• 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.
hateract

HC and 1.36

57 posts in this topic

I think that is a very reasonable way to do it. Start small, maintain some visible strategic layer because a portion of the player base does like it, and see how things go. I personally think that manual overstocking will be a bigger game changer and brigades will be used as a mobile reserve force to prop up towns or sectors of the front in trouble or to exploit breakthroughs that have already been made. But that is my own hazy view into the crystal ball.

Share this post


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

I think that is a very reasonable way to do it. Start small, maintain some visible strategic layer because a portion of the player base does like it, and see how things go. I personally think that manual overstocking will be a bigger game changer and brigades will be used as a mobile reserve force to prop up towns or sectors of the front in trouble or to exploit breakthroughs that have already been made. But that is my own hazy view into the crystal ball.

Yeah I'd say this is pretty accurate and agreeable. Again, more than 70% of our respondents are saying they're going to participate in overstocking operations.

It would be very wise for Squads to start preparing and recruiting for this. Those who are prepared for and take advantage of this, will benefit the most.

If Squads are not talking about this whole concept of 1.36, boy is that a missed opportunity. Better get started :D.

Share this post


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

Hoping the AOs as they exist now are gone soon as well and limited to bridges and as a signaling mechanism to direct non-squad players to the action.

In which case HC will hopefully be similar to how it was pre AO and TOE where it was more of an organization that acted more as a "squad round table" to organize large ops, spread squads along the front so that each had clear areas of operation, and use the ingame .HC tools to help exploit breakthroughs, organize RDP raids, and coordinate land defense and anti-RDP flights.

Actually now that you think of it, that is still a fair amount of work!

Gawd I hope not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate everyone’s response to my suggestions and concern. No doubt we will see eh? I still think that the is naturally divided into 5 zones, which is why I suggested that number.  @Lafleurhmm, good point, we don’t want the game driven by HC alone, but we still want HC to have influence? Maybe not, as @bmwpoints out, in early days there were no AOs, and frankly, that is one of the things that got me hooked quickly into the game. That and the fact that it creates necessarily team work. I personally think garrison supply is an absolute must to make the game work. 

I also think that to have an HC that is more than in game leadership formalized( which we don’t neeed) you need to have that larger strategic role. CRS will have to find a way to balance that against a player driven tactical game, or eliminate HC altogether. 

@XOOMthanks for addressing my suggestions. 

Share this post


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

Forgive me for being the negative one... how and why would HC levels go up? The main reason to be HC has been removed and if we make player based Aos  there is literally no point to having HC, motivating and communicating don't work because a large portion of the players these days do not listen or even look at the comm box.

I appreciate that the current system is far from perfect and needs tweaking but as a HC officer I find the flag system added whole different side to gameplay. Without the movable flags like we have now AO's will just be another fight they will have no strategic relevance.

 

I have to say im not entirely looking forward to this change, almost feels like a part of the game that made it so unique is being removed 

It is.  But at least the Rats made the effort to have the variability in, which is major.

 

The two division count is WAY too low if for no other reason then multi-country differentiation, but we can discuss that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dragoz said:

I also think that to have an HC that is more than in game leadership formalized( which we don’t neeed) you need to have that larger strategic role. CRS will have to find a way to balance that against a player driven tactical game, or eliminate HC altogether. 

@XOOMthanks for addressing my suggestions. 

We have no plans to eliminate HC altogether and there will be a continued purpose for HC to exist. It might be a little different, it probably won't be exactly what it is today. We're going to be rebuilding things together from the ground up. That includes the type of officer we bring in, and the standards to be an Officer. We need genuine leadership, people who are actively logging in, leading their team, and demonstrating quality leadership skills.

S! 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

I have a concern that by keeping the AOs in place it will severely limit squad participation in 1.36, having a proximity-based AO is a good solution but I think the details here are important since it won't take too many pulled AOs or an inability to place an AO due to some sort of AO limits for squads to not show up to the fight. I understand there is big issue with things like overpop caps, moleing, and diluting the playerbase over a large part of the map, but I think there needs to be a dynamic map, unpredictability, and most important of all the ability of the squads to have an iron-clad guarantee that when they have a squad night they will have the ability to do an operation and see it through the end irrespective of the outcome.

The moment the map got about 10 towns wide, a wide open map was an invite to suck.

 

Hell.

 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

It is.  But at least the Rats made the effort to have the variability in, which is major.

The two division count is WAY too low if for no other reason then multi-country differentiation, but we can discuss that.

High Command must demonstrate that they're capable of handling this. We'll be monitoring organizational skills within AHC / GHC command, growth and placement of officers, and routine activity levels by HC officers.

Right now, we're comfortable with providing two Divisions to start and see how things go. But we are requiring the community to work together as a collective team to unlock more capabilities. The game's operation and health are dependent on that.

We still need everyone to experience 1.36 and we can all make some better assessments from there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with HC as it presently sits.
Some how, the game evolved to a state where every players ability to play the game became totally tied to HC
Can they have units? Can they have AO, Can they do something, anything?
It has become a literal on/off switch for the game

It all got pinned on HC, here is the game, run it, eat the consequences.
If a guy is even sick, at work, having a baby, just tired, etc and no one else is around to cover for him
everyone suffers for it, everyone's game stops.

Guy makes a mistake?
Campaign gets screwed, everyone hates him, all fun ruined.
No way for players to say ok, wait, we can recover this, we will run in units from over here, and bring in some guys from over there, etc.

I am not sure how we got to the point where it was the job of HC to mastermind ever aspect of the game, but that is where we arrived at.
HC should add to the game, and present something extra to it, but lack of HC should not be able to halt the game and take away from the basics, and shut it down.
Nor should they be placed in a position to where if they try something and it does not work out, they nail themselves to a crucifix and feed the crows, or spend 8 hours staring at hundreds of little map icons trying to make some sense of why they are where they are, and not once actually get to spawn into the game.
 

Edited by Merlin51
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

The moment the map got about 10 towns wide, a wide open map was an invite to suck.

The Chaos maps
The campaign maps resembled Ameoba with cancer some times LOL
Fun fights, but you never really knew what was going on

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

The moment the map got about 10 towns wide, a wide open map was an invite to suck. Hell. No.

Is the current HC and AO-driven environment any better? Your points are valid and like Merlin said back in 2001 when you could instacap behind the lines towns was a bit silly, but pretty much all of that was fixed by 2002. Some of the greatest battles were in the pre-AO and HC-control era. It certainly wasn't perfect but I think time has shown which system retained squads, and by that token retained the playerbase and promoted large battles.

Sorry, but I just simply can't see squads playing in any numbers if the AO system remains in place. Everyone is busy and has to balance game time with other personal time. One ruined squad night with the "sorry no AO" message can be understood, but several of those and players will stop showing up.

Now if the counter-argument is that there will be a autogenerated proximity-AO without any limits on the concurrent number of AOs placed, how is this fundamentally different from having a map with no AOs period? Isn't an AO-less map the easier and simpler system to use which every player can easily understand versus a byzantine system of AO rules? Again, the point I'm trying to make is that we need to make getting battles going a simple thing that is intuitive and easy to understand.

I don't see the difference between proximity-AOs and no-AOs with the exception that there is a valid concern for moleing. To which I say is it not better of a system to tweak this with capture timers to make the job of the solo-mole much harder while keep the map open for maximum player initiative?

Edited by aismov
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

The Chaos maps
The campaign maps resembled Ameoba with cancer some times LOL
Fun fights, but you never really knew what was going on

That I don't have a problem with.

 

I do have a problem with a complete return to TRoF, I want to play in a war not a tribal game with panzers, wide open fronts with density issues or overpop EWS AO advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

I do have a problem with a complete return to TRoF, I want to play in a war not a tribal game with panzers, wide open fronts with density issues or overpop EWS AO advantage.

I don't see the whole frontline blowing open, at least not for the foreseeable future. 

47 minutes ago, aismov said:

Now if the counter-argument is that there will be a autogenerated proximity-AO without any limits on the concurrent number of AOs placed, how is this fundamentally different from having a map with no AOs period? 

I'd say because instead of opening everything up, we'd have some requirements about players being able to show up in force. I think this is more valuable and would promote team work and physical presence of people versus 1-3 guys popping 1-3 town CPs.

Organized, numbers, makes up WWII Online's very best moments. There are still opportunities for those smaller squads who seek that sort of game play. But when it comes to the capturing of towns and creating a commitment like that, I think a little bit more people should be required to initiate an AO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious about the rifleman only mobile spawn idea. What's the reason(s) behind its implementation? What are the parameters/restrictions for its deployment?

Share this post


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

I'm curious about the rifleman only mobile spawn idea. What's the reason(s) behind its implementation? What are the parameters/restrictions for its deployment?

We want to get battlefield leaders back into HC and give them the maximum opportunity and incentive to move troops. Since it would be an infantry placed mobile spawn, we wanted to contain its supply to "Rifleman" only. There has been commentary in the forums that there are not enough mobile spawn opportunities currently. Our community managers believe this will encourage field leaders to join HC and to deploy these more routinely.

It'd be the same thing as 1 per mission, but, if he can hop on the truck of himself or use a second account, then has another mobile spawn deployment opportunity. Specific rules are being hashed out at the moment.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Is the current HC and AO-driven environment any better? Your points are valid and like Merlin said back in 2001 when you could instacap behind the lines towns was a bit silly, but pretty much all of that was fixed by 2002. Some of the greatest battles were in the pre-AO and HC-control era. It certainly wasn't perfect but I think time has shown which system retained squads, and by that token retained the playerbase and promoted large battles.

Sorry, but I just simply can't see squads playing in any numbers if the AO system remains in place. Everyone is busy and has to balance game time with other personal time. One ruined squad night with the "sorry no AO" message can be understood, but several of those and players will stop showing up.

Now if the counter-argument is that there will be a autogenerated proximity-AO without any limits on the concurrent number of AOs placed, how is this fundamentally different from having a map with no AOs period? Isn't an AO-less map the easier and simpler system to use which every player can easily understand versus a byzantine system of AO rules? Again, the point I'm trying to make is that we need to make getting battles going a simple thing that is intuitive and easy to understand.

I don't see the difference between proximity-AOs and no-AOs with the exception that there is a valid concern for moleing. To which I say is it not better of a system to tweak this with capture timers to make the job of the solo-mole much harder while keep the map open for maximum player initiative?

That's your experience as an Axis guy.  Allies were bleeding people from the beginning.

Simplicity at the cost of being beat on for years?  Ya.  No thanks.  Did my time on that one. I want to play a game.

 

'Player initiative' also opens things up to a lot more destroyed supply to no good end.  On one level that's fine, the toys are there to destroy and be destroyed, but when a big squad rolls through, gets it's jollies and logs, then the people left have to deal with the mess trying to hold it together.  Did that for years too.  No I don't miss TRoF, I'd like a war game not a tribal scrum and screw everyone else.

There are other solutions then no AO.  Does the current system work?  No.  But that doesn't mean an open system will either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current state of HC is the unfortunate result of giving the HCs enough power to be relevant-----remember, back in the day, the discussion was how to make the HCs more relevant-----AOs were the eventual solution, and as (some) predicted, it hurt ingame numbers as squads became less important.  Now, the game suffers from a lack of HC presence ingame, which has been gone over already in this thread.

 

I sincerely hope 1.36 is a happy medium.  I was in AHC when there were no AOs, and it took decent leaders to get anything resembling a coherent effort, although that was sometimes offset by the bigger squads attracting non-members to them for a given evening.  Players, as has already been mentioned in this thread, weren't dependent on the HC in order to have a battle.  I worry that the lack of HC powers in the early days was somewhat offset by the large squads----and that lessening HC powers now, with the lack of large squads, will have negative consequences.

 

I worry that with less people ingame, the AOs have become necessary, thus making populating the respective HCs more of the issue than the restrictiveness of AOs.

 

I do know that my own squad, Lafayette Federation, began to lose members when the fruits of our labors, i.e. bringing supplies from rear towns up to the front thus allowing big pushes, were constantly erased by the time most members logged in the next day, due to the TZ3 imbalance, etc.  Thus, I worry that while 70% of respondents (myself included) have said they'd be bringing stuff from rear towns up to overstock supplies, I'm not sure we have the numbers ingame to make it work.  Our convoys back in the day had ample fighter support overhead most of the time, as we could afford to task people with providing CAP.  Now I'm not so sure that sort of thing could be pulled off by the entire Allied side on a given night.

 

Anyway, hope springs eternal---but worries abound.

 

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a new PPO has to be designed for the new HC rifle-FRU, what do you think about this? (with some cammo nets around)

 

la-reconstruction-ww2-british-army-field

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@XOOM Forgive me if the I misspoke. I understand the concept of starting with less for a tighter command and control structure as far as number of divisions. I am more curious/concerned about the freedom of movement of the bdes on map. Will bdes be given freedom of movement or another bde be added so that units can move according to the same rules we he have now, Obviously it of great concern for many to maintain a "strategic" aspect of the game in addition to the solutions provided via garrison supply. So, again, just to make sure I am clear, and not rambling lol, will bdes have freedom of movement, rather than being "tied" to their DIV HQ and thus restricting strategic options/deployments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, augetout said:

The current state of HC is the unfortunate result of giving the HCs enough power to be relevant-----remember, back in the day, the discussion was how to make the HCs more relevant-----AOs were the eventual solution, and as (some) predicted, it hurt ingame numbers as squads became less important.  Now, the game suffers from a lack of HC presence ingame, which has been gone over already in this thread.

 

I was there too, and I was literally the Allied strategic advisor officer when AOs came in.

 

I remember the CinC, Deputy CinC and mine's shared horror at the prospect of having AOs shouldered on us.  We KNEW it was going to be putting a lot of anger on HC for a playerbase used to just jumping in the truck and 'making trouble', and in no way did we ask for them.  I can't speak for the Axis HC, but I have to think they weren't any happier about it then we were, given the strong squad situation on that side.

 

AO is a function of mapsize, player density for content generation above opel rushing, forcing battles, and related defensive setup/battle over signaling.  HCs got the function because they are there and I suspect to put a minimal bones down payment on the promise of a command system.

 

This was clear even in the early days as the map grew bigger.  They knew they would have 20+ town frontages with the mapsize, so this had a lot to do with it's relatively early development.

 

Incorrect conclusions about functions will lead us to design error.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not around for the pre-TOE days ( I bought in 2002 it but my mother was mad at me for the price at the time so I had to take it back, but that's another story! ) but I have been thinking about what scale is the ideal for a game like WW2OL. All this talk of AO and no AO has me thinking on how best to model size to population in a wargame. Most of this is going to come up in the design of WW2OL 2.0 but I don't get the feeling that a super large game word is required to make a good "operational" level wargame. I'd say that a smaller, more highly detailed map might get away from some of the issues we see in trying to have a large open world with so few people in it. I see many vets taking quite fondly of their time in a much smaller gameworld. Not saying a battlefield map here guys, just an open discussion.  

The area AO sounds like it is the hybrid compromise to AOs as 1.36 is to supply. Might well be worth a shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, XOOM said:

High Command must demonstrate that they're capable of handling this. We'll be monitoring organizational skills within AHC / GHC command, growth and placement of officers, and routine activity levels by HC officers.

Right now, we're comfortable with providing two Divisions to start and see how things go. But we are requiring the community to work together as a collective team to unlock more capabilities. The game's operation and health are dependent on that.

We still need everyone to experience 1.36 and we can all make some better assessments from there.

Sounds good, I always felt HC got a minimal level of design care with the ethos of 'players make the game', when it was and is core to the content of the game.

 

Key aspects ARE buy-in, organizing and players naturally belonging to squads or adhoc groupings if squads aren't around, tools to do all this, superior UI to what we had before, not setting up so much resource friction (which will occur with squad-only play too, HC reduction/elimination is not a real solution), taking GREAT care with the spawnlists in interaction with the combat biome, and above all player culture driven by equipment, situations, people, relationships both human and coded, comms systems, and yes supply, MUST be a dominant consideration in everything done with this game.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say I hope garrisons are extremely low supply and are only being added to provide defense during off hours when HC is not moving divisions. 

The general playerbase from what I have seen gets much more excited about a town if it is meaningful to the front line and brigade placement. The flags add value not only to HC gameplay but to players who want to see the front line develop in meaningful ways. Please do not reduce this game to simply "which side can capture 300 villages first"

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, imkharn said:

I just want to say I hope garrisons are extremely low supply and are only being added to provide defense during off hours when HC is not moving divisions. 

The general playerbase from what I have seen gets much more excited about a town if it is meaningful to the front line and brigade placement. The flags add value not only to HC gameplay but to players who want to see the front line develop in meaningful ways. Please do not reduce this game to simply "which side can capture 300 villages first"

I am also hopeful 1.36 doesn’t lose the strategic tier 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it has been suggested before, so this isn't my idea. But maybe future iterations could have more flags to move around than the initial release will. The trade off would have to be something along the lines of ... the moveable flags would be comprised of the better armor, better atgs, new tier equipment and surplus inf. Garrison flags comprise the core inf supply, prior tier armor and atgs and maybe current tier armor in few numbers. I dont know ... perhaps there is a happy middle ground to be had there. But i think your initial plans are at least a good baseline starting point.

Edited by choad
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.