ZEBBEEE

New town-based RDP

21 posts in this topic

Since October 1th, we have already seen 3 campaigns going fast:

Campaign 142 : 6 days

Campaign 143 : 9 days

Campaign 144 : 4 days

Since October 1th also (highest peak of 448 players online), charts mention a 50% drop-down in average steam numbers, instead of seeing an increase: http://steamcharts.com/app/251950

In your announcement you mention that Tier-0 will last only 24h in the 145th campaign ; Do you believe it is because of being stuck to Tier-0 equipment that population is down? 

 

This could raise discussions about the whole RDP concept, which is the point of my topic:

Current gameplay: manufacturies produce R&D points, which triggers new Tiers. Each Tier opens access to more advanced equipment, to keep an overall balance. This seems to work fine but results in situations where sexy units are not seen ingame for some days (I don't have figures).

What are the possible alternative gameplays to let all units being available without hurting the balance?

With the removing of brigades and the re-introduction of town-based supplies, should a town be given its own Tier-level? What about seeing each town produce its own "local" RDP points that would give it access to better equipment (full Tier within 72 hours, +50% if local factory in destroyed state ), with a reset as soon as ownership changes ?

That way HCs could organize plans to defend towns to let it develop/stockpile advanced Tier-Units, while bombing adjacent towns to keep it low. The more the frontline advanced however, the more probability you will reach a town already-stockpiled with advanced Tier units.

Large factories, however, would still provide RDP points to be "spent" by HC on towns where they want to boost local RDP and eventually immediately reach advanced-tier equipments. This would avoid situations where counter-attacks would be impossible to stop, or allow to pursue an offensive from a newly-taken town.

HC-view of town-based RDP :

mini_203123Sanstitre.png

Features/details to be thought about:

  • The .fallback command could fallback the Tier-level to a rear-town (with a lower RDP level), if the related depot is still owned.
  • The .haac could transfer a higher RDP level from a rear-town to the targetted town (equipment level switch), if the related depot is still owned.
  • Manual supply transfer/overstock would still be possible (and recommended)
  • Eventually the other side would not know about the enemy's town-Tier information
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple answer is to base availability of late tier equipement preferentially to those who have spent time that campaign using equipment from lower tiers, and perhaps too, whilst under-popped.  So, if you like, to use a Tiger, there would be three tests of your worthiness:

1. The tier has arrived.

2. You have fought enough hours in Pz II's etc that campaign

3. You have fought whilst your side is underpopped.

The combination of these factors gives you a score. The average score of all personas online on that side is then used to decide above what score the Tiger is available to players. If your score is below that required, you're stuck with lower tier kit until you improve it. Note that it's not a metric of "how good you are", but more of whether you've put the effort in when under-popped and likely out-tiered.

Share this post


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

1. The tier has arrived.

2. You have fought enough hours in Pz II's etc that campaign

3. You have fought whilst your side is underpopped.

Well one problem i can see with that.

For example this campaign T0 came and went before i ever returned home.
I am back at work now, and it will be friday early AM before i return home again.
So good chance i will qualify only 1 out of the 3
Not a thing i can do about that if i wanted to.

So i'd be fighting Tigers and Shermans in PZII's and R35's, i may get enough hours in on them by campaign end.

Many other people would have similar situations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that if tiers are lasting a mere day, the whole RDP/tier system is a complete nonsense anyway, so there's clearly little or no point to RDP bombing, and everything that's being discussed in this thread, I would suggest. If tiers lasted a week or more, then the odds are much higher that someone in your position would be able to put in some play in the scenario outlined above. It's been a manifest failing of CRS, over the years, to implement a feature designed to provide variety in play, only to subsequently water it down, or design other features rendering it useless, in subsequent patches. At which point the game starts to become the 'sum of its compromises', rather than a coherently developed whole. Heavily "IMHO" of course. I wonder, how much more content would be in game now if there hadn't been so much, essentially wasted, effort in this regard.

In the other thread, we were discussing colliders within hedgelines, which is a perfect illustration, it would have been far, far better to do the job "properly" - or not all - so that the implementation made sense overall, rather than a half-arsed implementation of colliders uncrossable even by heavy tanks.

Share this post


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

It seems to me that if tiers are lasting a mere day, the whole RDP/tier system is a complete nonsense anyway, so there's clearly little or no point to RDP bombing, and everything that's being discussed in this thread, I would suggest. If tiers lasted a week or more, then the odds are much higher that someone in your position would be able to put in some play in the scenario outlined above. It's been a manifest failing of CRS, over the years, to implement a feature designed to provide variety in play, only to subsequently water it down, or design other features rendering it useless, in subsequent patches. At which point the game starts to become the 'sum of its compromises', rather than a coherently developed whole. Heavily "IMHO" of course. I wonder, how much more content would be in game now if there hadn't been so much, essentially wasted, effort in this regard.

In the other thread, we were discussing colliders within hedgelines, which is a perfect illustration, it would have been far, far better to do the job "properly" - or not all - so that the implementation made sense overall, rather than a half-arsed implementation of colliders uncrossable even by heavy tanks.

They only said they were doing tier 0 in "24 hrs or less". Even then, RDP bombing has a huge effect, because the damage carries forward.

 

RDP is a painful thing when your side's factories are down to 0% production... Ask the Allies in Camp 142 and 143.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, fidd said:

It seems to me that if tiers are lasting a mere day

That was only T0 and only for this Campaign because the others ran through so fast and so many people wanted to see at least T1
So they bumped up T0 to 24 hours to let them at least get to T1.

Nobody said they were doing this forever nor to all tiers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, fidd said:

If tiers lasted a week or more, then the odds are much higher that someone in your position would be able to put in some play in the scenario outlined above.

Tiers do last a week or more.
The only bumped up T0 to 24 hours THIS ONE CAMPAIGN, and that's cause no one got to see tier 1+ in the last few camps.
And no unfortunately that would not help me a ton, i wish it would but it wont, you would have to make the tiers unfairly long for everyone else, i don't want that.

 

31 minutes ago, fidd said:

In the other thread, we were discussing colliders within hedgelines, which is a perfect illustration, it would have been far, far better to do the job "properly" - or not all - so that the implementation made sense overall, rather than a half-arsed implementation of colliders uncrossable even by heavy tanks.

Don't really understand your meaning here?
We had hedges that had steel colliders, they sucked.
They were great for not getting shot sure, but you had to run around them, there was no way to pass through them.
If you dotted the countryside with rows of those, it would suck for infantry, they would constantly find themselves boxed in.
Infantry players didn't want that, just some cover out in the world so they were not constantly crossing 8000 sq km golf courses.

Why do we want colliders inside the hedges?
To block infantry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies if I was unclear earlier, I was writing in a rush. Perhaps I should lay out my thoughts more coherently myself!

It seems to me that the game went badly off the rails with the 1.26 (I think) patch, which introduced the "Vietnam" foliage, as it was dubbed at the time. Quite a few things changed as a consequence of this:

Engagement ranges for armour became much shorter leading to armour on a vehicle being less important than mobility. This was compounded as a problem by the much more numerous and larger hedgelines being crossable at speed by flanking armoured-cars and trucks. The degree of extra cover meant that it was essentially impossible to mount any form of linear defense for a town, as UMS's then allowed more or less unending trails or ei to come in from all points of the compass. An ATG screen became pointless except in a handful of towns where the town itself commanded the area around (was higher).

In my view infantry should NOT be able to "infiltrate" as a matter of course, it should be the exception  rather than the rule, or, at least, something that happens when the enemies armour is attrited.  So, I take a pretty dim view of the post 1.26 cover, it dramatically dumbed-down the game, both for infantry, and for armour play.

The obvious solution is to amend the way hedgeline cover works, so that it's crossable with difficulty commensurate with the apparent size. Meaning:

That if it's a 10-12 foot hedge it should be damn near impossible for infantry to run through, and extremely difficult to cross, likewise impossible for all wheeled vehicles and weapons (eg AAA/ATG) , and problematic for light-medium tanks to cross, and impossible for them to drive along the axis of. If the infantry can't make headway across an open area, then that's a good thing, it means that they need more support, or they need to try a different approach.

My preferred solution is to make crossing a hedgeline both time consuming and inherently very risky if attempted at speed by any vehicle,  near impossible bar for the heavier tanks, and to act as a screen against observation only to infantry, unless prone. ( where there are hedges around fields or along roads there are nearly always shallow ditches, which we can reasonably assume prone infantry would be go to if under fire)

So, intermittent colliders through and across hedgelines which offer cover to prone infantry, but which require them to move alongside, either side, but not through hedgelines and furthermore are impassible where present to wheeled ATG (etc) and trucks, but crossable by heavy tanks would go a long way to remedying  the issues consequent from 1.26.  If that compels a reduction in overall hedgeline cover, then that too would be a good thing too in my book.

Hope that's clearer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure you have noticed, a lot of hedge lines have continuous or intermittent berms, and some of them pieces of stone wall.
Those routinely are the undoing of speeding trucks, tanks not so much, they go alot slower so they mostly just slow them down, though a stone wall stops a tank.

Most of the Hedgerows that kind of resemble what i think you are envisioning are up in the normandy area in the bocage country where the old romans sectioned off fields and pastures that way. We aren't there in game yet, hedgerow fighting should be interesting.
More like this

Hameau_de_La_Chapelle_-_Lavigerie_-_Cant

1430380422_IDELUX-Bertrix.1.JPG 

citadelle-de-dinant.jpg?ID=5076

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true that the intermittent walls are new to me, they didn't exist when last I played, and are an improvement. I'm very glad to hear they are slowing down A/C's and trucks, and as I noticed tonight, causing infantry to go one side or other rather than through the "bush tunnel". Perhaps rather than asking for less  bush-tunnel cover, as I have been, the answer might be lengths of PPO barbed-wire, so that defenders can compel attacking ei to move into the clear, or to have them cut through or destroy the wire. If that were adopted, I'd like to see two versions of "wire", one relatively weak, perhaps with rattling tin-cans and pebbles job, more a perimeter wire coiled wire, and the other a full blown entanglement with integral AT obstacles requiring prodigious amounts of HE to clear, and visible from the air?

Where is the last picture in your trio, is it Dinant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that the game needs a major update if it wants to stay relevant over the next 3 years. I think the major update is going to basically be to start over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing so would necessarily mean enormous investment, and absolutely no gaurentee or even likelihood of success. The first 5 years of this game were essentially a collective act-of-faith in its eventual success by players. It worked, but it was often buggy. WW2ol/BE has never, and can never, compete with First Person "sandbox" games. I would suggest it's utterly pointless to try and do so, as their graphics, terrain and buildings, will always be better eye-candy than this game, although this game has incrementally improved over the long haul. If someone has some old screen-shots of year 1 tanks and infantry you'll probably be surprised.

I've often thought that it'd be fun for intermissions to be played with the old graphics - just to inform newer players how far the game has indeed come.

What "major updates" did you have in mind?

Edited by fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fidd: build the game on a new engine, hire developers and artists...update the graphics, UI and modern software engineering techniques.   There are no other WWII sandbox shooters on the market and I don't think there have ever been as far as I remember. Obviously their initial launch on steam was somewhat successful and shows that there are people interested in the concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2017 at 6:52 AM, fidd said:

Where is the last picture in your trio, is it Dinant?

dinant, up top

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, budder8820 said:

There are no other WWII sandbox shooters on the market and I don't think there have ever been as far as I remember.

Sandbox shooters?
COD MOH Battlefield series DOD ARMA  just a few off top of my head
And in complete honesty WT and H&G are both sandbox shooters as far as the game play part goes.

Maybe you meant MMO?
In which case the closest any others ever came was Air Warrior/ Warbirds / Aces High
infantry were just little AI guys, you dropped 12 on an AF and captured it if they lived.
Ground units were just limited representations with not much emphasis on accuracy, but then they were mostly flight sims so...

To update the graphics we would have to either 
A ) rebuild unity uh 1.5?  into unity 2.0
Pros 100% CRS owned proprietary 3d engine, specifically written to accommodate an MMO game with enormously huge play field, many units on screen and other things specific to this game and in theory 0 issues bringing existing game mechanics and content into it

Cons Possibly Longer approach, requiring the most time
May require hiring or contracting a few specialized coders with experience in 3d engines

B )  License a 3rd engine from someone else and modify it to suit
Pros  Possibly faster, working with a documented engine of known properties

Cons Do not own the engine so have to pay a 3rd party a royalty
Certain aspects of present game may not hook into the engine as the engine was not specifically designed around them
May require possible change to core game aspects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. .I looked up the Unity engine and found that to my surprise it was a procedural engine. I'd rather see more realistic terrain, more cover in the environment and more varied cities/towns. But really, I don't feel like the game utilizes it's open world features. The majority of the game is fought fighting over generic towns and cities which are for essentially a bunch of cap points that are basically almost the same between towns.

I'd like to see a game mechanic that encourages fighting on some of forest and open world terrain. I think having player placed FBs is a good start to this.

Edited by budder8820
Added Comments about Procedural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, budder8820 said:

I looked up the Unity engine

There used to be two Unity engines just in wargaming, and others in other computer realms. CRS/Playnet was involved in a lawsuit a number of years ago, regarding someone else using "Unity" for their wargame engine after CRS/Playnet was using that name. Did the one you looked up pertain to CRS/Playnet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 I don't feel like the game utilizes it's open world features. The majority of the game is fought fighting over generic towns and cities

WWII at a tactical level was fought over crossroads, bridges, ports, supply movement lines that connected them, places of economic value, and towns/cities that function as both crossroads and places of economic value. Sometimes the fighting occurred in the suburbs of a town/city rather than in its center. Rarely was there fighting in the middle of nowhere, unless the defender was trying to block movement along a road or rail line.

That's because armed forces can only advance along a supply line. Supplies move by train or truck. Trains obviously operate only on rail lines. Supply trucks only operate on roads.

CRS's design error was in making towns/cities the only key capture points, and not making non-town bridges at least as important. It was realistic, not a design error, for CRS to not include reasons to fight in the middle of nowhere.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 8:59 PM, merlin51 said:

Im sure you have noticed, a lot of hedge lines have continuous or intermittent berms, and some of them pieces of stone wall.
Those routinely are the undoing of speeding trucks, tanks not so much, they go alot slower so they mostly just slow them down, though a stone wall stops a tank.

Define "routinely".

 

There are some obstacles in the field, like the stone walls and berms, as well as the v-shaped trenches around golfball forests... but they are far less the undoing of speeding trucks than enemy rifles are.

 

Anyone with half a brain can drive on or off road without much impedance.  The hedge rows aren't really hedge rows at all. They don't stop infantry from sprinting through them, though if you tried to streak through them IRL you'd be pretty messed up.

It'd be nice to make the short bushes short enough to shoot over and spread the taller ones out more to provide better shooting lanes for tanks and ATGs though.

 

Pff.. this terrain engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.