Originally posted by Vidharr

Originally posted by Coman

Originally posted by bigtime102

I just want a game that lets you group up and do something. This game doesnt allow that. I could get 1000 guys over, draw up an elaborate plan, and I wouldnt be able to excecute it because the game wont let me with the HC system. Sure I can spend the day trying to convince those with power to give me some, but why should I? People is power, If you can organize 1000 people you should get power to pick a target, it doesnt make any sense otherwise and call this a mmo. Its a simple concept, what dont you understand?

The current concept is also simple enough and has been used for ages (even before MMO's), well before this democratic system you refer to.  However a system like that has no place in an MMO like this with is trying to be a WWII simulator. The game is not suppose to be run by leaders of big guilds, but by people who proved themselves (and some who got into by making the right friend....just like the real WW :P).

 

Roger that. The old days where squads decided the objective was a lot of fun, however, it was chaotic and most of the time unfocused. With the HC, now it's far more organized. No, I'm not saying that a lot of the time they don't make bad choices (like pulling an AO when we've got exactly 1 cp left to cap) but that's the nature of the beast. No other game of any type comes anywhere near WW2OL for player control. For the guy who wants to organize 1000 guys and plan a major attack, join the HC and do it. Any brigade at full TO&E will have enough equipment for you, unless everybody of course wants to grab a 4G or something. This game isn't for babies. Like many, I've played, took breaks, and played again (and yes, I've been in the HC for both sides) and without a doubt this game is unique, great fun, and exciting to play. You can have the exhilaration of an outstanding capture of Antwerp only to feel the crush of defeat losing Brussels 3 hours later. I wish somehow CRS could get more funding to do all the things they want to do and more than anything, advertise to get players. There is no FPS out there that can compare to this game (they're fun and they have their place, like Black Ops etc) but I see guys who supposedly are gods of FPS games online come to WW2OL and either slink away swearing to never let anyone know they tried to play and got owned, or they stay and never look back. I'm hoping for more of the latter, as this unique simulation deserves more. /shrug Doesn't matter, I still love it, am still playing, and I might even go back in to HC again after I get rid of all the dust and cobwebs. If the graphics are what turn most people off because it doesn't match the TINY worlds of games like Black Ops though, well, too bad for those guys then.

Great Post Vidharr! You got one of the stay and never look back ones here. Except sometimes I should look back as that is where I keep on getting shot. The Terminator once was asked in the movie pumping iron if he drinks a lot of milk to stay in shape. He answered...Milk is for Babies, Beer is for Men. The same can be applied to most other fps out there, for kids, and this game is for men...and women. Especially with the battlefield series being watered down for consoles.....Heck, battlefield would have been 128 or 256 players online at once...which still pales in comparison to WW2OL!

Originally posted by Vidharr

Originally posted by rendus

Originally posted by Vidharr

Originally posted by Coman

Originally posted by bigtime102

I just want a game that lets you group up and do something. This game doesnt allow that. I could get 1000 guys over, draw up an elaborate plan, and I wouldnt be able to excecute it because the game wont let me with the HC system. Sure I can spend the day trying to convince those with power to give me some, but why should I? People is power, If you can organize 1000 people you should get power to pick a target, it doesnt make any sense otherwise and call this a mmo. Its a simple concept, what dont you understand?

The current concept is also simple enough and has been used for ages (even before MMO's), well before this democratic system you refer to.  However a system like that has no place in an MMO like this with is trying to be a WWII simulator. The game is not suppose to be run by leaders of big guilds, but by people who proved themselves (and some who got into by making the right friend....just like the real WW :P).

 

I wish somehow CRS could get more funding to do all the things they want to do and more than anything, advertise to get players.

Advertising isn't the problem.  The game is the problem.  People are instantly turned off by either the graphics, the interface or the subscription.  It appeals to the hard core sim and  wargame crowd.  Something major has to change if your going to attract the FPS crowd.   Otherwise all the advertising dollars in the world will be a waste if no one stays past the trial.

There is no FPS out there that can compare to this game (they're fun and they have their place, like Black Ops etc) but I see guys who supposedly are gods of FPS games online come to WW2OL and either slink away swearing to never let anyone know they tried to play and got owned, or they stay and never look back. I'm hoping for more of the latter, as this unique simulation deserves more. /shrug Doesn't matter, I still love it, am still playing, and I might even go back in to HC again after I get rid of all the dust and cobwebs. If the graphics are what turn most people off because it doesn't match the TINY worlds of games like Black Ops though, well, too bad for those guys then.

You have the same attitude subscribers had back in 2002.  The only difference is then it was Battlefield 1942, now it's Black OPs.  You bemoan the fact those games have more players and simultaneously denigrate the very same players.  "Go back to BF1942" used to be the rote response anytime anyone criticized WW2online.  "Go back to Black Ops" must be the new refrain.   And all the while your subscriber numbers dwindle....

 

Sorry pal, you obviously didn't read what I said.  I'm not "bemoaning" the players of Black-Ops, since I'm one of them.  However, the only area where Black Ops beats WW2O is graphics.  The only denigration, if you must think it is so, is the simple fact that I've met many people in WW2O who used to play all kinds of other FPS games who somehow found out about WW2O, and I've also met them in other games, and they either come to WW2O and stay, or, they try it and leave.  This most often happens because the standard FPS player doesn't have the foggiest clue as to how to fight as a team, and they get their asses handed to them constantly.  The ones who leave with their tails between their legs are the guys who don't bother to try and learn how to fight as a team.  Those who do, stay.  But many would much rather jump into a tiny map that's 800 meters wide at most, that they know by heart where every good position is, every sucker position, and do the same thing over and over again.  These are the punks that can't handle playing a game that actually has a learning curve.

Thanks for re-proving my point about denigration.    

Many would rather a play a game with decent frames per second, no packet error anomalies,  immersive graphics and enough of a playerbase to ensure you experience the game as it was meant to be played.  

But if everybody who leaves "are the punks who can't handle it" is the straw man you wish to argue against, by all means, carry on...

Originally posted by rendus

Originally posted by Vidharr

Originally posted by rendus

Thanks for re-proving my point about denigration.    

Many would rather a play a game with decent frames per second, no packet error anomalies,  immersive graphics and enough of a playerbase to ensure you experience the game as it was meant to be played.  

But if everybody who leaves "are the punks who can't handle it" is the straw man you wish to argue against, by all means, carry on...

Actually, you have no point.

I get phenomenal frames per second, at max graphics for WW2OL, and CODBO.  I have a horrible DSL connection and I get dropped 1-2 times a week tops, and get 70-74 ping time constantly throughout my gameplay (you push Numlock and it shows you all your pertinent stats).  I'm in battles *every day* where my side alone has more people fighting at just that single battle on the ground (not counting aircraft, tanks or anti-tank) than are even capable of playing in Call of Duty Black Ops all together. 

Finally, while the world graphics of WW2OL don't compare with Black Ops for sheer prettiness, the newest upgrade in world graphics is actually quite nice, and the difference is very simple:  Black Ops map size is about 1:10000 of WW2OL.  WW2OL is exactly 1:2 scale of all of Western Europe.  If you put all the maps together that exist for Black Ops or any other similar shooter, they wouldn't fill up the city of Antwerp.  All the buildings and such in WW2OL are destructible, they are not in Black Ops.  In Black Ops there are invisible walls that funnel you through areas and at the boundaries of the map, and that doesn't exist in WW2OL.

My denigration of anyone, well, yes, that is the people whom I see at least a few of every week, complaining on the side radio, that "I don't want to have to come in and learn stuff, I just want to shoot".  It is mockery at its finest when a guy complains of having to adjust the range on the sights of his rifle, or complains that he can't drive a tank and shoot from the same position, or that he has to learn what his flaps are for or that he can't fly around in a fighter with his gear down or that he can't just fly and shoot like he was in an X-Wing.  These are the people that I have no respect for, and yes indeed, denigrate.  I do it lightly however, because in the end it is truly their loss that they don't want to put in even the minimum effort in order to start succeeding in what is, without doubt, the best multiplayer war simulation that has yet existed.  I pity them a bit, because they haven't invested the time and the fortitude it takes to get to the point where they can get to say "omfg, this is the coolest ever".

Originally posted by Vidharr

Originally posted by rendus

Originally posted by Vidharr

Originally posted by rendus

Thanks for re-proving my point about denigration.    

Many would rather a play a game with decent frames per second, no packet error anomalies,  immersive graphics and enough of a playerbase to ensure you experience the game as it was meant to be played.  

But if everybody who leaves "are the punks who can't handle it" is the straw man you wish to argue against, by all means, carry on...

Actually, you have no point.

I get phenomenal frames per second, at max graphics for WW2OL, and CODBO.  I have a horrible DSL connection and I get dropped 1-2 times a week tops, and get 70-74 ping time constantly throughout my gameplay (you push Numlock and it shows you all your pertinent stats).  I'm in battles *every day* where my side alone has more people fighting at just that single battle on the ground (not counting aircraft, tanks or anti-tank) than are even capable of playing in Call of Duty Black Ops all together. 

Finally, while the world graphics of WW2OL don't compare with Black Ops for sheer prettiness, the newest upgrade in world graphics is actually quite nice, and the difference is very simple:  Black Ops map size is about 1:10000 of WW2OL.  WW2OL is exactly 1:2 scale of all of Western Europe.  If you put all the maps together that exist for Black Ops or any other similar shooter, they wouldn't fill up the city of Antwerp.  All the buildings and such in WW2OL are destructible, they are not in Black Ops.  In Black Ops there are invisible walls that funnel you through areas and at the boundaries of the map, and that doesn't exist in WW2OL.

My denigration of anyone, well, yes, that is the people whom I see at least a few of every week, complaining on the side radio, that "I don't want to have to come in and learn stuff, I just want to shoot".  It is mockery at its finest when a guy complains of having to adjust the range on the sights of his rifle, or complains that he can't drive a tank and shoot from the same position, or that he has to learn what his flaps are for or that he can't fly around in a fighter with his gear down or that he can't just fly and shoot like he was in an X-Wing.  These are the people that I have no respect for, and yes indeed, denigrate.  I do it lightly however, because in the end it is truly their loss that they don't want to put in even the minimum effort in order to start succeeding in what is, without doubt, the best multiplayer war simulation that has yet existed.  I pity them a bit, because they haven't invested the time and the fortitude it takes to get to the point where they can get to say "omfg, this is the coolest ever".

Again a great post Vidharr! We live in societies of instant gratification where most FPS fall to the lowest common denominator. People who want to play WW2OL need to give it about 20 hours of gameplay minimum with a squad to start grasping individual soldier skills, basic teamwork skills, and the game mechanics. Players have to have the dedication of MMO players in an FPS environment....Those are a rare breed, akin to The Marines in the context of military branches.

WW2OL is really for gamers looking to play a game that takes their skills to the next level because their are so many more variables influencing outcomes in this game than any other and therefore a gamers awareness and decision making skills have to be tweaked and developed for this game.

One does not simply raid England

And one does not simply have the ability to influence and organize the playerbase by having a virtual title. The problem is the devs are stuck in fantasy land, hoping a commmand structure like the one you see in real armies plays out the same way in a video game just buy copying it. It doesnt work. Theres a difference between a real life army assembled and funded by the civilian population and a virtual army where people come in to shoot stuff and have fun. You wont get organization the way the current HC is structed because there isnt that relationship between officer and soldier like there is in a real army. In the video game reality, dedication and disipline to a cause come from groups of like minded people that come together and form guild/ squads/ alliances that have the power to do something on their schedule. Even then that sort of organization is rare in video games and reserveed for the elite competative players in the game. This game is like one giant pug where no one gives a shit because they were brought together by game mechanics not their own intiative. Hoping that a player commits themselves on this level just by subscribing to the game is false. Players will only commit to this kind of organization of they, be it a squad, guild whatever you want to call it, when they have to power to get something done in game. It is why the retention rate of this game is terrible, people actually do buy in to the one army one leader principle of what the devs are trying to do, but quickly are left feeling disconnected from the the one mega guild who they dont know or care to follow. No amount of coaxing, teaching or bribing the playerbase is going to foster that fake relationship between leader and follower unless the players are given the power to choose that leader and the leader is given the power to lead them to his goals. This game is trying to re-enact a war, not let one happen. No ones buying it.

Originally posted by bigtime102

And one does not simply have the ability to influence and organize the playerbase by having a virtual title. The problem is the devs are stuck in fantasy land, hoping a commmand structure like the one you see in real armies plays out the same way in a video game just buy copying it. It doesnt work. Theres a difference between a real life army assembled and funded by the civilian population and a virtual army where people come in to shoot stuff and have fun. You wont get organization the way the current HC is structed because there isnt that relationship between officer and soldier like there is in a real army. In the video game reality, dedication and disipline to a cause come from groups of like minded people that come together and form guild/ squads/ alliances that have the power to do something on their schedule. Even then that sort of organization is rare in video games and reserveed for the elite competative players in the game. This game is like one giant pug where no one gives a shit because they were brought together by game mechanics not their own intiative. Hoping that a player commits themselves on this level just by subscribing to the game is false. Players will only commit to this kind of organization of they, be it a squad, guild whatever you want to call it, when they have to power to get something done in game. It is why the retention rate of this game is terrible, people actually do buy in to the one army one leader principle of what the devs are trying to do, but quickly are left feeling disconnected from the the one mega guild who they dont know or care to follow. No amount of coaxing, teaching or bribing the playerbase is going to foster that fake relationship between leader and follower unless the players are given the power to choose that leader and the leader is given the power to lead them to his goals. This game is trying to re-enact a war, not let one happen. No ones buying it.

Most of what you say is true, but not all of it.  First, you seem to misunderstand what the real military is like, but at least you misunderstand it in a good way, believing that everybody in a war is always there for mom, pie and the flag.  Truth is, regardless of why a soldier enlisted, when they are in a battle it's because they were ordered to be there.

Basically, all your complaints end up with only one root cause:  Squads in WW2OL are no longer allowed to pick their own targets.  Everything else you have said, about how elite I'm guessing you believed your squad to have been, can still be accomplished at whatever target the HC BC (map OIC for that time) deems as priority.  Your entire series of complaints centers around not being able to pick your own target, which is foolish.  There is a REASON why a company commander of an infantry company doesn't pick his targets.  Coordination of effort is always more productive in the long term than just allowing uncoordinated attacks to waste resources.

I still think the game could use something to make it a little more accessable to new players. Something like an "Attach me to a Squad for this session button" (for squads that opted to accept attachments)....and that automaticaly put you in a squad dedicated chat channel.

Integrated VOIP would be a big improvement.

Also they could really use a change of scenery once in awhile....make it Winter once inwhile... switch theatres or armies or do a Late War campaign. I mean the game IS fun....but there are only so many times you can refit the Battle for Arras and stay interested.

With the typical boxed FPS that's not such a big deal.... play for a few hours when your in the mood, put it on the shelf and pick it up 2 months later when your in the mood again and you play it at no cost.

With a monthly sub, that kind of play sytle doesn't make sense for most people.

I mean there are plenty of times when I've thought.... "hey, I wouldn't mind playing WWIIOnline for a couple hours".

But between downloading/patching and resubbing...I always end up saying.... "You know, is it really worth doing if I'm probably just going to play 2-3 hours tonight and maybe tomorrow...and probably not be in the mood to play again for another month."

Interesting points Grumpy. If it was possible to allow people to "Play as you go" that might be fantastic way of making it approachable to people who want to dip in now and again - worth bearing in mind if the mechanics where possible I say.

As regards weather they have introduced rain which does add a little bit more atmosphere - personally I think its pretty well done- but im not a fan of the clouds it brings with it as its a single layer and not very dynamic. But defo a push towards more dynamic weather conditions....

Originally posted by Stug

Interesting points Grumpy. If it was possible to allow people to "Play as you go" that might be fantastic way of making it approachable to people who want to dip in now and again - worth bearing in mind if the mechanics where possible I say.

 

As regards weather they have introduced rain which does add a little bit more atmosphere - personally I think its pretty well done- but im not a fan of the clouds it brings with it as its a single layer and not very dynamic. But defo a push towards more dynamic weather conditions....

Actually the main cloud layer is (can be) heavy and thick, but so few people fly high enough to see that sometimes, indeed, there is another, thinner layer :) (it's almost service ceiling for most aircraft, so no reason to get that high, usually 7k+)

I'm hoping that with this advancement (I agree, the rain is very well done, and unlike every other game, doesn't last 30 seconds to even just 5 minutes) maybe there will be snow someday.

---

Originally posted by Vidharr

---

Originally posted by bigtime102
And one does not simply have the ability to influence and organize the playerbase by having a virtual title. The problem is the devs are stuck in fantasy land, hoping a commmand structure like the one you see in real armies plays out the same way in a video game just buy copying it. It doesnt work. Theres a difference between a real life army assembled and funded by the civilian population and a virtual army where people come in to shoot stuff and have fun. You wont get organization the way the current HC is structed because there isnt that relationship between officer and soldier like there is in a real army. In the video game reality, dedication and disipline to a cause come from groups of like minded people that come together and form guild/ squads/ alliances that have the power to do something on their schedule. Even then that sort of organization is rare in video games and reserveed for the elite competative players in the game. This game is like one giant pug where no one gives a shit because they were brought together by game mechanics not their own intiative. Hoping that a player commits themselves on this level just by subscribing to the game is false. Players will only commit to this kind of organization of they, be it a squad, guild whatever you want to call it, when they have to power to get something done in game. It is why the retention rate of this game is terrible, people actually do buy in to the one army one leader principle of what the devs are trying to do, but quickly are left feeling disconnected from the the one mega guild who they dont know or care to follow. No amount of coaxing, teaching or bribing the playerbase is going to foster that fake relationship between leader and follower unless the players are given the power to choose that leader and the leader is given the power to lead them to his goals. This game is trying to re-enact a war, not let one happen. No ones buying it.

---

Most of what you say is true, but not all of it.  First, you seem to misunderstand what the real military is like, but at least you misunderstand it in a good way, believing that everybody in a war is always there for mom, pie and the flag.  Truth is, regardless of why a soldier enlisted, when they are in a battle it's because they were ordered to be there.
Basically, all your complaints end up with only one root cause:  Squads in WW2OL are no longer allowed to pick their own targets.  Everything else you have said, about how elite I'm guessing you believed your squad to have been, can still be accomplished at whatever target the HC BC (map OIC for that time) deems as priority.  Your entire series of complaints centers around not being able to pick your own target, which is foolish.  There is a REASON why a company commander of an infantry company doesn't pick his targets.  Coordination of effort is always more productive in the long term than just allowing uncoordinated attacks to waste resources.

---

100% wrong - you cannot - repeat NOT just still go about doing it like you could before.

HCs these days are utter n00bs and will screw up your plan for sure.

I have been a leader in this game for years on end, and when I try to organize stuff today my plan is almost sure to be screwed up by a HC n00b who will bring in a MSP premature and start screaming for "flood town".

The time, planning and dedication you need for a PROPER attack is not what the "new" breed of players are about, they simply want a BF2 type of game on a large scale.

I understand the concerns of the OP.  This game is fantastic for an old game, but there are some unforgiveable flaws. 

One, you are at the mercy of the HC leader - you will see when they are asleep at the wheel and allow entire cities to be lost to other side because of a lack of a quick response.

Lag - certain players have an avdantage of seeing you and getting a good look at you to aim, shoot and kill you before you get to see them due to lag differences between players.  In a twitchy game a 1 second lag difference is an eternity.

Biggest problem - availabilty of units and the exploitability of those units by opposing sides:  players can simply switch sides during a campaign, spawn the best units and allow them to get repeatedly killed.  Then after all the supply is used up they can switch back over and overwhelm the city.  Even worse, trial accounts can waste these valuable supplies so that is another way people can sabotage other sides anonymously.

Originally posted by Szyporyn

 

---

Originally posted by Vidharr

---

Originally posted by bigtime102
And one does not simply have the ability to influence and organize the playerbase by having a virtual title. The problem is the devs are stuck in fantasy land, hoping a commmand structure like the one you see in real armies plays out the same way in a video game just buy copying it. It doesnt work. Theres a difference between a real life army assembled and funded by the civilian population and a virtual army where people come in to shoot stuff and have fun. You wont get organization the way the current HC is structed because there isnt that relationship between officer and soldier like there is in a real army. In the video game reality, dedication and disipline to a cause come from groups of like minded people that come together and form guild/ squads/ alliances that have the power to do something on their schedule. Even then that sort of organization is rare in video games and reserveed for the elite competative players in the game. This game is like one giant pug where no one gives a shit because they were brought together by game mechanics not their own intiative. Hoping that a player commits themselves on this level just by subscribing to the game is false. Players will only commit to this kind of organization of they, be it a squad, guild whatever you want to call it, when they have to power to get something done in game. It is why the retention rate of this game is terrible, people actually do buy in to the one army one leader principle of what the devs are trying to do, but quickly are left feeling disconnected from the the one mega guild who they dont know or care to follow. No amount of coaxing, teaching or bribing the playerbase is going to foster that fake relationship between leader and follower unless the players are given the power to choose that leader and the leader is given the power to lead them to his goals. This game is trying to re-enact a war, not let one happen. No ones buying it.

---

Most of what you say is true, but not all of it.  First, you seem to misunderstand what the real military is like, but at least you misunderstand it in a good way, believing that everybody in a war is always there for mom, pie and the flag.  Truth is, regardless of why a soldier enlisted, when they are in a battle it's because they were ordered to be there.
Basically, all your complaints end up with only one root cause:  Squads in WW2OL are no longer allowed to pick their own targets.  Everything else you have said, about how elite I'm guessing you believed your squad to have been, can still be accomplished at whatever target the HC BC (map OIC for that time) deems as priority.  Your entire series of complaints centers around not being able to pick your own target, which is foolish.  There is a REASON why a company commander of an infantry company doesn't pick his targets.  Coordination of effort is always more productive in the long term than just allowing uncoordinated attacks to waste resources.

---

100% wrong - you cannot - repeat NOT just still go about doing it like you could before.

HCs these days are utter n00bs and will screw up your plan for sure.

I have been a leader in this game for years on end, and when I try to organize stuff today my plan is almost sure to be screwed up by a HC n00b who will bring in a MSP premature and start screaming for "flood town".

The time, planning and dedication you need for a PROPER attack is not what the "new" breed of players are about, they simply want a BF2 type of game on a large scale.

Evidently you didn't read my post thoroughly, or you just thoroughly misunderstood it.  AHC and OKW both screw up all the time, sure.  However, the players not in HC ultimately decide where they are going to fight, with no rhyme or reason at all 90% of the time.  The days of gathering up a bunch of guys to pull armor out from a town behind the lines (because every town had supply), getting in place just outside EWS and waiting for an AO to drop and then hammering the town, yep those were good days, but they are gone.  Brigade TOE saw to that because instead of every town having equipment, now there are only so many units (brigades) in the game to go around.  However, if a frontline town with an AO or DO on it has a town behind it that does have a brigade there, you actually still can do an old-school armor convoy to save the day.  That's the only way it will work these days though.

Woha...who pressed the "turn the thread into a WWIIOL bashing" orama????

Lots of good things to be had in this game still, sorry.

The only way people can find out (to their good, or chagrin) is to try it themselves...

Yessireee! Try it yourself,

As these guys bemoan people that can't think for themselves, I suggest anyone reading this thread and wanting to know the truth should try the game for themselves.

Originally posted by Stug

Woha...who pressed the "turn the thread into a WWIIOL bashing" orama????

Lots of good things to be had in this game still, sorry.

The only way people can find out (to their good, or chagrin) is to try it themselves...

Yessireee! Try it yourself,

As these guys bemoan people that can't think for themselves, I suggest anyone reading this thread and wanting to know the truth should try the game for themselves.

Make no mistake, I'm very, very much pro-WW2OL.  Matter of fact, I'm going to fly for squad night in 30 minutes.  I personally believe the game is still great, and while the changes that have been made since the "old school" squad days may have pissed some people off, I say you have to roll with it and learn to make use of the new tools that are given to you.  The old days of every town having supply are gone, kaput.  The brigade system is better I believe, because better decisions have to be made concerning moving those brigades to where they are needed.  True, sometimes the decisions aren't good, but a lot of the time they are.  /shrug  I still have fun.  I'm still playing.  I'm going to put some 20mm rounds up the backside of a few Spitfires, Hawks and Hurricanes very shortly :)