• Announcements

    • XOOM

      Volunteer PHP Developer wanted to revive the Gazette!   07/24/2019

      We're looking to properly revive the World@War Gazette and need a solid PHP developer to help take some work forward. If you have some skills with PHP and are looking for some experience and to bring important home page news / recognition for individual players back to WWII Online, I'd like to hear from you! Submit an inquiry to jobs@corneredrats.com with some details about your experience. You will need at least 10+ hours per week to contribute to the team. The Gazette's current status can be found here: https://www.wwiionline.com/resources#gazette
rule303

Mass Sandbagging

79 posts in this topic

9 minutes ago, rule303 said:

All you literally have to do, is make PPOs have a minimum placement distance to enemy flags. I have no problems with people barricading themselves in an AB that they control. But you shouldn't be able to stumble on up to an enemy AB before an AO is ever placed and completely block everything in - it's supposed to be an army base housing an entire brigade in there - five lowly engineers trying to set that up would outright in theory be slaughtered by the brigade and detected, but the game doesn't have the manpower or numbers anymore to make that a literal reality, especially in TZ3.

I agree with this. In the past we could not set a FRU very close to an enemy controlled CP. It doesn't make sense that one side can slip into an enemy's town and nuild up anough PPOs INSIDE their AB to shut it down even before the AO is up. Either that or require that an AO be active before a side ca build inside the other side's town.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, monsjoex said:

Just make 3 ap shells destroy a sandbag like its supposed to work like?

No, it's poor design that you can do this and having them destroyable doesn't address the design flaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Silky said:

No, it's poor design that you can do this and having them destroyable doesn't address the design flaw

It's more of a tech limitation than anything else, really.

This actually came up early in the discussion with PPOs (which I wasn't that involved with, to be honest — I kind of took over the tech side of things at the tail end). The biggest concern was players doing this to their own side, but since friendly PPOs are destructible we decided it wouldn't be a big issue without a massive, obviously bannable effort: If you have effective control over a town, cleaning up the mess a troll poured an hour into would take a single engineer like ten minutes at most.

The other case is where an enemy places those PPOs. This isn't something we can explicitly forbid since there isn't a clear-cut "Ok, now you've crossed the line" <I don't represent the GMs, so don't take my word for this>, so all we have to work with is the actual game mechanics. Now we could make it so you can't place a PPO anywhere even remotely near an AB, but right now that distance is set for every enemy-held facility (which might include various non-capturable buildings as well? I haven't actually looked at what it checks). Increase this value too much and PPOs become effectively impossible to place in a contested town, which isn't exactly what we were going for.

Now we did actually increase that distance a bit for the satchel-only PPOs, but sandbags are far from invulnerable for most vehicles (and if it is, report it: We know the damage is weird, and as soon as we get some of our volunteer programmers coming back we're hopefully going to have them look into it), so ultimately the effects one or two guys can have arriving ahead of a proper attack are fairly minimal. The only real issue is an attacker coming in en masse and just covering the AB with PPOs.

 

And at that point, what you're really describing is just a plain old precamp. Yes, its absolute garbage, but it has nothing to do with PPOs: As long as the game lets attackers roll into an undefended town and then asks the defender to spawn in an already overwhelmed area, what you describe is something that can happen, especially when population is low or severely imbalanced: Whether it's a ton of sandbags or an enemy tank, the fact that it (and a whole bunch of other enemies) managed to get right in front of your vehicle spawn uncontested is the actual problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, VICTARUS said:

 

And at that point, what you're really describing is just a plain old precamp. Yes, its absolute garbage, but it has nothing to do with PPOs: As long as the game lets attackers roll into an undefended town and then asks the defender to spawn in an already overwhelmed area, what you describe is something that can happen, especially when population is low or severely imbalanced: Whether it's a ton of sandbags or an enemy tank, the fact that it (and a whole bunch of other enemies) managed to get right in front of your vehicle spawn uncontested is the actual problem.

That precamp wouldn't have been an issue however, because in this instance we had full supply and nothing was stopping us from dismantling it with tanks, besides the fact that the sandbags for some reason were indestructible to HE shells and that the tanks thus couldn't get outside the vehicle spawn to engage the enemy. They didn't have sappers in the AB or anything capable of killing tanks, besides a PZIVD which is easily enough destroyed by any of the heavy tanks we had full supply of.

It wasn't the fact it was precamped - that's fine by me. It's the fact that people are abusing PPO's to be used in a manner to block off spawn points. It's clearly not the intention behind PPO's and honestly can easily be fixed by having a minimum build distance from enemy CP's. You don't have to even stop players using them in towns either - just make the minimum build distance something like 100m so that it's short enough to allow construction inside a contested town or city, but not short enough to allow people to Donald Trump spawn points with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Pittpete said:

You have EWS at a town, investigate it. 

It's easier to come to the forums and cry exploit!

You try having about 5-6 people total on, and  then defend a town and then when you see EWS in 2-3 other towns, sending someone to check...Even IF you can send someone, it's ONE person and quite likely to get killed if there 2 or 3 people setting up the campfest. OP versus UP is one thing, but to have things now set to where if the underpopped folks don't split up their forces between mutliple towns they are even worse off is, quite frankly, more than unreasonable.

Basic fact: It takes people to do things like this, if they are not there, and you KNOW they aren't, it's bad enough, but to have the other side then call you stupid for not doing it? Not Cool...not cool at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are underpopped, you don't have the manpower to investigate every EWS you see, let alone monitor your AB's when you should be monitoring the CP's and hunting EFMS, because you are supposed to know that the AB can't be capped until there is an AO, the town is contested, and it's been contested for 10 minutes straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder if we can seal up vehicle fb spawns with sandbags so they can't get out?  Send out trucks to 30 fbs as once then shut them all down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pittpete said:

Think about it?

Why do you only have 5-6 people on?

Instant - Axis - Victory - Indicator:

Sedan axis 1/1

Maubeuge axis 0/1

Brussels axis 0/1

Antwerpen axis 0/1

Edited by undercova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what's your opinion of a group of enterprising  Allied's doing the same thing when your side has overpop. It should be the same. It sucks, I understand that, but it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, derfflingr said:

And what's your opinion of a group of enterprising  Allied's doing the same thing when your side has overpop. It should be the same. It sucks, I understand that, but it happens.

I would NOT approve of anyone, Axis OR Allied doing this. I certainly would never be a part of it, and would stop it if I could in it's tracks. I may be naive but I honestly believe in a 'fair fight' and will never fight any other way, no matter the circumstances. There's an old saying that I believe in: 'Evil thrives when good men do nothing." Now I'm not saying this is evil;  but it certainly doesn't ping my Good Guy Fair-Play-O-Meter, and I won't have anything to do with it.

I WILL say that if a side uses tactics like this, and the other side's players then refuse to log on  and they have no one to fight, they have surrendered any right to demand that the other side log on just so they can do it to them again. Maybe using tactics like this does happen. On a related note, lots of people who don't like the way their opponents play tend to take their ball and go home.  :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pittpete said:

Think about it?

Why do you only have 5-6 people on?

I don't know Pittpete: enlighten me. Why DO we only have 5-6 people on? How does the reason that we have so few players change the fact that those are all the players we have? It doesn't matter if everyone else went to the opera, or to an old time minstrel show...if they aren't online, they aren't online. That still leaves the fact that severly underpopped is severely underpopped. If we only have 5 players, no matter the reason, as far as the game is concerned there are only 5 players on that side, and they cannot be expected to be in multiple places and be effective.

Now if you're intimating that somehow the few who DO show up DESERVE to lose because they have no control over other people and can't produce teammates out of their pockets, then that would be very insulting to them. Because one could say that at least they were willing to show up in the face of overwhelming odds. Or, there's the flip side of that coin...You're intimating that the few who do show up are stupid for even attempting to try when there is no hope of doing anything other then being continuously mugged and beaten into the dust by an obviousy overwhelming force.

Which thing were you intimating with that comment, exactly?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that CRS literally can't afford to let the overpop side run roughshod over the underpop side, as in this instance or any other. 

The game goes away if the underpop side goes away. Again, literally.

The overpop side's players arguing that the underpop side should play differently, or get crushed without complaining, or whatever...isn't going to save the game. Neither is CRS saying (and I paraphrase, but this is how I hear it) "hey, it's an unavoidable side effect of having PPOs, and it's not any worse than other game issues, so we don't think it's enough of a problem to need fixing".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Why do you only have 5-6 people on? 

 

Because the game was designed with several positive feedback mechanisms for population imbalance, and no negative feedback.

True in 2001, true today. CRS currently is asking about possible mechanisms that might change that. Quite a few ideas have been suggested over the years. All were rejected for one reason or another. Nothing of that kind is in place now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, VICTARUS said:

It's more of a tech limitation than anything else, really.

This actually came up early in the discussion with PPOs (which I wasn't that involved with, to be honest — I kind of took over the tech side of things at the tail end). The biggest concern was players doing this to their own side, but since friendly PPOs are destructible we decided it wouldn't be a big issue without a massive, obviously bannable effort: If you have effective control over a town, cleaning up the mess a troll poured an hour into would take a single engineer like ten minutes at most.

The other case is where an enemy places those PPOs. This isn't something we can explicitly forbid since there isn't a clear-cut "Ok, now you've crossed the line" <I don't represent the GMs, so don't take my word for this>, so all we have to work with is the actual game mechanics. Now we could make it so you can't place a PPO anywhere even remotely near an AB, but right now that distance is set for every enemy-held facility (which might include various non-capturable buildings as well? I haven't actually looked at what it checks). Increase this value too much and PPOs become effectively impossible to place in a contested town, which isn't exactly what we were going for.

Now we did actually increase that distance a bit for the satchel-only PPOs, but sandbags are far from invulnerable for most vehicles (and if it is, report it: We know the damage is weird, and as soon as we get some of our volunteer programmers coming back we're hopefully going to have them look into it), so ultimately the effects one or two guys can have arriving ahead of a proper attack are fairly minimal. The only real issue is an attacker coming in en masse and just covering the AB with PPOs.

 

And at that point, what you're really describing is just a plain old precamp. Yes, its absolute garbage, but it has nothing to do with PPOs: As long as the game lets attackers roll into an undefended town and then asks the defender to spawn in an already overwhelmed area, what you describe is something that can happen, especially when population is low or severely imbalanced: Whether it's a ton of sandbags or an enemy tank, the fact that it (and a whole bunch of other enemies) managed to get right in front of your vehicle spawn uncontested is the actual problem.

Respectfully, no. 

It is not a Precamp because pre-camping surely involves pvp; the attacker settling by up in such a way that they have a huge pvp advantage before and as the battle begins. 

This is placing items to prevent players engaging in pvp, and as your post clearly shows, is the result of design (not understanding the proximity restrictions) or bug (damage thresholds) issues, i.e. it is an exploit 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can blow that PPO's with a tank or engineer, even rifleman can blow PPO's...I don't see what's the problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sydspain said:

You can blow that PPO's with a tank or engineer, even rifleman can blow PPO's...I don't see what's the problem

The problem is that if you are down to just 5-6 people, just detailing one to anti-PPO work gives up 2-3 facilities automatically and eliminates being able to react with the whole of the spawnlist, even worse and more surely then a full on camp.

 

It's another example of advantage overpop especially in low density times.

 

Pitiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Silky said:

Respectfully, no. 

It is not a Precamp because pre-camping surely involves pvp; the attacker settling by up in such a way that they have a huge pvp advantage before and as the battle begins. 

This is placing items to prevent players engaging in pvp, and as your post clearly shows, is the result of design (not understanding the proximity restrictions) or bug (damage thresholds) issues, i.e. it is an exploit 

There isn't a dictionary to turn to to clear up exactly what constitutes precamping, but in my eyes it's as follows: You go into town when there are no or very few defenders, and then you attempt to make them unable to effectively leave their spawn (primarily the AB vehicle spawn), effectively camping it prior to the actual battle. You might be able to argue that very last point since it holds the defender in their spawn instead of just immediately killing them (although if there isn't a camp alongside it then you can just spawn a rifleman/engineer and quickly clear it up), but in my eyes it's the same garbage either way.

 also barely touched PPOs other than having to pick up the very tail end of implementing them, so you really shouldn't take what I say as the Word of God in this department: These are really just my personal opinions on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone defending this type of action, obviously doesn't understand or refuses to consider the effect of this stuff.

pointing out that the victims can still move around freely in their coffins is a joke

It is helpful to know who those are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, VICTARUS said:

There isn't a dictionary to turn to to clear up exactly what constitutes precamping, but in my eyes it's as follows: You go into town when there are no or very few defenders, and then you attempt to make them unable to effectively leave their spawn (primarily the AB vehicle spawn), effectively camping it prior to the actual battle. You might be able to argue that very last point since it holds the defender in their spawn instead of just immediately killing them (although if there isn't a camp alongside it then you can just spawn a rifleman/engineer and quickly clear it up), but in my eyes it's the same garbage either way.

 also barely touched PPOs other than having to pick up the very tail end of implementing them, so you really shouldn't take what I say as the Word of God in this department: These are really just my personal opinions on the matter.

The more the game explores the PPO possibilities, which is a really good area to explore, the more issues like this will occur. I really think it may pay to very clearly indicate that this kind of non-PvP, unintended, blockage of player movement is both undesirable and unacceptable. 

I get where you're coming from, I do, but seriously this is territory where the only position to hold is one of zero tolerance. 

This is a game, and games rely on rules. Look at the areas that have previously been major flash points - PPOs interfering with FBs, bugged towns they can't be capped, cheating claims, Brit/French movement limitations etc honestly, don't give an inch as regards exploits 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** You try having about 5-6 people total on, and  then defend a town and then when you see EWS in 2-3 other towns

And there is the problem.  It has nothing to do with PPOs, or distance to bldgs blah blah blah.

We are once again looking at the wrong thing - "OMG, he's bleeding on the floor - get more towels to wipe it up faster......  HINT: stop the bleeding first and there won't be blood on the floor"

Do you get it, rats allow extreme over pop - that is the problem; nothing else is the problem.  Fix the problem, limit the amount of over pop that can be in game.

 

 

*** The more the game explores the PPO possibilities, which is a really good area to explore, the more issues like this will occur. I really think it may pay to very clearly indicate that this kind of non-PvP, unintended, blockage of player movement is both undesirable and unacceptable. 

It is not undesirable or unacceptable - completely false imo.  The more the game explores PPO possibilities, which is a really good area to explore (glad you see that), the more issues like this will  occur... like what?  Varied play, more tactical obstacles, interesting challenges, random terrain changes, additional cover for infantry; more fun?  Really, you are against more fun?

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.