• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      RAT Chat Sunday 12/8 3pm server time!!!!   12/07/2019

      CRS is working overtime preparing and setting up the NEW SERVERS at the Portland colocation. This Sunday, December 8th, at 3:00 pm CST/9:00 pm GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). XOOM and the RATs are hosting a live chat discussing the move, and what services will be temporarily impacted in the process. Live chat link will be provided in discord channels when available. We look forward to chatting with you!
ZEBBEEE

Giving more value to the riflman: open brainstorming

140 posts in this topic

Don't get me wrong, in the right situation a couple riflemen can screw up a tanks day.

Got a stubborn churchill or tiger and your guys cant get a flank hit on it.
One guy drops a sandbag right behind the tank, other puts one beside it, then you both slap HE satchels on it, which to the tanker sounds like
SAPPER!
then take cover, while the tank tries to make a panic escape.
Tank gets jacked up and has no choice but to go forward or forward and turn, and maybe gets your tank or atg a good shot.
(last camp, i watched 2 guys box a tank almost totally in, cause the tank was to busy firing down its flank and never looked to see them, when it tried to drive away, it couldnt move LOL)

But mostly, avoid the tanks

Share this post


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

It's notable that almost all of the voices calling for the game to be entirely free are players that aren't paying anything now, and want more for nothing.

It'll take a bunch of resources to add monetization mechanisms, with no assurance that they'll work for this game because so many of the "free to play" customers actually want the game to be free for them.

What hooks players is the gameplay. Those same resources could be used to add even better gameplay.

Explain to us again why free-with-monetization is a good plan?

Would it make sense to go back to organic growth by attracting players that are actually looking for this kind of gameplay, and understand that nothing good can really be free...?

I shouldn't have to explain it. If you have eyes and a perspective outside of what goes on here, F2P is it's own unique genre, and many games (Like E.V.E) had made the successful leap over. 
Like just about every assumption you make about F2P PLAYERS is wrong, it's completely on the developer to do it right (which isn't hard if they just follow the memo)
You end up making more money, not less. More players, more customers, and you only need around 30% to pay to make money, 1% will buy EVERYTHING.
Like I actually can't explain it farther than that, you either play enough games to know it works or don't. I know it works well because I've seen it.
Your idea of F2P may still be volatile because you don't play many games, which is pretty normal I'd say. But I've played tons of F2P games
that do it right, aren't pay2win, aren't TOO giving and they have a great population and plenty of customers to expand.
I guess it's how much faith you have in your game to hold up to the same standard, it is daunting and goes 
against your instinct, but once you get the first 300 or so F2P concurrent you realize there's
something to this business model. What's big spreads larger than what's small.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


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

lot of you 5-18yr subs and rats don't understand what the F2P genre is today. it's like calling the game a RTS, technically true but incorrect

Would you call WoT or H&G F2P/P2W?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i haven't played H&G, but WoT is totally F2P: you can get most units without paying, as well as the full experience of the game

 

WWII:OL is a subscription based game, all but 2 units are locked behind a paywall. further more the armour, navy, and air is excluded from the F2P experience

too much is locked behind a paywall to call WWII:OL F2P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, major0noob said:

i haven't played H&G, but WoT is totally F2P: you can get most units without paying, as well as the full experience of the game

Yeah so you have played two of the worst F2P games. Good ones are out there though. I like MechWarrior:Online myself. Not directly comparable to wwiiol though.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WWII online is not F2P, there is a free rifle account (FPA) to try game with (with truck); actually, 2 of the most powerful units when used right.

An MS is far greater than any other unit when placed right.  Rifles can guard, recon, capture, set MS (via truck); they are very powerful.

Can you go rambo godzilla with it?  No, but you can do an awful lot.

Edited by delems
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an old idea i had many years ago - but it is still at the top of my "I NEED" list for WWIIOL.

A collection of 2-10 people who join up and work together on an attack, and as a prize share experience of kills and caps.

I was thinking of something like this:

1: At the main unit screen you can either create a unit of your own, or you can join an existing unit. At this point anyone would be able to create a combat unit, but off course some might think it a good idea to have it enabled at certain ranks.

Unit1.jpg

2: If you choose to create a unit of your own, you will automatically be put as the unit leader with the possibility of managing the following:

  • Size of the squad
  • Mark open slots as "squad only" or as "open"
  • Kick players
  • Promote players to leader (demoting yourself)

unit2.jpg

3: If you chose to join a unit, you would recive a list of already active units with the same objective as you (for example: Same attack, or same defense), and you get to see how many are active in the unit itself. Just pick a unit and hit "join"

unit4.jpg

4: In the active unit screen you can see the same info as a unit leader, but you can only remove yourself from the unit.

unit5.jpg

 

With voice comms, internal coordination of these groups would be made a lot easier.

This idea was originally thought up as an infantry only idea, but it could also be expanded to make "Armored Units", "Mech Infantry Units", "Air Wings" - you name it.

This functionality would make it a completely different game.

 

If we were to take it one step further, the different nations had different compositions and sizes of their "infantry squads"

For example a german 1944 rifle platoon looked like this:

 

Squad Commander, MP40, pistol

Messenger (2), Private, Rifle

Stretcher Bearer, Private, Pistol

Wagon driver, Private, Rifle, Horse (2), wagon & trailer

Horse leader, Private, Rifle, Horse, cart & trailer

Rifle Squad (3) each consiting of:

Squad Leader, NCO, MP40

Rifleman (5), Private, Rifle

Rifleman, Private, MP40

Machine Gunner Private, Pistol, MG34/42

Assistant Gunner, Private, Rifle

So a german ww2 infantry rifle squad had a standard of 9 men.

__________________________________________________________

In comparison a ww2 american rifle squad looked like this:

 

Squad Commander, Lieutenant, Carbine

Squad Sergeant, Technical Sergeant, Rifle

Squad Guide, Staff Sergeant, Rifle

Messenger (2), Private, Rifle

Rifle Squad (3) each consiting of:

Squad Leader, Staff Sergeant, Rifle

Assistant Leader, Sergeant, Rifle

Rifleman (7), Private, Rifle

Automatic Rifleman, Private, Automatic Rifle

Assistant Auto Rifleman, Private, Rifle

Ammunition bearer, Private, Rifle

So an american infantry rifle squad had a standard of 12 people

________________________________________________________

And here are the british rifle squad info:

Squad Commander, Subaltern, Pistol

Squad  Sergeant, Sergeant, Rifle

Batman (signaler) Private, Rifle

Orderly, Private, Rifle, Bicycle

Mortar Commander, Lance Corporal, Rifle

Mortar Number 1, Private, Sten, 2 inch mortar

Mortar Number 2, Private, Rifle

Rifle Section (3) each consiting of:

Section Commander, Corporal, Sten

Rifleman (6), Private, Rifle

Second in Command, Lance Corporal, Rifle

Bren Number 1, Private, Bren

Bren Number 2, Private, Rifle

A british ww2 infantry rifle squad had a standard of 10 men.

 

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

WWII online is not F2P, there is a free rifle account (FPA) to try game with (with truck); actually, 2 of the most powerful units when used right.

An MS is far greater than any other unit when placed right.  Rifles can guard, recon, capture, set MS (via truck); they are very powerful.

Can you go rambo godzilla with it?  No, but you can do an awful lot.

You still don't get it. I'm not sure how to explain it to you. You just seem to have not played many F2P game besides this one. There is so much lacking here, so few players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(major0noob's Tow account)

i think the majority of us agree the game is not F2P

honestly, the H39 or 38t is far more capable than any MS or rifleman... sure there's potential*  for great things, but at it's base: it's utterly inferior to the premium units

 

there's a lot of exaggerating potential, when looking at the base is needed. it's way too frequent in any critical discussion here...

it gets downright deluded and insane, bet there are still people fearing SPAA's "infantry doomsday"

Edited by prvt0pwned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after playing a bit more I think I figured out the difference in this game that makes the current F2P so painful.
Rifleman is more nerfed than we thought, the average player is unable to make use of the equipment on the battlefield. It lays there, but you're not able to use it. You're locked into every vehicle you spawn, even guns, big guns like the AT guns, there is no capture. You aren't getting another player to help you push the big AA into position so other can shoot it. You do everything so when you die, you lose everything, even the equipment and the ability for someone to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

? that is not nerfed. that is just how the game works.
A tanker can not jump out and run over to the abandoned spitfire and take off into the sky either
And pilots can not jump out of their planes over a bunker, to parachute to the ground and run in and capture.

Yes when you die, the equipment is lost, and the other guy gets to smile cause he knows you now have one less of them.

No, you don't get another persons help to push the big AA gun, you already have the man power pushing it of it's entire group though.
You think you would move an 88 or 17 pounder by yourself? On virgin ground?
Not terribly likely unless you happen to be a very angry Bruce Banner.

Even an MLE34 you would not go jaunting down the road very far alone.

10 hours ago, knucks said:

You still don't get it. I'm not sure how to explain it to you. You just seem to have not played many F2P game besides this one. There is so much lacking here, so few players.

No, you are not getting it
Perhaps go to CSR and look at my last 100 unit types spawned
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

? that is not nerfed. that is just how the game works.
A tanker can not jump out and run over to the abandoned spitfire and take off into the sky either
And pilots can not jump out of their planes over a bunker, to parachute to the ground and run in and capture.

Lol, that's how other milsims games do it and it's better in every way. It's nerfed because it's a limitation of wwiiol's engine, and you use that to sell basic units. Imagine walking across a battlefield, coming across one of your units AT guns with ammo in a crate nearby, you walk up to it and press E only to have a message pop up and say "Sorry, not of sufficient subscription level to access this equipment! Visit out storepage to-yada yada yada. Pay2Win is a hoe and no one likes it in games. If I had a choice of all pay to win games, and no games, I'd pick no games.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the game is not pay to win, it is pay to play.
It has always been pay to play

BF1942, i can run onto the beach with a bolt rifle, throw it down grab a flame thrower, run jump in a tank, crash it into a building jump in a plane, fly to the enemies base, jump out and cap the base, run out, steal a plane, fly the the enemies carrier, steal it and go shell them with it.

 

This is not BF1942

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it your model isn't FTP. It's gimme gimme gimme someone else pay so I can play.

I'll grant you this game is too expensive for what it offers the casual gamer though. You can buy 6 titles for your yearly subscription to this game. 

I play a lot , I get value for what I play, if I played a lot less I'm not sure I would see value in what is being offered.

That I believe is where the subscription system fails. It almost demands that I play constantly to justify the cost. I can see theyre trying but, retreating from a subscription model without other means of monetisation is probably seen as high risk and one that is almost irreversible if proven a wrong step. Let's not forget CRS is not the organ grinder , just the monkey.

Edited by goreblimey
4 people like this

Share this post


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

Lol, that's how other milsims games do it and it's better in every way. It's nerfed because it's a limitation of wwiiol's engine, and you use that to sell basic units. Imagine walking across a battlefield, coming across one of your units AT guns with ammo in a crate nearby, you walk up to it and press E only to have a message pop up and say "Sorry, not of sufficient subscription level to access this equipment! Visit out storepage to-yada yada yada. Pay2Win is a hoe and no one likes it in games. If I had a choice of all pay to win games, and no games, I'd pick no games.

Geeze, dude, if you like other games so much ("better in every way") and dislike this one so much, why are you here? 

All you do is tear down the game, and CRS's carefully considered work.

If you think you're being helpful...well, IMO that's not a correct analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all want more players in-game.  Most of the veteran players have experienced what it is like to have a huge in-game population (it is undeniably awesome).

 

It's a pay to play game, with a free-play element with the goal of showing just enough of the game that the free-players will sign on for the whole game, or at least pay for some DLC.  The flow of money into the game is they only way to keep the lights on, and to stay on track as far as upgrades to the game are concerned.  It isn't 'pay to win', although I understand why some might think it is.  Free players can still win.  No they can't kill tanks but paying players using rifles can't kill tanks either.  They can cap flags, or prevent the other side from capping a flag.  Those are the wins in this game.  COD rewards kill streaks, even in their domination game (where capturing a flag is the goal).  Here, the goal is to win the battle by either taking a town or denying the enemy from taking a town.  Doing that often enough will result in your chosen side winning a campaign that lasts for as long as it has to in order for a victory to be secured.

 

Knucks, how much money would flow into the game if free to players had to watch commercials in between spawns?  Hell, how much money would flow into the game if full-on subscribers had to watch commercials in between spawns?  (these are honest, i.e. not rhetorical, questions).

 

Knucks, those of us who have been here for awhile are understandably protective of the game---we've been lobbying and arguing with CRS for 17+ years on what should get modeled (I'm still a bit miffed about the PzIIIH, for those scoring at home), and how gameplay should be changed (or not) to make it better for all of us.  Maybe you have a perspective that would help the game.  I have to say, though, that if that is the case, it's getting lost in the general 'this game sucks' kind of a vibe that you exude.  I don't know your history, Knucks.  Were you in-game back when in-game population was way higher?  It was a blast----if the newer HC folks think they have it hard now, they should try herding some cats back when there were no AOs, for example.  Getting more people into the game is the goal, then, correct?  Maybe giving the rifleman more stuff is the way to go, or maybe giving access to some other equipment is the way to go.  I don't claim to have all the answers, to be sure.  I do know, however, that if you want to help the game move forward, and get more people in-game, posting in such a negative way isn't as much help as you might think it is.

 

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People that have stayed, are just used to look over so much stuff in game out of routine or whatever, that will never net attract people. If it's single inf smg ab caps with 29 kills (caused a mass logout) aka no fighting chance even for vets in too many situations, side switching during campaign aka the work of weeks rendered useless when the momentum turns, or one side being so weak that it can only win with help from other side. That's just on the tip of my head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, augetout said:

We all want more players in-game.  Most of the veteran players have experienced what it is like to have a huge in-game population (it is undeniably awesome).

i was all for the FMS, then squad mates unsubbed from boredom...

the community and rats seriously need to face reality, not the FMS, but on everything.

 

 

minky just wrote a very well written analysis on arena sizes in another thread, then guys went out of their way to contend "driving from a town over is normal", in-game it's not; people barley even get trucks out for no FB towns

the same thing can be said for almost every single issue and complaint brought up over the years: a reasonable argument or problem gets bombarded by imaginary threats and extraordinary circumstances

 

 

the rats want problem solving attitudes, but the unchecked denial attitudes completely nullifies it.

Share this post


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

I get it your model isn't FTP. It's gimme gimme gimme someone else pay so I can play.

I'll grant you this game is too expensive for what it offers the casual gamer though. You can buy 6 titles for your yearly subscription to this game. 

I play a lot , I get value for what I play, if I played a lot less I'm not sure I would see value in what is being offered.

That I believe is where the subscription system fails. It almost demands that I play constantly to justify the cost. I can see theyre trying but, retreating from a subscription model without other means of monetisation is probably seen as high risk and one that is almost irreversible if proven a wrong step. Let's not forget CRS is not the organ grinder , just the monkey.

Having played many other titles I don't disagree with this. Compared to many other titles on steam or elsewhere that are one stop fee's and done...or any of a number of other financial models that could be discussed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, major0noob said:

i was all for the FMS, then squad mates unsubbed from boredom...

the community and rats seriously need to face reality, not the FMS, but on everything.

 

 

minky just wrote a very well written analysis on arena sizes in another thread, then guys went out of their way to contend "driving from a town over is normal", in-game it's not; people barley even get trucks out for no FB towns

the same thing can be said for almost every single issue and complaint brought up over the years: a reasonable argument or problem gets bombarded by imaginary threats and extraordinary circumstances

 

 

the rats want problem solving attitudes, but the unchecked denial attitudes completely nullifies it.

I'm sorry mate but minky was just plain wrong in some of what he posted and his terrain analysis. If you want a combined arms game you better stop comparing 100-200 meter shoebox shooters and start looking at what it really takes to make aircraft, naval vessels, etc work in the same terrain set. The closest thing to the WWIIonline map is probably Il-2 in some fashion...and its ground play is a modded mess that you would undoubtedly shred. Not even Ubi has managed to pull this off yet with all their resources.

The volunteers are all here and listening...but the reality thing cuts both ways...if you aren't willing to listen to what is practical and demand things that will take untold hours to code or implement...well..it goes in the queue with everything else and has to compete for the time. I've already dedicated two retirement years to getting us back to the point of adding new equipment...and with new aircraft and other things in the offing we finally have momentum in both new terrain and equipment. Going from years of benign neglect to active new content took time and effort. (and some learning on our part)  

I understand its all about game play...everyone does...a game has to be fun...and this game has evolved with the changes in bunker guarding for example. Do us all a favor...gather all the ideas in a single post that can be preserved or send it via an email or something. 

I think the best way forward to getting player numbers up might be some improvements on the base engine and the Russian front with a new map and equipment or something like that. Something where at least an honest claim to something new can be made. 

Just saying try to be a bit more constructive. I know you're frustrated...everyone is...

Share this post


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

We all want more players in-game.  Most of the veteran players have experienced what it is like to have a huge in-game population (it is undeniably awesome).

 

It's a pay to play game, with a free-play element with the goal of showing just enough of the game that the free-players will sign on for the whole game, or at least pay for some DLC.  The flow of money into the game is they only way to keep the lights on, and to stay on track as far as upgrades to the game are concerned.  It isn't 'pay to win', although I understand why some might think it is.  Free players can still win.  No they can't kill tanks but paying players using rifles can't kill tanks either.  They can cap flags, or prevent the other side from capping a flag.  Those are the wins in this game.  COD rewards kill streaks, even in their domination game (where capturing a flag is the goal).  Here, the goal is to win the battle by either taking a town or denying the enemy from taking a town.  Doing that often enough will result in your chosen side winning a campaign that lasts for as long as it has to in order for a victory to be secured.

 

Knucks, how much money would flow into the game if free to players had to watch commercials in between spawns?  Hell, how much money would flow into the game if full-on subscribers had to watch commercials in between spawns?  (these are honest, i.e. not rhetorical, questions).

 

Knucks, those of us who have been here for awhile are understandably protective of the game---we've been lobbying and arguing with CRS for 17+ years on what should get modeled (I'm still a bit miffed about the PzIIIH, for those scoring at home), and how gameplay should be changed (or not) to make it better for all of us.  Maybe you have a perspective that would help the game.  I have to say, though, that if that is the case, it's getting lost in the general 'this game sucks' kind of a vibe that you exude.  I don't know your history, Knucks.  Were you in-game back when in-game population was way higher?  It was a blast----if the newer HC folks think they have it hard now, they should try herding some cats back when there were no AOs, for example.  Getting more people into the game is the goal, then, correct?  Maybe giving the rifleman more stuff is the way to go, or maybe giving access to some other equipment is the way to go.  I don't claim to have all the answers, to be sure.  I do know, however, that if you want to help the game move forward, and get more people in-game, posting in such a negative way isn't as much help as you might think it is.

 

S!

 

Well CRS is ignoring the player flow and only looking at money flow not realizing that the more players in game, the more people will be supporting. F2P games always hover around 30% spending 5-10 bucks a bunch, 70% playing for free maybe never buying anything, and 1% buying every single item. If we broke up our current playerbase into that it wouldn't work, there isn't enough people in game to warrant people paying money. The game is hardly playable some hours of the day there's so few people online. So attention needs to be brough to F2P because F2P is what wins the hearts and mind of people looking at this game to play, news spreads they get their friends in too, and next thing you know you have a decently sized pool of POTENTIAL customers to can offer things too, and a portion of them will ALWAYS buy, and a portion of them won't, but that's not bad like you make it to be, that's the goal is to have a large playerbase first and foremost, those people play into the CONTENT that sells this game, if there aren't enough players to play, then there is nothing to sell.

Hearts and Minds, don't put commercials into your game. Seriously. Name one other game that has that that isn't a phone game? Come on now you have to act like you give a hoot about these people's time, no one wants to be bombarded by advertisement in their video games. You're not going to win over anyone doing that it will probably hurt your profit and your image more than anything.

I don't believe this game sucks, I think this game is STUCK. Stuck as in not moving forward where it should in the model, and that's what's majorly preventing this game from seeing a take-off like it should've, would've gotten from steam if the F2P was enough. Alas it wasn't and 90% of the people who joined from steam have left months after release. I'm playing as F2P right now minus some DLC and let me tell you, it's painful. You can hardly do anything except cap and snipe people, it's like a third of a third of a third of what the game has to offer and it's not enough to keep me entertained throughout so as a greentag after getting sniped, strafed and blown up repeatedly by things I can't hope to kill, I just leave because clearly time is being wasted. In the end you feel like you've been used. You could play all the time, do everything you can and you're still just cannon fodder for people with tanks, planes and fast firing guns with explosive rounds.

If CRS free'd up the light AA/AT, 1 tank and 1 plane tomorrow, in a month we would have double the Steam population. In 3 months the Steam population would likely overtake the home site population of players, and just like that population would be much less of an issue, and you'd have a much more marketable game. That's not speculation, you'll definitely get out of F2P what you put in and what you put in is up to you CRS.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@scotsman I would say if a new theater is going to be made it should be North Africa. Easier to model due to the size of the Eastern Frobt vs NA and a lot of weapons and assets can be reused from the current campaign versus modeling the entire Red Army.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, scotsman said:

I think the best way forward to getting player numbers up might be some improvements on the base engine and the Russian front with a new map and equipment or something like that. Something where at least an honest claim to something new can be made.

Russian front would be cool. That is a GIANT area to model though. If i'm not mistake its about 50% wider than our current day0/tier0 map start ... and by that i mean, if the entirety of the front up north and south were modeled.

What about Africa? There the conflict is naturally restricted to the coasts. Less for CRS to model and the front width being smaller concentrates the population more. Travel distances are on the extreme side for planes but FBs and FMS should mean travel time isn't too crazy for the ground.

the med/africa really blows out the options for naval action too radically increasing the potential there. some advantages, we've already got essentially the entire weapon set modelled - italy's weapon set being an obvious exception. africa without italy kinda isn't africa. however, italy was also involved in the russian front too. russian front technically requires the finns, hungarians, and romanians along with italy.

idk that the african theater is as marketable as russia.

idk i'd love either, seems less work to do africa though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could add bayonets which would be great save the rifle sticking out of the wall thing.

But with respect to tanks, this. . . .

On 1/15/2019 at 6:05 PM, aismov said:

The new cornfields and grass are a step in the right direction but overall I think we need an overhaul of the WWIIOL terrain to really solve this issue.

The one satchel for rifles works great IMO, likewise the ammo can.  I wouldn't give the average rifleman anything they "didn't already have".   Only increases in "realism" would improve things.  Terrain is one.  Being able to pick up dead guys' weapons would be another.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I'm sorry mate but minky was just plain wrong in some of what he posted and his terrain analysis. If you want a combined arms game you better stop comparing 100-200 meter shoebox shooters and start looking at what it really takes to make aircraft, naval vessels, etc work in the same terrain set. The closest thing to the WWIIonline map is probably Il-2 in some fashion...and its ground play is a modded mess that you would undoubtedly shred. Not even Ubi has managed to pull this off yet with all their resources.

The volunteers are all here and listening...but the reality thing cuts both ways...if you aren't willing to listen to what is practical and demand things that will take untold hours to code or implement...well..it goes in the queue with everything else and has to compete for the time. I've already dedicated two retirement years to getting us back to the point of adding new equipment...and with new aircraft and other things in the offing we finally have momentum in both new terrain and equipment. Going from years of benign neglect to active new content took time and effort. (and some learning on our part)  

I understand its all about game play...everyone does...a game has to be fun...and this game has evolved with the changes in bunker guarding for example. Do us all a favor...gather all the ideas in a single post that can be preserved or send it via an email or something. 

I think the best way forward to getting player numbers up might be some improvements on the base engine and the Russian front with a new map and equipment or something like that. Something where at least an honest claim to something new can be made. 

Just saying try to be a bit more constructive. I know you're frustrated...everyone is...

i should have specified the part of his post: "empty space making a significant portion of the game world". not even worth terrain features like bushes or outcroppings, there just to keep the ground solid. immedently followed by people advocating the empty space as far more practical and popular than it really is

 

the point of my argument was people go out of their way to deny issues/arguments and basically any negative or deficient aspect of the game

it's prevalent in the forums and with the rats. it's anti-constructive to deny issues, yet there's no checking this attitude

 

i mean, it's impossible to be constructive when the issue is whether to be constructive in the first place. it bogs down to this too often, even in the face of a blatant and obvious need for something constructive to be done.

 

 

i still remember the arguments for 3min FMS build times, while there were only 1-3 in game... it's insane, even now, people think it's an incredibly powerful tool while they're constantly camped and it only takes 1 engineer to distroy. there's no constructive attitude toward it because there's nothing to be constructive about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.