• 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.
imded

Here is what happened in the last 11 camps.

88 posts in this topic

In the last 11 campaigns:

Who won"

Axis = 8 wins

Allied = 2 wins

1 Terminated due to computer mess up.

 

Allies desperately need to get it together or many more will leave the game.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

In the last 11 campaigns:

Who won"

Axis = 8 wins

Allied = 2 wins

1 Terminated due to computer mess up.

 

Allies desperately need to get it together or many more will leave the game.

Why does losing constitute people wanting to leave the game? Fun can still be had......it's not like were playing for a playoff spot or a shot at the super bowl.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just human nature. For players who invest a lot of time into the game, for better or worse they become invested in the outcome. For casual players who duck in and out on a non-regular basis, i think you are correct ... state of campaign means less. 

The Whips switched from Axis to Allied the last two campaigns that the Allies won. The only campaigns the Allies won in the past calendar year! Some are switching over again, so maybe Allies get the next one. 

My point isn't to create a pitty party, I just wanted to point out that yeah the Allies need a shot in the arm! 

4 people like this

Share this post


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

Why does losing constitute people wanting to leave the game? Fun can still be had......it's not like were playing for a playoff spot or a shot at the super bowl.  

Actually i would like to hear some people's input on that.

For myself, i can not recall any point where the fun in what i was doing was anchored to whether i was on the winning side or not.
I mean sure, i'd like to win, but since i do not live inside the game 24/7 if i win one good battle, it still feels like i have won, to me anyways.

And there has been tons of times i lost, where i felt like i won anyways.
If i killed 9 guys and recapped the depot 5 times in the same spawn, and you finally take it, who was actually the winner?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the early days, when I was in AHC, I certainly did not like losing campaigns one little bit.  At the time, as leader and/or member of a large Allied squad (Lafayette Federation) I took some comfort from the knowledge that the germans certainly did not move the map by going through Lafayette.  It was a drain on morale, though. 

 

I've since mellowed a bit, but there are still times when I log into the game and want to toss my pc across the room rather than watch another huge swath of Allied towns get cut off and surrender without a fight.

 

Winning is fun.  Winning as a member of a team enhances the fun.  Losing, by definition, is not as fun as winning.  I know Allied players have taken to concentrating on personal victories----holding that depot, or killing more than being killed, but having to do that is basically us adapting to an environment where as Allies we have a pretty good idea we're going to lose the campaign. 

Losing the majority of the time has cost the Allies dearly, imho, and in turn it has hurt the game.  It's tougher to get folks to serve in AHC.  It's tougher to keep squads intact.  It's tougher to care about that person screaming for help in a town the germans are attacking.  It's tougher to maintain trust in the game developers, i.e. to not conclude that the game is somehow geared towards allowing the axis to win.  It is a vicious cycle that has proved very difficult for the Allies to break out of.  There's no doubt in my mind that we have lost a significant portion of the playerbase due to the lopsidedness in campaign victories.

 

Having the only 2 Allied victories of this past calendar year corellate to campaigns where a bunch of axis players swapped sides is depressing, frankly.

 

That the tiers seem to lend themselves to a german strategy of holding on for dear life until the last tier of stuff arrives, and then pushing west, is bass ackwards from how it should be, imho.  The Allies should be the ones holding on for dear life initially, hoping to last until the Americans arrive...

 

Anyway that's my $.02

 

S!

Edited by augetout
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some unfortunate things about ww2ol compared to other games, been playing a lot of Planetside2 to scratch the MMOFPS itch and tbh, the thing i miss the most about the game are the people in AEF, not the game itself.

The primary reason people get burned out I would suspect is sheer fatigue, the campaigns are long and drawn out and it requires simply too much time investment (or zerg) to make an impact that sticks, that coupled with the oddities of the game in general and the lack of utility individual players actually have, you are at the mercy of HC a lot of the time and HC is at the mercy of the rats and ultimately the rats are at the mercy of the dollar.  The game is really and I mean really niche, it strives for realism and true simulation of an alternate historical scenario that is just a desperate situation all the way around, hence the name World War II.

The engine is a dinosaur, there is no way around it, and no amount of lipstick on that pig that will clean up the infantry game to satisfaction.  The battles are dynamic insofar as who is online at any given time and what their tendencies are.  The game breaks down at a certain lack of population, there just aren't enough people to fulfill the roles.  I could go on but the faults of the game have been repeated so often, everyone is aware of them.

The scenario itself is stale imo, I don't know what town has the most fights and swapping, I would suspect Turnhout is probably on that list because that is usually the edge of the lines so to speak, where you just don't want to commit resources to properly swing around it either way.  Once Antwerp falls, the allies chances of winning are very slim, that's usually the deathknell.  Same with Liege for the axis, that's usually when the writing is on the wall.  You could argue a town like Ciney or Sedan is just as important, but the middle of the map is where the campaign is really the indicator imo.  So something like 75% of all the fighting ever to take place on the server is probably covered by 5% or so of the "game map" and far less than 1% of the actual game world.   I have a lot of ideas on how to change that, but I suspect it would be a herculean effort on the part of the devs to set the scenarios up properly... when last i played the axis still had 50% more semi-automatics per flag than the allies did, so it's apparent to me that their day-to-day monitoring resources are stretched as is.

Ultimately, I don't blame the rats for sticking with the model or the players for bailing on it, the game truly has had an unprecedented run up to this point, and it stands alone in some respects.  I doubt sincerely any other game other than perhaps world of warcraft could claim a similar feat of staying relevant and reinventing itself.  I also doubt sincerely any other multiplayer virtual world is as large in scope, the vast majority of the world has no towns whatsoever and no battles have ever been fought there in any form, I don't know how big the actual game world itself is, but I approximate that the "campaign area" is about 20% or so of it, what that contributes to server resources or what not, I cannot say.

The other thing of course are the veteran players are just tired and have gone on to other things, like myself.  I cannot imagine how frustrating it is to be an HC for either side, I would seriously rage at some of the stuff I have seen go on.  I also don't know how someone like Matt stays sane, it would drive me to drink to have to deal with this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bmw and merlin - i agree- sniping a panhard at 2500m with 88 or sinking an edd with an atg he round i remember as fun, i cant recall which map was won by who most of the time.

Share this post


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

I don't know how big the actual game world itself is, but I approximate that the "campaign area" is about 20% or so of it, what that contributes to server resources or what not, I cannot say.

To answer your question
In part, a visual of the present (WOW not listed is i think approx 200 sq km)
FfaqNJg.png

Now you are correct, the game world only has a small populated area compared to it's raw size.
Now the raw size above is not even technically the maximum it can be, but it is what encompasses the battle of france period of time.
I do not know the maximum, i suppose in theory, the way the client itself is designed, the game world could encompass the entire globe
but i am sure there is a limit before the host that runs the game is unable to handle what would be an astronomical sized database of various
things that are actively tracked and tallied on a constant basis.

It has been a very long time since there was any development to the gameworld itself, but if you have not seen any of the development posts
the gameworld is growing, you can see it even now, though you wont know what it is, if you venture north and east of Westvoorn, or go south and west
from Bertrix towards Paris.

The world is rather large though, and what amounts to a long duration of work seems insignificant when you drop it into the overall picture, but bit by bit it will grow.
ANd what seems insignificant in the overall view, actually becomes quite large when you go down to it and stand on the ground.

And presently in game live right now is the games 1st new town in over 10 years, built as a test.
Varengville sur Mer
And Antwerp and Brussels have become individual stand alone sectors that can be fought over, captured and then fought against each other.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be the last 11 maps; but the previous 57 are 28-27-2; very balanced.

So, that implies allies have ran over axis just as much.

Maps 112-121 axis were 3-7.

Maps 138-146 axis were 3-6.

And don't forget 6 straight losses 101-106.

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any win or loss since the HC pop nosedived should be disregarded imo

can't stress how much 1 HC does and needs to do

 

it's been months since i've invested in the game but i can still remember the lone guy on asking for FB's and staying on for 8 hours trying to keep the map/supply strait

just buckle down till 1.36 i guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with both the premise of the post and the response that fun can still be had. But I would note that morale seems low in the Allied army these days. I am going to make some generalizations but I know there are exceptions.

First, the allies seem to be always on defense. We will set an AO, set an FMS or two and only a very few spawn in to attack. I have set an FMS on a town multiple times and had not a single person spawn in. Not one. Meanwhile we have 20 players on defense in a town. Makes me want to not even bother with running an FMS anymore and instead set up DFMS and sap ETs (fun? sometimes). Even worse, we capture a spawn in their town, flood call goes out, and only a few come. A spawn cap should have all hands in who are not guarding a spawn CP on defense. 

I think the Axis focus on guarding spawns on defense and committing numbers to attack. Somehow we (allied) have the uncanny ability to have everyone on defense in a town without a single guard in their spawn CP. I know its an exaggeration but we seem to try to guard everything and end up not guarding the most important thing...their spawn CP. I include myself in this criticism. I realize they are overpop a lot but allied offense is how we should slow the axis offense. Lets pull them off the attack.

Second, with that said, I am excited to see the new update mention a OIC of defense and offense AOs. I think it really helps when someone is very vocal on comms telling people what to do. In the meantime, could the Allies come up with an informal way to just nominate someone local OIC? Any ideas? Be nice to have someone telling the 5 guys running past the spawn cp to the captured city cp to "Chillax, its just the city cp. Cap it but lets keep things in perspective." Plus, they can be monitoring everything and ordering replacements for the guys guarding. So maybe guard 10min and then rotate someone in.

Third, we all [censored] about equipment all the time, myself included, but the game comes down to population, comms and marking, and THEN equipment. Can't do anything about the first and last ones. But we sure as hell can mark and talk. Having played Axis is the past (i know, booooo!) they talk way more than the allies do. Maybe we talk the same on discord but in the chat, Axis are very vocal.

Anyway, still a fan of the game obviously. I would like to play Axis again but I'm not switching until the Allies win a legit campaign (as stated above, lot of axis players went allied for our "victories"). I also noted that some of then just didn't play at all :(

bodhibro, zathrasb5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's also remember both the last two campaigns won by the Allies had significant amounts of Allied RDP missions.  That seemed to disappear, this last campaign.  Did the Dambusters take the day off, or what?

 

 

 

-Irish

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost as if all those extra Tigers are making a difference.  Whoda thunk it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, deride said:

There are some unfortunate things about ww2ol compared to other games, been playing a lot of Planetside2 to scratch the MMOFPS itch and tbh, the thing i miss the most about the game are the people in AEF, not the game itself.

 

 

I miss you too honey 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

That may be the last 11 maps; but the previous 57 are 28-27-2; very balanced.

So, that implies allies have ran over axis just as much.

Maps 112-121 axis were 3-7.

Maps 138-146 axis were 3-6.

And don't forget 6 straight losses 101-106.

Historically yeah, you are right. I guess the that the Allied glory days were 3 to 4 years ago so maybe it's just a case of out of sight, out of mind. I guess we will see if things snap back in their favor.

Share this post


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

It's almost as if all those extra Tigers are making a difference.  Whoda thunk it?

it wouldn't be a issue if pop was still ok, now there's only 6 sorties then the tankers give up.

been saying for years there's to much tanks all round, the 20 stugs should be a bigger issue, but with current pop 6 is all that's used

 

edit: agreeing with you, but there's too much tanks all round

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, major0noob said:

it wouldn't be a issue if pop was still ok, now there's only 6 sorties then the tankers give up.

been saying for years there's to much tanks all round, the 20 stugs should be a bigger issue, but with current pop 6 is all that's used

 

edit: agreeing with you, but there's too much tanks all round

I also agree 100%.  There's been way too many tanks in general for years.  

 

Any truly "intense" grind-battle these days will chew up the last infantry before the last piece of armor.  It's insane.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No camp side lock (allied didn't just lose, they lost after an advance again, which is worse)

One side dominating so much and rats playing there

weekend intermission

repeatedly setting wrong supply

no further DLCs

no website DLCs

noobs still spawning nowhere

 

I just don't get it. Don't reply please, it's frustrating me. I don't read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is winning the campaign important?    What do you win? What do you lose?

What is important is day to day gameplay.

In that last campaign, the allies dominated early and pushed the map east.  The axis rallied and pushed back west.  It was a good campaign for both sides.

The only win that matters is that you your time in game.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not winning or losing for me its the fun factor and when you got 8 guys trying to hold a town against say 20 - 30 guys that are always using comms and teamwork you can never win.... allied side last map had no teamwork at all unless I logged in and started herding sheep even then no one wants to sit in a damn CP for more than 5 min what fun is that instead they all run out and chase opels and pzs while the other team tells there guys hey allieds are out here camping this fms switch now and rush town and guess what they listen no one on the allied side seems to want to take orders or give them except me it seems like yes we have HC that log in and play the game but that's it they are not leading or doing what has to be done they might as well not even be HC...

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Its not winning or losing for me its the fun factor and when you got 8 guys trying to hold a town against say 20 - 30 guys that are always using comms and teamwork you can never win.... allied side last map had no teamwork at all unless I logged in and started herding sheep even then no one wants to sit in a damn CP for more than 5 min what fun is that instead they all run out and chase opels and pzs while the other team tells there guys hey allieds are out here camping this fms switch now and rush town and guess what they listen no one on the allied side seems to want to take orders or give them except me it seems like yes we have HC that log in and play the game but that's it they are not leading or doing what has to be done they might as well not even be HC...

Let me ask you this- I've been on about Pop Neutrality for years now, to deal precisely with the situation you describe, an underpop side reduced to being easy targets for overpop and a lot of relatively unearned town wins.  Rats have gone part way with PN, more then I ever dreamed, but aren't quite there with the 'right' balance of settings.

 

But forget the settings, is my theory that the game should allow an 8 guy underpop side to defend successfully (if organized) or 4 delay effectively while the other 4 attack?  Is that more 'fun' and more likely to restore organization and keep people logged in? 

 

Yes I understand PN is difficult to achieve without doing things coding wise none of us want re: even more restriction or gamey, but I'm getting more at, in your opinion is PN a primary goal the Rats should always strive for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every campaign up until the moment where the map offers 3-4 times as many CPs as we have had up till now, has been nothing but a betatest for what this game has promised to be for 18 years. Imagine a map that stretches from Cherbourg to Berlin, that includes all of the Netherlands and northwestern Germany, that eventually includes Lyon and Munich...and more still - THAT will be a campaign. Campaigns will drag on for many months, not weeks. Currently if the front moves 8-10 CPs in any direction the losing side usually folds and offers but token resistance until the inevitable. In the future such movement will be but a minor correction with lots of territory yet to fall back on.

We’re getting there.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my 2 cents what really stuck in my mind ( I played Allied this campaign )

Was Krabbendyke was under Attack by Axis , and we were attacking Roermond and did good at that time. 

I was at Roermond and figured I'll move to defence in Krabben,  I called for help prop 6 times  , only 2 more spawned in ( one wasca green tag)Axis were there in Force and was told Roermond is more important .

Well what that person failed to see was that if more would have spawned  a few more to defend we might would have had a easier time with Roermond .

We lost the port with that the Brigade bounced , I was in AB bunker and kept about 5 waves of Axis busy ( was last building they needed)  I killed 18 before they got me and capped but as soon as they did all these Axis players went to Roermond.  Well to end this story we lost Krabbendyke with virtually not giving them a fight and after that Roermond stayed in Axis hands .

I never cared who wins or lost a campaign , I'm here to have fun,, play along some great players , and count my little victories .  

But again that's just my 2 cents and my thoughts and opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one don't know why CRS are loathe to implement Population Neutrality. Every other game in the market has it - the gaming market DEMANDS it. Can you imagine Post Scriptum or BF5 with three times the people on one side than the other?

Gamers have grown up to expect a balanced teams based game, yet our beloved game still allows one sided games. This could be a major impediment to actually balancing the game when new players see one side is way overpop (which is not super obvious to a brand new player).

The game is hard enough without trying to balance teams and being asked to spawn into a camped armybase for example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.