pbveteran

Flags removal already underdevelopment and no discussion or information?

124 posts in this topic

Hi,

So flags are going to be removed I consider this another step backwards at face value.. Since flags allow for much better future designs like researching equipment that propagates and is assign to differently to flags, allow squads to have a flag for themselves, decals that vary with divisions and brigades, add immersion etc..

Why are these changes being made, shouldn't the community give input and try to figure a solution together? Where is the information shouldn't current CRS be more transparent?

(Is it going to be the same thing like taking away infantry FRUs?)

 

The only problem I have with flags is HC and the fact there are so few brigades, fewer brigades amplify mistakes and being depend on a small section of players that have basically to work for the game and where much of content generation are depend on them is wrong..

I would like a similar system has Heroes and Generals once had, every player who reached X or Max rank would be given a brigade once he log ingame(or Assault group due to having a smaller size) he could send where he wanted, since there would be much more brigades with less supply losing one or two and having 1-2 inactive officers would not be a big deal.

This would promote teamplay because people would have now to communicate with each other, to know where supply was needed and mount attacks together. (already confirmed to happen due to H&G)

Heroes and generals did this and was one of the best things of the game every player could buy x type of assault group if he had command XP and then move them on the map, this supply would be used when the attack started on the fps mode. This was really amazing I had like a medium tank AT plus an Assault Gun AT and a couple of mechanized infantry so I would send all to one town having a good mix of weapons for the FPS, this is what I always wanted flags on WW2ol to Morph into.*

Also Fighting in a town and see the repercussions of a battle by fighting the same brigades with attrition is a big plus for WW2ol, it makes the game less predictable allow for great epic moments, like holding a town with a rifles etc..

 

*Because the H&G campaign map was done through browser using flash it became impossible to use once H&G became popular(H&G didn't had any cap or default side this is why it would work great in WW2ol if Assault Groups had a fixed number), they also currently greatly limited to players the amount of ATs you could have so now you had to grind a general persona, they also force players to buy a tank tiger if they wanted to spawn a tiger on an AT this meant having an AT on a battle if no player had bought a tiger no one could use the toys on that AT with made almost useless and remove any real impact having different types of AT's on battle provided.

Edited by pbveteran
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that squads should have their own flags on the map, moveable by CO, with say a platoons worth of supply, 50 troops and maybe couple light AA, ATG and trucks.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several of us asked (even begged) CRS to take a poll about the removal of flags, but the request fell on deaf ears.

 

I did my best to fight for flags but in the end CRS chose to go a different direction.  

 

In regards to squad flags, that would be easily gamed.  I could just create my own squad, fill it up with F2P accounts to get the required number, then I'd have my own personal spawn list I could move wherever.  If you start to address that and impose limits on squads (i.e. squads above X number of players get a squad flag), then you create a visible disparity between the mega squads and everyone else.  

 

Maybe the game would be better off with everyone as part of a mega squad, but maybe it wouldn't.  That's not my point.  The point I'm trying to make is that squad-specific inventory will inevitably lead down the road I detailed above.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of removing the flag system commanded by HC it could be converted to squad controlled flags. If we then add town supply as a static element with all the pros of that everyone could be happy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The changes are still in development so you are free to suggest things to add.

Only the general direction is decided now, which is: towns get supply tied to the town. Smaller towns probably get less supply, bigger towns get more supply. Backline towns (1 town back) will have supply too. Allied will likely be able to swap between sides in a specific town, possibly combining sides in a town but likely not.

The rest is all open so any suggestions are welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** I could just create my own squad, fill it up with F2P accounts

Your squad would have to have some number of paid accounts before it qualified for a squad flag, say 5 premium accounts.  FPA wouldn't count for squad flag.

Suppose you could game it by having 5 premium accounts.  But, then rats prolly no care about 50 (33 being rifle) troops, out of some 40,000, on map.  They'll take the money.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Removing HC sounds good, until you realize that a very small number of people play the game and a large amount are actually required to take towns by the way the depots work with caps, and their physical sizes. Without a centralized system like HC coordinating attacks and defenses, you will end up having very few people in any town or city, and the entire map becomes a mole op. It's boring.

Removing flags is also stupid. The game is not about the towns, it is about the armies and the war machines behind them. The idea of the game is to seize the factories that supply the war machine, by tactically fighting your way through the war machine (the divisions.) It is not about constant spam rushing a single city into oblivion and seeing who survives, and basically means large cities will be impossible to attack and curbstomp anyone who approaches with their huge supply.

Keep HC and flags exactly how it is. There is nothing wrong with them, and it is the only feasible way to play the game in a fun, team based manner, except for maybe sector control similar to Rabitldr's idea, which I actually much prefer (ie no towns, but sectors of the map fought over by the flags, with armies constantly facing off in fields, villages, forests etc, and guarded by fog of war when not near enemy flags.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, base21 said:

Let's try the new system and see how it goes. There's nothing dictating that we cannot go back

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

This isn't a new system this an old system that was changed for the better with problems that was never corrected or perfected like HC, going back after implementing features can be extremely complex and time consuming and will basically waste money and time that could be spend elsewhere... At this stage you don't want to keep going back.( I'm 100% certain this current CRS would never go back on any decision they made)

I just feel there some old players here who have more say and influence the development of the game than the actual players, who ever is calling this shots seems to want to relive the past and it's mistakes as well, we are in 2016, there is so much competition out there (main and biggest single reason why there aren't more players), instead of moving forward implementing new approaches that are better, creative or have already been proven that work, we want to implement past features.. as a veteran I won't be coming back to play the old WW2ol because it was really bad( same with infantry frus it had it's pros and cons instead of choosing to improve this) , what masked how bad this game was the bigger community and more players on the battlefield.

So many pasts mistakes could have been avoided if CRS had worked with the community, combine experience and knowledge the community has is greater than any dev, I think together we could find a better way and all move all forward with a stable community.

 

Do heroes and indiegogo backers even have a say on this, it would be immoral not to have their approval.. After so much money they spend?

I don't want to seem to being attacking CRS but I'm calling out on the statements they have made like listening to the community, being transparent and what keeps WW2ol alive is the paying and funding the community has given.(if indeed it is shouldn't they be more respectful and at least do a vote?)

Anyways this feels like the old crs that made be left and there hasn't any single action done after 2013 that made feel they were different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, delems said:

*** I could just create my own squad, fill it up with F2P accounts

Your squad would have to have some number of paid accounts before it qualified for a squad flag, say 5 premium accounts.  FPA wouldn't count for squad flag.

Suppose you could game it by having 5 premium accounts.  But, then rats prolly no care about 50 (33 being rifle) troops, out of some 40,000, on map.  They'll take the money.

 

13 hours ago, capco said:

In regards to squad flags, that would be easily gamed.  I could just create my own squad, fill it up with F2P accounts to get the required number, then I'd have my own personal spawn list I could move wherever.  If you start to address that and impose limits on squads (i.e. squads above X number of players get a squad flag), then you create a visible disparity between the mega squads and everyone else.  

 

Maybe the game would be better off with everyone as part of a mega squad, but maybe it wouldn't.  That's not my point.  The point I'm trying to make is that squad-specific inventory will inevitably lead down the road I detailed above.  

@capco

Don't take generalize ideas and try to fill it with holes obviously it's not simple as that.

Point is flags are better war simulation, add a strategic layer to the game for players who like strategy games, make combat more diverse and allow for better monetization-personalization (these two go hand in hand) a big plus for any player or squad, as Delems said simple restrictions like number of paying players, squad activity etc.. would prevent abuse.

 

My idea simplified would be to centralize map tactical movement to a broader range of individuals aka paying active subscribers by giving them assault group(30-50 tickets), while retaining HC with some brigades(larger than assault groups similar in size to current brigades to make easier and quicker offensives) HC link with CRS would be cut and HC members would be invited according to they performance on the map with their assault groups.

As for squad it would be the subscribers who got brigades assign to them not squads, so once they have one A.G. they would add them to the squad this could give the A.G. squad decals and other cosmetic or perks but first and foremost these A.G. could be chosen to be slaved and use by a squad member or leader instead of the default ( any non-squad Assault Group could be given commands if the assign player was not online or he specify the control to HC).

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, capco said:

Several of us asked (even begged) CRS to take a poll about the removal of flags, but the request fell on deaf ears.

 

I did my best to fight for flags but in the end CRS chose to go a different direction.  

 

In regards to squad flags, that would be easily gamed.  I could just create my own squad, fill it up with F2P accounts to get the required number, then I'd have my own personal spawn list I could move wherever.  If you start to address that and impose limits on squads (i.e. squads above X number of players get a squad flag), then you create a visible disparity between the mega squads and everyone else.  

 

Maybe the game would be better off with everyone as part of a mega squad, but maybe it wouldn't.  That's not my point.  The point I'm trying to make is that squad-specific inventory will inevitably lead down the road I detailed above.  

End of flags could potentially throw me over the line towards changing from a subscription to f2p. Takes out a huge strategic element to the game for me.
I too would love to see a poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flags can stay . It's just silly that a HC commander needs to be online to set and change AOs or move flags. There are enough long time players online night after night that are not in HC but have enough knowledge about the game . 

All that needs to be implemented is a vote system let's say Anhee is an AO and it goes nowhere . The 3 highest ranking players that have been on that AO get the menu of  pull AO ,keep AO up and they vote . Done . 

Same with setting a new AO system finds 3 highest ranking players online , they get asked via a menu , new AO needs to be set up , player c ,x ,z you are the highest ranking on map here are ur options , a chat window pops up were only these 3 can communicate a decision is made and new AO gets set.

Same goes with a Brigade that needs to be moved away or into a town , 3 highest get the menu vote and it goes into effect. 

No need to reinvent the game again. 

Keep it simple not fork it up. 

Edited by dre21
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't take my post the wrong way guys.  I am 10000000% a proponent of movable brigades on the map and the strategic layer that it provides.  You have no idea how close I am to unsubbing myself.  

 

CRS decided to go a different route, so the negative tone in my post was only because the battle is already over; there is nothing we can do to change the loss of flags.  I'm giving CRS one month after 1.36, and then I will make my decision about staying subbed. 

 

My personal opinion is that medium sized garrisons across the map with supplemental, movable HC flags AND squad flags is the way to go.  I also think that there is no room for small squads in a future which involves squad-exclusive equipment, and I think putting everyone in a few mega squads would be great for the game.  But there are a lot of people who want to keep their small groups in tact.  One way around this would be to have sub-squads within the mega squads.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

game fails completely when there's no HC on,

if someone makes a blunder,

when flags are cut off,

if the general population doesn't want to do what HC wants to do; like attack a town with no FB's; or keep attacking a boring town.

 

the HC application is dumb, i applied (to AO when nobody's on) but i had a sortie on the other side then never heard from them again.

 

there's more problems bit these 5 are huge gamebreaking problems that make the game unplayable.

i know you guys have solutions like making a mobile app on the cloud to auto move flags with AI from NASA, but they need a cheep and low work fix similar to the FB fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very first program I ever wrote was a tool for planning brigade movements. I'm not even exaggerating either: My "Hello World" took an image of the map split into squares and a text file with all the CPs, links, and units that I filled out by hand and clumsily drew it using some code that was obviously inspired by a "How to draw things in OpenGL" tutorial. You selected your side/unit using keyboard shortcuts that weren't hinted at anywhere, moved things around by clicking on the CPs, and a memory leak would crash the program if it ran for more than five minutes. You could also save the map's state using F1-F4 and load it using F5-F8, but one of the keys didn't work for some reason (F5/F6 both loaded the same state, IIRC).

I mention this because, to me personally, moving flags is a big part of what WWIIOL was: I joined the HC very shortly after I joined the game, and despite my low rank I was regularly running the map because I just loved the idea of it. While a lot of the core team members were around before flags and largely see HC as a way for in-game leaders to reach players (which is also true, of course), I'm the person on the team who actually enjoyed playing "HC Chess": As flawed as the system is, I still love the strategic element it adds to the game.

 

That's an extra element of the game though, not its core: The core of the game is players fighting battles, and everything in the game needs to support that, or at the very least not get in its way. Right now, flags are doing the opposite: For 9/10 campaigns, the map doesn't move because of battles; it moves based on which side made the first blunder at HC Chess — which, more often than not, is the side that didn't have anyone even around to play it. Very few people are willing to participate in the strategic element of the game, most of those who do find it a thankless and stressful task, and when one side makes a mistake it renders almost every battle up until that point almost meaningless: Battles are almost just a background activity that last until one side's HC f*cks up and the map can really start to move.

So flags are undermining the core gameplay, and there isn't a quick way to fix the underlying problems. It doesn't matter if it's a part of the game I enjoy, or that my history as a developer is closely tied to it, or that removing it will be a big step backward in terms of the strategic game: That one simple fact means that the flags need to go.

 

I appreciate everyone proposing solutions, but pretty much everything I've seen proposed invites similar problems, has other major flaws, and/or requires way more development time for what is a critical, needs-to-be-fixed-yesterday issue. We're not taking this measure because we want to get rid of any sort of strategic play; we're doing it because we need campaigns to be decided by players' fighting ASAP. This is not the way we plan to keep the game forever, and there are even some ideas on the table for 1.36.1 to start building the strategic game up again in a way that works for where we're at now. At this very moment, though, this is what we need to do, whether we want to or not — and believe me, I very much do not.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, VICTARUS said:

The very first program I ever wrote was a tool for planning brigade movements. I'm not even exaggerating either: My "Hello World" took an image of the map split into squares and a text file with all the CPs, links, and units that I filled out by hand and clumsily drew it using some code that was obviously inspired by a "How to draw things in OpenGL" tutorial. You selected your side/unit using keyboard shortcuts that weren't hinted at anywhere, moved things around by clicking on the CPs, and a memory leak would crash the program if it ran for more than five minutes. You could also save the map's state using F1-F4 and load it using F5-F8, but one of the keys didn't work for some reason (F5/F6 both loaded the same state, IIRC).

I mention this because, to me personally, moving flags is a big part of what WWIIOL was: I joined the HC very shortly after I joined the game, and despite my low rank I was regularly running the map because I just loved the idea of it. While a lot of the core team members were around before flags and largely see HC as a way for in-game leaders to reach players (which is also true, of course), I'm the person on the team who actually enjoyed playing "HC Chess": As flawed as the system is, I still love the strategic element it adds to the game.

 

That's an extra element of the game though, not its core: The core of the game is players fighting battles, and everything in the game needs to support that, or at the very least not get in its way. Right now, flags are doing the opposite: For 9/10 campaigns, the map doesn't move because of battles; it moves based on which side made the first blunder at HC Chess — which, more often than not, is the side that didn't have anyone even around to play it. Very few people are willing to participate in the strategic element of the game, most of those who do find it a thankless and stressful task, and when one side makes a mistake it renders almost every battle up until that point almost meaningless: Battles are almost just a background activity that last until one side's HC f*cks up and the map can really start to move.

So flags are undermining the core gameplay, and there isn't a quick way to fix the underlying problems. It doesn't matter if it's a part of the game I enjoy, or that my history as a developer is closely tied to it, or that removing it will be a big step backward in terms of the strategic game: That one simple fact means that the flags need to go.

 

I appreciate everyone proposing solutions, but pretty much everything I've seen proposed invites similar problems, has other major flaws, and/or requires way more development time for what is a critical, needs-to-be-fixed-yesterday issue. We're not taking this measure because we want to get rid of any sort of strategic play; we're doing it because we need campaigns to be decided by players' fighting ASAP. This is not the way we plan to keep the game forever, and there are even some ideas on the table for 1.36.1 to start building the strategic game up again in a way that works for where we're at now. At this very moment, though, this is what we need to do, whether we want to or not — and believe me, I very much do not.

Sounds like Its a catch 22 for you personally............on one hand you personally don't want to change it..........on the other hand your getting paid to change it.  

I look forward to it.  All we can do is give it a chance and see how it plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@VICTARUS

Has even the possibility to just give HC powers to who is online and has highest rank and no allied campaign activity been explorer?

(don't be afraid to get technical with me, I for once was extremely surprise that the game use TCP instead of UDP I wouldn't had ever guessed)

I feel this would be the first step to trying to fix the current strategy layer, I really do not look to always be facing S76 every time I attack a town.

 

What bothers me the most is that no though to inform the player base earlier.. Like there is a problem with the current flag mechanics and the solutions explored to fix them where these and that... Due to our limited resources we choose to this and that instead of the other solutions.

Were other solutions explorer? 

Is the design for town supply finalize?

(What is it, how supply between armies will be , what about small and big towns, this only seems to add more work, what about factories and resupply timers)

 

I understand that basically parachuting and reverse engineering this game is quite a feat and in some cases a Scorched earth policy might be better on the long run but it might also have unattended consequences that could slow progress down, forcing the removal like this unique aspect of WW2ol should not be taken lightly as it seems to be at least in front of us players.

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dre21 said:

Flags can stay . It's just silly that a HC commander needs to be online to set and change AOs or move flags. There are enough long time players online night after night that are not in HC but have enough knowledge about the game . 

All that needs to be implemented is a vote system let's say Anhee is an AO and it goes nowhere . The 3 highest ranking players that have been on that AO get the menu of  pull AO ,keep AO up and they vote . Done . 

Same with setting a new AO system finds 3 highest ranking players online , they get asked via a menu , new AO needs to be set up , player c ,x ,z you are the highest ranking on map here are ur options , a chat window pops up were only these 3 can communicate a decision is made and new AO gets set.

Same goes with a Brigade that needs to be moved away or into a town , 3 highest get the menu vote and it goes into effect. 

No need to reinvent the game again. 

Keep it simple not fork it up. 

Reserve HC - anyone can do it...thats what its there for

 

No full Hc on? You as RES HC can move stuff / drop AOs and whatnot

Full HC on - your call if you wanna stay in blue doing stuff or leave, no obligations whatsoever

 

Again, Reserve HC <-- its there for a reason

-------------------------------------------------------

In general:

W Flags gone - something else needs to come in to keep the "edge" here unless this here will be advertised as "1999-style PvP shooter on a huge and, for the most part, empty map"

 

Course CRS feels empowered atm and has been ever since their anouncement re. removing flags due to the incessant & rather vocal / seal-like clapping by some individuals...

 

I would also be weary when it comes to Polls regarding this - apparently polling gave us Truck only FRUs back too, so... Keep this in mind: "Democracy - where the votes of two Idiots count for more than that of one wise man"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bmw said:

Sounds like Its a catch 22 for you personally............on one hand you personally don't want to change it..........on the other hand your getting paid to change it.  

Oh no, I'm entirely on board with changing it. I definitely don't like that we're losing that aspect of things, but what we have now is severely hurting the actual core of the game so we really don't have a choice. If it was 100% my call and I got to choose between killing flags and letting flags continue to kill the actual main game, then flags would still be getting the ax. I can't just pick a pet feature and try to cram it into the game no matter how it affects everything else, and with what we have now there just isn't a way to get flags working in a reasonable timeframe.

1 hour ago, pbveteran said:

What bothers me the most is that no though to inform the player base earlier.. Like there is a problem with the current flag mechanics and the solutions explored to fix them where these and that... Due to our limited resources we choose to this and that instead of the other solutions.

I'm not a PR guy so I can't really say too much, but I can say that time is one of our limited resources as well. I'll poke around the forums when I'm taking a break, but in general the more I'm answering questions and explaining every little action I do, the less I'm actually doing anything useful. The same goes for Xoom and everyone else as well, and even if we had a 24/7 "Answer the players' questions" guy it would still take up a big chunk of our time to keep them up to speed (assuming you want an actual discussion and not a boilerplate answer to every question), and having that middleman would just increase the chance that misinformation gets passed along. Things also sometimes change as we progress, either due to testing with a more solid product or due to technical hurdles that weren't obvious at first, and then we post all these little changes as we run into them internally, and some players miss some posts because they aren't constantly obsessing over them, and there are twenty different versions of our plans out there depending on what you have and haven't seen, and every update there will be players wondering why we changed something that we actually changed a month ago because they missed a post, and... ugh. There's a reason I'm not a PR guy. :lol:

 

Really, I kind of feel like we're about as open as we realistically can be. What's really important is that every player feel like CRS is competent, and that there's someone on the inside fighting for the game you want to play. I think we're doing all right in the competence department — we have some pretty smart people giving us their time, we're extremely wary of repeating past mistakes, and we tend to put a lot of thought into gameplay-related changes instead of just throwing in random ideas because they sound good — so that just leaves feeling like your voice is represented.

I'll be honest: I don't represent every player. I prefer planned team-oriented operations to anonymous instant action, I want battles and campaigns to feel "real" in how they unfold, I prefer a straight-up fight and despise players trying to be sneaky, and I tend to favor slower "hardcore" gameplay and hate players rushing into combat to just respawn five seconds later and repeat. Don't get me wrong, I'll try to keep all types of players in mind when I'm actually looking at the game, but ultimately the game I push for is the game I want to play.

Now if that sounds unpleasant for you that's fine, because I'm not the only one on the team. I generally have gameplay discussions with Xoom, and he's usually voicing concerns about how players who don't fit my playstyle will be affected. Sometimes we'll come to a solid conclusion that works for both of us, sometimes we'll find a compromise, and sometimes ideas will bounce around for a really long time, but the point is players who agree with my "vision" of the game can trust that, as long as I'm around, we're going to work toward something that we'll enjoy. If I didn't think it would happen then I wouldn't even be here.

 

So if you want a meaningful strategic game then don't worry: So do I, and I think everyone else on the team does too. (Hell, I think in the meeting where we decided we had to get rid of flags, two-thirds of it was talking about what we could add in future versions to give the HC more strategic options.) We're taking a step back here because, again, we don't really have a choice: We looked at a lot of options, including ones players have posted on the forums, and decided that they either wouldn't fix the actual issue (the strategic game completely trumping actual battles so players just give up); would introduce new ones; or, most frequently, wouldn't be something we could implement in a reasonable timeframe.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It pleases me to hear your own personal take on this, Vic.  

I understand the problems you laid out.  I see how at this point it's necessary for the game to proceed.  And I'm glad to hear there is/was much discussion on how to give HC more strategic options.  I think 1.36 could be a good foundation to build upon.

After speaking with Xoom during some Rat Chats, I got the feeling he was personally a staunch opponent of movable flags (even when the game is functioning properly), although he did hear me out.  

But it's good to know we have an ally and a voice in those CRS meetings :)

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pbveteran said:

What bothers me the most is that no though to inform the player base earlier.. Like there is a problem with the current flag mechanics and the solutions explored to fix them where these and that... Due to our limited resources we choose to this and that instead of the other solutions.

 

This announcement (flags being removed, and town based supply returning) was made several months ago, there are threads going back to at least june discussing the announcement......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that was in the premium threads (aka paid accounts), in the barracks

search has been kind of broken too

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pbveteran said:

 

Has even the possibility to just give HC powers to who is online and has highest rank and no allied campaign activity been explorer?

I don't think this would be an option, I know I'd still not want anything to do with moving flags around even if I was able to as a normal player, I wouldn't enjoy the abuse when I got it wrong, which I would, a lot. That's the problem with any player run system like flags, the vast majority of players have zero interest in doing this, they just want to get in and fight. So if you had no HC on and no player willing to step up, you still have the same flawed system.

I'm nervous about how this will work as most probably are, but what we have isn't working most of the time at the moment and letting any senior player move flags would be as disastrous as the current restricted system is.

Heck, half the time I'm not even that bothered which way the map is moving, as long as I can get a fair battle, that's all I mostly care about, and I'm willing to bet an awful lot of players feel the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just me talking as a guy who has watched Xoom work his ass off for the last few years soliciting player input, offering feedback, and driving the game back into development, and you can't accuse him of not being transparent. It's disingenuous and it's unfair to the guy who pretty much pulled this game out of the fire in 2012 when it was about to disappear.  If it weren't for his marketing ideas at first, and his later guidance as a producer, we wouldn't have a game today. Period. 
He's active in the game and in the Forums, he's had meetings, and Rat Chats and has generally made himself accessible in a way that is pretty unique in the gaming world.  The best part? He's not doing it to make himself rich, he's doing it because he loves this game and this community.

You're always free to offer constructive opinions and criticism, but maybe think twice about it. There are a lot of people working hard to make this thing happen and sometimes all they get out of it is the gratitude of the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, capco said:

It pleases me to hear your own personal take on this, Vic.  

I understand the problems you laid out.  I see how at this point it's necessary for the game to proceed.  And I'm glad to hear there is/was much discussion on how to give HC more strategic options.  I think 1.36 could be a good foundation to build upon.

After speaking with Xoom during some Rat Chats, I got the feeling he was personally a staunch opponent of movable flags (even when the game is functioning properly), although he did hear me out.  

But it's good to know we have an ally and a voice in those CRS meetings :)

S!

I am a staunch opponent of keeping the system the way it is now, due to the increasing negatives it is having on the game. And for that reason, I have probably come across as an opponent of moveable flags. We must do something and clamp this gaping hole in our campaign operation.

Victarus has done a good job illustrating our general concern at CRS and it gives you only a glimpse into the massive amount of discussion, planning and review of data and campaign trends that has led us to this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.