Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Silky

  1. We'd pay to look at the reality of how these events pan out before introducing any theoretical change. The pragmatic mindset trumps the idealogically-driven one.

    What actually happens when a town is cut off, how do the players respond, what would be the unintended consequences of making the cut off town a more viable fighting force? Would any changes be utilised by the playerbase?

  2. 7 hours ago, XOOM said:

    The same people who argue that 1.36 didn't yield their desired results would demand that we actually retract further and un-do what has been done to automate the majority of their function in their absence.

    I was hopeful that with the High Command demands being substantially removed that we'd see more veteran players stepping up to HC / volunteer because you're right, the last major thing they have to do is to manage Objectives and direct players to them.

    Players determining where the battles are and the strategic objectives being is something that will be very difficult to automate, but the best thing we can do is to give it to the hands of player leaders such as we have outlined in the "Proximity based AO" concept that we were looking at. 

    Are we ready for that? Do the players no longer have faith in our High Command teams to even do that? Or could we see more players joining High Command to help with the AO management / player direction equation?

    Make command roles valuable and full of utility and players will join. Command-Control tools and genuine leadership tools. Build it and they will...


    1 person likes this

  3. 1 hour ago, foe2 said:

    As someone who has HC experience pre and post 1.36 all I can say is that 1.36 has made the HC game boring.  There is not Strategy anymore. no challenge.  there isn't the thrill of realising that the opposition has made a mistake and you only have  a limited window to exploit that mistake and move the map forward. No thrill in capping a town and knowing that you can breakout and push the map.  There is far less thrill in cutting towns and kicking flags because flags mean so little now.  everything is basically one massive grind, since all towns have ample supply its either hit them hard and fast and cap the whole place before any defenders show up  or grind them down constantly in attrition battle. 


    Just ask players like @Silky who was always active HC  pre 1.36 who I've not seen online in game at all post it. 

    I won't labour the point but I made my views clear on 1.36 - the trajectory the game took wasn't one that appealed to me personally, so I saw no point in continuing as HC. I noted the recent mission waypoint development, I've said for years that the reason that TOES didn't maintain the heights of the 1.27 days wasn't down to a lack of HC coverage, it was because the game didn't sufficiently allow players in leadership positions to actually, practically lead, which made leading a battle against the game systems, which became tiresome and made leading a less positive experience. I'll again paraphase Gagamel - one of the game's most effective, fearsome field leaders - 'when the best command-control tool you have is the enemy boat mark, you're in trouble'.

    1 person likes this

  4. 14 hours ago, DOC said:

    So as you've come to expect, I'll be brief. Wait ... did I just say that ? I must be delirious. Well to tell the truth, after I finished crying, I probably have moved a little into the delirium territory. I went to my oncology review just this week, the big one ... post treatment and with all my tests and scans having been completed. 


    Best news ever eh !

    It was an experience this year ... that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy (well ok that's actually a good plan if I had any enemies) ... but now I can focus on getting the missing 80% of my health back. They almost killed me (in fact they cut the treatment short by one round because they didn't think I'd make it through) but I made it anyway. Thank you everyone for your help and support. You'll never know how much it means to me. I shall try to tell you but I will fail to convey how much it really meant. Most awesome community this side of the Milky Way.


    Fantastic news Doc. GJ and here's to the road to recovery :)

  5. 33 minutes ago, Augetout said:

    I would submit that WW2Online is not easily comparable to other MMOs, in that our players can't go off to a cave somewhere by themself and mine for stuff for days, and there is no special sword to be crafted at the end of the mining expedition.  In WW2Online, in-game rank eventually is achieved/maxed out, and the satisfaction is based on whatever the battles or lead up to the battles causes enjoyment for the players.

    Back in the early days, my unit had a guy named Itza who almost always preferred to drive a truck.  He brought troops to the battle, towed guns to the battle (and back sometimes), and once TOEs entered the fray, he either drove truckloads of Infantry from backline towns or he drove tanks from backline towns.  It was a rare event that he shot at folks, as he was rarely in-game in anything other than an unarmed truck.  And he had a blast, and was really well-known (actually kind of famous) in-game for his 'itzabus'.  

    Last campaign I saw Bloodybill running around on the Allied side, picking off enemy FBs pretty much by himself.  One wouldn't even know he was in-game until he'd post 'x fb is allied' when he was done.  Different strokes for different folks, but far different from other MMOs, imho.


    As Karellean used to say "Blessed are the truck drivers"

    2 people like this

  6. On 6/14/2019 at 9:38 PM, SCKING said:

    Personally I would support that type of change if we can figure out a way for brigades to be able to be moved properly/automatically without relying on HC.. Its already been demonstrated that when HC is not present, reliance on the brigade system, as the primary force, is an utter failure. When this was being done, that was my same suggestion, but I had no answer for the brigade movement system relying on players. 

    Make HC more attractive. Bring in command-control tools, allow HC to easily see what town a bde falls to and where it's going to fall. Allow moves to be stacked and timed, eg "move Bde X to town Y in 31 minutes". Bring back HC uniforms. Create better chat channels, more fit for the game. Tweak the TOES set up to mitigate JBWS

    So many things could have been done to retain the key advantage of TOES, namely a more realistic simulation of a front line and to provide complexity and variability to the game

    5 people like this

  7. On 6/4/2019 at 8:41 AM, Kilemall said:

    I think all this AO and active battles and a half dozen different mechanisms are geared exactly to this need.


    What is missing is a manual or vidoes or something that explains the game so they get the depth and/or ya bigazz world here is how to find stuff.


    I would gather from reading between the lines that the original design document assumed 'fellow player indoctrination', which works fine with the original year or two maps, not with missions willy nilly lying around all over the damn place with no explanation of what the player will experience jumping in.


     A thorough going over by documents/vids is needed, incorporated into the sales pitch so they know what to expect.  I don't think that's happening, so second best- follow through on the acculturation/indoctrination process by getting the DAMN VOICE SYSTEM IN.

    The major factor I would look to address is 'survivability', or - Give players more of a feeling that they're engaged in a battle before they die.


    Environmental clutter, cover, concealment, debris, even increased weapon sway and inaccuracy, terrain-hugging abilities to allow players to spawn in to a close quarters infantry fight and not die so quickly. The cover available in an infantry fight is minimal at the moment, so our players are denied the ability to hide, protected, where they can absorb the intensity of the battle going on.

    I recognise it's technically challenging, but it's a key battle to win if gameplay's to be improved. 

    Developing the spawn mechanics and the UI are useful paths to push, but secondary to how the game actually plays.


    I'm a keen proponent of the devs developing a vision for how individual game sessions look and doing everything possible to then achieve that. For me, that initial trailer for PS blew my mind, just from the intensity of the infantry play, greatly aided by the suspense and adrenalin rush that was the pre-cursor to the actual PvP. Being safe but knowing there's a battle going on is a major reward of a combat game.

    2 people like this

  8. 5 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

    Rank points are basically useless when you reach a certain level.

    Plus, you'll only be attracting green players with this, and to be brutally honest, 99% are worthless until they learn how to play, and I don't mean firing a rifle. 

    This isn't a real incentive, it's just a platitude. 

    There should only be 2 AOs if the population warrants it, no matter what TZ. Period. 

    The lack of meaningful points/XP system means we have a huge when it comes to shaping or incentivising game choices 

    I’m sure it’s not on anyone’s road map as it seems like an irrelevance but it really isn’t. It would be a key element in getting players to do things that benefit the game 

  9. 15 minutes ago, XOOM said:

    That seems to be the case. The hopeful intention at the time of introducing this was to make the fighting much more difficult and bring action closer, to aggregate more people in tighter zones so they could see each other instead of walking around all of Antwerp on foot without seeing a whole lot. 

    So does this mean Antwerp will be returned to a single large city? @Merlin51

  10. 1 hour ago, XOOM said:

    Not currently on the books. I don't really want to break up all of the big towns, we did want to add some variety for others however. Can't really provide much detail beyond that. Right now I am more concerned with getting the US Forces their own set of factories in terms of terrain development.

    It’s a shame Lux isn’t planned for a break up. Lux always proves a strong point in the far south that inhibits more interesting activity in the area. 

  11. 1 minute ago, XOOM said:

    This is definitely something we've discussed. I'd like to see some updates to it as well to avoid monotony. 

    Perhaps even, we can consider who ever won the last campaign, might start a little behind their normal starting line (not excessive, but a little). Regardless, we definitely want to keep things enjoyable and not too routine.

    Breaking up Ant and Brussels has changed the ebb and flow of the initial parts of each campaign. When might we expect Lux and Liege to be deconstructed into smaller chunks?

    1 person likes this

  12. This is worthy of a broader, more extensive discussion and ultimately a dedicated task group/project team with full CRS involvement. 

    Fundamentally, attacking a town - or more accurately, setting up and implementing an attack that feels coordinated and engages and stimulates players - is way to hard, too sluggish, too prone to being shutdown, too reliant on small numbers of individuals, to drive gameplay forward.

    Worthy of a topic of itself @ZEBBEEE @TMAN

    6 people like this