• Announcements

    • XOOM Released (August 18th - 2017)   08/18/2017 is our pre-release game update. It is currently being released to our organic (current) player base only to verify everything is working as intended. Please review all normal game play elements and conduct basic testing. Above all, we need your feed back. If there are any issues that are NEW and broken, please use the .bug report with details. In depth issues, including how to reproduce the problem, should go to our Testing & Bug Reporting forums with screenshots and text based procedure / expected out comes. If you have the latest version you can patch automatically, or go to the downloads page and download the full update if you have an old version or need a full new install.


Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Green Tag

About wockawocka

  • Rank
    Monthly Hero Builder
  • Birthday April 27

Profile Information

  • Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
  1. 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?
  2. 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...
  3. 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/
  4. 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.
  5. 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).
  6. 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*
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. ... and auth servers should now "resolve" correctly. No need for my fix above.
  12. Confirmed here: auth server is now "resolving", meaning you should be able to enter the arena now.
  13. Still having the DNS issue, but arena is online (I am connecting from Sweden, btw). Köln is now being capped by a "very light population"... Oh, and all that want to try if it is "fixed" without starting the game: ipconfig /flushdns nslookup auth.playnet.com Until we get next client update, we kind of are "locked" to the playnet domain (which doesnt "resolve" in DNS at the moment)
  14. Arena is now locked... guess Allied was doing to much "progress".
  15. If you are admin on YOUR computer, and really reallly know what you are doing, then following gets you in (but you need to tare this fix apart when DNS issue is fixed): In your hosts file (C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts) add following line: auth.playnet.com