snipey

WW2OL has one thing that other games do not: a big map. Play to your strength.

81 posts in this topic

10 minutes ago, ian77 said:

But again, you want the allies to only defend.

I haven't fully absorbed all the thread yet...maybe someone else said that, but I didn't say that and don't mean that.

Both sides should expect to have some areas where they're defending, and others where they have concentrated forces and can attack. That's how 1940s warfare worked.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jwilly said:

I haven't fully absorbed all the thread yet...maybe someone else said that, but I didn't say that and don't mean that.

Both sides should expect to have some areas where they're defending, and others where they have concentrated forces and can attack. That's how 1940s warfare worked.

It was a reference to Tater and his insistence on only discussing allies defending.

The game does indeed need both sides to attack and defend, creating the battles we claim to want and enjoy.

 

S! Ian 

Share this post


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

It turns out that most the axis dedicated players have always been more skilled on average in this game than your average allied player. That's just how it happened when this game hit the shelves. 

Numbers do that for you, but I know you can't be expected to understand that from your one-sided view. 

I didn't read the rest. :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

ANY CHANGES NEED TO BE NET SUBSCRIPTION GAINS

Yes, agreed.

And as you said elsewhere, some players think that defending is fun, but others on both sides want to attack, so both sides need to be capable of attacking...even when the total population is small to moderate and it's unbalanced.

In classic 1940s warfare, defenders had about a 2:1 lethality advantage. Analyzing across much of WWII's history, operational-level engagements...all else equal...were about even fights when the attacker had a 2:1 force advantage over the defender, because of the lethality advantage of the defense provided by their emplaced weapons, dug-in positions, mines/wire, tactical planning of fields of fire and the like. Attackers had to have a 3:1 force advantage before they gained an advantage in likelihood of prevailing.

The current game mechanics are just beginning to touch on those factors...though CRS is mostly modeling them to not actually be lethality multipliers, which makes the whole exercise pointless so far. But, CRS presumably could change that.

The relevance of this to the discussion topic is that defensive lethality multipliers are always directional. Game mechanics that inherently result in attackers  coming from everywhere eliminate all possibility of the game having working defense. Instead every battle is a chaotic hodge podge of a meeting engagement. 

That, fundamentally, is what screws the smaller-numbers side. Without sensible defense based on realistic defensive lethality multipliers, the numerically smaller side has no chance of having both an adequate defense and enough concentratable forces to mount attacks. That cuts into their gameplay attractiveness...which tilts the numbers even more against them.

This is all about the intersection between gameplay mechanics and marketability. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

Numbers do that for you, but I know you can't be expected to understand that from your one-sided view. 

I didn't read the rest. :popcorn:

He has a point, it is not just numbers (but numbers are the number one map mover) - last map, and those before, allies have their OP in TZ2, "US Primetime", but the axis are able to keep town losses to a minimum and move the map more effectively when they are OP. Yes the axis OP is greater in proportion than the allied OP which certainly helps.

 

S! Ian 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ian77 said:

It was a reference to Tater and his insistence on only discussing allies defending.

This last campaign with the side switching was an aberration, correct?

The previous campaign was most of my recent experience in game, the last time I played before the previous campaign was maybe 10 years ago.(?)

I have therefore expressed my opinions on the game as it is based on this short Allied win (12 days), and the charts show allies overpop almost all the time this campaign, and for much of the last campaign, 35 days, of which the Axis was ahead most of the days in pop. So the majority of my recent play was as Allied, during Axis overpop. Hence the majority of my play experience recently was on defense. In the rapdid attacks that worked this campaign---they were fun as a novelty, but we did exactly what beats us when we were underpop. Set everything up, move into town, set AO, and the defense largely starts after it's too late. Same problem I have on defense, and just as frustrating for the defenders, I assume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jwilly said:

The relevance of this to the discussion topic is that defensive lethality multipliers are always directional. Game mechanics that inherently result in attackers  coming from everywhere eliminate all possibility of the game having working defense. Instead every battle is a chaotic hodge podge of a meeting engagement. 

That, fundamentally, is what screws the smaller-numbers side. Without sensible defense based on realistic defensive lethality multipliers, the numerically smaller side has no chance of having both an adequate defense and enough concentratable forces to mount attacks. That cuts into their gameplay attractiveness...which tilts the numbers even more against them.

This is all about the intersection between gameplay mechanics and marketability. 

OMG, so much this.

I want this not just on defense. I want it on offense, too. hence my desire for fog of war, etc.

When you are advancing, and given that I don;t look up the AI arcs before hand, ever, I sometimes walk into them, and the MG starts shooting, that actually feels realistic. If it turns out it's not AI, but a real player, and he has a good position that we can't just shoot him in the eye and move on, that's FUN. I want tactical problems to solve. My son is great his few sorties here at the twitch aspects, his reaction time (tested at the brain exhibit at the museum here) is literally 10X faster than mine now. He's also used to mixed engagement FPS games with the enemy everywhere (as am I). I just don't like them, lol. I want a group of us to feel pinned down---on attack---and have to work the issue. That's fun to me. It's like the difference between energy fighting and turn and burn in aircraft. Both can be fun, but one takes more thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ian77 said:

He has a point, it is not just numbers (but numbers are the number one map mover) - last map, and those before, allies have their OP in TZ2, "US Primetime", but the axis are able to keep town losses to a minimum and move the map more effectively when they are OP. Yes the axis OP is greater in proportion than the allied OP which certainly helps.

 

S! Ian 

Numbers create "skill"

Share this post


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

This last campaign with the side switching was an aberration, correct?

The previous campaign was most of my recent experience in game, the last time I played before the previous campaign was maybe 10 years ago.(?)

I have therefore expressed my opinions on the game as it is based on this short Allied win (12 days), and the charts show allies overpop almost all the time this campaign, and for much of the last campaign, 35 days, of which the Axis was ahead most of the days in pop. So the majority of my recent play was as Allied, during Axis overpop. Hence the majority of my play experience recently was on defense. In the rapdid attacks that worked this campaign---they were fun as a novelty, but we did exactly what beats us when we were underpop. Set everything up, move into town, set AO, and the defense largely starts after it's too late. Same problem I have on defense, and just as frustrating for the defenders, I assume.

CC and I understand, but I think the allies need to break the mind set that fundamentally they cannot win. Yes some axis vets came allied this map, and I think/hope quiet a few are staying. The game needs two equally healthy populations, who have an equal chance of winning the campaign game, and "winning" their fight at the time they play - even if "winning" means restricting the other side to just 3 or 4 town captures.

However it is tough ask to be positive when you are swamped by superior numbers day after day in game.

As I understand it from the numbers referred to in other threads, the total of players on both sides is usually about level, with possibly a few more on the allied side. The difference is the hours in game, when you are happy and "winning" you stay logged in for longer. When you are being whacked over the head again and again you log out. We need to get both sides to believe their contribution counts and makes a difference, and get them to log in more often and for longer. With out a doubt this game works so much better with more players in game.

Anyway, S! Welcome back - a lot happened in the last 10 years. :D 

 

S! Ian 

Share this post


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


I want this not just on defense. I want it on offense, too hence my desire for fog of war, etc.

When you are advancing, and given that I don;t look up the AI arcs before hand, ever, I sometimes walk into them, and the MG starts shooting, that actually feels realistic. If it turns out it's not AI, but a real player, and he has a good position that we can't just shoot him in the eye and move on, that's FUN. I want tactical problems to solve. My son is great his few sorties here at the twitch aspects, his reaction time (tested at the brain exhibit at the museum here) is literally 10X faster than mine now. He's also used to mixed engagement FPS games with the enemy everywhere (as am I). I just don't like them, lol. I want a group of us to feel pinned down---on attack---and have to work the issue. That's fun to me. It's like the difference between energy fighting and turn and burn in aircraft. Both can be fun, but one takes more thinking.

Yeah my sons are both far better at the CQB than me, but dont like the length of the fights. They want 20 mins of action and then to be declared the winner or not. Then either start again or play another game entirely....

You know you can switch off your map/mini map, and player names, etc. Make it more immersive. Personally I decide some nights to just try to avoid dying, as in keeping alive as long as possible - though that is just not possible when guarding or assaulting CPs, and you are as old and slow as me! Hence my lifetime KD!  :)  This map I set out to help AOs as much as possible, and went capping mad -  not very realistic, but it was the challenge I set myself, a self imposed House Rule if you will.

 

S! Ian 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Switching off the map makes me vulnerable to the HUD armed scifi fighters, doesn't work. It;s like radial clutter that can make the game look good, but you think you're hidden, and you aren't. Never a good option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that should be considered is the allied factories are mostly concentrated in a small area while the Axis factories are spread out in the far north and the far south(Frankfurt).  Allies have a little more ground to cover to get a win.

As far as the idea that the Allies think they can't win, i think that thought is nonsense.  The side that is over pop the most always wins.  Many of the changes to the game over the last few years have made it easier for the over pop side to win, regardless if it is axis or allied.

The allied side is currently experiencing extreme over pop -- 30 sec sd- and the results speak for themselves.  Typically the allies are just a little under pop, just enough to ensure there is usually never a SD to deal with but remain mostly competitive.

 

Share this post


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

IMHO Any changes have to be easily implemented, and encourage players to log in, log in for longer, and to encourage them to get their friends to play.

We were told that fixing the rambo lmg would bring back hundreds of allied players, hopefully some returned, and hopefully very few axis subscriptions were lost. ANY CHANGES NEED TO BE NET SUBSCRIPTION GAINS not losses, regardless of realism - yes I know many on these forums disagree, but I truly do not want to see this game end, and I fear that changes that do not encourage players to play will just be more nails permanently closing the WWIIOL coffin lid. 

I play this game because it is/was a great game and I made many great friends. I do not play because I want to role play being a soldier in 1940 north west europe. The game is set against the background of 1940, and has a flavour of WWII. It is not a recreation of WWII.

!S

Edited by hondo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ian77 said:

CC and I understand, but I think the allies need to break the mind set that fundamentally they cannot win. Yes some axis vets came allied this map, and I think/hope quiet a few are staying. The game needs two equally healthy populations, who have an equal chance of winning the campaign game, and "winning" their fight at the time they play - even if "winning" means restricting the other side to just 3 or 4 town captures.

I play to win, and by that I mean the local engagement. I let the HC peeps play the map, I've never bothered with that. That means that I play to cap and guard (which I hate... I hate the latter more than capping as long as capping is assaulting, but once in the CP, caping becomes guarding, which is just as awful as regular guarding).

22 minutes ago, ian77 said:

However it is tough ask to be positive when you are swamped by superior numbers day after day in game.

A critical issue is not the global pop, but the local pop, and the fact that game mechanics result in a minimum number of players to defend a town. Even the "garrisons" are ridiculously huge in spawn list. 130+ rifles? Then the usual (overhigh) number of SMGs, etc? Those don't matter when there are a handful of defenders. They won't burn though a platoon worth before they lose unless they spawn when it really is lost, and pad the scores of other players. If you don't have enough people to guard every CP, plus the bunker---with at least 1 guy, ideally more, or with some floaters to help---then it's just work, and work that very likely fails.

That's the critical issue, and why I prefer smaller units on the map, but more of them, and in more CPs (away from town). Then a couple guys can at least slow things down, make their isolated CP die with honor, and deplete the attack. Heck, they can spawn into a different area, and ATTACK, and maybe push the line vs another small CP and win, locally. Look at how Essen fell, functionally softcapped, right?

22 minutes ago, ian77 said:

As I understand it from the numbers referred to in other threads, the total of players on both sides is usually about level, with possibly a few more on the allied side. The difference is the hours in game, when you are happy and "winning" you stay logged in for longer. When you are being whacked over the head again and again you log out. We need to get both sides to believe their contribution counts and makes a difference, and get them to log in more often and for longer. With out a doubt this game works so much better with more players in game.

True. More players are critical, but more critical due to poor gameplay mechanics. So many people have to do boring things.

22 minutes ago, ian77 said:

Anyway, S! Welcome back - a lot happened in the last 10 years. :D

Thanks! <S>

Share this post


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

Switching off the map makes me vulnerable to the HUD armed scifi fighters, doesn't work. It;s like radial clutter that can make the game look good, but you think you're hidden, and you aren't. Never a good option.

Oh I dont disagree with you Sir, was just mentioning it in case you were not aware of it. I have tried, and it was frightening how much I had come to rely on the minimap to navigate town and highlight threats. The removal of name tags really makes you duck for cover!  :D  It is immersive, but not conducive to "winning".

 

S! ian 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***  The removal of name tags

Heh, I turned game tags off by the 3rd day I was playing... way to cluttered.

Now only use them for AA, flying or maybe DD/FMB.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Heck, they can spawn into a different area, and ATTACK, and maybe push the line vs another small CP and win, locally. Look at how Essen fell, functionally softcapped, right?

Look, I'm gonna quote myself, lol.

When there is a CP that is away from the rest of town, there are some fun fights. This last campaign we took one of those, and the Germans came to take it back. It was a good fight, and there were few of us defending what we had captured, and trying to push towards town... while it was heated, more allies capped much of the town behind them. Because of magical 360 degree attacks.

We know what makes for fun fights (anyone else notice/like those separated CP fights?), but if you don't get a bunch of players to not have fun and look at walls, then doing the fun thing is harmful.

I'd maintain that in a game that needs more players, every player guarding is a wasted player. 2 AOs for each side? That's how many wasted players just on CP defense? 24? Do we have those sorts of numbers to burn?

I'm fine with having to hold areas, I just don't want to do it in the CP.

 

3 minutes ago, ian77 said:

Oh I dont disagree with you Sir, was just mentioning it in case you were not aware of it. I have tried, and it was frightening how much I had come to rely on the minimap to navigate town and highlight threats. The removal of name tags really makes you duck for cover!  :D  It is immersive, but not conducive to "winning".

Agreed. It is interesting to think how we would behave in game with much more limited information. What if the ML had the magic map, and no one else did? Mission members could look at it if they were within a couple meters, say. No icons past that same range.

We'd sort of have to stick together, right? That would be a cool scenario to play...

2 people like this

Share this post


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

***  The removal of name tags

Heh, I turned game tags off by the 3rd day I was playing... way to cluttered.

Now only use them for AA, flying or maybe DD/FMB.

 

That explains why you never leave the spawnable! :D

 

S! Ian 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

 

Agreed. It is interesting to think how we would behave in game with much more limited information. What if the ML had the magic map, and no one else did? Mission members could look at it if they were within a couple meters, say. No icons past that same range.

We'd sort of have to stick together, right? That would be a cool scenario to play...

Yeah, but would new players understand this concept? Would the vets? How many would set individual missions just to have their own map? I suspect we would end up with dozens of 1 man missions. 

I am not saying you are not right, just that players will generally play to their own advantage.

 

S! ian 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ian77 said:

Yeah, but would new players understand this concept? Would the vets? How many would set individual missions just to have their own map? I suspect we would end up with dozens of 1 man missions. 

I am not saying you are not right, just that players will generally play to their own advantage.

Yeah, that would have to not be a thing (making as many missions as you wanted). As I typically like smaller (but more, so same rough numbers!) units, maybe there's one ML per spawn. Low pop, everyone might well have a map, higher pop? Who will drive a truck to make their own FMS so they can spawn a rifle with a map?

It would be neat to see a special event with altered icon/map settings, just to see how people behave.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To bring this back around, this thread was about playing to the game's strengths, which is its large map.  As was said several times here and elsewhere, if you want CoD, this game is not going to cut it.  There are so many first person shooters out there that excel as pure FPS, another one, especially one almost 20 years old, can't compete. 

But, if you want something that offers the opportunity for grand scale, combined arms, strategy AND tactics, AND an homage to the era of 'the greatest generation',  this game cannot be beat.  Or, I should say, the promise of this game cannot be beat.   All problems are solved by increased population.  Period.  End of story.  THE END.  The niche we have here is a large map and the promise of large scale operations that (as yet) cannot be matched anywhere.  PEOPLE WANT what THIS GAME OFFERS.  That's why there have been hundreds of thousands of people checking it out over the decades.  What drives them away?  Despite the quirks, lag deaths, etc, etc, it is the long fuse between engagements.  MORE POP = MORE MONEY TO FIX QUIRKS, LAG DEATHS, etc, etc. 

Deliver on the twitch without sacrificing the promise of the game, and pop will increase.

If not my front line spawnable scheme, something in principle very much like it, delivers on the twitch.

Finis.

Ya'll can close the thread now.  The last word has been spoken.

heh heh

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tater, were you around when the rats explained their dev limits?

a lot of what you want is beyond their capabilities

Share this post


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

tater, were you around when the rats explained their dev limits?

a lot of what you want is beyond their capabilities

No, I missed that. I started a thread to answer that question, but wasn't pointed at whatever old thread that was (I'd be interested to read it).

 

Regarding getting people out into the map at large more, clearly some CPs between towns would help. The garrison size would need to be far smaller, the goal isn;t massive battles around a spawn castle in the woods, it's a small area that has a few troops, that needs to be capped before taking the next town. The defense has like a squad and an ATG to do the job for a few moments, but any concerted attempt must be an encounter battle for sorts. Maybe the FBs could simply change to CPs? Replace the inf and veh with buildings we already have (farm house/barn?)?

Another idea would be to allow people spawning walking units (inf, and all ATG/AAA) in a friendly town with no AO on it to move at inf running speed, with no stamina hit out to whatever the max EWS range is. This would allow defenses to actually move into place, and make some of the fighting at least be outside town. I would also allow---under those same conditions of no AO set---engineers to place a DFMS.

You'll likely come back and say that in many cases the enemy has already set up FMS, and ei are already in town, or heading in when the AO is set... too bad. This would be an incentive to set AOs in advance of attacks (as they were meant to be), not after everyone is a couple hundred meters out of town (or closer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 4:40 PM, ian77 said:

CC and I understand, but I think the allies need to break the mind set that fundamentally they cannot win. Yes some axis vets came allied this map, and I think/hope quiet a few are staying. The game needs two equally healthy populations, who have an equal chance of winning the campaign game, and "winning" their fight at the time they play - even if "winning" means restricting the other side to just 3 or 4 town captures.

However it is tough ask to be positive when you are swamped by superior numbers day after day in game.

As I understand it from the numbers referred to in other threads, the total of players on both sides is usually about level, with possibly a few more on the allied side. The difference is the hours in game, when you are happy and "winning" you stay logged in for longer. When you are being whacked over the head again and again you log out. We need to get both sides to believe their contribution counts and makes a difference, and get them to log in more often and for longer. With out a doubt this game works so much better with more players in game.

A nice reexpression of what I call the cycle of suck, losing subs in TZs that are always outnumbered then changes in pop or gameplay or morale or leadership that changes the TZ beating equation and now another set of people are bleeding subs.

 

Pop Neutrality is the set of rules to help underpop be able to attack and have a good play experience 24/7.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 8:31 PM, tater said:

Yeah, the CPs have always been wrong. Capture points should always have been spread out over the map. Towns were indeed logisitical hubs (crossroads, rail, etc), and that should have been part of the game from day 1 as well, then make captures all over. Every crossroad, every place that is commanding., every bridge (and no supply crosses bridges unless intact/owned.

That copse of trees, that bridge, that crossroads, that lone farm in the middle of nowhere, that hill etc, etc yes please. I've wanted this for years but it sounds like a lot of work placing all these capture points.. Imo it could even be done so that you cant attack or use city spawn points until certain of the out of town CPs were owned. 

Out of town caps would give you the ability to deploy FMS in a radius around them so now driving past all the out of town def as you can't place when you get there unless you own them! This has been a wet dream forever

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.