dragoz

Squad regeneration

32 posts in this topic

This a general question for all Players.

we need some simple ideas for:

1) what in game changes would help foster team play? They need to simple and easily implemented by CRS.

2) how can squads best retain new players? Especially squads that are still very small but trying to rebuild.

3)  I know that allotting squad based AOs in the past was a great incentive for squad nights, but at present we have very low populations, aside from allowing squad directed AOs, which we HC still do when a squad asks or when we see a squad working. What other ideas for HC can you think of that we can actually do to help squads?

4) lastly, just spitball.

thanks kindly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My same answers:
1) Complete mission control for ML - enable/disable mission, enable/disable MS, kick player

2) Squad ranks, be able to set the ranks of squad members, but not have it impact their gear. (I don't need 7 Lt Cols and 3 Maj in my squad, I'd like 7 privates, couple corporals and a Sgt or 2)

3) Squad grouping, be a able to designate squaddies into teams - so they can easily see who their teammates are when looking at squad member listing.

4) Ability to view squad members sub type, when I look at squad member listing I'd like to know who is premium, starter, FPA or FPA/DLC enabled.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4) That's not a bad idea, just from an operational perspective, knowing the kit someone can access could be very useful.

3) Hmmm. that requires some thought

@delemsthanks for suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the old/pre AO days, many of the squads were region-based, i.e. had normal areas of operation.  For example, Lafayette Federation fought in the then III Corps area we called, the 'dirty south', which at that point encompassed Sedan, Charleville, etc.  

 

We could attack in our area, and we held responsibility for defending our area.  AOs killed that, imho.

 

I guess I don't really have a solution to offer.  Not one that can be implemented, anyway.  The solution is more players ingame, thus allowing units to go back to being region-based, and the end of AOs.  With lower ingame numbers, AOs cannot be eliminated, though, so I do not know what can be done to help squads regenerate.  It is not for lack of effort----I've been working to rebuild Lafayette Federation for months now, with very limited success.

 

S!

Edited by augetout
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@augetout personally, I like the idea. It does require strong vibrant squads, and to some extent limits player options, but an interesting idea.

squads have always been the backbone of the game. As they have declined, so too has the game.

I think that some game mechanics did not help retention: like initially F2P could not cap or take mission lead or make missions, that was a huge mis-step.

And I agree that the HC system has always been a serious issue. It was never fully realized and never had any accountability to CRS or the playerbase. 

What do you think of the idea of mission leaders being able to place waypoints that are visible across the objective? Or perhaps just OIC being able to do that?

seems to me that would encourage team play a tiny bit more?

Share this post


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

 

What do you think of the idea of mission leaders being able to place waypoints that are visible across the objective? Or perhaps just OIC being able to do that?

seems to me that would encourage team play a tiny bit more?

ML's can already place waypoints including custom waypoints with specific text (ie. spawn, AI, capme, diehere, etc)  anywhere around an objective/AO/DO. These ML waypoints however can only be seen by players on that specific mission.

It would be good /better/different if an AO/DO OIC (though fairly rare these days to see an active OIC linked to an AO/DO) could  place waypoints/info markers/sub-objectives around an AO/DO visible for any mission to or from that target. Or if a squadleader or squad could place waypoints across/around an AO/DO visible to the squad and/or any MLs/FMS participating in the squad AO/DO and/or any players spawning in on squad missions/squad objective fms. In effect, this might simply mean a squad leader or squad as a group acting as OIC for a specific objective. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

ML's can already place waypoints including custom waypoints with specific text (ie. spawn, AI, capme, diehere, etc)  anywhere around an objective/AO/DO. These ML waypoints however can only be seen by players on that specific mission.

It would be good /better/different if an AO/DO OIC (though fairly rare these days to see an active OIC linked to an AO/DO) could  place waypoints/info markers/sub-objectives around an AO/DO visible for any mission to or from that target. Or if a squadleader or squad could place waypoints across/around an AO/DO visible to the squad and/or any MLs/FMS participating in the squad AO/DO and/or any players spawning in on squad missions/squad objective fms. In effect, this might simply mean a squad leader or squad as a group acting as OIC for a specific objective. 

I've proposed for years an AO/DO commander that could 'see' all the missions posted on the target with MLs highlighted for rapid text comms to one or all of them, and all spawn points marked.

 

Use the tools to support and incentivize battle leadership. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kilemall @sorella Squad based waypoints and map marks would be an awesome idea!

as would being to see all MLs if you are an ML. Hell, even making ALL MLs visible to all players on target would be VERY useful!

fantatstic suggestion

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

In the old/pre AO days, many of the squads were region-based, i.e. had normal areas of operation.  For example, Lafayette Federation fought in the then III Corps area we called, the 'dirty south', which at that point encompassed Sedan, Charleville, etc.  

 

We could attack in our area, and we held responsibility for defending our area.  AOs killed that, imho.

 

I guess I don't really have a solution to offer.  Not one that can be implemented, anyway.  The solution is more players ingame, thus allowing units to go back to being region-based, and the end of AOs.  With lower ingame numbers, AOs cannot be eliminated, though, so I do not know what can be done to help squads regenerate.  It is not for lack of effort----I've been working to rebuild Lafayette Federatino for months now, with very limited success.

 

S!

In addition, the closer one can spawn into action the less likelihood of teamwork. The fms was supposed to foster teamwork and some of us really tried with ZOCs but it didn't work. The next logical step would be to eliminate the fms. Would teamwork increase having only the fb to spawn from? History would say yes. Still not enough teamwork? Eliminate the fb and attack from town which takes us back to the beginning of WWIIOL. When I joined in 2002 I was a Lonewolf the first 2 days and quickly realized I had to join a squad to get anything out of the game. I joined a squad and it was a blast from then on. I'm not saying go back to the old days (I've said that enough elsewhere); these are just my experiences from a teamwork perspective.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget squad reintegration.  What you need is mission reintegration.  The UI in this game is atrocious.  Anyone who has ever actually taken a new player under their wing to train them to play the game knows that.  New players struggle with the UI more than any other aspect of this game.  It leads them astray and to places where battles are nonexistent.  The UI needs to be overhauled and simplified.  

Instead of several missions for the same town there should just be one mission from town X to town Y.  Once the mission is clicked on that mission should show all the different spawn points available to the user on a map.  That includes the town you are attacking from, the FB, the FMSs, and the spawnables if captured.  Then all the user needs to do is choose the spawn they wish to spawn from by clicking it on the map.  Places where armor can be spawned should be clearly marked and differentiated from infantry only spawns. If a spawn is taken down the user should be notified and see that they merely have to click on a different spawn point to go right back to battle.  Rather than making squad missions, squads should be focused on squad FMSs within the mission.  Heck the game could even give the person setting up the FMS the ability to name their spawn point.  For example, an FMS could simply be named Blitz Kader Squad.  This would let everyone know who is operating that spawn point (or at least what squad).  The person who built the FMS would maintain control over it or could hand that control off similar to the way missions are handed off now.  A person would be able to control multiple FMSs.

A UI of that nature would accomplish a few things.  First it would help at the squad level because squads who set up multiple FMSs in the same attack would all be on the same mission.  It would allow squad leaders of larger squads to better see and direct their forces.  It would allow the overall battlefield commanders to better see where forces are deployed and where they may need to be deployed.  It would foster team work amongst squads because players would have a better ability to see the big picture and therefore coordinate with each other  The exception would be when two towns are attack the same target.  Town X and Y are attacking town Z.  Then you would have two separate missions attacking the same town Z.  Still though, a much cleaner and more intuitive system than what we have now. 

Air brigades are of course special and would need the ability to have multiple missions but should be limited to one mission per town per air field.  In other words, if a mission from Airfield X to attack town Y has already been made there is no need to create another one.  

Share this post


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

@augetout personally, I like the idea. It does require strong vibrant squads, and to some extent limits player options, but an interesting idea.

squads have always been the backbone of the game. As they have declined, so too has the game.

I think that some game mechanics did not help retention: like initially F2P could not cap or take mission lead or make missions, that was a huge mis-step.

And I agree that the HC system has always been a serious issue. It was never fully realized and never had any accountability to CRS or the playerbase. 

What do you think of the idea of mission leaders being able to place waypoints that are visible across the objective? Or perhaps just OIC being able to do that?

seems to me that would encourage team play a tiny bit more?

The Mission Leader mechanic is flawed from the get go, imho.  Example:  I create a mission, and spawn into a town with a rifle to get a look around.  Upon spawning in, I see that the germans have already infested the town, so I make a call on side channel for help, and realizing that I'll need to clear buildings, decide to respawn as an smg.  By then johnny and jill have spawned into my mission-----when I despawn and go to choose a different weapon, I have to back out, then re-choose the mission.  In the process I am no longer the mission leader (johnny or jill is).  So when I respawn into my own mission johnny or jill is now the leader---I've lost marking/deleting tools reserved for mission leaders, and anyone who spawns in has no idea who is actually running the mission.  Chaos/unorganization ensues, and the 'actual' mission leader ends up being 1 or more folks who sound the most credible on the target text channel.  Having been back for awhile now, I can say I do not consider the ingame mission leader until he/she is proven to be the leader via their actions/ingame texts, and if I am made leader I don't act as such unless it is clear the former mission leader has delegated the mission to me to command.

 

On 2nd thought, maybe I do have something to offer as a solution:  HC places brigades and/or divisions.  Squads attack wherever the hell they want to, provided they have a sufficient number of folks to warrant it (I dunno, say 10 for the sake of discussion).  If they choose to attack from a place where no brigades/divisions are sitting, then they have to bring their own supplies up from the rear----but they can attack regardless of where they choose.  Communication between the squad leaders and HC may or may not result in a brigade/division being placed to support the squad's attack.

When a town changes hands, it gets (just) the garrison supplies that come in on some sort of timer assuming a valid supply line (to ensure against instaspawning armies in the rear).  

Airborne attacks that are successful, say behind the lines, change a town's ownership, but cannot spawn anything until a valid supply line is opened, (though they could resupply via air drops of troops RTBing on the objective).

 

Squads cannot make a 'name' for themselves being part of an AO placed by the respective HC.  I remember the 31st Wrecking Crew's old slogan:   We'll make you famous....   The game's mechanics say otherwise nowadays.   Squads being allowed to attack wherever they choose is, imho, the simplest way of bringing squads back to the forefront, where they belong.  I don't say that as CO of Lafayette Federation.  I do say that as a former AHC Officer----and I can tell you that when I was an Officer I never looked smarter than when I was able to get 3rd Canadian, Lafayette Federation, and the wackadoodles in IV Corps to work together, while staying in contact with the BEF OIC to make sure our actions weren't hurting each other's.

Now someone tell me why that can't happen...

 

S!

Edited by augetout
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason why it can't happen NOW Aug, it happened with the switch to AOs and happened with brigade supply.

 

There is a degradation of officer skillsets though where they have to learn map first then attack, if ever.  This degrades AO selection quality because 'I got more brigades' plus 'what I need organized squads?' and 'terrain- what terrain problem?' is not solved by 'flooooood town'.  Have to at least concentrate their skills in keeping the map going, I expect some never actually learn attack.

Of course the HC that were attackers first and had the person skills to still persuade and the strategic skills to handle the logistics were wildly successful.

We DID maintain relations with squads in AHC at least part of the time, and was a cornerstone of everything I was doing while in it.  The other officers I respected, both past and current, were always about making that relationship happen with squads, we pushed for squad summits, I did a lot of the behind the scenes work for Reserve Officers, and pushed very very very hard for Squad Liaisons, which in my iteration would have not shown up on the 'HClist' but would have put them in the HC blue chat.

AHC actually did SLs for a time like Reserve Officers and it worked really well, other then they showed up on HC lists and got pestered for AOs and brigade moves, exactly what we didn't want to have happen, but CRS wouldn't code it.  So during an earlier Allied downturn the program got pulled.  But up to that point squad and HC cooperation was enhanced, no reason it could not again.

 

Given your resume here, you will remember the 110th brigade operations, during the run-up to ToEs but before the mask-filter flags went in.  Fantastic intersquad cooperation along with HC, and gave players a guaranteed 'home' to go to without squad commitment.  Similar to 94th when it was a channel and not a squad.  That's something to use too to build up squads.

 

 

At it's best this is a game of relationships.  This will be true even if HC is coded out- HAS to be given the complex and difficult nature of combined arms fighting against smart opponents while facing resource shortages of one sort or another.  Anything that helps relationships form is going to make things better.  Just keep in mind, squads aren't the only way to do that, and squads can fail or have spats or fall apart for their own reasons independent of the game, or leave because the cheese is always going to be moved.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

No reason why it can't happen NOW Aug, it happened with the switch to AOs and happened with brigade supply.

At it's best this is a game of relationships.  This will be true even if HC is coded out- HAS to be given the complex and difficult nature of combined arms fighting against smart opponents while facing resource shortages of one sort or another.  Anything that helps relationships form is going to make things better.  Just keep in mind, squads aren't the only way to do that, and squads can fail or have spats or fall apart for their own reasons independent of the game, or leave because the cheese is always going to be moved.

I agree with this whole heartedly, and I will say High Command is not going to be shut down and coded out. We want it, but we no doubt need to refocus things for them.

Share this post


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

I agree with this whole heartedly, and I will say High Command is not going to be shut down and coded out. We want it, but we no doubt need to refocus things for them.

 

So, is it possible to have 1.36's hybrid supply also have a hybrid AO functionality?  A squad getting 10 guys (or whatever is decided is appropriate) to the EWS of a non-AO town would then cause an automatic AO.  It would seem the garrison supply protocols would allow for attacks to go back to happening all over the place, with no real danger of instaspawning armies appearing in the rear.  HC would still be responsible for brigade/division moves, and leadership, but the leash on squads would be loosened a bit, hopefully allowing for more squad enthusiasm.

 

S!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm stepping out on a limb here, but would like to share with y'all my thoughts on the subject and what I have proposed to address the situation.

First and foremost, just because this is what I'd like to see, doesn't mean its going to happen. I'm just one member of a pretty large team here. So if you don't approve, don't fret... although if it did come to fruition, you'd probably see a lot more of me. Part of made WWIIOL so special (at least to me) was lost when trucks became nothing more than indie mobile spawn planters that anyone could spawn from with no investment or teamwork... Adhoc, spawn, rambo in, die, rinse-repeat, is prevalent everywhere else with a lot better graphics.

Second, this does nothing to address the difficulty squads have with the current AO/Flag/TOE/HC system and I think some part of the garrison system needs to be re-designed where either squads or preferably, groups of squads can set their own AO's (btw, I believe some variation of this is being planned).

Third, It should be known that I am NOT a huge proponent of the mobile spawn in its past and present iterations (to put it mildly)... 1) Because I hate the ability for any single player to be able to plop an army on anyone's front (or worse) back door all willy-nilly with no requirement or structure, 2) Because it doesn't foster teamwork or the growth and/or natural integration of squads with indie vets or green tags (with the available squads or each other) with any consistent proximity based communication, and 3) Because it doesn't provide a dynamic to slow the veterans down enough to where they have a short but still entertaining period of time to talk as a group about whatever, target, plans, weather, whatever they intend to happen when they spawn, whatever...

Oh, and last but not least, Fourth, this is assuming the engine sounds and coasting abilities for the trucks have been addressed.

Those of you that have never ridden into the next attack with a bunch of other guys on a truck or on the back of a tank in a convoy might not "grock" where I'm coming from, but if you ever do, you will.

SO the following is a part of the discussion I have been sharing with the team every chance I get...

As far as the regular FMS. I STILL think we need to rework how those are used and deployed. I wrote a new proposal for such that limited them to only being available to the group of guys that rode the truck that sets them (minimum of at least 2, driver and rider but better driver+3 with current game pop? Max 20? 30?). In my opinion, if this HC operable FRU is coming, I think it would be an interesting game play addition to the truck grouped FMS operations in that proposal. In other words. you get as many as you can to join you on the truck to go be able to set and utilize the truck spawned FMS, but make sure you have an HC along for the ride if you want an infantry based "adhoc" FRU in the near vicinity usable by everyone to help protect it...

The new "Group Based" FMS proposal below...

(In reply to proposal spawning "un-attached" paras in flight) Not in favor. The more and more we "mobile spawn" everything in it's current form, the more we cheapen the investment and organization of the teamwork and camaraderie developed in the planning and running of the airborne operations. Same as with not utilizing the trucks anymore as objects to coalesce troops around.

I firmly believe this is a huge detriment to the game that fosters individual "Rambo" charge, die, repeat style play, rather than being "stuck" together for a short period of time in a truck or a plane en-route to the target area where you have a few minutes to bond with the others with you, listening/reading the pratter between the  troops that organized it, and the attack discussions regarding what everyone is going to do when they get there. THIS I believe is something that the current mobile spawning paradigm has killed off to our detriment.

I realize the weakness of this gameplay requirement is that the casualties that are lost en-route and once "deployed" at target are now separated from their truck or plane group while the others are still alive and active in the battle. I think we can find a good compromise here and I would like to propose an alternative that can sort of meet in the middle giving us the best part of getting to the mission objective as a group, as well as keep the group together for some time as they begin to take casualties once deployed.

I propose that we use the trucks and the transport planes to create groups of players on the fly, and then the driver/pilot and those players that "hitched the ride" are authorized to utilize the FMS/FRU/etc that that vehicle places as long as they are active.

Since transport planes don't place mobile spawn points, I would either allow all the "troops" that initially joined that transport plane to respawn and jump again as long as that AC was over the target, OR, better yet, tie an FRU to whoever is leading the jump (mission leader?) that will activate at the point he hits the ground that the pilot and all the guys on that plane could respawn from, only as airborne, for the lifetime (to be determined) of that FRU.

When the FMS or FRU is destroyed, ALL the players attached to that vehicle/FMS/FRU go back to either the same place/spawnpoint of the vehicle where they started the mission (or the closest available alternative) and get a pop-up notice that their "mission/group"? spawn point has been destroyed and the option to either stay in the same group that they created upon joining the first truck/plane to do it again, or they can give up that reservation leaving the group to go '"do their own thing" somewhere else (including spawning another truck/plane to start the formation of another group). If they elect to stay with the group, they can wait for the mission leader (or someone else in the group?) to spawn another truck/plane which will auto launch that group on the same platform (truck/plane) and away they go to do it again. I would allow more people to join that "team" on the fly (up to a logical allowance, don't need 1000 guys all using the same truck) but the FMS/FRU availability would have to be "locked" to the the guys associated with the truck/plane if not upon joining the vehicle outright allowing for anyone killed enroute to spawn at FMS/FRU with the rest of the group as soon as it is set, up to at least at the point of FMS/FRU deployment.

1) It promotes team and squad building by the natural grouping of players both squad and individual alike
2) It serves as a catalyst for natural leaders to start leading
3) It gets the trucks back into use by groups rather than individuals, minimizing the un-managed/un-organized practice of individual people setting multiple mobile spawns by/for themselves, many that no one knows who put it there, who's using it, or the plan (if any) associated with it
4) It would keep the groups together at the target by utilization of the FMS/FRU for that group associated with the vehicle that delivered it
5) It would allow the groups to stick together (even increase in size on subsequent trips) on multiple missions (truck runs) if they so choose
6) It kills the problem with people spawning out in the middle of nowhere (at least with the mobile spawns) because everyone attached to/on that truck/plane FMS/FRU would know exactly why and whose using that spawn point
7) Its a GREAT mechanism to build an inclusive "group" chat channel around for text OR voice when we get around implementing that. Not exclusive to squad members, but to all that joined that truck or plane. Would work with proximity chat right now
8) More trucks on the ground and transport planes in the air, more people hunting them on the ground and in the air
9) With trucks consistently making trips back to the battlefront from safer places to the rear, (FB's or other depots) should bring more fighting out of the cities into the countryside.
10) Brings back the camaraderie we've lost by fostering communication between the players riding on those vehicles
11) Helps to get newbies up to speed and integrated into the playerbase through that group contact
12) Brings back some of those shared "wwiiol moments" when buzzed by low flying AC, near misses, etc, that we'd all talk excitedly about during the ride

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a short followup...

The truck/FMS - para/FRU proposal is only about group supported/limited FMS's and paratrooper FRU's that are "owned" by the riders in each vehicle. So you couldn't just plop one down and spawn an adhoc army out of it, you would be limited by the capacity for each vehicle (20-30 each truck/plane respectively?). So it would pay to assault with as many people as possible in more than one truck, and possibly with some armor and air to help scout/spot/defend for the multiple truck assault group. You cant place an FMS by yourself, and you cant limit the folks that hitch a ride on your truck to just your squad, so we get some squad expansion and vet/newbie "lone wolf" inclusion/integration in ALL FMS spawning operations. Again, that brief experience/communication period (while enroute) is the catalyst for the inclusion and introductions that we do not support/foster with the current adhoc forward mobile spawning system. And I hope everyone can appreciate that it only affects mobile PPO's.  If you aren't trying to advance across open terrain and set an FMS or do a para drop it's no different than CP spawning today. If your using a CP facility to spawn (like on defense) or once you captured a facility in the enemies CP, (as you would on offense) the truck-FMS/plane-FRU groups would basically end until the next truck/transport runs because everyone would be facility spawning like they already do now unless we change that paradigm somehow as well.

Just my $0.02...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with what you said Hatch. Those who never rode in the back of a truck into battle simply don't understand the social aspect of that. Did it suck when you were strafed by a plane or ambushed by armored car? Yup! But it was part of the game. Some component of having players ride in trucks would help with organization since like you said you have a few minutes to talk about what you will do in town, and more importantly you arrive as a group, and often you have an incentive to stay together as a group because you have already agreed upon a target and roles. How many times in the back of a truck did we call out things like "I'll SMG the stairs while you run around into the blind corner." You would hit the CP and there was a natural flow to the game, versus the current more individual/rambo style play we have.

And as Augetout said, the one major hindrance for squad retention and buy-in are AOs and the inability to have the tactical initiative to attack. Without a way around the AO bottleneck/gatekeeper role squads simply will not invest the time to organize operations. I would suspect a lot of squads that are looking to attract back old members are facing similar questions since that is the reason most players left in the first place.

I have also personally had a big issue as well with mobile spawns being able to be placed in a 360 degree arc around a town with no semblance of a front line. Stalingrad-esque battles sure are fun, but not in every hamlet and town along the front, please! I think mobile spawning has a role and ironically, if the FMS was set to a 1.5 km range that would likely bring about the return of the truck. Naturally this would slightly increase travel time so capture times in the CPs would need to be decreased as well. The FMS could then start to function as a type of placeable forward base and forward staging area. EDIT: Trucks/APCs which can only spawn at an FB would then become a type of shuttle that would get infantry that spawn at the FMS into the battle at the target town. FMS spawning would be infantry only and FB spawning similarly would be as it is now. One truck can still only make 1 FMS.


Going along with what Hatch said related to trucks and how they are important for the social dimension of the game, player cohesion, some amount of planning, and most importantly arriving as a group to the action. Depot spawning would still be a thing. Naturally table timers and depot spawning throttling would have to be balanced.

frontline-idea.jpg

Note: only infantry can spawn at FMS, trucks must drive from FB to FMS and then shuttle between target town and FMS until they are destroyed

I think that a very simply paradigm could be created that any players could instantly understand. Click on city > Choose FMS from map > Get on waiting truck with other players. Like Hatch said, I can't begin to say how important the truck ride was for new players to understand the game. They would get vital information on what the veteran players were going to do, what to look out for, and even they were really new, they just stuck to one of the vets and followed them around. This is how most squads actually recruited members (back in the day where you had to go to a separate website and request access to joint a squad!).

Would you have some situations where there is no truck? Yeah. But honestly those situations "back in the day" were pretty minimal. Plus you have always the FB spawn to fall back on if there is no truck at your particular FMS. Ironically, the time it takes a truck to cover the 1.5 km is much shorted than it now takes infantry to cover the same terrain. And with a proper ZOC covered and flanked by tanks you create a safe attack corridor through which you bring in your truck-mounted (or tank mounted) infantry.

Seriously, when was the last time you saw infantry riding on top of tanks? We used to have tanks full of infantry. Sometimes 4, 5, even 6 on a single tank.

Hatch hit is on the head with how corrosive mobile spawning has been for organized teamplay and social cohesion. It shouldn't be completely eliminated because I think it creates some interesting opportunities like I illustrated above. Just some food for thought S!

Edited by aismov
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll do a short followup myself :D

Good article here about Eve Online and the important point they have about gameplay: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/327595/How_EVE_Online_has_evolved_in_the_era_of_F2P.php

The relevant part is here, but read the rest:

"Players are the lifeblood of any game, but EVE Online is different: every capsuleer coexists in a single shared universe, separated only by time zones and the distance between stargates. Over the last 15 years CCP has shepherded a singular spacefaring society, built on the mantra that players are the content."

 

And another relevant linked article: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/269520/EVE_Onlines_big_battle_proves_players_are_the_content_in_a_sandbox_MMO.php

"It's a fascinating reminder that this 13-year-old game remains vibrant and compelling because its players are the content: the game is "about player-created stories," and developers at CCP are "relatively hands-off janitors of the virtual world" EVE's former senior producer Jon Lander told Gamasutra in 2012. "We build a social engine that people actually love, hate, despise each other, love each other, backstab each other, and play the good Samaritan. People know each other, and there is this history," Lander said, and the story you can read at the CCP blog -- featuring the underdog becoming the victor in the second-biggest battle in the game's history -- is testament to that."

 

And one last good set of links from GDC interviews on the social aspects of MMOs:

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/179176/CCP_Onlines_three_design_pillars_for_sandbox_MMOs.php

https://gdcvault.com/play/1016600/The-Other-White-Meat-Design (This is the video that is referenced in the above the pillars article)

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

So, is it possible to have 1.36's hybrid supply also have a hybrid AO functionality?  A squad getting 10 guys (or whatever is decided is appropriate) to the EWS of a non-AO town would then cause an automatic AO.  It would seem the garrison supply protocols would allow for attacks to go back to happening all over the place, with no real danger of instaspawning armies appearing in the rear.  HC would still be responsible for brigade/division moves, and leadership, but the leash on squads would be loosened a bit, hopefully allowing for more squad enthusiasm.

S!

I had this very thought today, and I will be asking our guys about the feasibility shortly.

4 people like this

Share this post


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

I had this very thought today, and I will be asking our guys about the feasibility shortly.

Hallelujah!!!

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's remind that there are differences between those playing and those waiting. Some ideas are too extreme in this regards .

Still,  squad regeneration needs:

1. Setting up the online/offline tools to identify and reach players with the same  game experience expectations

2. Creating the need/reward for team based play, game play wise

3. Implementing UI tools to further ease team management/control, role play wise

 

Note that the new UI and the voicecomms are part of step 1

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup completely agree. In many of those GDC talks I linked to, one of the common themes that they mentioned was that the social aspect of MMOs actually requires some down time. One of the devs from Eve said how for many guilds mining as a group is actually a fun experience in this odd way you woudn't expect (but not if you do it alone). It is very similar to what we would do on resupply. Just do some low stress driving, shoot the breeze on chat or voicecoms, some guys had beers open.

One thing I always wished we had was stupid little minigames like a deck of cards you could put down and do a hand of blackjack or any number of short dumb things to pass the time. It sounds stupid but all those little things are interactions between people and build up the social aspect of the game.

I personally can't remember any campaign wins or losses really. I can't remember any real battles except for some hazy recollections. But I can remember clear as day the small, fun, unexpected things I did with squad mates. Like the time me and Krafty flew to the Alps and did a landing on snow. Or the time the whole squad spawned 109s and we flew to Maubeuge. Or when we loaded a transport to the brim trying to invade England. What made all those times memorable, and the game fun to play, was the social bonds and good memories you formed. For example on the last one we couldn't stop laughing when we got ambushed by a DD and we were running out of the holds to escape the sinking ship but forced Plastic to go down with the ship as CO of the squad. lulz all around.

You win battles and lose them, but its the friends you make along the way that really make this game.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2018 at 11:38 PM, augetout said:

Hallelujah!!!

 

S!

Bleh.

 

Serious problems inbound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@HATCH, I agree fully with the ideas brought forward. Mobile spawning has its place but it shouldn't replace cohesive groups of players working together. I always wanted to play pre-MS days.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.