• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Crs Wants You!   01/18/2019

      CRS is looking for some volunteer live support chat staff.  Are you up for the assignment?  If so,  please send an email with your interest to,  Jobs@corneredrats.com
aismov

1.36 and TBS can't come soon enough!

50 posts in this topic

Just now, knucks said:

It's not about force, it's proper simulation of waves of reinforcement coming in. Spawning 1 person at a time is unrealistic, and I think in a game this paced, you can afford to wait a few seconds before spawning in as a team, rather than a lone wolf.

Understood.  But don't we already have the ability to this ourselves right now?  Do we need it 'coded' in?  I'm not saying its 'wrong' to code it in.  I'm just confused about the problem as stated.  It seems we as a playerbase can already do this in-game if we wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, forrest said:

Understood.  But don't we already have the ability to this ourselves right now?  Do we need it 'coded' in?  I'm not saying its 'wrong' to code it in.  I'm just confused about the problem as stated.  It seems we as a playerbase can already do this in-game if we wanted to.

I don't think that's the right question. If it makes sense, fits in, and meets the benefit of teamwork and group-play, then there is there a reason NOT to code it in? You would have to convince me against it more than for it, because lots of war-like games use this method and in my experience it's always worked as intended.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, knucks said:

I don't think that's the right question. If it makes sense, fits in, and meets the benefit of teamwork and group-play, then there is no reason NOT to code it in.

Fair enough.  I guess its the difference between perspectives.  One views the solution as the developer should 'code' the gameplay we desire.  Another may view it as the players should 'create' the gameplay we desire.  I'm not sure if the best way is one...or the other.  Maybe its a bit of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, forrest said:

Fair enough.  I guess its the difference between perspectives.  One views the solution as the developer should 'code' the gameplay we desire.  Another may view it as the players should 'create' the gameplay we desire.  I'm not sure if the best way is one...or the other.  Maybe its a bit of both.

I see that as the developer meeting the player half way, code it so we start together, leave it on us to stay together ;)
Sounds pretty reasonable doesn't it? It should.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, xanthus said:

Disagree. There is zero incentive to use them, and close to zero value in most situations (since there is no group-based play anyway). I have orders permanently disabled in my UI.

Well yeah if they're permanently disabled, there's no reason to use them. I've been able to successfully use them in almost every time that I've logged in. If you mean you don't get points, yeah you're right no incentive. But if you want to be a mission leader that directs users on your mission, this is the most effective way to do it, until we get integrated voice comms that is. And THAT, is going to be awesome-sauce.

I've seen several good field leaders using .orders, I'd suggest reconsidering. It does work, but it has to be actively updated and managed.

  1. Start mission
  2. Setup mobile spawn
  3. Place objective waypoint
  4. Have orders supporting your goal
  5. Update 4&5 as they evolve
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squad missions use to have the ability to set a spawn timer where people could reserve each piece of equipment.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I see that as the developer meeting the player half way, code it so we start together, leave it on us to stay together ;)
Sounds pretty reasonable doesn't it? A fair compromise to me :)

Yes it has been discussed in the past that there was an option that the mission leader could set a MISSION SPAWN/LAUNCH timer that would halt spawning until the timer clicked over and your spawn button would activate. That would allow some time to rally up. I see value in that, as long as it's optional. 

The trouble with the other suggestion is that you have arbitrary rolling spawn in times. I've seen that done pretty well in Star Wars Battlefront. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, forrest said:

As it is now:  can't people spawn in, wait 10 seconds for friends to spawn, and then move in together?  Or must it be 'forced' spawn-grouping?  Can we simply not control ourselves for 10 seconds before charging in alone?  Must we ask CRS to 'make' us group up together, when we already have the control to do that ourselves?  

History shows people typically will not wait to group up despite the overwhelming force multiplier effect it has.  

 

Also, you don't have to coordinate anything beforehand in this regard, something that takes time, effort, and ends up being fruitless more often than fruitful.  With wave spawning, it's all done for you.  

 

Once that initial hump is overcome (which is the hardest part), people are much more likely to stay grouped up when they spawn in and see 4-5 guys around them.  It's not a guarantee, but it definitely facilitates teamwork.

 

DoD isn't exactly a great game, but the game would be a heck of a lot worse if people trickled in as they died instead of attacking together in waves.  

Edited by Capco
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, XOOM said:

The trouble with the other suggestion is that you have arbitrary rolling spawn in times. I've seen that done pretty well in Star Wars Battlefront. 

How arbitrary is it really? Lots of War games use spawning this way, how else do you simulate waves of reinforcements? What's worse, waiting a few seconds to spawn as a group, or people trickling into the battle one by one?

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, knucks said:

How arbitrary is it really? Lots of War games use spawning this way, how else do you simulate waves of reinforcements?

Arbitrary as in the timer. I'm not downing the idea just stating that the timer is a variable not yet determined. That's my way of not adding fuel onto the fire to debate something specific in a design that hasn't been approved or fully defined :D. Also known as... experience.

Share this post


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

With wave spawning, it's all done for you.  

Makes sense.  Ooh, and spawn campers tally kills 10 at a time! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, forrest said:

Makes sense.  Ooh, and spawn campers tally kills 10 at a time! :)

Outside of FMS spawns, waved spawning will actually be a boon for the camped.  

 

At an FMS though, 1 HE device (or even 1 rifle bullet) will be devastating...  set up a perpetual timer to give you a notification every time a spawn is about to occur and you could time your camp perfectly.  

 

But tbf, the FMS is easily camped no matter what in its current form.  It's clearly still a work in progress.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Capco said:

Outside of FMS spawns, waved spawning will actually be a boon for the camped.  

 

At an FMS though, 1 HE device (or even 1 rifle bullet) will be devastating...  set up a perpetual timer to give you a notification every time a spawn is about to occur and you could time your camp perfectly.  

 

But tbf, the FMS is easily camped no matter what in its current form.  It's clearly still a work in progress.

Agreed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Well yeah if they're permanently disabled, there's no reason to use them.

Permanently disabled after the 15 years or so of experience with them since they were added.

 

I think .orders *could* be useful, and waypoints could be VERY useful. .........with SECTION-based spawning rather than mission-based. "Missions" should be eliminated all together; after nearly 20 years, the data are in and unequivocal: Mission-based spawning is a failure in terms of facilitating cohesive, hierarchical, team-based gameplay.

One change that would go a long way in improving gameplay would be the following:

- "Missions" are renamed "Sections" ("section" so as to allow for no change to current "squad" terminology). Maybe "fireteam" is another option.

- "Mission Leader" changed to "Section Leader".

- Every section has a player limit (say, 9 or 10). Players see a list of active sections with their location, section leader name, and x/10 players.

- Role-based spawn: When picking a section, you then select a role (limited). E.g. no more than 2x LMG per section, or something like that. No limit to the number of plain riflemen per section (to accommodate free-play accounts).

- Waypoints are not just limited to map; they actually appear in your in-game UI without having to look at the map. In fact, we already have this implemented in the game (currently it's only to show ML and objective).

- Section leader can kick a player out of a section if he chooses (in case a player is ignoring orders or otherwise actin' a fool). This helps improve section teamwork (giving the section leader even more control), and doesn't do anything bad to the kicked player. He's kicked from the section, not the game world. When he dies or respawns, he can merely pick another section or make his own.

- The one and only change to current text channels would be to rename "Mission" channel to "Section"- everything else stays the same.

 

 

 

Of course, the above is inspired by Squad and Post Scriptum....but the reason a game like Squad works so well is that the name says it all; it's about squads, about teamwok. The squad-based spawning system of those games is an absolute success. It allows total strangers who've never played together and aren't part of clans or any other game-related org to play together as a cohesive team, following orders, etc just by clicking on the UI and picking a squad to spawn in with.

 

THIS is what CRS should be trying to accomplish: Get total strangers who've never played together to instantly cooperate as a team and follow orders. It's the GAME and the UI that has to do that, NOT any bizarre expectation that the players should spontaneously figure out teamwork themselves. I've been here since the beginning. That expectation is ludicrous, it is a complete and unambiguous failure. The idea that teamwork in WWIIOL should be completely up to the players is a fantasy. Games like Squad prove that UI alone is enough to facilitate cohesive teamwork (whether it's *effective* teamwork or not is of course entirely up to the players).

Edited by xanthus
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tonight......during USA prime time it was a soft cap then another soft cap......I dont give a F'in Rats a$$ if you need it for strategic reasons.  I don't pay to play against AI or limited action so some internet general can play with his flags......it's boring even if they "try" and defend it as its minimal at best.  I just logged off. 

1.36 cant come soon enough is right!  Not that anyone cares but I will continue to log off if I see another back to back soft cap.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Xanthus 1-15-19 THIS is what CRS should be trying to accomplish: Get total strangers who've never played together to instantly cooperate as a team and follow orders. It's the GAME and the UI that has to do that, NOT any bizarre expectation that the players should spontaneously figure out teamwork themselves. (...) That expectation is (...) a complete and unambiguous failure. The idea that teamwork in WWIIOL should be completely up to the players is a fantasy. Games like Squad prove that UI alone is enough to facilitate cohesive teamwork.

Yes.

+10 .

Another idea, to implement not only Small Unit Teamwork, but also Fear of Death and Suppression:

In real life, soldiers have fear of death. There's no way that game players will voluntarily behave that way, since death costs them only a little time and frustration. Fear of death in-game would manifest as a soldier ducking whenever a bullet passed close by, or a fragments-producing event occurred within lethal distance. A soldier under sustained close lethal fire may be suppressed, i.e. he is psychologically unable to charge into that lethal fire.

In real life, soldiers have morale. It's high or low depending on multiple factors...their unit's recent battle experience (stay behind cover for a while while being shelled, and your morale goes down; your unit captures an important point of value or kills some of the enemy, and your morale goes up), whether you've personally wounded/killed an enemy lately (that's one that won't be getting you), whether someone in your unit has recently been wounded or killed, whether you and your unit are carrying plenty of ammo or have ready access to more, and so forth. Being under especially close fire definitely hurts morale...almost dying is scary every time.

So: every player gets a persistent Morale factor for when they play ground. Events and experiences in-game affect that player's Morale.

Small Unit Teamwork is implemented by Morale. It's voluntary to group up, but a soldier within X proximity of his section leader, and/or Y other members of his section, gets a Morale adder every minute if he's within that distance. Having plenty of ammo, or ready access to more, gives a Morale adder every minute. 

Fear of Death and Suppression are implemented by involuntary, but morale-dependent, flinching. Immediately after a soldier with average-or-below Morale has a bullet pass close enough to actuate the bullet-sound code, or is close enough to the explosion of a fragment-producing ordnance that the code does a hit check on that soldier, that soldier automatically switches to one stance lower and loses some Morale. 

Standing or Walking --> Crouching

Kneeling or Crouching --> Prone

Running --> Prone

Jogging --> Prone

Only crawling is not suppressed.

Soldiers with high enough Morale don't flinch, but still take a Morale hit. Eventually, even the highest-morale soldiers can be suppressed by continuous proximity to close lethal fire.

A soldier that's been suppressed can get back up immediately, but also can be suppressed again immediately by another event. The obvious preferred response to being suppressed by gunfire or explosions is to hightail it out of wherever you're getting shot at.

If someday Medics are implemented, having a Medic in your section is good for Morale. Having a Medic stabilize a wounded section member so he can be evac'ed reverses the Morale hit caused by the wounding.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Yes it has been discussed in the past that there was an option that the mission leader could set a MISSION SPAWN/LAUNCH timer that would halt spawning until the timer clicked over and your spawn button would activate. That would allow some time to rally up. I see value in that, as long as it's optional. 

The trouble with the other suggestion is that you have arbitrary rolling spawn in times. I've seen that done pretty well in Star Wars Battlefront. 

The mission system as a whole should be done away with.  The AO should be "the mission" with multiple mobile spawns, depots, ABs on that mission that can be clicked on right on the map to choose a spawn point.  It would be cleaner and more intuitive.  Allow squads to name the mobile spawns on the map so people know who is operating that particular spawn.  Clean.  Efficient.  Intuitive.

Share this post


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

The mission system as a whole should be done away with.  The AO should be "the mission" with multiple mobile spawns, depots, ABs on that mission that can be clicked on right on the map to choose a spawn point.  It would be cleaner and more intuitive.  Allow squads to name the mobile spawns on the map so people know who is operating that particular spawn.  Clean.  Efficient.  Intuitive.

The complexity stems from the UI, not the underlying layer per-se. We know this and have a design plan that we hope to start implementing after we complete some major things currently in the pipeline. Meanwhile, you can type .j gamename someone and see the active battles tab to try and mitigate the things that we're currently facing UI wise.

We won't sit here and try to convince you that our UI is in tip top shape, but rather the opposite. It's what we inherited, it's been here for awhile, and it needs to change, quickly to salvage new customers coming in who are getting lost and frustrated.

Share this post


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

The mission system as a whole should be done away with.  The AO should be "the mission" with multiple mobile spawns, depots, ABs on that mission that can be clicked on right on the map to choose a spawn point.  It would be cleaner and more intuitive.  Allow squads to name the mobile spawns on the map so people know who is operating that particular spawn.  Clean.  Efficient.  Intuitive.

Agree. It sorta would be back to the 2001 days where you simply click on a town in the map and spawn from there. Ideally we would just bypass the whole mission business and simply spawn. Anyone who spawns in Town X (and all associated depots, FBs, mobile spawns) would be on the same target channel. Have one mapOIC that places rally points and does .orders if they are so inclined. That channel (and all map markings) are shared by everyone attacking that target (air, navy, ground).

Give players the option to form sections and spawn as a group if they are so inclined, with a dedicated section channel which would be the equivalent of the mission channel. Section leader can place his own rally points that only the section members see. But don't force everyone to play this way, leave it as an option. The less clicking the better overall IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal wish would be platoon spawning: you can’t join once the platoon is deployed. But I can think of so many issues that would arise if we don’t change hundreds of other things first :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 4:44 PM, xanthus said:

THIS is what CRS should be trying to accomplish: Get total strangers who've never played together to instantly cooperate as a team and follow orders. It's the GAME and the UI that has to do that, NOT any bizarre expectation that the players should spontaneously figure out teamwork themselves. I've been here since the beginning. That expectation is ludicrous, it is a complete and unambiguous failure. The idea that teamwork in WWIIOL should be completely up to the players is a fantasy. Games like Squad prove that UI alone is enough to facilitate cohesive teamwork (whether it's *effective* teamwork or not is of course entirely up to the players).

I can appreciate this. Our integrated voice comms plan definitely gets people to work together for sure, and it's role based / multi-layer driven. There is a new UI plan that did start to get some work but due to the Holidays had to get a back seat to see 1.36 be completed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 9:25 PM, XOOM said:

The complexity stems from the UI, not the underlying layer per-se. We know this and have a design plan that we hope to start implementing after we complete some major things currently in the pipeline. Meanwhile, you can type .j gamename someone and see the active battles tab to try and mitigate the things that we're currently facing UI wise.

We won't sit here and try to convince you that our UI is in tip top shape, but rather the opposite. It's what we inherited, it's been here for awhile, and it needs to change, quickly to salvage new customers coming in who are getting lost and frustrated.

With my other now perma banned in both the game and forums for arguing in the forums account I trained more people to play this game that you will ever know.  Everyone from green tags that I never saw again to people who became CINC and members of your community management team.  Training people to pull new bodies into the squad was one of my functions.  The common theme was that the UI was a difficult hurdle for new players to get over.  It was a confusing mess and difficult to explain to new players.  In short, it's a barrier for entry to new players into the game.  My solution became using the squads tab and having them just click on my name and join mission until I could get them to understand the UI.  Other new players that either didn't want to be coached or didn't have anyone reach out to them didn't have that luxury.  How many of them left out of frustration?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, it's an issue. I know it, and so does all of CRS. Gotta fix it, I agree. We got a lot of irons in the fire and are making progress in several ways. This is one of them that we intend to hit hard as soon as 1.36 is delivered and/or likely in conjunction with integrated voice comms development.

Not sure what more to say here at this stage other than nod - I get it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a ui to show players popping into the queue to spawn in? Gives instant feedback on how many players are available.  Nothing worse than capping a co and no-one else comes to support.

Share this post


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

Perhaps a ui to show players popping into the queue to spawn in? Gives instant feedback on how many players are available.  Nothing worse than capping a co and no-one else comes to support.

I think it shows that in mission UI? shows who is in mission and who is spawned or not?
Or you mean something different, or a different place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.