• 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.
bicklezick

Musings on WW2OL from a teenager.

46 posts in this topic

for the past year people have been praising single 1km FMS's... glad to see this changed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airfields did indeed find themselves on the front line, it is unavoidable if the front moves to your door step, the runway can not just get up and walk away.
But if you know the enemy is at the gate, you would usually get your aircraft and such out of there before hand.
They can do little to defend it from within it.

And on the flip side, if you have taken an airfield that is right on the front line, you probably would not start bringing in your fighting and bombers wings, until your ground forces could establish a decent zone of control to give the airfield some buffer room.
Trying to use the field when well within range of enemy light antiaircraft guns causes problems with take-offs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Merlin51 I covered those zone of control concerns in my post regarding fb ownership status to the town... 

and I also thought I did a pretty good job of covering time and life it being a game with regards to air status in front line towns. Look if you guys want to continue to take away opportunities from your players which is what you're doing here then you're going to struggle with population numbers which is what has happened here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think players overestimate the "nicheness" of WWIIOL.

I was a Day 1 player of witnessed both the hype of this game and how broad appeal it had. I went and picked up my pre-ordered boxed game at a GameStop back in 2001; they didn't have their shipment coming until later in the afternoon. But I knew that another store right nextdoor was getting their shipment at 10 AM. I decided to go there on the off chance that there was some non-preordered boxes. I get to the store and there are 3 other guys already waiting in line to pick up their pre-orders. I get in line behind them, find there is a spare and buy it. The guy behind me is there for the same reason. A guy standing by us looking at the commotion is "hey, I'll get one of those too." More people start to congregate and the guy behind the counter says "alright, sorry guys but that was the last box, the rest are reserved pre-orders."

The entire store's shipment of Day 1 WWIIOL boxes was sold in under roughly 5 minutes.

If space grinding simulator known as Eve Online can support thousands of players there is no reason WWIIOL can't go back to that point too. Just look at what kind of following ARMA has and the massive number of mods, all of which are of the "slow and steady to the action model." I would venture to say that spawning on a defensive mission in a Double-EWS town is more action than many of those games. WWIIOL can get back there, it is all how much press/marketing it has and whether there are game tools and systems in play that support the social dynamic that is so important for MMOs.

4 people like this

Share this post


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

No, please do not take my words out of context. I'm just saying that people think by giving Free Players access we'll see some genuine new players adding in mobile spawns. I argue that while that may occur to some degree, I would anticipate more veterans taking advantage of this than not. That's all.

 

I have to agree with xoom here. While I think we all would like more FMS ingame, I think that we also need to realize that what we really want to quality FMS. Right now there is no way to know if a FMS is in a good spot unless you joint the mission and ask on chat... which can get laborious when there are several to choose from. If you have F2P you may have more FMS, but are they going to be of the type that actually make for better gameplay. Its like a QB throwing lots of yardage. It doesn't matter how far he is throwing if he doesn't identify the right receiver. We need more yardage, but we all need good QBs.

And one other important thing is looking at the unintended consequences of such a system. Hypothetically speaking if the 31st was at 2005-era strength and we had FMS available to F2P, I can tell you that it would be utter FMS spam since we would probably have a good 5-10 2nd F2P accounts doing nothing more than running FMS after FMS. Lots of FMS, but it makes defending a town an impossible task since you take one FMS down, and since we can place FMS in a 360 degree arc surrounding a town, there will be another two that take its place.

I think one of the key game philosophies must be that you can realistically prevent the opposite side from completing their objectives. It is very difficult to control two infantry units at the same time going in separate directions. But it is very easy to set my gas pedal to a joystick axis and on a second screen have a truck running off in some direction needing some adjustment every now and then while I focus on my primary computer screen. Add 10 players into the mix doing the exact same thing and we aren't too far from the UMS days where mobile spawns pop up like mushrooms after a rainstorm.

A F2P FMS essentially creates an unfair force multiplier for the attacking side that the defenders cannot respond to. So yes, it is bad that we can't have lot and lots of mobile spawn options, but I think that the unintended consequences of such a system as far worse.

Share this post


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

 

I have to agree with xoom here. While I think we all would like more FMS ingame, I think that we also need to realize that what we really want to quality FMS. Right now there is no way to know if a FMS is in a good spot unless you joint the mission and ask on chat... which can get laborious when there are several to choose from. If you have F2P you may have more FMS, but are they going to be of the type that actually make for better gameplay. Its like a QB throwing lots of yardage. It doesn't matter how far he is throwing if he doesn't identify the right receiver. We need more yardage, but we all need good QBs.

And one other important thing is looking at the unintended consequences of such a system. Hypothetically speaking if the 31st was at 2005-era strength and we had FMS available to F2P, I can tell you that it would be utter FMS spam since we would probably have a good 5-10 2nd F2P accounts doing nothing more than running FMS after FMS. Lots of FMS, but it makes defending a town an impossible task since you take one FMS down, and since we can place FMS in a 360 degree arc surrounding a town, there will be another two that take its place.

I think one of the key game philosophies must be that you can realistically prevent the opposite side from completing their objectives. It is very difficult to control two infantry units at the same time going in separate directions. But it is very easy to set my gas pedal to a joystick axis and on a second screen have a truck running off in some direction needing some adjustment every now and then while I focus on my primary computer screen. Add 10 players into the mix doing the exact same thing and we aren't too far from the UMS days where mobile spawns pop up like mushrooms after a rainstorm.

A F2P FMS essentially creates an unfair force multiplier for the attacking side that the defenders cannot respond to. So yes, it is bad that we can't have lot and lots of mobile spawn options, but I think that the unintended consequences of such a system as far worse.

It's not 2005 anymore.  At times there are fewer people in game during prime time on both sides than what 3PZG would bring to the fight at 3 in the morning back in 2005.  The FMS as a game construct is built for large numbers of people to rally around and then push in for attack.  As it stands now there are portions of time where you have people setting up the FMS and merely defending it from getting camped.  Who is attacking who?  You are speaking in hypotheticals as though WWIIOL has bodies tripping over each other trying to make the FMS.  In reality it's the lone guy trying to lead and get something going on the map.  Some of my squad still play the game.  They leave our discord for the WWIIOL discord and more often than not are back in 10 minutes playing what ever game the rest of us are playing because the map is dead.  The game needs to be designed for the numbers you actually have in game, not the numbers you wish you had in game.  Go back and read the OP's comments about time to enemy contact.  That time goes up significantly with dead AOs.

Edited by minky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the hypothetical fears always outweigh problems in the forums...

everyone was dead set against giving SPAA gunsheilds, but they have lousy kill counts vs inf and their usefullness suffers from the vrunrability

same can be said for the FB health, HC, supply, and now the FMS

 

it was near unanimous a lower build time would ruin the game, even while i provided screenshots of only 1-3 being built (both sides combined)

build times were reduced to a more reasonable level, but there's still people praising difficult FMS's

 

imagined fears have taken over the dev process, the game's progress has suffered as a result.

there are no more massive combined arms battlefields, and people fail to accept the causes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, major0noob said:

imagined fears have taken over the dev process, the game's progress has suffered as a result.

there are no more massive combined arms battlefields, and people fail to accept the causes.

I think people are pretty clear on the causes: AO/HCs and to some degree FMS promoting a more lonewolf style of gameplay. Why spawn a tank to attack when you can ninja a mobile spawn on the back side of a town? Why ride a truck or tank to battle when you can mobile spawn and try to infiltrate the CP. If there are no trucks on the road why bother patrolling with aircraft? If there are no aircraft why bother spawning AA guns anymore? If there is nothing to bomb at the FB anymore then why bother spawning bombers?

Poof. There go your massive combined arms battles. We have created the perfect system where you don't need to have combined arms battle anymore since you can create spawn points at the enemies doorstep and take the town with infantry alone. Players will always find the path of least resistance. The very fact that we don't have combined arms battles is because it is easier to do it some other way. Yes, player numbers are low. But you will not attract players numbers by doubling down on the systems (AO/HC/mobile spawning) that brought about the situations in the first place with minor tweaks on the side.

We need a wrecking ball and smash the old paradigm that has been holding this game back for well over 10 years. Just my own personal, biased, two cents S!

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you still fail to address the defenders lone wolf FMS killing ability

without a basic working model for them to play around (FMS's being easy in this case) they'll fail to successfully use teamwork and leadership, it was pounding sand with the 3min build times. the guys using teamwork and leadership came to the conclusion it was futile, while the people praising the FMS said they simply sucked.

 

should the game fail without teamwork and leadership, or should the game be playable without and excellent with it?

everyone in the forums leans to the forcing teamwork side. lone wolfing is cheap gameplay, but it is gameplay, enough lone wolfs being able to play eventually use teamwork

 

 

with the FMS argument, everyone's in favor of forcing teamwork and leadership in order for them to be built, while ignoring the lack of teamwork and leadership needed to take them down.

imagined fears outweighing the problem...

the first pass grease gun proves CRS can own up to their mistakes and the community can come to a civil agreement, but the imagined fears always prevails

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

big shout out to mount and blade from OP!

the game is archaic as heck, yet it's gameplay got it overwhelmingly positive status on steam and a cult fanbase.

 

it's still buggy and clunky like our game, but everyone loves massive battles!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2018 at 5:06 PM, aismov said:

I think players overestimate the "nicheness" of WWIIOL.

I was a Day 1 player of witnessed both the hype of this game and how broad appeal it had. I went and picked up my pre-ordered boxed game at a GameStop back in 2001; they didn't have their shipment coming until later in the afternoon. But I knew that another store right nextdoor was getting their shipment at 10 AM. I decided to go there on the off chance that there was some non-preordered boxes. I get to the store and there are 3 other guys already waiting in line to pick up their pre-orders. I get in line behind them, find there is a spare and buy it. The guy behind me is there for the same reason. A guy standing by us looking at the commotion is "hey, I'll get one of those too." More people start to congregate and the guy behind the counter says "alright, sorry guys but that was the last box, the rest are reserved pre-orders."

The entire store's shipment of Day 1 WWIIOL boxes was sold in under roughly 5 minutes.

If space grinding simulator known as Eve Online can support thousands of players there is no reason WWIIOL can't go back to that point too. Just look at what kind of following ARMA has and the massive number of mods, all of which are of the "slow and steady to the action model." I would venture to say that spawning on a defensive mission in a Double-EWS town is more action than many of those games. WWIIOL can get back there, it is all how much press/marketing it has and whether there are game tools and systems in play that support the social dynamic that is so important for MMOs.

Absolutely agree.  People forget the absolutely huge battles that used to occur.  People forget how riduculously busy the forums used to be.  Sentencing this game to 'niche status' is selling the game far short.

 

S!

Share this post


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

I think people are pretty clear on the causes: AO/HCs and to some degree FMS promoting a more lonewolf style of gameplay. Why spawn a tank to attack when you can ninja a mobile spawn on the back side of a town? Why ride a truck or tank to battle when you can mobile spawn and try to infiltrate the CP. If there are no trucks on the road why bother patrolling with aircraft? If there are no aircraft why bother spawning AA guns anymore? If there is nothing to bomb at the FB anymore then why bother spawning bombers?

Poof. There go your massive combined arms battles. We have created the perfect system where you don't need to have combined arms battle anymore since you can create spawn points at the enemies doorstep and take the town with infantry alone. Players will always find the path of least resistance. The very fact that we don't have combined arms battles is because it is easier to do it some other way. Yes, player numbers are low. But you will not attract players numbers by doubling down on the systems (AO/HC/mobile spawning) that brought about the situations in the first place with minor tweaks on the side.

We need a wrecking ball and smash the old paradigm that has been holding this game back for well over 10 years. Just my own personal, biased, two cents S!

 

I think you are looking back through rose colored glasses here. WWIIOL was one giant tank and plane battle before the first mobile spawn. Once an AB was locked down i.e. camped  did we bother to drive infantry in to have a go at the bunker. Without depots to spawn in it was all about getting that AB camped. The truck loads of infantry were the very last phase of the battle and I would hardly call that game play “combined arms”. Infantry play was almost an after thought in the days you speak of. 

Those were the days before depot cap timers, timers on bunker caps, depot spawning, and a whole host of other game changing rules too. Now having a few infantry rush the bunker at the end of the battle just wouldn’t even be feasible. 

Edited by minky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/12/2018 at 6:38 AM, minky said:

I think you are looking back through rose colored glasses here. WWIIOL was one giant tank and plane battle before the first mobile spawn. Once an AB was locked down i.e. camped  did we bother to drive infantry in to have a go at the bunker. Without depots to spawn in it was all about getting that AB camped. The truck loads of infantry were the very last phase of the battle and I would hardly call that game play “combined arms”. Infantry play was almost an after thought in the days you speak of. 

Those were the days before depot cap timers, timers on bunker caps, depot spawning, and a whole host of other game changing rules too. Now having a few infantry rush the bunker at the end of the battle just wouldn’t even be feasible. 

with EWS, AOs, PPOs, smoke... Can that happen again? 

Let's Remind that fun is mostly for the winner, I.e. attackers that stayed alive long enough to see it succeed.

 one way to do it is to secure an area from the enemies and kill anything that comes out of it. That happens when you can't quickly come back, and which comes together with a huge level of adrenaline. That was unique for most veterans and many misses that component.

But indeed not everyone like this as some prefer fierce long-lasting balanced attrition battles with insta-spawn-back options.

That's IMHO how the game failed to find its balance so far: it has always been one extreme or another

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, the defenders win too. battles petering out make for unsatisfying wins though.

the combined arms battles of 50 vs 50 are too rare these days, EWS truck hunting, no replacement FMS's, and the 1km walking distance make them difficult to develop beyond CP skirmishes.

 

one of my my last missions was a 1km FMS where we had to ninja a CP... i was the only one that made it and it was retaken before anyone could clear the recappers, the 1km walk time made the attack a failure.

the next was 5 of us soft capping a town cause the defenders got bored and logged.

 

meanwhile, everyone was accepting 1km spawns as a tactically good idea.

still salty about this. i miss the 50 vs 50 for 4 solid hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well written post! I am a somewhat recent college grad and you write better then some people I went to school with haha. 

Share this post


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

 

the combined arms battles of 50 vs 50 are too rare these days, EWS truck hunting, no replacement FMS's, and the 1km walking distance make them difficult to develop beyond CP skirmishes.

 

one of my my last missions was a 1km FMS where we had to ninja a CP... i was the only one that made it and it was retaken before anyone could clear the recappers, the 1km walk time made the attack a failure.

 

We can always use paras to save the long walk, if the town defence is pushed well out we can "hop" over them with paras - if nothing else it may draw some of the defenders back to town and give a couple of trucks the chance to set new, closer, FMSs.

 

S! Ian 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love to see talk of tactics being used a

2 hours ago, ian77 said:

We can always use paras to save the long walk, if the town defence is pushed well out we can "hop" over them with paras - if nothing else it may draw some of the defenders back to town and give a couple of trucks the chance to set new, closer, FMSs.

 

S! Ian 

What? Talk of strategy, teamwork and tactics? :huh: Awesome!!!

Who said there were no natural leaders left on the VR battlefield? ;)S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dfir3 said:

Well written post! I am a somewhat recent college grad and you write better then some people I went to school with haha. 

Having a library literally next door definitely grants a certain degree of eloquence to you, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ian77 said:

We can always use paras to save the long walk, if the town defence is pushed well out we can "hop" over them with paras - if nothing else it may draw some of the defenders back to town and give a couple of trucks the chance to set new, closer, FMSs.

 

S! Ian 

 

7 hours ago, HATCH said:

Love to see talk of tactics being used a

What? Talk of strategy, teamwork and tactics? :huh: Awesome!!!

Who said there were no natural leaders left on the VR battlefield? ;)S!

the main point of my arguments is the defenders don't need teamwork and leadership, whereas the attackers need too much

multiple accounts, dedicated truckers, dedicated ATG's, inf in the trucks, paras, rock solid ZoC, prep time, etc, etc... all brought up separately when there's a deficiency in a single aspect

had everything but paras? well shoulda got paras. it's getting old... the defenders can lonewolf/rambo it all away, but the attackers are at fault for not having enough skill

 

the 50 vs 50 for 4 hours wrestling for a ZoC is too rare these days, they need to come back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.