• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
kemiozz

Give players more freedom?

94 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, B2K said:

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. 

tired of chasing ghosts as well

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B2K said:

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. 

If the devs wanted to merely concentrate players they would've set battle areas with an algorithm and let the server do the work. Instead the game has battle areas that are manually designated by a hierarchy of volunteer game admins who themselves are manually vetted and approved and monitored by the company. AOs are the way they are because the devs wanted a virtual command system.

 

Player freedom isn't an option in this game because it would undercut the virtual command system not because of content creation problems. I mean you've had the current system for over a long time, but you still don't have enough battles so obviously creating battles isn't the priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' Player freedom isn't an option in this game '

 

But it was for first 6 years ?

 

' 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' '

 

But the towns under attack are flashing, so players would know where to go and defend, why would someone sit in an empty town then ?

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


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

If the devs wanted to merely concentrate players they would've set battle areas with an algorithm and let the server do the work. Instead the game has battle areas that are manually designated by a hierarchy of volunteer game admins who themselves are manually vetted and approved and monitored by the company. AOs are the way they are because the devs wanted a virtual command system.

 

Player freedom isn't an option in this game because it would undercut the virtual command system not because of content creation problems. I mean you've had the current system for over a long time, but you still don't have enough battles so obviously creating battles isn't the priority.

 The HC is the way the HC is because the devs wanted a virtual command system.  They intentionally went with a human HC so as to keep the game content generated by that system player driven.  The HC pre-dates AO's by several years.  

You've seen system AO's - that's the algorithm .... how often are they placed into a spot that actually makes sense?  Programming a system that is able to take into account all the different variables (from supply, to FB state, to fallbacks, to player motivation, to etc...) would be nearly impossible.      

AO's are the way they are because players (in general) claim to want action, but then would (and presumably would still) head off to find the least populated spot to attack.  And if a Defense shows up vanish to go find a different spot.  Some of this still occurs today at FB's - stop a FB bust odds are you just stopped an attack.  Put up enough of a fight - the FB attack ghosts out.      

The AO is intended to focus players to (a) specific spot(s) on the map to either attack it or defend it (depending on which side of it you're on).  The (admittedly kind of weak) map icons indicating attack/defend - serves to alert players to where the battle is.  A player can still go out and hit a FB, or Bomb a factory, or Run a tank from Div HQ 1 to Sub-BDE1, or guard a FB against attack, or guard an un-AO'd town against attack if they so choose (the last one would completely defeat the purpose of creating player content, but it is still an option in game).   Heck you could grab a bofor and defend the factories 24/7 if you are so inclined.  Or any number of options.

Again - if you have a viable idea for an alternative system - create a separate post and spell it out.  .36 is still coming and with it a change to the current HC system dynamics.  

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, agenda21 said:

^^^

There were no AO/DOs or TOES.

 

Oh so what if the front was opened up again with todays mechanic ?   People would see the flashing town so they would know where to go and defend.

So there would be no waiting in a ghost town because there is no such a need, and if someone would want he could go open up a new front, potentialy creating a new battle that could transform into a big battle.

 

' AO's are the way they are because players (in general) claim to want action, but then would (and presumably would still) head off to find the least populated spot to attack. '

 

Exactly,  sometimes players want a big battle, and sometimes small battle  and sometimes they just want to shoot at stuff without anyone around or want to fool around, open front would allow for all of that.

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


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

So there would be no waiting in a ghost town because there is no such a need

1 word
Moles

They would breed like rats.

Somehow you are missing what the man just told you.
Been there, done that, people quit playing because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does each side have 25 squads or more?

Tada, problem solved, each squad would pick a town to defend and every town along the front would have defenders/attackers.

Give the squads their flag, and they'd put it in their town, along with any system flag that happened to be there maybe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, merlin51 said:

1 word
Moles

They would breed like rats.

Somehow you are missing what the man just told you.
Been there, done that, people quit playing because of it.

 

 

WW2 online has over 15 years of experience, use that experience to create a even better gaming experience. Clearly i'm not the only one that longs for the open front as other players in this thread stated this also.

Maybe it would be the best if WW2 online went back to its roots of what made it unique and combine it with todays mechanics and what has been learned over the years, to create once again open front.

I'm sure something can be thought of. Combine the current mechanics with open front, so the players have freedom to do what they want but at the same time something to prevent moles.

Wouldn't it be for the best?

It's a win-win situation for everyone.

More freedom = more gaming options = more fun game = more players wanting to play = devs get money

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


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

Does each side have 25 squads or more?

Tada, problem solved, each squad would pick a town to defend and every town along the front would have defenders/attackers.

Give the squads their flag, and they'd put it in their town, along with any system flag that happened to be there maybe.

 

When I firsted start playing (2002)  Squads had their own AOs. e.g. My first squad I joined was British in the north then the next squad I joined played French in the "Dirty South".  Sometimes when the BEF requested extra man power we would go north for a bit.  It is surprising the need to change strategy from the hilly south to the flat north and the fast, weak armoured tanks.

I like the idea of sqaud flags but squads vary in size and also the time of day.  It will require more HC volunteers and Sqaud commanders to manage 24/7.  Which is a big problem atm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Sqaud commanders to manage 24/7.

I've had a couple ideas on this, first, allow CO or XO to move, that gives the squad many players to manage the flag.

Or, just allow the CO to move the flag, and the flag is removed from play when the CO logs off.

The CO can manually move flag to training anytime - and with normal move times, then move back to a non-front line town when he logs back in.

Yep, squad flags would have very little supply (1 platoon, like 52 troops and 1 or 2 light AA/ATG), they would just be used for special squad ops or as reserve gear.

The squad flags would also be perfect for patrolling both the N and S flanks, which rarely have system army flags.

 

Sure, some details to be thought about in how to manage the squad flag, but guessing we could think of something.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2017 at 6:31 PM, B2K said:

Programming a system that is able to take into account all the different variables (from supply, to FB state, to fallbacks, to player motivation, to etc...) would be nearly impossible.      

Again - if you have a viable idea for an alternative system - create a separate post and spell it out.  .36 is still coming and with it a change to the current HC system dynamics.  

I already did. It took me literally five minutes to write up some pseudocode and conditions where the server would count the # of players, and place AOs on towns if the conditions were met. The thread was in the barracks awhile ago when F2P could post there and it got moved or deleted.

 

It's not complicated. Set AOs on towns when there are enough opposing players detected near a town. Remove the AO when there aren't enough players. There's no need to account for FBs or supply let alone any abstract concepts like player motivation. If players are spawning in force, then it's a good AO. In fact AOs placed automatically by population proximity would put the current HC-placed AOs to shame since there won't be any "mole" attacks and AOs won't ever be placed unless there's a way for regular players to spawn there.

 

You are a tiny software company sitting on an old game the #1 priority should be eliminating the massive administrative overhead you have from the player command system, but you keep making excuses for preserving it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres nothing stopping you from going and attacking any town you want, would you be able to cap it? no, but atleast those rapscallion HC guys can't tell you what to do no more.

I don't want to imagine what this game would be like without structured AOs again. ugh 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I already did. It took me literally five minutes to write up some pseudocode and conditions where the server would count the # of players, and place AOs on towns if the conditions were met. The thread was in the barracks awhile ago when F2P could post there and it got moved or deleted.

 

It's not complicated. Set AOs on towns when there are enough opposing players detected near a town. Remove the AO when there aren't enough players. There's no need to account for FBs or supply let alone any abstract concepts like player motivation. If players are spawning in force, then it's a good AO. In fact AOs placed automatically by population proximity would put the current HC-placed AOs to shame since there won't be any "mole" attacks and AOs won't ever be placed unless there's a way for regular players to spawn there.

 

You are a tiny software company sitting on an old game the #1 priority should be eliminating the massive administrative overhead you have from the player command system, but you keep making excuses for preserving it.

 

You are aware that if there are enough people on the server, the server will start adding AO's, and if HC does not place them SYSTEM already has an algorithm in place that will do so on its own, right?

And their "Excuse" for preserving it is Us, the playerbase.
The playerbase got collectively fed up with the open front, attack anything, hop all over the map trying to defend, to have the attacker keep vanishing until the defender finally got tired of spawning and jumping from town to town, and then poof the attack pushed through by simply creating frustration.
And then to make it worse, once you linked up a few towns, it did not matter that the gap got closed, you had instant armies appearing behind the front lines that could resupply themselves from thin air.

And people unsubed until things were changed where we had AO's and Brigades and supply lines etc. 

You are pointing fingers at them like they said "HEY! let's devise this to fark with the playerbase!! Yea Gophur Great IDEA!!"
when it's Us that said "Hey come on, this is nonsense, no war was ever fought remotely like this"

They simply answered with the best software solution they could come up with to give what we wanted.
Which is one that still lets us be in total control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes no sense that anyone would ever want to limit his game options on purpose.

 

' The playerbase got collectively fed up with the open front, attack anything, hop all over the map trying to defend, to have the attacker keep vanishing until the defender finally got tired of spawning and jumping from town to town, and then poof the attack pushed through by simply creating frustration. '

The solution would be to limit moles and town hopping, and not to restrict everyone in the game.

Personaly sounds to me that what was at the beggining for the first few years was much more fun than what it is now.

' Which is one that still lets us be in total control. '

What total control? When a new player joins a game first thing he wants to do, is to spawn and go anywhere he wants attacking and potentialy capturing a target of his choosing,  but he instantly lears that he CANNOT DO THAT, and finds about the convulted mechanic known here as HC/AO that he needs to join a squad and go attack a target marked by someone.

That is total control? You have a skewed perception of what is control - maybe you mean the players are totally controled by someone else, then i would agree.

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


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

' The playerbase got collectively fed up with the open front, attack anything, hop all over the map trying to defend, to have the attacker keep vanishing until the defender finally got tired of spawning and jumping from town to town, and then poof the attack pushed through by simply creating frustration. '

The solution would be to limit moles and town hopping, and not to restrict everyone in the game.

Personaly sounds to me that what was at the beggining for the first few years was much more fun than what it is now.

' Which is one that still lets us be in total control. '

What total control? When a new player joins a game first thing he wants to do, is to spawn and go anywhere he wants attacking and potentialy capturing a target of his choosing,  but he instantly lears that he CANNOT DO THAT, and finds about the convulted mechanic known here as HC/AO that he needs to join a squad and go attack a target marked by someone.

That is total control? You have a skewed perception of what is control - maybe you mean the players are totally controled by someone else, then i would agree.

Like others said.. back in the day.. there was no ews even and no ao's .. you had to check if someone was in town. Then this was changed with ews.. and then with the ao's so you would know where te fighting was and to give people the change to defend.

Yet you want no restriction (so attack anywhere you want like back in the day) and to limit moles and town hopping (like it is now with ao's) ... those are the opposites.... i am curious on your solution....

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

 

Yet you want no restriction (so attack anywhere you want like back in the day) and to limit moles and town hopping (like it is now with ao's) ... those are the opposites.... i am curious on your solution....

 

The solution would be to combine the both mechanics - to have no restriction and to limit moles and town hopping

 

How is this achieved? I don't know, i'm a new player, i'm just saying what I have instantly noticed while trying the game out.

 

for example:

town hopping -  a delay limit on a town, once a player attacks a town he has to keep attacking it for i don't know an hour and he cannot change the town or FB from where is he spawning for an hour also and if he would want to attack another town he would do no damage and couldnt capture it.

So you pick a target where you want to attack, and you have to commit on that attack for a period of time.

 

 

Basicaly, maybe every single player could set his own AO ?

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


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

Makes no sense that anyone would ever want to limit his game options on purpose.

 

' The playerbase got collectively fed up with the open front, attack anything, hop all over the map trying to defend, to have the attacker keep vanishing until the defender finally got tired of spawning and jumping from town to town, and then poof the attack pushed through by simply creating frustration. '

The solution would be to limit moles and town hopping, and not to restrict everyone in the game.

Personaly sounds to me that what was at the beggining for the first few years was much more fun than what it is now.

' Which is one that still lets us be in total control. '

What total control? When a new player joins a game first thing he wants to do, is to spawn and go anywhere he wants attacking and potentialy capturing a target of his choosing,  but he instantly lears that he CANNOT DO THAT, and finds about the convulted mechanic known here as HC/AO that he needs to join a squad and go attack a target marked by someone.

That is total control? You have a skewed perception of what is control - maybe you mean the players are totally controled by someone else, then i would agree.

 

First, sorry my english, I am from Spain. I dont usually argue on the forums cause my english... but the topic is interesting.

I think you are watching the game from a wrong point of view, this game is not a sandbox nor PlanetScape 2. In fact, actually, this game is unique and maybe it is not a game for you.

Like other people have said, the map is too big and we need to focus the action in some places, in the old days there was not Early Warning System (EWS) not AO's or DO's... so it was dificult for new players to find the action.

The essence of the game is that you are a small piece of the war machine, under the command of your High Command Officers, that orders you during the map. You can be a small piece or a CinC of a whole Army, its up to you. Think that you are a soldier and a soldier just obey orders, a soldier dont take decisions, the HC set an AO and you must obey. If you want to plan attacks, move flags etc. join to the HC of your side. Sure the are pleased to have a new member.

You have to capture a town, and you or your Squaddies are totally free to conduct the operation with the rest of your side and your AO OIC. Maybe you can set a Zone of Control in that Southern Hill or maybe you plan a ninja cap. You can set Fms's, reaload tanks, guns, grab a sniper or LMG and cover our tanks advancing etc. It takes time to view and use all the game potential but when you get to it, it is a very fullfilling experience, at leats for me. Like I said, maybe this is not a game for you.

For me, this game brings much more satisfaction than ARMA 3 and SQUAD and Foxhole... (games that I usually play). I have been playing since 2009 I even today feel the adrenaline trough my veins when I try to sap a sherman or try to kill Nily or Gretnine or any other allied player. Or when i hear footsteps while defending a CP, your heart starts to beat as you try to concentrate on knowing where he enter the CP.

S!

 

 

 

Edited by kase250
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kase250 said:

 

First, sorry my english, I am from Spain. I dont usually argue on the forums cause my english... but the topic is interesting.

I think you are watching the game from a wrong point of view, this game is not a sandbox nor PlanetScape 2. In fact, actually, this game is unique and maybe it is not a game for you.

Like other people have said, the map is too big and we need to focus the action in some places, in the old days there was not Early Warning System (EWS) not AO's or DO's... so it was dificult for new players to find the action.

The essence of the game is that you are a small piece of the war machine, under the command of your High Command Officers, that orders you during the map. You can be a small piece or a CinC of a whole Army, its up to you. Think that you are a soldier and a soldier just obey orders, a soldier dont take decisions, the HC set an AO and you must obey. If you want to plan attacks, move flags etc. join to the HC of your side. Sure the are pleased to have a new member.

You have to capture a town, and you or your Squaddies are totally free to conduct the operation with the rest of your side and your AO OIC. Maybe you can set a Zone of Control in that Southern Hill or maybe you plan a ninja cap. You can set Fms's, reaload tanks, guns, grab a sniper or LMG and cover our tanks advancing etc. It takes time to view and use all the game potential but when you get to it, it is a very fullfilling experience, at leats for me. Like I said, maybe this is not a game for you.

For me, this game brings mucho more satisfaction than ARMA 3 and SQUAD. I have been playing since 2009 I even today feel the adrenaline trough my veins when I try to sap a sherman or try to kill Nily or Gretnine or any other allied player.

S!

 

 

 

^this ... well said kase250 S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but there need to balance between what is fun and what is realistic - this is a game first, some players don't have time to sit for many hours on an operation. They want to jump in for 30 minutes, 1 hour and have action by themself. Having other players on HC/AO telling them what to do, limits this greatly.

Being ordered around in a game is not fun, and I believe it is way more bigger subs killer than what was at first.

 

' the HC set an AO and you must obey '

Exactly, the key word 'obey'.

 

 

Let every player set his own AO, so other side can see it also and act accordingly, and limit how many AO's a player can set daily or have AO's on time limit or something similar so when you attack a town, you have to commit to attacking it for example for atleast an hour.

When many players set their AO on the same town, you have a big group of attackers that cannot change their target for a period of time, and you have your big battle.

Make the High command give only 'general tips' as to where the attack 'should' commence on the map, and give the power to every player if they want to follow that advice or not, maybe giving some kind of bonus to the attackers who follow the HC.

^

Now this imo, would be a way more fun system to play because every player would decide for himself without restriction and at the same time there would be no moles and town hopping just like it is now.

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


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

Yes, but there need to balance between what is fun and what is realistic - this is a game first, some players don't have time to sit for many hours on an operation. They want to jump in for 30 minutes, 1 hour and have action by themself. Having other players on HC/AO telling them what to do, limits this greatly.

Being ordered around in a game is not fun, and I believe it is way more bigger subs killer than what was at first.

 

' the HC set an AO and you must obey '

Exactly, the key word 'obey'.

 

 

Let every player set his own AO, so other side can see it also and act accordingly, and limit how many AO's a player can set daily or have AO's on time limit or something similar.

Ok ..lets assume this... how would that look :  i jump in .. i see ao's placed and im like meh.. dont like it... ill set on another town and go there... if everybody does it like this the whole map will be lit.. and you get 1 guy on an attack.. so its back to back in the day u can attack all over the map and with the numbers of the playerbase you have now.

It would be like (i only play axis) at times that we have 8 guys online trying to defend 20 towns...  undoable...And to put it on a time limit... thats not doable.. some times things go slow at first (getting a ZOC and work your way from there to the town to get in town and start capturing) ... 

You need to let go of the being ordered part.. you need to see it as that the MOIC (Map officer in Charge) see's a possible good target (because we own the fb, we have enough supply etc) .. and sets the AO

(If you like to do this then apply for HC, but bare in mind you will get a lot of pms and lots more of things to deal with, like monitoring on how the attack is going, do we have enough people on our defense objective as well, answering peoples questions or suggestions, even though you have done it a 100 times allready but still its a diff person who asks the same question..... as 6 campaing CinC i know how this works :P)

So now its up to you on how to attack the target and take it. Yes the enemy knows your coming... but at least  you know you will fight something instead of taking ghost towns... thats not fun either .. i have been there many times... 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Yes, but there need to balance between what is fun and what is realistic - this is a game first, some players don't have time to sit for many hours on an operation. They want to jump in for 30 minutes, 1 hour and have action by themself. Having other players on HC/AO telling them what to do, limits this greatly.

Being ordered around in a game is not fun, and I believe it is way more bigger subs killer than what was at first.

 

' the HC set an AO and you must obey '

Exactly, the key word 'obey'.

 

 

Let every player set his own AO, so other side can see it also and act accordingly, and limit how many AO's a player can set daily or have AO's on time limit or something similar.

I understand your point, but you are talking about other game, not this one. This game is not fast paced it is a slow paced game.

If you want 30 mins of walking & shooting, try Squad, try Foxhole. I do the same when i feel like that. This game usually it is not for people who want 30 mins of firefight and leave the server...I think you just dont get the game essence like i said before or maybe this game is just not for you.

And yes, you must OBEY in the sense of attack what HC decides. I repeat, if you want to plan and decide what your side have to attack, it is as easy as joining HC.

"Let every player set his own AO"

lol, i think that you are a very new player and simply you can not see that your request will not work. Do you want battles 1 vs 1 or 4 vs 4... definitevely not.

S!

 

 

 

Edited by kase250
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' if everybody does it like this the whole map will be lit.. and you get 1 guy on an attack.. so its back to back in the day u can attack all over the map and with the numbers of the playerbase you have now. '

That's why I said to have a limit on AO's a player can set daily, or have a big time limit. This way everyone would have to be smart about how they set their AO's.

 

' would be like (i only play axis) at times that we have 8 guys online trying to defend 20 towns '

Maybe let defenders, defend wherever they want without limit. You cannot be at the same place twice, so you can only defend one town anyway - only the attackers could be limited.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kase250 said:

lol, i think that you are a very new player and simply you can not see that your request will not work. Do you want battles 1 vs 1 or 4 vs 4... definitevely not.

S!

 

 

 

 

There are so many towns on such a big map, there is plenty of space for everyone, there would be no problem if 4 vs 4 fights would take a town, and this would allow for such people to have 30 mins or 1 hour fight.

 

The original game design for the first few years allowed for all of this, but like some poeople say with some problems.  this IS the game, it just needs to be tweaked.

 

I would say that the current mechanic, went away from the original game design, because instead of the whole front and the big map, you fight in small part of the map, with 2-3 towns - this is no different from other similar games.

 

WW2 online lost what made it unique - the scope of the game and freedom - bring it back!

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


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

 

There are so many towns on such a big map, there is plenty of space for everyone, there would be no problem if 4 vs 4 fights would take a town, and this would allow for such people to have 30 mins or 1 hour fight.

 

The original game design for the first few years allowed for all of this, but like some poeople say with some problems.  this IS the game, it just needs to be tweaked.

 

I would say that the current mechanic, went away from the original game design.

Ehrm no i dont want 4vs4 fight... i want bigger fights... go figure you get a 4 vs 4 fight in antwerp.... great.... 

Much to learn you still have my young padawan... 

The original game design was set for huge numbers to battle each other on a huge map, however that didnt quite work out as those numbers didnt reach the hugeness the map required.

Also " Maybe let defenders, defend wherever they want without limit. You cannot be at the same place twice, so you can only defend one town anyway - only the attackers could be limited. "

They can but you are missing the point... when players can set an ao of their liking... or when you say have a limit on them (then you still get people i dont like that target i want a diff one, why is there a limit, i want to set my own ... or insert any other arguement ) if that limit is for example 5.. and the allieds have 30 guys on .. axis 10... then its a 6 vs 2 fight... or if all the 10 axis guys dont want to defend and place ao's then it would be fighting either in ghost towns or maybe 15 vs 1...

As it is now.. its a bit more balanced ... so its a better experience for all.. yes it still sucks when you are underpop, but at least you can be a bit more organised and you know you will see action ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.