rise27

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About rise27

  • Rank
    Free Play Account
  • Birthday
  1. Fear of death isn't the issue. The fact that you don't need squad tactics to feel successful is the issue. Which I believe goes back to the lack of player density. You have to remember that the only reason we have infantry squad tactics is because they needed a way to overcome the stretch of entrenched defensive networks of infantry and their supporting weapons. There was no way to turn the flank, so you needed a superior way to move forward and assault when mass charges no longer worked. No such need exists in WW2OL, usually, because there's a lack of player density. There's not much of a sense of a frontline in terms of infantry numbers. Flanks are too easily turned due to lack of numbers. There are not usually fields of fire of machine guns that lock down your approach path. If there were, your only option is to use squad tactics to gain one up on the enemy emplacements. Lack of in-game tools and encouragement is another factor. But I contend that the tools don't mean much until players feel some need to use them. Ie. When playing solo is unfruitful enough that you decide it's better to give up some of your time and freedom to plug yourself into a coordinated structure for overall success.
  2. Let bofors spawn at depots and you're talking. If we had a bofors set up that infantry could go recrew, as long as the gun itself was not destroyed by heavy fire or bombs, then we also wouldn't need to saturate the spawnlist with them.
  3. Not having lean in game is a pretty big deal. It was a very effective tool for urban combat.
  4. I would also suggest letting players access it through an in-game browser. Then everyone would see it and be more likely to browse it. There appears to be a large portion of players of MMOs who never venture onto the official websites or forums, so if it's not in-game or integrated into the game launcher then it doesn't exist to them. It's not something I can relate to, as someone who likes to search out and gather information on the games I play, but I've learned those kinds of players who never venture outside the confines of the game application not only exist but they may even be the majority. League of Legends is a good example of an online game that has integrated all their news, updates, and content directly into the game browser. It's not just done for the convenience of the player, but I'm sure because they want to maximize their ability to reach their players.
  5. A good example of why that doesn't work out right is if you're dealing with an ambush situation, where getting to cover isn't actually an option. Whether it's being ambushed at close range and having no choice but to react and lay down your own rapid fire in return, or being caught in the open and having no choice but to just lay down and start firing back, the effect is the same. What both of those scenerios have in common is that firing back is your only defense, but you're crippled in being able to do that because the game gives you automatic suppressive effects that hinder your ability to fire back. At that point you are no longer accurately simulating a suppressive effect, but are unrealistically just simulating that the player is so crippled by fear that they can no longer fight. Forced suppressive effects don't even accomplish their intended purpose unless the player is fighting from behind cover to begin with.
  6. There's one big crippling problem with the spawn system as it is, and always has been: People waste essential specialized infantry equipment without concern for it's proper use, or it's necessity to win a battle. Spawning a Tiger right off the bat and charging into the enemy lines to die. Everyone spawning out all the SMGs/LMGs/RGs/Sappers, and only spawning riflemen after the aforementioned are gone or mostly gone. The LMG and SMG are vastly superior in certain contexts. While the RG and Sapper are functionally the same as a Rifleman, so why not spawn them instead? You gain more tactical options, and lose almost nothing. The only people who lose out are your teammates, who can't find the equipment they need halfway through a battle to use it for it's intended purpose. Halfway through a battle you're down to nothing but rifles. It sure would be nice to have some LMG fire support, or the ability to clear CPs with an SMG, or a sapper to take care of that tank that is holding up your advance. Too bad most people who spawn them do so only because they are available, without any concern for whether or not it's really necessary to spawn them at that particular point or location. This is devastating to the game on many fronts. First, from a historical and tactical perspective, it's a terribly wrong skewing of weapon ratios. Rifles should be the backbone of infantry combat in this game with support from specialized weapons. It actually devalues the SMG as a powerful city fighting tool when almost everyone is using one until they run out. From a gameplay perspective it is also devastating to your ability to effectively win battles. You can't get a sapper when you need it because they were all wasted early on. Made worse by the fact that many people will spawn a sapper but play like a rifleman who just has the option of blowing up a tank if he happens to stumble across a good tank busting opportunity. He doesn't play with the specific intention of staying alive at all costs and trying to ambush a tank, recognizing the value of his equipment to the success of an entire battle. Many will spawn an RG and play them like a rifleman, rather than hang back and try to stay alive, letting the riflemen take point, so he can provide indirect fire if they get pinned down by a troublesome position. Solution: Personal spawn points. Low tier equipment is free to spawn. Everything else costs points, based on how valuable and rare it is. You can keep spawning that LMG and charging headfirst into the enemy like a lemming if you want to, but you can't keep doing it forever. And if you burn through all your spawn points, you'll be stuck as a rifleman until you do enough useful stuff to earn points for another LMG. At some point the lightbulb will kick on and you'll realize that, unless you actually plan to play in the more specialized role of firesupport, you'll probably be better off using a rifleman for general purpose infantry duties because you stand a good chance of gaining more spawn points and you won't lose any if you die. The LMG requires that you actually accomplish more if you want to break even, but if you actually do accomplish a lot in your LMG then you deserve to spawn another one because you are using it properly. You can blow most of your point pool to spawn that Tiger, but you better make sure you do something useful with it to recoup the cost unless you want to have to hoof it as a rifleman, or slum it up in a panzer 2 on depot duty, for the rest of the night trying to earn points back for another Tiger solo. Hopefully next time you'll have learned some lessons, like maybe spawning a cheaper but decent panzer 4 until you're sure the situation would be ideally suited to pull out one of the town's few Tigers. You gain points by doing a range of activities that are useful: Getting hits on enemies, kills, captures, giving ammo, etc. You can even use this system to encourage good behaviors like rewarding players for being in proximity to others who are getting hits/kills/captures, being within 600m of a CP as an infantryman when it is captured (Presuming you helped in a general way to capture it), spending time near a CP when a town is under attack (it presumes you are aiding the defense of that CP), giving rides to players in vehicles, leading missions successfully, etc. There's a legion of possibilities. Killing a high value unit using a low value unit can also net you major bonus points, to reward people who play the weaker stuff effectively. HC/OICs could also have the option of disabling the cost of either part or all of the spawnlist. This would ideally only be done in circumstances where you deem you need to power out as much powerful equipment as possible and you don't care about losses, so you actually want people to spawn out everything even if they don't have the points for it. That's a strategy that could have crippling downsides if it doesn't pay off, because most of the time you're going to find it benefits you in the long run for players to value their equipment enough to play smart. It benefits your whole side because you don't burn out the viability of an attack after all the high value equipment is wasted in the opening stages of it. A mix of high value equipment supported by lower value stuff is going to get you a lot further by giving you the ability to press any advantage you gain with good equipment in the followup waves. The advantages of this system is -It will cause players to play smarter, fearing death more. This will result in more realistic tactics and player behavior, with more desire for teamwork. -You will see a higher ratio of riflemen to other equipment. You won't see the enemy army frontloaded with all the specialized equipment followed by nothing but rifles. -People will treat high value vehicles with the respect they deserve, because they have a personal stake in their performance. -You'll see less suicidal pilot behavior when they pay a big price for a lost plane. Less wary about diving into flak. More likely to fly in groups if they can. -Players will find more satisfaction in using low tier equipment, knowing they are earning more points and losing no points if they die. -You'll see players spawning more low tier vehicles and planes at the start or middle of a battle, rather than only waiting until all the best stuff is gone. -You might actually keep some of your top quality vehicles and planes around for the end stages of a battle, for skilled players to make use of in a way that can tip the scales for your side. -Sappers and LMGs might actually be in the spawn list when you need them, even during the later stages of a battle, because nobody wants to waste points spawning them if they don't actually intend to use them to their full potential. If they just want to do general purpose infantry vs infantry combat they will learn to make do with the rifleman, leaving the sapper for someone who specifically wants to hunt tanks, and the LMG for someone who specifically wants to play it safe in the role of firesupport for other riflemen. -SMGs and LMGs would actually be more valuable in combat because most people would be riflemen. Spawning an SMG in the early stages of a city fight has unrealistically diminished value when most players on both sides are spawning either SMGs or hip fired LMGs. -It gives you a way to leverage free to play vs paid accounts while still giving free to play accounts access to more equipment. If free to play players had a smaller pool of points, and gained them drastically slower, they would be able to experience more of the game but then desire to upgrade so they can use equipment more freely. That's the big one right there: You finally have a way to make free to play a viable subscription model. That's almost enough reason to do it by itself. Think about it: Free to play accounts can now theoretically use any equipment available. But they can only experience it in limited doses because they gain points extremely slow compared with a paid account, and they can't store up as much (because how much you can store is linked with your in-game rank) This is essential to actually get them hooked on the game. First, because by being able to experience more of the game it will be funner. Second, because they will end up wanting to play more in order to gain points to try out something new. But by only being able to experience it infrequently they will develop an appetite to want more. This gets them thinking about ways they can get more of what they want to play as, which turns their mind towards paying. This also gives you the ability to introduce limited payment schemes that are common in most free to play games. Like paying for a week long booster that gives you increased point gain and rank gain, if they don't want to pay for a whole month.
  7. You're going about this problem completely the wrong way. There's a reason we don't have an entire army running around with LMGs and SMGs, because this is a military combat simulator and that isn't how armies are equipped. The problem is not that we don't have enough of them. The problem is we don't have enough people who are willing to take one for the team and spawn an inferior rifle to support the LMGs and SMGs doing their specialized job. Worst yet, the system is broken because there's no incentive for you to spawn a vanilla rifleman when there's no cost for you to just spawn a rifle grenadier or sapper - You get all the benefits of a rifle with a load of extra perks. So why not waste those first? Afterall, you're a selfish player who doesn't care about anything but your own kill count (I'm not talking of you personally, but of the average player in general). So why not take one of those valuable sappers/RGs and play them like a rifleman, because maybe you'll come across a tank and you want to have a chance to kill them too. You probably won't, but who cares, right? No skin off your back, just a lost battle for your team. Forget spawning a sapper with the sole intention of ambushing tanks, even to the extent that you actively avoid infantry combat. No, you're trying to deal with a real problem but doing it in the wrong way. There are two ways to solve this in a way that enhances both gameplay and historical tactical realism: 1. Throttled spawning of equipment on all facilities, unless an OIC disables it, or partially disables it. This would force players to utilize proper rifle to specialized weapon ratios, and would be a great boon to the game. The downside is that it would prevent quality team oriented players from getting something they actually need when the situation really calls for it. The average player is just going to scoop up whatever specialized weapon is available as soon as they see it on the list, then procede to waste it about as quickly as they did before throttles were put in place. No, we need more personal accountability here. I favor: 2. Personal spawn points. Riflemen are free to spawn. Everything else costs points, based on how valuable and rare it is. You can keep spawning that SMG and charging headfirst into the enemy like a lemming if you want to, but you can't keep doing it forever. And if you burn all your points with rapid fruitless deaths it's going to be a long while before you can waste supply like that again. You gain points by doing a range of activities that are useful: Getting hits on enemies, kills, captures, giving ammo, etc. You can even use this system to encourage good behaviors like rewarding players for being in proximity to others who are getting hits/kills/captures, being within 600m of a CP that is captured, spending time near a CP when a town is under attack (it presumes you are aiding the defense of that CP), giving rides to players in vehicles, etc. There's many possibilities. The advantages of this system is: -It gives you a way to positively encourage teamplay and good behaviors. -It will cause players to play smarter, fearing death more. This will result in more realistic tactics and player behavior, with more desire for teamwork. -You will see a higher ratio of riflemen to other equipment. You won't see the enemy army frontloaded with all the specialized equipment followed by nothing but rifles. -You will still have specialized equipment available well into a battle. Sappers and LMGs might actually be in the spawn list when you need them, even during the later stages of a battle, because nobody wants to waste points spawning them if they don't actually intend to use them to their full potential. If they just want to do general purpose infantry vs infantry combat they will learn to make do with the rifleman, leaving the sapper for someone who specifically wants to hunt tanks, and the LMG for someone who specifically wants to play it safe in the role of firesupport for other riflemen. -It gives you a way to leverage free to play vs paid accounts while still giving free to play accounts access to more equipment. If free to play players had a smaller pool of points, and gained them drastically slower, they would be able to experience more of the game but then desire to upgrade so they can use equipment more freely. -SMGs and LMGs would actually be more valuable in combat because most people would be riflemen.
  8. My first thought was, what wiki? There's half your problem. How are players going to update and improve on something they don't know exists, or don't visit? I had to go on to the frontpage and dig around to find it, and had trouble seeing any evidence of a wiki. I finally found a link is hidden at the bottom of the page.
  9. I've been saying this for a long time. Others have too. I think the problem is they haven't had a clear idea on how to achieve that. In the past they've made a lot of missteps, or half steps, without going as far as is needed in a comprehensive way. I've posted on this forum in the past detailing outlines (which can probably be found through search) on how the game can achieve consistent high density battles, and easy dynamic coordination. It involved new dynamic spawning systems and streamlined dynamic organizational systems. Those two areas are the foundational pillars that hold up this game, and if you don't work on shoring them up no amount of changes you make to the game are really going to matter in the long run. If they do, however, find the resources to implement the things I suggested in other threads, then they would have a game that is unmatched by anything else.
  10. CRS must greatly consider this from a marketing and digital packaging standpoint. We might not be to control of who tries out of the game and hates it, but we can go a LONG way towards negating that by making sure we accurately set up people's expectations before they enter. Don't try to sell it as an action game in the trailers/pictures/descriptions and they won't be disappointed when they find out it's not like battlefield. Sell it on the thinking action. The strategy. The historical realism. The tactical coordination. The MMO ARMA. I think that is especially important with the videos on steam, that you don't just put up a generic action video which we've come to expect from most FPS franchises. That will set up false expectations and not sell the game's true merits. There's a lot to sell about WW2OL, and videos can be created that emphasize those aspects if you are creative enough. They should seek feedback from the community about the game's selling points and make sure they have some good videos lined up to sell that on steam. That's how many will judge the game.
  11. I'm pretty sure it never use to be that way. That's atrocious. I don't think they understand, when they made that change, that you need to be able to recon enemy infantry positions out than you may be firing. Nevermind that guns and tanks could easily engage from further 700-1500m. So gaining the high ground with good fields of fire becomes less useful. Air recon of infantry, or strafing infantry, is also out of the question with that kind of vis limit.
  12. Before we can talk about what could be done, we first have to agree that it's possible to see increased suppressive behavior with greater incentives not to die. If you don't start from that premise, and assume that it's impossible to ever see players act suppressed (which we know isn't true because suppressive behavior does already happen in-game), then it's no surprise when you conclude that the only solution is to mechanically force players to act that way.
  13. Your conclusion is based on a false premise to begin with. As I already said, in reality there has always been a vast range of different responses from soldiers about how they deal with suppressive fire; based on training, skill, experience, fighting spirit, or personality. It would actually be unrealistic, therefore, and wrong, for the game to force every player to respond to nearby automatic fire in exactly the same predictable way. You lose a lot of the realistic dynamism that you want in a military simulator by doing that. You do see these differences in players in game already. Players do get suppressed in the sense that they get pinned down in safe areas and will stop trying to advance over killing zones until something changes. They do get suppressed in the sense that if you think the enemy has a superior weapon or is a better shot than you, or has the initiative, you don't want to pop out and try to trade shots with them if you don't have to. If could happen to a greater degree than it does, by simply having more reason to not risk your infantry unit unless the odds are better in your favor. However, you have a historically unrealistic goal if you want no one to ever be able to challenge suppressive fire with their own return fire. Soldiers would challenge suppressive fire with their own return fire if the occassion necessitated it, or they thought they would win the exchange, or they were simply more reckless/aggressive in fighting spirit as some were. Suppression is what happens when you think you can't win the exchange from the position you're at, or that trying to move would not be worth the risk, and whether or not you think you can win depends a lot on your mindset and skill/experience. We want player's individual mindsets and skill/experience to be reflected in different behaviors. We don't want to take that away from them and force them into a computer dictated mold of predetermined behavior.
  14. Let's not also forget the dynamics of defensive artillery. Imagine if the defender has preplaced and hidden defensive artillery behind their town, has stockpiled some ammo, and spent a lot of time calculating preplanned firing patterns to deal with various scenarios? Now things really get interesting and dynamic. Maybe the calls goes out for emergency artillery support, the edge of town near the depot is being overrun. The AO orders a defensive screen of artillery, a wall of the heaviest fire he can muster, to be laid down 50-100m from the edge of town near the threatened depot. This will halt the advance of the enemy and buy your defenders time to regroup and get back into defensive positions near the depot. You cannot keep up this screen for a long time due to ammo constraints, and it's not something you can activate until after your friendly forces have been pushed out of that zone, without causing massive friendly fire. The defenders can signal to you when they want it lifted, when they feel secure they've gotten their infantry and guns back into defensible positions, assuming your ammo holds out that long. Have your defenders spotted an enemy mobile spawn with emplacements hidden behind a tree ridge, but they can't advance to eliminate it? Start laying down some shells to get the range and then give a burst saturation of that area. Attackers being frustrated by defensive artillery? Call in air support to find and destroy them. Or just have air or ground recon find them, and then destroy them with your own artillery. Failing that, pull up some counter battery guns as close to the town as you can, and use artillery spotting tools to start laying down fire in the general area of the enemy artillery. You're expending your ammo defensively at this point, because you've deemed you have the advantage on the ground and just want to stop the enemy from using his ammo effectively for the offensive.
  15. I would have a blast (no pun intended) playing either the role of a forward observer or artillery officer, under the system I outlined. They are fun for different reasons. The FO gets to tactically analyze the situation and determine what is needed to break through, while the AO is deals with the logistics and planning of making that happen. Imagine you're an FO overlooking an advance on a town from 1km away. Your infantry are within 400-600m of the town, comfortably holding around that area, but they can't break in closer to hold the spawnable depot area. The enemy infantry are scattered in various emplacements and brush/terrain redoubts. There is a tank near the depot covering several fields of fire, with an ATG or two in the area. Your tanks aren't safe to advance under these conditions, and your infantry can't get close enough to clear out the threats. Solution? Coordinate artillery. Otherwise your attack will pitter out and go nowhere. The FO communicates with the AO, who lays down a test round near where he thinks the enemy depot is. When a round lands near the depot, you've got your range calibrated. Now the FO has to estimate from the depot the direction and range of the various threats, communicating that back to the AO. He starts off by calculating his guns to prepare a spread of fire to hit the enemy tank near the depot. If the FO estimates the range correctly, he can expect to kill the tank with a barrage of multiple guns firing several shots rapidly. However, if the FO can't calculate range and direction that accurately, the AO may need to lay down test rounds until he can zero in on the tank's location (which, of course, means the tank can run away if he's aware of what's going on). Assuming the tank is destroyed, the FO then turns his attention to the next phase of his plan, which can be as simple or as complex as you want. Let's assume they've been pined down for a long time and the OIC wants the FO to work out a very complicated and coordinated firing pattern with the AO to facilitate capturing this depot. What would that look like? Your next step is to accomplish two goals: Clear out pockets of infantry resistence in front of you and lay down smoke to allow your infantry to advance. You start by laying down short preplanned barrages along brush redoubts, known emplacements, treelines/brushlines, etc. Starting from the closest ones, advancing forward by adjusting your guns. This is coordinated so that infantry can follow up behind your artillery fire as it moves forward, without being killed. But you need your infantry to be ready to take advantage of your fire, otherwise those positions will just be reoccupied by respawning enemy infantry. You intermix your HE fire with smoke shells as well, creating a large smoke zone that your infantry can run through to advance forward. After the line of known or sustained enemy positions are walked through with artillery fire, your artillery shifts to laying down a line of harassing fire between your infantry and the enemy depot/CP, near the edge of the town. The purpose of this is to slow down respawning infantry from getting back to their positions. How thick this line of fire is depends on how many guns you have and how much ammo you're willing to expend for it. You cannot keep it up indefinitely because you'll run out of ammo. Once the FO sees your infantry are secure within about 200m of the town's edge, and ATGs have been taken out, tanks can start to advance to support the infantry. Artillery fire then shifts to a different preplanned fire pattern that was worked out ahead of time. The line of harassing fire then sweeps forward blindly about 100-200m over the area around the CP and depot to help clear out resistence. The depot and CP are hit with a short targeted barrage to destroy them and anyone inside of them. Fire of the guns then moves into a box barrage of containment. Assuming the CP is a decent distance from the spawnable depot, the spawnable depot is saturated in a hurricane bombardment of shells that makes it impossible to fight from and very difficult to escape from alive. This forces the defenders to spawn from another nearby depot or the AB, which is critical to allowing the attackers to capture the CP without being overrun by the sheer pressure of constantly spawning enemies nearby. If enough guns and ammo is available, in addition to the hurricane bombardment on the depot, a line of harassing fire can also be laid down between the CP and a secondary depot, hindering efforts by the enemy to get to the CP. Executing that would require a lot of coordination by the FO and AO, and a lot of planning by the AO using a HUD UI that allows him to give a series of timed orders to each gun that the AI then executes one after another until the whole firing pattern is completed or ammo is expended prematurely. Hopefully this also helps people understand why artillery would not be as overpowered as they think: Because the likelyhood of this level of coordination happening at every battle, all throughout the battle, is nil. Furthermore, even when it did happen, it wouldn't amount to as much as people think unless you've got good ground coordination to advance and take advantage of the ground that artillery clears. That's why I believe the average day to day use of artillery will involve FO's coordinating with AO's to take out point targets. It's easier to execute, doesn't require coordinating with your whole force, and can be effective on a small scale. But I can also tell you that it would be an invaluable tool to have the option of coordinating elaborate firing plans when you're dealing with battles that have been stuck for hours unable to make headway. At that point you don't have any choice, you either need to coordinate your advance with some artillery or you need to give up your attack.