Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Green Tag

About wockawocka

  • Rank
    Monthly Hero Builder
  • Birthday April 27

Profile Information

  • Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
  1. Ok, hope this post won't be a cultural clash, being a Swede, and we "nag" about everything I write to much so will try to brake it down into a list: Start time was communicated incorrectly, GMT does not exist during summer for example. Did not affect all, but some did get it wrong. Solution: Use services like https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html Channels to be used during operation: No info at all. At my discord channel we all heard different channels to tune in. -"it is channel 3". -"no! channel 6" etc... confusion. Solution: Don't solve it. This was immersion deluxe. As in war I had to tune several channels to get intel. EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE, that took part in my group (Brigade Knight, tank grp1) had the impression that Allied Gelb forces would meet Axis Gelb forces. That was not the setup. Our tank column were mostly driving around, trying to find a targets with some kind of resistance. But we never met any enemy with force. Instead we ended up attacking an Airfield AB, where 1) We had no truck to re-supply (we called for it a couple of times, no showup) 2) AB was never captured, not enough push by inf. (remember inf cap, tanks don't) 3) While waiting for a new target at airfield Antwerpen, at least my squad could not just see how map was rolled in Bruxelles, Haybes etc... With over 20online (we haven't had those numbers for a long time) there was work to do. And no central info coming in, we just left operation after 1hour. AAR for me: I fired one shot into a Tiger with a tank destroyer, max caliber at 300m. No kill. This in a server with 6 AO:s and massive battles going on. Everywhere else than where I was. Again: Immersion deluxe. But maybe a bit to much immersion. Lucky for you, I do not play fast paced games. Game showed itself at its best. Really. I have never seen a map where 3 big towns getting fully hammered, with both paras, and tank columns, making the action go so wide (due to destroyers, so that suddenly fights occurred randomly at rail bridge crossings etc. But I also know that only us veterans probably understand this. This is not visible for a normal player. Solution: A community officer need to setup some kind of commentator booth, live at youtube, or just a realtime chat/blog etc, that can show for a player what is going on (with some delay, for example not saying: Axis/Allied is soon going to attack x..) I think both sides reported the anxiety that "squads that are online now could just take any target on map where Gelb operation is not in progress, and hence just roll...". Good for the game, because it shows really cool aspects of game, where one side has a slight advantage of being organized for one target. Bad for the game: It totally messes up a campaign map. Hard fought advances could be wiped in hours. Chain of command - Lets face it: We have not had this kind of operations in years. It needs a good chain of command all the way from top down. A group leader need to be able to answer questions from the group members what is going on, and why we are taking a target or not, and give intel on expected resistance. Is there a time factor? Is our taking of target important to other groups? etc... And the summary of this operation is: Please re-make these kind of operations as often as possible! On a last note it is obvious that lot of resources are needed to set this up. Maybe this forum just is not enough in the long run (if doing this more often). An automated system for administering all groups would be nice. Like when signing up, then the system gives player an automated answer: "You are now in armoured group 1, your grp channel is 3, and your battalion overwatch channel is 2. Please report in at X coordinate with a tank model Y at time xx:xx (ZULU time zone), logged in on discord on channel Z" These operations are needed until all squads numbers and organisation gets stabilized. For example my squad had 25 online, but many still recruits, not responding, and we have [censored]load of work still to get the responsive ones organized, like "when are you online next time", does not exist yet. These new players are still to confused to even understand what we are suggesting when saying "big operation gelb on sunday". They think the game offers this every day, meaning they will not sign up, in hope they can only show up.
  2. Just to give perspective of HOW many are joining at the moment, and a practical problem that occures with these numbers, and probably why we need 15min timers to get "insta armies": Squad Recruit1: -"What's the plan?" Vet1: -"We are attacking S:t Truiden" Vet2 starts explaining how to get there, and which mission. Two other recruits are autojoined at last AO squad was working on (autorecruit on, and often people click that pop-up because they do not see action) Recruit 3: -"Hi all, you guys know how to deploy an ATG?" Vet2: -"... and then you highlight the squad player named..." Recruit 2: -"Can't find the mission!" Vet1: -"Don't worry recruit2, just listen to Vet2.. he will explain again" Recruit1: -"So what are we attacking? Should I cross this bridge?" At this point some 2-3 minutes have passed, and the AO:e town that squad is attacking already has two friendly spawnables up. Myself have created the squad mission which above try to spawn into, it is one of those spawnables, and the few recruits getting there are joyful, they love it. But still lot of the instructions given on Discord is still on how to get there, or what to do WHEN they spawn in. That spawnable depot was out of supply in 8min, and that was from a town with 2 or 3 full flags in. At least the recruits accepted squad leaving the attack after 15min, but much to the fact that we all vets constantly on radio said: "Target is X, because supply is out in about 5min". (Many recruits wanted to stay longer to attack other depots , but I tried to explain that other squads are already doing that, even if I had no clue. This was a big massive attack that just started with a 50player para drop. Just focusing one(my) squad on one depot was hard enough)
  3. or letus create subchannels where vets can hide... *grin* No, but ok: Could you list something that will make the coordination easier than have to bring up discord window, and mute people? Personally I think push to talk is good to have, because then players reaction stay back home, and with bigger chance that what comes through on channel is useful Best solution is of course to have open mike on all players when in-game, that is only heard as far as local chat (with positioning), and then after that have a "send button" that is push-to-talk on the active channel you are on. Or wait: Maybe there is an option to give new players push-to-talk, but then a CO could bump members up to be allowed to have mike audio detection on.
  4. I would also love the ability to "change target as mission leader", while member still spawned in. Game is so much easier for newcomers if they do not have to despawn, and find out HOW to spawn in on next squad mission Although, we have some logical problems (hope I do not mess this up, being really tired): When changing mission target, what happens to stats? Does all get a RTB? If I would have a guess, stat database do probably not support multiple values in the field TARGET in database. Suggesting solution: Lock mission for 15 seconds (to let members spawn out that are in the midst of doing so), and do not allow despawn after 5 sec of those 15 seconds have passed. Reason is that each member on mission needs to get a RTB on old origin and target, and be reset to same ORIGIN, but new TARGET. Also we need probably 10 seconds to let server move all members (could be easy be 25 mission members). And even if the database IS faster: Not wrong to be nice to the database. Last thing we need is database lock when a super mission of 250 members are spawned in, and mission leader suddenly is changing twice every second (due to de-spawning mission leaders) and suddenly a mission leader gives the command for changing target... while despawning... -> hard to test, better to use locks (if possible) Multiple cell hosts. So what if some on mission are on one cell host, and some on another? Even if having a total interested in cell hosts, and how you can move players dynamically.. this is out of range of my knowledge of how it is implemented in this game. Now when having multiple cells online again... "recreating a mission while spawned in" needs a operation "transfer", to be able to move some/all players to new cell host. Squad missions: IF implemented with a limit of maximum of 1 mission per squad, then we need to be careful with the handover, because I have a feeling we could end up with a change in target could get registered as a duplicate, locking that squad out from having their mission Solution: Allow 2 missions, but only on same origin. In general though it should not be hard to implement as long as the mission system is stable, and no "fix" is hard coded anywhere that could spoil this "obvious" functionality.
  5. Think all has been said, just repeating the number here, which speak for themselves: A flag today has some 300 infantry, even if two flags attack a town (about 500 in reality, supply is not always 100%) then consider the average lifespan of a player today. I would guess 3minutes. Meaning, fight could be over in 10min, even if stacking up flags. IF and only if, a side chooses to spawn 500 players to storm a town. There would be no time to even stack those players into a depot. Someone now thinks: Hot drop with truck -> Nah, I say, even if only 50 players guard town, that truck will be shot down, and some lucky [censored] will get a ratio of 1:500 OK, so what if 3 towns bring down 6 flags to attack one town? Well, I actually love the idea, please try it. This would NOT go unnoticed if both sides has the amount of personnel I think they will have. I mean of the 2000 on your side, and with a front-line of average 22 towns, if only 1% of YOUR side chooses to patrol, you still have 20 players free to roam the woods of 20 of those 22 towns. With eyes on 100+ units moving between towns, that would attract ANY player to meet them out there. Nah, I say: Bring the steamers on! The map size is probably perfect, and if supply stays around current numbers the battles should be fun. Or at least more realistic. If you die the origin you used could be out of supply. You know, like in real war. You won't spawn in again, looking for that EI that killed you somewhere around that bush NW... You will start fresh in another town basically Only thing that worries me is AA-guns and tanks... their viz-list must keep infantry rendering to its lowest. I rather see tankers whining over invisible EI (that will not give them any points if killed), than tankers whining over a tank in sight they want to shoot (that do give points), suddenly vanishing because of client hitting a render-limit. And to get back to captcrayon's hopes of "seeing" 1000+ players (which could also mean new record in "Guinness World Records"): It is up to the client "filming" the action. Current client won't be able to show it all. Although something we should ask ourselves is: What is the rendering limit on the "CRS eagle" that can monitor the arena?
  6. I would like these kind of scenarios behind enemy lines. Still grumpy that I never saw that scenario that would mimic Pearl Harbour, and have a huge squadron of air trying to sink ships. I even got a placement in the scenario. A number that allowed me to sit in a transport ship. The AA-guns of those are amazing. Off-topic, but this thread reminded me of the possibilities this game has to make scenarios, so that we for a short while could get screenshots similar to the marketing departmen, but live. I mean today: We could even send the event live, have some newspapers commenting with experts from the era... etc...
  7. Well, I am overqualified probably. Hand picked ISP... no wireless anywhere... no modems between computer and internet.. close to Swedish backbone.. etc... but 200ms? That doesn't sound like Europe. But ok, maybe a bit off topic... you don't have to answer. Rhetorical question, hehe. Although what I wanted to comment on 200ms: If we get the netcode up to par, I think ping up to 350ms could be ok in this game, as long there is no packet loss. Ok, maybe not CP-clear-duty with 350ms, but shooting anything not cutting corners should work ok. Remember, now in-game there is much MUCH longer lag sometimes. Especially with old netcode. And the more I think about the piggy-back-idea: Why not only piggy-back the important packets, like client reporting firing a bullet, server sending a hit to client etc... Maybe just piggy-back the movement data, just to make the world at least not have warping players due to packet loss. This thread got me thinking again, and for anyone interested in what is possible with netcode programming, this page is a good start: http://gafferongames.com/2016/08/10/new-article-reliable-ordered-messages/
  8. Freezing could be caused by many things, not only network. For instance I confirmed that computers with less than 4gb of free RAM is cause freezing. Usually in situations when a "sound" has not been heard before, and game needs to ask the hard drive to read that sound up into memory... Next time that sound comes, the freeze does not happen. Also graphical drivers need to be updated, even if you all haven't seen that much graphic changes last 2 years, the team IS using some new graphic tech. So get your drivers to latest version, and you could experience better frame-rate, and less "freezing". With netcode3 (UDP) this game will work better. This game has players from many different parts of the world, so we need the fastest way possible to get packets between server and clients. To resend packets like before sounds nice, but do not work well on long distances. Also people with wifi at home (sigh) will only make lag worse if trying to resend packets when someone in the family is congesting the wifi-network, watching video streams (like youtube)... There is so much network related to dig into here, and I am not a developer of this game. But my guess is that netcode3 is just to get into the same ballpark as other games (which all use UDP nowadays), and my personal experience is that even this early version of netcode3 is working very well. Myself connecting Sweden<->Texas (game server) is already seeing improvements of using UDP. The bigger network lag you have, the better your experience will be with netcode3. So each time I see the text (when spawning in) saying "netcode 3 enabled" then I rush for those CP caps, because I know I will have a chance even with my 145ms ping. I die a lot easier, but it is more realistic. There is also room for improvement in this netcode3, and I am hoping the the team is already looking into trying to "piggy-back-last-XX-packets" in EACH paket. Would raise the bandwidth used a bit, but if you loose packet 3, then packet 4 will have the information about what was said in packet 3, etc... And for the human EYE you won't notice anything if one package gets delayed to the next one (thats about 33ms delay). So "piggy-back" in UDP is one way of stabilizing traffic, and hoping that we will see new revisions of netcode that improves the experience even further.
  9. Nice little movie, the nervous moves, and keeping heading on "target" (even if it is not always feasible to even get there, because we vets are sloppy choosing targets). Had a good laugh when you just got into the town, and an enemy truck was setting up a mobile spawn point, right in front of your eyes. Not sure what went through your head, but you were very lucky the truck driver didn't see you, or you would have been hunted for sure It also sheds light on the fact that mobile spawns are new to this game, and that a player will not get any points for nading a spawn point (even though the tactical advantage is huge).
  10. This could actually be the one important thing to look at. So in a way, while we try to improve HC-mechanism, we could try stuff like: Let all enemies have a visible tag for one campaign, and try that with the steamers. But for it to be effective (and cool) we probably need a bigger population when active... *thoughts wanding off in what it could mean*
  11. Like this screenshot I just made. Tried even to rename my link that starts wwiionline, with the exact name (World War II Online), and that means the screenshot gets that tag, still no screenshots on the new Steam page for this game. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=954251497
  12. I just played around with the Steam community function for uploading screenshots. And realized that players with the old client will not be able to paste screenshots on the new Steam page (http://steamcommunity.com/app/251950/screenshots/). When you do screenshots in Steam you press F12, and they show up in a library where you choose images to put online (public). Those pictures then get tagged as belonging to that game. But if using "non-steam" games, that tagging doesnt work. The new steam page for our steameras won't see my screenshots whatever I do. So someone need to ask how to name the non-steam game so that tagging gets correct, and hence being able to post screenshots.
  13. Just love the stories from old times, where FBs were not even invented. And actually gives a perspective of WHY towns are still closer than in real life, but still to far to please a action wanting crowd. I really thought this thread was about using the idea of "Daisy chained FRU:s", and just expanding that idea by getting rid of towns, and FB:s. But getting more on track now. Town stays. The main idea here is to lower the "feel" of distance to the enemy. Not that someone has to drive 5-7minutes to setup a spawn point that gets you 400m from enemy. So anyone getting to the party, this paragraph sums it up. We just need to secure this from not becoming a even more cumbersome way of getting a town. 1) To have "player placed FB:s" also could be pretty complex. Not that sure it will be simpler to implement. Reason is if you just make a bigger alternative to the current FMS (in other words player placed FB), you still need to: Tear down FB:s where such exists Consider the effects if both attacking and defending town "pass each others FB:s", and suddenly you have a minimum distance FBs for BOTH sides. So if this is not allowed, you need to create some kind of calculation if you have "passed the front line, or not". And this logic is not in the current game, it needs to be built. 2) With the original idea in this thread, you actually create new spawn points, and a new terrain-supply-grid. Which of course takes time: BUT you can test it "live" on a small part of the map. CRS already talked about re-link towns on current map, think it was between Jodo and Hannut, and if already creating the fb:s there, why not just try this new concept? Still, someone needs to do the calculations on how much more bandwidth this all will use arena-wide, and how the current cells "could" react. I mean: As I understand it the arena is not ONE server, but divided into small cluster nodes, where players get transferred seamlessly when being between towns. So for instance: What happens when you bring more fighting between towns, will the "transfer of players" be affected? Maybe some strange unbalance between clusters "could" happen. This is of course a wild guess from me, but a very professional one, because I have a master in distributed computing, and one server just can not cater all projectiles and player movements. You have to brake the arena up. But this is also where this game shines. Years, and I mean YEARS, before other games started to use this kind of "distributed server tech", we had wwiionline. I mean, lot of other games still go: Huh? Could we have all players in one common arena? Really? Today CRS think the limit could be reached at 4000 players (why: the constant talk about having a standby cluster that could be started with short notice). But "me Wocka thinking": With smarter nodes that dynamically transfer players in a smarter way, we could cram in MUCH MUCH more players on the same servers. But how, well, that would get way to off topic. And again, this thread is not about tech talk, but more about HOW the battle would evolve (but of course the Wock has a solution, just do not have time to code anymore). So sorry for being technical (but love the subject): This idea is still a good one, as long we do not brake any bandwidth, or CPU barrier. We also need to think really hard if the idea actually brings more fun to the arena, because touching the terrain-links is currently messy. Also for last: I have to agree somewhat with pbveteran, that if we hit any of these barriers, we should add this to a wish-list for wwiionline2.
  14. Sounds like "Heroes and Generals" (or even Rapid Assault), but in one consistent world (where all are spawned in), and where there is a front line. It is an interesting concept, even if it raises questions, and also shows how difficult it is to make "the perfect mix of action to cater all". Myself do not like the action grinding, I rather like build-ups, where you have to raise the stakes to win something worth anything. Not grind until the other side got a phone call, or something, that shifts balance just for a short time. 1. The mechanic will give a more granular, more visible front line. With only 400m between capture points you just need binos to watch the enemy move at the other side. As a vet though, I would love to have my cup of tea and snipe the [censored] out of the enemy supply, then just walk the 400m slowly 2. More capture points, means more players needed. Love it. But at the moment we do not have that big of a player base. Also: a ) The current world has 537 towns, and at least 4 links on each (read: FB:s). Even if it is not the amount of capture points that is hogging server resources, at least it creates a hell of a mesh that supply needs to travel through. Yes supply. One of the strongest parts of this game is that we have a logistical grid for supply. And someone needs to manually add them to the world. (compare this idea to playerbase moving around FBs, and you do not have to create some 5000+ new capture points) b ) How will the EWS work. Reason we have EWS today is to warn of enemy movement. So my guess is that ALL capturable points need some kind of warning system. Hmm... Imagine having "Enemy has been spotted" wherever a player spawns in? I mean, we are talking about 400m, so if you ask me I would just ask my squaddies to rally up on a mission, then we just count down: "ok, spawn on my mark, 3, 2, 1" -> Boom, capture done in 1min c ) What if we want to have big battles with at least 256vs256, with combined arms. If these spawn points are so close... EVEN if we keep some FBs for big equipment, those will probably be 400m from an enemy spawn point as well (maybe with inf only)... so can not imagine all possibilities, but with the anti-tank character... tanks would need a lot of help from inf to survive. 3. Skirmishes.. hmm.. again: Depends on which type of warning we get, and whats needed to bother to go out an check on them. Unless we have 4000+ players patrolling to give exact intel, you could end up of getting a rinse and repeat of Creating mission, Check reason for EWS, Find a noob, Despawn, Find next EWS alarm... *repeat* 4. Definitely battles will not change direction quick if multiple capture points always being under capture. Question is, what tactics could you even use? Let me think: Oh oh oh... Been there, done that (in other games). It is called flanking. Poff. You are surrounded. What comes next is something similar to an AB rape. It is just much slower. Still, would love to test this. Today we lack that visible front, meaning I could easy place even the new FMS spawns BEHIND an enemy town. 5. I am different. I love slow times riding in back of a truck, talking about "Shouldn't we try a hot drop on xxx", or just talk about sheep. Being more technical even if making 5000+ more capture points, could cause a lot of problems not currently an issue. Like network traffic could get congested with data saying "capture point X is being capped", and the need to blow up AI-towers correspondent to each spawn... and this in a time where we have threads talking about the precision being to low on tracking projectiles (in short: We need to increase bandwidth for all clients to be able to make projectiles on large distances render correctly...). And much more. Still love the idea. Just realizing that we are touching the foundation of this game. Maybe what you are suggesting is some kind of "Wwiionline 2", where also terrain is more detailed, etc.... where minimu requirements for playing the game is 16gByte of RAM and a 384kbit network connection. Where entire arena is dynamically loaded while you move around (even increasing bandwidth) etc... Taking a guess if it is feasible. Hmmm. Not sure the game would survive that many checkpoints, because if it was possible, then Heroes and Generals would already have this. Today they divide the big map in smaller arenas. What I like with this game IS the one big arena. Although "the feeling" of being close to the enemy is deffo something worth pursuing. I always for instance would love the idea of freezing AO:s. Meaning that the attacking side could just say freeze, and depots will not be capturable. If the defenders want the depots back, they need to AO the town back, meaning you could have like zones where really no side has control. For instance in big towns like Antwerpen, this could really help. And be pretty realistic, lets take rest tomorrow So basically I would love to see this kind of game, but have a feeling the technology is not being utilized
  15. ... and auth servers should now "resolve" correctly. No need for my fix above.