Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

Forums

  1. COMMUNITY NEWS & SUPPORT

    1. 1,175
      posts
    2. TECHNICAL & BILLING SUPPORT

      Players Helping Players. Windows & Mac trouble shooting in here.

      111,443
      posts
    3. GAMEPLAY SUPPORT/TRAINING

      Tips and Tricks to make you a machine of warfare in WWII Online. This is where your gameplay questions will be answered.

      1,252
      posts
    4. TESTING AND BUG REPORTING

      Repository for reports from pre-release testing and live game bugs.

      47,709
      posts
    5. PLAYER AWARDS

      Player to Player awards! Whether you're Allied or Axis, check this forum to see who has been recognized for outstanding effort!

      1,350
      posts
  2. PLAYER DISCUSSIONS

    1. GENERAL DISCUSSION

      General discussion for all players of WWII Online. Includes Premium, Starters and Free Players.

      46,884
      posts
  • Member Statistics

    613,481
    Total Members
    253
    Most Online
    thorax
    Newest Member
    thorax
    Joined
  • Forum Statistics

    424,615
    Total Topics
    6,443,418
    Total Posts
  • Who's Online   13 Members, 2 Anonymous, 20 Guests (See full list)

    • powpapow
    • delems
    • B2K
    • foe2
    • pickering4
    • Smoothie
    • hotrod
    • drkmouse
    • madrebel
    • Styopa
    • Jsilec
    • BMBM
    • goreblimey
  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Posts

    • delems
      Well, with 2 of the 3 fixed;  time for a new list of items that is impacting my game play, in order: 1) Enter World bug 2) Insufficient bridge AOs 3) Truck EWS way to short 4) Wire and ATG pit PPO distance borked 5) Blatant unfairness of AFK players sitting in game world on axis side
    • Kilemall
      Yep, so the question is wrong, the real question is what do you want gameplay to be like? The whole thing hangs on that question, including facility/terrain conquest, fighting, opportunity/resolution, etc. Fun is not a functional answer, although it is an underlying emotional state you want.
    • delems
      700m is way to short for trucks; need to try 1k.
    • fidd
      I would suggest that taking a town with a near full enemy supply, and rapid but ultimately easy and repeatable methods, is not play experience conducive to long-term support of the game. That it's a "method which works" is I think more a condemnation of inadequate game-mechanics than something to advance as a reason  for keeping the status quo. The simple fact is that all TOE's for both Bde's and Garrisons can be almost endlessly adjusted so that some attrition is required, but not so much that you can't take the town within so many hours of play; consequently it ought to be possible to design-out player strategies which do not give a competitive and interesting gameplay experience. For example, the TOE's we have are constant. What if they varied with both server population and side imblance? There's actually no reason that I can see why TOE's in a Bde need to be constant over a 24 hour period. Varying these according to the metrics above might help in allowing the low-pop game to be reliant on attrition, rather than pre-camping, and still allow map-movement. The really critical aspect is to improve the game-play, for all TZ's, so that the experience, be your side winning or losing, is as similar as possible whatever your TZ, the only difference being the number of towns taken per hour, and that being proportional to the overall playerbase and overpop-underpop situation. At this stage in proceedings I don't think it's helpful to rule anything in or out. What we should be doing is working out the general character of what we want, as a playerbase to achieve with whatever game-mechanics occur, and then to examine a set of proposals with the utmost critical rigour, in order to foresee and design out every conceivable edge-case and potential "gaming the game" wrinkle. It should be fairly straight-forwards to agree on the proposals, and certainly "doable" to anticipate and design-out foreseeable issues.
    • delems
      Please change the town named 'german training' in CB26 to 'Kiev Airfield'. Very confusing having it named training.
    • tater
      What about persistent defensive MSPs? (DMSP) Not just FMS, but a heavy FMS for all ATG/AAA, and a motorpool for armor? On sides in the direction of attackers is tricky, might need some thought as the proposed on-sides don't do well where they overlap. Maybe persistent DMSPs are invisible until the tables are hot? (else you have a FB-looking tent in the rear that the trucks zooming around like the Keystone Kops find, and get camped before any defenders arrive) Or maybe invisible, but they have to be placed in a rear area formed by an arc from a rear linked town to the current town (so towards your rear).
    • tater
      Certainly, but it's cookie cutter now. "Set up attack, next AO is X, roll trucks"  followed later by  "AO inbound!" By the time the AO is live the attackers are already all over the place. People who dislike the prepared defense will observe that the extant cookie cutter is because it is what works. Successful attacks tend to be those where the enemy shows up too late or in too low numbers. Successful defenses can even be last second. The chat has "X is about to be down to the AB" and sometimes people don't zerg in and in falls, sometimes they zerg in in mass numbers, and the town goes from being certainly lost to libbed. This is all the same lousy gameplay, IMO. Tiny Garrisons and meaningful attrition means that some defenses will be known lost causes, attrit. If a town is lost, the remaining assets in the spawn list are assumed to retreat, but with losses of some reasonable % (20% losses?). So a series of softcaps of garrisons with zero defenders would build up an overstocked garrison at the new front after a while. Anyway, garrison vs BDE/BDE attacks would provide one variation in play. With some sort of on-sides FMS rules variation would be 1 linked, vs 2 linked, vs 3 linked towns (on-sides: deploy no farther from truck spawn as distance from truck spawn point to target (for FB busts maybe FB must be set as target)). Maybe paras get some special thing. How and where along the local front to town you push is a variability as well (many towns would be attacked from 180-270 degrees even with on-sides rules).  
    • fidd
      I agree with your assessment of the need to poll players on what they want from the game via asking the 4 good questions set-out above, as a preliminary. I also completely agree about the need to reverse the time/space advantage so that attacks are confronted with an established defense. That said, I also think that - up to a point - there needs to be some variation in that to change the gameplay experience some, so that all battles do not possess "cookie cutter" similarity. One way to do that would be to confer an advantage to attackers who have successfully taken a town, to take a linked town from the town taken. This has two benefits, variety, but also keeping both sides of the players tending to remain in the same area rather than hopping about the map like a neurotic rabbit on chrystal-meth. I think the advantage of the Elastic-FB concept it that it provides so many different CRS tweakable aspects, that it can be finely adjusted over time until the results are both acceptable to all sides, but also give a common play experience irrespective of time of day. Moreover, and this is important, that AO's are a consequence of some sustained low-level combat - as if infantry patrols are making contact - before the AO can be placed. An attempt to pre-camp a town with armour is not possible, as the armour does'nt become spawanble in either AB or FB's until the AO is placed, by which time a mixed ATG and infantry screen will be established around the town. Rushing the town with armour therefore would be a fool's errand.  
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      Kilemall
      Kilemall
      18
    2. 2
      sorella
      sorella
      15
    3. 3
      Styopa
      Styopa
      15
    4. 4
      MikeAZ
      MikeAZ
      12
    5. 5
      Silky
      Silky
      12
    6. 6
      Jsilec
      Jsilec
      10
    7. 7
      Westy91
      Westy91
      9
    8. 8
      jwilly
      jwilly
      9
    9. 9
      delems
      delems
      9
    10. 10
      tater
      tater
      8
×
×
  • Create New...