moe5000

Need to get rid of the HC system

86 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, sorella said:

you mean the way some squad leaders have control over their squad? until the squad members who don't like it leave? or how a good squad can control the momentum of how an attack goes? the way one player can totally control other players by blowing their fb?   the same way mission leaders control where their fms is and thus where other players spawn? the way 4 players flying together take control of the air away from enemy pilots? the way some players, however grouped, take control over a city and kick other players out? 

yes initiative and leadership is definitely a failed concept. not only in this game, but in the world. 

because as we know, in the modern world we should all be able to do what we want, when we want, and get want we want, all the time, all by ourselves and win. for free too. 

Sorella S! We have these same problems in the military today... and every generation, occupation and organisation has the same issues. some good leaders, some bad leaders, some so so leaders. this games problems sometimes remind me of life. maybe its too good a simulator.. :) I dont mind all the critiques from guys I just think they need to come with a better idea for a fix... 

Share this post


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

The reason we don't discount subscriptions or offer special weapons for HC is because too many would join HC just for that reason and we'd have to track activity etc... the people we need in HC are players with a volunteer spirit, players that want to make the game better for their fellow players just because it improves their game. 

If you base the discount on activity like moving units you'll get some clowns that come in move 5 brigades at random screwing up all measure of gameplay just to fill their quota... nightmare

The only people that will join and stay in the face of adversity are players that genuinely want to help their team, it isn't a perfect system by any means but until we shift to a town based supply it is what it is.

I had fun with it, I was in HC for years, I was CinC for 2 campaigns, I had a full HC roster and that made it easier. I salute the guys who do it now and stick with it thick or thin

 

 

KMS... i see your point. its valid fear and it would probably occur at least to some degree at minimum... you could just have a certain number of slots and use the voting system i read about, bad commanders would get booted. Or instead what about some value added incentive? giving them something more... Im not sure what that could be with CRS and its limitations, but i bet you guys could come up with something unique that doesn't strain the rats or the budget. haha you could have Xoom send them a personal letter of thanks on letter head... showing appreciation goes a long way with lots of people. we give builders monuments... maybe something similar? how about under each campaign history we could put a short BIO on each active legitimate HC? As my boss Sorella said earlier in this thread.. " because as we know, in the modern world we should all be able to do what we want, when we want, and get want we want, all the time, all by ourselves and win. for free too"

Kirk, its doesnt have to be a monetary discount or any thing free.

love ya Rats keeping it up.

Share this post


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

this is never the solution and sometimes a bad design is just a bad design. 

I'm interested in how having more HC to share the present workload, is not the solution - to a lack of HC, or percieved lack of action by HC? Could you elaborate man? 

Don't get me wrong, not implying HC system is fine as it stands, it has some areas that could 100% be improved on. However a bulk of the issues I see faced at present are either due to [a] no HC online, or HC not pulling their weight, and in such an instance I believe more hands to do the work would help out immensely. (This bearing in mind that no major HC changes can be implemented this side of 1.36) 


I am actually concerned re: disappearance of HC and potential changes as it is practically impossible to get non-HC people to help do any required tasks now, if HC are gone entirely, it's likely you won't get ANYONE setting up AO's or checking CPs. I am def open to being proven wrong though! Maybe people will become responsible for their own fun...

Edited by praevus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HC System as such is not failing, never has failed.

It is a pretty convenient assumption and takes the angst out of admitting that the GAME is failing per se though claiming its the HC System for all troubles in-game.

HC System failing to work properly is merely a SYMPTOM - stop picking at the SYMPTOM - the ROOT CAUSE of the HC System failing to work as it should / was intended to work is the GAME FAILING ie population.

HC is a game within the game - as the overall population drops off - the first System that keeps working properly is the HC System assuming for the sake of the argument an average HC population of about, say 10% of the overall population.
Any failings with the GAME per se thus get AMPLIFIED within the HC System - its a SYMPTOM, get it? Not the Root Cause Of All Evil !

Lets assume, for the sake of the argument - again -  100 players on Server - 50 per side - 10% HC, consider joining HC, did join HC blabla - thats 5 HC per side - say 3 of those are TZ1/2 the others TZ3 maybe and they have private lives as well.

Yeah, the HC System is a symptom which, within itself then gets amplified AND turns into a circle of crap even more due to scraping the bottom of the barrel of the overall GAME POPULATION for HC and promoting some of the few HC whom would never have risen above HC peasant 5 yrs ago with all the bad flag moves and based on overall non-existant skillsets - The ROOT CAUSE is the Game failing and has been for at least 6yrs by now.

All the nitpicking/fiddling with the rules for HC and game mechanics have not helped either, for overall game population in general and thus HC pop in particular.

Yes - keep picking on the HC system as the root evil of all if you're too afraid to take the blinders off and admit that its the game proper failing and why shouldnt it - its 18yrs old, it shows dramatically, the sub prices are way too high for a game like this whose ONLY leg to stand on nowadays is the giant map and the, by now, srysly diluted and soon-to-be-gone strategic layer (HC/flags) - the ONLY leg!

Have fun & GJ ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some nice posts, HC is almost a game in its own, plenty of good Map movers will sit there and "play" the game without even logging in for hours, its fantastic to go head to head with a map mover on the other side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, madrebel said:

it should be pretty obvious to all by now that giving some players control over others is just a failed concept. 

You argument has no value, the concept was applied in Heroes and Generals to great success one of the few reasons I used to play it.

Because these brigades would be of small size and single handily would have very few impact in a battle, a combine effort would be necessary, further more applying rank restrictions or last campaign side checks would reduce any anti-game movements further more the current GMs would be more than enough to fix these small deviations or the current HC could force to reassign or relieve command of a player of one of these smaller brigades/battalions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wehrmacht0 said:

The HC System as such is not failing, never has failed.

It is a pretty convenient assumption and takes the angst out of admitting that the GAME is failing per se though claiming its the HC System for all troubles in-game.

HC System failing to work properly is merely a SYMPTOM - stop picking at the SYMPTOM - the ROOT CAUSE of the HC System failing to work as it should / was intended to work is the GAME FAILING ie population.

HC is a game within the game - as the overall population drops off - the first System that keeps working properly is the HC System assuming for the sake of the argument an average HC population of about, say 10% of the overall population.
Any failings with the GAME per se thus get AMPLIFIED within the HC System - its a SYMPTOM, get it? Not the Root Cause Of All Evil !

Lets assume, for the sake of the argument - again -  100 players on Server - 50 per side - 10% HC, consider joining HC, did join HC blabla - thats 5 HC per side - say 3 of those are TZ1/2 the others TZ3 maybe and they have private lives as well.

Yeah, the HC System is a symptom which, within itself then gets amplified AND turns into a circle of crap even more due to scraping the bottom of the barrel of the overall GAME POPULATION for HC and promoting some of the few HC whom would never have risen above HC peasant 5 yrs ago with all the bad flag moves and based on overall non-existant skillsets - The ROOT CAUSE is the Game failing and has been for at least 6yrs by now.

All the nitpicking/fiddling with the rules for HC and game mechanics have not helped either, for overall game population in general and thus HC pop in particular.

Yes - keep picking on the HC system as the root evil of all if you're too afraid to take the blinders off and admit that its the game proper failing and why shouldnt it - its 18yrs old, it shows dramatically, the sub prices are way too high for a game like this whose ONLY leg to stand on nowadays is the giant map and the, by now, srysly diluted and soon-to-be-gone strategic layer (HC/flags) - the ONLY leg!

Have fun & GJ ....

+1 Exactly people who say otherwise have no idea of the history of the game.. HC has been in game since 2005? only when population fells did it became a problem. Even on low populations there are always players playing the game why not give them an opportunity to command and move smaller brigades?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wehrmacht0 said:

The HC System as such is not failing, never has failed.

It is a pretty convenient assumption and takes the angst out of admitting that the GAME is failing per se though claiming its the HC System for all troubles in-game.

HC System failing to work properly is merely a SYMPTOM - stop picking at the SYMPTOM - the ROOT CAUSE of the HC System failing to work as it should / was intended to work is the GAME FAILING ie population.

HC is a game within the game - as the overall population drops off - the first System that keeps working properly is the HC System assuming for the sake of the argument an average HC population of about, say 10% of the overall population.
Any failings with the GAME per se thus get AMPLIFIED within the HC System - its a SYMPTOM, get it? Not the Root Cause Of All Evil !

Lets assume, for the sake of the argument - again -  100 players on Server - 50 per side - 10% HC, consider joining HC, did join HC blabla - thats 5 HC per side - say 3 of those are TZ1/2 the others TZ3 maybe and they have private lives as well.

Yeah, the HC System is a symptom which, within itself then gets amplified AND turns into a circle of crap even more due to scraping the bottom of the barrel of the overall GAME POPULATION for HC and promoting some of the few HC whom would never have risen above HC peasant 5 yrs ago with all the bad flag moves and based on overall non-existant skillsets - The ROOT CAUSE is the Game failing and has been for at least 6yrs by now.

All the nitpicking/fiddling with the rules for HC and game mechanics have not helped either, for overall game population in general and thus HC pop in particular.

Yes - keep picking on the HC system as the root evil of all if you're too afraid to take the blinders off and admit that its the game proper failing and why shouldnt it - its 18yrs old, it shows dramatically, the sub prices are way too high for a game like this whose ONLY leg to stand on nowadays is the giant map and the, by now, srysly diluted and soon-to-be-gone strategic layer (HC/flags) - the ONLY leg!

Have fun & GJ ....

Totally agree.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wehrmacht0 said:

The HC System as such is not failing, never has failed.

depends on your point of view. TOEs arrival finally put to bed the wedge between the allied armies, that much was a success. however, TOE's and HC's arrival instantly drove away players and created in game situations that further drove away players.

 

1 design success doesn't trump the catastrophic achille's heel TOEs/HC introduced. 

Edited by madrebel
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and another thing - totally disingenuous to say "HC used to be fine". complete BS. TOEs and HC drove a wedge through the community before the patch containing the feature ever went live. Neither side of the argument was 'right' per se and the underlying issues were real however, TOEs and HC as delivered likely wasn't the right way to go about it.

 

total fabrication to suggest HC used to be 'fine' and it wasn't until the numbers dropped that it was an issue. no, it was a GIGANTIC issue before it arrived, as soon as it arrived it caused issues, and it still is causing issues. 

 

i don't intend to suggest removing either TOEs or HC is a magic bullet, but TOEs and HC have caused catastrophic damage to this game. Prior to HC, large squads threatened to leave if/when their freedom was nixed. Many followed through on their promise. again, many of these people were pricks but they were paying pricks. soon as TOEs and HCs dropped we had RDP fiascos where entire swaths of players - in this case the predominately LW playerbase - were forced to fly tier down planes for weeks. TOEs allowed grouping all AF flags at the nearest AF to the fighting, killing behind the lines BARCAP in the process. human mistakes directly impacting the fun of hundreds of players is a snowball effect you just CANNOT have in a video game.

 

none of that is good and all of it has happened since TOEs were delivered and at much higher population levels. no, removing TOEs in and of itself doesn't 'fix' the game's current state. it does reset the foundation though allowing for organic growth to hopefully occur again as it did prior to TOEs and HCs being what they currently are. 

 

TOEs/HC fine ... lol ... man having a terrible memory must be convenient. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

truth madrebel if ever I heard it, was here with a front row seat

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, madrebel said:

i don't intend to suggest removing either TOEs or HC is a magic bullet, 

 

none of that is good and all of it has happened since TOEs were delivered and at much higher population levels. no, removing TOEs in and of itself doesn't 'fix' the game's current state. it does reset the foundation though allowing for organic growth to hopefully occur again as it did prior to TOEs and HCs being what they currently are. 

While an account holder at the time, I did not actively play so was not present for the “exodus”  as you see it was the TOEs and HC solely responsible for said exodus? Or were there other big factors as well? 

And aren’t the rats trying to do a kinda hybrid system? I wish we could see account number on a graph or timeline. I like the HC and TOEs mostly cause it’s represnted in real operations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

always always always multiple factors however i'd say that TOEs/HC were the loss leader for sure. Perhaps said best, this feature provided the impetus that pushed stressed/fatigued players over the edge. 

 

Prior to TOEs - the primary issue with the game theory was the rift the axis could exploit by dissecting the allied forces in theoretically unrealistic ways. This was crap and had to be fixed. Now at the time there were lots and lots of weapon system gaps too, many other issues as well, but i'm focusing on the core game theory aka the rules that dictate how we play and how we win. This issue really was preventing the allies from really ever organically growing their needed playerbase. to deny this would just be silly. this old divide massively impacted allied morale. again, something you just can't have in a game of any type. 

 

TOEs were then mentioned as being worked on to solve this issue. People rightly predicted some of the mess that would follow. Many over reached and many were just flat wrong and many offered other hybrid ideas at the time all which were rejected i favor of this grognard style old school war gaming pen and paper meets digital design. What follows is a series of predicted and unpredicted issues that have led to a continuous bleeding of the playerbase by way of the above mentioned loss leader.

 

- players left when it arrived

-players left every time a significant human mistake was made

-players left over RDP mostly surrounding the human choices made favoring one game role over others. right or wrong win or loss this bled players

-players left everytime there wasn't someone around to setup the board so they could play

 

without this mandatory top down human component - if say there was intelligent AI systems maintaining 'the board' then flags could and would work much better. without that human element, players can only blame the top down rules and not convenient human error. rules can be changed, argued for/against, or otherwise removed. you cannot/will not ever improve upon the average human element. you'll always have failures, irrationality, and just poor short sighted decision making that ends up handing the 'victims' a convenient excuse to dismiss your game.

 

"screw this, i'm not going to let some other idiot ruin my fun"

 

the flaw with TOEs as delivered is that they made humans mandatory for it to function and failed to understand the psychology of that and why it could only ever be a failure as designed/delivered. TOEs is actually a really good design, for a 'pen and paper meets digital' style game played amongst a small group of friends that all think its cool. TOEs is not what you try to build a MMO battlefield around that requires lots of players from a generally broad base of people who like WW2 themed action games.

 

i'm probably wrong though.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it seems numbers dropped as soon as December 2004 after the introduction of depot spawning. Combined to AOs it killed the gameplay badly until the arrival of MSPs in may 2006.

TOE in its current design only arrived in 2007 but Squads and leaders were already gone. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To follow preavus I'd say right now in order for the current system to work we need more HC. One of the selling points of this game is the fact that it is the players and not the system that dictate the outcome of campaigns. There is nothing else like it, H&G keeps coming up, screw that game. I have over 500hrs, it is not the same. Any paying player is capable of joining HC, and the more are there the better things get. There is no game that gives it' players such choice in such an open map. It' not perfect, and I agree squads need more power, but to exclaim one of the games selling points as the start of all that is wrong... and to top it off to not attempt to participate in the system when it' open to EVERYONE, seems off the point. 

I will agree numbers are down, we are now a niche market, as long as we work to marketing to that group and continue to maintain the very things that keep this game unique and alive we should get numbers back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hateract said:

right now in order for the current system to work we need more HC.

this has been the case since HC has existed. very few people actually like doing this stuff in their spare time. 

 

you keep talking about selling points in reference to a game that honestly, hasn't sold well - ever. if this design is a selling point, it's failed to penetrate the market. this feature with in the game is/has caused players to leave once you've finally sold to them. 

 

if said feature is hard to sell, and it erodes the base you do sell too ... i mean you're probably right fully staffing this feature is the best route forward.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

always always always multiple factors however i'd say that TOEs/HC were the loss leader for sure. Perhaps said best, this feature provided the impetus that pushed stressed/fatigued players over the edge. 

 

Prior to TOEs - the primary issue with the game theory was the rift the axis could exploit by dissecting the allied forces in theoretically unrealistic ways. This was crap and had to be fixed. Now at the time there were lots and lots of weapon system gaps too, many other issues as well, but i'm focusing on the core game theory aka the rules that dictate how we play and how we win. This issue really was preventing the allies from really ever organically growing their needed playerbase. to deny this would just be silly. this old divide massively impacted allied morale. again, something you just can't have in a game of any type. 

 

TOEs were then mentioned as being worked on to solve this issue. People rightly predicted some of the mess that would follow. Many over reached and many were just flat wrong and many offered other hybrid ideas at the time all which were rejected i favor of this grognard style old school war gaming pen and paper meets digital design. What follows is a series of predicted and unpredicted issues that have led to a continuous bleeding of the playerbase by way of the above mentioned loss leader.

 

- players left when it arrived

-players left every time a significant human mistake was made

-players left over RDP mostly surrounding the human choices made favoring one game role over others. right or wrong win or loss this bled players

-players left everytime there wasn't someone around to setup the board so they could play

 

without this mandatory top down human component - if say there was intelligent AI systems maintaining 'the board' then flags could and would work much better. without that human element, players can only blame the top down rules and not convenient human error. rules can be changed, argued for/against, or otherwise removed. you cannot/will not ever improve upon the average human element. you'll always have failures, irrationality, and just poor short sighted decision making that ends up handing the 'victims' a convenient excuse to dismiss your game.

 

"screw this, i'm not going to let some other idiot ruin my fun"

 

the flaw with TOEs as delivered is that they made humans mandatory for it to function and failed to understand the psychology of that and why it could only ever be a failure as designed/delivered. TOEs is actually a really good design, for a 'pen and paper meets digital' style game played amongst a small group of friends that all think its cool. TOEs is not what you try to build a MMO battlefield around that requires lots of players from a generally broad base of people who like WW2 themed action games.

 

i'm probably wrong though.

Thanks for your insight

Share this post


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

truth madrebel if ever I heard it, was here with a front row seat

Same here, I was playing through that time as well. 

 

Share this post


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

To me it seems numbers dropped as soon as December 2004 after the introduction of depot spawning. Combined to AOs it killed the gameplay badly until the arrival of MSPs in may 2006.

TOE in its current design only arrived in 2007 but Squads and leaders were already gone. 

this is a much more accurate memory and reflection of the actual historical sequence of events and timing.  plus, debate and argue as we may there are two unassailable human points to the game's history: 

1.  the initial large playerbase with large squads for a then unique game dwindled over time simply as much to time as to the game. players/squads got older/busier, or moved to other different games and a new generation of faster graphic intensive and instant-action more fulfilling  'war' games came along to take a few more away and to fulfill a newer generation of players.  only a few of the big squads that left continued on as squads in other games - unlike what often happens in 'fantasy' or 'war' games now where squads move from game to game as they wish - another sign of player age rather than game age

2. we can debate forever AOs, HC, Depots, FBs, TOEs, french/brit split, balance, blah blah but there still is no other analogous game with which to compare WWIIOL - hence the stretches people use like board games or H&G or Eve or Planetside or whatever - and to reinforce point #1 - few, if any, games in any genre have lasted this long

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was AHC before the game came out, and for 3ish years after it came out.                       The HC 'system' was at first derided as being a 'good old boys club', which wasn't accurate, but was tough to overcome.                Then the HC system "didn't do anything, thus was unnecessary".  That one hurt a bit, I'll admit, as at the time I was putting in at least 8 hours a day ingame (but not really ingame, as I was sitting at the map most of the time).  Getting folks to work together back then was extremely difficult, far more difficult than it is today.  Those difficulties, combined with the (at the time) 1 opel + 1 INF = towns takens 3 towns behind the lines, and a bonus instaspawning army too boot, chased folks away from the HCs  (especially AHC).

 

The lack of leadership tools in the early days, combined with some equipment issues and (in the very early days) different interpretations of CRS' instructions to the HCs, adversely affected Allied morale which caused a 'drain-swirling' system where folks who liked the game might try the Allies, but soon would go to the german side as it was more fun, thus making it less fun for the Allies, which chased more players away, and so on around the drain .

 

I didn't like the RDP system being controlled by the HCs, with my reason being that I felt it would chase players away from the game when they didn't get their way, and that happened.

I don't particularly like the AO system, as I believe it has been a huge contributor to the death of most of the squads who used to be ingame.  Ironically, now the AO system probably keeps the game playable, as the population is low enough now that without AOs the map would be an utter mess.

 

I am hoping the hybrid AO/Town based supply deal works-----------I think taking towns behind the lines should absolutely be allowed, so long as doing so does not cause an entire army to magically appear in the process.

 

Anyway, the HCs are not the problem.  Both need to be fully staffed, which just happens to be tough these days, as the ingame population has yet to go back to the 'old days'.  Back in 'the old days', there was no quicker way to get someone to lay off griping about the HCs, than inviting them to join.  Once they found out what we were working with, they usually quit griping.

 

S!

Share this post


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

I was AHC before the game came out, and for 3ish years after it came out.                       The HC 'system' was at first derided as being a 'good old boys club', which wasn't accurate, but was tough to overcome.                Then the HC system "didn't do anything, thus was unnecessary".  That one hurt a bit, I'll admit, as at the time I was putting in at least 8 hours a day ingame (but not really ingame, as I was sitting at the map most of the time).  Getting folks to work together back then was extremely difficult, far more difficult than it is today.  Those difficulties, combined with the (at the time) 1 opel + 1 INF = towns takens 3 towns behind the lines, and a bonus instaspawning army too boot, chased folks away from the HCs  (especially AHC).

 

The lack of leadership tools in the early days, combined with some equipment issues and (in the very early days) different interpretations of CRS' instructions to the HCs, adversely affected Allied morale which caused a 'drain-swirling' system where folks who liked the game might try the Allies, but soon would go to the german side as it was more fun, thus making it less fun for the Allies, which chased more players away, and so on around the drain .

 

I didn't like the RDP system being controlled by the HCs, with my reason being that I felt it would chase players away from the game when they didn't get their way, and that happened.

I don't particularly like the AO system, as I believe it has been a huge contributor to the death of most of the squads who used to be ingame.  Ironically, now the AO system probably keeps the game playable, as the population is low enough now that without AOs the map would be an utter mess.

 

I am hoping the hybrid AO/Town based supply deal works-----------I think taking towns behind the lines should absolutely be allowed, so long as doing so does not cause an entire army to magically appear in the process.

 

Anyway, the HCs are not the problem.  Both need to be fully staffed, which just happens to be tough these days, as the ingame population has yet to go back to the 'old days'.  Back in 'the old days', there was no quicker way to get someone to lay off griping about the HCs, than inviting them to join.  Once they found out what we were working with, they usually quit griping.

 

S!

+10/ S! 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does any one know if data on active accounts exists or is public? It might be interesting and constructive to build and see a time line of the numbers of active account holders. Then we could lay the historical changes next to the active account data. That could give us a real good picture of the things that changed for good and bad. We could also debate different changes that occurred in conjunction with other in a similar period of time. I can appreciate if CRS feels it could not release such info. Many companies would not want a time line of accounts made public. But I think it could be contrusctive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always when there is 3 or less active HC online at the time have players vote for temporary HC who nominate themselves to serve the role. Actual HC members can if then necessary veto or dismiss a temporary HC when they wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, madrebel said:

and another thing - totally disingenuous to say "HC used to be fine". complete BS. TOEs and HC drove a wedge through the community before the patch containing the feature ever went live. Neither side of the argument was 'right' per se and the underlying issues were real however, TOEs and HC as delivered likely wasn't the right way to go about it.

 

total fabrication to suggest HC used to be 'fine' and it wasn't until the numbers dropped that it was an issue. no, it was a GIGANTIC issue before it arrived, as soon as it arrived it caused issues, and it still is causing issues. 

 

i don't intend to suggest removing either TOEs or HC is a magic bullet, but TOEs and HC have caused catastrophic damage to this game. Prior to HC, large squads threatened to leave if/when their freedom was nixed. Many followed through on their promise. again, many of these people were pricks but they were paying pricks. soon as TOEs and HCs dropped we had RDP fiascos where entire swaths of players - in this case the predominately LW playerbase - were forced to fly tier down planes for weeks. TOEs allowed grouping all AF flags at the nearest AF to the fighting, killing behind the lines BARCAP in the process. human mistakes directly impacting the fun of hundreds of players is a snowball effect you just CANNOT have in a video game.

 

none of that is good and all of it has happened since TOEs were delivered and at much higher population levels. no, removing TOEs in and of itself doesn't 'fix' the game's current state. it does reset the foundation though allowing for organic growth to hopefully occur again as it did prior to TOEs and HCs being what they currently are. 

 

TOEs/HC fine ... lol ... man having a terrible memory must be convenient. 

qft

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, moe5000 said:

Same here, I was playing through that time as well. 

 

Me too. He hit the nail on the head 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.