karellean

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    2,673
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Green Tag

About karellean

  • Rank
    Retired Allied CinC
  • Birthday
  1. The 2nd AO makes a LOT of difference Kile... That second AO and widening the snake is pivotal in making any good cut stick, and stick safely. If your on a roll (and normally when snaking you are), the 2nd AO is usually a forgone conclusion. In addition to widening the snake, you can also: Use it to buffer airfields and get them up and running Tie up defenders in key towns elsewhere not in the snake, (or sometimes even pinch the towns if they are really sloppy or light in numbers online) Poke dents into Enemy reinforcement pathways (adding to their timers) Probe other weak points to make a second cut/pocket - create additional pain points. Rear Guard supply in front of the snake, will mean very little if the numbers are truely as light as I read in this thread. If really has been 10 v 5 out there in TZ3 (or probably worse knowing how players will pile into a roll) -- Two AO's in those pop conditions is downright lunacy. More AO's = More Pain for the underpop/defending side in 95% of situations. (The other 5% is if you are defending, and lucky enough to get some buffoon on the other side to go softcap pointless garbage towns, wasting their overpop, or try and hammer into really tough towns to take)
  2. Busy building a career n stuff Jsil... Had an interest.. so looked in... Observational Notes (Factors in TZ3 pop levels, there was some other stuff not pop related Ill leave out): 1. Spawn Delay Bug Underpop getting SD, sighted again inside 30 mins of logging in... Same old problem I flagged maybe 4 years back... That was the last straw for many TZ3 players... Occurs when Pop level reaches around 15-20... SD Algorithm doesn't handle sharp swings in numbers that can occur that time of night... 2. Netcode 3 and TZ3 Also first time Ive had to use Netcode 3, and found for my ~240-260ms latency (West Coast Australia) I could not even get cleanly out of the CP without constantly clipping into things, was a struggle to walk out in itself... let alone shoot anything... I am sure NC3 fixes the laggy warping inf for those on low ping, so understand why it is in there... So to be clear, I understand fully, that I am a victim of circumstances with that, not any Devs fault... NC3 likely has less of an impact on TZ3 East Coast Australian who can get 190-220ms and probably fall under the threshold for a number of lag protection mechanisms Netcode applies, so they don't feel it as much... Backing this statement: I game for about 2 weeks of the year on connections over there, and don't feel as much pain... Haven't tried WWIIOL under NC3 there yet though, it probably ok in the cities, but anyone regionally will be as bad off as I am... My NC3/ Geographic Context: I am probably the only WWIIOL player in West Australia, and arguably the furthermost from anyone to the server... I have a similar experience in almost every other game in recent times though... Network coding everywhere has changed, expecting people to have better connections and punishing those with bad ping... Netcode cant fix the Laws of physics (distance/speed of light) which dictate I wont get much better than 230ms even with a ping optimizer... Older versions of Networking Code often used to be more tolerant then what they are today of higher pings, So I could get by... Some games/servers even refuse me access straight up these days, as I can't get under 200ms... Regardless of the above not being anyone's fault., and most won't have an experience as bad as mine, Netcode 3 probably hasn't helped any TZ3 players either, and therefore should be considered as a factor affecting TZ3 population. Stay South of Antwerp and Have Fun... Kare
  3. Just Checked in... and Out -- Details will be in PM for you Kile (if that still works)
  4. Kile, Yeah I am aware of the mechanics change. Not that I have played with it much... And yep... Potthead's population thread deserves better then having a mechanics discussion in it... If I get a chance Ill do a couple of days research... Kare
  5. Sup Folks, I still pass by once in a while. Pott: I did the overall players count thing way back in the C60's & C70's era, when trying to confirm the "axis bench" theory. I also did it over maybe as many as a dozen campaigns... I have no direct idea about breakdowns now... But from what I have read in this thread... the pattern appears to be similar to my findings back then. Boring: I did this by scraping the killed/killedby stats of the top 100 sortie players, and merging all the data into a spread sheet.. and yes it took a LONG time to compile without a formal tool. I went looking for the sheets, I did.. cant find them, lost in the ghosts of hard drive's past, however I recollect the following: -- Axis did have a significantly higher number of total players, compared to Allied, It was about a 55%/45% Split roughly across the duration. -- Total pop was over 2000 players (Both sides added together) over the course of a campaign back in the early 60's, it tapered off consistently throughout the 60's, taking a more significant plunge in the early 70's when TZ3 started to fall apart in earnest. -- Never did Allied have more total players than Axis -- In allied wins the number narrowed, closer to 52%/48%, but always in Axis Majority -- Allied wins were usually driven by a core of 30-40 players pulling insanely LUDACRIOUS amounts of sorties and TOM, if they were not active, it ended up an Axis win -- BOTH SIDES - required some key leaders to be quite active to see a win. Leadership being required is a constant on either side. -- Axis wins often saw the unique players per side imbalance up to almost 60%/40%. -- Essentially for an Allied win, it took a real concerted effort from Leadership and its vet playerbase... Axis just needed the leaders in place more than anything, the extra depth of player numbers, meant not so much effort was placed on a few. I also looked at the side switcher factor, given I had a series of rolling campaign stats... and was absolutely stunned when I found so few people actually swapped sides. Between campaigns.... (Less than 4-5% of people swapping across) and nearly nobody, during a campaign... However what was of note was those swapping were often "known" tags... the players you recognise, and groan, when they kill you... which is why the issue appeared perhaps larger then it actually was. From experience of leading both sides at some point or another, I always found it easier to lead Axis, mainly due to the numbers depth... But the way the map links fall in the middle of the map were easier to drive as well, with the Liege Pivot, and things like the Wellin-Boullion link... As well as a steady number of choke points to obtain as you move westwards... You could grind it out as Axis... Allies, mostly needed to snatch n grab a swag of towns in reasonably quick succession, to be able to form a defendable line, before consolidating for period. As far as TZ3 goes... I perservered for a long time in the face of falling numbers.... Once it got down to about 30 a side, simply couldn't really do anything... 4 decent guys could snuff out an attack setup in around 5-10 minutes... And given at that level of pop your lucky if you find 2 people willing to set anything up... It ends up in a constant state of setting up attacks, and players just logging out during the 20-30 minute windows that constantly occurred during objective shifts... I compensated for a while by having about 4-5 accounts of my own (Pott does this as well)... and driving multiple trucks at once... and whilst FRU's could be rebuilt by ML's that helped maintain spawn points... (That mechanic had its own issues of course, no argument for it being gone, but it did prop up TZ3) .. Eventually though ... even that was not enough... Anyhoo, Im heading off the topic... So stay south of Antwerp and have fun... Kare
  6. Oh the UMS whack a mole days were NOT fun...I was super active through that period.... and it rightly needed to be fixed and was... I agree completely that is not an option, and wouldn't be advocating a return to that in any form. Truck placement of spawns is definitely the right path, not infantry mission leaders. But if the trucks are not getting in often enough, something needs to be done, or you have one side sitting in an empty town waiting, with the other side pretty much staring at a map trying to figure out how to get there... (time economically, running 5km is NOT usually the answer, albeit on some very rare occasions it is) Meanwhile the handful of those players trying to do the right thing and setup, are getting demotivated, giving up and logging out, after usually two, sometimes three fruitless efforts in a half hour period, and the problem worsens...
  7. I see where you are coming from, but what you highlight is a population issue, numbers,squads,leadership... It is all well and good in an ideal world for maintenance of historical accuracy, and yes, no argument ideally it -should- take a moderate group of 10-15 players to make a proper planned ingress into a town. But maintaining accuracy, at the expense of putting even more players into retirement, by not providing mechanic adjustments needed to generate gameplay is simply not logical. The population level for the ideal of 10-15 players to carry out a planned ingress, doesn't exist at present, and hasn't for a while. Nor will the population ever return to that level, if attacks/combat action cannot be established effectively with some degree of reliability of reward for effort. Therefore if we seek to increase the volume of combat action, and the reliability of establishing an active combat environment, the mechanics need to be tweaked to reflect the reality of what population level exists now. And right now, reality is that is you frequently only have a group of 3-4 people with perhaps 5-6 accounts at their disposal --WILLING-- to establish the most critical element of an attack, viable spawn points, through the use of Trucks and FMS's. The mechanics therefore need to be tweaked to cater for the reality, and in my opinion adjustment to the range of Truck Audio, would go the furthermost towards addressing the issue of unreliably being able to establish spawn points in order to generate an attack, and combat activity. Sure there's other things that -could- be done with timers.... but they will have more undesirable side effects, then simply reducing truck audio...
  8. Whoever called Truck Audio is spot on... Truck Audio biggest culprit for failed FMS establishment... Two vets can and will kill off up to 4 or 5 FMS's in about 10 minutes if they are on the ground shortly after EWS turns on... When you are lucky to get three FMS to an attack, its a no brainer its doomed. Get that truck audio down to 500-600m ASAP, and FMS's have half a chance to get setup... 600m is enough to provide some skill challenge still, in rolling the last few hundred meters to get setup.... Whilst also forcing any would be early responder to EWS to at least run a couple of hundred meters to the direction they want to patrol and hear things, and not simply being gifted the enemy location within the first 10 seconds of spawning in... ------ If audio range adjustment is proving hard to do technically.... then at least in the interim, as a stopgap.... reduce the build timer to almost nothing (I'm talking 5 seconds or so), so you can stop, build and drive off, at least offering some ruse..... Surely that couldn't be too hard to change...
  9. Hi there folks, I still keep an eye on the grand ole game... Strengths: Overall Gameplay, supply model, ability (albeit its rarely relevant in recent times) to host LARGE combined battles, and Persistent campaign are WWIIOL's stongest assets. In particular the ability of every person, and every sortie contributes the the campaign outcome in some manner, is a huge selling point. Weaknesses: The dated engine, clunky UI, inability to jump in/out of vehicles is what hurts it hard... Also the population level too, as the gameplay is designed to have a critical mass of probably about 100 a side at all times of day, which is waaaaay below what we see these days. You can argue the subscription model, is also a turnoff for some, with younger gamers (under 30's) , in many cases just not willing to fork out subs for anything... --------- WWIIOL still has the best balance of gameplay and mechanics I have seen for a persistent combat world anywhere, and others have all failed some way or another.... If it gets the engine upgrade, it should be great again, it is simply that dated, that far behind now, it cant compete on it's strengths alone.... New Engine: There is no silver bullet amongst the shelf of modern engines, and its simply not financially practical in this day and age under most circumstances to build your own. Some concessions will need to be made, and straight up I see accepting instancing at an area level, is probably the most significant and simplest concession that may need to be made. Id be open to considering utilizing a series of "area based instanced maps" (each holding perhaps 2-4 towns and surrounding terrain)... Using that 20km x 20km size already available from the newer engines as best possible... -- I concede this would change the air game considerably though, as air access points would need to be provisioned for, where an airfield is not present. Tricky balance to get right... -- Spawnables, FB's and Central Supply Management, are all issues to work through, but with some thought (cross instance talk needed), I don't see how that could not be done, to make it pretty similar to how it is now. -- The hardest challenge I see, is still is going to be the network code, and getting that large scale 200v200 type battle capability. These modern engines, simply don't do that out of the box, and just don't appear to have the capacity to provide that, (at whilst maintaining a standard of immersion in the environment) -- Rear town supply, also trickier, but its been missing from the game for so long, it can probably just be ignored, and solved perhaps at a far later date. I know the above model is -similar- to what H&G offers... but H&G made some terrible mistakes with their supply mechanics, a decision to use a progressive based XP/currency unlocks system, a ping-sensative matchmaking system, and most specifically, a stupidly low number of maps, that are used everywhere, instead of modelling real terrain. It has made for a quickly boring scenario of repetiveness, where you see the same town over and over, limited field battle, and a grind... OMG the grind... to unlock basic tools needed to perform.... If H&G or War Thunder, had done their games right, I think a lot of us wouldn't still be here... But they didn't so there is still a hole in the market to fill, that a rebuild of WWIIOL could capture those players, amongst others who drifted off to other niche failures back in a full re-release. My 5c on Cash: -- Id be selling any rebuilt game up-front again too of course. Full premium price $50 plus to recoup costs -- Add a cosmetic unlocks cash only model for a trickle of cash -- New Toys come in DLC packs, for intermittent cash boosts. (Sure most of the existing player-base gonna hate this, but its how the world works now, accepted next-generation gaming practice) -- If subscription is retained, it needs to be a fraction of what it is now, to keep the younger generation subbed up. (Youngsters simply won't cough up more than 5 bucks a month in most cases, due to their "entitled" millennial hard coding) -- Could use Spawn Delay to make any F2P gamer's suffer SD penalties, whilst a sub removes it. A SD "whilst you wait "window, also throws up -LIMITED- advertising to squeeze a little more cash maybe. Lots of ways it could have minimal intrusiveness applied, e.g 5 spawns ins before you get a 2 minute timeout with a "whilst you wait" -- Hell, that could be put in the current game for free to plays now, would have the added side benefit of making them play smarter too... Kare
  10. Exactly as I called it above earlier... And you have here..... Big part of the reason timers went off the 30/15 minutes to begin with..... was that huge breakout from Huy to Malgadem, and a 2nd huge pocket no long after.... (that a few of us were involved with) Timers come back to this 30/15 this map for the first time in 7/8 years, and we see a huge pocket in place within 2 days, for the first time in years... Fast timers hurt inexperienced HC and weaker sides.... not help them... Evidence is on the map right now....
  11. If there is opportunity stat tweaking in play.... Can we possibly have Truck Deaths (and any kills by trucks) REMOVED from a persona's overall KD count... It skews the numbers horribly for the people who are "driving the game" (bad pun) by providing FMS's regularly... Its quirky I know... but so is pineapple on pizza....
  12. Mixed response to the planned changes: 1. 15 Hours to 10 Hours Resupply -- Generally good... 15 hours was a little long, and heavy RDP making it 25-30 hours, stands to be silly.... -- The time to resupply tickets... is all relevant to the levels of supply in lists, and the current populations burn rate... At present levels on lists, and current burn rates around 12 hours would be right.... THAT said... I think 10 is ok... If the volume of armour on lists is trimmed downwards a little... 2. 12 Hours to 6 Hours for training -- NOT LIKING THIS .... A 6 hour training timer, means that flags that got rightfully beaten up in a pocket... come back with full gear faster than the flags that sent them there !!!!! -- Also in the event of the whole division being routed you can warp that anywhere !!!! -- Neither of the above seems fair -- it almost rewards bad game play ...... I think the training timer should MATCH the resupply timer. (so 10 hours) 3. Manual Routing Threshold lifted to 50% ****** This will work well... AS LONG AS THE MANUAL ROUTING IS RESTRICTED TO CUTOFF FLAGS ONLY AND THE TRAINING TIMER MATCHES THE RESUPPLY TICKET TIMES********* --- IF the Increase Manual Routing Threshold is not restricted to CUTOFF FLAGS ONLY, then self-routing at 30/40/50% can definitely can be exploited by a skilled Map OIC --- IT BECOMES PARTICULARLY EXPLOITABLE IN COMBINATION WITH 6 HOUR TRAINING TIMERS, AND REDUCED MOVEMENT TIMERS --- Snipped a whole bunch of info how this could be exploited , it would just bore 90% of people, 4. Trickle Timers for flags --- And reality is.... THIS IS WHERE THE TUNING IS NEEDED.... if we want to stop the "FLAG IN - ARMOUR ZERG FLATTENS ATTACK" --- that will be even more common with reduced movement timers the trickle timers are what need fixing Quite a few long time vets have posted above highlighting this, and I am with them.... Trickle adjustment is something really needed.... I believe it needs to MUCH SLOWER than what it is now and halved..... -- 60 Mins for full resupply ... 10 units per trickle... armour only trickles every second tick... 5. Brigade Movement Timers -- Carries risk... Its been 7-8 years since we had 30-15min timers for movement... I believe it was changed , because the elite MAP OIC's could work sides over far more effectively with faster movements. -- NO Arguement shorter timers improve time to cover defence.... but they also open opportunites for skilled MAP OIC's to exploit weakness. -- If a side has no MAP OIC and cannot keep up with the rapid moving supply... the whole line could be shifted way out of whack before a MAP OIC logs in to address it -- With the 1 AO - no softcap rule in place.... it takes just 45 minutes to make a town untouchable but moving to rear.... and and just 15 mins to move back whenever they like.... GENERALLY SPEAKING --- LONGER TIMERS IS EASIER FOR NEWER MAP OIC's not shorter timers.... It is why it changed that way to begin with as I understood it... no idea why we would want to go back when many struggle as it is --- Not necessarily going to make things easier for a side with no Map OIC/weak Map OIC... could well make it worse....
  13. It --USED-- to be right in front of your face.... Its probably buried in 5 layers of manufacturer's branding, If you even see it, with all the direct boot options they have these days... Worth checking for sure... When you up the RAM speed, sometimes you also need to throw a little more voltage at it to make it work though... Most the modern systems are pretty smart... but just be a little careful, you can fry it... -------- That processor will certainly help, cause as StdyHand pointed out game uses single core....Ive found over the years it is all about that clock speed (and cache) of CPU for WW2OL... My older 4790K based rig with its 4.4ghz single core performance, even performs marginally better than my new rig, with the lower 4.2ghz single core performance the newer 6700K spits out... My GPU's are the same in both (I split a pair of GPU's when I wanted a 2nd rig, to save $$$) And although the 16GB RAM size is the same... and the new rig does have DDR4 and the old one only DDR3, the newer ram doesn't appear to quite make up for the extra CPU speed the older girl is pushing... Anyone trying to spec for the game only... IMO needs to focus on CPU (CLOCK SPEED,CACHE)-->RAM-->MB and save the money on the GPU....MB needs to be just good enough to support the CPU and RAM targetted... nothing more... I seen so many people pi^^ away money on MB's with extra specs they dont need... always work out where is the bottleneck in a system, and don't pay overs... WW2 appears to use a LOT more on the CPU than the other modern games, and doesn't appear to shift off the workload from CPU to GPU like other more modern FPS games do... Using the above info.... You --can--- build a rig for quite cheap for WW2 and get blistering performance out of old hardware for the game... That rig though is usually not good for almost anything else... ------------------------------- Nice rig that for a manufacturer off the shelf though KC23... will serve well... Other than one batch of bad BIOS's I had a couple of years back... Company I worked for as used Lenovo's for a decade or more... and many take a beating but keep on trucking for even 5-6 years (I still prefer Toshiba laptops, but thats a whole other wall of text) Kare
  14. Grandfather served as an Aircraft Engineer for the Royal Australian Airforce 76th Squadron, along with his brother. He saw service in Milne Bay during WW2, and had a few interesting ship rides around the place, with the odd Japanese submarine, taking pot shots and missing. He really doesnt like talking much about it at all, --- It was a long long time ago is all he has to say about it... Has suffered a early loss of hearing in one ear, and his second continues to rapidly degrade, which has been attributed to the frequent loud aircraft noise he was subjected to in his service. Came away clean from it all other then that. Karellean
  15. Server now appears online... W gettting places... Still cannot get to IN-Gaame Chat Server Timeout