Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
nugitxx

Combining ideas for 1.36 (automatic missions + pop near town AO + town radar)

35 posts in this topic

Thanks Zebbeee and Blkhwk8 for ideas, also thanks Zebbeee for making me realise that Active Missions is not AO lol.

This thread is to combine ideas so far into an 'enhanced vision' of last thread, the 'WWIIOL vision' which I'd love to play.

Sorry for making so many threads, but i'm getting way to hyped for those ideas lol. Maybe it will help to make 1.36 ? Just brainstorming.

 

1) Ability for player to spawn where he chooses to (or have depot spawns around the map for INF and vehicles) [Zebbeee]

2) Look at the population near a town to set the AO [BLKHWK8] (Let 1 attacker, a lone wolf be able to potentialy attack and capture a town - an ability to potentialy move the map for every player is an important part of the fun element of WWIIOL which was way back in 2001-2004

3) Automatic missions (instead of active missions) that would come with AO [Zebbeee]

4) Town Radar - a radar in town that would show the attackers that would get into its range. When players would move into the radar range, they would light up like a christmas tree.  1-3 players for example ( a low number ) would be allowed to move into a town and when they start to capture, a DO and automatic mission would be set for defenders. 4 players and more (big number) would instantly set a DO and automatic mission when they become visible so the defenders can place defense.

- air force would be working with ground troops, to destroy the radar so the troops can move in unseen

- players in a squad would have to work together, set town attack limit for whole squad and not per players, players in squad would not be able to capture towns on their own (that's the point of a squad, to play together)

- lone wolves limit would be even less than squads, they could attack fewer towns

 

NN4qoZq.png

u1Ae3iS.png

Gyf1qX5.png

TJUMQwo.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't say I like the Town Radar idea-- Knowing exactly where your enemy is takes all the skill and fun out of the game.  Sort of like shooting caged rabbits.

It would also increase the number of attackers to defenders ratio  - would likely need 10 to 15 attackers for every defender to cap a town.

Share this post


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

Can't say I like the Town Radar idea-- Knowing exactly where your enemy is takes all the skill and fun out of the game.  Sort of like shooting caged rabbits.

It would also increase the number of attackers to defenders ratio  - would likely need 10 to 15 attackers for every defender to cap a town.

 

It's for the idea of:

1) So lone wolves and a few players cannot run around and capture towns all the time

2) So defenders can setup defenses

3) crouching and proning would remove you from the map - at the cost of speed, which is a tactical trade off, so there is more tactics involved in capturing towns instead of a blind rush (combined with air force able to destroy radar for some time). A plane would knock out the radar, and the defending side would be blind again.

There could be even made a new type of running for infantry - 'crouch running' which would use more stamina, but would allow you to sprint for a short time while crouched to keep hidden.

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got a bit of a catch-22 here with the "radar" thing.  AC used to take it out, however, inf or tanks need to take out AAA AI first?  Furthermore, the idea of radar for inf not crouching or prone is just too "gamey" for me.  Towns are filled with "people" and that is what EWS represents.  And, unless you bring back the "insta-capping table humping" mechanism, no one EI is going to cap a town by himself. 

I'm all for automatic missions and AOs if you can bring enough troops to bear; i.e. more than one and based on the current population.  I'm also okay with you capping behind the lines but you'll sacrifice supply, so what you bring is what you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the game would gain a lot if it was more 'gamey', had more 'fun' elements, but those are just my 5 cents.....

There is a line in game where it stops becoming 'fun' and starts to be a 'chore' to play.

Of course someone might say 'this game is not for you', I guess i'm looking for a more 'gamey'  wwiiol which does not exist, lol.

 

The 2001 version, was more 'gamey' with what other people already written in others threads for example.....

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I never ever said; "this game is not for you".  I don't think statements like that are productive to reasonable discussion.  And I speak for myself, not some mythical group somewhere trying to suppress anyone's fun... it's just my opinion as it pertains to me; others may agree, some may not.

Fundamentally, I'm against making it easy for one dude doing anything that causes a bunch of other folks to have perform the "chore" (as you put it) of cleaning up; that is fun for one guy only.  I've also been that guy when game play allowed it and it was a blast, but if you can't see the flaws of that mechanism you're gonna loose credibility in the discussion. 

I think automatic missions and AOs are a great idea and will make the front more fluid and less reliant on HC, but that does not mean to imply any one EI will be able to invisibly crouch sneak into a random town and cap something without anyone realizing.

Did you partake in the battle of Dusseldorf (the last battle of the map last campaign)?  That was, IMHO, what this game seeks to accomplish.  A massive combined arms battle, bullets and shells flying everywhere (my wife yelling at me because of the volume!), infantry fighting building to building... it was a beautiful thing. And, multitudes more fun than "back-in-the-day" one man caps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah nah, the post was not directed at you, it was just free thinking.

ndamentally, I'm against making it easy for one dude doing anything that causes a bunch of other folks to have perform the "chore" (as you put it) of cleaning up; that is fun for one guy only.

This is the problem.

Ability to move the map - was the fun element of wwiiol

having 1 guy 'winning the war' was not

How could the Rat team today, bring the ability for players to move the map without the issue ?

 

but that does not mean to imply any one EI will be able to invisibly crouch sneak into a random town and cap something without anyone realizing.

Well, there would be a DO and mission set once he starts to cap, and if he would be limited to lets say 1-2 attacks in a few hours, he would not be moling - and defending against 1 guy would not be that hard - but the very fact that game allows a possibility to such a thing, makes the game that more interesting - and who knows, maybe from this 1 guy, a big battle would start?  the possibilites that a situation like this creates, can be big.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon man... simple logic tells us that would be a nightmare for the under populated team.  Over pop team can just attempt to cap the whole front with 1-2 man teams and then the under pop team would not be able defend all of the towns "under attack" and would have to choose which to try and defend and which to loose with putting up no defense at all. 

I thought we got through this logic already... how would this game play be okay with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to think in terms of what 1-2 man teams really would've/could've done in WWII.  Like deep insurgency missions to effect the war effort like, for example, disturbing supply for a future strategic battle or destroying/damaging an airfield, etc.

I really think the whole one man capping thing has been hashed out; forward thinking is what CRS will take seriously.     

Share this post


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

C'mon man... simple logic tells us that would be a nightmare for the under populated team.  Over pop team can just attempt to cap the whole front with 1-2 man teams and then the under pop team would not be able defend all of the towns "under attack" and would have to choose which to try and defend and which to loose with putting up no defense at all. 

I thought we got through this logic already... how would this game play be okay with you?

THat's why there also needs to be auto balance

http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/419311-auto-balance-with-players-able-to-pick-a-side/

 

I think you need to think in terms of what 1-2 man teams really would've/could've done in WWII

This is a game first and foremost, not 'reality', people want to have 'fun' while playing. - when the game traded 'fun' back in the day, the community got smaller.

But this was already talked about in previous threads, so i'm not going here into more details.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, no offense, but you just arrived after many years without playing and in 4 or 5 posts since you've returned you want to change the game completely without knowing the mechanics of it. For example, you confused an AO with the active missions....

Do not you think it's better than you play a few months or weeks at least before you want to change the game to these levels without even knowing its rules?

 

Honestly, many of us who play, we like the game like it is, except the HC system, TOE system and other problems that we hope will be resolved in 1.36. The game at level of mechanics in my opinion  it is already well thought out, I think improvements are necessary in different areas but seems you  want to kill the actual game and make another one to suit your tastes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kase the answer to your question is already in this thread

http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/419182-the-experience-of-a-new-player-that-starts-to-play/

 

 

Quote

want to kill the actual game and make another one to suit your tastes.

This could not be further from the truth, the game in essence would be the same, but it would allow for different type of players to play in 'their own way' which would result in more people playing.

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game is clearly BASED on REAL events.  There is a reason we don't have goblins with magic powers or heat seeking missiles!  Yes, it's a game and we don't really die either, but that does NOT justify adding completely ridiculously unrealistic stuff.  This is a WWII simulation. Your suggestions need to be within this construct or you're simply not going to be taken seriously. 

Share this post


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

  There is a reason we don't have goblins with magic powers or heat seeking missiles!

lol yes, that's why I didnt suggest goblins - but 'radar' which was in real life in ww2

 

Quote

completely ridiculously unrealistic stuff.

Some 'gamey' elements might not be realistic (like dissapering from map while crouched with the radar addition which i suggested) but they can add to the 'fun' of gameplay and provide different tactical options.....

Again I didn't suggest goblins with rockets...... a radar is totaly realistic, a plane knocking out radar is also realistic, a 'player dissapearing from map while crouched' is not realistic, but it might be potentialy fun adding to the gameplay of the game together with the radar.

There are plenty of 'ridiculously unrealistic stuff' already in the game - like 'marking of players on the map for other players' - this would not be possible in real life etc  I could continue with examples but I bet you get my point.

A radar is actualy more realistic than 'marking players for other players'.

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks reefmon you just helped me update this idea further.

Instead of a radar that would show player location all the time, it could work like a sonar, that shows the ping of the players last position, so it's not so easy for the other side.

 

PositiveThirdIvorygull-small.gif

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


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

Thanks reefmon you just helped me update my idea further.

Instead of a radar that would show player location all the time, it could work like a sonar, that shows the ping of the players last position, so it's not so easy for the other side.

 

PositiveThirdIvorygull-small.gif

Your assuming that radar and sonar works as they do today and not in the early 1940s. These were very unreliable and not widely in use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, BLKHWK8 said:

Your assuming that radar and sonar works as they do today and not in the early 1940s. These were very unreliable and not widely in use.

Hehe sure, but i'm firstly thinking of what would be 'fun for gameplay'  and 'realism' 2nd :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL - it is already hard to get by a tank with its ultra super optics-- giving them radar or sonar will make it virtually impossible.

 

Share this post


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

LOL - it is already hard to get by a tank with its ultra super optics-- giving them radar or sonar will make it virtually impossible.

 

 

Blakeh, it is actualy to help the infantry vs tanks.

Think about it.

 

Tanks would be visible on map - but the infantry would be crouching and proning to dissapear from the map, you would be aware of a tank, but the tank of you not.

the 'super optics' is exactly the part of reason I thought about this - to help the infantry, so players do not die so fast, so you can avoid a tank.

A tank rolling into a town can decimate plenty of riflemen (the new players), this way atleast, they would know something is coming at them.

 

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2018 at 2:57 PM, reefmon said:

Your suggestions need to be within this construct or you're simply not going to be taken seriously. 

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep on holding to 'your construct' - this way wwiiol will remain at near death status like it is currently.

Plenty of people were telling this already, this is why wwiiol failed in the first place, because the old team did not listen to player feedback back in 2004, and now it's same all over again, those of you who are here 'got your game' and don't want it to change at all.

 

but i'm not going all over at it again, there was already a thread with over 10 pages.

And you probably managed to run away a player once again.

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, nugitxx said:

Keep on holding to 'your construct' - this way wwiiol will remain at near death status like it is currently.

Plenty of people were telling this already, this is why wwiiol failed in the first place, because the old team did not listen to player feedback back in 2004, and now it's same all over again, those of you who are here 'got your game' and don't want it to change at all.

 

but i'm not going all over at it again, there was already a thread with over 10 pages.

And you probably managed to run away a player once again.

hey why not log into game right now (low pop tz3) and run a 1 man AO with an fms? the actual only difference is: 

1. with AO enemy knows someone may attack - with surprise open-front AO they dont (unless...
1a. there would be EWS showing at a current style AO - would there be EWS on towns in your open front/suprise AO scenario?

2. either way, whether a defender might be in town under current AO (usually would be spawn guard) or no one under the open front surprise AO - as soon as something, anything is/was capped in a current AO or surprise AO - defenders will show up 

3. so really the advantage of the surprise AO /open front AO tactic might be: 
a. a multi cap (assuming more than 1 surprise attacker) or 
b. a single cap (even a spawn)
c. in either of which cases one or more defenders would immediately show up 

and we're back to roughly where we are now - unless the surprise AO was a cap in a non-garrisoned town.  not much difference really.  especially under 1.36 where there will garrison/organic units in each town, so even under a surprise/open front AO defenders would be able to spawn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

1a. there would be EWS showing at a current style AO - would there be EWS on towns in your open front/suprise AO scenario?

Yes - the sonar, it's an ews

 

Quote

and we're back to roughly where we are now

That's what i'm trying to tell all this time, but some of the players 'dont want to hear this', you Sorella, can understand this.

The game would be roughly the same - but the players would have ability to move the map.

 

 

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, nugitxx said:

 

The game would be roughly the same - but the players would have ability to move the map.

 

 

sort of. they'd be able to cap a cp or two before defenders show. not really moving the map - just moving cappers/defenders from one place to another.  aren't you looking for a bigger effect?

Share this post


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

sort of. they'd be able to cap a cp or two before defenders show. not really moving the map - just moving cappers/defenders from one place to another.  aren't you looking for a bigger effect?

It doesn't matter.

What counts is that he can do it - if someone wants, he can go alone and start trying to move the map - it doesn't matter if defenders will spawn and kill him.

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.