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.

XOOM

Why don't small squads, merge to become bigger ones?

Recommended Posts

snappahead

It's simple really, if you don't want to be locked to one side, it's best to keep it small with friends and it is easier to agree which side to play for a campaign. Our squad is a handful of players that grew up together. For us, it is best just to associate with squads on both sides and just support them in operations. You don't have to be in their squad to join them on voice comms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21

How about to start small give Squad missions to the paratroopers units only. After all these were specialized troops for a certain purpose. 

A unit that can /could function without an AO ( of course none squad members could also join, and the over all Para missions would not go away either.

But Paras were used to cut , drop behind enemy lines and maybe even take town.  In other words  these units could take a town behind enemy lines a town without an active Brigade and the other side would have to retake the town via Paratroopers.  

Now u give the ML of that Paratrooper unit the ability to build a MS for Light AAA and ATG and you open up a whole new level of game play and dynamic for players to explore.  

To keep and or retake the town there would be a constant drop of Para units.

I think it's worth looking into. 

Edited by dre21

Share this post


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

It has not been ignored, Xoom has addressed this many times in chats and on the forums.  I was not here at the time but what I was told new players had a lack of missions to run on with other players.  Other LW players were isolated and caused less grouping.  As numbers went down it became more of a problem.  It is something that is on the board for the future and we have taken in some great ideas from the community to help with the issues, but it is something that will require numbers to increase. 

Squad missions to me are important in order to give organization to the squads and a tool to the leadership of the squad.  I think some of the ideas the community has suggested in the past are good ones but with our limited resources everything has to be planned and organized in priority.  It is not being ignored, but ideas have come in to help, and man power has been on higher priority items which with very few that can address this issue.  While the team has grown, Coders are limited to a very few.

You know the simply solution to the squad mission would have been not to hide them but to have changed the mission color and labelled as a squad mission. That would not have prevented the LW from spawning on it but it might have put up a social barrier that told people that the missions function was under squad control. It JUST might have also brought the LW who chose the squad mission to feel a little more inclined (because they where intruding) to participate in the squads goal.  Getting rid of the squad mission was a big mistake and the compromise should have been considered.

 

This is one of the things that grabs me by the nut sack about the choices that have been made. The choices tend to overlook how to satisfy the most of the player types that takes away from one type to satisfy the other and ultimately started killing the game numbers. The same thing happened with TO&E and town supply where a solution could have been a combination of both. The swing between choices tend to be extreme. Attention to change must look as some sort of satisfaction who have things taken away.

 

That being said I think the FMS was a great idea and a great compromise that satisfies the tankers and infantry - certainly mb not satisfy everyone completely but that's not the goal, but it did not completely take anything away and even added content. That was a great execution.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vasduten1

I really think that instead of shoe-horning squads into whatever HC wants to accomplish at any given point that having more available tools for people to use in order to coordinate as a "squad of squads" would be a vast improvement.

 

 

Think about other games... You can add or remove people from your group, you can create groups, go on quests together, join up with other groups, etc.

 

Adding some tools to the UI or in a quick access tab ingame would give people a canvas on which to paint.

 

That was what was so magical about the squad driven environment of old... Even without tools, people found a way to get together and really have some fun.

 

Provide the tools, and people will use them.

 

If the tools need refinement, then refine them, per feedback.

 

 

Give the playerbase a fluid set of non bugged tools and watch people fill the game up again, and watch the big battles get going.

 

 

@XOOM You're onto something here, but I think the question shouldn't be "Why don't the squads merge?" and might be better when framed in a "What tools can we add that will give squads the incentive and ability to band together and have fun?"

Note: the ToEs/Flag system was over the top and micro managerial; we know this now. It hurt the game, and the longer it stays, the more harm it does.

 

Let's create a working toolkit so that the playerbase can create. 

 

That's the engagement. That's what people want. 

 

To create it as they go and earn psychic MOOLAH!!!!

 

hahaha

Edited by vasduten1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...