• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
ZEBBEEE

Proximity-based AO: giving back map freedom

69 posts in this topic

With the perspective of 1.36 focused on spontaneous leadership and with the new UI that will make it easier to find action, what would you think of this modified auto-AO set up rule (brainstorming):

 

Only if the attacker has an active OIC (linked to a town with 1.36): 

as soon as he continuously kept a heavy INF EWS on an enemy town for 5 minutes, the OIC would be free to activate his own AO. Capture would then be enabled after 5 min (instead of the current 10).

Even if the town is still contested, the AO would however be withdrawn if:

- no active OIC since 5min

- no heavy inf EWS since 5min

 

The "heavy EWS" rule could be audited and adjusted regarding the game population. example: The overpoping side could require 10 inf to trigger heavy ews, while the underpoped side would need 5. The inf EWS radius could also be increased to account for a whole area of operation.

 

Expected consequences:

Hence you FINALLY allow a squad or an organized group to take initiative but still avoid precamp or ninja contest. The OIC can decide to not activate the AO if the purpose of the squad/group is not capturing the town (but some uncertainty regarding intentions is the key). More liberty to set up a plan is IMHO a feature that might help squads gain momentum, based on "area deployment" like pre-2004. 

It would introduced a step-by-step battle activity which better fit each of our profiles (organized teams at the start, lonewolves when the battle rages). Shorter (more Dynamic) game sessions would also offer a better game experience for those who can't stay logged for 2 hours.

Paras could also receive a more important role during battle setup or reinforcement (when fb is blown for example).

I wouldnt limit the amount of AOs as there could still be a naturel limit based on actual ingame population. An AO would also mean that there are many players set up in the area (which is currently not Always the case as some AOs run empty).

This would of course need the HC to accept to no longer be able to limit capture objectives and trust/engage the real field-leaders. 

 

What other positive or negative consequences would you see there?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little bit on a different side, but since this a thread about AO, i'll post it here, what if players would have to physicaly move between bases if there would be no AO?

Instead of 'warping on the map'.  You would choose your spawn, and if you would want to spawn in other area, you would have to be transported or go there by yourself in the game to make it your 'new base'.

This would help in 'moles' and 'ninja capping' if there would be no AO.

If it's too harsh it could be set so a player can change his spawn every hour or so.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw this would open up new gameplay elements,

players could create convoys of transports to transport other players, to move to other base, and other players would attack that convoy, just like in real life (if someone likes reality arguments)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zebbeee That's a good idea that is flowing. I personally like the idea but would need some tweaks for sure, as per request here are some things I see.

-No AO limits.... bad idea, heavily favors a steam role by an overpop side. I would say cap the AO's as we have now based on the population of the smallest populated size. (of course this could be infinite, AS LONG as I said, the low pop side is taken into consideration. 

-Remember to consider bridge AO/DO's, I'd like to see those go away and just maintain a state of destroyed/standing. Right now its an often forgot objective that is often left to the last minute. Would help organic "commando" raids being able to go behind the lines and blow a vital bridge organically before a planned assault. 

-As an Active and wholly invested HC member, I have no qualms about having organic leadership from squads and allowing them to take the field, just remember many of our officers are or would like that roll as well. 

-I would also recommend a hybrid system within your AO system of ideas. And that is to up the minimum level of AO's to two. The first or multiple being the player based AO plan you speak of, and HC having x1 AO that they are still able to place. This would help to rectify any disagreements between HC/larger squads/smaller squads. As a major squads have the freedom to work organically, and smaller squads/individuals can still request AO's. This also circumvents another major problem... hopefully to be later rectified by bigger pop, but still a concern nonetheless. Many times its seen that one side is very low pop, or is suddenly driven to full "turtle" or defense mode, often times that side does not have enough to shift players to set the full EWS off for a sustained period. By allowing x1 HC placed AO, the defending side still has a viable means in which to counter attack using the AO system, even if they don't have enough to start full EWS, this also allows for more commando/ninja style tactics that I have seen nugitx comment on, but still limits the "steam role" 

-Furthermore, the organic or player AO "OIC" should have the power to move a local flag from his mission by the length of x1 town. This has been a huge problem in the past with flags, either due to the lack of HC or some sort of disagreement. I would argue that the movement of 1 flag over 1 town is not game breaking in anyway, and allows local leaders to defend or exploit their gains. 

-Lastly, a question, currently an OIC is nominated by high command, in order to best create an organic squad/player driven attack, what should we do to make sure that the OIC can be nominated via players squads, without the need of HC? 

 

Thanks for the post, lets see what other ideas float out!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intermission would be a good place to test out ideas. It would keep me and probably many others from complaining about pointless intermissions.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A majority of customers want near-instant fighting. Physically moving between locations would be a game killer.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zebbeee and @hateract and @gavalink

> so EWS AOs cool > just not sure about the heavy vs light to start or continue as it could be gamed or losing AO due to going to light momentarily might get frustrating (ie. while a new fms is coming in and/or paras otw). OIC mechanic seems a bit complex. 

> however autocancelling AOs with NO EWS for 3/5/10/20 mins might be a good idea both for this new game mechanic and/or even the current game (even if system picked the new AO) 

> consider a test intermission doubling the number of AOs as per current mechanic so > 1 HC / 1 EWS/squad AO if one current limit (so becomes 2 AOs) and 2HC AOs/2 EWS/squad if 2 actual limit(so becomes 4 potential AOs)

> test some variation of this EWS AO idea at intermission and see how it works live and what doesn't work and what gets gamed 

> for sure bridge AOs/DOs should be gone and just left for players to work as a bridge is either up or down  

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

A majority of customers want near-instant fighting. Physically moving between locations would be a game killer.

Jwilly, in other thread you wanted to bridge the gap, between 'both type' of players, but with  two instances of the game.

http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/419267-middle-ground-ao-compromise-idea-thread/

check this out, but read full thread, at the end i've written how both type of players can be satisfied in same single game.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm following that thread.

As noted earlier, physical relocation by walking, or riding a truck, or any other mechanism would be a commercial non-starter. CRS has told us in the past that a large percentage of players want near-instant action. Ride-Trucks-Between-Towns-Online would not meet that expectation.

CRS history has shown that, if caps without fighting are possible, fighting-preferring players leave.

Combining the two game-types in a single instance is where we were before AOs were introduced to limit caps-without-fighting gameplay, and stem the loss-rate of fighting-preferring customers.

It might be possible to run a separate game-instance to satisfy the caps-without-fighting players, if there were enough of them in fact.

 

 

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


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

CRS history has shown that, if caps without fighting are possible, fighting-preferring players leave.

Combining the two game-types in a single instance is where we were before AOs were introduced to limit caps-without-fighting gameplay, and stem the loss-rate of fighting-preferring customers.

 

 

Jwilly, please read the thread first....... i've written how it would work  with AO

 

http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/419267-middle-ground-ao-compromise-idea-thread/

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As noted earlier, physical relocation by walking, or riding a truck, or any other mechanism would be a commercial non-starter

It would be only for 'open fronters'.

'AO' people would still play like they play now. (spawn normaly at AO location)

and when 'open fronters' would waste their 'town attack limit' they would become 'AOers' for the time being.

 

It would be the same as it is now, I realy believe it could work.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nugitx said:

Jwilly, please read the thread first....... i've written how it would work  with AO

As I said above via edit, I'm following that thread.

I don't think any combine-both-types-of-gameplay idea can work. The presence of any amount of capture-without-fighting gameplay will drive away fighting-preferred customers.

No, it would not be "the same as it is now". Capture-without-fighting gameplay would be re-introduced. Obviously that's the most time-efficient way to attack if your goal is capping towns, as opposed to having good battles. So, fighting-preferred players would begin to leave again.

Obviously you think differently. 

It appears to me that the historical evidence is against you. That however is a CRS call to make.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Obviously that's the most time-efficient way to attack if your goal is capping towns

Jwilly combine those two

1)  re-locate physicaly

2)  town limit

 

'open front' is not most time-efficient anymore, it would be a 'reward for the patient ones'

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AOs are essential for an underpop side to have a chance of defending. Any amount of free-to-cap-anywhere would destroy CRS's attempts to manage pop unbalance. 

Any mechanic that allows an attacker to get to a capture point first, requiring the "defender" to respond and in effect attack the "attacker", is dysfunctional. AOs are essential in giving game-defenders...who in real life would be in place and (usually) prepared before the attackers showed up...reasonable knowledge of where the game-attack may come.

As to forcing players to play the underpop side, CRS surveys in the past have shown that that concept would result in substantial customer loss.

I haven't seen anything in the proposals that seems commercial viable to me. All of the various proposed ideas have been suggested before, over the years, and found unsuitable. But, it's CRS that will make that call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Any mechanic that allows an attacker to get to a capture point first, requiring the "defender" to respond and in effect attack the "attacker

Allow the defenders to warp to attacked city normaly.

Only the attackers would have to take a long hike.

Once the defense is complete, the defenders are warped back to their AO/spawn.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


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

Never ever have instancing imo - one game, all here.

I understand that thinking...that's been CRS's approach for years, since they solved the server capacity limits.

However, advocates of bringing back cap-anywhere are arguing that large numbers of players that left because that type of gameplay was more-or-less removed, may return to the game if cap-anywhere mechanics are re-instituted.

I don't think it's viable to combine the two types of gameplay. Others of course might think differently.

If I'm right, though, the thought then is: if this large number of cap-anywhere players would not return to the AO-mechanics server, they might as well be provided with their own instance with cap-anywhere mechanics. If they didn't come back at all, CRS would get no revenue from them. If they came back to a separate instance, at least CRS would get additional revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

if this large number of cap-anywhere players would not return to the AO-mechanics server

They would, because with a 'town limit' they could not be 'hopping towns' constantly, they would have to go to AO for the time being to help in fighting- playing with AO people.

 

Quote

If they came back to a separate instance, at least CRS would get additional revenue.

I would not view it as 'fun' to play in other instance and would not come back for it - with separate instance CRS might get no revenue at all.

Keepy everyone in one instance - or not at all.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the worst case, not different servers but different portions of the World map. I would go for Russian front as this will probably not draw US players away from EU theater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/08/2018 at 4:18 PM, hateract said:

@Zebbeee That's a good idea that is flowing. I personally like the idea but would need some tweaks for sure, as per request here are some things I see.

-No AO limits.... bad idea, heavily favors a steam role by an overpop side. I would say cap the AO's as we have now based on the population of the smallest populated size. (of course this could be infinite, AS LONG as I said, the low pop side is taken into consideration. 

-Remember to consider bridge AO/DO's, I'd like to see those go away and just maintain a state of destroyed/standing. Right now its an often forgot objective that is often left to the last minute. Would help organic "commando" raids being able to go behind the lines and blow a vital bridge organically before a planned assault. 

-As an Active and wholly invested HC member, I have no qualms about having organic leadership from squads and allowing them to take the field, just remember many of our officers are or would like that roll as well. 

-I would also recommend a hybrid system within your AO system of ideas. And that is to up the minimum level of AO's to two. The first or multiple being the player based AO plan you speak of, and HC having x1 AO that they are still able to place. This would help to rectify any disagreements between HC/larger squads/smaller squads. As a major squads have the freedom to work organically, and smaller squads/individuals can still request AO's. This also circumvents another major problem... hopefully to be later rectified by bigger pop, but still a concern nonetheless. Many times its seen that one side is very low pop, or is suddenly driven to full "turtle" or defense mode, often times that side does not have enough to shift players to set the full EWS off for a sustained period. By allowing x1 HC placed AO, the defending side still has a viable means in which to counter attack using the AO system, even if they don't have enough to start full EWS, this also allows for more commando/ninja style tactics that I have seen nugitx comment on, but still limits the "steam role" 

-Furthermore, the organic or player AO "OIC" should have the power to move a local flag from his mission by the length of x1 town. This has been a huge problem in the past with flags, either due to the lack of HC or some sort of disagreement. I would argue that the movement of 1 flag over 1 town is not game breaking in anyway, and allows local leaders to defend or exploit their gains. 

-Lastly, a question, currently an OIC is nominated by high command, in order to best create an organic squad/player driven attack, what should we do to make sure that the OIC can be nominated via players squads, without the need of HC? 

 

Thanks for the post, lets see what other ideas float out!
 

Very good thoughts @hateract.

I believe we must wait for more info regarding the future roles of HC with 1.36. Anyone with the ranks (or the DLC) could volunteer as OIC without needing an authorisation, but HC could eventually keep a moderation role. 

As you said, a limit should be kept (although this is easily adjusted with the ews-triggered population amount), or HC could pose some kind of veto by increasing the time needed with heavy ews before the AO can be activated.

Instead of leaving an AO for HC to focus troops, I would prefer them to define priority targets that would awards points to the OICs that contributed to the effort once the town is taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/08/2018 at 3:49 AM, sorella said:

so EWS AOs cool > just not sure about the heavy vs light to start or continue as it could be gamed or losing AO due to going to light momentarily might get frustrating (ie. while a new fms is coming in and/or paras otw). OIC mechanic seems a bit complex. 

@sorellaI made the assumption of 5 minutes but it could be longer. Even if AO is removed with low ews, it gives an opportunity for attackers to re-organize and make a new wave. It's actually not a bad gameplay though defenders will probably not abandon until area is secured (FB blown).

About the *fears* of seeing people massing up at ews range (1.5km) before rushing cps or paradropping all at once (read in another topic): if that happened that would be awesome. We have today many gameplay features preventing camping to succeed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

@sorellaI made the assumption of 5 minutes but it could be longer. Even if AO is removed with low ews, it gives an opportunity for attackers to re-organize and make a new wave. It's actually not a bad gameplay though defenders will probably not abandon until area is secured (FB blown).

About the *fears* of seeing people massing up at ews range (1.5km) before rushing cps or paradropping all at once (read in another topic): if that happened that would be awesome. We have today many gameplay features preventing camping to succeed.

agree. great points. looks like CRS is looking at something like ews triggered AOs: 

 I know one of the plans being talked about is for the system to look at the population near a town to set the AO. THus taking it out of HC hands and putting it into the player bases. Which will also help when an AO goes stale it will come down. These are things all being looked at for the 1.36 revolution   -BLKHWK8

from this thread: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add to the rules that:

An AO will be cancelled on low EWS ONLY IF there is at least still one other AO up.

So at low pop you avoid to have no available AO for lonewolves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extra idea based on @Kilemall‘a concept of Area AO:

Allow HC to « activate/deactivate » divisions that are authorized to start EWS-based AOs (thus only over adjacent towns of their brigades)

If you deactivate a division, ongoing ews-AO setup from its brigades can continue but no new one can be triggered, so that the activity would slightly move to another division if required so. 

Whatever the design, it would however keep some kind of flag/HC empowerment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.