upon his "death" at the site of the new FMS (assuming his other group/team members have or are in process of placing a new one) when it becomes available. Several specific and powerful points behind it all... FMS's are associated with groups, not individuals spawning out of them adhoc or without knowledge of whats going on there. Groups being formed and expanded naturally and organically simply by hopping on a truck. No one gets geographically isolated from their group by death or accident once "grouped by the truck" and FMS is set and active. Inclusive of all players regardless of squad/mission affiliation and/or experience level. Requires minimal UI exposure to continue spawning with the group repeatedly or on subsequent trips. etc... I could go on and on...
  22. It will be picked up again after the first of the year.
  23. Well hopefully you'll be in for a pleasant surprise