Hm. I must be going about my disagreeing with them in the wrong fashion. Mind giving me some lectures, so I can be described as a "mindless hater?"
By the way. You seriously didn't just compare WWIIOL and its development engine of some seventy thousand line code to a game that, at a quick glance, has you running around as a rabbit kicking other rabbits in the face did you? Couldn't be that you did, you'd have to have absolutely no respect for any development process nor really spent time reading a word about the difficulties the lead coder faced working on the game. Your smarter then that, or at least you seem to purvey youself as such.
Edit: Looked at Lugaru and the game that followed it. Interesting combat system. Now, turn it into an MMO that can render say 70 players in a small area and have them all actively shooting eachother.
Good business practices by a similarly sized indie studio. Notice that they have 55,000 youtube subscribers. CRS doesn't even bother with putting out a monthly video saying "Hey, we're still alive" and yet they want their subscribers to donate thousands for a paid advertising campaign?
What does the difference in genre or the nature of the code have to do with it? Tell me how these unique coding challenges in WW2online prevent CRS from basic updates, basic public relations. All you have right now is XOOM shaking a tin cup and DOC moaning about how we're abandoning him. For once you guys need to stop assuming that everyone else is some kind of loser, that all other games are simple jokes that won't last(the forum sycophants said this about World of Tanks years ago).
Anyway I just listed a few things that show why Rapid Assault was a bad idea. It's even worse now that RA turned out at a much lower quality than even I expected and they've been unable to complete the game. You're free to address those or you can keep talking about how great CRS's customer relations are.
Originally posted by argel Are you sure? It's just I've heard from a lot of guys who hate the developers and haven't played it that it isn't very good?
It depends on your reference point. Is it a faster paced, more objective oriented game with better terrain than WW2online? Yes.
The problem is that it's essentially Call of Duty 2, but in 2013. There are also free mods that have been out there for years that do a great job of what Rapid Assault seems to be going for, and also in the same genre there is a game based off of the ArmA2 engine called Iron Front: Liberation 1944 that was recently released.
It's on steam, priced at the same amount that I paid to become a "RA Founder". I'll also note that it has aircraft. So it's really all about having perspective(as DOC is fond of saying). A lot of subscribers made suggestions over the years and tried to help CRS out with their decisions but(like now) anyone who disagrees is written off as some kind of mindless hater.
Hm. I must be going about my disagreeing with them in the wrong fashion. Mind giving me some lectures, so I can be described as a "mindless hater?"
By the way. You seriously didn't just compare WWIIOL and its development engine of some seventy thousand line code to a game that, at a quick glance, has you running around as a rabbit kicking other rabbits in the face did you? Couldn't be that you did, you'd have to have absolutely no respect for any development process nor really spent time reading a word about the difficulties the lead coder faced working on the game. Your smarter then that, or at least you seem to purvey youself as such.
Edit: Looked at Lugaru and the game that followed it. Interesting combat system. Now, turn it into an MMO that can render say 70 players in a small area and have them all actively shooting eachother.
So you admit that you disagree with CRS on Rapid Assault?
I disagree with CRS on certain matters. On multiple occasions I have voiced my disagreement with CRS policy, and have never been labelled as a mindless hater in the process. That was my point. When it comes to Rapid Assault, I agree with it, like it, and think it has more to offer than a "COD clone". But alas, thats only my opinion. I won't blather on about it. My main point of that sentence was to deflect David's generalization that if you disagree with CRS, you're labelled a mindless hater. It's the way you go ABOUT disagreeing that makes the difference.
Let's see about the lack of "Roadmaps" that David asks about. I went to check the main page of the company, where they usually post their updates and/or roadmaps. Its http://www.battlegroundeurope.com if you've forgotten.
That they don't shoot a video is because there are a few people who essentially telecommute. Would be difficult I think to mix and mash, when the resources for doing so could go elsewhere, like a new trailer (Which is being worked on).
Originally posted by david06
For once you guys need to stop assuming that everyone else is some kind of loser, that all other games are simple jokes that won't last(the forum sycophants said this about World of Tanks years ago)
For once you guys need to stop assuming that everyone wants to call you a loser, that anyone who supports CRS thinks that all other games are simple jokes that won't last (Those you refer as guys keep getting accused of this).
I play those other games, and enjoy them. I play Ghost Recon FS, COD, Battlefield 3, Nuclear Dawn, World of Tanks etc. They have their place. I don't attack them. I won't sell them up either though. COD is on a much different scale then WWIIOL. World of Tanks exists in a completely different section of game vs WWIIOL. RA is also much different from COD
I paid to support the project. The Rapid Assault beta forums are ignored by the developers and dead, the WW2online forums are just about dead and heavily regulated, yet I'm supposed to be grateful for a few blobs of vague, almost cryptic text.
How did we go from "one big bucket" to "the money for RA and WW2online is completely separate"? Why don't they keep the beta server online all the time like they used to? Can we get some new screenshots, maybe a town map or something?
Company0 if CRS had any sort of public presence then I doubt you would feel compelled to come here and defend their public relations. I think this small, sparsely populated section of MMORPG.com has become the best place for news and discussion of this project, which is saying something; I've learned more about the status of Rapid Assault here than the actual RA forums.
Originally posted by pittpete and hitpoints on tanks
At least theres people to play against unlike WWIIOL
And it's not really hitpoints either. If it truely was (like some games) then anythings could kill tanks on low enough hitpoints, grenades, rifle etc. but they don't do any damage. There's also a ballistics model in RO with angles taking into account so angling your tank is advised. Same with hull down etc. So it's not so black and white, but not a suprising comment from this place.
WWIIOL does have the best armor simulation of the bigger name games that I know, but that doesn't mean it's perfect either. Like those hard to kill 232's that could eat shells as they were moslty hollow and unless you got a lucky shrapnel hit on the driver it would keep booting along, along with lots of other quirks. But for the most part it was great, and also had ATG which RO was very limited in. CRS did take it down a couple of notches by adding MSP (lots more inf running around) and putting that much bushland everywhere because the inf cried they died to tanks out in the open. That and the abundance of the sapper didn't make the tankers happy. Or the ATG players with so much inf running around so easily. They lost a lot of tankers with those changes.
Always wonder what would have happened if they hadn't added all that brush (use tanks or air to get rid of outside tanks instead of stealth sappers) and added pfausts and zooks much much earlier to help keep tanks out of cities instead of adding depots to 'cure' camping.
Comments
Good business practices by a similarly sized indie studio. Notice that they have 55,000 youtube subscribers. CRS doesn't even bother with putting out a monthly video saying "Hey, we're still alive" and yet they want their subscribers to donate thousands for a paid advertising campaign?
What does the difference in genre or the nature of the code have to do with it? Tell me how these unique coding challenges in WW2online prevent CRS from basic updates, basic public relations. All you have right now is XOOM shaking a tin cup and DOC moaning about how we're abandoning him. For once you guys need to stop assuming that everyone else is some kind of loser, that all other games are simple jokes that won't last(the forum sycophants said this about World of Tanks years ago).
Anyway I just listed a few things that show why Rapid Assault was a bad idea. It's even worse now that RA turned out at a much lower quality than even I expected and they've been unable to complete the game. You're free to address those or you can keep talking about how great CRS's customer relations are.
I disagree with CRS on certain matters. On multiple occasions I have voiced my disagreement with CRS policy, and have never been labelled as a mindless hater in the process. That was my point. When it comes to Rapid Assault, I agree with it, like it, and think it has more to offer than a "COD clone". But alas, thats only my opinion. I won't blather on about it. My main point of that sentence was to deflect David's generalization that if you disagree with CRS, you're labelled a mindless hater. It's the way you go ABOUT disagreeing that makes the difference.
Let's see about the lack of "Roadmaps" that David asks about. I went to check the main page of the company, where they usually post their updates and/or roadmaps. Its http://www.battlegroundeurope.com if you've forgotten.
January 1st, article by the name of Set Sail 2013, gives a pretty good overall statement of what's going on at CRS. Here's a link. http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/index.php/component/content/article/23-reports/12732-set-sail-2013
December 7th, article by DOC mentioning the subscriber drive and new development coming up. http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/index.php/component/content/article/12590-a-prelude-to-christmas-tidings
December 3rd, article by the name of A New Week, is also a "Word from CRS" style article. Heres the link. http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/index.php/component/content/article/21-general-announcement/12586-a-new-week
November 29th, article by DOC about the current issue's slowing the campaign, listing a little bit about what was wrong and that CRS's focus at the time was fixing it to ensure the next campaign didn't destroy the server. http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/index.php/component/content/article/11-game-servers/12554-breaking-news-game-developer-shoots-himself
That they don't shoot a video is because there are a few people who essentially telecommute. Would be difficult I think to mix and mash, when the resources for doing so could go elsewhere, like a new trailer (Which is being worked on).
For once you guys need to stop assuming that everyone wants to call you a loser, that anyone who supports CRS thinks that all other games are simple jokes that won't last (Those you refer as guys keep getting accused of this).
I play those other games, and enjoy them. I play Ghost Recon FS, COD, Battlefield 3, Nuclear Dawn, World of Tanks etc. They have their place. I don't attack them. I won't sell them up either though. COD is on a much different scale then WWIIOL. World of Tanks exists in a completely different section of game vs WWIIOL. RA is also much different from COD
I paid to support the project. The Rapid Assault beta forums are ignored by the developers and dead, the WW2online forums are just about dead and heavily regulated, yet I'm supposed to be grateful for a few blobs of vague, almost cryptic text.
How did we go from "one big bucket" to "the money for RA and WW2online is completely separate"? Why don't they keep the beta server online all the time like they used to? Can we get some new screenshots, maybe a town map or something?
Company0 if CRS had any sort of public presence then I doubt you would feel compelled to come here and defend their public relations. I think this small, sparsely populated section of MMORPG.com has become the best place for news and discussion of this project, which is saying something; I've learned more about the status of Rapid Assault here than the actual RA forums.
And it's not really hitpoints either. If it truely was (like some games) then anythings could kill tanks on low enough hitpoints, grenades, rifle etc. but they don't do any damage. There's also a ballistics model in RO with angles taking into account so angling your tank is advised. Same with hull down etc. So it's not so black and white, but not a suprising comment from this place.
WWIIOL does have the best armor simulation of the bigger name games that I know, but that doesn't mean it's perfect either. Like those hard to kill 232's that could eat shells as they were moslty hollow and unless you got a lucky shrapnel hit on the driver it would keep booting along, along with lots of other quirks. But for the most part it was great, and also had ATG which RO was very limited in. CRS did take it down a couple of notches by adding MSP (lots more inf running around) and putting that much bushland everywhere because the inf cried they died to tanks out in the open. That and the abundance of the sapper didn't make the tankers happy. Or the ATG players with so much inf running around so easily. They lost a lot of tankers with those changes.
Always wonder what would have happened if they hadn't added all that brush (use tanks or air to get rid of outside tanks instead of stealth sappers) and added pfausts and zooks much much earlier to help keep tanks out of cities instead of adding depots to 'cure' camping.