As much as AHC is great, it can corrupt a person in this game. Over the last few days I've really had a good think, and have come up with the following:
Some people don't belong in AHC. It ruins them. Some others are great in AHC only when it suits them. Some people are consistantly good in AHC and are respected by all; this is what everyone aims at, and some are complete power hungry jerks.
I've also realised that although Squad responsibilities have to be put aside it is always important to maintain a good relationship with the people in your squad. Make an effort to get along with them and you'll have way more fun in-game. I found that I can do all my "AHCing" as well as get along and have fun with my squad. I was leaning too far to "power hungry jerk" I fear (never reached it I hope), and am now firmly on track to trying to earn back the respect of my fellow squaddies and players.
AHC is a wonderful thing. Awful as well. So much politics, yet so much fun. It's a fickle thing :-) Yet, I find it intriging and I recon I'll be in it for the long run. I would encourage all to join it, but remember; keep everything in perspective. After all, it's a game...
S!
Tomba
Thursday, September 29, 2005
More about the Naval side of WWIIOL - Development
Well, I've been thinking again. Why don't we get new stuff? Like, my post before puts some reasons forward, and I've been trying to convince myself of those things, yet I can't!
Looking back at the original WWIIOL forums (the ones out before the game was released) there is all this talk of Aircraft carries and landing craft. 6 years later, we have a Fairmile, a Destroyer and a Freighter. All the same for the three countries. And still CRS won't do anything to make the Naval game more involved and more important, not even the simple stuff like add a dock to every river town.
And then we all look towards 1.20; the long and eagerly awaited patch. Hopefully, hopefully we're going to get some Navy lubbin. Supposedly L/C and MTB's. That would be sweeeet. Then whenever North Africa comes out with TEII we're supposedly getting some sort of Aircraft Carrier and I believe possibly a cruiser.
Anyhow, again I'll leave you with that. Needed to get it off my chest, heh. Just so sick of empty promises again and again.
S!
Tomba
Looking back at the original WWIIOL forums (the ones out before the game was released) there is all this talk of Aircraft carries and landing craft. 6 years later, we have a Fairmile, a Destroyer and a Freighter. All the same for the three countries. And still CRS won't do anything to make the Naval game more involved and more important, not even the simple stuff like add a dock to every river town.
And then we all look towards 1.20; the long and eagerly awaited patch. Hopefully, hopefully we're going to get some Navy lubbin. Supposedly L/C and MTB's. That would be sweeeet. Then whenever North Africa comes out with TEII we're supposedly getting some sort of Aircraft Carrier and I believe possibly a cruiser.
Anyhow, again I'll leave you with that. Needed to get it off my chest, heh. Just so sick of empty promises again and again.
S!
Tomba
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Thoughts about the World War Two Online Naval Game
I've been thinking a lot over the past few months about the Naval game of World War Two Online. Why is it there? Why is it like it is? Why doesn't it go forward? Why doesn't it go backwards? And many more questions. Tonight I figured, "hey, I got a blog, why not write my thoughts up," so here they are!
First of all the Naval game is there as such, in the game, for the obvious fact that when creating a game about World War Two it's very hard to ignore the Navy should there be water in the game. Therefore CRS had to add the Navy. I suppose when the waters were added, not many people played; they were looking for an FPS, which I believe the game was like when it first started. However, as the game evolved and HC were introduced people saw strategies evolving, and more hit the waters. There were of course those die hard Naval players who, from the word go, played Navy, and they deserve credit. Sailing those FMB's all day would have bored the hell out of me....then again I sail Destroyers all day and love it; I suppose you make do with what you've got. The Destroyer was added with the Freighter because it's one of the only things that the makers of the game (CRS) thought was "small enough" for the game but big enough to kill the freighter I guess. Mind you, why did no-one think of the torpedo boat....! So that's how we got to the Navy today I guess.
Why is it going forwards not backwards? The players. With the poor excuses and BS that CRS give us about "new stuff" for the Navy, when in fact we get no lubbin what so ever, it's the players in the end who stick together, use what we have, and make fun in any situation! The new and the old guys just love sailing around kicking the enemies butt! And that's what makes the Navy unique. No other branch are as close as the RN/MN are, purely because of our low numbers. So where are low numbers are our disadvantage they're also our advantage....very confusing!
With the small numbers= nowhere near as much money for CRS= no Naval lubbin, basically that can be translated into "The RATS don't give the Navy lubbin because they say we have no numbers; the Navies have no numbers because the RATS don't give us lubbin."
And so I leave you to ponder those thoughts, and I need to regroup mine. Will post again soon,
S!
Tomba
First of all the Naval game is there as such, in the game, for the obvious fact that when creating a game about World War Two it's very hard to ignore the Navy should there be water in the game. Therefore CRS had to add the Navy. I suppose when the waters were added, not many people played; they were looking for an FPS, which I believe the game was like when it first started. However, as the game evolved and HC were introduced people saw strategies evolving, and more hit the waters. There were of course those die hard Naval players who, from the word go, played Navy, and they deserve credit. Sailing those FMB's all day would have bored the hell out of me....then again I sail Destroyers all day and love it; I suppose you make do with what you've got. The Destroyer was added with the Freighter because it's one of the only things that the makers of the game (CRS) thought was "small enough" for the game but big enough to kill the freighter I guess. Mind you, why did no-one think of the torpedo boat....! So that's how we got to the Navy today I guess.
Why is it going forwards not backwards? The players. With the poor excuses and BS that CRS give us about "new stuff" for the Navy, when in fact we get no lubbin what so ever, it's the players in the end who stick together, use what we have, and make fun in any situation! The new and the old guys just love sailing around kicking the enemies butt! And that's what makes the Navy unique. No other branch are as close as the RN/MN are, purely because of our low numbers. So where are low numbers are our disadvantage they're also our advantage....very confusing!
With the small numbers= nowhere near as much money for CRS= no Naval lubbin, basically that can be translated into "The RATS don't give the Navy lubbin because they say we have no numbers; the Navies have no numbers because the RATS don't give us lubbin."
And so I leave you to ponder those thoughts, and I need to regroup mine. Will post again soon,
S!
Tomba
I have a blog...
No idea why. Looked cool. Thought I could use it somehow. So I got a blog :) Will post more soon.
S!
Tomba
S!
Tomba
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)