Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
CRS's creeping control into their 'player-driven' game.
Solono
Member Posts: 15
Many of the things in WW2OL that happen, you cannot see. The High Command forums are like another world, and Gods of War (The pseudo-forum that only the Senior Commands of both sides see) show a trend of increasing control over their High Command volunteers.
It also shows the worst case scenario: CRS meddling, directly, with campaign outcomes and the Chain of Command as well as censoring/ignoring my concerns when it comes to Trainers, the official CRS backed, well, trainers who hav more or less been left to rot.
Campaign 72 is the worst campaign in the history of the game, it is the map that may cement my departure as being permanent. That is because Campaign 72 was given to the Axis by CRS, now that statement usually comes at the end of a butthurt campaign loss, however, there is actual evidence of this:
Long time, veteran Allied players being told by CRS to go Axis and/or join their High Command.
GMs handcuffing Allied map moves, disregarding the chain of the command to allow the Axis to take Ramsgate and march into England.
Reduction in spawn lists of Allied Bombers.
Allied High Commanders being censored unbashedly on the forums and being censured in-game.
CRS wanted Axis to win and they got it. Now normally, I'd keep this as yet another skeleton in the High Command closet (Sort of like Mattwitt's attempt to start an Axis High Command mass resignation because of a GM decision or Vondoosh-led flooding of Allied High Command e-mail addresses that was OK'd by CRS) but this show of overriding control goes against the spirit of the very mechanic that they harp about makes the game unique.
The battlefield sandbox now has overprotective parents poking into it, telling you what you can and cannot build, it is no longer fully run by the players.
CRS having dictated a campaign outcome has ruined any credibility left in the game there was. It's a slap in the face to the Allied High Command to dictate how they run their side. It's a slap in the face to the Axis High Command and players to just hand them a win.
If you are curious about this game or High Command, let me tell you right now: Don't subscribe to the game, show them that this meddling will not be tolerated, for non-HC players this means that everything you did in this campaign was literally for naught, as the outcome was going to be predetermined no matter what you did.
It's a disgusting turn of events.
Comments
For the last two Axis map wins I had noticed alot of vet Allied players were playing Axis. I thought it was there choice.
Didn't realise some were actually told to play Axis. So what was the deal "play Axis or else?"
The win before 72 was legit as far as I know and I don't know the exact wording of which was used with them as I was not asked. I simply know people were asked to go Axis and, because they actually like the game and the balance of it, did.
Which of course is great when it happens organically and has before. But when CRS sticks their fingers in it out of fear and mistrust of its userbase, every time somebody prominent switches to the other side will be questioned about their true motivation. One of the beautiful things about the game is tainted.
This situation has officially boiled over, the Allied CinC has been banned from the Teamspeak server and fired by the same GM trying to cover his ass. Other Rats are covering his ass for him and are trying to sweep this under the rug.
I will reinterate: Do not sub to this game if you want actual player freedom and strategic gameplay because there is none now, the Rats will just force you to do what they want or they'll force you out. You're nothing more than a dog when you're in High Command now as well.
Thats sad if true. But then again this is the problem that arises when you put to much power in to few hands. Though I must admit CRS manipulating there own creation is telling to some extent . It screams that something is really unhealthy with the game and they know it.
The only thing unhealthy with it is their meddling with campaigns outcomes. In all my time in HC there only a couple instances of incompetence and the majority of those were due to inexperience.
The game is extremely unhealthy right now, CRS knows it but their course of action only serves to make it unhealthier by contradicting their own mechanics and rules they laid down then covering it up and taking the extreme route in doing so.
Speaks volumes about how decisions in CRS are made and the noise it makes isn't a pleasant one.
You don't cover something out, go into damage control mode and begin censoring left and right because you have done something right.
I wish I could say I really cared about whats going on in the HC's and the system of play that goes along with it. But being in honest here I cant HC and the AO system are to me a abomination that killed squad play/tactics/orginazation and population in one mighty swing of the Rats hand.
But like I said for the Rats to go out and manipulate the system they forced on so many is a bit disturbing. Anyway dont take my gripes about HC as a insult Im a supporter of the previous system and large squads so it stands to reason I hate HC and everything it stands for. Im sure you are a good HC type and a great leader but the system has far to few of those to function on even the barest of levels.
I now feel I can empathize more with those who lost the squad-centric system because this seems to give the same feel to a lot of players I've seen and heard post about this disaster. But that aside, whether you like the HC system is another topic of discussion. This would be the same as CRS pressuring certain squads to let the other side win in that set of circumstances: Regardless of the system is a game-killing revelation that it's not in the players control, that CRS can and will meddle in map outcomes.
It does show that, philosophically, CRS probably wants to move to only RA in the future and skuttle the campaign as a whole. That offers them absolute control over everything, something that apparently they want to have now.
Wow Solono - really?
I'm not convinced Solono, unless you're in possession of evidence to the contrary, I'd say you're possibly looking at a sequence of events with a predetermined conspiracy theory and making it fit.
The Community Manager in question doesn't have a good relationship with many Allied players, simply because he's Axis and has a history of clumsy interference, but nothing more sinister than that. And I think I do believe him that his input to the Ramsgate line shift incident was - again - clumsy, rather than biased.
The Allied CinC in question wasn't well equipped to be CinC. Had the HC conveyor belt not been so speeded up by the previous CinC's departure and other retirements and resignations, things would have worked out differently I'm sure.
And as for vet players being asked to go Axis, well, if it's true, maybe its good for the game for veterans to assist the other side from time to time, it's not the first time it's happened. And I doubt whether the offer was 'play Axis or you're banned'.
The downfall of WWIIOL is that it gets the players fired up, and I suggest this incident is evidence of that.
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
1) Again, this information was learned through asking a lot of questions to a lot of different people, I did not predetermine anything. I am not going to cite because a lot of the players still actually play the game and would probably not appreciate being outed, not very fair to them given the circumstances.
2) The GM in question has pissed off people on both with his meddling and inappropriate behavior. And nothing more sinister? I know people who disagree, mainly because they were direct witnesses to the very events that led to the fiasco.
3) Of course an interesting hypothetical.
4) Never alluded to that, as I said I don't know the details. I just know some were, the exact language, as I said, is unknown to me but I doubt it was done in a threatening manner. Yes, it is good for the game, it's the best thing an individual player can do, however, asking people to do so is just sticking fingers in the pie: It's naturally beautiful but you wreck it when you try to force it.
5) WWIIOL isn't special in that respect, anything someone or a group cares about will get people fired up. It's bad decisions, poor gauging of the PB, poor utilization of their own userbase to promote the game and legendarily bad marketing skills.
Also, since you want evidence, here is evidence, all names and indicators of the squads mentioned are removed to prevent nonsense:
"The episode was thad allied had won 3 maps in a row and the next map started slow. After a few very well done allied operations the map rolled east and the map looked like a clear 4th win. What made me start wondering was when Monchen Gladbach with its factories was set up for the final assault... but then nothing happened. I remember squads and players begging for AO on MG but all I saw was silence. The allied advance stalled and I thing we sat at MG for about 1 week with no AO. Allied general morale/activity dropped and axis finaly started to move west and ended up winning the campaign. I found the lack of AO on MG most suspicious and got it confirmed while I was in [squad]: AHC was forbidden to put a AO on MG."
It is not directly related to 72 but it does show that it is nothing new.
They could not control events like that.
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
The two sources of that particular report( The person themself and the squad) aren't people who pull things out of thin air, especially the squad. I find it extremely unlikely that the squad who told him that fabricated any way shape or form.
So your seeing a cessation in front of MG as a deliberate attempt by CRS to nerf the Allied side?
Has nothing to do with sides.
I don't like HC because they are abysmal tacticians, so nobody follows them. They think they can come in from Counter Strike or a real life military and actually be effective, uhhh no.
..probably because Nerf HC is about being a good logistician as much as a tactician.
They are no better at logistics than they are tactics stug. In fact they pretty much suck all the way around. Wait thats not true there good at spamming p1 spawn spawn spawn
there....is....no.....logistics
moving around flags is checkers, not logistics. Logistics is.....Logistics!
So much false information in this thread it will be difficult to address all of them but I'll try. Let me address Campaign 72 and the CinC issue first. Since the position was created only two CinC's were relieved mid-campaign. Only two. That should be a pretty good indication that 95% of the CinC's do a great job for the community. It should also demonstrate that when we are forced to relieve a CinC there are good reasons for it. It's true that sometimes we allow a CinC only one campaign but in most of those cases the CinC has to retire for personal reasons.
An individual GM doens't have the authority to fire a CinC. This type of decision is made by all six members of the Game Management Team and only after long discussion. That procedure was followed in this case.
During Campaign 72 a GM did have to step in and make some brigade moves but that was done as a result of some rather panicked moves. Control was handed over to an HC officer as soon as one was found that was willing to take the map. CRS didn't want an axis win. We don't care who wins.
Not sure what this censure thing is all about but all players are bound by our terms of service. Often a member of the Gods of War is exposed to confidential information and is asked not to share it but that's about it.
Switching sides. CRS doesn't aske or tell any player to switch sides. Sometime they let us know they are but we don't encourage or discourage them. They have the freedom to chose whatever side they want with not interference from us.
The removal of the CinC wasn't swept under the rug. The reasons for his removal was providied by every member of the Allied High Command. Some disagreed with the decision and that's fine but it was our decision to make. Unfortunately we had to make it. Nobody is covering for anybody.
RA. There are no plans replace campaign play with RA. We've publically stated that that's not the case. Ah, rumors.
If you are curious about the game then try it out for yourself.
Not a good way to start off when you're more or less calling a lot of vet players and a nice chunk of current and former HC liars.
Were there recordings of the two confrontations on Allied TS? This is vitally important.
You mean moves that made no difference because the map was more or less over anyway? Where were the GMs when I lost England single-handedly when I was a total noob? Also, isn't the point of HC that the game is run by the players and you can achieve great success or great failure all on your own? Also, don't try to bring up the AoC where it says it's "HCs job to make the game fun for both sides" because if that was the case the four day map would have never happened.
I find this extremely hard to believe, not just based on what I've heard now but just plain business sense.
If I became too specific, I'd be giving away exactly who gave me the information which goes against my rules for this investigation at the time. But it doesn't have to do with Gods of War.
The one person who was rumored to have been asked said he was not, so that is one clear since he has been an upstanding player and person for as long as I've known him. The other, I know for about 99% certainty he was asked by somebody with capital letters to go Axis.
Let me tell you right now the reaction those reasons brought up: laughter or outrage. Of course, you aren't going to see the candid responses on the HC forum, only the politicized answers, well, except Karellean. Also, it was your decision to make but it was also AHC's decision to nearly walk right the hell on you for making that decision.
You people have stated many, many things before weren't/were going to happen and have contradicted yourselves many times over the years. You have very low credibility when it comes to what you say, but you should all be well aware of that by now.
Yes, try it and when you get:
Lost due to the piss-poor UI, (Some capital letters people were asleep when that abnormally large thread on how to improve the user experience without actually doing much to the game itself was stuffed with good ideas. Funny enough, the two people who contributed the most to that discussion are in this thread.)
Not understand the controls despite the terrible tutorials. (Is it still bugged?)
Have to ask for help on side or help channel only to be greeted by the local imps. (Trainers? What are those..?)
If you do manage to find the golden apple of the game: Squads and a good one, all the crap evaporates and you're left with a very good game despite it all.
edit: Somehow forgot this gem:
So God awful at marketing their own product that the players themselves have taken up doing it themselves with money out of their own damn wallets. That's not including the people turned down/ignored outright who have made dozens of trailers/promotional pieces for use by CRS. I've never, in all my years of being involved with software and playing games, seen a company so seemingly opposed to the idea of marketing.
*buuuuuuuuuuuuuurp*
The HC vs. Squad drama is pretty lame considering squads and HC both suck equally at tactics. Both sides couldn't herd cats out of a paper bag.
Just because you never ran with a decent squad back in the day nerf dont lay that junk on the rest of us old timers doorstep. I for one can for say the 101st and alot of III corps ops had huge amounts of tactics, logistics and orgainzation. Way more than todays HC system but then again you may not call attacks that had been planned out a day in advance covering everything from CAP, FB defense , Supply movement, transport to town for troops, ZOCs for armor, AT gun and AAA gun placement , and Indterdiction very tactical but then again some of us are harder to please than others /shrug. Oh did I mention all this is done with close to 200 players on TS. Nope no tactics or oganzation at all.
As for our rats guest let me ask you just one question from a old timer. And i know he has been with them long enough to know this since the rats never lied to the player base. Wait for it...... What about that road map you feed us all those years ago cause I dont remeber any of this crap you got in game know as being part of that. So yeah i would say you lied to the player base the ones who supported you for 10 years only to be tossed aside for you guys to go after the BF/CS Slice of the pie.
Pandering to the RA crowd...you want the game to die Zbus?
WOW Nerf you bought the game off the shelf just like me and many others did at game start. Get over it that does not make you a special snowflake.
And yes zergs did fail. Heck even attacks that got planned failed. Failure of attack did not make or break it for the squad guys the ability to work as a team and pick your time and place of attack along with doing all the things needed for the attack to be fun is what made the game for the squads. And thats why the squad attacks always drew big numbers even LWs knew the work had been done prior and there would be a good time had by all win or fail.
But for some players like yourself it was not enough you whined you cried cause you got camped. Even though the Rats did everything in the book to help you prevent that through game play changes. So we got the current system that forces everyone into a box and gives the D a 10 min. warning prior to the attack and EWS what a joke. All cause a few cry babies couldnt be bothered to go look when ews poped up on a town. The squads didnt fail the game you lazy whiners did.
Maybe one day you can stop all your crying and move on from the fact that the large squads that camped you no longer exist in game. But I doubt it cause now your just whineing about the HC system.I may not like the new system and pefered the older squad based play but at least i made a choice. You it seems dont like ethier system and just cont. to gripe and moan forever. not just here on PS as well what a joke you are.
Stug the point was a lie is a lie our RAT guest knows this. The Road Map kept alot of us playing and paying alot longer than we should have been on the hope the game would change as put forward by the rats themselves. Had they let us know they where going to kill off the squads and turn the game into BF/CS alot of us would have pulled our support long ago its that simple. So if that means I want the game to fail then i guess i do.