Jsilec

Keep WBS going a few more weeks

32 posts in this topic

A few more weeks of this please there has been some excellent fights all week

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't able to get online today, but Saturday was fun. 

Lots of players and action. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

A few more weeks of this please there has been some excellent fights all week

Afraid we can't do that. Our goal in bringing folks back was to give them a taste.

What we need now is them resubscribing and supporting our cause and making sure we can continue to develop and improve on WWII Online.

Your assistance as a general community is hugely appreciated in raising that awareness and working to keep people here.

Glad it has been fun! Good numbers and lots of folks have come back which is great.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to believe that the plug was pulled on WBS before the new equipment was in game.

 

" Hey guys we got lots of great new equipment, fighter bombers and tank busters for the air warriors, and tankers, we got new toys for you too, including some fantastic tiger killers!  Of course you have got to resub to see them, we just let you use the same old kit you have used for the last 20 years for your WBS."

"You gotta buy to try the new Firefly!"      -      "Harshest Marketing Campaign Ever - map 163" 

 

 

S! Ian 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ian77 said:

Hard to believe that the plug was pulled on WBS before the new equipment was in game.

 

" Hey guys we got lots of great new equipment, fighter bombers and tank busters for the air warriors, and tankers, we got new toys for you too, including some fantastic tiger killers!  Of course you have got to resub to see them, we just let you use the same old kit you have used for the last 20 years for your WBS."

"You gotta buy to try the new Firefly!"      -      "Harshest Marketing Campaign Ever - map 163" 

 

 

S! Ian 

Yeah, bad timing, very bad timing. Should have skipped tier0 this map altogether, everyone has seen that 40 billion times already ha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been playing some during WBS, and a few times since. The intermittent reinforcement sorta works (every once in a while I have a really great time, punctuated by most of the time being annoyed---entirely by gameplay issues).

The lack of new stuff to see (late tier equip, I've never played any American-flagged stuff, I think) decreased my interest a tiny bit, but honestly, what keeps me from wanting to instantly re-sub is the capture mechanics. I just played for a few minutes this morning, and felt compelled to try to recap a spawnable CP to help the team. I quit, it was too annoying. Hide in spawn (after avoiding EI inside the army base, supposedly filled with invisible troops), wait to play roulette shooting an ei to see if the lag meant I hit him, or he hit me.

For people who have hung around for years, new stuff probably dominates their wish list, for me, it's 100% about gameplay. CQB is awful, and the game demands CQB for every single capture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, tater said:

I've been playing some during WBS, and a few times since. The intermittent reinforcement sorta works (every once in a while I have a really great time, punctuated by most of the time being annoyed---entirely by gameplay issues).

The lack of new stuff to see (late tier equip, I've never played any American-flagged stuff, I think) decreased my interest a tiny bit, but honestly, what keeps me from wanting to instantly re-sub is the capture mechanics. I just played for a few minutes this morning, and felt compelled to try to recap a spawnable CP to help the team. I quit, it was too annoying. Hide in spawn (after avoiding EI inside the army base, supposedly filled with invisible troops), wait to play roulette shooting an ei to see if the lag meant I hit him, or he hit me.

For people who have hung around for years, new stuff probably dominates their wish list, for me, it's 100% about gameplay. CQB is awful, and the game demands CQB for every single capture. 

I agree, CQC is a complete crapshoot. I don't know what they could do to fix it, I'm not a coder. Hopefully something, cause I get frustrated too trying to shoot Neo in the spawnable while he Matrix's around killing me.  

Share this post


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

I've been playing some during WBS, and a few times since. The intermittent reinforcement sorta works (every once in a while I have a really great time, punctuated by most of the time being annoyed---entirely by gameplay issues).

The lack of new stuff to see (late tier equip, I've never played any American-flagged stuff, I think) decreased my interest a tiny bit, but honestly, what keeps me from wanting to instantly re-sub is the capture mechanics. I just played for a few minutes this morning, and felt compelled to try to recap a spawnable CP to help the team. I quit, it was too annoying. Hide in spawn (after avoiding EI inside the army base, supposedly filled with invisible troops), wait to play roulette shooting an ei to see if the lag meant I hit him, or he hit me.

For people who have hung around for years, new stuff probably dominates their wish list, for me, it's 100% about gameplay. CQB is awful, and the game demands CQB for every single capture. 

This, so much this.

I almost made a ragepost about how stupid the infantry game is the other day. I had a blast all evening until I tried playing infantry on a contested spawn. I don't understand how some people (cough bar cough cough) can run around and kill constantly, when I'm getting killed by EI while they are still running into the room. I understand that for him, he ran in and shot me while I stood there like an idiot. For me, he ran in, I died, then he shot me.

I don't want to whinge too much but to be frank it's a glaring issue I would have trouble explaining away to new players.

9 people like this

Share this post


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

I agree, CQC is a complete crapshoot. I don't know what they could do to fix it, I'm not a coder. Hopefully something, cause I get frustrated too trying to shoot Neo in the spawnable while he Matrix's around killing me.  

I understand the difficulty in fixing this aspect of play completely.

My solution at the very least would be to realize that close quarters makes people want to rage quit, then alter the game mechanics so that less CQ battle is required.

The CP/Bunker, FB, and MS paradigms as implemented all end up with "guarding" being required, where the combat range involved is within the "I shot a guy coming in, then he moved behind me and shot me, then I died." range so common in the game right now (and since I started playing, before release a zillion years ago). They also result in camping, which is fighting  it out with CQB for the very worst gameplay possible. The game also in effect requires camping as the stand-in for controlling a region.

Given that there is literally decades of data (or at least player experience) available, there has to be a sense what % of the spawn list ends up getting wiped out during an AB camp at the end of a battle for a town. That could be used to throttle supplies (attriting them automatically) as a function of Zone of Control style gameplay. In this model, units (all land units) would exert a ZoC weighted to their capability to control the ground around them, and further multiplied by the existence of other friendly units within some % of that ZoC radius. It can also be scaled to relative player pop, the existence of defensive forces (if a Brigade is in town (matters if the def town has a brigade there, but few players)). The goal here is to reward gameplay that is fun, and results in more reasonable battles. We want to see units operating near each other. We want controlling an area to mean that we have a sense of a front, even within town (we control the E end of town, they control the W end).

This matters to me as a player, since another thing that drives me to rage quit is also related to mechanics (note I'd be happy with the units that existed when the game was in beta, if gameplay was fixed). For 2 decades now WW2OL has been a game where you literally have to worry about being shot inside your barracks before the town even has a chance to organize a defense.

This is the problem with the idea of a persistent battlefield. Units are placed in whatever towns, and in RL, those COs would array their troops, etc in some defensive pattern. In game, it's a XXX degree AI (that is effectively useless, since everyone knows how to walk around it). We see a call to defense (EWS), and have to then spawn in and form that defense  ourselves. We all know that you literally have seconds to get such a defense going with a few people, or the battle ends up being a town deathmatch, with ei homogeneously spread around town. You walk towards the contested CP, and get shot in the back by an EI next door to your spawn (back to earlier complaints).

In short, it's all about gameplay.

On the plus side, the game is otherwise pretty awesome. My 12 YO son played my account during WBS, and his first 5 mouse clicks in game (as a rifle) kill EI, kill EI, sap EMS, kill EI, kill EI. He laughed out loud seeing some ATG and AAA guns pushing (they are silly looking), but thought I should subscribe again, he really liked it. If only gameplay was fixed I would resub in a heartbeat. I don't like feeling ragey as entertainment, however (not good for my blood pressure).

Back in the day, I remember the "elvis has entered the building" messages during testing. The game has to know we are in structures to harm us should they get bombed, etc. Seems like this could be used for city ZoC, instead of CPs. Instead of a certain depot being held, perhaps we could see what buildings are held. Recapping a building, or block could work just like capping a CP, but it's every single building/block in the game. Perhaps you could only cap a building if you own at least 1 adjacent one? (trying to think of things possible without major new code).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRS,^^^SPAWN AND CAPTURE EQUALS MONEY!!!!!!!!!

From Majornoob in another thread "in my case, I got sick of you guys ignoring gameplay, mostly the spawn system and toe."(his reason for unsubbing)

Myself, I stopped subbing regularly over a dozen years ago because of spawn and capture. I was here for hoped for realistic battlefield dynamics and saw that it was not a priority to create them, and so left. I hate the cqb capture silliness as well. I would sub if there was a plan to get away from that, just a plan laid out, even if it were a five to ten year plan, accounting for low resources and all. Just a plan, one little step at a time.

The gameplay here has always been self-defeating. If you want to win the game you must engage on the game's terms, cap-the-flag cqb, moling etc. It is a tragic situation because no game in the history of gaming would benefit more from a more evolved spawn and capture system. WW2ol can't compete graphically and such with the competition, but it has the potential to beat most of the rest for gameplay. If it had a more realistic flow of battle the potential for immersion is tremendous.

I swear there is a psychological block involved in spawn and capture development. It is one of the basic elements of a game; here it defines how people will attack, defend and gain territory. But it is more abstract than units, graphics, maps etc., so its importance is less clear, and it is also an unknown. Better graphics and more units are an obvious plus, gameplay changes, you don't know where they're going to lead. Yet spawn and capture rules are every bit as fundamental an element to achieving that realistic battlefield experience players are looking for here. Build it and they will come, as the above players' commentary testifies, a facade will not do. Honestly, very best of luck CRS, but if you do not address this issue, the game will never reach its potential, not close, and will continue to slowly fade away.

You might want to start with something simple like open flags;)

Just feel the need to repeat myself:

CRS, SPAWN AND CAPTURE EQUALS MONEY!!!!! 

 

Edited by blggles
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or area capture...? 

Take the fight out of the CP and make the fight around the CP. 

Only captures that should remain the same at AB/Docks/AF. 

Just a thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mosizlak said:

Or area capture...? 

Take the fight out of the CP and make the fight around the CP. 

Only captures that should remain the same at AB/Docks/AF. 

Just a thought. 

WWIIOL 2.0 should get away from the nodal spawn castle, do formation spawning, and area capture.

 

Towns and roads and rail and harbor all count as captured functions as resupply ticket flow, but the focus is on destroying enemy formations tactically, operationally by cutting up their logistics, and strategically with key factory towns, resource, rail and shipping capture/destruction.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with biggles on a plan. If I thought it was part of a plan (and perhaps some sort of testing of what was easily possible to code on a beta server), I'd likely resub. I stayed around long after I knew I hated the mechanics just to support the idea of ww2ol, but with kids, etc, it wasn't a priority, and clearly nothing was ever going to change.Every change seemed to make things go further from what I wanted to see (I wanted more fog of war, for example, I'm not a fan of every soldier marking contacts with GPS, as it encourages the spread out behavior I hate so much).

 

Share this post


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

Or area capture...? 

Take the fight out of the CP and make the fight around the CP. 

Only captures that should remain the same at AB/Docks/AF. 

Just a thought. 

area capture is one of the best possible solutions. there have been a few threads about it but don't know if the practicalities of coding and/or the difficulty of thinking through the concept and potentials flaws ahead of coding has/have been the roadblocks. 

someone put forward that a possible way to start thinking about it is to utilize the existing air-only AWS alphabetical grid (or a smaller scale version) as a starting point  - i.e. simplistically - turn a grid square red with more than the enemy or a specific number of units (inf/arm/air) and its yours until the other side turns it red (or blue) for themselves to switch ownership.

and/or tag a bunch of specific 'nodes' within a gridsquare (existing cps, bunkers, non-depot facilities, xroads, bridges, farmhouses, forest areas, elevations as 'capturable' (by time spent X players/units in near the 'node' like current cp cap mechanic) and then X% of nodes captured (50/75/all) defines 'area capture'

and that then a captured or 'owned' area would unlock spawn points, or even the ability to place fms within the gridsquare,  and/or fb pop up or ppo fb capability within the area, etc. making the captured area or gridsquare a jump-off point into the next/adjacent 'neutral' or 'enemy' gridsquares/area. 

like that. not much difference - but maybe more fun and certainly more use of the map/terrain - between having 1/5/12 players crammed in a cp to cap (or defend) than having those players in/near/on a bridge, hill, farmhouse, xroads to cap/defend. this does happen organically, sometimes (own/defend/block a bridge, hill, xroads) but not often enough and its certainly not essential given current gameplay and the singular focus on cp/town caps only. 

or, conversely, eliminate 'capture' altogether and just give cps, towns, areas, and the whole campaign to the players with the best STATS. 

Edited by sorella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ good idea. All units could be required to capture squares adjacent to squares their side already owns---except paras, who could be empowered to hold whatever they occupy.

I wonder if instead of FBs there could be HC-placed FBs that are placed within certain rules, and serve as anchors to captured areas around them. If they were placed like other player placed objects (limited by terrain until they turn green), then in addition to serving a role in the control paradigm (perhaps they act as if all squares within some distance have units in them, sort of energizing ZoC areas), they also allow for fighting in parts of the map previously ignored (for years). I'm sure there are cool places on the map where FBs might actually be in interesting, defensible positions.

No idea what is actually possible, I just know I can't stand camped ABs, and defending porous rooms from ei with better weapons than I have for such a task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 10:39 PM, XOOM said:

Afraid we can't do that. Our goal in bringing folks back was to give them a taste.

Totally agree.  While the higher pop is nice.......you have to draw the line somewhere.

Share this post


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

Or area capture...? 

Take the fight out of the CP and make the fight around the CP. 

Only captures that should remain the same at AB/Docks/AF. 

Just a thought. 

here's the other, longer thread exploring some area capture ideas from 2 months ago:

 

Share this post


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

ro, conversely, eliminate 'capture' altogether and just give cps, towns, areas, and the whole campaign to the players with the best STATS. 

I know thats a joke, but after a lot of thought over the years I actually don't believe in having any sort of direct capture mechanism. Currently, supply travels through the towns and cities, so one has to somehow capture these. However, that doesn't mean there have to be flags, or even a ZOC grid of any sort. Rather, one might capture towns by eliminating nme positions, and setting up one's own. This would be achieved via what I like to call a ZOI, or "zone of influence". As a group advances they project a zone of influence, akin to what is being worked on atm with poximity AOs. When an army's ZOI moves over an nme position, it cuts off resupply to that position, and may limit spawning to a certain time period or number of units, thereby reducing camping. By overrunning the position and killing the nme there you disable the position. You can set up your own positions as you move along, limited by proximity to nme positions. When there are no more nme positions around an objective, only friendly, it belongs to you. 

Dunno if something  like the above could be implemented with the current flags&AB town setup, but whatever the idea, I think the area between towns that have no FBs is probably the most fertile ground for the advancement of spawn and capture mechanics, for things like player placed FBs and other positions, and the testing of novel mechanics in their "capture".

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

This, so much this.

I almost made a ragepost about how stupid the infantry game is the other day. I had a blast all evening until I tried playing infantry on a contested spawn. I don't understand how some people (cough bar cough cough) can run around and kill constantly, when I'm getting killed by EI while they are still running into the room. I understand that for him, he ran in and shot me while I stood there like an idiot. For me, he ran in, I died, then he shot me.

I don't want to whinge too much but to be frank it's a glaring issue I would have trouble explaining away to new players.

Pretty sure this has driven away more players than anything else. The one thing we have to do to move the map is capture CPS and the same half dozen guys day after day on each side are almost unkillable as they warp hither and yon. The Neo/Matrix analogy is too close for comfort.

Game play choices are spawn a Tank on the AO and die to EI 2k+ from town (sappers, zooks, ATRs ) or try and cap on the AO - die to Neo.

Defend - try and guard a CP and die to Neos brother. Snipe or camp an EFRU.

AND THE WINNER IS.......

Most players now just seem to either snipe on a DO or camp FRUs, usually on a DO.

 

 

And before the chorus of posts from non active players about "team work" and "combined Arms", what team work can there be when your squadmates have quit? What teamwork does Chuck Norris and his magic handbags represent sapping tanks miles from town? 

 

S! Ian 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Issue with infantry game is lag and the way the predictor code is implemented. Some players have learned to use their own lag and the predictor code to their advantage which is where a lot of the "the guy ran up the stairs and shot me" phenomen comes from. I wouldn't necessarily call it an exploit, but yes, it does many the infantry game frustrating. Ironically the worse your ping the better your advantage if you are an attacker (and vice versa as a defender).

Share this post


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

Issue with infantry game is lag and the way the predictor code is implemented. Some players have learned to use their own lag and the predictor code to their advantage which is where a lot of the "the guy ran up the stairs and shot me" phenomen comes from. I wouldn't necessarily call it an exploit, but yes, it does many the infantry game frustrating. Ironically the worse your ping the better your advantage if you are an attacker (and vice versa as a defender).

Yeah, and given the particular nature of this game (unit velocities from crawling speed to hundreds of mph), it might not be something that can possibly be fixed. This has been understood since I was hyper active in the game (and on the forums) decade(s) ago. The solution, then as now, is to make the close quarters fight less common, and certainly less required to win the game, because right now, CQB is the only thing that wins the game.

@ian77is right about what many people do, and having now played a few hours over the last couple weeks, it's honestly the only kind of play I'd actually enjoy---getting out from town, and not really helping my side "win." Why? Because guarding CPs is boring, followed by enraging, and capping them is just me doing the same to someone else. Most really successful caps seem to still be of the ninja variety, too, something that should almost never happen, IMHO. If capturing or defending an area at any level is moved forward by being sneaky in that way... it's broken.

I'd add that I was never a fan of the map/contact system. I use it in game, because everyone else is, but it harms gameplay. Tactical surprise is good gameplay in a way that sneaky capping is not. There is not nearly enough fog of war. In another thread about cap timers, it was suggested that shorted capture times encourages keeping EI out of the CP in the first place, while longer timers results in more fights IN the CP itself (awful play for reasons already stated). Fog of war is similar in this regard. When contacts are marked with GPS accuracy, it encourages no units being near each other. The only reason inf don't tend to spread out to mask MS very well is that they tend to simply run down bush lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 11:11 AM, Randazzo said:

This, so much this.

I almost made a ragepost about how stupid the infantry game is the other day. I had a blast all evening until I tried playing infantry on a contested spawn. I don't understand how some people (cough bar cough cough) can run around and kill constantly, when I'm getting killed by EI while they are still running into the room. I understand that for him, he ran in and shot me while I stood there like an idiot. For me, he ran in, I died, then he shot me.

I don't want to whinge too much but to be frank it's a glaring issue I would have trouble explaining away to new players.

i think i'm one of these guys, in my case it works both ways though. still, when i get the drop on a guy it always results in trading kills.

 

the game is not built for CQB. riflemen, 300m vs 10m spawns, lag, bad automatic weapons, etc, it's not fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

been this way for years , terrible lag when ei is close , found that shooting from far away is only thing that works for me. And if I guard a cp , its from the outside . You blow up cp , so its in its destroyed state , then find another building and shoot them when they think they are capping peacefully .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.