Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Zebbeee last won the day on May 26

Zebbeee had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

154 Salty

About Zebbeee

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/17/1984

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit

Recent Profile Visitors

911 profile views
  1. 153 campaigns and all this whining for a one-time diversity. Exhausting politics simulation here...
  2. Just offering a "demo" account instead of f2p, and set up free-play weekends (Premium access for demo/f2p/wbs players) during summer holidays?
  3. Nice Xanthus ! This is what we needed to better promote the game.
  4. I updated the initial post to make it more clear. We already have supply triggering when a flag moves to a new town. It would thus be the same command activated when an AO is set on a town. The current gameplay already uses town links, factory status, FB status and population balance. Just use (some of) these information to define the quantity of a reinforcment wave. For example here is the current live map situation for Allied frontline towns, analyzed from the perspective of the amount of rear (non-frontline) towns linked to factories. As explained, these could contribute to the definition of the relative quantity of supplies each reinforcment wave would generate (0 = no -or minimal- reinforcement quantity). There is an interesting situation as multiple towns have currently 0 links. This means that these CANNOT be (significantly) reinforced as adjacent garisons are also pinned down to their positions, aside a forced .fallback or .haac command (as described in OP). Notice how the allied side would not be able to further attack with these "0" towns (that would be suicidal) and would need to consolidate their frontline first. Isn't this more realistic ? HC being moved to terrain leaders with 1.36 would have to fully exploit this to set up AO priorities. Even when overpoping another side, everything would be about smart moves according available supply links. Here is the axis point of view of this same map : We must of course consider the EXTRA FLAGS SUPPLIES as means to locally reinforce towns where no automated reinforcement waves are possible. Once it has been depleted, the brigade forms up again at its HQ (like your could/would do IRL). Otherwise some areas would become impossible to capture or to hold. The system can be designed to keep a 2 vs 0 battle last long enough to allow a brigade to be moved in time from 3 towns away. That being said, I didn't validate this idea with actual data simulation. Too many variables can be adjusted to obtain the wanted map dynamics. I believe we must rework our gameplay to guarantee fun for all, and this is one way to do it. @chaoswzkd you Are condemned to never fall asleep. We, the people, will always complain and ask for more *evil laugh*
  5. Throwing this idea link here as supply rules could be reworked with 1.36
  6. This is a brainstorming topic about town supply mechanism. Currently it's a rigid all-or-nothing model which I expect to show its limitations after 1.36. modifying its fundamental baseline could open the door to many tactical opportunities, welcomed by both ML and green tags. Idea baseline: (Aside extra supply flags) Instead of having a full supply list in towns like pre-TOE, Garrisons' supply could be minimal but AOs would trigger reinforcement waves on both sides (new supply every 5', 10', 15'...). Their amplitudes would depend on different parameters that could be tactically influenced. Supplies at the defensive town & adjacent attacking towns would thus be increased (and improved?) as time passes by, until a max total amount of supplies (or time?) is reached. This would add new variables to offer more variety and make unbalance come from tactical supplies management and less from total population. It would also open the door to special features listed bellow to keep it realistic and offer new tactical opportunities. Doors that may be opened on this basis: - Delivered QUANTITIES could depend on the amount of Links to factories, of the factories status, of owned fbs, of owned depots, of AO population balance or of total player population on AO. edit: see example in my second post about how urroubding towns could contribute. - Supplies would drop back to normal as soon as the AO is removed (spawned units are overstocked) - OVERSTOCK: rear towns have no supply restrictions and offer full supply lists. overstocked supplies from a rear FB would still be possible, so that an attacker can prepare its offensive, or a defender prepare to hold. - .HAAC could automatically trigger reinforcements from rear towns. 10% of rear towns' supplies (from a full list) could be automatically transferred every 10 minutes. This would simulate the call for help at surrounding garrisons but creating a dangerous gap if town still falls, with the extreme situation where 100% of supplies have been transfered from rear towns after 100 minutes. - .FALLBACK : when a rear town becomes a frontline town (defenders lost), its supplies are lowered to a basic garrison, except if defenders used fallback command : in this case the remaining supplies become available at the fallback town to offer counter-attack capabilities, facing attackers that get basic garrison supplies (aside overstock from despawn and flag movement). - PARAS: paras have no restrictions and can bring most advanced weapons from the start of an AO - TIERING over time : each reinforcement wave could contain X% of each available tiers, a ratio that evolves after each arrival so that the power of battles evolves with time. Example at Tier2 the distribution of reinforcement could be: 5'- T0: 100% - T1: 0% - T2 : 0% 10' - T0: 80% - T1 : 20% - T2: 0% 15' - T0: 70% - T1 : 30% - T2: 0% 20' - T0: 60% - T1: 30% - T2: 10% 25’ - T0: 50% - T1 : 25% - T2: 25% 30’ - T0: 40% - T1 : 25% - T2: 35% etc The purpose would be to offer T0 fights at the beginning of AOs, whatever the tier is. Furthermore it would prevent advanced units to be burned away from the start. Instead it's brought as a reward from HC for "long" lasting AOs. Currently newbies and f2p are pissed off in higher tiers, this make things a bit more acceptable. Attackers could eventually decide to put AO but hold assault until heavier equipment becomes available, but defenders could use this time to set up defensive positions and counter attack FB... - Eventually make the EQUIPMENT RANK ACCESS evolve as well during AO and linked to tiering, in order to let everyone enjoy heavier units and avoid having large unbalance. Higher ranked players keep access to the bigger toys. More subtlety, the longer a player is playing on an AO, the heavier equipment access he could receive as well, to create a kind of addiction and true dedication. With this approach, the balance of forces would depend on players' choices and become part of varying challenges. rats would no longer be blamed.
  7. Real tools to more easily team up with non-squadies and newbies would help
  8. Didnt know about this US division placement process. I Wonder how 1.36 planned supply management.
  9. Have we ever thought about developping our offline software and make it become a fully playable environment with AI bots ? I don't think any game has already offered a concept close to a "WWII Online OFFLINE" : huge open sandbox environment where thousands of combined-arms weapons are involved. Theatre of war and Steel division maybe, but not at our scale. Often FPS are just small scenarions. We could make it evolve towards a FPS + RTS game. Think about Men of War or Theater of war but on a much larger scale. Create complex battle scenarios, grab a plane and go hunt a column of supply trucks rolling from Namur to Andenne. Ask a battalion of tanks to move up a hill, or request a large para drop minutes before sending your ground troops. Okay, maybe dreaming too much here. Just a few AI features to start with? Having enemy units spawn and move towards multiple points would be a good start (moving targets). If players could buy it for a few dollars, but receive a F2P account for the online-world as well, it could generate extra revenues to re-invest in wing 2. Update packages would allow more offline content as it is created. A maket analysis is needed here.
  10. That's why it's time to separate "expérience" vs "rank" as I said: - your experience, based on your play time and kills, awards you access to heavier units. With separated experience trees per unit branche (inf, tanks, armored veh, atg, aa, fighters, bombers, ...) - your rank, based on your mission achievements (capture, rtb, ML orders follow-up...), Awards you rank points which defines your (temporary) influence over priorities for the playerbase. Deaths of your persona but also of your team mates could make this indeed negative. But not your experience which is different. You can have a great junior leader who doensn't know how to use the stug, as you could have talented fighter pilots who don't care about mission coordination.
  11. Time to study personal-based supply list. Not only would it offer new income options, but it would ease a Dynamic balance of AOs.
  12. Fear of death could indeed be more important if you didnt earn any point when dying but our environnement is not ready for this. I suggested area-shared rank points (share radius depending on unit type), but I think we should separate "experience" and "rank" which are two fundamental different concepts. Wwiiol failed with its design from day1 by not working out a true teamwork-based ranking system. And it still misses its potential becaude of this IMO
  13. Not this time, unfortunately. Just a little bone about infantry keymap and free look. https://www.wwiionline.com/game-news/development-notes/game-environment-infantry-optimization I admit I wasn't aware this was a more important issue and information priority than an update about the inf & tank damage issues, nor than an update about the time needed before the next patch with the already announced new content (new bunker, ml uniforms, new towns...), Nor a feedback about the 3 bugs survey and the online/offline surveys. Still I am happy to hear they work on small improvements here and there, despite being about 0.1% of my own gameplay experience