Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

sydspain

Tz3 should have only 1 AO

Recommended Posts

sydspain

Every single AO is now a mole

Share this post


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

Every single AO is now a mole

No different from 2001 with the exception is players now spawn from a FMS that can be planted anywhere in a 360 ring around town. Geographic FMS limitations to face what would normally be the front line would help cut down on mole tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob

you missed the context

more depots than players, has been the issue with tz3. its in tz1 now and creeping into tz2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capco
On 5/1/2019 at 6:08 AM, sydspain said:

Every single AO is now a mole

That's depressing.  

Share this post


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

That's depressing.  

Just cause you are not online.

Talking about depression, axis had 22 hours of overpop on the last 24 hours. That snails a map quick!

Share this post


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

That's depressing.  

<Shrug> I moled Haybes last night, last FMS was killed and me and another off that FMS, they killed the FMS but not us, went in on a last ditch make trouble before EWS goes off with my death cap- and ended up with the whole town.

Share this post


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

<Shrug> I moled Haybes last night, last FMS was killed and me and another off that FMS, they killed the FMS but not us, went in on a last ditch make trouble before EWS goes off with my death cap- and ended up with the whole town.

Yeah, sounds like wonderful gameplay LOL. 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
themouse
2 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

Yeah, sounds like wonderful gameplay LOL. 

 

its not, not In low low pop times.....

take this morning uk time when  I  logged on...and there was a handful of allied  on...  literally  three or four of us were defending a town/ trying to slow down the enemy... ( you know your on the loosing wicket when you can here more opals  than defenders and there are planes tanks an inf about too.  but to a point we were still having fun  think it was jarny  but it could have been somewhere ellse a small town in the south though

at which point  the second ao  went on  sedan so we made the decision to leave and try  to defend it...leaving a token defence behind..iirc it was either gore or mund.. but  two ao's is not fun game-play...IF you don't have the numbers too hold one town let alone the numbers to physically guard all the cp's ina small town   ...your not going to have the numbers  to hold two and that just gets old really fast!!!

Edited by themouse
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes that should be a pretty simple concept that the entire playerbase can rally around.

If you have single digit players logged into one side and the other side has 3, 4, or 5 times as many logged on ..... only one AO ought to be issued.  Pretty simple.

Yeah agree with this.

Share this post


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

Yes that should be a pretty simple concept that the entire playerbase can rally around.

If you have single digit players logged into one side and the other side has 3, 4, or 5 times as many logged on ..... only one AO ought to be issued.  Pretty simple.

We all agree I think. To be effective, CRS needs to put a mitigation plan to block undesired people behaviors that would be tempted to boost underpop side numbers with alt accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob

there's finally a general agreement that low-pop exists outside tz3.

in another year or two, ya'll may stumble on the causes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob
2 minutes ago, matamor said:

We all agree I think. To be effective, CRS needs to put a mitigation plan to block undesired people behaviors that would be tempted to boost underpop side numbers with alt accounts.

this is too tin-foil-hat dude

guys with other-side accounts use them to help, like air side switching to give the spits targets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
matamor
27 minutes ago, major0noob said:

this is too tin-foil-hat dude

guys with other-side accounts use them to help, like air side switching to give the spits targets

Heh I didn't invent the gamey gamer psycho

So we would haven't 3:1 ratio players every night isnt' it?

Humans are like water ; water always takes the easiest path to find his way throught

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jet2019

Very true..it is human nature. This is the exact reason why EVERY other competitive multiplayer game on earth has a strict side balancing mechanism. This is the core of making the game give great battles.

We ALL want great battles,  win or lose.

The current system we have clearly don't work at the extremes of game population, and it is killing the game and prospective subscriptions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob
13 hours ago, matamor said:

Heh I didn't invent the gamey gamer psycho

So we would haven't 3:1 ratio players every night isnt' it?

Humans are like water ; water always takes the easiest path to find his way throught

the guys i know who play both sides, either with another account or with a main; all want to have a good time. i want to emphasize the all, every side switcher plays for fun.

honestly the people that mole show much worse behaviors than both-side players. there's a confession in this thread about a guy killing activity because his mole stopped being morale psy-ops and turned into real gameplay. and it's friggen praised as good gameplay here...

 

i wouldn't say it's the path of least resistance, people just stop logging in or spend less time playing. if it were least resistance, there would be more side switchers.

that chart choad made can show this, axis have more marathon gamers and allies have 30min-1h gamers.

 

hopefully, in the next 2 years they'll realize the 1.5:1  2:1  3:1 etc ratios are there for a reason, and start looking for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
19 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

Yeah, sounds like wonderful gameplay LOL. 

 

It was, enemy did everything but blow the FB to stop attacks, killing every FMS they could on the ridge, but assumed they could move onto other actions, Thionville I think was a major Allied attack.

 

Allies stayed on Thionville rather then switch to D, so it was a choice, not an easy mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
22 hours ago, themouse said:

its not, not In low low pop times.....

take this morning uk time when  I  logged on...and there was a handful of allied  on...  literally  three or four of us were defending a town/ trying to slow down the enemy... ( you know your on the loosing wicket when you can here more opals  than defenders and there are planes tanks an inf about too.  but to a point we were still having fun  think it was jarny  but it could have been somewhere ellse a small town in the south though

at which point  the second ao  went on  sedan so we made the decision to leave and try  to defend it...leaving a token defence behind..iirc it was either gore or mund.. but  two ao's is not fun game-play...IF you don't have the numbers too hold one town let alone the numbers to physically guard all the cp's ina small town   ...your not going to have the numbers  to hold two and that just gets old really fast!!!

This is what pop neutrality is supposed to be about, it needs more levers then just cap timers (the new crutch rather then SD, better but to be effective in a 3:1 setting it would need to be worse then it is now and it's better if we have a smorgasbord of effects working in concert).

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


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

This is what pop neutrality is supposed to be about, it needs more levers then just cap timers (the new crutch rather then SD, better but to be effective in a 3:1 setting it would need to be worse then it is now and it's better if we have a somrgasbord of effects working in concert).

actually on that front....so far....the  garrison not being routed when the ab is taken is negating some of the issues that you have when your very low pop  because the attacker has two hold all the cps too when capping the town...so it spreads  them out a bit  I am having better fights, the overpop side can't just cap the link cp and  pack the bunker to take he town

Edited by themouse
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

actually on that front....so far....the  garrison not being routed when the ab is taken is negating some of the issues that you have when your very low pop  because the attacker has two hold all the cps too when capping the town...so it spreads  them out a bit  I am having better fights, the overpop side can't just cap the link cp and  pack the bunker to take he town

Ya, that's the sleeper hit of 1.36, a largely pleasant surprise.

 

Flipside though, PN lowpop attacks doesn't bounce flags either and lowpop has to fight through to win a town.  That's some tough sledding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
themouse
2 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Ya, that's the sleeper hit of 1.36, a largely pleasant surprise.

 

Flipside though, PN lowpop attacks doesn't bounce flags either and lowpop has to fight through to win a town.  That's some tough sledding.

that's when  brigade placement may come into play more.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
david06

so CRS set the AO minimum down to 1 but they expect it to be a one-AO period only during TZ3

in order to keep the server from sitting  at 1 AO almost all day (like it was) they had to lower the population threshold in order to get more than 1 AO

the problem is that under the guise of balance and helping the underpop team they're continuing to reward a team for keeping its population as low as possible; we've had years of this

they also severely punish a team for keeping its population higher than the other side

can anyone explain how exactly are average player numbers on the server going to increase?

looking at the state of the allied team all the underpop help it doesn't really help them either, I mean they sit on defense the entire day and can't even pull off a normal attack anymore

Share this post


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

@david06 Here is an idea, if you don't like it spawn to the evil underpop side and help balance things out. Pretty simple concept, actually do what the game mechanics are effn' begging you to do. I understand it though if you prefer your side or just prefer being on the overpop side .... just quit your complaining when solutions like this become necessary.

If he stops complaining he wouldn’t have anything else to post about

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
david06
35 minutes ago, choad said:

@david06 Here is an idea, if you don't like it spawn to the evil underpop side and help balance things out. Pretty simple concept, actually do what the game mechanics are effn' begging you to do. I understand it though if you prefer your side or just prefer being on the overpop side .... just quit your complaining when solutions like this become necessary.

choad can you tell me how many players difference "underpop" is nowadays?

because it looks like the difference from even to overpop is about 10 players

can't spawn on the underpop side when it fluctuates every 15 minutes

Share this post


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

so CRS set the AO minimum down to 1 but they expect it to be a one-AO period only during TZ3

in order to keep the server from sitting  at 1 AO almost all day (like it was) they had to lower the population threshold in order to get more than 1 AO

the problem is that under the guise of balance and helping the underpop team they're continuing to reward a team for keeping its population as low as possible; we've had years of this

they also severely punish a team for keeping its population higher than the other side

can anyone explain how exactly are average player numbers on the server going to increase?

looking at the state of the allied team all the underpop help it doesn't really help them either, I mean they sit on defense the entire day and can't even pull off a normal attack anymore

CRS has done the following to assist:

  1. Provided more system driven supply to provide stable transitioning of the map
  2. Redeployed High Command's time to provide leadership to the community
  3. Returned back to a 1 AO minimum for TZ3 low pop period
  4. Adjusted AO's to be based off of the underpopulated sides population - not the total game population
  5. Enabled more AO's to be obtained faster than pre-1.36 standards
    1. Standard Attack Objectives
    2. Bridge Objectives 
  6. Provided shared tanks and equipment around Allied forces
  7. Restructured our entire Tables of Equipment driven by a balanced budget across all countries
  8. Reduced penalties against the overpopulated side
    1. Spawn delay reduced to a 10 second maximum
    2. Persona delay reduced to a 60 second maximum
  9. Provided a balanced capture mechanism
    1. Scales accordingly based on the imbalance percentage

This combination of maneuvers signal CRS listening, incorporating fair and reasonable changes in a timely manner and taking into context the lower and routine population periods to preserve the best experience for WWII Online possible.

The continuing sentiment of the Allies being doomed, needs to come to a full stop. CRS cannot code leadership or morale. We can listen and incorporate changes that work to promote both sides, but it's going to be up to each side's community to cultivate enjoyable experiences. There are good leaders on the Allied side and great players and Squad reforming. This is an appropriate action and while it's much easier to be the skeptic, I implore optimism for the sake of progress.

We stand ready to do our part and help - we need the same level of initiative and drive. We've provided tremendous solutions to support all of this, but if we are to have a semblance of a player driven game - players need to drive it and step up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

I don't think anybody should ever expect CRS to code success for their side, best you can do is expect a fair opportunity.

 

Understand that means it may not go your way all the time, accept that a fair game also means you have to accept the possibility of being outplayed, approach this in the spirit of sportsmanship not Iwant Iwant Iwant, and do what you can during your time in game.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...