• Announcements

    • B2K

      Forum Upgrade - 7 Jun.   06/01/2020

      The initial phase of the forum updating has been completed.  We will now be moving onto Phase II: Software update:   The current forum software is in need up an update to current version.  We have been testing the newer version, and are ready to update our live forums.    Themes: The Current WWIIOL Theme will be retired as part of the forum update.  It is non-compatible with the newer forum software.  A new WWIIOL Theme will be added after upgrade (as part of the upgade if everything goes smooth).   Once the update is completed the forums should look the same, but perform significantly better.   We will also be able to potentially expand functionality to include features and add-ons that are not available with our current version of the forum software.   There will be a few hours of downtime beginning on 7 Jun in the the early evening Server Time. 
imded

Here is what happened in the last 11 camps.

88 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, major0noob said:

imdead's the perfect example of the populations stance on pop neutrality.

they will not log in on the other side.

 

axis side loyalist's are just logging in more. when allies were on a roll their side loyalists were logging in more.

 

I don't even need to check the history, I'll make this statement:

 

Ehis exact thread was brought up when allies were rolling maps

Exactly. Ebb and flow of HC/Squad leadership and experience (they are often one and the same).

It is good to see squads play the other side for a map. Why someone would keep themselves from playing the other 2/3 of the games content is beyond me.

Share this post


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

Exactly. Ebb and flow of HC/Squad leadership and experience (they are often one and the same).

It is good to see squads play the other side for a map. Why someone would keep themselves from playing the other 2/3 of the games content is beyond me.

 

Leaving aside what I just said, and speaking objectively, it would be fine. But put yourself in my place, I am Spanish and I do not speak English very well because i dont use it daily i speak spanish or basque. I feel uncomfortable and helpless not being able to say what I feel. The language barrier for Spanish players has always been a problem. Imagine that I am going to play ally, there I do not have friends, I do not know English ... Well, what I do is to stay with my squad who speak Spanish and we understand each other. If I knew how to speak English I would have been encouraged to play as an ally for a map or 2 etc. mainly because I have respect for many allied players that I would like to know and play with them. Especially with the AEF the lancers and the pathfinders .....and some ither legends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, major0noob said:

imdead's the perfect example of the populations stance on pop neutrality.

they will not log in on the other side.

 

I just want to clarify that I coined the term pop neutrality and I don't want it associated with balance through hard side spawn limits, which to me is a Spawn Gate system.

 

And that I thoroughly am against any SG setup or SD that is beyond 30s, ever.  SD shouldn't have a goal of getting people to spawn on the other side through frustration.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kase250 said:

 

Leaving aside what I just said, and speaking objectively, it would be fine. But put yourself in my place, I am Spanish and I do not speak English very well because i dont use it daily i speak spanish or basque. I feel uncomfortable and helpless not being able to say what I feel. The language barrier for Spanish players has always been a problem. Imagine that I am going to play ally, there I do not have friends, I do not know English ... Well, what I do is to stay with my squad who speak Spanish and we understand each other. If I knew how to speak English I would have been encouraged to play as an ally for a map or 2 etc. mainly because I have respect for many allied players that I would like to know and play with them. Especially with the AEF the lancers and the pathfinders .....and some ither legends.

Fair enough. It's hard for me to imagine seeing 250 on allied side anyway, you guys are an Axis staple at this point!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Blacknoone said:

Fair enough. It's hard for me to imagine seeing 250 on allied side anyway, you guys are an Axis staple at this point!

Hehehe. Well, we have had some cases of 250 players going to allied side for one or two maps. Zipayo250 (A very good tanker) is the example I can remember right now. And his experience in the light side was very nice.

Share this post


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

I just want to clarify that I coined the term pop neutrality and I don't want it associated with balance through hard side spawn limits, which to me is a Spawn Gate system.

 

And that I thoroughly am against any SG setup or SD that is up to 30s in only extreme differences.  SD shouldn't have a goal of getting people to spawn on the other side through frustration.

Uh, sorry, but Al Gore just called and said HE created “pop neutrality” / nice try . . . 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Blacknoone said:

Fair enough. It's hard for me to imagine seeing 250 on allied side anyway, you guys are an Axis staple at this point!

Hispania250 is pretty active Axis / can use separate discord channel for voice comms and squad channel for text, all in Spanish. Squad members can repost/relay English comms to other squad members.  Maybe join forces to creat more critical mass 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO and after 14 years around and I may be wrong:

problem is not side imbalance but overall numbers.

I mean. It is not the same to defend an DO 5vs20 than 20vs80.

Same ratio with possibly different fun and for sure different perception of been rolled.

Most people give up when they think they are alone.

------

About the players/Squads playing always same side, yeah it can be a pain in the [censored] when they are in the wining side but they are usually the only ones also to be shot at when they are in the losing side. 

-----

I'm my case, I can hardly play and when I do, I play axis (250H) but if I join the game and if my side is highly overpopulated, then I leave the game. I don't like easy mode and do not want to be part of the rolling side.

S! To everyone and hope numbers will be back someday.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Uh, sorry, but Al Gore just called and said HE created “pop neutrality” / nice try . . . 

Dammit, he's got his own internet and climate change gig, he can just butt out!

Share this post


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

I just want to clarify that I coined the term pop neutrality and I don't want it associated with balance through hard side spawn limits, which to me is a Spawn Gate system.

 

And that I thoroughly am against any SG setup or SD that is up to 30s in only extreme differences.  SD shouldn't have a goal of getting people to spawn on the other side through frustration.

need reasonable ideas to get the numbers even. something within the rats thin workload

Share this post


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

need reasonable ideas to get the numbers even. something within the rats thin workload

Well maybe and that's a big fat maybe , before a player starts the new campaign in game , there is an option screen.

3 options .

1 . Is Axis your preferred side

2. Is Allied your preferred side

3. Don't care.

With all 3 come a stipulation .

Once 3 is selected  ( and it gets hard logged with your profile) the system will place you automatically into the low pop or side that needs help.

If you answer 1 or 2 you still have your choice , but it be completely up to you on what side you spawn in at the beginning of the campaign but once you click Allied or Axis you will be side loyal for the whole campaign with no chance of switching mid way through just because your side is loosing.

 

Edited by dre21
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cool, do you plan on full historical recoil and dispersion?

if you think it's too OP, you can make bolts behave like this (Aim while cycling)

 

 

it's a little thing but it makes a HUGE improvement in bolt action gameplay. the gunplay flow is just soo much better

Share this post


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

cool, do you plan on full historical recoil and dispersion?

if you think it's too OP, you can make bolts behave like this (Aim while cycling)

Yes on recoil and dispersion from a working/operational perspective of the weapon, but that doesn't mean the graphical animations will in all cases follow suit. We need an animator that works with "Granny2" to be able to change the animations that we are already using. I'll be thankful if I can just speed them up or slow them down to more closely match what the "actual" gun is doing, ie: cycle time, reload time, rise, settling, etc. 

30 minutes ago, major0noob said:

it's a little thing but it makes a HUGE improvement in bolt action gameplay. the gunplay flow is just soo much better

Looks really cool, but don't see any additions or modifications to current animations without some experienced animation help joining the team, and/or a new animation routine implementation altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Population imbalances move the map and yes most players would rather quit than switch, for reasons that ehm are mostly not unknown at all. The problem is that one side dominates for over a year, and it includes pity wins, giving allieds head starts and toying with them generally. Remember allied couldn't take Koln in a week and got pushed back half map during one win and WHIPS help. I only say that one side shouldn't dominate and outright manipulate the game for THAT long, it's a no brainer, and most people who agree, are surprise surprise long gone. Have experienced the same in the only other online game i played, and i just cannot go back, i rather not point out why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ebert101 said:

Population imbalances move the map and yes most players would rather quit than switch, for reasons that ehm are mostly not unknown at all. The problem is that one side dominates for over a year, and it includes pity wins, giving allieds head starts and toying with them generally. Remember allied couldn't take Koln in a week and got pushed back half map during one win and WHIPS help. I only say that one side shouldn't dominate and outright manipulate the game for THAT long, it's a no brainer, and most people who agree, are surprise surprise long gone. Have experienced the same in the only other online game i played, and i just cannot go back, i rather not point out why.

Call me stupid but games are supposed to be fun.....If you go out and play a tennis match and lose it was still fun, if you play a golf match and lose you still have fun.  I get that some people are steadfast in not switching and thats fine and their right to do so and there is nothing wrong with that, but to quit over it I will just never understand that. 

For me..........I have played both sides, have been HC on both sides, met great guys/gals on both sides.  Its fun. Its competitive fun........but in the end at the end of the workday I come here to let off the stress of the day which is NOT fun and play a game I have played since 2003 and unwind.

This is a special community that you will NOT see in any other game on the market.  It is small, a lot of us have been here since the inception and we have regular interaction with the Devs, some on a personal basis and some have made lifelong friends.

I get people are frustrated or get frustrated over certain things, its human nature but in the end things ARE being addressed that in previous years were not, actual development on the game is being done now under XOOM and company so lets enjoy what we have and look forward to what will come.  There is no "perfect" balance but be glad we are all still here 17 yrs later.

S!

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Call me stupid

 

Your stupid. Don't shoot the messenger. You asked for it.

 

CRS  How much of systems resources come into play outside of the normal playing area? Someone posted showing the how big our map really is. basically more than double. Does this extra not really usable area take up resources?  If it does, I recommend getting rid of it and only add just a little to our playing area.

 

Share this post


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

Your stupid. Don't shoot the messenger. You asked for it.

Image result for funsucker

Share this post


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

Lastly, with your sports analogy. How long would a pickup basketball game be fun if it was 2 vs. 5? Or, if in your tennis match your opponent was playing doubles, and you were playing singles .... with a badminton racket. 

I see your point.

My analogy was games = Fun, not so much a population analogy. 

Yes side population is/can be an issue for some but its been an issue for a long time.  I personally try to overlook it and just have fun with what Im up against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, HATCH said:

It will be picked up again after the first of the year.

Thanks for all your hard work.

S!

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Call me stupid but games are supposed to be fun.....If you go out and play a tennis match and lose it was still fun, if you play a golf match and lose you still have fun.  I get that some people are steadfast in not switching and thats fine and their right to do so and there is nothing wrong with that, but to quit over it I will just never understand that. 

For me..........I have played both sides, have been HC on both sides, met great guys/gals on both sides.  Its fun. Its competitive fun........but in the end at the end of the workday I come here to let off the stress of the day which is NOT fun and play a game I have played since 2003 and unwind.

This is a special community that you will NOT see in any other game on the market.  It is small, a lot of us have been here since the inception and we have regular interaction with the Devs, some on a personal basis and some have made lifelong friends.

I get people are frustrated or get frustrated over certain things, its human nature but in the end things ARE being addressed that in previous years were not, actual development on the game is being done now under XOOM and company so lets enjoy what we have and look forward to what will come.  There is no "perfect" balance but be glad we are all still here 17 yrs later.

S!

 

There never should be perfect balance, especially enforced, because that way lies stalemate and boredom.

It needs to be dynamic and have player actions matter, the point of my crusade on pop neutrality is that then the underpop can attack effectively if they have their act together and so their Player Actions Matter, without gimping overpop to the point their Player Actions Don't Matter.

I liken the needed system to being like an F-16- on the verge of stalling out or departing controlled flight, but the computer manages it and so it's super maneuverable.

Less march of whoever is overpop, more roller coaster ride.

 

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


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

Good post. I generally agree with you ... it is supposed to be fun. Afterall it's just a game!

I think what you are seeing though, is that for a number of people, it has stopped being fun. I don't think that you can talk a person into changing their mind about what constitutes fun. Each person is a little different in this regard of course. 

For one person, it isn't fun to play on "the other" side. I suppose if the game had no comms, no squads, and was simply a shooter game where each player existed in a vacuum ..... players would be much more likely to swap. 

We hear all of the time that squads are the backbone of the game. Players are encouraged to join a squad, get on discord, form up. Well i hate to tell you this .... but ALMOST all squads are side loyal. Hell in many cases, it is obvious by reading the name of the squad which side they are loyal to. Play with a squad long enough and you form friendships ... and voila ... you tend to become loyal to the side where you're friends are!

Lastly, with your sports analogy. How long would a pickup basketball game be fun if it was 2 vs. 5? Or, if in your tennis match your opponent was playing doubles, and you were playing singles .... with a badminton racket. 

I think it's a double edged sword.

It all depends on the player and what he considers fun.

My fun in game to be all honest is Teamwork , and I have to say that the Allied side channel gets used 95% of the time for everything else but the game .

And I did take about 6 or 7 continuous screen shots of it and actually pmed @xanthus about it and said no game talk WTF and Sidechannel was the only channel going.

You try that on Axis side and you will get your feathers ruffled fairly quick.

 

So what I'm saying unless the Allied player base are all on discord then the Average player that uses chat is left out to look in. Not to mention Origin and Target chat is equally not being used.

That is one of the things that always stands out when I switch . So when I want to lone wolf Allied side is perfect for me. 

If I seek Teamwork and comms via CHAT bar ( I don't do discord) then I'll chose Axis anyday.

 

If my fun factor would be the K/D ratio I would pick Allied , not once in my Axis game career did I ever manage 18 kills with an SMG , or not very often do I do a double digit kill with an Axis Sniper.

Allied I had several of those one even where I was so close to a open Vehicle spawn in a town that I was flabbergasted that no one found me. I left the INF to the most part alone but a few and picked off ATG ,AAA and HT ( 2 of them were Squadmates)

In my opinion, and take that with a grain of salt , bag of salt or truck load of salt.

Allies have a Communication issue within the game amongst players themselves and with that the whole Teamwork aspect that is so much needed in this game is none existing and it makes it so much harder to gain and win ground.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel like typing out an elaborate response, but winning isn't much fun either when most of the people on the losing side quit and there's no competition. Both sides have had campaigns where you just walk right in and take a town because the other side isn't even trying (mainly tz3). I'd rather take a well fought loss than an easy "win" any day.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, imded said:

CRS  How much of systems resources come into play outside of the normal playing area? Someone posted showing the how big our map really is. basically more than double. Does this extra not really usable area take up resources?  If it does, I recommend getting rid of it and only add just a little to our playing area.

All of the game world takes up resources in some fashion, some less than others.
From a client stand point, a totally non populated cell with no towns or anything still takes up a small amount of drive space.
From a host standpoint, that unpopulated cell takes up little resources outside of cell host tracking of units moving through it.

On the other hand, a cell with stuff in it, towns, fbs, anything that can be used or interacted with or damaged takes up various resources
even if inactive, every object in it is cataloged in a relational database and watched for anything happening to it, and as people move into a cell, more things come into play.

The host is a somewhat complicated thing, it is actually many servers each of a different task.
A cell with no strategic objects in it really does not amount to any drain on anything other than a bit of drive space
and watching for if player enter it, to track their movements.

If you deleted all that map, it would be very very difficult to then go recreate the landmass to expand towns into it later.
That would be a much bigger resource drain than an idle empty area of the map that wont always be idle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.