fiambre

Impressions about no SD and the capture timers

78 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, Nick said:

When you are so underpop that you can barely get out of any spawn point without being mowed down then the game stops being fun, that's how it's been a lot for me lately on the Allied side.

Something has to be done about it otherwise we are just losing more and more players.

 

2 hours ago, ebert100 said:

I don't know, i can't imagine a more worst case scenario for player motivation or retention.

 

This.

The Axis players aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

Personally, I don't give two craps about who "wins" the map, and I'm willing to bet most on both sides feel the same. But what players DO care about is the actual gameplay experience on the battlefield. CRS doesn't seem to get it; this is ALL THAT EVER MATTERS, PERIOD.

Right now, I see Axis zerg rushes that end up camping the four or so players online that comprise the entire Allied side at any given moment. Of course people like having no death timer for respawn, of course they like camping Allied spawns, of course they like no side penalty for overpop (CP timers are meaningless; again, players do NOT care about who owns what on the map). This is not good gameplay.

Edited by xanthus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, xanthus said:

Personally, I don't give two craps about who "wins" the map, and I'm willing to bet most on both sides feel the same. But what players DO care about is the actual gameplay experience on the battlefield. CRS doesn't seem to get it; this is ALL THAT EVER MATTERS, PERIOD.

It appears the existing game (with campaign mode) is close to being populated on one side only.

The Rapid Assault project was intended to appeal to customers who don't care about the campaign mode, and are only interested in tactical gameplay.

Maybe that, not the campaign game, should be CRS's future direction? Maybe the campaign game is inherently self-unbalancing and self-destructive?

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

It appears the existing game (with campaign mode) is close to being populated on one side only.

The Rapid Assault project was intended to appeal to customers who don't care about the campaign mode, and are only interested in tactical gameplay.

Maybe that, not the campaign game, should be CRS's future direction? Maybe the campaign game is inherently self-unbalancing and self-destructive?

There are already plenty of other tactical ww2 shooters:  Squad, Call of Duty,  Post Scriptum,  etc...

The main thing that makes WW2 Online unique is the Campaign mode and the massive scale of this game - which creates a strategic layer to this game.

I doubt I would have kept paying a monthly subscription for this game for over 10 years (like I have) if WW2 Online was just a small tactical game like other games.

 

Share this post


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

There are already plenty of other tactical ww2 shooters:  Squad, Call of Duty,  Post Scriptum,  etc...

The main thing that makes WW2 Online unique is the Campaign mode and the massive scale of this game - which creates a strategic layer to this game.

I doubt I would have kept paying a monthly subscription for this game for over 10 years (like I have) if WW2 Online was just a small tactical game like other games.

 

Totally. I no doubt it, I would leave for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put SD in, but the real killer is the Nodal Spawn Capture Castle.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back the spawn delay.  It makes sense for the overpop side, along with the gameplay disadvantages.  SD has never kept any material number of players from playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2018 at 1:26 PM, jwilly said:

It appears the existing game (with campaign mode) is close to being populated on one side only.

The Rapid Assault project was intended to appeal to customers who don't care about the campaign mode, and are only interested in tactical gameplay.

Maybe that, not the campaign game, should be CRS's future direction? Maybe the campaign game is inherently self-unbalancing and self-destructive?

 

That's not what I'm saying.

The gameplay experience here includes:

- The massive (functionally endless) map size.

- Realistic visual and engagement distances (i.e. up to a kilometer and beyond; hundreds of meters for infantry)

- A variety of battlefield landscapes; what I mean is that because there are so many towns, you're (mostly) never on the same battlefield twice (though they obviously become familiar after a decade and a half of playing).

 

As a dedicated inf player (don't care at all about air), Post Scriptum certainly has the map size down, however it still *doesn't* have realistic visual distances (it pretends to, but e.g. it is impossible to see enemy infantry @ 500+ m in PS); it's also fundamentally limited by having a small number of maps to play on (despite their individual sizes). Even though the maps are big enough that they are functionally massive (and might as well be endless) for me, an infantryman, they are still the *same* battlefields over and over again. Once you've fought there, every battle becomes a rerun; that doesn't happen in WWIIOL.

One of the benefits of the stone age version of Unity this game uses is that it renders objects CRYSTAL CLEAR even at far distances (at least at 4K with max anti-aliasing on my machine). PS uses the UE4 engine, which is overhyped garbage (perhaps the most well-marketed engine of all time), that uses bugged TAA (the UE4 devs refused to fix it) making it impossible to clearly render distant players. This is a deep flaw of PS.

NOTE: Beware of the future of this game if CRS insists on using UE4; it's not an exaggeration to say that the flaws of UE4 (from distant blurriness to terrible performance despite endless patches for optimization) are literally killing Post Scriptum's chances for success, its potential playerbase leaving in droves as I type this. UE4 is NOT a good engine for a game like this. Anyway...

If RA had had larger map sizes (its maps were TINY compared to PS), it would have been the same tired battle reruns on the same maps over and over.

Again, that's what makes WWIIOL different.

It's NOT the campaign; this is really a fundamental mistake even bringing it up. Nobody but HC and forum-goers care about the campaign. It is meaningless to the average person who spawns in (that is, they don't zoom out of the map before they jump into a mission and say "awesome, we pushed them back several towns in this one spot"). It's NOT the campaign. But it IS the giant loading-screen-free zoneless map, it IS the essentially endless amount of towns, the endless and varied landscape and terrain, the *feel* that you are in a real virtual world rather than a pre-packaged shoebox where you're familiar with the location of every bush and tree; it's the ability to see an armor column on the horizon over a kilometer away, the ability to engage enemy units with your rifle at ranges over 500-600 m because (as in real life) you can *actually SEE* them clearly at that distance.

BTW: And just to be clear on the topic at hand, no spawn delay is ridiculous.

Edited by xanthus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear your argument.

A question: what is the functional difference in ground re-playability between WWIIOL's current implementation, with say 200 modeled towns / local battlefields, and a battle-centered, virtual-campaign game that has say 200 individual battlemaps, each with a town and its environs out far enough to completely encompass the local battle action?

I think those two concepts can be functionally identical for ground gameplay, excluding marginal WWIIOL activities like driving additional supply from rear spawnlists. Everything depends on the amount of work put into development of the map / maps.

Share this post


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

 

One of the benefits of the stone age version of Unity this game uses is that it renders objects CRYSTAL CLEAR even at far distances (at least at 4K with max anti-aliasing on my machine). PS uses the UE4 engine, which is overhyped garbage (perhaps the most well-marketed engine of all time), that uses bugged TAA (the UE4 devs refused to fix it) making it impossible to clearly render distant players. This is a deep flaw of PS.

It's NOT the campaign; this is really a fundamental mistake even bringing it up. Nobody but HC and forum-goers care about the campaign. It is meaningless to the average person who spawns in (that is, they don't zoom out of the map before they jump into a mission and say "awesome, we pushed them back several towns in this one spot"). It's NOT the campaign. But it IS the giant loading-screen-free zoneless map, it IS the essentially endless amount of towns, the endless and varied landscape and terrain, the *feel* that you are in a real virtual world rather than a pre-packaged shoebox where you're familiar with the location of every bush and tree; it's the ability to see an armor column on the horizon over a kilometer away, the ability to engage enemy units with your rifle at ranges over 500-600 m because (as in real life) you can *actually SEE* them clearly at that distance.

BTW: And just to be clear on the topic at hand, no spawn delay is ridiculous.

good post. thank you. 

> agree on the stone age advantage and warning on UE4
> disagree somewhat on your campaign comment > giant map, endless towns, varied landscape, "*feel* of a real virtual world" as you put it, seeing the armour column and so on do make this game different - but all of those differences you mention also/only happen in the context of a player-driven, (and potentially endless) giant campaign that only ends when the players of one side end it - which make the game even more different.

even if, for the average inf player, the campaign doesn't matter, the campaign does matter - because it usually determines where one is fighting and why one is fighting and in which sequence one is fighting in a certain one of the endless towns or varied landscapes, rivers, airfields, and so on.  and each of these localized battles, won or lost, in turn influences the campaign. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2018 at 1:41 PM, delems said:

Capture timers are too slow.

Ridiculous to sit in a  CP 4 min just to capture a CP at even pop.

 

It's actually 3.75 minutes if you are even pop and alone in the CP. As has been stated in the past, working with a team to secure the CP will increase the speed of the cap.

The current game.mechanic is meant to simulate a zone of control, which is why it's quicker to capture with more people in the CP.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** quicker to capture with more people in the CP

Ya, we tried that;  even with 3 people in the CP it still took 3 minutes :(
If you can get 3 people in a CP at one time, you should be rewarded with a 1 minute capture (at base rate).

 

Base capture time needs to be cut in half imo.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything that gets/keeps people logging in and playing is good.  Keep bouncing the ideas around.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/10/2018 at 4:04 AM, BLKHWK8 said:

It's actually 3.75 minutes if you are even pop and alone in the CP. As has been stated in the past, working with a team to secure the CP will increase the speed of the cap.

The current game.mechanic is meant to simulate a zone of control, which is why it's quicker to capture with more people in the CP.

 

This doesn't work with the severely low state of the modern game's population and the fact that you have to do at the very least a 400m+ sprint to get to a CP, it is far too slow, and way too quick and just respawn and keep zerging the cappers until they are dead, and not enough people are constantly dying for this to have a noticeable effect on the grand scale of supply of the defenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, rule303 said:

This doesn't work with the severely low state of the modern game's population and the fact that you have to do at the very least a 400m+ sprint to get to a CP, it is far too slow, and way too quick and just respawn and keep zerging the cappers until they are dead, and not enough people are constantly dying for this to have a noticeable effect on the grand scale of supply of the defenders.

I would personally really want to try back a no-depot spawning intermission. Balanced fun for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen no-depot spawning but I'd like too. Would make the AB and the FMS the center of gravity vs the "warp pipes", as they can be at times.

Share this post


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

I would personally really want to try back a no-depot spawning intermission. Balanced fun for everyone.

That's even worse for the fun of the game and low population.

16 hours ago, Capco said:

So it's still Tiger-mania after T2?  I'll guess I'll continue my break.  

>Complains about Tigers after T2.
>Allies continue to have Matty in T0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friday night, 4 AOs, no EWS basically....

Now down to 1 AO :(

Can we not see that we need to get game moving more?  Make paras work better?
Cut base capture time to 1 min;  2 min at worst.

Leave the sliding scale in.

We need combat on map!   Not 6 guys sitting together in a bldg ... that is ... well - you know what that is.  I'll just say disgusting.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was shocked to see despite the fact that I pay $15 per month on this game with a premium plan and used to have full access as I have full rank in all Army units being former GHC I can only access Para Rifle and SMG. First para drop this entire campaign too, literally the entire 9 man squad (7th AST were running it) had SMGs and nothing else because every other class was locked to us.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this a temporary bug, or now the premium subscribers haven't anymore access to all "weapons and vehicles", as was said on the main page?

Edited by lemkeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Premium should have access to everything IF you have rank to access the gear.

Excepting, the DLC and Reserve stuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.