Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

Sign in to follow this  
genxs

Low/No pop Capture restriction

Recommended Posts

dexlysic
Running desperate, tried a personal attack.

All is good and fair in war!

Lol. S! and respect, sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
That is exactly what people do anyway when they are faced with 20 people rick rolling 5 day in and day out. :)

The reality is that SD works and likely saved the game during those dark days of unstoppable over pop rule.

I think all the other timer solutions proposed still get you to the same place .... some people won't be happy unless they are quickly and efficiently rolling undefended towns with low pop numbers. Is it better twiddling your thumbs sitting in a depot for 10 minutes instead of 5 or having a 2 minute spawn delay?

SD works and makes it substantially more difficult to both cap and defend. I hate waiting two minutes and perhaps that is too long. But 30 seconds is barely a penalty at all. So I would look at tweaking the SD number and analyzing results. This, along with improving the SD logic so it works more effectively with low pop server. The logic has to be more than a percentage over pop and must take into consideration overall server pops as well. the polling methodology and frequency should be reviewed as well.

A 50% pop advantage is more substantial during low server pop than high server pop as during high server pop you still have that minimum effective number to defend a town.

Also note that making FB's more difficult to take down will exacerbate the current problem as it will be next to impossible for a low pop crew to cut a few guys off defense to take down FB's to stop an attack.

Hey Cos, I don't think you've seen my latest standing proposals, pop neutrality and NAO. I'll bump them for your perusal and commentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
catfive

Particularly weak tz 2?

No SD for the allies and we're fielding 10 - 15 in our squad alone when we took our towns last night.

You aren't facing more than 5 or 6 vets and a similar number of complete noobs when you cap.

It's not that long ago TZ3 cried so hard about the 3 mins SD they had to put up with but it's okay, I prefer the fights I get in my TZ where there's an enemy to fight against :)

I am not asking for any change but don't expect any credit at all for overwhelming a def that can't put 1 man in every cp. Did you honestly think Bruss fell due to "superior comms and tactics?" lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
matamor

If a 1.5 advantage gives 30 SD to a side during high pop, I found unnatural that a 3 or 4 men advantage against 1 gives only 10-12 SD during another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cosian
There have been a lot more than 5 people on during our Axis TZ3 steamrolls. We have the same problems on TZ2. Lets be real here. Our TZ3 is just very strong.

I, too, would like to know real numbers, though.

From your previous post it appears this was an alt or new account. But let's be real .... your TZ3 is over pop with a recently reduced spawn delay... that is all...:)

I don't think people are trying to just focus in on TZ3, though that is where the current problem is, but rather, seeking a solution for a problem that has been with us on both sides for many years..

Edited by cosian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cosian
Hey Cos' date=' I don't think you've seen my latest standing proposals, pop neutrality and NAO. I'll bump them for your perusal and commentary.[/quote']

I'll peep it out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hastati

Wouldn't it just be easier to switch the servers off and only keep it running on USTZ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dexlysic
From your previous post it appears this was an alt or new account. But let's be real .... your TZ3 is over pop with a recently reduced spawn delay... that is all...:)

I don't think people are trying to just focus in on TZ3, though that is where the current problem is, but rather, seeking a solution for a problem that has been with us on both sides for many years..

Not arguing that we're overpop in TZ3 at all. I agree. "5 allied guys" just seemed rather extreme. Possibly some nights, and I do understand it's very low, especially for Allies. Also, yes, I agree TZ2 isn't quite as bad as Allies TZ3.

Like I said before: hoping for good things out of the Steam release. We quite need a boost in population.

No argument or disrespect meant at all to anyone, by the way. I have a high regard for all HC, vets, and great players alike- no matter Axis or Allied.

S! gentlemen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stonecomet

I'd have to give the idea some more thought. At face value I like the idea of restricting the Bunker from being capture-able when you have 10 or less live players on your side. In order to combat logging to prevent a cap there should be a delay timer to the restriction. Maybe something like the length of the capture timer itself. That way if players tried to game the system they would just be handing over the AB. I don't think it is necessary to restrict the capture of other facilities or to increase the capture timers. So long as the high population side cannot gain the AO completely and with the 30 second spawn delay it should be enough.

I don't play low pop very much TZ3 but I've been known to pop my head in from time to time. So I'd be interested in what the players that play TZ3 and especially those that enjoy low pop think.

This restriction would only rarely occur when there are 10 or less players logged on your side so the map will still move just not at all when one side is low on actual players. It will prolong the map some but not indefinitely. Might be worth giving it a try if most TZ3 players are willing, since that is when the situation is most likely to occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
axis412

The "5 vs. 24" argument is to be taken with a HEFTY truck load of salt here - coming from a "vet" or not

I can point you to a post made from LAST camp where one "VET" whos name ends in 357 just blatantly parrots the BS some other "vet" AHC has blindly spilled into allied side chat upon being asked as to whats going on on side ("4 ALLIES ON LOL") to dramatize the situation and cover his own fail moving flags properly...

In fact, it was 14 Axis vs. 11 Allies - distributed as follows:

3 allies sitting afk on an AF in a french air flag

1 afk precamping some FB that doesnt exist anymore

1 AHC in a DD being useless

2 actually flying RAF from Knokke

...leaving the remaining 4 allies to defend a town against 11 non-AFK Axis on the ground and 3 in the Air...with 11SD IIRC

Yes, counting here as well for some time now - will provide screenshots next time - that video in matas signature is an equal dramatization but everyone fell for it...

Edited by axis412

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lob12
The "5 vs. 24" argument is to be taken with a HEFTY truck load of salt here - coming from a "vet" or not

I can point you to a post made from LAST camp where one "VET" whos name ends in 357 just blatantly parrots the BS some other "vet" AHC has blindly spilled into allied side chat upon being asked as to whats going on on side ("4 ALLIES ON LOL") to dramatize the situation and cover his own fail moving flags properly...

In fact, it was 14 Axis vs. 11 Allies - distributed as follows:

3 allies sitting afk on an AF in a french air flag

1 afk precamping some FB that doesnt exist anymore

1 AHC in a DD being useless

2 actually flying RAF from Knokke

...leaving the remaining 4 allies to defend a town against 11 non-AFK Axis on the ground and 3 in the Air...with 11SD IIRC

Yes, counting here as well for some time now - will provide screenshots next time - that video in matas signature is an equal dramatization but everyone fell for it...

Live in denial if you want and keep believing you're actually achieving something during no-pop hours. The vet who counted is trustworthy and plays BOTH SIDES (he plays the side that is underpoped). His word is worth a thousand times more than some FTP's opinion.

edit : wasnt this thread in the barracks? wtf

Edited by Lob12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lordgaben

This restriction would only rarely occur when there are 10 or less players logged on your side so the map will still move just not at all when one side is low on actual players.

Why do you say this? There will be a massive incentive to log off and create this situation, in fact I can see HC officers doing whatever they can to get their own side to log off. Already we got some that "sit" on AOs to force their players to defend and bore the opposite team, and others that pull flags from the frontline to prevent AOs. Obviously we got people that care more about the map than keeping a good fight going and everyone having fun. If your team isn't currently doing well on offense the best thing to do will be to log off and shut down town capture. If your team is doing well then the enemy can shut down your attack by logging off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
axis412
Live in denial if you want and keep believing you're actually achieving something during no-pop hours. The vet who counted is trustworthy and plays BOTH SIDES (he plays the side that is underpoped). His word is worth a thousand times more than some FTP's opinion.

edit : wasnt this thread in the barracks? wtf

Maybe you should re-read....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stonecomet
Why do you say this? There will be a massive incentive to log off and create this situation' date=' in fact I can see HC officers doing whatever they can to get their own side to log off. Already we got some that "sit" on AOs to force their players to defend and bore the opposite team, and others that pull flags from the frontline to prevent AOs. Obviously we got people that care more about the map than keeping a good fight going and everyone having fun. If your team isn't currently doing well on offense the best thing to do will be to log off and shut down town capture. If your team is doing well then the enemy can shut down your attack by logging off.[/quote']

It's OK but you cherry picked my post with this quote:

This restriction would only rarely occur when there are 10 or less players logged on your side so the map will still move just not at all when one side is low on actual players. It will prolong the map some but not indefinitely. Might be worth giving it a try if most TZ3 players are willing, since that is when the situation is most likely to occur.

Earlier in the same post I stated:

In order to combat logging to prevent a cap there should be a delay timer to the restriction. Maybe something like the length of the capture timer itself. That way if players tried to game the system they would just be handing over the AB.

link to earlier post you partially quoted: http://discussions.battlegroundeurope.com/showthread.php?p=6912599#post6912599

That is why I was able to comfortably make the the final assertion in my entire post. For debates sake, do you see issues if the mechanism for locking AB caps is delayed by at least the amount of time it takes one capper to capture the AB? Once the low pop threshold is reached there is a delay before the AB capture is locked which would essentially hand over the AB.

Besides, if HC does things such as you state that are not in the interest of fair play then they could be coached, eventually warned and ultimately disciplined for such behaviors. I'm certainly never going to follow an HC command to log off to win and I'm hoping a vast majority of players would find such an order distasteful and ignore it. The more I think about the idea of locking AB's under certain extreme low pop imbalances and conditions the more I like it, but only if it is implemented properly. I was also wondering if you had some other solution or if you think it is a non-issue overall.

I'm also still hoping to see TZ3 and Low Population player's opinions about the possibility of locking AB capture once a side reaches 10 players or less?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lordgaben

In order to combat logging to prevent a cap there should be a delay timer to the restriction. Maybe something like the length of the capture timer itself. That way if players tried to game the system they would just be handing over the AB.

I read your entire post, so what if they hand over an AB? Plenty of people will gladly sacrifice a town if it will stop the other team from making any further gains. Then there's the fact that this will give hours every day for each side to move brigades and let units restock without any threat. So logging off will provide absolutely massive benefits while staying logged in hurts your team and could jeopardize the map.

Spawn delay punishes people for logging in, this rule or any like it will reward people for logging off so I'm really not sure where the game expects go with this mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cosian
Hey Cos' date=' I don't think you've seen my latest standing proposals, pop neutrality and NAO. I'll bump them for your perusal and commentary.[/quote']

Christ M8! Can I get the Cliff Notes .... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
axis412
Live in denial if you want and keep believing you're actually achieving something during no-pop hours.

Where's "denial" here from my side? Standard Textbook Canned Fallback Response if all else fails? gotcha...

The vet who counted is trustworthy and plays BOTH SIDES (he plays the side that is underpoped). His word is worth a thousand times more than some FTP's opinion.

I know who that "vet" is and i stated a Fact countering some other "vet"s "opinion" being STATED as "Fact" last camp in similar fashion...

So much for worthy words from "vets"

edit : wasnt this thread in the barracks? wtf

Sry, don't want your hysterical & hypocritical Propaganda being challenged & countered with actual Facts? Dont spread it then...

Edited by axis412

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stonecomet
I read your entire post, so what if they hand over an AB? Plenty of people will gladly sacrifice a town if it will stop the other team from making any further gains. Then there's the fact that this will give hours every day for each side to move brigades and let units restock without any threat. So logging off will provide absolutely massive benefits while staying logged in hurts your team and could jeopardize the map.

Spawn delay punishes people for logging in, this rule or any like it will reward people for logging off so I'm really not sure where the game expects go with this mentality.

I'm not sure what your trying to say other than you totally disagree with the idea. You seem to be saying players will log off and sacrifice an AB and then stay logged off to prevent further captures. For how long will these dedicated followers stay offline to prevent captures? How many players here would actually go along with this type of system gaming? Seriously, anyone want to put their hand up?

I do see the possibility of this happening near the end of the war, but all you would have to do is set rules for a side doing this over long periods as unconditional surrender of the map. CRS could communicate to the side that is inexplicably and unbelievably actually doing this as a game tactic or strategy that if they continue they will surrender the entire map.

It would be relatively easy to spot this type of behavior and correct it. I still stand by the assertion that any sides HC would have a hard time executing such blatantly "gaming the system" orders and have very many actual players follow them.

I just don't see players logging and handing over a town and then staying offline to prevent captures. If it ever did happen then it would be easily discovered and dealt with. You do not think a delayed fuse on the cap would deter a side from logging and giving up one AB. I think that is incorrect. I'm not sure what mindset even finds the counter argument an actual concern or really believes logging off to win would occur consistently. Most people play the game to have fun with combat experiences and to win in a respectful and fair way. It sounds like your saying most people play the game to follow HC or Squad orders regardless of whether those orders are "gaming the system". Or that most players and squads are using spawn delay and logging as a win tactic. If that's the case then CRS might as well close up shop and cut their losses.

Squads are supposed to be the backbone of the game but if that backbone is crooked then maybe it's time to think about reducing their influence some. I don't think that is the case, but if your argument is true then squads and organized attempts by HC to game the system are simply detrimental to the game. I would think this is NOT the usual case and that fair play will eventually prevail.

I just hope you are wrong or all may be lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
genxs

I agree a bit there Cos. SD has a counter effect on overpop but that counter effect is easily fixed by beeing more efficient. With overpop you can use more cutters and cutters live in average longer then a capper/rusher.

So the 30 second SD on a team is not that bad if they are more carefull and sustain cuts longer. Once down to the AB (not that hard if your overpop) cutting becomes more effective and even more SD is vaporised.

Example:

Spawn an smg to rush the bunker 5 times. Dead 5 times in 3 minutes not succeeding in the task.

Spawn one lmg to cut the bunker. Live 6 minutes succeeding in the task.

So imo if you want SD to be effective in real overpop (on higher populations not 10 players per side) then it has to be even higher. 30 seconds is nothing, its actually a blessing so that some players get to drink and eat something hehe.

I would take away the 'need' to capture by actually disabling it. Maybe hang a flag above the bunker showing capture ability (on/off). It will definitly lead to some more combat as both sides do not have to worry about rushing the bunker at that time (bunker is NOT hot).

And to avoid it going flipflop we can make it sticky. Make each state last long enough for a single player and capture.

S!

Genxs

ps. not beeing an ass about this topic for so long, i just think that rushing a bunker for the radio while dying on lag, bugs, fps and dirty mouses so much is kinda wack hehe. Heck i wanna be able to say 'my gun jams' and have time to clean it and do combat rather then having to 'safe' a radio like its a olympics sim.

That is exactly what people do anyway when they are faced with 20 people rick rolling 5 day in and day out. :)

The reality is that SD works and likely saved the game during those dark days of unstoppable over pop rule.

I think all the other timer solutions proposed still get you to the same place .... some people won't be happy unless they are quickly and efficiently rolling undefended towns with low pop numbers. Is it better twiddling your thumbs sitting in a depot for 10 minutes instead of 5 or having a 2 minute spawn delay?

SD works and makes it substantially more difficult to both cap and defend. I hate waiting two minutes and perhaps that is too long. But 30 seconds is barely a penalty at all. So I would look at tweaking the SD number and analyzing results. This, along with improving the SD logic so it works more effectively with low pop server. The logic has to be more than a percentage over pop and must take into consideration overall server pops as well. the polling methodology and frequency should be reviewed as well.

A 50% pop advantage is more substantial during low server pop than high server pop as during high server pop you still have that minimum effective number to defend a town.

Also note that making FB's more difficult to take down will exacerbate the current problem as it will be next to impossible for a low pop crew to cut a few guys off defense to take down FB's to stop an attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lordgaben
I would think this is NOT the usual case and that fair play will eventually prevail.

I just hope you are wrong or all may be lost.

Every rule put in has been gamed by HC, we have some that are still gaming the 1 AO rule and pulling from the frontlines to keep the other side from being able to set an attack so it's incredibly naive to think that people aren't going to take advantage of this. It literally rewards bad leaders that play the map and don't care about player fun or player retention with a period of invulnerability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
csm308
Every rule put in has been gamed by HC' date=' we have some that are still gaming the 1 AO rule and pulling from the frontlines to keep the other side from being able to set an attack so it's incredibly naive to think that people aren't going to take advantage of this. It literally rewards bad leaders that play the map and don't care about player fun or player retention with a period of invulnerability.[/quote']

This should be made the second post in every single "neat idea" post. If it can be gamed, it will be gamed. Everyone who has a "neat idea" should think of that FIRST before they post anything.

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lob12

Sry, don't want your hysterical & hypocritical Propaganda being challenged & countered with actual Facts? Dont spread it then...

Go buy a sub you cheap **** lol

The **** that comes out of your mouth is anything but factual, Goebbels.

You don't know who gave me the count. The guy in question has about 50 000 kills as axis, which is a shat load more than your main account, or the 7 kills you got so far with your F2P this map :rolleyes: I wonder how you could possibly know whats going on in game :rolleyes:

Edited by Lob12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
genxs

It is not extreme to say that our sides are down to a handfull of players in TZ3. I have mentioned this for a long time, offering headcounts, stats and alternative defense tactics for it. All because in all those years there still is no rule to avoid the total campdown while rushing radios. Especially in a sim that offers little to no cover when moving across the AB square to the bunker hehe.

Here is what i regularly find when i log on in TZ3.. a DO down to the AB with a handfull of players while there are no other missions up nowhere else on the map;

bottompop.jpg

I can see how that can happen here and there but i cannot understand why CRS lets it go on giving new players a different meaning to lag-hell-camps.

I say when it gets this bad then block bunker timer. Let defenders snipe from the barracks or drive a flank FRU rather then HAVE to run out into the fire within minutes or else no game.

S!

Genxs

!Note: I made no snaps or reference of AOs with only a handfull of defenders but they occur at the same odd appearance and duration. The 'popdrop' effect is game wide not side wide.

Not arguing that we're overpop in TZ3 at all. I agree. "5 allied guys" just seemed rather extreme. Possibly some nights, and I do understand it's very low, especially for Allies. Also, yes, I agree TZ2 isn't quite as bad as Allies TZ3.

Like I said before: hoping for good things out of the Steam release. We quite need a boost in population.

No argument or disrespect meant at all to anyone, by the way. I have a high regard for all HC, vets, and great players alike- no matter Axis or Allied.

S! gentlemen.

Edited by genxs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
genxs
How many players here would actually go along with this type of system gaming? Seriously' date=' anyone want to put their hand up?[/quote']

We were able to keep entire sides from NOT capping a bunker or blowing a camped FB just to camp a bit more. I think that any good 'hoot' will be followed by a siede thats having a fun time.

But if we dont progress to try new things gaining little advantages/comprimises with new rules then we aint moving at all. SD is not tuned effective enough to do its work. With 5 defenders and overpop attackers SD should be minutes to have an effect.

S!

Genxs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kev67

I haven't been playing long and I made the mistake of paying for 3 months before I had played much at all based on my early experience during prime time. Lesson learned, wont be paying again.

The game does seem silly to me.

During USA "prime time", which is when I have time to play, it takes many hours to capture a town and it's a lot of fun. You may have the good fortune to see some towns change hands and some "heroics" on both sides.

You come back to check in the morning, 6-8 hours later, and the entire front is gone and somehow one side has taken 4 or 5 maybe more towns. Any enjoyment you had from spending your evening playing is instantly erased and you feel like a fool for even bothering. I have tried just telling myself to just enjoy the game and play but unfortunately the game just isn't wired that way. Losing is losing even if the game is broken and there is rampant "hacking" going on. One may as well just go play DayZ for free if you want to be hacked repeatedly.

Possibly there could be a "side lock" restriction when the ratio of players gets to a certain point. The other day it was 6-1 odds on one side. I believe they said 24 players on one side and 4 on the other. Why not just lock the side when it gets to say 3 to 1 odds. Players could still log on and play but they would have to hop over to the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...