• Announcements

    • XOOM

      Volunteer PHP Developer wanted to revive the Gazette!   07/24/2019

      We're looking to properly revive the World@War Gazette and need a solid PHP developer to help take some work forward. If you have some skills with PHP and are looking for some experience and to bring important home page news / recognition for individual players back to WWII Online, I'd like to hear from you! Submit an inquiry to jobs@corneredrats.com with some details about your experience. You will need at least 10+ hours per week to contribute to the team. The Gazette's current status can be found here: https://www.wwiionline.com/resources#gazette
ZEBBEEE

Buildings configuration audit : making these NOT crossable

16 posts in this topic

Current situation :

Since the latest 3D-overhaul of buildings, which made most of the buildings enterable but also crossable, an infantry can literaly cross the town without obstacles. This makes tactical deployment almost impossible (defensive covering fire from buildings or street PPOs), and each town combat situation is just a swarm of defenders/attackers moving without logics.

144822buildingaudit.png

 

New proposed configuration :

Buidings should be enterable but NOT crossable to limit the paths of infantries (destroyed state is open to discussion).

This would introduce a new experience of town combat and bring a new dimension to the use of PPOs. You could finally have made-up "districts" in town who could be fortified independently with a dozen men. Leaders would take more time to study the configuration of a town to suggest tactical deployment positions (new mission objective icon to be introduced ?). 

This could be achieved by a redesign of all existing 3D buildings and would result in something like this:

540300buildingauditnew2.png

 

 

For this town I made the exercise and would recommand the following deployment positions, which allows a stronghold of the whole town. 

545665buildingauditnewtest.png

Edited by Zebbeee
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember that the buildings are reused in multiple spots, so if you make it uncross-able in one place it'll be the exact same wherever that building is re-used.   Also by reducing the entrances/exits it could potentially remove some buildings from play entirely as there'd be no reason to go in/near them. 

Share this post


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

Just remember that the buildings are reused in multiple spots, so if you make it uncross-able in one place it'll be the exact same wherever that building is re-used.   Also by reducing the entrances/exits it could potentially remove some buildings from play entirely as there'd be no reason to go in/near them. 

This is not a problem. The purpose is to force players to take streets and face MG nests or snipers or a tank locking a street .

buildings would just become temporary shelters or defensive positions (sandbagged??) 

Walking paths would indeed become complex, requiring to analyse the map first. Like IRL.

FMS brought battles outside towns, we may allow urban battles to be more complex. 

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-doing the buildings in your concept, in the current engine, would be a waste of time and resources.

Share this post


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

This is not a problem.

On the contrary, it would be a huge problem
As b2k said these buildings are reused through out the map
What about areas that suddenly become impassable entirely because they used a certain combo of buildings.
Now there areas dont work, and QA has to go and do an indepth testing of every single town in the game to look for this, and then someone has to go redo all the offending locations.

6 hours ago, Zebbeee said:

The purpose is to force players to take streets and face MG nests or snipers or a tank locking a street .

IRL infantry are one of the few things on the battlefield that are actually hard to force on a given path, they knock out doors and windows, they put holes in things, they go over under and through things.

Once upon a time the game buildings did very much what you are asking.
They were hated by the majority of infantry players for it.

 

Seems like an awful lot of work for something you are probably going to be hated for?

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

IRL infantry are one of the few things on the battlefield that are actually hard to force on a given path, they knock out doors and windows, they put holes in things, they go over under and through things.

Once upon a time the game buildings did very much what you are asking.
They were hated by the majority of infantry players for it.

 

Seems like an awful lot of work for something you are probably going to be hated for?

 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An easy way to simulate this and provide tremendous more  flexibility, is simply allow sandbag walls to be adjacent to buildings, wala, door blocked!

Same for bunker, foxhole and tank trap.

In fact, allow these to be built IN and ON buildings - now that will allow for some fun fortifications.

Yes, put sandbags in the CP door - enemy can't get in!  (nor can defender.......)

You'll see foxholes on roofs with LMGs, ATG pits on 2nd floors with snipers, etc.

And you can block a town all you like to 'direct' the enemy into your fire zone - unless they do some demolition first.

 

It would also provide infinitely more tactical situations within towns; while providing far more use for our PPOs.

 

PS don't forget the first bomber will ruin your hours of planning and work though...... really need a complete rethought on PPOs and bombs.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

An easy way to simulate this and provide tremendous more  flexibility, is simply allow sandbag walls to be adjacent to buildings, wala, door blocked!

Same for bunker, foxhole and tank trap.

In fact, allow these to be built IN and on ON buildings - now that will allow for some fun fortifications.

Yes, put sandbags in the CP door - enemy can't get in!  (nor can attacker.......)

You'll see foxholes on roofs with LMGs, ATG pits on 2nd floors with snipers, etc.

And you can block a town all you like to 'direct' the enemy into your fire zone - unless they do some demolition first.

 

It would also provide infinitely more tactical situations within towns; while providing far more use for our PPOs.

 

I dont disagree with most of that except the bunker off hand.
being it only has one exit. 
So the nub that you booted from squad last week for running around popping smoke on squad members tanks drawing fire on them.
Yea he just locked half your squad in the bunker (or out of it)

The other things have multiple paths and possibilities.

The other stuff though would be cool.
Sandbags so you can deploy a gun near the window but not have half your body hanging out of it.

I am not sure the ATG bunker would fit on a second floor though, it its present configuration.
Probably need a few more PPO types?

Share this post


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

On the contrary, it would be a huge problem
As b2k said these buildings are reused through out the map
What about areas that suddenly become impassable entirely because they used a certain combo of buildings.
Now there areas dont work, and QA has to go and do an indepth testing of every single town in the game to look for this, and then someone has to go redo all the offending locations.

IRL infantry are one of the few things on the battlefield that are actually hard to force on a given path, they knock out doors and windows, they put holes in things, they go over under and through things.

Once upon a time the game buildings did very much what you are asking.
They were hated by the majority of infantry players for it.

 

Seems like an awful lot of work for something you are probably going to be hated for?

A destroyed state could let you pass through, so it’s not a problem if a few areas have a wrong building set up.

If some hated the old configuration it’s because we had no PPOs, nor smoke cover, nor advanced anti tank weapons. Hence infanteries were easily wiped out by a single tank. But I had experienced better fights in towns (mostly rifle vs rifle!), although we needed more abilities to shelter upstairs and deploy from a window. So, no, infantries will not avoid those buildings, on the contrary it will be easier to set up and defend our position with a pair of guys (like a current bunker).

Finally, no need to redesign the whole thing, just block entries with sandbags.

I agree with delems that it would be a first step but we can already redesign Unreal-ready models and put those in Unity.

next step should be placing FRU inside a building, and remove depots. Then you may have a refreshed wwiiol1.0 where more than 70% of players fights in towns.

Edited by Zebbeee
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Zebbeee said:

If some hated the old configuration it’s because we had no PPOs, nor smoke cover, nor advanced anti tank weapons. Hence infanteries were easily wiped out by a single tank.

No it wasn't dying to the tank, i mean no one enjoyed that of course, but that still happens now, and we had smoke then.
It was the having to run 3 city clocks down 2 over and 4 back up because you could not traverse the buildings at all.

We still do have non traversable building types, look in the large cities, like Antwerp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're on the right lines with the idea, although I think it would be much better directed at preventing infantry, wheeled vehicles and ATG/AAA from moving through or across or through 6 foot + bush-lines. As others have pointed out, the difficulty with buildings is in the combination of their ubiquity and proximity. Were this adopted, it'd help make towns less porous to infantry by virtue of creating visual and physical "choke-points" though which attacking infantry would have to pass. Which is not far off what you're call for here.

Edited by fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the towns or buildings must be more setup to allow stronger defense and safe points.

It's freaking awesome to be cornered holding against enemy assaults, as you said it sometimes there is too much flow and of paths inside towns making difficult to consolidate an advancement or defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the concept. As has been written we would need more types of ppos BUT really need a way to rotate and or elevate the PPO to the perfect spot. This would also need to implement a new infantry view system that doesnt make our view of the game world start from our belly buttons.

Would also need the ability to move sandbags etc closer to existing assets.  Perhaps reduce the amount of HE needed to destroy them. Relatively simple changes  like this can transform the game into a viable WW2OL 1.5 to compete in the marketplace until WW2OL 2.0 comes and wipes the wannabes from the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/01/2018 at 7:23 AM, merlin51 said:

No it wasn't dying to the tank, i mean no one enjoyed that of course, but that still happens now, and we had smoke then.
It was the having to run 3 city clocks down 2 over and 4 back up because you could not traverse the buildings at all.

We still do have non traversable building types, look in the large cities, like Antwerp.

The older buildings didn’t offer stairs to deploy from. 

But I agree with you that the best solution would be more PPOs to deploy, and allow it to be placed in doors and windows.

if you start working on new towns, please seriously consider modelling virtual hallways to limit flows and allow a strong set up with current PPOs and building designs.

Edited by Zebbeee

Share this post


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

if you start working on new towns, please seriously consider modelling virtual hallways to limit flows and allow a strong set up with current PPOs and building designs.

Id rather lean to researching what could be done with PPO's

If you artificially lock everything up tight, it sits that way forever, becomes predictable, and eventually becomes boring, Oh yea i know this maze you go down down right up right down down left AB! And that also becomes your only option.

Vehicles are already constrained by not being able to roll through buildings, which in WWII sometimes the tanks actually did (And sometimes they wound up in the basement which is why they were not supposed to roll through buildings)

Infantry realistically is a different story, they were not so much constrained by the buildings themselves but by the situation, enemy position, available cover, need etc.

A map or so ago, i went to Leuven.
Some organized group, probably a squad, had used PPO's to control all ingress paths.
Lots of sandbags and hedgehogs, streets blocked to traffic in ways you could not predict, they made it so you had dead ends etc.
And while not flat out blocking infantry ingress, they had messed up fast travel with staggered sangbags and stuff that you had to keep dodging around.
There were also ad hoc guard posts made from gun bunks and sandbags and hedgehogs

Thing is, you had no way of knowing until you actually got there, and what you saw that day you knew would not look the same another time.
You could not predict a clear path, and that is probably what you want, not some other persons idea of what good flow would be that you are stuck with.

I think PPO's should be a bit hardier, and placement looked at to see if it could be tighter, at least on the small things, i can understand not wanting to let you jam a gun bunker half through a wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.