• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      Operation Burning Skies   09/17/2019

      All pilots scramble!  Strap yourself in for this months Community event - Operation Burning Skies! This Sunday, September 22, 11 am – 5 pm server time. In honor of XOOM and friends showcasing WWII Online at the Oregon International  Air Show – our forces too will battle for superiority in Operation Burning Skies. High Commands are on high alert to rally their forces to victory! Lift off, and see a whole new world of WWII Online… Fearless bomber pilots make the skies rain down fire – our daring fighter pilots are in pursuit of their prey- as western Europe erupts in war on the ground below! Rally your squads, rally your buddies - Combined arms are back!  …Under Burning Skies! SALUTE!
arno

We have a camping problem.

154 posts in this topic

10 minutes ago, erasmo said:

I did not say those things were good. I said now it is IMPOSIBLE to legit kill an AO busting an FB.

Between what we had then and we have atm, there has to be a middle ground, don't you think?

I suggested a middle ground earlier of making every historical placed spawn point available as an option.  All of them would be truck placed or the truck itself.  Placement timers would be historical too.  Just the truck being the fasted and the FMS being the slowest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the tools we have for teamwork are marks and a chat bar that is drowned out in noise.

25 minutes ago, erasmo said:

If we begin to justify as "bad design" the things you cannot successful do all alone, we are taking a very different and risky path. CoD.

what the hell is everyone's problem with CoD?

current cap timers, flooding, and CP-Depot-AB distance are all much worse than any CoD/Halo/BF/MoH/CS:GO game I've ever played.

 

all I'm saying is forced failure without teamwork is bad.

in the case of the FMS: it's game breaking to the point where we can go hours without action. teamwork should be able to achieve multiple FMS's and lone-wolf FMS's should at least generate gameplay. what we have now is teamwork that sometimes gets 1 FMS and solo's that can't get anything up. even worse, if the defenders use the slightest bit of teamwork (simply saying "truck N/E/S/W" once), they can easily kill a AO without a single FMS going up.

 

the only successful one's I've seen in the past few months are when no defenders spawn cause everyone logged from boredom.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, erasmo said:

The whole game design is based on teamwork. If not, we are not talking about this game, we talk about a different one.

If we begin to justify as "bad design" the things you cannot successful do all alone, we are taking a very different and risky path. CoD.

All player should be able to lonewolfing at some level, but even lonewolfs have to take in account what OTHERS are doing and adapt to that context, even in no need of communicating with them. That's what the design have to respect.

More than that it is asking for too much. There gotta be things that HAVE to need a teamwork effort.

Brigades were added in to the game explicitly to allow a HC officer to counter teamwork, so you can't use teamwork as an excuse for bad gameplay. Also even if you want to make teamwork mandatory, the problem you have is that the defender doesn't need teamwork to sit outside a town and listen for trucks, then drive over and get a 50+ kill streak. How many of these sorties do you think had lots of teamwork by the camper?

jdhzyt.jpg

At the same time the attacker needs to bring medium+heavy ATGs, their own armor, and AA support. All so they can form a retarded "ZOC" and park outside town while the other team's HC rotates in flags all day. That's bad design even before you get to the point of this thread, the FMS being camped so badly that all of the Steam users left the game and rated it very negatively. If teamwork was the solution then all of the stops should've been pulled out to get squads back before releasing on Steam, along with some basic features to enable leaders to keep new players from getting massacred.

Edited by david01

Share this post


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

At the same time the attacker needs to bring medium+heavy ATGs, their own armor, and AA support. All so they can form a retarded "ZOC"

That is usually what you do as the attacker when you are attacking the defender in his own back yard

18 minutes ago, david01 said:

while the other team's HC rotates in flags all day.

While your HC rotates them just the same, dont even try to dive into the side biased bs

Share this post


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

Brigades were added in to the game explicitly to allow a HC officer to counter teamwork, so you can't use teamwork as an excuse for bad gameplay. Also even if you want to make teamwork mandatory, the problem you have is that the defender doesn't need teamwork to sit outside a town and listen for trucks, then drive over and get a 50+ kill streak. How many of these sorties do you think had lots of teamwork by the camper?

jdhzyt.jpg

At the same time the attacker needs to bring medium+heavy ATGs, their own armor, and AA support. All so they can form a retarded "ZOC" and park outside town while the other team's HC rotates in flags all day. That's bad design even before you get to the point of this thread, the FMS being camped so badly that all of the Steam users left the game and rated it very negatively. If teamwork was the solution then all of the stops should've been pulled out to get squads back before releasing on Steam, along with some basic features to enable leaders to keep new players from getting massacred.

Um, I can tell you that the top 4 in your list has a lot of team work working with them. CJ and Bus work their way in with support for the most part. AEF tends to work together even when we have low numbers. Hicksey has a good squad to support him also. Not saying each instance was not a supported assault and camp nor can you say each one was a camp.  I have had some pretty good sorties just cutting ei flanking town without seeing their FMS.. and a few just cutting the road in town, not every good sortie is a result of a camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, merlin51 said:

That is usually what you do as the attacker when you are attacking the defender in his own back yard

While your HC rotates them just the same, dont even try to dive into the side biased bs

David actually did make a good point this time though. His first sentence was right on the money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, major0noob said:

if they had teamwork the FMS would've been blown :/

You are ASSuming they had a FMS in sight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@erasmo

I think for tanks it is worst , you can easily spawn an atg to intercept a tank this is worst for me than a zooka for once it affects since tier 0.

It also makes extremely difficult to close a flanking FMS as a tank it is basically impossible to blow it up so are forced to lock and wait for an engineer this slows down attack and drains too much players, it also makes a great tool for spies if you know an attack is coming you blitz a truck and set a fms.

 

FMS - For me FMS overall still feels worst and more frustrating and the best Inf battles were with FRUs the fact that you could spawn an entire brigade from a pile of boxes was not very realistic or good looking.. but I still want a squad size MS with no Atgs

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well how about 2 different spawns then one Inf specific and the other ATG and AAA specific. 

I hated the FRU . Soldiers out of boxes and ML setting them in total stealth and then an instant Army spawning was / is in my eyes idiotic. 

If u ask yourself where did all the Tankers go, look when FRU was implemented and when Tanker numbers went down , same damn timeline.

Why would any smart ML take a sapper out into the field if he can set a FRU whenever he wanted to do as a Rifle then set ,despawn, respawn, blow tank ,despawn  , respawn as Rifle again and do a rinse and repeat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the game is almost down to the pre-Steam launch population about, maybe slightly higher but it's 2 AO during weekday prime 1 AO. The OP's concern is a moot point now. If the goal was to feed a bunch of F2P Steam players to a handful of subscribers/whales and make them happy for a short bit then it was a success. I'm not sure if it was good for the long-term health of the game to get a such a horrible rating on Steam though. 

7 minutes ago, pbveteran said:

FMS - For me FMS overall still feels worst and more frustrating and the best Inf battles were with FRUs the fact that you could spawn an entire brigade from a pile of boxes was not very realistic or good looking.. but I still want a squad size MS with no Atgs

The infantry-placed spawn isn't ever coming back because it made for too much fighting and activity on the server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, david01 said:

 If teamwork was the solution then all of the stops should've been pulled out to get squads back before releasing on Steam, along with some basic features to enable leaders to keep new players from getting massacred.

CRS decided a Loooong time ago they did not want Squads to be the center of WWIIOL. So they did everything in their power to destroy them. And in the process, they destroyed the game AND themselves. Enough said on that...

I lost count of how times I told the Rats on these forums that they were rushing the Steam release.

They needed to fix the game before they introduced it to the Steam crowd, because this was their one and ONLY shot at success. A once in a life-time opportunity. 

As usual... they ignored everyone (not just me) who gave the same advice. People like me that have 30 years of marketing experience and running a successful business... unlike CRS. They just saw the stars and went for them.... and blew their one shot. 

We will have to see if they can sift through the ashes of this mess and survive once again. Maybe some day they'll learn to take advice rather than just roll their eyes and assume all we are is hot-headed forum ranters.

We might also be successful businessmen that have more experience and better ideas than they do when it comes to running a company. But what do I know. I'm just a hot-headed forum ranter. :lol:

Edited by lipton
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its always easier to run someone else's company since you dont know every detail.  Im split on the Steam launch.  Part of me says at least people now know about the game and can check back in, the other agrees (painfully) with Lipton that you want to put your best foot forward.  Maybe Xoom read Lean Startups and felt it was better to go with a minimum viable product to start.  Regardless, at this point its imperative to move forward and get the game updated, otherwise all we'll have left is some forums to argue about how to save the world.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my statement as minister of propaganda is kill the enemy where he shows himself!

many enemies is much honor

have fun

S!:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Ender. Hopefully SOME of the Steam F2P accounts stick around and become paying customers, which in turn keep the lights on long enough to.... well, keep the lights on. I think that's about all we can hope at this point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1z5fyv.jpg

 

That nobody would have to drive them in and they'd be random locations around whatever town was AOd, and when camped, HC could change locations immediately...

 

I'm not saying instaspawn anti tank armies... I'm saying that a half dozen FMSs pop up at random areas around town at minimum distance and players could choose which FMS to spawn into once they were generated.

 

The old FRU wasn't camped nearly as badly... though some of us did it because well... we're smart and know that standing there mowing down SMGs will deplete the supply... muhuhahahahaha

The New ones are camped SO often it's criminal. The second they came out, we laughed and laughed at the piles of bodies left when they were actually destroyed or pulled down!

 

I want to see better fortification either from the start or available by engineers or both. I want to see them automatically up around an AO so that there isn't that period where the few HC guys on have to drive FMSs in, (because there aren't many who will bother driving an FMS in, let's be honest,) and attacks can proceed until the AO is pulled or the FMSs destroyed.

 

That would be neat to think about.

 

For DOs, still have them set by mission leaders and also keep them as supplementals during AOs -but! Have them auto set and working.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting and quite sad, that the Top Kill Streak is nothing but allied tanks.

Not even one axis sortie?  The odds of that happening with an even probability distribution is 0.00097; meaning it should happen once every 1000 maps....

Probably many ways to read / interpret it, but I find it dreary and grim.

 

As for squads - well, I'm done, going to close all recruiting and just play with a few buddies - I find it impossible to manage a squad proper with what we have.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

I find it interesting and quite sad, that the Top Kill Streak is nothing but allied tanks.

Not even one axis sortie?  

Background:

Having max rank axis and been playing allied the last 4-5 campaigns.

One major reason for the lack of kill streaks for axis, is that when ANY Pz rolls up to a FMS, allies  just kill it frontally with the FMS spawned ATG.

When an allied tank (not Pan)  roll up to an axis FMS, killing it frontally with the Pak 36/37mm atg is not possible. 

Of cause this is not the only reason for the unbalance delems point out, but still a huge difference in how/if you can defend a FMS.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 3:43 PM, stankyus said:

Um, I can tell you that the top 4 in your list has a lot of team work working with them. CJ and Bus work their way in with support for the most part. AEF tends to work together even when we have low numbers. Hicksey has a good squad to support him also. Not saying each instance was not a supported assault and camp nor can you say each one was a camp.  I have had some pretty good sorties just cutting ei flanking town without seeing their FMS.. and a few just cutting the road in town, not every good sortie is a result of a camp.

On that specific EFMS, my first run was a Pan, something like 20 or 30 kills to scout and find the damn thing, I found it but then I died, grabbed a Somua and charged the efms got into suppress position, either flank me from elsewhere bomb me or whatever but they should've stopped spawning...

That is not the worst suppression done on that camp, had a 75 kill run with a Char suppressing another EFMS, I actually stopped firing cause I felt bad for the noob's that just kept spawning like mad from a camped position, plus Rans was screaming like a little girl for help...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

grabbed a Somua and charged the efms got into suppress position, either flank me from elsewhere bomb me or whatever but they should've stopped spawning...

And here it is , either flank me or bomb me. 

please point out one Axis Tank you guys need to Flank to take it out? Especially in the early tier there are none.  The 2 pounder goes throu everything and the French ATG spawnable from an FMS will take all but the 3b out from the front.

And the 3b is not a camping tank. So Allies have a lot easier time to break a camp then Axis do. 

All you need to do is spawn in numbers , one ATG will be able to set up and get a shot off or a Sapper will make it past and then the Panzer has to retreat while a ATG spawns and takes him out.

U guys watch pak after pak spawn laugh take out the inf that spawns and while they try to set up u kill them along with the Inf that spawns , and if one does set up it won't do crap to ya from the front. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 1:07 PM, david01 said:

Brigades were added in to the game explicitly to allow a HC officer to counter teamwork, so you can't use teamwork as an excuse for bad gameplay.

I'm not going to argue most of your points in your screed, some of which I agree with, but I have to take exception to this statement.

 

It might be accurate to say 'brigades have the effect   intended or not to allow an HC officer to counter teamwork', but I talked to the Rats quite a bit about what became ToEs before during and after, and at no point did they express your statement as an intended feature/effect.  I think they had a lot of other agendas they were working, and I don't think you KNOW what was in their heads when  they  implemented it.

The other part is that mobile spawning as in the original version, the truck MSP, predated ToEs by years.  The layering on of features may have the effects you describe, but they didn't create ToEs and FMS to crush teamwork.

 

As I have said before, IMO the real problem is the spawn castle paradigm vs. the historical nature of the Axis tank park that is oriented more  towards fieldwork/force destruction and not fixed target assault.

 

Edited by Kilemall
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2017 at 11:01 AM, Ender24 said:

Its always easier to run someone else's company since you dont know every detail.  Im split on the Steam launch.  Part of me says at least people now know about the game and can check back in, the other agrees (painfully) with Lipton that you want to put your best foot forward.  Maybe Xoom read Lean Startups and felt it was better to go with a minimum viable product to start.  Regardless, at this point its imperative to move forward and get the game updated, otherwise all we'll have left is some forums to argue about how to save the world.

agree. if one were to take a broader, non-game-related-specifics view of the steam launch - its a game in beta and 400k+ downloads and opinions/reactions - including the new bugs, the bad reviews, the range of complaints from tech issues, to no action, to walking simulator, to I don't like this game, to it costs too much,  etc -

are a better, broader more realistic, albeit negative source of new info than the same bunch of us old vets debating the same bunch of old issues we (only) perceive compared to new players - including the many thousands who loaded the game and bailed at the first view of the old graphics,  the clunky tutorial or first 15 minutes of walking, standing, looking, or dying by campers, or 'why would I pay that much for this?'. 

perhaps now, broader, more realistic (or cynical) options open up: (rather than focusing on fms, toes, specific equipment) 

> kill the game, let it die, noble experiment
> having been exposed to a broader gaming world via steam, attract investors/gamecos who might see the possibilities and drop the dough for 2.0  
> rethink and adapt the game with the new info including changing or revising core game concepts - capture the flag/castle vs area cap, add instanced 'missions' or town/field battles the results of which flip the strat map, conceptually different spawn mechanics 
> go big for more $$$ on a 1.5 type kickstarter makeover (having introduced the game to a horde of new players, whether they love it or hate it)  from the current game as beta along the lines of Shroud of the Avatar and let the players, old and new, share in, invest in and actually affect new game dev over a longer period of time (say 2-3 year makeover, the way SotA is currently in its 3rd year of beta) 

the one good thing I've taken from the steam launch is that a lot of players actually like the idea of a giant, big map, multi-side, strat-layered  WWII sim. maybe this is just the start of our game growing into that game in a new age of gaming and gamers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, sorella said:

agree. if one were to take a broader, non-game-related-specifics view of the steam launch - its a game in beta and 400k+ downloads and opinions/reactions - including the new bugs, the bad reviews, the range of complaints from tech issues, to no action, to walking simulator, to I don't like this game, to it costs too much,  etc -

are a better, broader more realistic, albeit negative source of new info than the same bunch of us old vets debating the same bunch of old issues we (only) perceive compared to new players - including the many thousands who loaded the game and bailed at the first view of the old graphics,  the clunky tutorial or first 15 minutes of walking, standing, looking, or dying by campers, or 'why would I pay that much for this?'. 

perhaps now, broader, more realistic (or cynical) options open up: (rather than focusing on fms, toes, specific equipment) 

> kill the game, let it die, noble experiment
> having been exposed to a broader gaming world via steam, attract investors/gamecos who might see the possibilities and drop the dough for 2.0  
> rethink and adapt the game with the new info including changing or revising core game concepts - capture the flag/castle vs area cap, add instanced 'missions' or town/field battles the results of which flip the strat map, conceptually different spawn mechanics 
> go big for more $$$ on a 1.5 type kickstarter makeover (having introduced the game to a horde of new players, whether they love it or hate it)  from the current game as beta along the lines of Shroud of the Avatar and let the players, old and new, share in, invest in and actually affect new game dev over a longer period of time (say 2-3 year makeover, the way SotA is currently in its 3rd year of beta) 

the one good thing I've taken from the steam launch is that a lot of players actually like the idea of a giant, big map, multi-side, strat-layered  WWII sim. maybe this is just the start of our game growing into that game in a new age of gaming and gamers. 

So... just shut it all down and "create" COD:WWII.

 

Good plan.

(sarcasm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, vasduten1 said:

So... just shut it all down and "create" COD:WWII.

 

Good plan.

(sarcasm)

I accept your sarcasm but you're missing the ordered subtlety of change - it doesn't have to be COD:WWII - but its clear there need to be evolutionary changes at the higher level of graphics, subscription model, tech bugs, modern in game voice + on screen comms and streamlined, cleaner & simpler intuitive UI 

in order to have a chance  to get and retain bigger numbers of  new players - before getting to where's my tiger, audit HE, kill TOEs and what's an FMS and why can't I get out of my truck (or car as the young steamers call it). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's immediate action that could've been taken, but hasn't. Like lowering the absurd 1:30 FMS build time. Everything doesn't require complex or sweeping changes. The problem is that no one thinks that there's a problem.

4 minutes ago, sorella said:

I accept your sarcasm but you're missing the ordered subtlety of change - it doesn't have to be COD:WWII - but its clear there need to be evolutionary changes at the higher level of graphics, subscription model, tech bugs, modern in game voice + on screen comms and streamlined, cleaner & simpler intuitive UI 

in order to have a chance  to get and retain bigger numbers of  new players - before getting to where's my tiger, audit HE, kill TOEs and what's an FMS and why can't I get out of my truck (or car as the young steamers call it). 

I don't know why there's talk about a WW2online 2.0 when better graphics/UI won't cure a bad game design. It's like they ignored all warnings about releasing on Steam, refuse to make changes, and are now going to work on something else because the current game is hopeless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.