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. 1,279
      posts
    2. TECHNICAL & BILLING SUPPORT

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

      111,555
      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.

      1,332
      posts
    4. TESTING AND BUG REPORTING

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

      47,993
      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!

      1,562
      posts
  2. PLAYER DISCUSSIONS

    1. GENERAL DISCUSSION

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

      47,670
      posts
  • Member Statistics

    620,101
    Total Members
    253
    Most Online
    jpratt123
    Newest Member
    jpratt123
    Joined
  • Forum Statistics

    425,328
    Total Topics
    6,457,091
    Total Posts
  • Who's Online   11 Members, 0 Anonymous, 22 Guests (See full list)

    • JCD04
    • mariposa
    • delems
    • jwilly
    • krazydog
    • greyman
    • hardcase
    • james10
    • halsey
    • reefmon
    • dfire
  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Posts

    • james10
      Hello fidd, thank you for your reply. The difference between Spawn Delay (SD) and the Spawn Queue (SQ). A SD will allow a player into the game after an arbitrary period of time has passed. As you say it can been used to "see a man about a dog". The bottom line here is, a SD will eventually allow a player to spawn into the Arena regardless of the current in arena population imbalance and on average contribute more to that imbalance. The SQ will ONLY allow a player into the game arena when the game arena ratio (Larger population to Smaller population - i.e. sides, Allies Axis) is less than the “Brick Wall limit” as defined previously. Potentially never. The game being what it is, it would be extremely unlikely that no one dies, just de-spawned, CTD or was kicked out of the arena. One of those events is required to allow a player sitting in the SQ to either advance up to position 1 or if they were at position 1, enter the arena. Via this methodology the population imbalance in the arena (not just the game) will rarely be above the Brick Wall limit, given the suggestion that players contributing significantly to the financial well being of the game are permitted to bypass the proposed limitations. Why builder accounts? Well it is customary to allow VIP’s certain privileges and I would consider builder accounts to be VIP’s. Yes, the player pays for the privilege. A HC player can be effective at the map screen as they can in the arena. Just a few observations. The population imbalance is unrelated to attacker or defender. Although the side that is overpopulated “should” be attacking but it is not required. A 50% overpopulation is not 150 v 50, That actually is a 200% overpopulation or a ratio of 3:1. A 50% overpopulation is 75 v 50 or 1.5:1. At the lowest levels 7:5 give or take with rounding. Some reasonable advice. Have you ever considered playing in TZ3 to even out the numbers at all? Cheers.
    • fidd
      I contend that the damage caused by inbalanced play in TZ3 has a magnified impact on the game in TZ1&2 out of all proportion to the numbers involved, and does much more "economic damage" than saying "no" to a handful of wilfully-blind selfish players taking town after town v a largely absent opposition in that TZ. I think it would be wise to have a survey as to what numbers and ratio we consider to be a Minimum Viable Population - and ratio - for the game to work, and then to figure out how to get the game to work when either the population or the ratio is below or greater than, respectively, those values. To my way of thinking, once the ratio is exceeded on a repeatable and cyclic basis, then forced side-change needs to happen, subject to a ranking system as lain out upthread. I reckon the minimum defenders required per AO are circa 20 to 40 (1:2) - MVP 60 and 1:2 therefore, with the ratio of attackers to defenders going to 3:! once the 200 players overall population is passed, would be about right. YMMV.
    • fidd
      Interesting post, although I may be being a bit thick, but in practical terms, what's the difference between "SD" and a "spawn queue"? There's another issue I think you need to grasp, is that because of the way the game works, a overpop of 50% (with 200 players on the server, eg 150 v 50) is a very different proposition to the same % overpop but fewer players. IE at 150 v 50, the defender can with difficulty defend, but with 15 v 5, he hasn't a chance, because those 5 players cannot simultaenously do all the jobs required. My issue with the "spawn queue" is the same as that of SD, namely that all the player need to do is go afk for 2-3 minutes to "see a man about a dog", and return to his keyboard suitably relieved, ready to spawn. In other words it confers little real impact on relative numbers, or indeed outcomes, especially in TZ3, where he will be less likely to have to respawn, therefore side-stepping the balancing mechanism. This is why TZ3 needs to be treated differently to TZ's 1 & 2. To my mind, what we need is rough equality of numbers, especially in TZ3, as no-one likes having to guard a cp for hours on end by virtue of the fact there's no other bugger available to do it. I also think this should apply to everyone (except those in HC), be they builder/hero, standard or free account, - frankly if they're invested in the game, one would think they'd be the first to recognise times of day when the game is "broken" and act accordingly to remedy that. Not rely on their "status" to allow them to make the problem worse!
    • james10
      Hello All again how are we doing? Several posts ago I posed the statement: Alas there were no clarifying responses and it appears that TZ3 has been added into the mix.   Outlined below is a guaranteed way to eliminate the population imbalances that seem to plague TZ3. Eliminating the population imbalances from TZ3 will then reduce the displeasure caused in TZ1 as players have illuminated on previous occasions. The methodology would resolve all population imbalances regardless of time zone and cause. With this proposal the following are removed from the Game: •    Significant population imbalances. •    The issues caused by population imbalances combined with Low population generally in TZ3, presenting adverse results to the other time zones represented in-game. •    Side Locking. •    Spawn Delay. It does this without: •    Singling out any Time Zones within the game as it applies equally across all Time zones. •    Caters for the difference between just overpopulated and the results of a moral failure without significant reworking. •    Permits the Player to choose.   A few things first: •    What is the definition of significant population imbalance? 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, what? Put a number on it. My feel is anything at or above 2:1 appears to be an unacceptable play imbalance. We will call this our “Brick Wall limit”. •    At what point should the corrective measures start to be introduced? 1:1.5? Put a number on it. This will be called the “Trigger Limit”. •    Population imbalance is calculated by the number of players actually “In-game”. Ie, spawned into the arena. Other players that are simply logged into the game are not included. ONLY those that are “actually spawned in” are included. You have hit “Enter Game” before there is even the remotest chance you will be included in the population count.   How it works. There are no changes (other than the lack of side lock) until you are about to select the “Enter Game” button. At that point you have selected a side, selected an existing, or created a New Mission, selected a unit and are about to spawn into the game Arena. Spawn Delay will be no longer present. Once you select the Enter Game button: If the population imbalance is under the Trigger Level, nothing will be any different to the current “Balanced” population and things continue as per usual. If the population imbalance is over the Trigger Level the following occurs: •    If the side you have selected is defined at that point as Underpopulated (Requesting Reinforcements), things continue as per usual. •    If the side you have selected is defined at that point as Overpopulated you are presented with a warning page that indicating you are entering the world on the overpopulated side and may experience “Spawn Queuing”. The two options presented are, to “Continue” and spawn into the arena OR “Return” to return to the previous screen. Once the “Brick Wall limit” has been met. If the side you have selected is defined at that point as: •    Underpopulated (Requesting Reinforcements), things continue as per usual. •    Overpopulated however, you are presented with a screen that indicated you have been placed in a “Spawn Queue”. You are shown the length of the current cue and your position within the Queue. Sound familiar? The option presented are to “Return” to the previous screen. You are waiting for someone to de-spawn for whatever reason, so you can enter the arena. This is performed on a “first in”, “first out” basis. Position One (1) in the cue means you are the Next to Spawn in, when a space becomes available. The information is updated on a real time. Returning to the previous screen relinquishes your place in the queue.   No time zone is singled out as the methodology is applied to all Over/Under pop situation. If the player has selected to join the Overpopulated side and may have to wait in the queue to join the Overpopulated side, or they can elect to join the Underpopulated side instantly. The Overpopulation level will never be above the Brick Wall limit. If it is, no player will be permitted to spawn in until it is under the Brick Wall limit. I would suggest that players with at least a “Builder Subscription” should be exempt from the above restrictions.   Cheers.
    • stankyus
      I had prob one of the best graphics cards for the Mac several years ago. The card could handle normal maps and full on res.  However when I pumped the settings up to the best I used to get all kinds of weird anomalies. Like going to gunsite view and it looked as if I was spinning in space or smoke was a big white block. In the end I found it was a GC problem handling the way the game used graphics.
    • jwilly
      Not proposing that side switching be forced, or even encouraged. Just block gameplay beyond a balanced population on the OP side. If overall TZ3 numbers are small, that's the least-economic-damage course.
    • fidd
      I think the problem is a little more complex than that. For example, I'm sure neither you an I would wish to see someone who has fought all campaign on one side to be forced to change sides, due to an overpop caused by a morale collapse - and generally low numbers thereafter causing the the inbalance. So whatever mechanism is put in place, it needs to take account of lots of variables to rank players, and to be able to address long-term cyclic inbalances. rather than the necessary inbalances which naturally occur when one side is losing. It's important that as far as humanly possible, the "big-stick" of forced side-change is only directed at players who are really taking the [censored]. Ranking players by multiple behavioural metrics would allow this to be a well targeted system. In my estimate, over many campaigns, we could be looking at a matter of 10-30 or so players in all to make the TZ3 game competitive for both sides. The players I'm after, are the ones who play in TZ3, when at their log-in, or during their play-session, the inbalance is over a particular value, in % terms, but also when the server populations, is, or from past performance, can be, demonstrated to be likely to fall below a certain number. I think we can state with some certainty that it's when these things happen that one starts to see "weird" gameplay. An absent HC of course does not help. A reasonable acid-test of this is the % of the TOE which is remaining on the defender's side when a town is taken. In other words, the players who regard "fighting" versus a near absent defence whilst severely outnumbering the defenders right at the time of day when such game-mechanics to correct the effects of inbalance work least well. I also think there needs to be tasks other than dropping FB's, which players can undertake - and which give good gameplay - for periods of each 24 hour cycle when the "normal game" works least well. 
    • jwilly
      If TZ3 imbalances cause too much damage to gameplay in TZs 1 and 2, and TZs 1 and 2 generate a much greater overall revenue and are much more balanced, and TZ3 players are resistant to the only available changes that would result in TZ3 balance, TZ3 sign-in on the overpop side should be limited to achieve balance.
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      Kilemall
      Kilemall
      41
    2. 2
      Silky
      Silky
      38
    3. 3
      Styopa
      Styopa
      35
    4. 4
      reefmon
      reefmon
      32
    5. 5
      Jsilec
      Jsilec
      22
    6. 6
      csm308
      csm308
      19
    7. 7
      drkmouse
      drkmouse
      12
    8. 8
      MikeAZ
      MikeAZ
      10
    9. 9
      jwilly
      jwilly
      9
    10. 10
      stankyus
      stankyus
      8
×
×
  • Create New...