Capco

Returning to the old AO minimums (1.36)

23 posts in this topic

Some time ago, CRS changed the minimum number of AOs that have to be placed to be equal to the total number of AOs.

 

In the past, I believe the formula for the minimum number of AOs was:

 

AO(min) = AO(total) - 1

(example:  if AO(total) = 2, then AO(min) = 2 - 1 = 1)

 

Since we are going to have at least 2 AOs always available, I don't think it's a good idea to force the underpop side to always have a minimum of 2 AOs placed.  This should also provide some added flexibility to MOICs in all hours, not just times of very low pop.  

 

Can CRS consider going back to the old rules for the minimum number of AOs that must be placed?  @XOOM @OHM

Edited by Capco
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, increase the auto AO timer by 100%. it ruins set ups more often than it provides action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the decider, but given that auto-timer and number was put in place due to HC intentionally sitting on AO's for whatever reason (some good, most not), I'd not be in favor of allowing a return to that behavior.

I'd be in support of increasing the placement timer though

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah we can look at increasing the auto-deployment timer. The reason it was added was due to HC not being online to manage that.

Now with the reduced work-load coming, I'm hoping more people will be interested and join up for the betterment of the game, that being providing leadership and guidance to our players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proximity AOs without any concurrent AO caps (with protections to prevent obvious exploitations). Hopefully soon. Just saying/hoping :)

Share this post


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

Proximity AOs without any concurrent AO caps (with protections to prevent obvious exploitations). Hopefully soon. Just saying/hoping :)

Post initial release of 1.36. We haven't forgot :) 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, the current Auto-AO system takes into consideration EWS as one of its deciding factors.. It currently does not support the US brigades though. That is fixed in 1.36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Capco said:

Some time ago, CRS changed the minimum number of AOs that have to be placed to be equal to the total number of AOs.

 

In the past, I believe the formula for the minimum number of AOs was:

 

AO(min) = AO(total) - 1

(example:  if AO(total) = 2, then AO(min) = 2 - 1 = 1)

 

Since we are going to have at least 2 AOs always available, I don't think it's a good idea to force the underpop side to always have a minimum of 2 AOs placed.  This should also provide some added flexibility to MOICs in all hours, not just times of very low pop.  

 

Can CRS consider going back to the old rules for the minimum number of AOs that must be placed?  @XOOM @OHM

The placement of All AOs was put into being was to stop the not placing AO's to try and funnel All players to the one AO.   (herding all cats to one spot)  

I think once we are over the 2 AO minimum having a spare AO to hold for the surprise attack maybe something to look at.   But that will be talked about after 1.36 is out and running   

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, OHM said:

The placement of All AOs was put into being was to stop the not placing AO's to try and funnel All players to the one AO.   (herding all cats to one spot)  

I think once we are over the 2 AO minimum having a spare AO to hold for the surprise attack maybe something to look at.   But that will be talked about after 1.36 is out and running   

So you think forcing 2 AOs on a side with less than 10 people online is a good thing?  Because in the depths of lowpop, that's how few people are online sometimes.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a moot point really. Even 1 AO for underpop side during low server pop results in maybe 1 or 2 trolls tops. TBH you will be far more likely to see no EWS at all for an extended period of time..... 

Share this post


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

Proximity AOs without any concurrent AO caps (with protections to prevent obvious exploitations). Hopefully soon. Just saying/hoping :)

Bleh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Capco said:

So you think forcing 2 AOs on a side with less than 10 people online is a good thing?  Because in the depths of lowpop, that's how few people are online sometimes.  

I am hoping with 1.36 we will see a population increase that will warrant 2 AO's  ,,,, 

We have lots of old players waiting for  1,36 to come out and give the game another try.     .... and i know exactly how many players are on at any given time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need to have 2 AOs at all times, regardless of pop imo.

Also, need to way lower the set and clear times for AOs;  way to damn slow... 30 seconds max.

Put in safeguards for 2 AB or greater towns so can't be capped at low pop.

Then - work on getting more pop in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, delems said:

Need to have 2 AOs at all times, regardless of pop imo.

Also, need to way lower the set and clear times for AOs;  way to damn slow... 30 seconds max.

Put in safeguards for 2 AB or greater towns so can't be capped at low pop.

Then - work on getting more pop in game.

Bleh on 2 AOs without firm Pop Neutrality that isn't whined away.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Bleh on 2 AOs without firm Pop Neutrality that isn't whined away.

Are you tone deaf?
 

The seriously severe cap timers aren't enough for you yet?

Already 3 to 1 on cap times;  and 9 to 1 to get even capture times.

Really?  You honestly think one side has 3 times the players as the other?   Much less 9 times?

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

*** Bleh on 2 AOs without firm Pop Neutrality that isn't whined away.

Are you tone deaf?
 

The seriously severe cap timers aren't enough for you yet?

Already 3 to 1 on cap times;  and 9 to 1 to get even capture times.

Really?  You honestly think one side has 3 times the players as the other?   Much less 9 times?

But what is your solution to map rolls then? I don't like the cap timers either. But its also not good for the game when one side spends a lot of work capturing 1-2 towns during primetime, and then lose 10+ towns during late night. Its a serious issue that simply needs to be addressed in some way, and IMHO making capture times faster (even though that is what I want) and faster AO placement (which again gives a huge advantage to the attacker) without some other system in place is not the answer.

Share this post


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

But what is your solution to map rolls then? I don't like the cap timers either. But its also not good for the game when one side spends a lot of work capturing 1-2 towns during primetime, and then lose 10+ towns during late night. Its a serious issue that simply needs to be addressed in some way, and IMHO making capture times faster (even though that is what I want) and faster AO placement (which again gives a huge advantage to the attacker) without some other system in place is not the answer.

40 minute bunker timers

it's not that hard

it would also kill mole attacks (makes it harder to kick air brigs too, but oh well)

then you could lower the cap timers and the AO timers and the FMS build timers, and still the absolute fastest town capture would be much longer than it is now

and people could actually skirmish and have some fights even if they didn't have the pop to overwhelm a town

why everything else from additional complicated AO rules to demanding side switchers to outright suppressing non US prime population has been tried, but not simply raising a timer is beyond me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2019 at 1:53 PM, B2K said:

I'm not the decider, but given that auto-timer and number was put in place due to HC intentionally sitting on AO's for whatever reason (some good, most not), I'd not be in favor of allowing a return to that behavior.

I'd be in support of increasing the placement timer though

Exactly. 

We'd ask for that other AO and be ignored.  

Nothing wrong with making the HCs place both AOs, or having the system do it. Maybe increase the time to manually place the AO, but isn't it 20 minutes now? 

Also, some people want the 2 AOs SOLELY for the purpose of softcapping. (which is going away anyway, but until then, keep it as it is.)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, delems said:

*** Bleh on 2 AOs without firm Pop Neutrality that isn't whined away.

Are you tone deaf?
 

The seriously severe cap timers aren't enough for you yet?

Already 3 to 1 on cap times;  and 9 to 1 to get even capture times.

Really?  You honestly think one side has 3 times the players as the other?   Much less 9 times?

My statement doesn't preclude that the cap timers are out of whack, I'm referring more to those campaigns when the Rats back off cap timers or SD entirely, which has happened in several campaigns, with you among others leading the charge.

What can I say, I want a Goldilocks Zone of 'just right' pop neutrality, but we seem to only get extremes.

2 AOs minimum WILL increase game flow, no question, but it will also utterly quash any PN system if it's not set firmly, also threatening the lowpop with absolutely no chance of offense, a MAJOR PN goal.

 

In fact, what I would prefer if I can't get the area NAO concept is AO count by total side pop and ratio.  So if we are in say nopop TZ and it's 30 vs 15, the side with 30 gets 1 AO and the side with 15 gets 2 AOs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, david06 said:

40 minute bunker timers

it's not that hard

it would also kill mole attacks (makes it harder to kick air brigs too, but oh well)

then you could lower the cap timers and the AO timers and the FMS build timers, and still the absolute fastest town capture would be much longer than it is now

and people could actually skirmish and have some fights even if they didn't have the pop to overwhelm a town

why everything else from additional complicated AO rules to demanding side switchers to outright suppressing non US prime population has been tried, but not simply raising a timer is beyond me

I agree with you, personally I think a 20 minute timer is more appropriate since it can be night impossible to keep a town contested for 40 minutes. That would slow progression to a halt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@OHM @B2K

 

What about fixing the timer bug during multiple AOs?

 

What I mean is, let's say we're at 2 AOs but only have 1 placed.  The one we have placed is a good attack that's about to wrap up with a town capture. 

 

We are also in the process of setting up our 2nd AO.  The AO timer has been counting down for some time, and we have a few minutes left to place our 2nd AO.  

 

But before we can place the 2nd AO, the first AO finishes.  Now we have 2 AOs to place but only minutes to place them.  We have 1 AO set up, but because the timer never reset after capturing that town, that other AO also needs to be set.  

 

Basically, each AO doesn't have it's own timer.  If you have multiple AOs to place, you must place them all at the end of a single timer, and that single timer is dictated by the oldest AO the was pulled or completed, not the newest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.