• 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!
krazydog

Why are the Rats adding SMGs to HC FRUs?

85 posts in this topic

Is the game audio system so broken that truck audio can not be heard clearly in town from the fbs? 

THIS  is why fms go down so quickly...simply put the overpop side has the opportunity and the numbers to spawn multiple trucks and placing out of ews range before the previous ao is finished. Placing one inf in each mission is easy when u have the numbers.

EVERYTHING is easy when u have the numbers..but hc based ums that can be set anywhere could be game breaking. 

I look forward to seeing how it goes..at least CRS is trying to keep battles going, but any side that is currently OP is going to be exponentially harder to stop now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, montyuno said:

Walking FMS mission creep.. A bad concept gets worse...

Just get rid of it, stop the madness before it goes any further...

Perhaps give HC a "Command PPO" instead, a strong point that can be used to oversee the battle but nothing can spawn there... Make it defendable and camouflaged, other troops could set a standard FMS nearby to support it if needed..

One option would be. Perhaps just allow the HC officer to spawn a rifle at this PPO, that's it nothing else one HC rifle...

That is the only thing I would grudgingly support...

Cheers Monty

I'm often posting on HC game tools.  One of them for me is AO/DO commander, person takes command of AO/DO (not the stupid brigades or garrisons) and gets ALL the side's marks around town AND friendlies' positions AND missions on target including their FMS/LMS loc if any AND adhoc command structure based on MLs.  Command/control and a reason/tool for someone to actually direct the battle.

 

Expanding on that, adhoc command structure ingame, MOIC---->AO/DO COs---->MLs.

Share this post


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

Is the game audio system so broken that truck audio can not be heard clearly in town from the fbs? 

THIS  is why fms go down so quickly...simply put the overpop side has the opportunity and the numbers to spawn multiple trucks and placing out of ews range before the previous ao is finished. Placing one inf in each mission is easy when u have the numbers.

EVERYTHING is easy when u have the numbers..but hc based ums that can be set anywhere could be game breaking. 

I look forward to seeing how it goes..at least CRS is trying to keep battles going, but any side that is currently OP is going to be exponentially harder to stop now.

Overpop side can't get them, only underpop, both if even (less then 10% pop diff).

 

Work for you?

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

The decision to add Submachine Guns (Mas38, MP40, M1928 Thompson, M1A1 Thompson) were indeed to make the HC Mobile Spawn more viable. We intentionally did not expand the functionality of this spawn to maintain the value of the FMS (for example adding Anti-Tank would hurt the tank game, adding Engineers would cause Forward Bases to be destroyed faster), yet we also want to make sure HC officers are spawning their characters in and continuing the battle.

One thing WWII Online has a very hard time with is sustaining a battle. The manual effort involved in setting up AOs > Missions > Rolling Trucks > Deploying Mobile Spawns > Aggregating Troops there > Directing Troops > And then bam, spawn goes down.

When this happens, people log out of the game. The justification with the HC Mobile Spawn is that it takes a truck to initially deploy them, enough to continue the battle to some degree.

This has mostly been my decision after reviewing data and after being in-game more and seeing how battles are playing out. I'd like to see how it goes and I don't think it's going to tilt things badly, I think it is just enough to create the value and reminder for HC Officers that this tool exists.

Because it is deployed on a minor scale (only High Command & CRS Staff can deploy these units), a big fear of these tilting the battle or eliminating the value of Zones of Control is a bit out of context to my prediction. 

So I hope this explains a bit of the thought process that went into it, why the decision was made and implemented, and I hope that the High Command officers on both sides use this tool to sustain battles and help us continue the momentum of players joining the battle and enjoying themselves.

Ironically, one of my primary target profiles for an LMS is a rifle takedown of an EFMS.

Share this post


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

So... why just HC then?.. I mean being that often out numbered in the HC department. The most I have seen on is 5 during primetime and I know for a fact the axis had almost twice that many on at the same time. Low pop times we often dont have HC on. It creates another issue of balance just piles on.  TBH, I dont like having anything but riffles spawn from the LMS - IF we have to have them at all.  I have taken out several of them map already. They are hard to find and do already pose a threat.  The Axis had one not so long ago that was well hidden but got behind our ATGs and picked them clean. I think we lasted 20 minutes tops and had no idea how they kept getting too us and we had a real FMS up and guys looking for them coming in just to find the LMS was inside our ZOC. By that time it was too late. I dont like PPLMS at all.

So...... all hardcore guys get on HC, tear the Axis a new one?

Part of this package is obviously to incentivize HC membership.

Share this post


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

The decision to add Submachine Guns (Mas38, MP40, M1928 Thompson, M1A1 Thompson) were indeed to make the HC Mobile Spawn more viable. We intentionally did not expand the functionality of this spawn to maintain the value of the FMS (for example adding Anti-Tank would hurt the tank game, adding Engineers would cause Forward Bases to be destroyed faster), yet we also want to make sure HC officers are spawning their characters in and continuing the battle.

One thing WWII Online has a very hard time with is sustaining a battle. The manual effort involved in setting up AOs > Missions > Rolling Trucks > Deploying Mobile Spawns > Aggregating Troops there > Directing Troops > And then bam, spawn goes down.

When this happens, people log out of the game. The justification with the HC Mobile Spawn is that it takes a truck to initially deploy them, enough to continue the battle to some degree.

This has mostly been my decision after reviewing data and after being in-game more and seeing how battles are playing out. I'd like to see how it goes and I don't think it's going to tilt things badly, I think it is just enough to create the value and reminder for HC Officers that this tool exists.

Because it is deployed on a minor scale (only High Command & CRS Staff can deploy these units), a big fear of these tilting the battle or eliminating the value of Zones of Control is a bit out of context to my prediction. 

So I hope this explains a bit of the thought process that went into it, why the decision was made and implemented, and I hope that the High Command officers on both sides use this tool to sustain battles and help us continue the momentum of players joining the battle and enjoying themselves.

I don't get it we had thread after thread how to improve the survivability of set FMS.

Increase the charges it would take.

Let a Truck set more then 1 up to 3 if the player decides to do so.

Separate the spawns aka give the Truck a option of 2 FMS , 1 an all ATG and AAA spawn the other INF only , both set apart with higher threshold of sapper chargers needed it be so much harder to get them spawn camped.

Move the Flags of the nation's inside the FMS and let Engineers set fake FMS , PPO that look like an FMS but are more sniper positions then a FMS . With the flag on the inside the real FMS the other side actually have to investigate if it's a true FMS .

All these have been discussed in the idea section , but nope you guys come up with adding the SMG to the HC LMS.

Next be adding sappers to guarantee that the it can't be spawn camped to easily. 

You say we intentionally we did not expand on it ,* I read it's not out of the question* we have to wait and see. Kinda like when you said it be a Rifle  only HC LMS  , but now it's Rifle and SMG.

All the above mentioned ideas are 200% better then expanding on the HC LMS.

 

And where are these overwhelming numbers / players that have voted for the expansion of this?  They sure are not sounding off in this thread , so far I only see opposition to it. 

Let's be honest CRS voted internally and most of you guys thought it's a good idea cause so far I don't see it from the player base in this Forum.

 

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if there are only two active FMS on a side and both 800+ meters out, and a HC silently places a FRU at minimum distance is it really a "minor" spawn lol?

I hope you know that all this will do is help the sneaky infantry attacks by experienced players

you are not going to get more knock-down, drag-out fights between attackers on a hill and defenders at the edge of town, just silent floods of SMGs capping the spawns to a dead AO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, dre21 said:

I don't get it we had thread after thread how to improve the survivability of set FMS.

Increase the charges it would take.

Let a Truck set more then 1 up to 3 if the player decides to do so.

Separate the spawns aka give the Truck a option of 2 FMS , 1 an all ATG and AAA spawn the other INF only , both set apart with higher threshold of sapper chargers needed it be so much harder to get them spawn camped.

Move the Flags of the nation's inside the FMS and let Engineers set fake FMS , PPO that look like an FMS but are more sniper positions then a FMS . With the flag on the inside the real FMS the other side actually have to investigate if it's a true FMS .

All these have been discussed in the idea section , but nope you guys come up with adding the SMG to the HC LMS.

Next be adding sappers to guarantee that the it can't be spawn camped to easily. 

You say we intentionally we did not expand on it ,* I read it's not out of the question* we have to wait and see. Kinda like when you said it be a Rifle  only HC LMS  , but now it's Rifle and SMG.

All the above mentioned ideas are 200% better then expanding on the HC LMS.

 

And where are these overwhelming numbers / players that have voted for the expansion of this?  They sure are not sounding off in this thread , so far I only see opposition to it. 

Let's be honest CRS voted internally and most of you guys thought it's a good idea cause so far I don't see it from the player base in this Forum.

 

Being honest, those other options sound strange or not completely viable to me. 

Increasing the charges needed: Would make an fms harder to kill, but not harder to camp. 

Letting a truck spawn up to 3 fms: How would this work? It’s one mission. How would incoming infantry choose which fms to spawn in that mission? Can they see them on the map? What if two are camped and one is not, is it Russian roulette when you spawn in as to which one you show up at?

Separate the spawns: Maybe, but still have the problem above. 

Moving the flag inside: This could help a little, at least it would force campers to move in and make sure, but I don’t know if it would really make a huge difference. Maybe it would. 

Just my .02. Not saying I’m thrilled with the smg thing, I guess I didn’t feel like there was a problem in this area that needed fixing to begin with. Anyway it will be interesting, maybe not in a good way. Lol. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

if there are only two active FMS on a side and both 800+ meters out, and a HC silently places a FRU at minimum distance is it really a "minor" spawn lol?

I hope you know that all this will do is help the sneaky infantry attacks by experienced players

you are not going to get more knock-down, drag-out fights between attackers on a hill and defenders at the edge of town, just silent floods of SMGs capping the spawns to a dead AO

Again, as soon as the HC commander is killed, he cannot move his LMS and needs to Respawn at FB. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game has a total disconnect between what the operational level game does/suggests, and what the local situation is.

The operational level (Brigade level, map level, whatever you call it) suggests that a town might have 2 Brigades in it (not sure how/if they stack, but at least paras and army are possible), and it could be attacked from a place with only one. The attacking side can be overpop, and could attack with 5X as many attacking players as defenders, even though at the operational level, the defenders should outnumber the attackers 2:1.

Mobile spawns exacerbate this problem. "Limiting" the  HC MS to the 2 units that already do most of the game winning work (capping CPs) is not a limitation at all.

All respawning (both sides) should be capped relative to attacking vs defending operational unit strength (dunno what a Garrison is vs a Brigade, but assign that a number) if the operational game is to map to the situation at a given AO/DO.

I see the point of getting players to the "front" faster, but I'd prefer that it be, you know, and actual front. Spawning an army out of your *** is even less reasonable than the noisy trucks doing it, because it at least telegraphs that they are moving an army around behind you (even if they are doing it at 40+ kph, instead of the walking speed it should be).

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

Being honest, those other options sound strange or not completely viable to me. 

Increasing the charges needed: Would make an fms harder to kill, but not harder to camp. 

Letting a truck spawn up to 3 fms: How would this work? It’s one mission. How would incoming infantry choose which fms to spawn in that mission? Can they see them on the map? What if two are camped and one is not, is it Russian roulette when you spawn in as to which one you show up at?

Separate the spawns: Maybe, but still have the problem above. 

Moving the flag inside: This could help a little, at least it would force campers to move in and make sure, but I don’t know if it would really make a huge difference. Maybe it would. 

Just my .02. Not saying I’m thrilled with the smg thing, I guess I didn’t feel like there was a problem in this area that needed fixing to begin with. Anyway it will be interesting, maybe not in a good way. Lol. 

Hill it's easy.

A Truck sets 3 FMS or up to , it's after all up to the player, on his mission each FMS is marked on the map as FMS 1 , 2 ,3 . You choose that players mission now you get options depending on how many were set . If only 1 well its routine like normal , now if he set 2 or 3 you can see the FMS on map and choose your spawn point. 

If one is camped and you keep spawning at that one it's your own fault if you have 2 more options. 

Your concern is if 2 are camped and one is not , how is it different now, you choose mission and spawn in blind now too. One can always assume ML if the ML is not doing his job, there is a certain responsibility as ML.

You have seen me ( I believe ) announce over mission chat that I'm deleting all mark older then 4 min and they need to be remarked especially when it comes to EI icons , FMS icons I usually renew myself if that is still active and so on I think you get the picture.  Like I said being are setting a Mission comes with responsibility.  Also with a multiple FMS option one can dislodge a camper faster then with only 1 FMS .

Yes he might camp it but he won't know if that us the only one , so he can be sapped rather quickly or ATGed from the other FMS.

That is the concept of separating INF and AAA and ATG combo.

Yes you might camp the INF spawn but u have no clue where that ATG spawn lurkes or vice versa.

Does that make it a bit better to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dre21 said:

Hill it's easy.

A Truck sets 3 FMS or up to , it's after all up to the player, on his mission each FMS is marked on the map as FMS 1 , 2 ,3 . You choose that players mission now you get options depending on how many were set . If only 1 well its routine like normal , now if he set 2 or 3 you can see the FMS on map and choose your spawn point. 

If one is camped and you keep spawning at that one it's your own fault if you have 2 more options. 

Your concern is if 2 are camped and one is not , how is it different now, you choose mission and spawn in blind now too. One can always assume ML if the ML is not doing his job, there is a certain responsibility as ML.

You have seen me ( I believe ) announce over mission chat that I'm deleting all mark older then 4 min and they need to be remarked especially when it comes to EI icons , FMS icons I usually renew myself if that is still active and so on I think you get the picture.  Like I said being are setting a Mission comes with responsibility.  Also with a multiple FMS option one can dislodge a camper faster then with only 1 FMS .

Yes he might camp it but he won't know if that us the only one , so he can be sapped rather quickly or ATGed from the other FMS.

That is the concept of separating INF and AAA and ATG combo.

Yes you might camp the INF spawn but u have no clue where that ATG spawn lurkes or vice versa.

Does that make it a bit better to understand?

Hi dre, yes the concept of having them marked on the map, and letting an individual player choose ms 1, ms 2, etc. would make that workable in my mind. Thanks for the additional explanation. I also hadn’t thought about how multiple spawns (in relative close proximity) migjt help thwart spawn campers (more so than those created from separate missions) so that’s a good point. 

Edited by hillstorm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2019 at 7:51 AM, ZEBBEEE said:

I personally don’t believe that the hundreds of new players daily joining the game are disturbed by these.

They must however be disappointed by something the current spawning system doesn’t manage to answer. We need to find out. If an in-game poll suggests that a feature -that was completely removed- would be very much welcomed back, we should at least try out something in between.

Furthermore no one used the HCLMS so far... 

I personally would prefer our hard FMS spawning heavy guns and trucks but deployed at minimum 1km, as moveable LMS by feet but limited to jumps of maximum 100m, so that we maximize team cohesion. But on another part we have much more complaints about the lack of mobile spawns and camping situations, as being a « walking simulator ». The HC-placed FMS brings back a little bit of variety/complementarity to balance the current design which is still not perfect.

The agile development approach of CRS2 indeed has had some complicated temporarily outcomes, but if we don’t force the system to its limits, how could we understand its actual behaviour? We are still at the very beginning of major upgrades capabilities, let’s not be pessimistic about temporarily quick fixes.

Keep giving feedbacks from your actual ingame experience, however. That is very much appreciated!

I think I will play a lot more next campaign due to this change alone.  I hope to have some good feedback for you. 

 

When I polled this exact topic a while ago in the forums, truth be told I was shocked to see the poll results as close as they were.  I expected something more akin to how you describe your ingame polling results.  I guess it just goes to show that the forums can sometimes be a vocal minority after all.

 

I think it's a massive step in the right direction @XOOM.  And it's good to know that you are seeing the same issues that some of us have been seeing for a while now.  There are other alternatives to maintaining active battles that can be tried, especially if this change turns out to be a net negative (although I don't think it will).  

 

S!

Share this post


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

Again, as soon as the HC commander is killed, he cannot move his LMS and needs to Respawn at FB. 

I operated my HC during the test phase as an 'egglayer', neither turning the unit into a rifile nor 'leading' the mission.  I dropped my nest then moved to the next egg site.  As such I kept the LMS up for hours, got killed once, then rolled in the replacement HC.  So to maintain persistence I certainly had to dump out of the business of capping and killing.

Share this post


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

So to maintain persistence I certainly had to dump out of the business of capping and killing.

Same thing with driving in trucks non-stop to achieve the same persistence, no?  That's part of the game.  There will always be jobs that need to be done that don't involve killing and capping.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, not liking what direction this game is going, once again. Had a glimmer of hope, that's gone. 

I'll check back every now and then and see what's going on. 

 

Share this post


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

Same thing with driving in trucks non-stop to achieve the same persistence, no?  That's part of the game.  There will always be jobs that need to be done that don't involve killing and capping.  

Hmm, but the problem is, the ML whether trucker or HC LMS is an egglayer, not a battle leader, managing the rally point and not the action.

 

Another example of Hardcoded Organizational Psychosis Inducing Methodology.

Share this post


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

Hmm, but the problem is, the ML whether trucker or HC LMS is an egglayer, not a battle leader, managing the rally point and not the action.

 

Another example of Hardcoded Organizational Psychosis Inducing Methodology.

The HC must IMHO stay behind and support MLs. Not lead the men to combat. He shouldn't maneuver with his LMS around town. Increasing its deployment distance could be something to keep an eye on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HC can't lead from the front and stay behind simultaneously.  I would love to believe HC aren't going to move their LMS around, but I have a funny feeling that they will.

Share this post


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

When I polled this exact topic a while ago in the forums, truth be told I was shocked to see the poll results as close as they were.  I expected something more akin to how you describe your ingame polling results.  I guess it just goes to show that the forums can sometimes be a vocal minority after all.

it was more like 70:30 back in the truck-fru phase

a few months after the FMS was introduced, it dropped to 50:50. i suspect we lost 40% of players.

 

 

if ya'll want a accurate poll, reintroduce the inf-FRU for a few weeks then do a poll.

if one spawn is all-round better and has popular support you'll know which is right for the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

;)

Edited by augetout
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be important to remind everyone that there is a limited number of High Command Officer playable units which have this capability to deploy the HCMS. Unlike the old days where any HC officer could spawn any infantryman and get their uniform, this is a very isolated case.

Missions, as they are built currently, cannot deploy more than a single mobile spawn at a time. You cannot deploy multiple different spawn points, just as you cannot make normal missions which have more than one origin or more than one target. Just like depots, you can only spawn from them, or setup a mobile spawn to that mission, and you can elect to uncheck the mobile spawn option. That works the same now with mobile spawns. I cannot describe to you the complexity with changing this, because I do not fully know how, but in my discussions with Victarus about it in the past (being able to deploy multiple mobile spawns or even setting up a fallback mobile spawn position) was serious amounts of code. It's complicated.

The notion that CRS is not considering player feedback is false. Want proof?

  1. We reduced the EWS range of trucks to make them less detectable and buy more life-time for the trucks
  2. We reduced the deployment time for trucks to place mobile spawns
  3. We made the redeployment (cool-down timer) 0 seconds so you can redeploy it again more rapidly as you see fit
  4. We increased the health of mobile spawns to increase their survivability
  5. We reduced the range of mobile spawns to reduce the travel time to town and increase action / time to contact

This feedback was received by the players and we determined which values to manipulate and how to do it, but it was driven by the recognition that more needs to be done.

Making the Fortified Mobile Spawn even stronger may be an option, but it's not the only thing to consider. At some point they'll become too strong as well, which could create more unforeseen issues with how battles play out. We'd really need to be careful with that and do some testing. Fortunately Air Forces can have a direct effect on blowing these up, so it's not regulated solely to the Army to do it all.

Let's continue to see how this plays out in the live campaign before a mountain is made out of a mole hill.

I continue to hope that High Command officers utilize this tool (HCMS) to continue the battles and keep players logged in to WWII Online. That is the primary objective.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@XOOM

Nobody is saying make a FMS 12 satchel strong, but maybe 6  or an extreme case 9  , just something that takes the 1 Engineer out of the equation.  We want team work so it be logical that we just bump up the FMS threshold just a tadbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dre21 said:

@XOOM

Nobody is saying make a FMS 12 satchel strong, but maybe 6  or an extreme case 9  , just something that takes the 1 Engineer out of the equation.  We want team work so it be logical that we just bump up the FMS threshold just a tadbit.

Then, we'll hear that the defenders are unable to blow it up causing great distress for them. Every action has an equal reaction.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XOOM said, "Making the Fortified Mobile Spawn even stronger may be an option..." 

This, but nothing too elaborate, though.  Just make it twice as large and include man-able ATG guns, one facing in each direction, along with 4 man-able LMGs, a thick barbed wire and mine field surrounding the FMS 30m out, and several war dogs.   It should be made with reinforced concrete and  have several hidden escape tunnels.   Just whip this up for the next patch.  Thanks! :D

Edited by GrAnit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.