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.

XOOM

How can we get beyond pure negativity in the forums?

Recommended Posts

major0noob

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
nugx
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
Sudden
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
jwilly
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
nugx

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
Silky
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
Sudden

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
phoenix
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
ZEBBEEE

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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lipton

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
igor

I always liked the forums, when threads were allowed to remain open that is. At the end of the day the people posting are paying customers and the forums are one of their only ways in which they can contact those running the game. They post in the hope that others reading will support their ideas or agenda as they do in game or through pm's. From my time in game having spent an equal time on each side, I can agree that there were far too many concessions made for the allied side, whether it was nerfing the 88 or towns like Antwerp (now that was a [censored] storm)

As long as things like this are done there will always be [censored]ing in the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus

A good forum fight is always fun - usually a good sign that ppl are still passionate. When this games forums don't have any fights - the pb no longer has passion for the game and its a very bad sign.  Its when ppl start getting personal that puts a damper on things.

Ill also just say this, ATM I think most of us are very happy about getting the new items where in the past any new addition had intense forum combat about the pros and cons. That being said I can tell you right now, that its not about the equipment, its gonna be how you put them in the game because a major concern centers around balance.. realistically balancing the game so its enjoyable for both sides.  IE 100% realistic date entry is a horrific idea.

Share this post


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

IE 100% realistic date entry is a horrific idea.

 

If it would be only 'realistic' date then yes, it would be bad for balance, and no matter how much the gear would be limited, one side would always suffer which means unhappy players and unhappy players means people leaving the game.

 

Stanky, however think about if Rats would make a similar system to the one that was described earlier, where people could buy few uses of higher tier for the points they earn for playing, everyone would be getting points, which means that anyone at any time could be able to purchase anything they want if they get more points.

This way the realistic date would work  - it would be a base line where at current point in time, the players don't have to purchase the gear and just use it from the supply.

 

9Iw8vRD.png

Share this post


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

 

If it would be only 'realistic' date then yes, it would be bad for balance, and no matter how much the gear would be limited, one side would always suffer which means unhappy players and unhappy players means people leaving the game.

 

Stanky, however think about if Rats would make a similar system to the one that was described earlier, where people could buy few uses of higher tier for the points they earn for playing, everyone would be getting points, which means that anyone at any time could be able to purchase anything they want if they get more points.

This way the realistic date would work  - it would be a base line where at current point in time, the players don't have to purchase the gear and just use it from the supply.

 

9Iw8vRD.png

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
monsjoex

Imo:
Priority 1 release 1.36
Priority 2 ews based AO's.
Priority 3 nothing
Priority 4 nothing
Priority 999999 - other stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmw
On 9/12/2018 at 1:55 PM, stankyus said:

Losing Scotsman was a HUGE hit first of all to those of us who relied on his vision and him leaving so abruptly after all the time and effort to just leave the game really does not give us a good fuzzy feeling toward the future.

Wow.........now thats disturbing news.  Was away and just caught up with this thread.  Aside from looking forward to 1.36 this was another thing I was looking forward to.  Not good news.

Share this post


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

 

If it would be only 'realistic' date then yes, it would be bad for balance, and no matter how much the gear would be limited, one side would always suffer which means unhappy players and unhappy players means people leaving the game.

 

Stanky, however think about if Rats would make a similar system to the one that was described earlier, where people could buy few uses of higher tier for the points they earn for playing, everyone would be getting points, which means that anyone at any time could be able to purchase anything they want if they get more points.

This way the realistic date would work  - it would be a base line where at current point in time, the players don't have to purchase the gear and just use it from the supply.

 

9Iw8vRD.png

Tied for most unrealistic concept ever. If I've got enough points, I can pay to spawn a weapon sooner than the technology for it existed...? Hilarious. Instant market suicide.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

If it would be only 'realistic' date then yes, it would be bad for balance, and no matter how much the gear would be limited, one side would always suffer which means unhappy players and unhappy players means people leaving the game.

 

Stanky, however think about if Rats would make a similar system to the one that was described earlier, where people could buy few uses of higher tier for the points they earn for playing, everyone would be getting points, which means that anyone at any time could be able to purchase anything they want if they get more points.

This way the realistic date would work  - it would be a base line where at current point in time, the players don't have to purchase the gear and just use it from the supply.

 

9Iw8vRD.png

Look I understand your idea, but for ppl who can afford to put more time in the game for points to earn and my god have you actually looked at TOM for some of these players? 10-15k minutes a map? You still can create a side imbalance.  Balance has to be strictly coded into the game.  I hate the DLC content because it provides a micro pay to win scenario if one side has ppl who can afford to pay for them outside of subscription. It also sets up a system that, mark my words, is heading to where all new content is DLC content plus subscription. The gaming world is chock full of examples of that slippery slope. That's for example.

The RAT chat has already discussed all the new equipment coming and that is exciting and fun to hear.  I see some balance issues especially with the A3 Jabo and the bomb load. IF we go off of strict date entrance the Allies will not see any improved armor for tank fighting until T4-T4.5 as the Rat chat stated. We almost NEVER get to a T4 RDP as it is already. That leaves the allies stagnant from T-2 on with the exception of the CH5 CS tank that enters in IIRC t-3.5.  All the while the Pz4H, 3N, 3L, StugH, Tiger, Panther all get to see the light of day. The 3 and 4 series AFVs all have anti RPAT armor.. to boot.  The Pz3L is the tank that is most balanced with the Cru3.. The 4G already does better than the CH3 and has a higher KD than the Sherman has consistently over the 4G but now will have to face the 4H too boot.  This does not sound fun in anyway and IMHO is horrifying to think I'm actually going to pay to play this game if that is the direction we are headed.  The allies fund this game also and if my funding requires me to go Axis to get to play new content on a subscription base my time is limited here.  I will fight this idea until the cows come home because its a game destroying idea and I'm not going to be apart of it nor support it with my money.

Share this post


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

Wow.........now thats disturbing news.  Was away and just caught up with this thread.  Aside from looking forward to 1.36 this was another thing I was looking forward to.  Not good news.

Scotsman was probably one of the most passionate players to this game I have ever known.  He and I are friends and have had discussions outside this game for years concerning this game. We chatted when he decided to join the CRS team before he told them he was going to. He was very excited about it, I was excited about it. He told me what he could do to get them moving forward in terms of ammo and equipment etc.  There are some ammo options for the Vanilla Sherman that can help greatly dealing with the Tiger but would require warping the Ammo, but that option is out if we have to deal with 100% date entrances.  So yah that's a huge hit unless CRS officially announces differently, Ill leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
23 minutes ago, stankyus said:

 There are some ammo options for the Vanilla Sherman that can help greatly dealing with the Tiger but would require warping the Ammo, but that option is out if we have to deal with 100% date entrances.  So yah that's a huge hit unless CRS officially announces differently, Ill leave it at that.

Not so sure about that after yesterday.

Here is the scenario  Oudengaarden  sitting on the north west side on RR tracks . Above me on hill another Stug ,3h and a 4G , opposite side a Vanilla Sherman as you call it he has his A $$ pointed at us and already took a shot and is smoking , easy kill right , well as he turns his turret facing 4 guns he starts shooting .

OK he be dead in a second so I shoot him into the a$$ at 450 meter along with the other 3 guns above me but nothing. So now he stops shooting at the guys on hill and pays attention to me after I already pumped prop 6 or 7 rounds into his turret and into his engine compartment.  He takes my track off well there goes my mobility and on RR tracks you know what we get teeter tottering .

Now after prop the 15 shot ( from me not sure how oftem the other 3 shot at him )he finally explodes,  I can tell ya one thing I was real close of Rage quitting right there , now if my gunner or my gun would have been taken out I would have quit the game right there and then .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raptor34

I respectfully disagree Stankyus, I'd like to see where they are taking the historical dates and TOE. Personally, it would improve the "simulation" aspect and that's why I support it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
22 minutes ago, stankyus said:

strict date entrance

Hatch seemed to suggest recently that historical-date-adjusted-by-game-event-flow at least could be discussed, and that strict game adherence to historical dates based on events that don't happen in-game would not make sense.

Old-CRS's policy was that weapons were eligible for game use if they were fielded, or contracted to be provided and fielded.

The British had contracted to have six pounder cruisers in late 1940 - early 1941, and towed six pounders in late 1940. Historically, without Dunkirk, those would have been fielded no later than T1. 

The French had contracted to have the B1 ter and S40 tanks in late 1940 - early 1941 and  ARL V39 and SAu 40 assault guns in 1941. Historically, without the Armistice, those would have been fielded no later than T1.

The Churchill Gun Carrier with 75mm 20 pounder was built and fieldable in 1942. Scotsman has said there is evidence it was fielded in Italy in 1943.

Quote

There are some ammo options for the Vanilla Sherman that can help greatly dealing with the Tiger but would require warping the Ammo, but that option is out if we have to deal with 100% date entrances.  

Brandt, the French weapon firm, had 75mm/57mm APDS ammo ready for the Mle 1897 75mm gun family in 1940. It had been tested by the Army, and was ready to go to mass production. Without the Armistice, that could have been fielded in 1941. Data is available on its penetration with range. The French had no tanks or SP guns mounting the Mle 1897 gun family, but the US did have the M3 Gun Motor Carriage which mounted that gun, first fielded in 1941.

***

Of course, historical-date-adjusted-by-game-event-flow also would result in favorable availabilities for the Axis. The point here is that the one-sidedness of "strict date availability" is not a dead end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
6 minutes ago, dre21 said:

Not so sure about that after yesterday.

Here is the scenario  Oudengaarden  sitting on the north west side on RR tracks . Above me on hill another Stug ,3h and a 4G , opposite side a Vanilla Sherman as you call it he has his A $$ pointed at us and already took a shot and is smoking , easy kill right , well as he turns his turret facing 4 guns he starts shooting .

OK he be dead in a second so I shoot him into the a$$ at 450 meter along with the other 3 guns above me but nothing. So now he stops shooting at the guys on hill and pays attention to me after I already pumped prop 6 or 7 rounds into his turret and into his engine compartment.  He takes my track off well there goes my mobility and on RR tracks you know what we get teeter tottering .

Now after prop the 15 shot ( from me not sure how oftem the other 3 shot at him )he finally explodes,  I can tell ya one thing I was real close of Rage quitting right there , now if my gunner or my gun would have been taken out I would have quit the game right there and then .

Dre, you know and I know that these things happen in the game.. I killed a StugG at 1600m with a 3" atg the otherday, he was off angled and elevated.. took about 8 hits but I accomplished taking him out, I tracked him and most likely got a good hit on that 50mm plate. However I also put 14 rounds into the flank of one at 500m with a 3" ATG, his rear half was exposed and that's the "easy" engine kill and fuel shot.. I also got him smoking and he backed up and spun toward me and took a shot at me - I helped him because my last shot tracked him at the wrong moment and I was OH FK!.. when he did and 57mm opened up on him and he exploded. I got no kill on him, but I did manage two StugG kills, one being Kareca WOOT.  So to imply that the S75 is a good tank to deal with Tigers because it took x amounts of shots to kill one, one time does not make an argument.  If that was the case I could argue that the 3" ATG should enter into T1 because I also hit a PZH 8 times before he stopped shooting at me earlier with that damn near unkillable hull MG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
13 minutes ago, raptor34 said:

I respectfully disagree Stankyus, I'd like to see where they are taking the historical dates and TOE. Personally, it would improve the "simulation" aspect and that's why I support it. 

That's fine, I don't mind tightening up historical dates a bit. However in the Rat Chat all the new allied entrances for improved tanks don't enter until T4.5.  and extremely limited to match historical TO&E. Something we don't see with the Tiger ATM.  All that being said, what has been floated around is that even the S76 is a T4.5 tank. That means the vanilla Sherman and M10 will HAVE to be the mainstay of the allied tanker corp. The BEF will have to hold ground with the Cru3 and CH3.  The CH5 in the game has yet to be fixed you still cannot range the gun, its static which means those 5 HEAT rounds are just guess shots over 300m and over 800m you have to elevate the gun so high you cannot see the target. I think IMHO the CH5 HEAT should be adjusted for balance like the StugB and 4D. Few of those AFVs ever carried HEAT  and those that did had very limited ammo - more like 4-5 rounds in 1940 and that HEAT used cintered iron liners with abysmal penetration. What we have is a fantasy HEAT round, less penetration than the HL/A (43' arguable) ammo but much closer to it than the HL ammo.

As far as going there, we have already gone down that road and it nearly destroyed the game.

Share this post


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

I think IMHO the CH5 HEAT should be adjusted for balance like the StugB and 4D. Few of those AFVs ever carried HEAT  and those that did had very limited ammo - more like 4-5 rounds in 1940 and that HEAT used cintered iron liners with abysmal penetration. What we have is a fantasy HEAT round, less penetration than the HL/A (43' arguable) ammo but much closer to it than the HL ammo.

My take would be, make everyone's ammo work as chronologically correct. Everyone's early war HEAT simply had poor performance. No fantasy performance...performance in a given tier has to be supported by test data for ammo from that date-period. HL ammo should work like HL data; HL/A ammo once available should work like HL/A ammo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...