kemiozz

Give players more freedom?

94 posts in this topic

5 minutes ago, kemiozz said:

Yea but..... the whole point is that someone else decided this for you.

Welcome to the military! 

Share this post


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

Yea but..... the whole point is that someone else decided this for you.

And the whole point of my messages has been from the very start that free choice is not going to happen. Not with the current amount of players at least. If we'd have thousands of players playing on average, then things could change, even if i personally would never want that. 

I'm simply giving you alternatives. Either you deal with it or you don't.

Edited by gretnine
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The High Commands are always looking for small groups to setup attacks.  So if you and your friends have a plan and would like to get an attack going, generally the HC would be happy to oblige and give you an AO, unless there is an active plan in place and in process.  

The other thing to understand is that though there are something like 250 towns, the towns are linked which determines where brigade flags can move and how supplies flow.  The importance and priorities for taking towns is determined by a number of things which are beyond the scope of this post.  Further, the implications of taking a town and moving a brigade flag with supply into that town means that flag and supply is now committed to that area.  Did we leave ourselves weak?  Did we stretch our lines to thin?  Anyway, there are many other mechanics in play here beyond attack objectives that determine where attacks can or should happen.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cosian said:

The High Commands are always looking for small groups to setup attacks.  So if you and your friends have a plan and would like to get an attack going, generally the HC would be happy to oblige and give you an AO, unless there is an active plan in place and in process.  

The other thing to understand is that though there are something like 250 towns, the towns are linked which determines where brigade flags can move and how supplies flow.  The importance and priorities for taking towns is determined by a number of things which are beyond the scope of this post.  Further, the implications of taking a town and moving a brigade flag with supply into that town means that flag and supply is now committed to that area.  Did we leave ourselves weak?  Did we stretch our lines to thin?  Anyway, there are many other mechanics in play here beyond attack objectives that determine where attacks can or should happen.

 

 

But I wanna spend 5 days walking behind enemy lines and cap their rear factories! 

3 people like this

Share this post


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

Hi, I've tried the trial of this game few years ago, now with steam release i want to get into it, but one thing I have instantly noticed during my free trial back in the day, is that everyone is restricted in what he can do by High Command, essentialy other players who tell them where to go and what to do.

This is inaccurate.  The only restriction is what towns are currently active for attacks and defends.  So it is only the where that is controlled.  You and your friends decide what you want to do and how you want to contribute.  You want smaller battles?  You and your team can take or defend a forward base.  These are smaller battles but absolutely critical in support of the main attack or defend.    Wanna be a recognized hero.  Have your fab five take down a forward base that is supplying and enemy attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare to Aces High, you can hop into an airplane and fly anywhere on the map and battle anywhere on the map. Can bomb the factories. Dont need an AO or DO to do that.. So in a way, this game is like Aces High on the aircraft side of things.. But that is only a small portion of the game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Compare to Aces High, you can hop into an airplane and fly anywhere on the map and battle anywhere on the map. Can bomb the factories. Dont need an AO or DO to do that.. So in a way, this game is like Aces High on the aircraft side of things.. But that is only a small portion of the game.

 

Nice that you can do that with planes. I'm mainly a plane player so it's ok for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kemiozz said:

 

 

Even higher, it is still a limit.

 

' But I personally have a hard time believing this game will ever let anyone choose their objective completely freely '

From my personal opinion it would only be for the better if everyone could choose their objectives freely.

I play also other mmos where players choose their objectives freely, and they also have problems with population in the game, and I assure you, sometimes I wish I could attack the target alone in peace, but there is ALWAYS a player who will find me and attack me.

 

For every attacking player there would be a player who will come after him.

With the amount of people in game and the choice of about 30 towns at any given time. You could have say 10-15 towns being attacked by 1-3 people. Not my idea of fun. Only chasing just a few peeps at one time. And then you would have map rolling during low pop time. 4-8 peeps on the Allied side and 10-20+ peeps on the axis side (typical numbers at present) = Allies lose all the time. Which in turn would have people quitting in droves.

If you have a 2x AO set. You have 2x attacks and 2x defends. This is focusing the players. As it stands the Allies are losing again due to lower pops.

With your way of thinking, the ALLIES would lose faster. Then we would have more campaigns  where the allies lose yet again. And then the game would die.

Yup, that's what I want. THE GAME TO FAIL. With Steam, you will see more players playing the so called bad guys (Axis) than you will see Allies. It will always be an imbalanced side bias. People like playing the bad guys. Its a known fact.

Conclusion: this is NOT the game for you.

 

 

SIDE LOCK F2P TO LOW POP SIDE as it is done in most online games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how many seem to have forgotten that what this individual describes is precisely how WWIIOL worked for the first... 5-6 years? The concept of "Brigade Spawning" was, contrary to what many of the posts above would suggest, "swallowed" reluctantly by many at first, and took some getting used to. Back then the concern was that CRS was going to give-in to what the Battlefield, Red Orchestra, Call of Duty, Day of Defeat crowd wanted -- namely fast-paced FPS action that didn't require walking for an hour from an FB to get gunned down by AI. There were a lot of drawbacks to the old style (as I just mentioned), but there were also advantages that set the game apart from the rest. There was something about being able to spawn a few StuGs from a rear base that still had supply and drive them through a couple towns to get forward into the action that made everything feel a little more realistic -- it made the player make more of a real investment in the time spent playing the game, instead of just spawning, dying, spawning, dying, spawning, dying, ad nauseum. While I'm clearly outnumbered here, I will admit that the "freedom" quotient of the game I sense as having deteriorated significantly, and not always to be replaced by something qualitatively better. If it's quick action you're looking for, then "Brigade Spawning" is clearly the way to go. The routine intensity of ground combat now is without parallel in earlier years. The speed of the game has most definitely increased markedly, for better or for worse. Still, I do long for the old days sometimes. Granted, watching Antwerp, or all of Britain be simul-capped by 4 guys and a riverboat humping tables was frustrating at the time. But the freedom that allowed such craziness to happen did contribute something to the game. That's gone now.

All of that said, it is technically a "military" simulator, and militaries have hierarchies. This game now simulates that to probably the greatest extent possible given its paying subscriber base (not many pay to be privates). In the end, the game is still far too marked by individual lone-wolf action, even with brigade spawning, to be even a rough approximation of actual WWII combat. Rock and a hard space, I guess.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' There was something about being able to spawn a few StuGs from a rear base that still had supply and drive them through a couple towns to get forward into the action that made everything feel a little more realistic -- it made the player make more of a real investment in the time spent playing the game, instead of just spawning, dying, spawning, dying, spawning, dying, ad nauseum. But the freedom that allowed such craziness to happen did contribute something to the game. That's gone now. '

 

+1, i can feel the intensity just by reading your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started playing 15 years ago. It used to be exactly as you want it to be now. What happened was there was no EWS then. Example: A tank would roll into a town, and get a strategic  position on the infantry spawn and the vehicle spawn. One infantry and a tank, might be able to take the entire  town. The infantry would bump the radio, then run to the AB Bunker. The Tank would cover the Bunker to ensure no EI entered. Once the Bunker was taken, the liberating force could only spawn from the FB's. You could not spawn from  the CP's like now. Heck, I even captured 2 town by myself in those days. Now AO's are controlled to prevent those things.

Maybe they could place auto AO's dependent on how many players are attacking  town.  If a squad rolls in with 25 players they should have the option to have an AO whether through HC or an auto AO in my opinion.

Basically, more AO's will match the player base, giving more freedom you desire, just give it time.

I think CRS should slowly back up though and look at what caused most of its player base to leave and reconsider.  What big changes drove players off. And fortyrds post is spot on. If I want instant action I will brigade spawn into a captured CP, and maybe die the second I spawn, however even if I lone wolf it, I am recon, setting up a strategic FMS before the attack, and keeping an eye out, and communication open.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' started playing 15 years ago. It used to be exactly as you want it to be now... And fortyrds post is spot on ''

 If Fortyrds post is spot on, than it was good as it was before. Maybe the best would be if CRS combined what was before with what is now?

 

' The freedom that allowed such craziness to happen did contribute something to the game'

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we always read - at the moment there are 0 plans to change game mechanics with relation to AO/DO (at least nothing for sure set)

 

and on a personal note I hope game mechanics stay pretty close to what is currently in place (though I'd love to see something be done to get more out of town fighting).  Having played in the days of 'wait for 2 turds in a truck' it got pretty boring pretty quick.  The current game mechanics came about because most players decided to avoid the fight whenever and wherever possible.  And while having the whole front open (and actually any town initially), over time players grew bored and stopped logging in.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' And while having the whole front open (and actually any town initially), over time players grew bored and stopped logging in.   '

 

I understand the reasoning, but isn't the whole front open one of the key features that makes 'ww2 online', 'ww2 online' ?

I would say the current mechanic is closer to other competing games which are much smaller in scope, and ww2 online has moved away (like the players who played the game at first few years mentioned) from its original concept?

One of the reasons i'm interested in playing ww2 online is the scope of the game, the big world, like someone said in post earlier..... if he wants to walk 5 days to other side of the map and attack things, let him, lol.

I would say it is an amazing sign of gameplay and be in awe, if the game allowed players to walk deep behind enemy lines and capture stuff and let them open front there, and from there they would have to be supplied by other players to hold the position or get crushed by opponents from all sides.

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, kemiozz said:

' And while having the whole front open (and actually any town initially), over time players grew bored and stopped logging in.   '

 

I understand the reasoning, but isn't the whole front open one of the key features that makes 'ww2 online', 'ww2 online' ?

I would say the current mechanic is closer to other competing games which are much smaller in scope, and ww2 online has moved away (like the players who played the game at first few years mentioned) from its original concept?

One of the reasons i'm interested in playing ww2 online is the scope of the game, the big world, like someone said in post earlier..... if he wants to walk 5 days to other side of the map and attack things, let him, lol.

I would say it is an amazing sign of gameplay and be in awe, if the game allowed players to walk deep behind enemy lines and capture stuff and let them open front there, and from there they would have to be supplied by other players to hold the position or get crushed by opponents from all sides.

Your vision does not align with the practical realities of the game.  Nor is it in any way historical.  

 

You can say "this would be great" 1000 times and it still won't make any more sense than the first time you said it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, literally the first thing I said when I started playing, why can't I go attack any frontline town?

Still think every every frontline town should be able to be captured at all times.

Barring that, then they need to implement dynamic AOs; you get full EWS on a town - system AOs it regardless of other AOs on the map.

Give squads their own platoon sized flag - and map can run itself with battles everywhere at all times - player driven, no HC needed (but to move system flags)

 

Do some math, how many frontline towns at any given time?  30, 40?

If 40, and you need 10 for defense and 10 to attack each town (a squad) - then with 800 players every town can have a battle if desired.

 

btw, you didn't ever see 10 AOs in the last few years... you're hallucinating.  We haven't seen 3 in years, till last night for about 5 minutes.

 

Edited by delems
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, B2K said:

The current game mechanics came about because most players decided to avoid the fight whenever and wherever possible.  And while having the whole front open (and actually any town initially), over time players grew bored and stopped logging in.  

The current game mechanics exist because a virtual military command system was supposed to be a selling point for the game that would lots of people would pay money for. There were plenty of ways to force battles that don't involve an official hierarchy of volunteer player admins and complex rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, david01 said:

There were plenty of ways to force battles

And what is your suggestion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' Your vision does not align with the practical realities of the game.  Nor is it in any way historical. '

Maybe not, but i'm just telling what would be fun, and it is a game first so it will never be 100% historical, so i'd rather play a more fun game that is less historical.

 


Besides, Americans dropped paratroopers in Normandy that were surrounded from every way, sooooooo

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paradrops were planned in infinite detail.  There were substantial limits on how far a drop could reasonably be from the front line.  And most importantly there was a plan and time frame for connecting the drop with the front line.

What your talking about is some guy deciding he wants to go to X and everyone needs to follow to make it successful.  As others have said, its not realistic, its not historically accurate, and its no fun for anyone other than the annoying guy doing it.  Even with that said, I cannot even conceive of how it would be fun for the individual who apparently wants to play a team based mutliplayer combat game by himself using mechanisms that that allow him to do capture positions without combat?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did my fare share of resupply missions from 1-3 rear towns for a couple of hours over a few days to overstock an attack.  I wasn't too worried that when the actual attack was started and all the armor had been taken :( - "This is a team game" ( It was great to see armor and truck convoys - also resupplying aircraft was great even for crap pilots ;) ).

I doubt the current generation of gamers will want to do the above.

What I didn't like...Bunker Duty !!

 

 

Edited by agenda21
more detail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, david01 said:

The current game mechanics exist because a virtual military command system was supposed to be a selling point for the game that would lots of people would pay money for. There were plenty of ways to force battles that don't involve an official hierarchy of volunteer player admins and complex rules.

Since there is a post- 'flag' plan being discussed feel free to make threads on the topic.  While i'll not guarantee that your idea(s) will be implemented - if they're viable they may be.   the TO&E flags came into existence for the reason you indicate.   The AO/DO came into existence because for a long while 'cannot find action' or 'spending all this time in dead towns is a waste of my time' was the most cited reason for people to unsub. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.