• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      Operation Burning Skies   09/17/2019

      All pilots scramble!  Strap yourself in for this months Community event - Operation Burning Skies! This Sunday, September 22, 11 am – 5 pm server time. In honor of XOOM and friends showcasing WWII Online at the Oregon International  Air Show – our forces too will battle for superiority in Operation Burning Skies. High Commands are on high alert to rally their forces to victory! Lift off, and see a whole new world of WWII Online… Fearless bomber pilots make the skies rain down fire – our daring fighter pilots are in pursuit of their prey- as western Europe erupts in war on the ground below! Rally your squads, rally your buddies - Combined arms are back!  …Under Burning Skies! SALUTE!
xanthus

Shoutout to WWIIOL from Post Scriptum devs

31 posts in this topic

Post Scriptum got updated with the very last map for the Market Garden campaign today. So I took a look at the release notes, and this is what I saw:

We had the dream of doing our very own World War 2 game based on our childhood favorite games like Red Orchestra 1 (and its famous Darkest Hour mod), Battleground Europe: WWII Online and many more. 
We wanted to create a game with no compromises, where players are thrown into intense battles where they will need to learn the game mechanics by themselves and become veteran players by helping each other with teamwork and roleplaying with one another. We hoped players would share memorable gaming moments with both laugher and shellshock horror...
Periscope Games is incredibly proud of Post Scriptum: our dream came true.
To close Chapter 1 is a very important milestone for us as a professional and emotional fulfilment. What started as a mod with 2 factions and only 4 maps, it grew to a fully fleshed game studio with more than thirteen full time employees scattered all around the globe and a stand-alone game with more than 60 weapons, 50+ vehicles, a total 10 maps for around 180km² of fully playable terrain with over 100 different layers.

What a journey that was, and guess what, it was only the beginning! We are currently working on Chapter 2 that will arrive for free to Post Scriptum later this year!
We will announce the new theater in the near future, so make sure to follow us on Facebook, Twitter and join our wonderful community on our official Discord http://discord.gg/postscriptum

 

https://steamcommunity.com/games/736220/announcements/detail/1630779027910823108

Very cool that the PS devs chose to single out WWIIOL for praise.

I do have to say that, while not perfect, PS is simply outstanding. The realism, the sound design, the immersion...it's quite an achievement. They've paid a LOT of attention to detail (just check out the link and see). Makes sense that they were vets of WWIIOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@xanthusYour post has been restored.  

Sorry for the flip flop.  We are just trying to protect our brand.

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty neat, S! to them.

I also think it further proves the point that those graphics heavy type games are unable to compete with a large persistent game world like ours and thus are just another shoe box shooter game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've spoke with their Project Lead on a couple of occasions. He's a good guy and cares about getting things right for the WWII experience. S!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SNIPER62 said:

Pretty neat, S! to them.

I also think it further proves the point that those graphics heavy type games are unable to compete with a large persistent game world like ours and thus are just another shoe box shooter game.

Wouldn’t say it’s a shoe box shooter game myself - As well, if rumours are correct they might be making their next campaign France 1940 - One can hope at least 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine those graphics with our map and supply system. That's the dream for our game.

Share this post


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

Imagine those graphics with our map and supply system. That's the dream for our game.

Agree 100% - I would take 1/10th of our map size if it meant having the fidelity that PS has. My dream for WW2OL 2.0 has always been something like Arma or PS with a campaign/operations map that is 24/7. 

The size of the map isn’t all important if it isn’t matched in equal part by quality mechanics. 

Edited by raptor34
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2019 at 11:09 AM, raptor34 said:

Agree 100% - I would take 1/10th of our map size if it meant having the fidelity that PS has. My dream for WW2OL 2.0 has always been something like Arma or PS with a campaign/operations map that is 24/7. 

The size of the map isn’t all important if it isn’t matched in equal part by quality mechanics. 

Actually it does matter for the air war aspect if nothing else.

4 people like this

Share this post


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

Actually it does matter for the air war aspect if nothing else.

And real flanking.

Not the fake "flanking" where you go 500m to the left or right of an enemy tank.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that I didn't say map size isn't important, I only mentioned that I personally would trade most of our map for better fidelity of modelling and mechanics. I think we are kidding ourselves if a very large but almost empty game map is more important than everything else. Even a 100km by 100km map could have air in it as a point of discussion (An example being the map that the IL-2 team is doing for Tank Crew that will combine a high level of detail on the ground with aircraft)

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Note that I didn't say map size isn't important, I only mentioned that I personally would trade most of our map for better fidelity of modelling and mechanics. I think we are kidding ourselves if a very large but almost empty game map is more important than everything else. Even a 100km by 100km map could have air in it as a point of discussion (An example being the map that the IL-2 team is doing for Tank Crew that will combine a high level of detail on the ground with aircraft)

Hmmm.  How about a linked scenario chain like Panzer General for a region, outcome determines next sequenced scenario.  Bigger then H&G's linked cookie cutter arenas, but still limited resolution.

 

I'll bet they could do that with the current engine.

 

tree.jpg

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Bigger then H&G's linked cookie cutter arenas, but still limited resolution.

Glad you mention HG because I think it is a great example of taking the worst of both models (open world/closed map) and creating a hybrid that is even worse than the sum of its parts.

The big game world seems secondary right up until you don't have it and then suddenly all the mechanics and tricks you employ to fake it and make it seem like the world is big are painfully obvious and immersion breaking. Simply things like seeing over chat "LW intercepting RDP bombers" or "navy diverting to assist attack on Kamperland" add more to the immersion than many players realize. Yes, you probably won't fly from London to Berlin, but the idea that you can makes it feel like there is a real war going on, rather than logging into an instance abd playing on a small map and then abstracting it to a larger strategic layer.

Player feeling and perception are paramount. And for all the graphics shortcomings, one thing that players consistently speak positively about is the sheer scale of the game and feeling like one man as part of a larger overall war effort. You simply can't have that feeling without concurrent air and naval assets. Nor can you have that feeling if planes are spawning midair over s small constrained map.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Hmmm.  How about a linked scenario chain like Panzer General for a region, outcome determines next sequenced scenario.  Bigger then H&G's linked cookie cutter arenas, but still limited resolution.

 

I'll bet they could do that with the current engine.

 

tree.jpg

Did you draw this? That’s nice. Even with a huge world in v1.0 we could move the action from one region to another

Share this post


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

Glad you mention HG because I think it is a great example of taking the worst of both models (open world/closed map) and creating a hybrid that is even worse than the sum of its parts.

The big game world seems secondary right up until you don't have it and then suddenly all the mechanics and tricks you employ to fake it and make it seem like the world is big are painfully obvious and immersion breaking. Simply things like seeing over chat "LW intercepting RDP bombers" or "navy diverting to assist attack on Kamperland" add more to the immersion than many players realize. Yes, you probably won't fly from London to Berlin, but the idea that you can makes it feel like there is a real war going on, rather than logging into an instance abd playing on a small map and then abstracting it to a larger strategic layer.

Player feeling and perception are paramount. And for all the graphics shortcomings, one thing that players consistently speak positively about is the sheer scale of the game and feeling like one man as part of a larger overall war effort. You simply can't have that feeling without concurrent air and naval assets. Nor can you have that feeling if planes are spawning midair over s small constrained map.

I used to think that but I'm not sure anymore - I'm envisioning a much more focused simulation that yes, will not have air starts or anything like that but at the same time, trades some scale for fidelity. More operational than theatre focused if wish to think of it that way - Some of the largest Arma 3 maps are a good example of where I would start. If that is successful, scale it up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried it...........didnt really like it. Lets just say it wasnt for me.

Share this post


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

Glad you mention HG because I think it is a great example of taking the worst of both models (open world/closed map) and creating a hybrid that is even worse than the sum of its parts.

The big game world seems secondary right up until you don't have it and then suddenly all the mechanics and tricks you employ to fake it and make it seem like the world is big are painfully obvious and immersion breaking. Simply things like seeing over chat "LW intercepting RDP bombers" or "navy diverting to assist attack on Kamperland" add more to the immersion than many players realize. Yes, you probably won't fly from London to Berlin, but the idea that you can makes it feel like there is a real war going on, rather than logging into an instance abd playing on a small map and then abstracting it to a larger strategic layer.

Player feeling and perception are paramount. And for all the graphics shortcomings, one thing that players consistently speak positively about is the sheer scale of the game and feeling like one man as part of a larger overall war effort. You simply can't have that feeling without concurrent air and naval assets. Nor can you have that feeling if planes are spawning midair over s small constrained map.

Oh no argument here on your points, but also Doc's Bloody Battles experiment showed what can happen if we have regional battle.  It was just one non-stop attacking and defending all over, you really got a sense of Big Map much moreso then getting in the Transporter and beaming to the next battle.

Share this post


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

Did you draw this? That’s nice. Even with a huge world in v1.0 we could move the action from one region to another

Naw, I just knew these sort of things would still be out there, people were drawing them up at the BBS/dawn of internet gaming era.

 

I have a bit of history with this, friend of mine that was in the gaming industry worked for SSI for a time.  I got to drive them nuts indirectly because I would totally break their scenarios, crushing 15-turn scenarios in 5, landing in Egypt during Crete, taking channel bases in the D-day scenario, and in general jacking up their game.  I would get huge diatribes from my friend- 'it's a puzzle game not a war game!'  I understand some of the more vicious penalty scenarios in Harpoon and Allied General were as a direct result of my taunting.

 

I played hardmode too, if my army was beaten I would restart the WHOLE campaign from Poland on. 

 

Really enjoyed the force building part too, I would use a lot of economizing in odd ways with that game. 

I would run with maybe half tanks half TD, about 3 Pioneres and 2 backup artillery and 1 AA gun all in halftracks (cause time is victory when slogging across Russia).  That mix allowed me to take towns fast.  Then I could use the cheap TDs to hold them while rolling onto the next target.

No armor car recon, I used air recon exclusively and set up Allied air for annihilation.   Then paras that got air cover and landed at enemy ports- they were expendable but I earned beaucoup prestige and simultaneously lured air to their doom.  Another trap was killing the Fireflies at D-day, they never made it to the beach.

 

Never got Major Victory, but did break Third Army and stopped Russians at Budapest (but only just, with a last minute buy of a Jagdtiger).

 

I always figured WWIIOL was going to go this way with the North African campaign, sequential campaigns that occurred depending on who won BoF, BoB, NA, Russia, etc.  Eh, could do it with regional operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of follow on regional operations for other theatres rather than trying to fit it all into one. 

@Kilemall What exactly was Docs Bloody Battles? I’ve heard the name before but I wasn’t around for that event or wasn’t playing at the time. 

Share this post


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

I like the idea of follow on regional operations for other theatres rather than trying to fit it all into one. 

@Kilemall What exactly was Docs Bloody Battles? I’ve heard the name before but I wasn’t around for that event or wasn’t playing at the time. 

Here's a good after discussion on what was done and people's take on it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one LOVE the scale of the map..BUT, are we designing the gameplay for people with hours of available  uninterrupted gameplay,  every day, or players with an hour or two every few days maybe.

In the time poor days I would think most possible subscribers don't see the value in a sub when it can take 20-30 mins to get a tank in a good spot sometimes. Fast infantry gameplay is great but the cqb gameplay does not give the overall scope of the game. Imagine if you are a new player for a moment - spawn in an advertised fms to either die immediately , or wander around looking for enemy, or finally get to town and get inside  a building with an enemy flag..

The disparity between what we advertise  and what the common player gets to play is huge,  and I feel is a major reason behind the low subsciption  rates.

The new lower price starter account should alleviate this...gives the new guys a taste of all the available forces.

Share this post


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

I for one LOVE the scale of the map..BUT, are we designing the gameplay for people with hours of available  uninterrupted gameplay,  every day, or players with an hour or two every few days maybe.

In the time poor days I would think most possible subscribers don't see the value in a sub when it can take 20-30 mins to get a tank in a good spot sometimes. Fast infantry gameplay is great but the cqb gameplay does not give the overall scope of the game. Imagine if you are a new player for a moment - spawn in an advertised fms to either die immediately , or wander around looking for enemy, or finally get to town and get inside  a building with an enemy flag..

The disparity between what we advertise  and what the common player gets to play is huge,  and I feel is a major reason behind the low subsciption  rates.

The new lower price starter account should alleviate this...gives the new guys a taste of all the available forces.

I think all this AO and active battles and a half dozen different mechanisms are geared exactly to this need.

 

What is missing is a manual or vidoes or something that explains the game so they get the depth and/or ya bigazz world here is how to find stuff.

 

I would gather from reading between the lines that the original design document assumed 'fellow player indoctrination', which works fine with the original year or two maps, not with missions willy nilly lying around all over the damn place with no explanation of what the player will experience jumping in.

 

 A thorough going over by documents/vids is needed, incorporated into the sales pitch so they know what to expect.  I don't think that's happening, so second best- follow through on the acculturation/indoctrination process by getting the DAMN VOICE SYSTEM IN.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

 

@Kilemall What exactly was Docs Bloody Battles? I’ve heard the name before but I wasn’t around for that event or wasn’t playing at the time. 

I was wondering this also. I recognize the name but don't specifically remember them to a T. I do recall the old team setting up scenarios every once in a while on the Training/Event server, like one that played out a specific RAF raid to the mainland that roughly had 50-100 bombers/fighters meeting 50-100 LW fighters over the channel. It was quite impressive as us bombers all had different leads all leaving from different AFs in England.

 

Found this in the above linked thread.

Quote

"Bloody Battles" was an experiment I designed to accommodate a vision Gophur had but placed within the existing game engine/terrain of WWIIOL. It had a number of alternative ways of reaching either side of the map which opened up supply and other variables according to the various paths that success or failure in each individual battle would influence.

The idea was to use as much of the map as possible, reach an end game (victory/defeat) but over a semi-fixed number of battles. While the number of battles was fixed in advance, from start to finish, the intention was to have a large number of alternate paths to that end result, and to use as much of the existing terrain as possible.

Really we just wanted to try and maintain the unpredictability of the campaign experience within a fixed series of battles so that starts and ends (resets and maintenance that have to be done at each ending to set up a new beginning) could be managed better and player expectations could be nailed down to definite duration's, and to work out ideas and kinks that our early ideas of v2.0 would naturally produce as we moved forwards.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could have used that years ago - There is a ton of potential for special events and missions in WW2OL that is more or less completely unused. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I think all this AO and active battles and a half dozen different mechanisms are geared exactly to this need.

 

What is missing is a manual or vidoes or something that explains the game so they get the depth and/or ya bigazz world here is how to find stuff.

 

I would gather from reading between the lines that the original design document assumed 'fellow player indoctrination', which works fine with the original year or two maps, not with missions willy nilly lying around all over the damn place with no explanation of what the player will experience jumping in.

 

 A thorough going over by documents/vids is needed, incorporated into the sales pitch so they know what to expect.  I don't think that's happening, so second best- follow through on the acculturation/indoctrination process by getting the DAMN VOICE SYSTEM IN.

We are currently compiling a quick guide that gives this insight. Something the wiki has failed to achieve for the past 15 years I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.