ZEBBEEE

Poll of the day: The Mission Leader

Poll of the day   46 members have voted

  1. 1. Select the roles (max 3) you expect the most from a mission leader

    • Deployment: chosing spawn point location
      25
    • Experience: know-how about unit type or mission type
      13
    • Leadership: defining the objective(s) and priorities
      32
    • Roleplay: execution of HC plan and reporting
      6
    • Social: generating friendship between mission members
      4
    • Supply: attribution of weapons and equipment
      5
    • Tactics: tactical planning and situational awareness
      29
    • Training: support to the learning of the game
      5
  2. 2. When will YOU endorse the role of a leader?

    • I rarely or never take the lead
      7
    • I take the lead in any circumstances
      10
    • When the objective can greatly impact the battle/campaign
      13
    • As soon as I play with squad members
      6
    • When there is a higher ranked officer to report to
      3
    • When our probability to win seems high
      3
    • When our probability to win seems low
      4
    • When morale is high
      2
    • When morale is low
      6
    • When there is a prepared battle plan to execute
      12
    • When I observe a lack of cohesion between players
      19
    • Only when all players are on my DISCORD channel
      1
    • It depends on the mission type
      12
    • It depends on the unit type
      2
  3. 3. What should be the ideal size of a team for real co-op play? (fire team, squadron...)

    • 2
      0
    • 3
      1
    • 4
      6
    • 5
      7
    • 6
      7
    • 7
      0
    • 8
      11
    • More than 8
      14

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

32 posts in this topic

The game needs a better UI for mission spawning that has the tools to allow the mission leader to guide his players. (Ready Room) This should include a way to brief mission members, organize load outs, assign duties, plan fallback contingencies and secondary objectives with maps and way points.

Many people don't have the time to commit to joining and actively participating in a squad, but miss the quality of game play that teamwork brings to the game. This means yearly subscriptions are down because the value isn't there. I only have a few hours a week to play and it takes all that time to find and get vested into an organized game play. This would be great for squads too as it would build leadership and recruitment. The old fear of squads taking over the game can be eliminated by limiting the number of mission members per mission.

Share this post


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

Well, forming all missions 1 mission per town would be a start. Like @ZeroAce said players spread across mission for the same objective is just useless scatter. Also I go back on that statement about squad being a good model, after playing a bit and really analyzing the meta game, I believe no one works together because you make it so easy not to work together. What I mean is every mission leader sets their MS close as possible to town, where everyone just walks and tanks come from way back and no one actually pushes together in a group, and my theory on this is because no one starts in a group, everyone spawns at different times in different areas and they trickle in one by one.

After playing Foxhole, being trucked into the front lines to our nearest FOB, from there everyone spawns and groups form up and push together, using armor as cover.
I think this is somewhat missing with the use of MS. I can't even be a trucker anymore, no infantry spawn in the FB to be transported, they wait for the mission leader to sneakly place his MS then they spawn there. I actually sat at Fb waiting for infantry to spawn and maybe 2 did, everyone else went MS to Warp to Depot spawn. I'm a bit disappointed how it all plays, there's no reason to work together when you can spawn so close to town in front of your armor and not actually have to push a line.

I am a firm believer that a game must be built to require teamwork to succeed before players will be inclined to use it. Many a game has gone through the effort of integrating commander systems and voice comms only to see the average player ignore these systems in favor of mindless spawning and killing - because the game was designed in a way that allowed mindless spawning and killing to still result in players feeling like they are achieving something with their mindless killing despite the objective not being achieved, or merely allowing the objective being achieved by mindless spawning and killing. Change the way victory conditions and game mechanics work if you want to force players to gravitate towards teamwork. 

But I equally believe that a game requiring teamwork to succeed, without extensive tools to facilitate how you want them to work together, is going to flop and leave players frustrated at their inability to function effectively. 

I believe WW2OL falls into the later category more than the former. Players have battered their heads against the wall of a town uselessly long enough to understand that teamwork is necessary to take it. But the tools are so non-existent that few bother even attempting to lead outside the context of a squad where everyone has already agreed beforehand to meet at a predetermined time to follow your orders. And the poor spawning mechanics themselves don't even lend themselves to effectively organizing and executing combined attacks.

 

But in order for a game to design itself around the kinds of teamwork they want to see they have to have a very clear idea of what they want to see happen. If you don't aim at a target you are sure to never hit it.

I would say what WW2OL wants is to replicate infantry Squad dynamics and Company level infantry combat.

It wants to replicate Wing dynamics and Squadron level air combat.

It wants to replicate Tank Platoon dynamics as well as Tank Company level combat.

I would go further to say we also want to replicate the dynamics of how all these elements interact with battlefield support systems like entrenchments/fortifications, artillery, anti-tank guns, intelligence gathering, etc.  

It wants to represent some of the larger strategic and supply concerns beyond the company/battalion level of the battlefield (although I think it's less concerned with being a perfect replication of this as it is concerned with being a perfect replication of battlefield tactics). 

WW2OL also wants to replicate how they coordinate together to take and hold ground. 

It's a tall order, but that's also what makes WW2OL different from even games like Warthunder or Post Scriptum where all these elements are never represented together all at once. 

 

With those criteria in mind, you can start to design your game's organization and communication, as well as your spawning and supply systems, around facilitating those goals.

You have a double pronged approach where on the one hand you put pressure on players, out of necessity, to follow the paths you want them to. But on the other hand you also create in them incentives and desires and expectations to operate this way, while then providing the tools for them to fulfill their desires. This ends up being a win/win for both the developers and the players when this is achieved. 

 

Quote

I remember seeing somewhere town capture being revamped, good because battles are a bit unnatural for my taste, how the focus is capture  the spawnable depot and then camp the enemy spawns/play cat and mouse on the capture points.

This is a function of incomplete and broken spawning systems that were never good ways to replicate the kind of combat we want to see out of the game. 

How combat unfolds in a game will always be dictated by how you design your spawning and supply systems primarily. Secondarily it will be influenced by how you design your communication and organizational systems - but spawning and supply is still the primary issue at play here.

It would be a great mistake to go about integrating all these new fangled coordination and communication systems in the game, expecting some great improvement in gameplay, only to realize that tactics haven't changed much because the underlying mechanics of how you take ground haven't improved to better reflect a simulation of real combat dynamics. 

That's why a lot of games find themselves in a position of creating teamwork systems that go unused because they didn't design game mechanics that actually required or incentivized players to use them in the way you wanted. 

 

Quote

I no longer am in favor of infantry spawns close to town, I think the system should be flipped instead of a MS 500 meters out from town, it should be MS 500-1000 meters from friendly FB, that way you're still relying on armored personal carriers pushing with armor as well as infantry (every tank can carry infantry too so space is no problem).

I think this serves the game better than the quick action MS close to enemy towns. A MS closer to FB will live longer, people can utilize PPO's to really fortify and dig in at a half way point from town. In the case the attack fails, they're able to fall back and have an epic battle in the open, tanks and all, infantry, smoke, everything. Players in Foxhole seem to be fine with having EVERYTHING from troops, guns, ammo, supplies, everything being trucked in from the next town, people dedicate themselves to logistics and that's kind of what I expect now from wwiiol if that makes sense.

I can say from experience that a 500m MS is the bare minimum required to have any chance of successfully assaulting a town. No town has ever been taken by a 1km MS. A 1km MS is what you use while you struggle to gain the ground necessary to support a 500m MS. In order to be on an even footing with the defenders you need to be able to spawn close to the common combat engagements ranges, which is about 300m or less. 500m is about as far out as you can get and still sprint close to combat distance which minimizes your delay in getting back to the fight. 500m is still not ideal because of that delay if you want to achieve dense infantry battles with small population numbers. 

The is a simple mathematical reason why this is the case. 

You can basically figure out whether or not the level of combat in WW2OL is viable and will result in a battlefield conclusion being reached with a mathematical equation that factors in the total population participating in the battle, the time of travel from their spawnpoints to the battlefield, and the total amount of supply available in the spawnlists associated with that battle.

For instance: Imagine you have 1000 players on each side, and the spawn list on each side has a supply of exactly 1000 infantry units. This will result in achieving 100% battle density because 100% of your supply will always be on the battlefield, and it will be very easy for them to all spawn out together and travel together towards the objective. As long as they all spawn together at the start of the battle then they will all arrive at the battlefield together so the fact that they had to travel an hour to get to the battlefield has no negative impact on whether or not this battle can reach a decisive conclusion. These 1000 players on each side are going to eventually clash, and do so in force as a dense mass, and victory or defeat will become very clear as one side will inevitably kill more than the other side. Either the attackers will take ground by killing more than the enemy kills, or the defenders will successfully defend the town by denying the attackers the ability to kill them off. Either the attackers will call off the attack and fortify their position to prevent a counter attack, or they will get wiped out so bad that the defenders can counter attack to seize ground.

Change just one factor of this equation and you can render viable combat impossible. Give each side a supply of 2000 infantry units instead of 1000, but keep the player numbers and distances the same. Now it becomes utterly impossible for the attackers to ever achieve victory by tactical superiority. Because even if they win the initial clash, the defenders all get one free respawn that puts them right back on the battlefield in less than a minute. The attackers effectively have no respawn option because it would take them an hour to get back to the battlefield. Could the attackers still win? Yes, but only through attrition. It will be impossible to win through tactical superiority due to the disparity in time to battle. The only way they can win is by dying, but killing more than they lose, and then traveling back to the battlefield a second time to wipe out the rest of the defender's supply. This is difficult to do when you are in the disadvantaged position of the attacker, and becomes further impossible with the distances involved because your entire playerbase is going to strung out in an uncoordinated mess as they all respawn at different times. The defenders, in contrast, have the advantage of cohesion because they respawn close to where their existing force already is.

Now lets take this equation down even further: You have a supply of 1000 infantry units, but you have only 50 players, and the time to battle for your infantry is 10 minutes.  This is an even worse situation because, even though your time to battle is much lower now, your ability to exert influence over the battlefield gets exponentially worse the smaller your player numbers get in relationship to the amount of supply you have. 

The later is the situation we find ourselves in the most, which is why so many battles feel like pointless games of cat and house rather than serious attacks. The attackers have no serious way of overcoming the circumstances of this situation unless they are able to achieve abusive a massive swing in population advantage or pull off some kind of amazing gamey camp before the defenders can get setup. 

You fix this problem by introducing more robust spawning systems that allow the attackers to get in close and stay close so that they have a reasonable chance of bringing the battle to a conclusion by out-fighting their opponents to take and hold territory, as opposed to being forced to only win battles by attrition (a proposition which has become impossible as player numbers have declined further and supply stockpiles have only gotten larger after brigade spawning came out). 

Edited by ZeroAce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kase250 said:

However, I still do not understand why people insist on comparing Squad / PS with WW2OL. The only thing they have in common is that they are set in a warlike conflict ....

Squad has a lot more in common with WW2OL at a tactical level than it does with other shooters.

-A military simulator approach towards weapons handling and behavior. 

-A miltiary simulator approach towards player movement and vitality. 

-Larger scale combat than it typically found in other shooters in terms of player numbers, engagement ranges, and map size.

Given all these variables, Squad would find themselves suffering from the same problems a typical WW2OL battle does if they had not attempted to deal with this by introducing dynamic spawning systems and robust coordination tools. Especially since, with the population numbers reduction, WW2OL often won't even have battles larger than a full Squad server, and the numbers they do have will feel even smaller because of how the spawning system results in low density combat. 

 

Planetside 2 is also the only game on the market that is close to WW2OL at the strategic level in terms of a persistent map where you assault one base from another. They have to deal with the same potential pitfalls as WW2OL, therefore it's self evident that there's something to be learned by seeing how they have avoided those problems in PS2. For instance, how do you deal with travel times? Mobile spawn points. Vehicle based spawning. Bases that aren't so far apart in the first place. Furthermore, they also had to come up with ways of letting players quickly figure out where the battles are and how to join them. This is a critical factor in games like this where you never have a large enough playerbase to have dense battle going off over the entire frontline at once. Something that makes WW2OL and PS2, or even large map based games like Squad or ARMA, fundamentally different from your typical small closed map shooters. 

Obviously, since they share similar problems, we can learn a lot by seeing how they address the problems (or how they don't).

 

Edited by ZeroAce

Share this post


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

The game needs a better UI for mission spawning that has the tools to allow the mission leader to guide his players. (Ready Room) This should include a way to brief mission members, organize load outs, assign duties, plan fallback contingencies and secondary objectives with maps and way points.

Many people don't have the time to commit to joining and actively participating in a squad, but miss the quality of game play that teamwork brings to the game. This means yearly subscriptions are down because the value isn't there. I only have a few hours a week to play and it takes all that time to find and get vested into an organized game play. This would be great for squads too as it would build leadership and recruitment. The old fear of squads taking over the game can be eliminated by limiting the number of mission members per mission.

Actually Mission Leaders can do all this currently. Waypoints and Rally points can be set up, if you join any of my missions I utilize them quite a bit. .orders can also be updated to show changes to object.

Yes the UI is in need of a facelift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2019 at 5:19 PM, BLKHWK8 said:

Actually Mission Leaders can do all this currently. Waypoints and Rally points can be set up, if you join any of my missions I utilize them quite a bit. .orders can also be updated to show changes to object.

Yes the UI is in need of a facelift.

There are some really top people commenting here, including ZeroAce who is a welcome sight to see return on such matters (even though we often disagreed).  I'd study these responses carefully.

 

Missions need much much more then a UI facelift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue which I think many of agree with is that with there being multiple missions (8+ for a hot town) the chance that you will spawn in on the one with a good ML that updates orders and places talky points is pretty small.

I agree that there should be one mission for the town that way there could be a mission OIC that dedicated to running the show with taky points, waypoints, updated contacts, and if you don't it's easy to .makeleader someone who does.

Now how the spawning system would work is I think still up for debate and lots of good ideas have been mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.