Jump to content

Arkod

Community Member
  • Posts

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 GBP 

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Arkod got a reaction from Fabs in Stepping stone server   
    I don't think that making another -lighter- modset will help. Other than some technical stuff (actual server, mission/s, more admins?) it probably will divide the community even more. Right now AW has 2 player bases: those who play on EU1/2 and those who play on EU3. Ocasionally players jump between the two, but generally speaking there are "core" players for each modset.
     
    If you open another server with a middle-ground modset, it may create another sub-community, and from general experience, dividing a community like that is never a good idea. It potentially could create more problems than solve. 
     
    On top of all of that, openining another server may bleed players from EU3, which already is suffering from low amount of players on average compared to 1/2. I would prefer if AW focused on promoting EU3 instead of opening new servers. 
     
    I have a feeling that players are "intimidated" by EU3 and they can't just hop and play to try it because they have to download 20+GB of mods.
     
    A gamenight with just ACE and ACRE is a really good idea that would show players the basics of EU3 without downloading much. 
     
     
  2. Like
    Arkod got a reaction from P057code in Stepping stone server   
    I don't think that making another -lighter- modset will help. Other than some technical stuff (actual server, mission/s, more admins?) it probably will divide the community even more. Right now AW has 2 player bases: those who play on EU1/2 and those who play on EU3. Ocasionally players jump between the two, but generally speaking there are "core" players for each modset.
     
    If you open another server with a middle-ground modset, it may create another sub-community, and from general experience, dividing a community like that is never a good idea. It potentially could create more problems than solve. 
     
    On top of all of that, openining another server may bleed players from EU3, which already is suffering from low amount of players on average compared to 1/2. I would prefer if AW focused on promoting EU3 instead of opening new servers. 
     
    I have a feeling that players are "intimidated" by EU3 and they can't just hop and play to try it because they have to download 20+GB of mods.
     
    A gamenight with just ACE and ACRE is a really good idea that would show players the basics of EU3 without downloading much. 
     
     
  3. Like
    Arkod got a reaction from BACONMOP in Stepping stone server   
    "A modded and organized public server"
     
    I don't think there's much more to it. It's still a public server, like EU1/2, but it has mods and people try to play in an organized manner.
  4. Like
    Arkod got a reaction from Reidy in Side Chat   
    If the goal is realism, then why not remove Command Channel and use Direct for map marking? (It should work, right?) When planning, leadership already does it grouped together, so direct would be the same as Command for that, but you won't be able to place "magical" markers in the middle of a mission unless you're close together.
     
    Main issue with going for proper realism on EU3 is that it's still a public server. It is quite hard to limit what random people will do there - that's why every day there's talk about what guns are available for each class, what scopes to use, uniforms, etc. In my opinion it's also a reason why Leading is harder than it should be - some players just don't listen. That's why we have CAS engaging too much or MAT pushing in front of Infantry with their GMG humvee and annihilating most enemy infantry AND armor... (there should be a different discussion about allowing MAT/HAT to use armed humvees)
     
    Going back to side chat topic - someone (probably admins) needs to decide what's more important for EU3: realism (side disabled) or convinience (side enabled).
  5. Like
    Arkod got a reaction from ParabolicAJB in Side Chat   
    If the goal is realism, then why not remove Command Channel and use Direct for map marking? (It should work, right?) When planning, leadership already does it grouped together, so direct would be the same as Command for that, but you won't be able to place "magical" markers in the middle of a mission unless you're close together.
     
    Main issue with going for proper realism on EU3 is that it's still a public server. It is quite hard to limit what random people will do there - that's why every day there's talk about what guns are available for each class, what scopes to use, uniforms, etc. In my opinion it's also a reason why Leading is harder than it should be - some players just don't listen. That's why we have CAS engaging too much or MAT pushing in front of Infantry with their GMG humvee and annihilating most enemy infantry AND armor... (there should be a different discussion about allowing MAT/HAT to use armed humvees)
     
    Going back to side chat topic - someone (probably admins) needs to decide what's more important for EU3: realism (side disabled) or convinience (side enabled).
×
×
  • Create New...