BLKHWK8

1.36 Vital Questions

226 posts in this topic

14 minutes ago, Silky said:

Honestly, this population surge = AO decision is so full of pitfalls, I can't really understand why it's already been committed to. It seems very likely to end in morale and personnel carnage, which can be hugely damaging to the game's population. 

?
It's the game's population that would be deciding the AO.
And it doesn't require some HC person having to sit out at the map and micromanage everything for hours and hours.

Just requires someone, ANYONE, to inspire and lead those online.
If a private leads them to the walls of jericho, the horn will sound.

How exactly is that damaging?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered a more fluid Corps level command - a few backline flags that issues supply for towns within a certain distance around it? 

My main concern right now is the loss of the strategic element of this game, which at the moment, is completely unique to WW2OL. I'm worried that this will essentially turn us into nothing more than a glorified Call of Duty game, or could even turn us into just another generic world war two shooter.

Edited by westy91
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Honestly, this population surge = AO decision is so full of pitfalls, I can't really understand why it's already been committed to. It seems very likely to end in morale and personnel carnage, which can be hugely damaging to the game's population. 

Agree 100000%.  

 

If HC doesn't have veto power over these new player-set AOs, things are going to get very, very ugly.  Their primary purpose should revolve around times when there are no HC online.  

 

HC's position as the playerbase's pinata actually provides benefits, since in lieu of blaming the HC, the PB has no1 to blame but themselves.  

Edited by Capco
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, westy91 said:

My main concern right now is the loss of the strategic element of this game, which at the moment, is completely unique to WW2OL. I'm worried that this will essentially turn us into nothing more than a glorified Call of Duty game, or could even turn us into just another generic world war two shooter.

It's no longer unique H&G has a better one and Warthunder World War which allows Squads to have equipment and attack provinces is already in beta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will have to be, at the risk of stating the obvious, a limit To the number of atack objectives Based on population in game the same way thier is now so that those AOs are populated,  so even If  attack objective placement is solely in the hands of the player base you’re going to have the same basic underlying problem most players are not going to be really responsible for placing the attack objective because that decision will be made before they get in game, So in the end I don’t think it will feel that much different for most players than it does now.

Share this post


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

Agree 100000%.  

 

If HC doesn't have veto power over these new player-set AOs, things are going to get very, very ugly.  Their primary purpose should revolve around times when there are no HC online.  

 

HC's position as the playerbase's pinata actually provides benefits, since in lieu of blaming the HC, the PB has no1 to blame but themselves.  

I fear I’m posting for nothing more than ‘I told you so’ bragging rights but a blind man on a galloping horse can see what’s going to happen - sets of players/squads pitched against one another battling over which target to select and then carrying on antagonism long after that argument is resolved, breaking the playerbase into factions and dividing sets. Capco is right - HC provides an authority, a focal point, an entity with responsibility for making decisions and whilst it’s sometimes unpopular for taking those decisions, the playerbase largely understand that’s the way the game’s set up. 

 

Removing the authority will absolutely, 100% lead to bitter gang-style conflict and strategic chaos. It is a reckless, ill-judged move that I fear will end up being hugely regretted. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reverting authority for attacks to regular players it an utterly disasterous, indeed manifestly foolish idea. CRS have frankly lost the plot over this. We've already been there, and the gameplay issues it created were so numerous and severe that the HC/AO systems were instituted to combat them. Town TOE's are nuts.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

There will have to be, at the risk of stating the obvious, a limit To the number of atack objectives Based on population in game the same way thier is now so that those AOs are populated,  so even If  attack objective placement is solely in the hands of the player base you’re going to have the same basic underlying problem most players are not going to be really responsible for placing the attack objective because that decision will be made before they get in game, So in the end I don’t think it will feel that much different for most players than it does now.

You can't have unlimited AO's, you'll get chaos x Elevensies

Most players probably dont want to be responsible for the AO per se, but they would probably like to cast their vote for who they think has the best sounding plan
which in the proposed system, they can very well do just by showing up and nothing more complicated than that.

Sure an AO may be already underway when you log in, I'd surely hope one would be or the game world is really dead.
So?
An AO will come after that one is completed.

In absolutely no workable system one might devise will every person at any given point in time be guaranteed to dictate an AO personally.
All you can do is provide the framework for you to plead your case.

If you think it wont be any different at all, wait till about 3am when all HC is in bed, and SYSTEM is auto placing AO's in places that are of 0 value or offer no fights
and then see what you think
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of sounding contrary:

A big issue for me when I was a "player" was that the strategic game required AO's and Brigade moves that were at odds with me having: FUN, I understood at some level why those moves were made but it tended to rub me raw often. this raw-A-facation was largely from a lack of a fight or a good one on map for a prolong period that was the result of a move that was required for the strategic game.

So I understand why CRS is moving in a direction that will eliminate most of the BS that's a big part of the current system, particularly soft caps, and a lack of a command presence on map, heck their can be a lack of Command on map even when HC is on sometimes sad as that is to admit.

Their are basically two different games going on at anyone time, The capture the Flag/Strat game, and the lest just Kill em all game, the stat (sex worker)'s game, both games have a simpatico existence weather either camp wants to admit it.

I believe CRS's intent based on what I have read and heard from them is that they want to straddle the fence and try and create this "Hybrid" system that will appeal to both camps.

I see problems going forward  however with this many of the points above both my own and others illustrate some of these.

 

Issues:

Town Based supply: ok, it eliminates the soft cap that's a good thing, no more cutting off a town so it cant defend its self, that's also a good thing, guarantied FIGHTs...

Over stocking Supply: Sounds like a bad thing, the over pop side will take advantage of this and that's not so good.

Extra Generic Supply in the form of Brigade esq formations that HC can manipulate: A good thing makes the Over stock redundant and provides an argument against enabling over stock and an argument for HC to have a job akin to their present one.

Player Placed AO's: Good and Bad, heck system places AO's now, or Can, but system is sorta clueless about AO placement, More though needs to put into this.

 

Personally, I love Puzzling out the state of the map and making moves I think its fun, and when I have map that's pretty much all I do is stare at map, I like it, but I get the impression that I am in the minority, and While I loath tier three, I Believe everyone deserves a chance to play it and hate it, I don't think your gona get a lot of HC to learn to love having map, and that's sorta sad, because its fun, and its days as we know it are numbered.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, brady said:

Extra Generic Supply in the form of Brigade esq formations that HC can manipulate:

It may not be generic
what if the brigades became highly specialized units?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

It may not be generic
what if the brigades became highly specialized units?

I am assuming their Generic, but you might be right, what I have heard and read from them suggests they don't know what form these brigades (extra supply) will take, and they don't know what form the brigades in towns will take.

I think perhaps its logical to assume Town Based Supply will be generic, apart from French/British/AXIS, it will sorta need to be, it may be based on the Number of AB's but that may make it harder to attack and or defend larger towns, I don't know. Larger towns would be sorta death stars if they were set up wrong is what I am getting at.

The Town based supply will also of course change each tier, so in my mind it will look a lot like it does now in the Ready Room, each town will probably look like an  Inf Brigade.

Extra Supply has been suggested to take the form of a FEW old school (like) Brigades that HC can move, presumably these will be very few in number, or they may be generated as one per every two AO's idk... If their were a bunch of them it would be an issue because with town based supply HC could just send them all in one direction, unless they were tied down some how like a forced Placement system, cant have an extra brigade next to another one for example, thus forcing them to spread out across the map..idk.

But I again assume it would need to be generic in nature, because of the above mentioned restrictions that you would think would be necessary.

 

 

 

Edited by brady

Share this post


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

I fear I’m posting for nothing more than ‘I told you so’ bragging rights but a blind man on a galloping horse can see what’s going to happen - sets of players/squads pitched against one another battling over which target to select and then carrying on antagonism long after that argument is resolved, breaking the playerbase into factions and dividing sets. Capco is right - HC provides an authority, a focal point, an entity with responsibility for making decisions and whilst it’s sometimes unpopular for taking those decisions, the playerbase largely understand that’s the way the game’s set up. 

 

Removing the authority will absolutely, 100% lead to bitter gang-style conflict and strategic chaos. It is a reckless, ill-judged move that I fear will end up being hugely regretted. 

My sentiments exactly.  Well said.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game already has rules and a user TOS, I think that it will do just fine without volunteer chaperones making "sometimes unpopular" decisions for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Since it seems we have run the gamut of direct questions and are now speculating and suggesting I'll go ahead and join in.

 

I was wondering if we could have something close to the following system:

Player mass activated AOs are always available. AO's are still population dependent but with a special rule.

During very low population if there are no HC on either side the population restrictions are active and normal. Whenever a single HC is on either side both sides regardless of population levels get an additional AO.

The side that has an HC officer online gets the AO that is place-able only by the HC officer. If the officer does not place the additional HC only AO then player base population determines the outcome.

The side without the HC officer has the additional AO but have to make due on their own by placing the additional AO through player mass activation.

No matter how many HC are on each side only gets one HC only place-able AO.

HC has no veto rights over player activated AOs but they always have one to work with when online but only when they are online of course. The additional HC AO is always added to the population based AO determination.

This would mean that at the lowest population level if an HC officer was online on either side 2 AOs would be available for each side. The single HC situation could be griefed by an HC officer logging off to remove an impending AO but that can be combated in two ways. 1) a 15-30 minute delay before the system recognizes the sign off. 2) HC disciplinary measures such as removal from HC for pulling such a stunt.

The first one handles incidental disconnects and allow the lone HC officer to log off when desired. 

 

It sounds kind of complex but we already have the code for HC placed AOs and we are adding player base activated AOs. As to all that stuff about revolts within a side or squads on the same side getting angry at each other. I'd say that is a detriment to that side for not working together in compromise over a game. Sure there will be plenty of finger pointing whenever a side loses but that happens all ready doesn't it. Think a little like EVE online. The side that does not play well together usually loses together. That's just life and should be emulated in this type of game. As it already kind of does.

 

Anyway, I'm sure there are some flaws somewhere in there but it is a hybrid system of AOs.

What I'm wondering is who moves the flags when no HC is on? I'm guessing the player base somehow because then a side with an HC officer on will dominate, no? Which we are trying to avoid. I'm also wondering how AOs end without a victory? My guess is once the player mass from the attacking side drops below a certain threshold from the attackers the AO gets pulled by the system.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HC and AOs are not the problem. I don't think they ever were the problem.  I'm sure a few people got burned over the years when they didn't get an AO but for the most part I don't think it's been an issue.  No HC online has been a huge issue.  Why not allow for players to step up and take lead to put down AOs when HC is not on?  Does CRS have a good outline of how this player massed AO system would work?

Edited by saronin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest i really do not like the new proposed AO system, i think its very gamey and like some kind of console game if we are not careful... current AO system works well, It involves strategy and so does the brigade system, i agree they are not perfect. This game has so many more pressing issues that are masively affecting the game and people's views on it such as Lag situation, cheating, Population/side imbalance, 15 year old bugs that could do with being adressed.

 

There is no other game around like this one, its truly Unique and CRS have a great thing going we cannot afford to make it just like the others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2017 at 3:08 PM, Silky said:

2 What countermeasures will there be to stop deliberate misplacement of AOs by squads or players switching sides?

  • Veto mechanism. HC's will still have to follow the articles of conduct, and there will be a central command hub as similar to today's High Command that will work as the direct managers of the overall HC program. CRS Game and Community Management will also be involved as needed.

 

 

Unless the suggestion is that this veto mechanism will sit with GMs and CRS, with 24/7 coverage to manage situations where necessary. Perhaps I misread the @blkhwk8 response 

These responses came from @XOOM however, I know that Senior Staff of HC work with CRS with any articles of conduct issues that come up. I believe it is Kyotee for Allies and Rotschild I believe for Axis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** 1st time 2 large groups get into a pissing contest for 1 ao

This will never happen.  If there are 2 large groups - they both will have sufficient EWS and both will get AOs.

Yes, a 20 group squad will win over a 5 group squad - as they should.

 

As for town and flag supply.  Been doing a bit of thinking on that.  Say each town gets 2 'unit's of supply as default.

Each extra AB over 1, gets you one more until. (2 AB town has 3, 3 AB town has 4 etc.)  This makes big towns better, but not unassailable.

And, each flag on map will be 1 unit.  Start low - say 4 to 8 flags, completely independent, no HQs, sister flags and all that fallback/move hassle.

 

This way, single flags can't go romp around map (as it will be 1 to 2 vrs town supply), but also enough to group up (2 together in one town would make 2 to 1 for attacker).

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

Can someone give an example when it would be appropriate to veto a player-AO?

 The very notion of a player AO,  is being vetoed,  at least notionally :)

But seriously everything that I’ve read so far and heard so far  would suggest that that would not be possible because there seems to be poul back on the idea of allowing high command a free AO,  so At present I can’t see that it would be possible for high command to veto a player AO.

But we’re all sort of grasping in the dark

Share this post


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

*** 1st time 2 large groups get into a pissing contest for 1 ao

This will never happen.  If there are 2 large groups - they both will have sufficient EWS and both will get AOs.

Yes, a 20 group squad will win over a 5 group squad - as they should.

 

As for town and flag supply.  Been doing a bit of thinking on that.  Say each town gets 2 'unit's of supply as default.

Each extra AB over 1, gets you one more until. (2 AB town has 3, 3 AB town has 4 etc.)  This makes big towns better, but not unassailable.

And, each flag on map will be 1 unit.  Start low - say 4 to 8 flags, completely independent, no HQs, sister flags and all that fallback/move hassle.

 

This way, single flags can't go romp around map (as it will be 1 to 2 vrs town supply), but also enough to group up (2 together in one town would make 2 to 1 for attacker).

 

 But there has to be a limit on the number of Attack objectives if you want the fights to be populated otherwise it’s a big soft cap cluster [censored], So if that is true, that there’s a limit,  it’s going to lead to frustration or potentialy could do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** But there has to be a limit on the number of Attack objectives 

There is, the population in game; if an AO requires 20 units (any type but not air), within say 1500 meters of a town to set off an AO -then that is the limit.

If there are 100 people on one side, conceivably there could be 5 AOs, but you know some will be flying and some will be defending - so that won't happen.

Have to think about what happens if less than 20 on one side though.  They couldn't get an AO - unless HC always has one they can place, regardless of players AOs.

Another issue that could happen at first, is no one can get 20 people to go to one target at one time!  An no AOs on map.

 

PS it isn't a player AO.  It is players AO - note the plural- if you can't get 20 people, no AO. (or whatever threshold)

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

*** But there has to be a limit on the number of Attack objectives 

There is, the population in game; if an AO requires 20 units (any type but not air), within say 1500 meters of a town to set off an AO -then that is the limit.

If there are 100 people on one side, conceivably there could be 5 AOs, but you know some will be flying and some will be defending - so that won't happen.

Have to think about what happens if less than 20 on one side though.  They couldn't get an AO - unless HC always has one they can place, regardless of players AOs.

 

PS it isn't a player AO.  It is players AO - note the plural- if you can't get 20 people, no AO. (or whatever threshold)

 

 I don’t know what the limit actually is presently, I think it something of a state secret, The number required to trigger an AO Is not really the issue I think,  it’s how many AO’s  that can’t be placed based on population, if the current model was used for the total number of AO’s That might work OK, but that would lead to consternation  amongst the player base I think.

 even with multiple AO’s We don’t always have populated fights at every attack objective which means players tend to move to where the fight is if the system is watered down You’re not gonna have any good fights or maybe one or two and it will be a soft cap fest.

 

........

 Say 10 guys  Triger an AO on a town, they are green and all get mowed down by the AI and say f this and move to a going fight someplace else, the AO is set and stays set and can’t be used by another groupe for 10 min, or is it 10 min, right now if u drop an AO it takes Time to show up, 10 min before u can cap something and the 10 min to s come down, say if nobody is present, that means the system will need to account for all this, presently the system does not pull bad AO’s will the new one ?

all that means is that players will lose it when they can’t get an AO because someone wasted it... or will they idk but the potential for cluster [censored] central seams high

 Edit-  maybe that’s where high command can pull an AO... of course this might also [censored] off the player base...

 

Edited by brady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, blkhwk8 said:

These responses came from @XOOM however, I know that Senior Staff of HC work with CRS with any articles of conduct issues that come up. I believe it is Kyotee for Allies and Rotschild I believe for Axis.

So it’s essebtaully individuals (GMs, CRS, Demi-Rats like Kyotee) who will hold veto power?

Meaning there will not be 24/7 veto coverage, and that issues that arise will really only be dealt with after the event, rather than in real time 

 

If this is the case, the system seems exposed to exploiting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Silky said:

So it’s essebtaully individuals (GMs, CRS, Demi-Rats like Kyotee) who will hold veto power?

Meaning there will not be 24/7 veto coverage, and that issues that arise will really only be dealt with after the event, rather than in real time 

 

If this is the case, the system seems exposed to exploiting. 

That's not what I said. These are the ones who make sure the articles of conduct along with HC senior staff is being followed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.