ZeroAce

The direction WW2OL needs to take

34 posts in this topic

9 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Paradrops are realistic, of course, but the drop should have to be in sufficient force to defeat the ground defenses.

I'm a big fan of paradrops, however, we need critical population mass first IMO before we entertain much further. if we get to the point that every attack is just a stale meat grinder, its likely because we've got too much density. we're in no danger of that at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the warp behind the lines is gamey, particularly on the scale of taking down one dFMS. The idea of the defense aiding to define the front might be a logical addition, however. 

I think it would be a great good thing if the town garrisons CRS is working on had persistent defensive missions. Iirc they once did, back before TOEs. With persistent defensive missions would come persistent dFMS'. Then the lines could be drawn and redrawn as seen fit by the players, which might then define where the attacker could set-up. 

Given current game tech, persistent defensive missions might be the best first step for a better flow of battle. Following that, each dFMS could be given a dozen or 2 attached persistent (non-timeout) PPOs (they'd be put on a timer when their FMS is destroyed). Now you'd have something more resembling a proper front line.

Then bit by bit you could vary the dFMS' even more by style, spawnlist, and associated PPO types: infantry squad dFMS', atg dFMS' (Germans could have the 88 spawn out and ready before the nme hits), vehicle dFMS' (rear spawns to prevent camping).

Next step would be something like morphing vehicle FMS' into mobile FBs.

If you want more countryside fighting, a more important role for scouting, less camping, more of a realistic frontline, better flow of battle, and more variety to the fight (not the same target in the same place every time) I think the FMS is decidedly the bit of tech to leverage.

Heck, maybe even the FBs could have persistent defensive missions, with resulting dFMS positions squared off against the nme: a front line with both sides staring each other down. 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Attacks from the front via FB and MS, attacks from the rear via Truck and Paradrop.

Couldnt agree more.

@bigglesI agree that the way forward is some sort of persistent defenses that can be player placed/created.

I think this may be a good time to bring up the idea of mannable weapons. Having a persistent PPO/FMS is a good start we should try to go for, but I think the key really is having pre-positioned ATGs and other defensive lines because it just takes to long to spawn in an ATG and move it into effective position before an enemy tank on the move is on top of you.

And if sandbag PPOs lasted for say 12 hrs, it would open up a whole new game for the players who like playing more of a support role by fortifying those dFMS positions.

Edited by aismov
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of the coding for mannable weapons is already written. That would certainly be akin to joining another player's vehicle.

Maybe the progression could be:

Current: join other player's vehicle before spawn.

Next: join already spawned unit on the fly.

Then: full control of vehicle may be given to (with rank considerations) secondary player.

Lastly: leave PPO unit in the field to be "joined" (taken over) by other player (again, with rank considerations).

Edited by blggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, aismov said:

Couldnt agree more.

@bigglesI agree that the way forward is some sort of persistent defenses that can be player placed/created.

I think this may be a good time to bring up the idea of mannable weapons. Having a persistent PPO/FMS is a good start we should try to go for, but I think the key really is having pre-positioned ATGs and other defensive lines because it just takes to long to spawn in an ATG and move it into effective position before an enemy tank on the move is on top of you.

And if sandbag PPOs lasted for say 12 hrs, it would open up a whole new game for the players who like playing more of a support role by fortifying those dFMS positions.

all this should be HC and Squad level tools IMO. I'd be fine with some 'ai build' function if no existing AO is on the town. perhaps allow limited 'ai build function' for under pop. not suggesting 'ai shoots' ever, just a force multiplier for players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, blggles said:

I wonder how much of the coding for mannable weapons is already written. That would certainly be akin to joining another player's vehicle.

Maybe the progression could be:

Current: join other player's vehicle before spawn.

Next: join already spawned unit on the fly.

Then: full control of vehicle may be given to (with rank considerations) secondary player.

Lastly: leave PPO unit in the field to be "joined" (taken over) by other player (again, with rank considerations).

And it would also be easier if say you are logging for the evening and hanging over your gun to another interested player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You bet. Helps keep the fight going, and gets folks to the battle faster. It is an unfortunate thing that join on the fly, take over someone's vehicle, was never developed. Would be very attractive to quick action, shoot-em up players. And it wouldn't be gamey or cheap, as the unit was driven to battle by a player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I forgot to address in the original post was the suggestion put forth by CRS that they may have to sacrifice some of the game's fidelity if they want to move over a new engine. This, to me, is an unacceptable option. The game would cease to be WW2OL if it did not have the best attempt at physics simulation of planes, vehicles, ballistics, and damage modeling that you could achieve. That was one of the game's biggest original selling points, and through the years was one of the pillars of uniqueness that kept the game afloat in a sea of flashier new WW2 games (along with it's scale and scope). A big part of creating a battlefield simulation is having simulation physics. The dynamics of the battle are altered in ways that bring out elements of historicity that we'd never otherwise be able to appreciate without accurate simulation. In an arcade level abstraction of vehicles and ballistics you cannot appreciate what the Matilda or Tiger were on the battlefield until you've actually had to face one that is simulated according to historical designs and ballistics. Likewise, you cannot appreciate the impact the Spitfire made on the outcome of the war until you've tried first defeating the 109e with a Hurricane or Hawk. You'll never fully appreciate why they made the decisions they did regarding aircraft weapons and loadouts until you start trying to use them in a simulation. You can learn and appreciate a lot about history from a video game if it's simulation quality is high enough. You know you've done something right with the way tanks and ballistics are simulated in the game when someone can pull out a WW2 German writing on recommended tank tactics and unit cohesion and find much of what he said directly applies to the virtual battlefield. That doesn't happen with the Battlefield franchise games. You can read about how good the spitfire was and why, but a simulation like this will bring it to life for you in a way of understanding you never had before. You'll never get that understanding from playing Battlefield's WW2 games. It reminds me of how when the inrangetv guys will do competition tests of WW2/WW1 guns they will gain an understanding and appreciation of what history says about these weapons in a way you never can just reading a book about it. 

I don't think new graphics is motivation enough for a new engine, especially if that is the price you have to pay for it. 


CRS is in a tough position if they truly cannot rework the existing game engine to deliver the dynamic spawning and coordination systems it needs, but they can't move to a new engine without losing WW2OL's identity either. As important as I think new spawn/coordination systems are for the viability of the game, I don't think cutting off their legs to achieve that is a winning strategy either. They need to rethink how they can preserve the simulation aspect of the game in the event of an engine transition. Giving up the simulation fidelity for a new engine would be like giving up the persistent battlefield for a new engine. You're throwing away a core identity pillar of what makes WW2OL what it is. The game won't really be WW2OL anymore. It will have a hard time standing out from the competition if, instead of continuing to try to be the virtual battlefield simulation, you instead try to become merely the WW2 mod of Planetside 2 (and all the arcadeness that implies). There are way too many WW2 games out that achieve quite a significant scale of combat, or achieve high levels of fidelity, for WW2OL to be a standout alternative without continuing to have top notch simulation fidelity along with a persistent full scale battlefield. I think you'd do as much harm as good with that approach by sacrificing one key element to gain another. 

 

On 1/4/2019 at 10:11 AM, Silky said:

Hey ZeroAce S!

 

S! 

 

On 1/4/2019 at 4:50 AM, knucks said:

So what's the solution? It can't be overly complicated, we have enough varied assets in game we should be able to make due with what we have.

 

23 hours ago, madrebel said:

@ZeroAce - how would you go about fixing this? not my point above but in general, how would you implement dynamic spawns preferably with the tools available like trucks, fms, etc?

I am working on a post that will go into depth of analyzing what we need and why to fix the problem. I'll either post it here or start a new thread for it because of how large it would be. It's not a simple subject to address because it's a facet of the game that intersects with every major aspect of the game. You can't reshape the way players experience battle for the better through new spawning systems without also reworking capture mechanics, supply mechanics, communication tools, and UI based coordination tools to mesh with and facilitate the new dynamic spawning systems, At some point they start to become mutually dependent on each other in order to deliver the proper battlefield experience. For instance, a lot of the bad battle experiences or impossibility of executing an attack comes down to bad capture mechanics. But these bad capture mechanics were a reaction to try to solve problems inherent in the game's design that led to battles being avoided rather than fought. But those problems are a symptom of bad static spawn systems. By moving to a dynamic spawn system you necessitate a completely new capture model to account for how the situation has changed. 

Furthermore, when you start talking about creating dynamic spawns that give you all the upsides of design without any of the downsides (or heavily minimized downsides), you also by definition start requiring new mechanics for disabling spawns that go beyond just shooting or bombing a spawnpoint. Preventing a single spawnpoint from getting shot or bombed has always been an inherently terrible way of simulating the holding of territory. As a result, no amount of tweaking the current dynamic spawnpoints is going to do you much good if you don't have the ability to change the dynamics of how they are disabled and or kept active. For instance, dynamic infantry spawnpoints would have to move towards an area capture model that shuts off the spawning of the point until the capture attempt is terminated. I'll go into why that solves the problem in my later comprehensive post. 

However, that doesn't mean you need all of these facets to be developed and implemented at the same time, because many elements of the system will improve the game if implemented piecemeal as long as you design those individual elements with the overall structure in mind that it will eventually fit into. So this means you need to think about and plan out the overall picture in detail before you start toiling away at the individual parts, to make sure they will all fit together well when it's all said and done. 

I wouldn't say the end result would be overly complicated - if anything our goal is to design something that is somewhat straitforward and simple, yet powerfully effective. Truly brilliant engineering achieves complicated results with the simpliest mechanism possible.

However, the process of analyzing the game's parts and trying to reshape them to fit together differently is not itself a simple thing to talk about. 

It's also difficult to talk about what they can or cannot achieve with the coding tools available because we honestly just don't know what the extent is of how far they can twist and push the truck/FRU systems from a coding perspective. We also just aren't in a position to be able to say what the engine is or is not capable of doing. As a result, the best we can do is merely outline from a design perspective what the game objectively needs and why and then leave it up to the engineers to figure out how they can best achieve those core goals with the tech the options they have. 

The task is made easier for them if we can come to some core principle conclusions about what the game needs to be and how it has to achieve that. Some guidelines the abide by in design. Guidelines like that will allow them to potentially engineer different solutions to the same problem, that achieve a similar result, because they operated according to the same guidelines that were already established about what the game needs and why. 

 

On 1/7/2019 at 3:24 PM, Kilemall said:

You have to think through the combat biome and the player experience and DESIGN before coding or you are just putting lipstick on the pig.

This ties in with what I just was saying to madrebel - I do think that the missing key here is a clear vision of what they want to achieve in terms of want they want a battle to look like and what they want the player to experience. You have to do that before you can start evaluating whether or not what you have is achieving that and why it isn't. 

But if you can nail down some core values and goals, it becomes easier to start evaluating what does or does not serve that goal. 

 

Edited by ZeroAce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.