Originally posted by Silky303 I've had great fights when it's 2 vs 2 over a particular CP or when it's a 20 man armour column
Obviously more is better but it's stupid to write battles off because there's less then x people involved
I think the underlining issue here though is that these are the only kind of battles you hear about. You never hear about grand battles being faught with a hundred or so players on each side.
Was it fun? Sure. But the main selling point of an MMOFPS (well, at least for me) is the expectations of massive battles that make you feel like you're fighting a war. If I wanted exciting 10v10 or 24v24 skirmishes I would go play the other tactical shooters I have installed.. and save $19 a month.
i make this into the WWIIOL " taunt the haters " forum.
you all having fun playing Planetside2 yet ??
If the game keeps going downhill like it has been you might be joining the all these so called haters in Planetside 2 yourself. How ironic would that be lol.
Originally posted by Silky303 I've had great fights when it's 2 vs 2 over a particular CP or when it's a 20 man armour column
Obviously more is better but it's stupid to write battles off because there's less then x people involved
I think the underlining issue here though is that these are the only kind of battles you hear about. You never hear about grand battles being faught with a hundred or so players on each side.
Was it fun? Sure. But the main selling point of an MMOFPS (well, at least for me) is the expectations of massive battles that make you feel like you're fighting a war. If I wanted exciting 10v10 or 24v24 skirmishes I would go play the other tactical shooters I have installed.. and save $19 a month.
Theres 100 vs 100 fights every day. Currently diest is going on, epic fight as well.
OmaliMMO Business CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 1,177
I always enjoy reading stories about battles in WW2 Online (next to Eve Online). They're like a digital equivalent of curling up next to the fire and listening to Grandpa tell war stories, except they happened yesterday instead of seventy years ago.
Originally posted by Silky303 I've had great fights when it's 2 vs 2 over a particular CP or when it's a 20 man armour column
Obviously more is better but it's stupid to write battles off because there's less then x people involved
I think the underlining issue here though is that these are the only kind of battles you hear about. You never hear about grand battles being faught with a hundred or so players on each side.
Was it fun? Sure. But the main selling point of an MMOFPS (well, at least for me) is the expectations of massive battles that make you feel like you're fighting a war. If I wanted exciting 10v10 or 24v24 skirmishes I would go play the other tactical shooters I have installed.. and save $19 a month.
Theres 100 vs 100 fights every day. Currently diest is going on, epic fight as well.
Originally posted by Silky303 I've had great fights when it's 2 vs 2 over a particular CP or when it's a 20 man armour column
Obviously more is better but it's stupid to write battles off because there's less then x people involved
I think the underlining issue here though is that these are the only kind of battles you hear about. You never hear about grand battles being faught with a hundred or so players on each side.
Was it fun? Sure. But the main selling point of an MMOFPS (well, at least for me) is the expectations of massive battles that make you feel like you're fighting a war. If I wanted exciting 10v10 or 24v24 skirmishes I would go play the other tactical shooters I have installed.. and save $19 a month.
Currently diest is going on, epic fight as well.
Currently there are 21 Axis troops in Diest. 27 around Gouvy, 9 in Schweich and finally 5 in St. Tru.
If they were all concentrated in one AO you'd have a heck of a battle. But they're spread across four.
Originally posted by Silky303 Arbitrary figures to define what is fun ftw!80 players? Meh, 126 or it's not worth me logging in tbh
Total numbers are relevant because there are plenty of non-subscription and even some free FPS games that have 64 player servers. If you find one that's modded or hacked in some cases they can go higher. I can go find some 100-200 size Mount & Blade servers, and in Planetside 2 when some guys are holed up in "the crown" and surrounded by everyone else there can be so many players that the virtual ground is shaking.
Fun is subjective, but I played the game for years and I know how active a 20 vs 20 AO is going to be, especially since they added the FRU timer and increased the capture timers. 40 vs 40 still isn't that exciting, depending on how organized it is and how many defenders are spawned in it can still be slow.
Since the company has done so much to prevent any sort of excitement or map movement at lower population levels, I won't bother unless there's a decent amount on the server.
We know the games numbers are low, why keep posting it?
Because of people like MouzurX who come here saying there are 100 vs 100 battles everyday.
Don't lie, considering anybody can log in and see the truth for themselves.
Like I said earlier, if there are some great battles going on, post about it here as it's happening. MouzurX mentioned Diest, so I hopped in to see for myself. 21 people milling about looking fruitlessly for someone to shoot? Pass....
Originally posted by pittpete Thats right, forgot 2 Attack and 2 defense.We know the games numbers are low, why keep posting it?
Because there are several posters here telling us how epic the battles are and how much we're missing out. Hell, the OP said that the game is better off without all the people who recently unsubscribed.
I was completely serious when I said for someone to post here when there is a big battle going. If some squad is having a reunion or something and there is a lot of activity then I'd like to know about and check it out.
I don't want to log on and see the typical piddly fight with one or two FRUs to spawn from and a FB that gets blown five minutes in to the attack. There's nothing to do outside the flashing boxes anymore(no resupply columns, no real point to RDP) so the enjoyment of the game all hinges on the battles.
Camp 89 day 12 and its almost over. Another amazing Allied win. Game is "fixed" again because the side that had been winning is now losing.
Must bug the heck out of the thought controllers they can't delete the plain, simple truth here. That truth is in the numbers. Cover it with all the side bias nonsense, name-calling, or rah rah BS you want. But you can't convice a TON of ex-players the way this "balance" is achieved is a good thing. Or that the cost in player subs is worth it. But I left over Antwerp right? Keep your head in the sand.
Originally posted by CeTheGreat Must be "twerp gate" from last map still lingering
Must be DOC being outspoken
Must be no programmers
Must be the Matilda's
Must be the MG34 lazer broke
Must be axis squads allied
Did I miss anything? Surely these are the reasons for the allied push?
Que the whiners.....
I can remember a time when I used to respect Ce, and the massive tank zergs he used to organize on the Allied side. I can remember on several occassions I would get a few guys from my squad and we would get our StuGs out and sit in ambush waiting for this massive Sherman zerg to roll by. I think my best sortie was an 11 tank kill sortie in my StuG and a RTB.
Now I just pitty Ce, because he complains more than I do.
Originally posted by dcoy68 Camp 89 day 12 and its almost over. Another amazing Allied win. Game is "fixed" again because the side that had been winning is now losing. Must bug the heck out of the thought controllers they can't delete the plain, simple truth here. That truth is in the numbers. Cover it with all the side bias nonsense, name-calling, or rah rah BS you want. But you can't convice a TON of ex-players the way this "balance" is achieved is a good thing. Or that the cost in player subs is worth it. But I left over Antwerp right? Keep your head in the sand.
One of the last things that WW2online had going for it was the campaign.
Most of the time the fighting is so profoundly unenjoyable(the result of years of bad game decisions) that the only reason people continue to attack towns is because of the prospect of breaking through and winning the map. You'd think that CRS would've realized this after the failure of the "bloody battles" scenarios, if not years earlier.
Since they are picking and choosing winners to keep one side from losing too much then there isn't a point to the campaign. People criticize Planetside 2 because a side never really wins, but there at least the fighting mechanics are decent, there are huge payoffs for teamwork and it does feel great to take your team from a minority position all the way to the enemy's gate and camp them.
Originally posted by dcoy68 Camp 89 day 12 and its almost over. Another amazing Allied win. Game is "fixed" again because the side that had been winning is now losing.
Must bug the heck out of the thought controllers they can't delete the plain, simple truth here. That truth is in the numbers. Cover it with all the side bias nonsense, name-calling, or rah rah BS you want. But you can't convice a TON of ex-players the way this "balance" is achieved is a good thing. Or that the cost in player subs is worth it. But I left over Antwerp right? Keep your head in the sand.
One of the last things that WW2online had going for it was the campaign.
Most of the time the fighting is so profoundly unenjoyable(the result of years of bad game decisions) that the only reason people continue to attack towns is because of the prospect of breaking through and winning the map. You'd think that CRS would've realized this after the failure of the "bloody battles" scenarios, if not years earlier.
Since they are picking and choosing winners to keep one side from losing too much then there isn't a point to the campaign. People criticize Planetside 2 because a side never really wins, but there at least the fighting mechanics are decent, there are huge payoffs for teamwork and it does feel great to take your team from a minority position all the way to the enemy's gate and camp them.
And this last part is why I play PS2 now.
Besides the facts that it has more polish, runs smoother, and I have less latency issues with that game than I do with anything in WWIIOL.
Originally posted by dcoy68 Camp 89 day 12 and its almost over. Another amazing Allied win. Game is "fixed" again because the side that had been winning is now losing.
Must bug the heck out of the thought controllers they can't delete the plain, simple truth here. That truth is in the numbers. Cover it with all the side bias nonsense, name-calling, or rah rah BS you want. But you can't convice a TON of ex-players the way this "balance" is achieved is a good thing. Or that the cost in player subs is worth it. But I left over Antwerp right? Keep your head in the sand.
One of the last things that WW2online had going for it was the campaign.
Most of the time the fighting is so profoundly unenjoyable(the result of years of bad game decisions) that the only reason people continue to attack towns is because of the prospect of breaking through and winning the map. You'd think that CRS would've realized this after the failure of the "bloody battles" scenarios, if not years earlier.
Since they are picking and choosing winners to keep one side from losing too much then there isn't a point to the campaign. People criticize Planetside 2 because a side never really wins, but there at least the fighting mechanics are decent, there are huge payoffs for teamwork and it does feel great to take your team from a minority position all the way to the enemy's gate and camp them.
Little bit unfair to characterise CRS as 'picking and choosing'. The Antwerp issue can't be ignored but it's hardly the orchestrated puppet show you're suggesting it is
Comments
I think the underlining issue here though is that these are the only kind of battles you hear about. You never hear about grand battles being faught with a hundred or so players on each side.
Was it fun? Sure. But the main selling point of an MMOFPS (well, at least for me) is the expectations of massive battles that make you feel like you're fighting a war. If I wanted exciting 10v10 or 24v24 skirmishes I would go play the other tactical shooters I have installed.. and save $19 a month.
Currently Playing:
nothing
na, my other games are Race07 and TDU2.
How can you tell how many players were involved in a certain city fight?
Do you actually log on both sides, count the players and then decide to keep playing?
It's pretty easy to tell. Generally, when I don't find many people to shoot at, I leave.
Well, except for the fact you could be paying money monthly for what's meant to be a MMO.
Theres 100 vs 100 fights every day. Currently diest is going on, epic fight as well.
I call BS on that.
Currently there are 21 Axis troops in Diest. 27 around Gouvy, 9 in Schweich and finally 5 in St. Tru.
If they were all concentrated in one AO you'd have a heck of a battle. But they're spread across four.
Nicht Kleckern sondern Klotzen!
4 AO's?
I thought the game was lucky to have 1?
Would to God they had everybody in one massive AO!
No, let's spread everybody all over the map to hell and back. So instead of epic battles you have these little skirmishes.
Total numbers are relevant because there are plenty of non-subscription and even some free FPS games that have 64 player servers. If you find one that's modded or hacked in some cases they can go higher. I can go find some 100-200 size Mount & Blade servers, and in Planetside 2 when some guys are holed up in "the crown" and surrounded by everyone else there can be so many players that the virtual ground is shaking.
Fun is subjective, but I played the game for years and I know how active a 20 vs 20 AO is going to be, especially since they added the FRU timer and increased the capture timers. 40 vs 40 still isn't that exciting, depending on how organized it is and how many defenders are spawned in it can still be slow.
Since the company has done so much to prevent any sort of excitement or map movement at lower population levels, I won't bother unless there's a decent amount on the server.
Thats right, forgot 2 Attack and 2 defense.
We know the games numbers are low, why keep posting it?
Because of people like MouzurX who come here saying there are 100 vs 100 battles everyday.
Don't lie, considering anybody can log in and see the truth for themselves.
Like I said earlier, if there are some great battles going on, post about it here as it's happening. MouzurX mentioned Diest, so I hopped in to see for myself. 21 people milling about looking fruitlessly for someone to shoot? Pass....
Because there are several posters here telling us how epic the battles are and how much we're missing out. Hell, the OP said that the game is better off without all the people who recently unsubscribed.
I was completely serious when I said for someone to post here when there is a big battle going. If some squad is having a reunion or something and there is a lot of activity then I'd like to know about and check it out.
I don't want to log on and see the typical piddly fight with one or two FRUs to spawn from and a FB that gets blown five minutes in to the attack. There's nothing to do outside the flashing boxes anymore(no resupply columns, no real point to RDP) so the enjoyment of the game all hinges on the battles.
Camp 89 day 12 and its almost over. Another amazing Allied win. Game is "fixed" again because the side that had been winning is now losing.
Must bug the heck out of the thought controllers they can't delete the plain, simple truth here. That truth is in the numbers. Cover it with all the side bias nonsense, name-calling, or rah rah BS you want. But you can't convice a TON of ex-players the way this "balance" is achieved is a good thing. Or that the cost in player subs is worth it. But I left over Antwerp right? Keep your head in the sand.
Must be DOC being outspoken
Must be no programmers
Must be the Matilda's
Must be the MG34 lazer broke
Must be axis squads allied
Did I miss anything? Surely these are the reasons for the allied push?
Que the whiners.....
I thought you were going to quit posting here....Something about it's boring here because it's the same stuff just posted in different ways.
CeTheGreat and MMORPG.com:
I really wish that was the case because I would re-up my two accounts without hesitation but even Michael Jordan knows it's not true.
I can remember a time when I used to respect Ce, and the massive tank zergs he used to organize on the Allied side. I can remember on several occassions I would get a few guys from my squad and we would get our StuGs out and sit in ambush waiting for this massive Sherman zerg to roll by. I think my best sortie was an 11 tank kill sortie in my StuG and a RTB.
Now I just pitty Ce, because he complains more than I do.
So much crap, so little quality.
One of the last things that WW2online had going for it was the campaign.
Most of the time the fighting is so profoundly unenjoyable(the result of years of bad game decisions) that the only reason people continue to attack towns is because of the prospect of breaking through and winning the map. You'd think that CRS would've realized this after the failure of the "bloody battles" scenarios, if not years earlier.
Since they are picking and choosing winners to keep one side from losing too much then there isn't a point to the campaign. People criticize Planetside 2 because a side never really wins, but there at least the fighting mechanics are decent, there are huge payoffs for teamwork and it does feel great to take your team from a minority position all the way to the enemy's gate and camp them.
And this last part is why I play PS2 now.
Besides the facts that it has more polish, runs smoother, and I have less latency issues with that game than I do with anything in WWIIOL.
So much crap, so little quality.
Little bit unfair to characterise CRS as 'picking and choosing'. The Antwerp issue can't be ignored but it's hardly the orchestrated puppet show you're suggesting it is
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL