BLKHWK8

1.36 Vital Questions

226 posts in this topic

8 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. 

How exactly are population-set AOs going to be exploited? What's the great fear here that's so much worse than the current system?

Share this post


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

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

I’m asking for clarification - who will hold the veto power, HC or GMs, Rats and Demi-Rats?

Share this post


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

How exactly are population-set AOs going to be exploited? What's the great fear here that's so much worse than the current system?

Thiers that line from Master and Commander:

"Men Must Be Governed"

 

Or something to that effect.

 

I think that's part of it in a nutsheck, part of it is also that the notion is  new and anything new is met with a considerable amount of angst, sometimes that's healthy sometimes not.

Implementation is also looking to be fraught with problems, or potentially so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** I’m asking for clarification - who will hold the veto power, HC or GMs, Rats and Demi-Rats?

Uhm, no one...  if the players manage to get sufficient numbers to create an AO - they get it, no one preempts them except a LARGER group of players.

 

 

*** "Men Must Be Governed"

And they shall, by the in game leaders (squads) that manage sufficient forces to attack a town.

Once leaders/squads realize they control their destiny on map - there will be a lot of motivation for leaders to rise up and players to follow ( and subscribe).

 

Share this post


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

*** I’m asking for clarification - who will hold the veto power, HC or GMs, Rats and Demi-Rats?

Uhm, no one...  if the players manage to get sufficient numbers to create an AO - they get it, no one preempts them except a LARGER group of players.

 

 

*** "Men Must Be Governed"

And they shall, by the in game leaders (squads) that manage sufficient forces to attack a town.

Once leaders/squads realize they control their destiny on map - there will be a lot of motivation for leaders to rise up and players to follow ( and subscribe).

 

Veto- or currently called “ pulling an AO” This is one of the points that was raised above every day in fact multiple times a day, an attack objective  has to be pulled Because it failed, for a variety of reasons not least of which might be a lack of supply to pursue it, in which case some human is going to have to render a decision, I believe this is what they’re referring to, if not it’s certainly something to consider, I don’t think They could write code  that would be discerning enough to know when to Pull one.

Governed,  what’s interesting about this is that Pretty much every high command officer that I know anything at all about  is in a squad,  even new squads from steam have high command in them,  I don’t know that all them do but I think it’s likely most do.

 So I am not sure what’s really going to be gained at least in the sense that they hope to feel they have more control of their game destiny by being able to trigger  An AO,  as mentioned above there will almost certainly be a finite number of them available 

Share this post


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

How exactly are population-set AOs going to be exploited? What's the great fear here that's so much worse than the current system?

TZ3 low pop, AO limit of lets pretend 1

I'm an arse and go log in 25 nobodies and go park them someplace useless.

If there is no fail safe, no way for you to say hey whoa thats not right, what the hell?
Then i just ran off with your AO.

That's why you add a failsafe.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** I don’t think They could write code  that would be discerning enough to know when to Pull one.

Actually quite easy, did EWS fall below full?  Then timer set to pull AO.  wala!
 

 

*** I'm an arse and go log in 25 nobodies

This will happen once and you will be banned for it, while I respect the theoretical possibility, it just isn't going to happen in practice.

 

Share this post


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

This will happen once and you will be banned for it, while I respect the theoretical possibility, it just isn't going to happen in practice.

Trust me, if i can think it, someone else has already figured out how to do it.
Don't underestimate people's ability to to willingly go screw something up for pure giggles regardless of consequence.

Getting banned is fine, but it doesn't do anything to give you back your evening that was ruined.

 

4 minutes ago, delems said:

Actually quite easy, did EWS fall below full?  Then timer set to pull AO.  wala!

You've played TZ3 on a big family holiday etc.
We have had full fights that consisted of under full EWS for the duration.
It has to work for all pop levels.

%ofPOP might work to an extent, would have to test it at extremes to see

Share this post


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

TZ3 low pop, AO limit of lets pretend 1

I'm an arse and go log in 25 nobodies and go park them someplace useless.

If there is no fail safe, no way for you to say hey whoa thats not right, what the hell?
Then i just ran off with your AO.

That's why you add a failsafe.

That's a scenario that's just grasping for a problem to find. I mean what rule can't be "exploited" by the opposing team moving over en masse and playing for the other side?

Share this post


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

That's a scenario that's just grasping for a problem to find. I mean what rule can't be "exploited" by the opposing team moving over en masse and playing for the other side?

This is a question of mechanics. This mechanic will be exploited, mostly likely in pursuit of personal grievances but also is prone to be exploited by players desperate to win the game 

Share this post


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

*** I don’t think They could write code  that would be discerning enough to know when to Pull one.

Actually quite easy, did EWS fall below full?  Then timer set to pull AO.  wala!
 

 

*** I'm an arse and go log in 25 nobodies

This will happen once and you will be banned for it, while I respect the theoretical possibility, it just isn't going to happen in practice.

 

umm yes it does it happens right now...set ews off on a pretend ao with ppl at the fb until other side sees it and gets set defences up..then mass despawn and spawn into ALREADY set fms in the main P1.

Players will win at ANY COST...if you ban them they make another account with another CC. If you do not agree look at EVERY OTHER MULTIPLAYER GAME ON THE MARKET.

If the game allows it SOME players will abuse it. End of story.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

We do have Game Managers. We also have ourselves to police the situation. Lets say the AO set rule is the presence of 10 players in EWS for 10 continuous minutes otherwise the timer begins to reset or it resets. That would mean that at least 10 players would have to collude and switch sides and set off EWS somewhere new for 10 minutes with the new side poking their noses into the situation. GMs should always have AO veto capability. Why would they not, as their primary function is protecting live game content.

Hopefully in addition to PPAO, if an HC officer logs on they are granted an AO with placement timer to place. If they do not place it in 15 minutes. Player population can place the additional AO if conditions are met. The opposing side gets an additional PPAO even if they have no HC on. If both sides have HC on they each have one population independent AO with a placement timer. Each time the HC AO is given or resets the HC officer present has control of the AO for 15 minutes or if it has not been placed by the player base after the 15 minutes has expired. HC officers are unable to Pull or Veto any AO including the HC given AO with a command. AOs are only closed organically by lack of player presence. The additional HC AOs expire 30 minutes after no HC is logged in on either side. I imagine AFK would be considered logged off for HC or for that matter anyone.

As for AOs coming down. I would think that if the player count fell below 5 for 5 continuous minutes then the AO would remove itself in 60 seconds with RTB system messages during that minute and for a minute after:

"RTB AO RESCINDED" and  "RTB NO AO PRESENT". This could happen by defensive repulsion or even running out of supply or attrition. What could be more natural than; we run out of supply on an attack and fewer and fewer players spawn in and the AO gets pulled or the defense is strong and repulses an attack. Of course enough players and a counter attack could occur either way down the line.

I do not foresee AO high-jacking being a major issue within the gaming community if we had player activated AOs and I do foresee more cooperation on a side with player activated AOs. The population will adapt to what works well for the game rules and have a tendency to police themselves with Game Manager assistance eventually. We will always have events that mar campaigns from time to time. I think the benefits of player activated AOs will outweigh any negative aberrations.

Someone made a statement about the need for referees. We have referees. Game Managers and ultimately CRS.

Do we really fear that our own community and player base will collude on such a level and do so on such a level that we fear it will ruin our game?

The mechanic of player triggered simulated warfare sounds great to me. The one feeling this game brings out the most for me is that sense of playing war in a backyard or field as kids with all kinds of cool toys. Player base triggered AOs just fits right in to that type of game play. It's going to be OK in my humble opinion.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to keep in mind would be the removal mechanics for player-activated AOs. 

 

The strategic concept of “swapping” between multiple hot AOs is central to successful AO execution, especially at peak times with balanced pop. Many times some of the best fights occur after an AO has been stale for 20-30 minutes, followed by a spawnable capture. 

 

If AOs drop every few minutes as the number of players in the activation radius waxes and wanes, it wouldn’t be very fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Capco said:

One thing to keep in mind would be the removal mechanics for player-activated AOs. 

 

The strategic concept of “swapping” between multiple hot AOs is central to successful AO execution, especially at peak times with balanced pop. Many times some of the best fights occur after an AO has been stale for 20-30 minutes, followed by a spawnable capture. 

 

If AOs drop every few minutes as the number of players in the activation radius waxes and wanes, it wouldn’t be very fun.

Not mention it would make para units virtually useless. 

Share this post


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

The strategic concept of “swapping” between multiple hot AOs is central to successful AO execution, especially at peak times with balanced pop. Many times some of the best fights occur after an AO has been stale for 20-30 minutes, followed by a spawnable capture.

AOs were put in the game to concentrate players and force fights, not so some HC person could bore everyone in to logging off with a dead AO and then hope to get lucky. This is why pop is so low and the quality of fights is also poor.

Share this post


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

AOs were put in the game to concentrate players and force fights, not so some HC person could bore everyone in to logging off with a dead AO and then hope to get lucky. This is why pop is so low and the quality of fights is also poor.

The mechanism that chooses the town to attack isn’t going to change the quality of the fight. It changes the personnel setting the fight up, from HC and willing volunteers to squad leaders and willing volunteers but I don’t see any more fundamental improvements. 

 

I fear that the lack of definition of the problem has led the development discussion away from the key points that needed addressing, the main one being the command and control tools that in-game leaders (HC and squad leaders) have to try to deliver coordinated, fulfilling attacks 

 

Share this post


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

That's a scenario that's just grasping for a problem to find. I mean what rule can't be "exploited" by the opposing team moving over en masse and playing for the other side?

Apparently you do not actually play too much, or like Dropbear you would realize that it happens even now.
The difference is right now it can not dictate the AO.

Right now the best i can do is trigger heavy EWS at random places, so there is really only one way i can go with it.
But when players can dictate the AO by deciding to show up, there is a new way i can go with that.

Which is why you have a failsafe for in case it is needed.
That should not be hard to grasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q: You still speak about those  "extra supply flags" as being actual "brigades". Have you considered to separate two fundamental concepts :  "Orbat deployment" vs "Supply convoys", allowing HC to settle up battle plans for brigades (squads), without interfering with the tactical deployment of extra supplies over the map?

i.e.:

- "Supply convoys" : specialized inf/tanks convoys (=extra supply flag) arrising from the large factories and being moved indepently up to a targetted garison town. The more the factories are destroyed, the slower new supply convoys are produced. Equipment is just parked in town, not supposing it being linked to actual combat forces.

- Orbat deployment  : virtual brigades visible on the map, composed by real squads, that can be ordered (short- or long term) objectives to defend/attack, but with NO INFLUENCE on the supply of its hosting town. It would just improve the roleplay part of the game.

 

Cool features could arise from this architecture: captured supplies would not be routed but somehow transfered to the enemy (except when .fallback), squads achieving HC objectives may receive some extra privileges to be used ingame...

Edited by Zebbeee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggestion:  Why not make town garrison supply reflect what one would have expected to see in a real, garrisoned town...troops on R/R or having an OOB  with less than the newest weapons. As to how that translates into this game, make the garrison OOB heavy on rifles/machine guns/lower tier anti-armor/air and armor. Then for the flags, I would have them operate like armored brigades and/or crack troops, armed with the higher tier weapons, but on a more limited basis in terms of total numbers. This way, the HC element of the game could still have a substantial impact on map movement, pushing these "elite" troops into the fray when needed (or even pulling them back when they're being spent needlessly), while still allowing the player base the ability to attack/defend with at least town supply.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2017 at 11:03 AM, actrade said:

Suggestion:  Why not make town garrison supply reflect what one would have expected to see in a real, garrisoned town...troops on R/R or having an OOB  with less than the newest weapons. As to how that translates into this game, make the garrison OOB heavy on rifles/machine guns/lower tier anti-armor/air and armor. Then for the flags, I would have them operate like armored brigades and/or crack troops, armed with the higher tier weapons, but on a more limited basis in terms of total numbers. This way, the HC element of the game could still have a substantial impact on map movement, pushing these "elite" troops into the fray when needed (or even pulling them back when they're being spent needlessly), while still allowing the player base the ability to attack/defend with at least town supply.

This doesn't really fix the problems we have with flags; in fact, it just makes flags even more important.

 

Making the flags interesting is obviously a good suggestion, but the intent is to have town supply and use that to fight.

 

If it helps, don't think of town garrison supply by their real-world counterparts, where it is soldiers on stand-by, R&R, etc. Instead, these are the front line soldiers, and they are stationed as such. The flags instead represent additional mobile forces that can be used to provide some extra punch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2017 at 3:00 PM, Silky said:

The mechanism that chooses the town to attack isn’t going to change the quality of the fight. It changes the personnel setting the fight up, from HC and willing volunteers to squad leaders and willing volunteers but I don’t see any more fundamental improvements. 

 

I fear that the lack of definition of the problem has led the development discussion away from the key points that needed addressing, the main one being the command and control tools that in-game leaders (HC and squad leaders) have to try to deliver coordinated, fulfilling attacks

The people setting up the battle are everything. That's why lots of players showed up for KGW/ASA operations years ago and why no one shows up for the generic P1 AO of today.

 

A revamped UI and new tools are expensive, and still don't address the problem of low quality fights. I mean you just had a HC guy talk about placing multiple AOs, deliberately letting some go stale due to boredom and then rushing those as quickly as possible as if that was some kind of wonderful strategy that players enjoyed. New tools aren't going to ever fix that. Better tools also don't address the stress and negativity associated with brigade management. So if HC are still going to be responsible for brigades, and still responsible for AOs I don't know what 1.36 is supposed to accomplish.

Share this post


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

The people setting up the battle are everything. That's why lots of players showed up for KGW/ASA operations years ago and why no one shows up for the generic P1 AO of today.

 

A revamped UI and new tools are expensive, and still don't address the problem of low quality fights. I mean you just had a HC guy talk about placing multiple AOs, deliberately letting some go stale due to boredom and then rushing those as quickly as possible as if that was some kind of wonderful strategy that players enjoyed. New tools aren't going to ever fix that. Better tools also don't address the stress and negativity associated with brigade management. So if HC are still going to be responsible for brigades, and still responsible for AOs I don't know what 1.36 is supposed to accomplish.

I have a name you know.  

 

And no, I did not say that I purposely let AOs go stale.  But guess what?  AOs go stale.  Not every AO is successful, nor should it be in any system.  The time between the fight dying off due to lack of success and the time the AO is pulled is the stale phase, and such a phase will exist in any system.  

 

Retrying a stale AO (or better yet, dropping paras) before pulling it isn't an attempt to destroy the gameplay of the playerbase.  It's just smart.  

 

Bad fights in this game all happen under the same set of conditions; when the attacker doesn't stand a chance.  It's extremely boring for both sides.  The best fights are when the attacker has a significant foothold in a town and both sides are allowed to slug it out.  If a ninja cap that doesn't involve much of a fight ends up producing an epic battle for both sides, that's a net positive.  

Edited by Capco
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we’d do well to note that who initiates the AO is not half as important as who manages the AO and how they’re able to manage it

 

Comms and command tools desperately need to be on the 1.36 agenda.

 

Speaking of KGW, it was Gagamel who said that the best tool in the leaders box was the enemy boat mark. That is simply not good enough. 

Share this post


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

I think we’d do well to note that who initiates the AO is not half as important as who manages the AO and how they’re able to manage it

 

Comms and command tools desperately need to be on the 1.36 agenda.

 

Speaking of KGW, it was Gagamel who said that the best tool in the leaders box was the enemy boat mark. That is simply not good enough. 

No one is showing up to your AOs right now, so they're not going to suddenly start showing up to your AOs if CRS adds a bunch of control features that allow you to more strictly order other players around. It's not a problem with the user interface. They're not even logging on.

 

In fact no one is even showing up to the make-believe officer corps, which is why if CRS knew what they were doing they'd fix the HC shortage ASAP or they would remove the need for HC. But apparently in 1.36 there are still going to be brigades to manage, and there are still going to be AOs to manage. No one has said how much the workload will be reduced or how/where they'll get more HC officers. It's just assumed that with little pockets of supply called "garrisons" added to the game suddenly brigade and AO management for an entire faction will something enjoyable that lots of people will want to do in their free time.

Share this post


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

No one is showing up to your AOs right now, so they're not going to suddenly start showing up to your AOs if CRS adds a bunch of control features that allow you to more strictly order other players around. It's not a problem with the user interface. They're not even logging on.

 

In fact no one is even showing up to the make-believe officer corps, which is why if CRS knew what they were doing they'd fix the HC shortage ASAP or they would remove the need for HC. But apparently in 1.36 there are still going to be brigades to manage, and there are still going to be AOs to manage. No one has said how much the workload will be reduced or how/where they'll get more HC officers. It's just assumed that with little pockets of supply called "garrisons" added to the game suddenly brigade and AO management for an entire faction will something enjoyable that lots of people will want to do in their free time.

I don’t agree with your framing of the current situation. Players migrate to AOs but a only certain set of veteran, HC or squad players will do the unglamorous set up work like setting FMS, towing, switching FBs etc 

I completely recognise the benefits in making AO management more of a squad/group task as the only successful HC able to do it do so not because of the HC badge, but because they’re squad leaders. 

My point is that they need the tools to orchestrate better AOs across a wider base. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.