• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      TOS Change regarding the Forums   11/23/2018

      Rule 23 is in discussions.  The official change will come out soon.  It will go effect Jan 1st. As it stands from this point.  Political and religious posts are allowed in off topic.  Be mindful to be respectful to each other.   That is all for now. Thank you for your continued support and patience.
major0noob

"generating activity" game philosophy/attitude, can it be directed to the FMS

135 posts in this topic

The part I like, is once the organized squad has driven the truck, set MS, (lived) secured MS, got enough to spawn, then made it to town.....

They are then rewarded with a 4 minute capture timer :(, and that is if you have even pop.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the attacking part of the battles is rough all round when compared to the defenders

attackers need HC, a available AO, FB's, supply, (with the FMS) a group of very well organized and skilled players putting in 20min of work, a ZoC around every spawn (if a single engie gets through its gone), a population surge when the AO goes up, then to capture CP's 10 meters from the defenders spawn

 

while the defenders just need to spawn, recap, and hunt trucks FMS's. none of which require much skill or organization.

they also have the trucks audio, EWS, and armour spawning within 100m to their advantage

 

the "generating activity" game philosophy/attitude has already addressed HC, AO's, FB's, timers, EWS, and supply somewhat, but the FMS remains a bottleneck in generating activity/gameplay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how CRS can not take the sound issues of the incoming trucks seriously.  It has been YEARS now...the same gamebreaking issues brought up in the forums over and over.

Share this post


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

I don't understand how CRS can not take the sound issues of the incoming trucks seriously.  It has been YEARS now...the same gamebreaking issues brought up in the forums over and over.

Please don't make assumptions, some things take time to complete. Sometimes things fall by the wayside unintentionally as well and I'm asking our team about this topic again. Look at the Readme's over the last two years and tell me CRS isn't putting in their best effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xoom we all see you and the team putting in a lot of work, but this thread alone shows that the main component of starting attacks is flawed, and has been for years now.

We all can kill an attack before it even starts IF we can watch ews. Simply spawn in and LISTEN. I applaud your decision to ask the team to look into the audio issues the game has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dropbear but what is preventing players from first spawning tanks/ATGs and driving to town with initial wave of infantry and having a FMS set up im mostly after?

I don't think it's an issue with the FMS, but an issue with the way it is used. Starting off an attack with an undefended, static object and then being surprised it gets flanked and blown up seems odd.

I could see that changing the damage threshold to where a lone engineer on a suicide mission is not able to ninja their way in, but the FMS should also not be a mobile, spawnable fortress that disgorges an entire army 300m outside of town.

As I said earlier, it's a problem with the general "AO going up! Get FMS rolling" and not how it's coded. If instead the attackers rolled in tanks the defenders would be screwed since instead of using that time to set up ATGs they were hiding in the bushes with their ears to the ground waiting to ambush a defenseless truck.

Armor first. Infantry second. FMS third. Easy as that. We doing it exactly backwards now and are shocked it doesn't work!

5 people like this

Share this post


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

@dropbear but what is preventing players from first spawning tanks/ATGs and driving to town with initial wave of infantry and having a FMS set up im mostly after?

I don't think it's an issue with the FMS, but an issue with the way it is used. Starting off an attack with an undefended, static object and then being surprised it gets flanked and blown up seems odd.

I could see that changing the damage threshold to where a lone engineer on a suicide mission is not able to ninja their way in, but the FMS should also not be a mobile, spawnable fortress that disgorges an entire army 300m outside of town.

As I said earlier, it's a problem with the general "AO going up! Get FMS rolling" and not how it's coded. If instead the attackers rolled in tanks the defenders would be screwed since instead of using that time to set up ATGs they were hiding in the bushes with their ears to the ground waiting to ambush a defenseless truck.

Armor first. Infantry second. FMS third. Easy as that. We doing it exactly backwards now and are shocked it doesn't work!

still, there is a undeniable shortage of FMS's and great AO's

the players are at fault for not for not being good enough to make them, the argument is: should it be necessary to be good enough to make them?

 

not to win a town, but to get FMS's up

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its always been pretty difficult to attack a town in this game, unless you have the numbers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armor first. Infantry second. FMS third. Easy as that. We doing it exactly backwards now and are shocked it doesn't work!

 

Easy as that you say , EWS goes of for Armor, 1st units that will spawn in on the other side are Sappers and ATS , Paks and Armor . Your Armor that gets there ahead of the INF and FMS will be wiped out long before they get to town .

They need to get there either all at the same time or you just replaced the Truck with Tank no difference in the outcome . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that we used to not have that issue in the past.

Im not trying to sound sarcastic but attacking should be hard. That is realistic. And a well organized column moving at full speed will be set up between when it triggers EWS and you have a time to respond... That's why pre camps used to be a thing back in the day as well. A Stuart at full road speed could get from EWS range into the AB in under 3 minutes.

Over the years we have gotten many advantages to facilitate attacking (depot spawning, mobile spawning) with concurrent changes that made defending easier (contesting rules, capture timers). Overall I think there is a good balance though capture timers could be decreased a bit.

The FMS as it stands now is well modeled in my opinion. I agree with you that some minor tweaks such as increasing the number of sachels to destroy it so you need more than 1 ninja engineer. But overall it's good and the number of FMS isn't the issue its the way they are used.

One thing we need to be careful of is unintended consequences. In WWIIOL whatever attack there is must be realistically interdictable. But if you increase the number and ease of FMS you will e in the situation where it's a never ending stream of enemy infantry coming out of the most recent mole hole. You whack one mole and the another mole hole appears 180 degrees clear on the other side of town.

No attack vectors. No ZOCs. No palpable front lines. It becomes a 360 degree fight of ant trails and we are back to where we were with the UMS issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aismov, yes in the past it was a bit easier, but the current game is now.

The large organized squads are all but extinct.

You have to remember  if attacking a town is too hard, players just wont do it.

If there's no attacks going on, then players on both sides just sit on defense and things get stale and people log off.

Armor on defense can just spawn at the AB and be at the battle in under a minute.

Same goes for ATG's.

If an attacker is lucky enough to get to town and cap a depot its usually locked down by defending units in minutes.

The defenders have the advantage no matter which way you look at it.

Now if the defenders were forced to spawn armor at a rear connected FB it would make things very interesting in my opinion.

Unless you have superior numbers its basically impossible to get a foothold in town and hold it unless its low pop.

Spawn  points are just too close and either need to be spread out or new capture points/strong holds should be added outside of town.

Some of the best battles in game are when we fight across a river or a far cp.

 

 

Share this post


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

Funny that we used to not have that issue in the past.

Im not trying to sound sarcastic but attacking should be hard. That is realistic. And a well organized column moving at full speed will be set up between when it triggers EWS and you have a time to respond... That's why pre camps used to be a thing back in the day as well. A Stuart at full road speed could get from EWS range into the AB in under 3 minutes.

Over the years we have gotten many advantages to facilitate attacking (depot spawning, mobile spawning) with concurrent changes that made defending easier (contesting rules, capture timers). Overall I think there is a good balance though capture timers could be decreased a bit.

The FMS as it stands now is well modeled in my opinion. I agree with you that some minor tweaks such as increasing the number of sachels to destroy it so you need more than 1 ninja engineer. But overall it's good and the number of FMS isn't the issue its the way they are used.

One thing we need to be careful of is unintended consequences. In WWIIOL whatever attack there is must be realistically interdictable. But if you increase the number and ease of FMS you will e in the situation where it's a never ending stream of enemy infantry coming out of the most recent mole hole. You whack one mole and the another mole hole appears 180 degrees clear on the other side of town.

No attack vectors. No ZOCs. No palpable front lines. It becomes a 360 degree fight of ant trails and we are back to where we were with the UMS issue.

my argument isn't attacking is too difficult, it's: getting gameplay going is too easy to prevent.

not capping a town, just getting people to play the game, both the defenders and attackers have nothing to do if there's no FMS's.

 

the defenders can also set up FMS's... we did it all the time with FRU's

if they want a ZoC to secure a area they'd be free to do so with a FMS. it would require only a bit of teamwork. the defenders make them now, but it's kind of pointless when there's only 1 EFMS, or beyond render range

 

 

it doesn't need to be permanent, the supply is always changing, HC's AO increase or decrease, cap timers change constantly, SD comes and goes, the FB's health number was changed.

the FMS could use some love, it won't hurt to try something

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I think that the major culprit in all of the above is enemy knowledge where you will attack. Just my own two cents, but I think the AO has been the bane of the game since it was first introduced. It removed the need for defenders to actually defend and keep an eye out for things going along the front, and it made the job of attackers infinitely harder since it is clear as day where the action was going to be. Toss AO limits and the need for HCs to place (and have the power to pull) an AO. I could be wrong but I think AOs was always something holding the game back.

Will there be surprises and pre-camps? Yeah. Moling large cities? Yeah. But I think that a lot of the faults in the old system were intermittent while currently they are more constant.

This difference between intermittency and persistence is an important distinction. Many intermittent issues can be fixed such as breaking up large cities to minimize moling, or rear FBs and depot/FMS spawning to blunt the precamp. But you can never fundamentally escape HC control and the limitations Map OIC availability and personal decision making which may not align with the players/squads.

Ultinately HC/AO are two sides of the same coin and squads can't have the flexibility and tactical initiative they require. Dont't get me wrong. There is a very important role for both HCs and the signaling benefits AOs provide. No system will ever be perfect and we have to pick our poison. The question becomes which is the lesser of two evils?

The game was pretty damn great back in 2005 under the old rules. Not perfect. But fun.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun for attackers, and for the overpop side. Not fun, and unrealistic, for the defenders and the underpop side.

The AO was created as a mechanism to simulate the historical reality that in most WWII battles, the defenders were already in place, already dug in, with fields of fire sighted, etc., etc.

In historical reality, defenders didn't have to jump around the theatre of action, arriving at battles after the attackers. 

In an ideal game implementation, defenders always would have an opportunity to be fully present, usually with planned defenses, before the first attackers arrived. The advantage for the attackers would be that they would have twice the number of players in that battle as the defenders. There's no good mechanic for such an implementation yet, though. So, AOs are the best stopgap.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how then do we get around the issue of HC? They remain the gatekeepers to play. There is all this effort going in to give squads more ability to play and initiative, yet at the end of the day you can never be guaranteed that 1) HC will be on 2) HC agrees to placing AO when you want it and 3) HC won't pull AO If they need it elsewhere.

I completely agree with you that historically defenders had prepared defenses, but has the AO mechanic ever actually done that? The consequence is that now there is no defense and everyone waits for the next AO to pop up.

I just don't see how you can square the circle with trying to give squads more play and flexibility with hybrid supply, but not do away with the AO mechanic, which has always been the greater limiter of squad operations and what ultimately killed the squads.

As I said before, there is real value in the AO as a signaling mechanism or for example with bridge attacks to prevent grieving. But no squad is going to take the effort to organize a squad up if they are not guaranteed they can attack this town, on this day, and at this time. Even something as simple as an hours delay in getting the AO up means a ruined squad night since it usually takes an hour just to set the whole attack up, sometimes even more time.

Without the guarantee of an ability to attack, hybrid supply on its own will do little to bring squads back into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, aismov said:

But how then do we get around the issue of HC? They remain the gatekeepers to play. There is all this effort going in to give squads more ability to play and initiative, yet at the end of the day you can never be guaranteed that 1) HC will be on 2) HC agrees to placing AO when you want it and 3) HC won't pull AO If they need it elsewhere.

I completely agree with you that historically defenders had prepared defenses, but has the AO mechanic ever actually done that? The consequence is that now there is no defense and everyone waits for the next AO to pop up.

I just don't see how you can square the circle with trying to give squads more play and flexibility with hybrid supply, but not do away with the AO mechanic, which has always been the greater limiter of squad operations and what ultimately killed the squads.

As I said before, there is real value in the AO as a signaling mechanism or for example with bridge attacks to prevent grieving. But no squad is going to take the effort to organize a squad up if they are not guaranteed they can attack this town, on this day, and at this time. Even something as simple as an hours delay in getting the AO up means a ruined squad night since it usually takes an hour just to set the whole attack up, sometimes even more time.

Without the guarantee of an ability to attack, hybrid supply on its own will do little to bring squads back into play.

Well from what I gather the new patch should solve some of these issues, especially the HC questions .

 But let's be honest no matter what CRS implements into game we the player either find a way around the system or find some flaw we can exploit. That's what humans do solve puzzles to fit our needs , some do it better then others.

Thinking back I'm sure no defender liked spawning into a town where the AB was camped to death without even haveing the remote chance of breaking out , hence EWS was introduced , map marking those silly skulls that float on the battlefield or are marked on the map **** died here.  

In real life the one side had maybe a general IDEA where the enemy was , but that's why ambushes worked so good . With map marks interdiction kinda went away cause after your 1st kill everyone knew about where the ambusher was .

Like I said every action has a reaction.  

Is multiple FMS set by one player in a Truck the answer , I'm not sure , but they are still set by a Truck which make noise and not by some lone ML infantry type that does it true ninja style.

In my eyes it be worth a try , the one side still has the chance to camp the other side has other options , it be great if the ML would delete camped FMS right away but we all know that does not always happen.

I do think the satchel count to take an FMS should be increased to 5 or 6 that way it does take more then 1 Engineer to blow one.

 

Edited by dre21
Cause my phone knows better then I do I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People try to make there FMS to close after an attack has started, make them further out, dont set off EWS at start (700m) if any at the town they will hear the truck still and know the area, thats easy thats why FMS get taken down fast or camped.

I try to set my FMS initially at 1k to 1500m then move it up as ZOC gets better, but the players that spawn in just complain that its to far not so much when they see its the only FMS left for the AO.

Some great ideas here guys, but it boils down to people have to be motivated to work together, lately it is just people camping and sniping while CP's get capped in town. Its all about my stats not winning the battle attitude.

We players that have been around have to help the new players, I understand some dont reply back or just plain ignore you, some i've worked with still didn't understand the use of the channels, others that don't understand english, often i try to guide these players to someone that speaks there language or a squad, I have helped maney new players and am happy to say maney are still in game and enjoy it much more.

If we show new players all the aspects of the game and not just camping and sniping, maybe more will stay, and our numbers rise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mrgarand said:

Some great ideas here guys, but it boils down to people have to be motivated to work together, lately it is just people camping and sniping while CP's get capped in town. Its all about my stats not winning the battle attitude.

Leadership makes the difference, it's absolutely needed and required. We can implement a lot of different adjustments to the game but without Squads, with good leaders, growing and leading their squads / its members participating with maximum effort... we won't be able to touch the key elements that makes WWII Online excellent.

We need bigger Squads in WWII Online, plain and simple. Monster squads are not required, but 3-4 man squads while capable of performing limited tasks, do not meet the bigger need of launching a WWII Online attack. That's more like a 15-30 man squad.

I'd really like to know what we can do there, because we have a lot of little squads that do have some important heritage, but I question the size of the effect this is having on the game overall at this stage, especially if they're not actively joining operations where you can have several little squads formed up as one team. This is really important imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, XOOM said:

We need bigger Squads in WWII Online, plain and simple.

 

8 minutes ago, XOOM said:

I'd really like to know what we can do there

@XOOM 

Squad Missions

Mission leader creates a squad only mission that everyone can see but ONLY squad members can join---->

If a non-squad  player requests to join the mission then the mission leader can grant them access.

If the non-squad player joins and starts throwing smoke and acting like a child then the squad knows not to allow said player to join any future squad missions.

A system like this not only helps a squad weed out the immature players and spies, but it can be used as a great recruiting tool IMO.....

Share this post


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

@XOOM 

Squad Missions

Mission leader creates a squad only mission that everyone can see but ONLY squad members can join---->

If a non-squad  player requests to join the mission then the mission leader can grant them access.

If the non-squad player joins and starts throwing smoke and acting like a child then the squad knows not to allow said player to join any future squad missions.

A system like this not only helps a squad weed out the immature players and spies, but it can be used as a great recruiting tool IMO.....

Let's say we introduced that tomorrow.

How, all of a sudden is this going to have an impact of bigger squads that work to provide the compelling WWII Online moment, which is the scale of the game coming together?

Your other points are noted and work to improve Squad happiness (important), but it does not directly from what I can see, have an impact on leaders taking initiative and followers stepping up to help. It will make Squad missions more secure and specific, and yes it will alienate non-Squad members from participating which adversely affects the new user experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@XOOM Everything that has been done to improve squads since removing squad missions hasn't worked.

IMO there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.

15 minutes ago, XOOM said:

How, all of a sudden is this going to have an impact of bigger squads that work to provide the compelling WWII Online moment, which is the scale of the game coming together?

You have to have the squads before you can expect squads to make a bigger impact. There are barely any squads left.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, XOOM said:

I'd really like to know what we can do there, because we have a lot of little squads that do have some important heritage, but I question the size of the effect this is having on the game overall at this stage, especially if they're not actively joining operations where you can have several little squads formed up as one team. This is really important imo.

im not talking about winning a town, just getting a fight started.

AO is up, HC is on, got pop. then there're no FMS's

 

go in game and ask people to make them on active and inactive AO's, you'll see the problem clearly. they can't make them.

 

 

should this be a thing? should battles die after the lone FMS is down? should there be only a few in game?

we can pin the blame on player skill, but that doens't solve the problem: there's a lack of FMS's. (if you see it as a problem...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also noone is being alienated from joining a squad mission unless they are a known troublemaker.

-Set a mission at an FB for armor and ask everyone to hold up and 1 or 2 guys say screw that and drive to town setting off EWS.

-Set up an FMS and joenoob spawns and throws smoke all over and pisses everyone off

-setup an FMS and watch a guy stand there with his map out for 10 minutes doing you know what?

Those are the little things that call for patience and planning and players working together.

 

with good leaders, growing and leading their squads / its members participating with maximum effort

Squads will grow when players join their missions and see how organized they actually are.

Once they get larger, naturally more leaders are born.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, XOOM said:

Leadership makes the difference, it's absolutely needed and required. We can implement a lot of different adjustments to the game but without Squads, with good leaders, growing and leading their squads / its members participating with maximum effort... we won't be able to touch the key elements that makes WWII Online excellent.

We need bigger Squads in WWII Online, plain and simple. Monster squads are not required, but 3-4 man squads while capable of performing limited tasks, do not meet the bigger need of launching a WWII Online attack. That's more like a 15-30 man squad.

I'd really like to know what we can do there, because we have a lot of little squads that do have some important heritage, but I question the size of the effect this is having on the game overall at this stage, especially if they're not actively joining operations where you can have several little squads formed up as one team. This is really important imo.

You are looking at this completely backwards.  If you need 15 - 30 people every time you want to undertake a mission in game then why log in outside of your squad's squad night?  There is really no point in doing so.  Even then if you have a light attendance night of 7 or 8 people then your squad may as well call it quits and go play something else based on your premise.  The game needs to be scalable with doable missions from a fire team sized element all the way to a brigade sized element.  Otherwise what you are telling people is don't bother logging in if you can't muster the numbers.  If absolutely everything in game is geared toward large operations and there is no room for small unit tactics then you need to abolish the squad system completely and automatically plug people into some sort of prearranged orbat.  In other words, you'll have to force people into squads made up of people currently online.

Rather than trying to force squads, I would think the better route would be to find ways that those 3 and 4 man squads can flourish and make a difference.  When you get multiple 3 and 4 man squads actually logging into the game because it's worth it, sooner or later they will start merging into larger squads.  You need give the small squads a reason to log in first though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.