XOOM

How can we get beyond pure negativity in the forums?

118 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, Sudden said:

You had me at "you" I was thinking of leaving anyway and I will as soon as I get back from Walmart where they listen to customer complaints and manage to keep them as customers.

So one key word I forgot there was, "about." So, "the level of toxicity that you and others are talking about, really does matter." Which means everyone matters, and we need to help steer each other down the right road, and all the rest of my post entailed. I think my fast typing is working against me :D, sorry @Sudden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xoom, I support you guys (I bought the steam dlcs) because I love what you do and I also post suggestions because I want you to be the best, It is honestly frustrating seeing Rats fail at this when others have figured it out about 10 years ago.

Edited by nugx

Share this post


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

You had me at "you" I was thinking of leaving anyway and I will as soon as I get back from Walmart where they listen to customer complaints and manage to keep them as customers.

1 hour ago, XOOM said:

So one key word I forgot there was, "about." So, "the level of toxicity that you and others are talking about, really does matter." Which means everyone matters, and we need to help steer each other down the right road, and all the rest of my post entailed. I think my fast typing is working against me :D, sorry @Sudden

 

That was the first thing that popped out to me too.  Calling out Sudden for posting toxicity?  I mean he trolls his fair share (it's an OT thing...) but he's as solid of a community member as any other and when push comes to shove he's as serious about getting stuff done as anyone else.  

 

@Sudden I personally am very grateful for your continued subscription and your level of care and passion for our game.  I really do hope that Xoom just mistyped as he said (if you look at the original wording, it isn't even proper English so there was obviously something missing).  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, nugx said:

Xoom, I support you guys (I bought the steam dlcs) because I love what you do and I also post suggestions because I want you to be the best, It is honestly frustrating seeing Rats fail at this when others have figured it out about 10 years ago.

I appreciate your sentiment of support, truly. 

I like to think we’re getting better, and we’re not done growing and learning, keeping our ears open and close to the ground. S! 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2018 at 11:18 PM, lipton said:

Scotsman left?  ...   Hmmm.  

As I've stated before, the entire HE and ballistics performance realism thing was a bridge too far. It's wasted time on something that will only break other things and in the end will only pi$$ more people off when it doesn't work the way they want it too. 

Perfect example of why the forums are so negative, right there. The forums are negative because people are unhappy with the game. Duh! 

Sometimes, you guys put WAY too much thought into this. It's a game. One built in 2001. Quit trying to make it the ultimate simulator in the history of simulators. It's NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. 

Here's an idea. Fix the sh*t that's broke. You have a great game. Stop trying to make it something it's not and just make it work for a change. 

And stop trying to moderate the forums. You're looking for unicorns and rainbows. That's never going to happen either.

You want some place for the new and un-tarnished to visit and keep a positive attitude? Fine, start a new section for them and moderate the hell out of it. We will never want to go in there with our crap. I won't be any fun.

We'll stay down here in the Wild West were the Mods can't pick favorites and hand out TOS's when they feel like it and NOT hand out TOS's when they like the guy... Yep.

Please don't EVEN try to deny it.  I've been here WAY too long and have witnessed the double standard MANY, MANY times.  Just leave these forums alone. Walk away. Start a new one for the faint at heart. 

You want to know how to "get beyond the negativity in the forums". Hahahahah. You can't. It's human nature.

+1 

Xoom don't try to moderate the forum or pursue a positive atmosphere here.. you actually doing a good job on the forum, you at least read what people are saying even if you disagree. As a dev you will always need to be above us don't sink as low as some posters, don't restrict us but maybe guide our discussion focus always on constructive cristism be respectful and honest.

The old Xoom would probably already perma-banned this account from the forums by not being positive ... 

Keep on this path and in the future remove every single perma-ban this game has.. show that this is a new dev team and that you want to work from a clean slate, try to do this with a new update and like a week all access for past subscribers, it would do wonders.

Only then will I acknowledge we have new rats ;)

 

 

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


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

So one key word I forgot there was, "about." So, "the level of toxicity that you and others are talking about, really does matter." Which means everyone matters, and we need to help steer each other down the right road, and all the rest of my post entailed. I think my fast typing is working against me :D, sorry @Sudden

Image result for the toxic avenger

There's only one way to save this game now. You must drop everything you are doing. Then you must, with lightning speed, move the whole map to the pacific. Heed my advice. Park Europe.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Image result for the toxic avenger

There's only one way to save this game now. You must drop everything you are doing. Then you must, with lightning speed, move the whole map to the pacific. Heed my advice. Park Europe.

Don't get me all excited about the Corsair, I've certainly thought of this option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2018 at 11:37 PM, XOOM said:

So that we can have a more positive atmosphere, where instead of constant fighting, belittling, and finger pointing exists, we can create a healthy atmosphere that is inviting for participation, which is productive and works to improve the game and community?

i quit playing and i'm sure most of you know why... made a fuss about it for 8 months

 

in that time, in the forums, i did try to be productive and address a problem. people refused to admit any issue despite simple data, even you refused to admit a issue

in steam, you refused to recognize >(X)h of gameplay reviews... justify your reasoning all you want, you still ignored them

 

there are lots of legitimate issues that are met by ignorance both from the community and from CRS themselves. like the friggen RAF's 10y+ issues, compared to the FB's that used to cancel all activity at the whim of 3 players

 

the RAF players and RATS refuse to address any issue.

we needed over 10 pages of unprecedented community unity just to get a simple x4 health fix. the problem was soo obvious too...

 

you CANNOT be productive without a problem solving attitude man, and ignoring problems only fosters toxicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another example is the Grease gun thread and the MP34 trolling

both bugged out, but MP34 was trolled and deleted.

 

instead of dealing with the trolls the issue was ignored - _ -

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

move the whole map to the pacific. Heed my advice. Park Europe.

Actualy having a Pacific map on rotation with Europe map is a good idea.

1 campaign Europe map, next campaign Pacific map and repeat.

 

The 'pacific' could be a whole another DLC for the future.

Edited by nugx

Share this post


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

Don't get me all excited about the Corsair, I've certainly thought of this option.

IMO only, this is your best future. The excitement will be high for it. Of course, you would have to go all in and put europe on the back burner only to bring it back once you have the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...Pacific...

Only one side practically marketable.

Mostly naval air on the US side, with a few exceptions once the Americans essentially have won the battle, and no mechanics exist for carrier ops.

Very one sided gameplay totally favoring the Japanese until Guadalcanal and thereafter totally favoring the US.

Heavily focused on the naval game, and CRS's naval mechanics and modeling are extremely primitive and limited at the most charitable.

Naval game heavily focused on night fighting. CRS has no working mechanics for limited night visibility, and no working mechanics for realistic fighting ranges.

Naval and air fighting highly influenced by weather and sea-state. CRS has minimal weather mechanics, unrealistic for the Pacific, and no working mechanics for sea-state. 

A Guadalcanal land fight would be the only one that historically had a chance of both sides winning, but the who-would-win question was predetermined by operational decisions made by the Japanese before the American landing. There's no more-or-less-historically-realistic setup for that fighting, once those pre-landing decisions are made, that would result in both sides having a chance to win.

On Guadalcanal, realistically only one side could have tanks, and the other side had no viable AT weapons.

On Guadalcanal, realistically only one side could have an on-land airfield.

On Guadalcanal, almost all the terrain was dense jungle or tall grass, and the terrain was very rough and very wet/swampy, with rain almost every afternoon. CRS doesn't have good models and mechanics for any of that.

And, nothing already is modeled for the Japanese side except the 25mm AA gun. CRS can't even get a partial set of Italian land models developed, tested and introduced, and they're going to tackle a full land/air/sea set for the Japanese, plus naval vessels for the Americans / allies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pacific could be but in the far future........ when all the issues are fixed first and the game has 500+ playerbase again.

The priorities need to be in order....... I will post again my suggestion which I posted on 1st post.

This is in my humble opinion the correct order of what things should be done to get the game back in shape playerbase wise

 

1) Release the 1.36 (as I understand you want to finish it without scrapping what has already been done)

2) Finish the front line idea of old rat team

3) Make the graphics upgrade and with that re-release the game on steam with big announcement on steam front page under new name like 'WWIIOnline 2'

4) With the re-release make the game b2p, 1 time fee of 60$ everything unlocked, make new dlcs into the future for 15$, create in-game cash-shop with cosmetics.

Edited by nugx

Share this post


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

Only one side practically marketable.

Mostly naval air on the US side, with a few exceptions once the Americans essentially have won the battle, and no mechanics exist for carrier ops.

Very one sided gameplay totally favoring the Japanese until Guadalcanal and thereafter totally favoring the US.

Heavily focused on the naval game, and CRS's naval mechanics and modeling are extremely primitive and limited at the most charitable.

Naval game heavily focused on night fighting. CRS has no working mechanics for limited night visibility, and no working mechanics for realistic fighting ranges.

Naval and air fighting highly influenced by weather and sea-state. CRS has minimal weather mechanics, unrealistic for the Pacific, and no working mechanics for sea-state. 

A Guadalcanal land fight would be the only one that historically had a chance of both sides winning, but the who-would-win question was predetermined by operational decisions made by the Japanese before the American landing. There's no more-or-less-historically-realistic setup for that fighting, once those pre-landing decisions are made, that would result in both sides having a chance to win.

On Guadalcanal, realistically only one side could have tanks, and the other side had no viable AT weapons.

On Guadalcanal, realistically only one side could have an on-land airfield.

On Guadalcanal, almost all the terrain was dense jungle or tall grass, and the terrain was very rough and very wet/swampy, with rain almost every afternoon. CRS doesn't have good models and mechanics for any of that.

And, nothing already is modeled for the Japanese side except the 25mm AA gun. CRS can't even get a partial set of Italian land models developed, tested and introduced, and they're going to tackle a full land/air/sea set for the Japanese, plus naval vessels for the Americans / allies?

This. North Africa would be a better second theatre. But let’s face it, it’s pie in the sky. There’s much work to do on the Western Front. 

Edited by Silky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore I will take it upon myself to promote a new world war game starting in the pacific theater,  The nuts and bolts of my proposal are ready for venture capitalist viewing.  All the drawbacks holding "this" game back from growth are already solved.

I don't work well with others and have a habit of taking over anything I am involved in. My story is the same as Stallone trying to make the first Rocky movie. I know I'm right but lesser people stand in my way. I have overcome odds like these my whole working life and this obstacle will fall like others before it.

My story is no different than the humble beginnings of this beloved game. There is more, much more, potential but it remains unseen by the powers that be and the naysayers who challenge my thinking. A spinoff is coming and with it's revenue I will purchase the European theater from CRS and swallow it up. It's the only way to save this game and I know it.

 

The Toxic Avenger

 

 

 

Edited by Sudden

Share this post


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

Only one side practically marketable.

Mostly naval air on the US side, with a few exceptions once the Americans essentially have won the battle, and no mechanics exist for carrier ops.

Very one sided gameplay totally favoring the Japanese until Guadalcanal and thereafter totally favoring the US.

Heavily focused on the naval game, and CRS's naval mechanics and modeling are extremely primitive and limited at the most charitable.

Naval game heavily focused on night fighting. CRS has no working mechanics for limited night visibility, and no working mechanics for realistic fighting ranges.

Naval and air fighting highly influenced by weather and sea-state. CRS has minimal weather mechanics, unrealistic for the Pacific, and no working mechanics for sea-state. 

A Guadalcanal land fight would be the only one that historically had a chance of both sides winning, but the who-would-win question was predetermined by operational decisions made by the Japanese before the American landing. There's no more-or-less-historically-realistic setup for that fighting, once those pre-landing decisions are made, that would result in both sides having a chance to win.

On Guadalcanal, realistically only one side could have tanks, and the other side had no viable AT weapons.

On Guadalcanal, realistically only one side could have an on-land airfield.

On Guadalcanal, almost all the terrain was dense jungle or tall grass, and the terrain was very rough and very wet/swampy, with rain almost every afternoon. CRS doesn't have good models and mechanics for any of that.

And, nothing already is modeled for the Japanese side except the 25mm AA gun. CRS can't even get a partial set of Italian land models developed, tested and introduced, and they're going to tackle a full land/air/sea set for the Japanese, plus naval vessels for the Americans / allies?

Always like your posts, jwilly. 

 

  Frankly, I'd be happy with just improving Europe with 1:1 terrain instead of the 1:2 we have now and also higher resolution terrain.  Instead of the 800m resolution terrain we have now, improve it to 90m which was talked about years ago.  I realize we probably can't go too much better than that without sucking up as massive amount of hard drive space, but still would be better than it is now.  Even though it would make distances between towns twice as far as it now, we could move FBs closer to compensate.

If the underlying mechanics can be coded, shouldn't be we able to add capturable hills?  Obviously there were some famous battles involving plenty of hills.  With better resolution terrain, everything in game isn't going to be quite as flat as it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a new theatre I would go on Eastern front to reach Russian players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are only 20 regulars on the forums now days. Everyone else is gone.  Close them. Get rid of them. They are negative and detrimental to the game. You're better off without them.

 

 

 

 

But save OT. A lot of people pay a sub just to post in OT. Yeah, they're weird. 

 

 

 

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.