• Announcements

    • PITTPETE

      NEW Career Subscriptions now available   06/08/2019

      The all new highly anticipated / requested "Career Based Subscriptions" are available through www.WWIIONLINE.com/account only, starting at $9.99! There are three new subscriptions being added; 1) All Infantry at $9.99/mo, 2) All Air Forces at $9.99/mo, 3) All Ground Forces (Army Persona) at $12.99/mo. Continue reading to learn more and get back into the fight now! View the full article on battlegroundeurope.com
Ltarflak

2018 road map

280 posts in this topic

I don't see any talk about how to get prime time populations above 2 AOs. The critically low pop exacerbates many of the game's other problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, saronin said:

I’m sure the Allies didn’t have intelligence from the Panther on the Russian front and the development of the Tiger II. 

"Fireflies were introduced to armoured brigades and divisions in the 21st Army Group in 1944, just in time for the Normandy landings. The timing was fortunate as Allied intelligence had begun to realise in early 1944 through statistical analysis that the Germans were fielding a much larger number of more formidable tanks (such as the Panther) than had been anticipated. This information was slow to reach Allied military planners, who had mistakenly assumed the Panther, like the Tiger, would be a rare heavy tank with a limited production run, so the number of Panthers deployed came as a surprise to Allied formation commanders and tank crews forced to engage them with guns that could not penetrate the frontal armour except at short range."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Capco said:

"Fireflies were introduced to armoured brigades and divisions in the 21st Army Group in 1944, just in time for the Normandy landings. The timing was fortunate as Allied intelligence had begun to realise in early 1944 through statistical analysis that the Germans were fielding a much larger number of more formidable tanks (such as the Panther) than had been anticipated. This information was slow to reach Allied military planners, who had mistakenly assumed the Panther, like the Tiger, would be a rare heavy tank with a limited production run, so the number of Panthers deployed came as a surprise to Allied formation commanders and tank crews forced to engage them with guns that could not penetrate the frontal armour except at short range."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly

I stand corrected. You win. I’ll see you in Post Scriptum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, saronin said:

I stand corrected. You win. I’ll see you in Post Scriptum. 

;)

 

Back to my original premise, the P3L should be an upgrade over the P4G for town assaults.  That's been a pretty big issue for the Axis afaik.  Likewise, the 109 Jabo will fill the role of fast attack bomber for the Axis.  

 

That's what I see from CRS's current approach.  It is issue-oriented.  They are listening to key issues that they have the ability to fix (109 flopping, poor Axis assault tanks, poor BEF armor firepower, lack of fast Axis bomber, semi-auto parity for the Brits, goofy damage models, historically inaccurate munitions performance, etc.) and addressing them piece by piece.  Hopefully the Tiger degunning can be addressed during one of the upcoming audits.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, david01 said:

I don't see any talk about how to get prime time populations above 2 AOs. The critically low pop exacerbates many of the game's other problems.

but steam

Share this post


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

;)

 

Back to my original premise, the P3L should be an upgrade over the P4G for town assaults.  That's been a pretty big issue for the Axis afaik.  Likewise, the 109 Jabo will fill the role of fast attack bomber for the Axis.  

 

That's what I see from CRS's current approach.  It is issue-oriented.  They are listening to key issues that they have the ability to fix (109 flopping, poor Axis assault tanks, poor BEF armor firepower, lack of fast Axis bomber, semi-auto parity for the Brits, goofy damage models, historically inaccurate munitions performance, etc.) and addressing them piece by piece.  Hopefully the Tiger degunning can be addressed during one of the upcoming audits.  

CRS is just repeating the same mistakes the old team made. A 105mm gun is great but now I need an inf support tank as well. It’s the 4G StugG combination all over again.  I get to commit twice the armor personnel to effect the same result in a game with few players to begin with.  I’ll pass. Thank you. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I'd like to see deployable bushes on tanks and smoke rounds too, maybe in 2.0... many WW2 pictures show armor using concealment

like most british tanks already have ??

camo color has the same color like bushes ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is that they should press full bore into the new graphics engine.  It's the only thing that will save this game...or at least let it expand. 

Everything else is lipstick on a pig. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

Everything else is lipstick on a pig. 

I agree.............. but for now we just paperbag that said pig and deal with it.

Share this post


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

1.36 Hybrid Supply (Q3/4-2018) - Can other items be put on hold to decrease the Q3/4-2018 estimated delivery?  1.36 is the most critical I think at this time than new toys

Bmw, it's very important to understand that these Production items are using other personnel (assets) that do not directly impact the delivery timeline of 1.36.

Therefore, no, it has no bearing on the speed of 1.36 being implemented. 

1.36 has multiple hands that are working on the user experience (key to being successful) as it relates to navigation, UI, etc. Then of course all of the supply mechanics and considerations. We're going to get it rolling just as fast as we possibly can.

Tell you what though, I could make a hell of a lot of things happen much faster with our development speed of we had more subscriptions. Two more full time programmers and things would be rolling way better.

17 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

My opinion is that they should press full bore into the new graphics engine.  It's the only thing that will save this game...or at least let it expand. 

Everything else is lipstick on a pig. 

Wing 2 is designed to do just that, stay tuned for more ways you guys can help, it's coming. Ultimately I've selected this approach to ensure we live up to our obligation to support WWII Online ongoing and continue to deliver results to maintain, if not grow our subscription base. The other stuff is going to take some time.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bmw said:

I agree.............. but for now we just paperbag that said pig and deal with it.

I know, I know, everyone wants the supermodel but when 3AM rolls around you take what you can get lol

Share this post


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

You see I get the mindset, but I see it a bit differently, to me theirs basically two kinds of players,  there are the people that are playing The capture the flag game who get all emotional about it, And as I said I can understand that, but there are also the people that just play for the fun of it there in it for the fight a good fight is a good fight And this might sound cheesy but it’s not whether you win or lose but whether or not you’re getting kills while doing so.

 The player in me  doesn’t give a [censored] if we win or lose I just want their to be good fights.

The high command officer in me  however wants us to win, so  there is something of a duality as a result going on in me.

I don't believe there are many players who play in isolation and just enjoy the game. The campaigns matter to most of us, that's why population ebbs away when it's clear one side is winning and nearly all campaigns these days turn into a rout or a collapse

If the game rewarded the players losing the campaign, we'd be more likely to have more players playing on the losing side

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Silky said:

I don't believe there are many players who play in isolation and just enjoy the game. The campaigns matter to most of us, that's why population ebbs away when it's clear one side is winning and nearly all campaigns these days turn into a rout or a collapse

If the game rewarded the players losing the campaign, we'd be more likely to have more players playing on the losing side

The two are interrelated.  I mostly play for fun battles, but most of the fun battles occur when their is general parity between sides.  Usually players stop playing because of frustrating game play and then it becomes a route.  Frustration can occur in many ways, but for me a major source is when you play hard all day for a town or two and the next morning they have flipped with low pop and the previous day's work and sense of accomplishment is blown away.  If that happens several times, I usually take a break from the game because it is not much fun.  

Share this post


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

I know, I know, everyone wants the supermodel but when 3AM rolls around you take what you can get lol

What I got from this is that you only play this game while drunk at 3AM.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bmw said:

1.36 Hybrid Supply (Q3/4-2018) - Can other items be put on hold to decrease the Q3/4-2018 estimated delivery?  1.36 is the most critical I think at this time than new toys

Sounds great, but the people making the new toys are different from the people who would make hybrid supply.
One can't help the other much, outside area of expertise.
Not quite as bad perhaps, but imagine a host programmer trying to fix planes in the flight model.

7 hours ago, saronin said:

Add two Tiger killers, reduce the number of Tigers, and replace them with lightly armored PZ3s?

Sounds reasonable.

:( No, why would you do it that way? That doesn't seem a good way to go about it

Test it out, adjust the tigers accordingly (which would be up not down) for the time being.
Run with that for a bit until the panther can be made, which will take longer because it is all new, no existing vehicle for it to be a variant of.
Then when the panther is done tested and ready, take the panther, the Firefly, the Achilles, the M4A3 76mm and begin the new Tier 4

T3 would see delivery of plain 76mm M10's to the british,  T2 for US/French coalition
At some point T2 sees the M3 lee/bradley

Now roll tiger back to T2, and create a 3rd limited flag type "Heavy armor"
Put the Matilda II, the Tiger I, Tiger II, Churchill MK VII? , T26E4 into these Heavy flags (and what ever units you can think of that also belong) and ditch the "balancing" limit to their spawn numbers and return them to a more suitable ratio.
The balancing factor becoming the limited heavy flag itself, If 12 tigers are at brussels they can not be at dinant, the 10 Matilda II's hitting Breskins can not be at Spontin etc. 

Everyone has migrated off to their proper places, and you address the issue of how to balance units that dont have a balance in their proper places
by allowing them to be that unbalance, but in a localized fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

Sounds great, but the people making the new toys are different from the people who would make hybrid supply.
One can't help the other much, outside area of expertise.
Not quite as bad perhaps, but imagine a host programmer trying to fix planes in the flight model.

:( No, why would you do it that way? That doesn't seem a good way to go about it

Test it out, adjust the tigers accordingly (which would be up not down) for the time being.
Run with that for a bit until the panther can be made, which will take longer because it is all new, no existing vehicle for it to be a variant of.
Then when the panther is done tested and ready, take the panther, the Firefly, the Achilles, the M4A3 76mm and begin the new Tier 4

T3 would see delivery of plain 76mm M10's to the british,  T2 for US/French coalition
At some point T2 sees the M3 lee/bradley

Now roll tiger back to T2, and create a 3rd limited flag type "Heavy armor"
Put the Matilda II, the Tiger I, Tiger II, Churchill MK VII? , T26E4 into these Heavy flags (and what ever units you can think of that also belong) and ditch the "balancing" limit to their spawn numbers and return them to a more suitable ratio.
The balancing factor becoming the limited heavy flag itself, If 12 tigers are at brussels they can not be at dinant, the 10 Matilda II's hitting Breskins can not be at Spontin etc. 

Everyone has migrated off to their proper places, and you address the issue of how to balance units that dont have a balance in their proper places
by allowing them to be that unbalance, but in a localized fashion.

Not my premise.

19 hours ago, Capco said:

 

The lackluster firepower in late-tier BEF armor has been a major issue in their kit for years.  CRS is listening to concerns in order to get a better hold on equipment balance (i.e. the British won't need as many extra Churchills/A15s to offset their armor disadvantage beyond T2).  

 

Those tanks aren't being added to every Allied unit.  They are being added to the weakest third of the Allied armor pool.  

 

The same general concept is being applied with the Panzer IIIL.  It will be able to provide better infantry support for the Axis in T2 and beyond, meaning that the Axis will not need the (rather silly) extra amount of Tigers they currently receive.  

 

Think about these things before you blow your top.  

At this point though, just roll with it.  [censored] it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, bmw2 said:

YUUUUUUP

Also I see you sneaking Post Scriptum in here...why not add in Hell Let Loose while your at it. ;)

It's interesting to me, to see the same people demanding a WWIIOL 2.0 looking at these other games asking us to be more like them. The interesting part being, that their game design is inherently different, as if their minds are not made up as to which one they want.

You know, we could much more easily (time and resources) create something like that, perhaps even if we were to call it as a "foundational product" to an eventual 2.0, laying the ground work for a proper launch and demonstration of what is to come. Despite that logic, I am sure we would still get resistance. Or would we not? shrug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, XOOM said:

It's interesting to me, to see the same people demanding a WWIIOL 2.0 looking at these other games asking us to be more like them. The interesting part being, that their game design is inherently different, as if their minds are not made up as to which one they want.

You know, we could much more easily (time and resources) create something like that, perhaps even if we were to call it as a "foundational product" to an eventual 2.0, laying the ground work for a proper launch and demonstration of what is to come. Despite that logic, I am sure we would still get resistance. Or would we not? shrug

If the game design is fundamentally different then those games are not really a competition to WWII Online then. Are they?  

In any case, I was highlighting shrubbery on tanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, XOOM said:

It's interesting to me, to see the same people demanding a WWIIOL 2.0 looking at these other games asking us to be more like them. The interesting part being, that their game design is inherently different, as if their minds are not made up as to which one they want.

You know, we could much more easily (time and resources) create something like that, perhaps even if we were to call it as a "foundational product" to an eventual 2.0, laying the ground work for a proper launch and demonstration of what is to come. Despite that logic, I am sure we would still get resistance. Or would we not? shrug

My comment was just a dig at all the Post Scriptum & Hell Let Loose in here @XOOM ;)

Stay the course. Work on pushing the most important fixes through first..one at a time if you must- then new content. 2.0 needs to be on back burner...but always burning. 

Edited by bmw2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Silky said:

I don't believe there are many players who play in isolation and just enjoy the game. The campaigns matter to most of us, that's why population ebbs away when it's clear one side is winning and nearly all campaigns these days turn into a rout or a collapse

If the game rewarded the players losing the campaign, we'd be more likely to have more players playing on the losing side

game has been dead for the past 2 weeks, i got screehshots in a barracks thread to prove it.

both sides, not just the winning side. nothing's being done about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Silky said:

I don't believe there are many players who play in isolation and just enjoy the game. The campaigns matter to most of us, that's why population ebbs away when it's clear one side is winning and nearly all campaigns these days turn into a rout or a collapse

If the game rewarded the players losing the campaign, we'd be more likely to have more players playing on the losing side

Well that sort of my point,  it’s the capture the flag guys that are running the game, the loan Wolf stat sex workers are it’s salvation :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, saronin said:

What I got from this is that you only play this game while drunk at 3AM.

You say that like it's a bad thing. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2018 at 0:59 PM, stankyus said:

I looked at the road map and all I really see is awesomeness headed our way and some compete insanity if those new graphics actually become reality.  Those new graphics.. still have me in disbelief.

The new graphics will be created as a priority for the second development wing. It will take a considerable amount of effort and time before those realized and inserted into a new iteration of WWII Online. I just wanted to help expand on this a little bit to make sure we control our expectations and realize that the road ahead of us will not be easy or expedient. I know you're of the folks that understand this Stanky, just wanted to post it here for the benefit of others.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bmw2 said:

My comment was just a dig at all the Post Scriptum & Hell Let Loose in here @XOOM ;)

Stay the course. Work on pushing the most important fixes through first..one at a time if you must- then new content. 2.0 needs to be on back burner...but always burning. 

We intend to remain true to the development of WWII Online for sure, I hope (and would be interested in your personal feedback and others) if our Roadmap indicates that clearly enough. I tried to be exceptionally clear about that because it is core to my heart as it is many of yours. 

My goal here regardless in what we do or the exact steps taken is to ensure the long livelihood of WWII Online, at all costs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.