Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

a3ist

F2P feedback - why I wouldn't pay for this

Recommended Posts

a3ist

Poor netcode - no biggie at all!
Clunky graphics - who cares, not me!
Absent or ineffective leadership - well, it's not like anyone is paid to be HC!
Tank camped at spawn - just don't 'join the war' there!
Chased up two flights of stairs by a jogging enthusiast firing from the hip with a squad-level suppression weapon.... ah, now suddenly I'm not in a simulation of the Battle of France at all. I'm now playing a bloody Quake 3 clone on my PC with gamey kids and pretty much wasting my evening. Dropped out of immersion immediately, log off for months on end.

Just my $0.02



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh

I hate the hip firing lmg myself- worse mod they ever made to the game.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a3ist

I really don't mind being turned into jam by the SMG while defending a CP or something - that's what the SMG is for. But LMG rambo is rage-quit reason numero uno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lipton

You joined in October 2012. Obviously you don't mind it too much. 

Oh... and did we have F2P in 2012? $$$

And blakeh. You joined in 2008.  $$$$

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a3ist

I actually joined in 2002. If you really think my sporadic engagement is a good business model, ask CRS where they are now financially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
10 hours ago, a3ist said:

I'm now playing a bloody Quake 3 clone on my PC with gamey kids

That probably gets at the core issue from CRS's business perspective: there are X customers out there who want a realistic-feeling simulation, and XXXXX "gamey" customers who like the Quake design concept and think that's the right kind of wargame.

My guess is that, in the middle years, CRS probably chose to try to walk a halfway path between the two design approaches, hoping to get a sufficient number of both groups and accepting that their choice wouldn't satisfy some customers.

My further guess is that CRS is still there, marketing-strategy-wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh

I never said I would quit-- been happy to pay--- i don't like the hip firing lmg for the same reason as a3ist--- not something I would leave over.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh

jwilly has it right--- they need to try and balance between the two groups. 

For the most part, CRS, both old and new, have done a good job. (but i still hate the hip firing LMG)

The thing they don't want to do is make this just another first person shooter game, because if so, it will never last.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

The fact that I think I understand CRS's business motivations doesn't change that I 100% agree that hip-fired LMGs on the move in tight quarters are very anti-simulative.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PITTPETE

Perfect example of

disgruntled vet = F2P moocher

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob

all out gun realism has been a goal FPS's for years now. even the arcadey games have more realism than what we got.

it's even worse than "just another FPS game" the only claim to realism WWII:OL has left are lethal bullets and ballistics. everything else gun related is pure arcade and historically worse than late 1800's stuff.

 

 

i agree with the hip firing LMG, it's made axis dumb.

they don't use another building to find a good shot or practice basic room clearing tactics: all they do is run in and shoot like a low level NPC...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
petie
1 hour ago, major0noob said:

all out gun realism has been a goal FPS's for years now. even the arcadey games have more realism than what we got.

it's even worse than "just another FPS game" the only claim to realism WWII:OL has left are lethal bullets and ballistics. everything else gun related is pure arcade and historically worse than late 1800's stuff.

 

 

i agree with the hip firing LMG, it's made axis dumb.

they don't use another building to find a good shot or practice basic room clearing tactics: all they do is run in and shoot like a low level NPC...

Bias is strong in this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pbveteran

You can effectively shoot a MG 34 standing up and looking down ironsights up to 100m+ in real life, you can also hip fire both the MG 34 and MG 42.. what you can't do is shoot and run, walking is possible with the MG 34 but not close to anything effective with the MG 42. The bren is pretty much impossible to shoot while standing but  was pretty good hipping firing.

I wish CRS and our players would play other games, Redorchestra found a neatly solution for this basically you are force to walk and need to deploy the tripod where you hold in this case the MG 34, in the case of the mg42 you can't shoot unless you deploy it so you can only shoot prone or setup in window etc..

 

So I'm for... standing fire but you would be forced to deploy the weapon and be forced to walk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XOOM
14 hours ago, a3ist said:

Poor netcode - no biggie at all!
Clunky graphics - who cares, not me!
Absent or ineffective leadership - well, it's not like anyone is paid to be HC!
Tank camped at spawn - just don't 'join the war' there!
Chased up two flights of stairs by a jogging enthusiast firing from the hip with a squad-level suppression weapon.... ah, now suddenly I'm not in a simulation of the Battle of France at all. I'm now playing a bloody Quake 3 clone on my PC with gamey kids and pretty much wasting my evening. Dropped out of immersion immediately, log off for months on end.

Just my $0.02

S! Soldier, thanks for your feedback. We're going to talk a bit more about hip fired deployed LMG's internally, this has been coming up a bit lately. From every realism aspect I can gather this seems to be stretching the truth a bit.

One of the core things CRS 2.0 is trying to do is get the game BACK into a position where reality is the forefront of our considerations.

You can see that taking shape through our High Explosive and other munitions audits that are underway. I believe this falls in line pretty closely.

We hope that you'll continue to provide your feedback so we can make things better for everyone. I would encourage you to provide some suggestions with things you don't agree with as that gives us options and tells us you're thinking about solutions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sudden

We wouldn't need a hip firing LMG if the MP40 was fixed :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob
2 hours ago, Sudden said:

We wouldn't need a hip firing LMG if the MP40 was fixed :)

+1

or give it the .50bmg so it's behavior matches its round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brady

Or just stop letting the lmg's fire unless thier deployed on their bi-pod, and let the lmg'er use a side arm to defend himself while he's on the move, that would be realistic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
16 minutes ago, brady said:

Or just stop letting the lmg's fire unless thier deployed on their bi-pod, and let the lmg'er use a side arm to defend himself while he's on the move, that would be realistic...

It was common combat practice for LMGs to be fired from the hip, but only while stopped or walking. These weapons give the user considerably more rotational inertia than an SMG, so an LMG user should be much less direction-change- and aim-change-nimble than an SMG user. The process of bracing oneself to hold the LMG at the hip and manage the recoil should be a deployment process, requiring say two seconds stopped. And, the one-man reload process while firing from the hip should take much longer than the normal deployed reload.

The operational parameters for each LMG should be adjusted up or down until the playerbase stops using that particular weapon as an SMG. The goal is only that...not to limit LMG use beyond that.

Certainly it was physically possible to fire some WWII LMGs from the shoulder, but this was sufficiently uncommon combat practice that the coding work to provide for it would not be justified.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brady

 I know that it was done but my understanding was/is that it was extremely rare and only done in an emergency, the weapons were deployed when they were fired  almost exclusively.

The only reason I'm bringing this up  is of course because it's a nod to realism, I would be happy either way, but I got to say that having some death ray guy come flying around the corner with one of these things makes me a little bit crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob

can get rid of it's massive spread from the hip and replace it with an uncontrollable stream of bullets, i think the FG42 already does this

 

it'll go from "almost plugged hose" spread to "out of control firehose" spread, with the latter being more realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
krazydog
11 hours ago, Sudden said:

We wouldn't need a hip firing LMG if the MP40 was fixed :)

+2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mosizlak
10 hours ago, brady said:

 I know that it was done but my understanding was/is that it was extremely rare and only done in an emergency, the weapons were deployed when they were fired  almost exclusively.

The only reason I'm bringing this up  is of course because it's a nod to realism, I would be happy either way, but I got to say that having some death ray guy come flying around the corner with one of these things makes me a little bit crazy.

There are a lot of weapons that are used in this game differently than they used them in real life. 

Do you really think panhards or DACs went out solo to hunt enemy armor? They were recon vehicles. 

Come to think of it, almost every unit is used differently. Tanks never went out solo, they went out in platoon strength at minimum. Single planes flying over enemy territory (non recon planes) ?   Single bombers?  Solo infantry?  The list is almost endless in this game, so to have one guy whine (like Pete said, a vet F2P moocher) about the way the axis LMG is used is laughable. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
david01

Quake is a well-balanced arena FPS that's almost universally respected for its mechanics and fidelity. I'm not sure if you can compare the lag-throttling, netcode-abusing rambo infantry that have become a fixture of this game to Quake.

 

Other less-realistic and arcade WW2 games have better weapon balance (rifles actually accurate, SMGs don't have massive RNG cones of fire, LMG hipfire is punishing). The old team deviated from realism and they just sucked at it so bad that the infantry gameplay is worse than if they were purists about infantry weapons.

 

Some attempts to implement realism in a game results in ridiculous gameplay. The sound of footsteps is a great example: it looks okay in paper but in this game you can track other infantry 75m away through walls and down two floors. It's a huge factor in the bad infantry gameplay and if anything it should be made less "realistic" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob
2 hours ago, david01 said:

The old team deviated from realism and they just sucked at it so bad that the infantry gameplay is worse than if they were purists about infantry weapons.

nearly all of the FPS's with realistic gunplay are praised for it.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R with it's bugged to hell engine is still a awesome FPS in 2017. Fallout 4 on the other hand with arcadey DPS/armor/accuracy mechanics is compared unfavorably with the older versions even the 2d 1&2.

 

any reason CRS didn't make guns more realistic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brady

I get it's not something some people will want to see be done away with, but as I mentioned before it was by no means typical.

and I am on the fence myself about it.

it is super cheesy though no matter how  it's rationalized.

I think if it were acknowledged that it was super cheesy but kept because it was fun that would be one thing but to rationalize it  as normal operational behavior is quite another.

supposedly the mandate from on high is the move towards more realism, the present usage of the lmg is not  particularly realistic, and rationalizing that  based on all the other unrealistic weapon uses is also not particularly constructive, they themselves need to be re-examined.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...