dre21

The reason why I log in less

96 posts in this topic

49 minutes ago, dropbear said:

A further issue with gameplay is how just one or two ei can mole a target, and either pull a considerable amount of defenders  (depending on the target value), or get ignored to the point that they can cap a spawnable(s).

This is totally immersion breaking and frankly poor gameplay design. We all do it now tho as it is very effective when done correctly (throttle the fms to keep ews low etc)

I think we should not be able to cap until we have double inf ews as well as a sliding scale of the double ews setting according to game pop. This means less multi accounts hiding in closets or bushes waiting to cap/suppress.

 

There ARE things we can do NOW to fix gameplay..lets focus on what we can do to keep the hamster fed!

Am I to gather you are no longer subbed?

Share this post


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

A further issue with gameplay is how just one or two ei can mole a target, and either pull a considerable amount of defenders  (depending on the target value), or get ignored to the point that they can cap a spawnable(s).

This is totally immersion breaking and frankly poor gameplay design. We all do it now tho as it is very effective when done correctly (throttle the fms to keep ews low etc)

I think we should not be able to cap until we have double inf ews as well as a sliding scale of the double ews setting according to game pop. This means less multi accounts hiding in closets or bushes waiting to cap/suppress.

 

There ARE things we can do NOW to fix gameplay..lets focus on what we can do to keep the hamster fed!

I agree with the idea of having at least double inf ews to enable captures - Mole hunting at a DO for hours is WW2OL at its worst. This change would force teamwork and a level of commitment to the attack, no more wasting a good number of players time sitting on defence when nothing else is happening waiting for that one EI to try to cap a spawnable. 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Am I to gather you are no longer subbed?

non-subs started dominating the forums at the same time rax sizzled out. (past year GD has been far more active than rax)

it's not just the unsubbed talking more, the subbed pop has declined as well.

 

you've been here and active long enough, you should be able to see a helluva lot of tags disappeared in the past 2 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why dont I log in as much:

1) almost never see a squaddie, the vast majority have left due to "fixes" .

2) shoot ei in the chest with smg and in turn get killed by the rifle shot

3) Sap a Sherman ,  nothing happens,

4) shoot ea in the nose with a bofors and he just shrugs it off and continues on his merry way.

5) to prepare for an ao takes 10 million charges to blow an undefended fb. Talk about boring

6)   on and on .........

 

So here I am writing this rather than log in because I "Rage quit"    sapped a sherman cutting the bunker in Nivelles.  perfect placement of the charge , it went off and NOTHING happened. I was then shot in the back while trying to place another charge.

 

I already unsubbed my 2nd acct due to bull[censored].

Maybe I will come back next weekend if it rains. 

 

Edited by hondo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** I agree with the idea of having at least double inf ews to enable captures

Interesting thought.

Have to think it through, might work with proximity AOs?

So, change double infantry EWS say to 4 infantry (guns etc.  don't count), soon as those 4 are in range and heavy EWS pops up, AO auto places and CPs go hot in 5 minutes?

AO would stay with light EWS, say only 3 infantry left, but CPs would no longer be able to capture?  When 4th appeared CPs would go hot instantly? (since AO was already placed).

If no EWS, AO would drop in 5 min.

 

It might make attacking even harder though- have to get 4 attackers; but could work.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, tater said:

In the real world, the troops defending the city would already be there, in the places their leaders put them. The "EWS" would be when enemy vanguards hit the defenses, and shots are fired (or are spotted and called in).

The defense of a town was not a tiny number of people who had to move to appropriate positions within 5 minutes of hearing that the enemy were a few km away.

I indeed want more, and better AI, and have in this game for nearly 20 years. I want a ww2 experience, not quake writ large.

How much help do I want as a defender? I'd be fine with none if the player population was always enough that any defensive unit (brigade, whatever) has exactly as many players out in the field defensively arrayed, as the same size unit attacking does.

If an attack has just 20 players, but there are 2 brigades supplying the attack, and the D has one, then I'm even fine with 10 guys on D---as long as they are already where they think is optimal before EWS even goes off. (note that even this assumes the attack is semi-realistic and doesn't drive around and spawn an army from the wrong side of the front).

How is this immersive, exactly?

That's literally the only thing I care about. I want it to feel like it could possibly be ww2. 

Infantry within a town before they really attack? Sure, there's a mechanism in game for that, paratroopers. Short of that, it's not a thing.

The game is geared to help defenses because in RL there should be already be defenses in place, 24/7 in an are where a unit was deployed. heck, they's have patrols in addition to defensive arrays of troops.

Wait for someplace else to go? So I could participate in the exact kind of sneaky nonsense I hate defending against? I'd rather have everyone on both sides spawn into one place, and let the defense spend as long as they like arraying themselves, and to attack it we have to actually attack it. If we want anyone appearing in their rear, we should have to drop them out of aircraft.

I could also go to another DO... which would be exactly the same as what I was complaining about.

Alternately, I could pretend it was a LONG time ago, and place myself out from a town not under attack (alone), and kill a few units OTW to set up if they happen to place an AO.

 

How the hell does someone make 11,736 posts and not get one like is what i want to know lol !

Edited by actonman
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, actonman said:

How the hell does someone make 11,736 posts and not get one like is what i want to know lol !

Back in the day, I'm pretty sure "likes" were not a thing.

I was most active in the forums---and in the game---before the game was actually released, and then for the first several years after.

Share this post


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

non-subs started dominating the forums at the same time rax sizzled out. (past year GD has been far more active than rax)

it's not just the unsubbed talking more, the subbed pop has declined as well.

 

you've been here and active long enough, you should be able to see a helluva lot of tags disappeared in the past 2 years

Dropbear is stlll shooting me in the game and was always in there when I played Allied, so I don't know that he is except for the FP forum tag.

 

I had a point to make, lets see what his answer is.

Share this post


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

*** I agree with the idea of having at least double inf ews to enable captures

Interesting thought.

Have to think it through, might work with proximity AOs?

So, change double infantry EWS say to 4 infantry (guns etc.  don't count), soon as those 4 are in range and heavy EWS pops up, AO auto places and CPs go hot in 5 minutes?

AO would stay with light EWS, say only 3 infantry left, but CPs would no longer be able to capture?  When 4th appeared CPs would go hot instantly? (since AO was already placed).

If no EWS, AO would drop in 5 min.

 

It might make attacking even harder though- have to get 4 attackers; but could work.

 

Underpop gets no attacks.  Neat.  That'll fix TZ3.

Share this post


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

Underpop gets no attacks.  Neat.  That'll fix TZ3.

So be it then - If we are down to requiring a system that allows and encourages single man attacks as the primary way of getting things done then I'm not sure what to say about the future of the project as it stands. Rather have a functional system at other times than be concerned about being able to maintain 1/2 man mole attacks in any timezone. Just making the argument for teamwork and group play. 

Edited by raptor34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, raptor34 said:

So be it then - If we are down to requiring a system that allows and encourages single man attacks then WW2OL is kind of over anyways. Rather have a functional system in order times than be concerned about being able to maintain 1/2 man mole attacks in any timezone. 

the game started with a single man or 3 guys in a truck attacks on any city at anytime anywhere on the map. we're evolving. maybe sideways, but we're evolving.

Image result for funny military evolution memes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sorella said:

the game started with a single man or 3 guys in a truck attacks on any city at anytime anywhere on the map. we're evolving. maybe sideways, but we're evolving.

 

Like my stats and my skills. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, tater said:

In the real world, the troops defending the city would already be there, in the places their leaders put them. The "EWS" would be when enemy vanguards hit the defenses, and shots are fired (or are spotted and called in).

The defense of a town was not a tiny number of people who had to move to appropriate positions within 5 minutes of hearing that the enemy were a few km away.

I indeed want more, and better AI, and have in this game for nearly 20 years. I want a ww2 experience, not quake writ large.

How much help do I want as a defender? I'd be fine with none if the player population was always enough that any defensive unit (brigade, whatever) has exactly as many players out in the field defensively arrayed, as the same size unit attacking does.

If an attack has just 20 players, but there are 2 brigades supplying the attack, and the D has one, then I'm even fine with 10 guys on D---as long as they are already where they think is optimal before EWS even goes off. (note that even this assumes the attack is semi-realistic and doesn't drive around and spawn an army from the wrong side of the front).

How is this immersive, exactly?

That's literally the only thing I care about. I want it to feel like it could possibly be ww2. 

Infantry within a town before they really attack? Sure, there's a mechanism in game for that, paratroopers. Short of that, it's not a thing.

The game is geared to help defenses because in RL there should be already be defenses in place, 24/7 in an are where a unit was deployed. heck, they's have patrols in addition to defensive arrays of troops.

Wait for someplace else to go? So I could participate in the exact kind of sneaky nonsense I hate defending against? I'd rather have everyone on both sides spawn into one place, and let the defense spend as long as they like arraying themselves, and to attack it we have to actually attack it. If we want anyone appearing in their rear, we should have to drop them out of aircraft.

I could also go to another DO... which would be exactly the same as what I was complaining about.

Alternately, I could pretend it was a LONG time ago, and place myself out from a town not under attack (alone), and kill a few units OTW to set up if they happen to place an AO.

 

If you want to fight in a pre known "AO" with balanced numbers, and all starting the fight at the same time, both sides spawning into one combat area but the defenders set up first, you are playing the completely wrong game. WWIIOL does not have fixed 16 v 16 or 20 v 20 fights in an arena, one of the things I enjoy about it. The game you describe sounds like Call of Duty, and I do not want to play that thanks all the same.

 

S! Ian 

Edited by ian77
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

The core gameplay mechanics here revolve around denying your opponent the ability to play the game. That's not a recipe for fun, yet that has always been the primary goal - CAMP. Camp everything. Using different words for it, like "cutters" doesn't change what it is. The goal of camping is to remove the contest from the objective, essentially create an absence of gameplay such that your opponent quits. Then the blame can be put upon the opponents for quitting, and it continues on and on.

I'm not arguing that one side is any more or less guilty of this tactic, it's not a side issue. It's just not fun - especially when you are new to the game. It's like playing a game of chess where you're just trying to swat the pieces off the board. Is it effective? In a sense, but it totally defeats the purpose of a game. There really isn't any reason to keep beating this dead horse, everybody knows that camping sucks - but everybody is going to keep on doing it and making justifications for why it's cool and I'm a loser for not liking it.

 

But it is the same essential game play for 20 years, so some people must like it?

People who quit 5 or 10 years ago quit for a reason, expecting the game to change to meet the expectations of those who quit rather than those who continue to pay is plain daft.

As Krazy said, game is old now, it can still be a lot of fun when played with friends (I think Tex64 described the game as being the bar we drink in, not because it is a great bar but because we like the people we "meet" in there!).

Yeah we can get camped, yes we get angry, yes we rage quit, some for an hour, a day, etc some for good. I have stopped playing every so often after the first 7 or 8 years, mostly down to RL but also just a bit jaded with everything. Could the game mechanics be better, the capture system, supply, etc -  well yes of course, but I am sure if it was an easy fix RATS 2.0 would have done it.

Take the game for what it is, a bit tired and shabby, but the beer is usually cold, and there are usually a couple of guys to chat with, so just hang out in the WWIIOL bar and enjoy it for what it is, and not what you wish it was. Seriously, how anyone manages to play without a couple of beers beats me!! :) 

 

Cheers! 

S! Ian 

6 people like this

Share this post


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

Dropbear is stlll shooting me in the game and was always in there when I played Allied, so I don't know that he is except for the FP forum tag.

 

I had a point to make, lets see what his answer is.

I wasn't taking about him specifically, but the masses of recognizable tags that disappeared in the past year.

Like lob, saranoin, karecha, my allied SL and axis counterpart, and many more unique tags. A lot have left, enough to drop CRS's revenue to an all time low.

 

There's a serious problem right now, I'd say its been brewing for the past year. Man, i really want this to be talked about, since I can't start threads all i can do is derail...

 

Feels like the biggest problem in years is getting ignored

 

Share this post


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

Dropbear is stlll shooting me in the game and was always in there when I played Allied, so I don't know that he is except for the FP forum tag.

 

I had a point to make, lets see what his answer is.

NO Kilemall, I am not subbed. I play f2p until I reach rage quit lvl then log off - so many times in disgust it's not funny.

Sooo many times I find ems in the fields or ets incoming. I mark them, relay it to the target ao defence and get ignored 90% of the time.

I am finding the lag exponentially worse in the last few weeks..is it CRS cutting costs on bandwidth and/or priority from their provider?. Not ALL the enemy can be using throttled connections surely.

My ping is rock steady at 205-210 and when I experience any weirdness I always tab out and check it. It is the very best you can physically get from Australia.

MY squad has been decimated - three or four players that are still  subbed play very rarely and then for an hour or two at most,

 

As has been intimated in posts above there is a real lack of vets that are playing allied atm. A few new players around asking questions and wandering about - they are little but target practice for the hordes playing axis atm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ian77 said:

If you want to fight in a pre known "AO" with balanced numbers, and all starting the fight at the same time, both sides spawning into one combat area but the defenders set up first, you are playing the completely wrong game. WWIIOL does not have fixed 16 v 16 or 20 v 20 fights in an arena, one of the things I enjoy about it. The game you describe sounds like Call of Duty, and I do not want to play that thanks all the same.

 

S! Ian 

I want to play something that feels like ww2.

The wide world concept of ww2ol is great assuming there are enough players. 20 v 20 is not even a platoon action. I'd love to play a game that even felt like a squad action. The point of the wide world should be to set up novel small unit actions. Setting up company level actions only makes sense to the extent the game can actually simulate them in some fashion.

In a pure PvP sense, with some amount of respawning, how many players would you think are a minimum to simulate a squad level action? A platoon level? Company?

You're perfectly fine with 20 guys taking a town with 3 defenders, I assume? What does that combat represent? A couple squads killing local police (Andy Griffith and Barney Fife, with Gomer Pyle deputized)?

As I have said before, all I want is immersion. I want to feel like the little corner of the ww2ol world I see is part of a ww2 battle. A tiny part, and just the corner I'm in. In the first nearly 10 years I played, the sum total of immersive moments I had probably added up to a handful of minutes. There were many more minutes that were not immersive at all, but none the less fun.

Why would you have a problem with " all starting the fight at the same time, both sides spawning into one combat area but the defenders set up first," ?

Are you suggesting that at most any WW2 battle you care to name the defenders only arrive on the scene after the attackers? So you think "defenders" move to hold ground they don't yet hold, so they can defend that ground against attackers who already hold it? I'm confused. Did you like truck rush caps back in the day, when towns fell with no defense at all? Isn't it supposed to be a combat game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've lost track of how many times CRS (old and new) has explained in response to cries of distress like Tater's above that the only aspect of WWIIOL that's intended to be historically valid is the weapon models...and in particular, that the gameplay isn't expected to be realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should look towards artificially reducing the map size in low pop situations.

Say 10 towns in tz3 which would simulate a division wide attack/defence. It would serve to concentrate the available forces on both sides. Combined with proximity ao's this could work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, raptor34 said:

So be it then - If we are down to requiring a system that allows and encourages single man attacks as the primary way of getting things done then I'm not sure what to say about the future of the project as it stands. Rather have a functional system at other times than be concerned about being able to maintain 1/2 man mole attacks in any timezone. Just making the argument for teamwork and group play. 

I am too.

 

Big part of TZ3 is that the underpop gets beat down to the point they can't do anything, offense or defense.  It can hold together for awhile with leaders willing to tough it out, but they go on and on under those conditions and no real chance to achieve anything but a speed bump, ALL THE TIME, then they quit and you get a worse spiral cause you don't have the leaders or cohesion to get people to try, stay and fight organized.

 

So Pop Neutrailty is about giving chances for any pop combo in any TZ to have equal chances 24/7 to attack and defend.  Psychologically it's important to attack and inflict 'unscheduled chaos' on opponents just as a healthy stress relief from being constantly under the gun, and much more of a challenge for the overpop then baby seal clubbing.

 

That means that yes underpop on TZ3 is often a one man cap affair, but got some bad news for you Ran, during the age of the FRU ninja caps were much more the norm then even now.  The single capper has been a staple for some time, even for the overpop.  At least this way both pop states have a shot at it.

 

But more importantly, the goal is to allow for underpop TZs to get player leaders whether HC or squad to feel they can achieve something and more likely to play and grow the side/TZ.  And then we will have less ridiculous pop differences  and it will be less of an issue.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

I've lost track of how many times CRS (old and new) has explained in response to cries of distress like Tater's above that the only aspect of WWIIOL that's intended to be historically valid is the weapon models...and in particular, that the gameplay isn't expected to be realistic.

I guess I internalized what seemed to be the end goal (and I was probably wrong here) before the game was even released.

I suppose if this is the case I should just send my <S> to everyone, and leave again. Realistic (narrowly) gameplay is of course impossible, since players are not constrained by a real chain of command. I can't be ordered to stay in a particular spot, for example. Realistic feeling gameplay (a distinction I try to make in comments) is something that seems possible, however. If that's literally off the table, I guess I should bow out.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason i log in less?....the schrek 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back Inf placed frus with Shreks

Them were the days.

1 player could kill 10 tanks.

We need this back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I log in less? My wife got a new job last year that was a 50% pay raise *BUT* she now gets home so late I pretty much have to do 80% of the house work now and 100% of the yard work (as usual) and pick the kids up from school. Now granted even though she got a nice pay raise (for her) she still brings in 1/3 of what I do. I still want to spend time with my kids too so I'll sit and watch the most God awful shows with my kids because I know one day in their eyes I'll just suck the suckiest suck of the suck and they will not want to hang around me anymore. So by the time I clean the kitchen from yesterday and then cook (which I'll have to clean up tomorrow) and fuss at them to get baths, brush their teeth and eventually go to bed my 52 y/o [censored] is tired by 9PM and crawls in bed just to have the privilege to rinse a repeat it all over again the next day. 

At least I got the spend last weekend putting insulation in the attic while it was 92F outside. I lost a couple of pounds of sweat. That was new...

I'll admit playing Allied lately has not been rewarding other than holding off the overpopulation hoard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.