delems

AB capture mechanic.

121 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, delems said:

*** Nothing wrong with reinforcements arriving when a towns AB has been captured

Well, I disagree.

The defender did no work to get this free supply - they lose AB and all of a sudden, every town adjacent supply is free to use in defense.

It's instant JWBS of supply from different towns, and has no relation to actual real world mechanics.

 

If you want new supply to your DO, do what attackers have to do, drive a MS in, resupply a unit, or move a flag in (though can't move flag once AB gone).

 

It makes no sense defenders can use all the supply from adjacent towns (with no work mind you), while attackers can't.

 

3-5 defenders facing an attack of 10 or more attackers cannot possibly afford to spare two of them to bring the trucks in. The game is simulating what should happen naturally. You have a point when speaking of an even population scenario, but it fails horribly in an underpop scenario. If there was a way to toggle it, then I could accept that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rear linked defensive depots may indeed be removed imho, now that all depots remain playable from its garrison.

At least it forces a travel from the rear FB, although I would prefer a real backup of the AB supply to its rear FB, instead of pouring fresh supplies from the backline town as well . Not sure defenders have been using it extensively so far though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** When ao apears and any  cp is capped rear towns  fbs'  pop up(  and are targetalble,  no more  extra  inta cp supply if ab is capped as  you have a short  drive to setup a fms

(oh when i played   allied and axis whiel  severily up i ALLWAYS drove  in a back up ms from back town moment ao or ews  went off 95% of time u get set up and have fresh supply before town is in rela trouble

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe give the underpop side the ability to blow FB faster then the OP side.

So in other words , maybe the underpop side instead of having to put 16 on INF and 8 on Vehi it drops down to 8 and 4.

Giving the underpop side a chance to stop an attack that way. Instead of being in town and trying to play whack a mole. A 3 man team could be very effective that way Truck and 2 Engineers , even a Truck 1 Engineer and a bomber would do the Trick. I have no clue if that could be coded into game or not. 

But with all due respect Delems I don't think your side balance idea would work. Unless you abolish Squads all together and make it clear to the player base that CRS will decide which side one is going to spawn. But I would put a month subscription on the line that the game would not survive then. 

To many players that won't touch the other side because they think they have cooties,  to squad rules , to sheer loyalty to one side or preference of equipment alone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spawning at a town with AB captured by the enemies? 
I don't see a real reason why we shouldn't be spawning at linked towns at a town that has the AB capped by the enemies.  It doesn't make sense.

Linked towns are valuable for either using supply in that town if the AB is capped which I am referring too, or if the town is basically out of supply, and you're bringing in a truck from the linking town to give more supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** but it fails horribly in an underpop scenario

Basically, this is my point.  Everything fails in an under pop scenario.  So don't let it happen in the first place.

Every correction you can think of (FBs, Cap times, SD etc) doesn't work, aren't going to work, and never will work.

 

 

*** Unless you abolish Squads all together and make it clear to the player base that CRS will decide which side one is going to spawn.

I don't understand your reasoning.

CRS will never decide which side I play; I will log in axis any and every time I desire, as will everyone in my squad.

What is decided, is how fast I can get into the game world.

If axis side has more than a 3 to 2 pop advantage, I won't be able to spawn into the game world till either: someone dies, someone logs out, or more enemy logs in.

I'm in game, I'm on axis side, I can chat, see what is going on.. but I can't spawn into game world until the pop is a bit more even.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Linked towns are valuable for either using supply in that town if the AB is capped which I am referring too, or if the town is basically out of supply, and you're bringing in a truck from the linking town to give more supply.

The difference is, having a spawn magically appear from linked town gives you free supply, that wasn't in the town available to use, it is JWBS.

Vrs, bringing a truck is from a link town; which implies it can be interdicted, the MS can later be destroyed, and it meant a player did something to bring that supply in.

 

I'm all for manual resupply from adjacent towns and bringing MS in from adjacent towns.

I'm not for the free use of adjacent towns supply in a defenders town.  Why should the supply get magically moved to the defenders town?  The attacker can't magically move supply from adjacent town to his attacking town....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, delems said:

*** but it fails horribly in an underpop scenario

Basically, this is my point.  Everything fails in an under pop scenario.  So don't let it happen in the first place.

Every correction you can think of (FBs, Cap times, SD etc) doesn't work, aren't going to work, and never will work.

 

 

*** Unless you abolish Squads all together and make it clear to the player base that CRS will decide which side one is going to spawn.

I don't understand your reasoning.

CRS will never decide which side I play; I will log in axis any and every time I desire, as will everyone in my squad.

What is decided, is how fast I can get into the game world.

If axis side has more than a 3 to 2 pop advantage, I won't be able to spawn into the game world till either: someone dies, someone logs out, or more enemy logs in.

I'm in game, I'm on axis side, I can chat, see what is going on.. but I can't spawn into game world until the pop is as bit more even.

 

See there is the problem, I want to play not sit and wait. 

And I'm sure many feel the way I do . This is not a carnival ride where I'll wait in line so I can hand over my ticket,  spawn in and then get killed right away cause it's camped or a plane just dropped a bomb as I spawn in , and now here I sit again with ticket in hand waiting for my play slot to open up once again.

No thank you , I might as well buy another Playstation and hope that the game I want to play that day doesn't have some update and I can't play that game that I really wanted to invest some time in , just because it just needs to download something. 

When I want to play I want to play with the little time I do have and not sit and wait . I might as well play WOT or any other World of game. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

See there is the problem, I want to play not sit and wait. 

This is an interesting problem with WW2OL.

On the one hand, people want to play, immediately, such that even a short spawn delay is painful, yet at the same time gameplay requires that any town of FB that needs defending (or on a narrower scale, the CPs themselves) must be "guarded" by people not really playing at all---and those are the people that literally do the only thing that matters from a gameplay standpoint at all.

I'll helped cap and guard few CPs in an attack, and see in the radio chatter some tank that has killed dozens before being taken out---and I never fire a shot because the tiny airea I'm aimed at to guard didn't have anyone stumble into it.

A couple times in this last campaign I went out of town, looking for opels, EFMS, etc. I got some snide chat suggesting I cap or guard something---literally what I end up doing like 90-something % of my time in the game (ie: sitting and waiting).

All this is off topic to the whole rear towns to linked CPs thing, but it's part of the same problem where these point spawns matter at all. I'd far rather see way more "facilities" in game, each with tiny spawn lists not linked to anything, cap it, and those units are gone. If the defdning units are all killed, then that CP is no locally defensible, and any defense has to walk from a nearby CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dre21 said:

See there is the problem, I want to play not sit and wait. 

And I'm sure many feel the way I do . This is not a carnival ride where I'll wait in line so I can hand over my ticket,  spawn in and then get killed right away cause it's camped or a plane just dropped a bomb as I spawn in , and now here I sit again with ticket in hand waiting for my play slot to open up once again.

No thank you , I might as well buy another Playstation and hope that the game I want to play that day doesn't have some update and I can't play that game that I really wanted to invest some time in , just because it just needs to download something. 

When I want to play I want to play with the little time I do have and not sit and wait . I might as well play WOT or any other World of game. 

As noted earlier, a significant percentage of customers "want to play not sit and wait" and prefer to play a particular side because that side often is overpop and thus has an enhanced likelihood of winning battles and campaigns...because they play games in order to get the psychological income of feeling like a winner.

Most peoples' lives don't include much opportunity to be a winner. Most peoples' work lives involve doing what someone else tells them to do. Their employer's business outcome doesn't particularly feel like a win for them as an individual. In a game, OTOH, you can be a winner. You can cause a small win situation yourself, or be part of a winning team effort. 

The key to designing a popular solitaire card game--a very stripped-down gaming experience--is to make it a bit difficult, but not too difficult. People play it for the psychological income they get from winning. They need to be able to win a substantial percentage of the time. 

One of CRS's key marketing problems since Day One has been how to manage the game so that both sides have about an equal occurrence of winning...because that's an essential element of keeping players on both sides of a PvP game-product...while not making the who-wins management obvious. Balanced pop of course is a key factor in equal occurrence of winning. 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

On the one hand, people want to play, immediately, such that even a short spawn delay is painful, yet at the same time gameplay requires that any town of FB that needs defending (or on a narrower scale, the CPs themselves) must be "guarded" by people not really playing at all---and those are the people that literally do the only thing that matters from a gameplay standpoint at all.

I'll helped cap and guard few CPs in an attack, and see in the radio chatter some tank that has killed dozens before being taken out---and I never fire a shot because the tiny airea I'm aimed at to guard didn't have anyone stumble into it.

A couple times in this last campaign I went out of town, looking for opels, EFMS, etc. I got some snide chat suggesting I cap or guard something---literally what I end up doing like 90-something % of my time in the game (ie: sitting and waiting).

All this is off topic to the whole rear towns to linked CPs thing, but it's part of the same problem where these point spawns matter at all. 

Not off topic at all. Fundamentally, CRS created a problem when they designed a game that, to work properly, requires significant amounts of no-gameplay-action defender gameplay.

The original term for that kind of gameplay, appearing in these forums from early in the game's existance, was "bunker duty".

An alternative to the "bunker duty" design would be to require attackers to pre-announce their attacks, so that defenders could get into place. That could be done with a seamless AI defense that positively keeps out all attackers until the attack jumpoff time. Then there'd be no need for bunker duty gameplay. Consistently over the years, though, any mention of such a design change has resulted in pushback from players who like attacking against an unprepared, unmanned defense...unrealistic though it is to have the defenders arrive after the attackers...because it makes it easier for the attackers to win.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Not off topic at all. Fundamentally, CRS created a problem when they designed a game that, to work properly, requires significant amounts of no-gameplay-action defender gameplay.

The original term for that kind of gameplay, appearing in these forums from early in the game's existance, was "bunker duty".

An alternative to the "bunker duty" design would be to require attackers to pre-announce their attacks, so that defenders could get into place. That could be done with a seamless AI defense that positively keeps out all attackers until the attack jumpoff time. Then there'd be no need for bunker duty gameplay. Consistently over the years, though, any mention of such a design change has resulted in pushback from players who like attacking against an unprepared, unmanned defense...unrealistic though it is to have the defenders arrive after the attackers...because it makes it easier for the attackers to win.

Yep.

I don't like the sneak attacks as the attacker any more than I like spawning in as a defender when the cause is either already lost (even as the first defenders spawn in), or the defense manages to work the usual way (by zerging in). Both are entirely unsatisfying, IMHO.

This is the fundamental problem with the spawn list size, as well as huge garrisons, IMO.

Even announced attacks (if AOs had to be made even longer in advance, and any EWS reset that timer) result in "sit and wait" gameplay since the defenders then spawn in the usual places, then have to actually set up any defenses outside of town. (so it's "walk and wait" not sit and wait, but same thing).

I'm not sure there is any way to change anything. Sad, because the current gameplay makes me want to rage quit a lot, and a lot of rage quitting is poor salesmanship for me keeping my sub.

 

Share this post


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

This is an interesting problem with WW2OL.

On the one hand, people want to play, immediately, such that even a short spawn delay is painful, yet at the same time gameplay requires that any town of FB that needs defending (or on a narrower scale, the CPs themselves) must be "guarded" by people not really playing at all---and those are the people that literally do the only thing that matters from a gameplay standpoint at all.

I'll helped cap and guard few CPs in an attack, and see in the radio chatter some tank that has killed dozens before being taken out---and I never fire a shot because the tiny airea I'm aimed at to guard didn't have anyone stumble into it.

A couple times in this last campaign I went out of town, looking for opels, EFMS, etc. I got some snide chat suggesting I cap or guard something---literally what I end up doing like 90-something % of my time in the game (ie: sitting and waiting).

All this is off topic to the whole rear towns to linked CPs thing, but it's part of the same problem where these point spawns matter at all. I'd far rather see way more "facilities" in game, each with tiny spawn lists not linked to anything, cap it, and those units are gone. If the defdning units are all killed, then that CP is no locally defensible, and any defense has to walk from a nearby CP.

By sit and wait , I mean staring at a countdown timer till I can cash in my ticket.

When I'm in game and I decide to defend a FB w , or guard a Bunker or a CP I do so on my time and that's what I want to do right now in game and because it's beneficial for the side I play.

What I don't find very beneficial for either side or my enjoyment is sitting on a Q-ticker till it let's me spawn in cause someone died .  I can get that at World of Tanks,Warship, Plane, and there I do about 5 maps then I have my fill , cause if the ticker does take 5min I wasted 25min of valuable game time by not playing but looking at a hold screen. 

The SD that we have in game is actually a minor nuisance,  the spawn in bug is more of a pain in the [censored] then the max SD , cause now I have to reclick then have to go through it again. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** When I'm in game and I decide to defend a FB w , or guard a Bunker or a CP I do so on my time

Heh, just thought of something....

What if the player in the queue could chose a CP, FB or bunker to wait at?

Then, the system would spawn them (as rifle or SMG) to that area, and not allow them to leave say 100m from it; until their queue time was up.

Then, you will be in game, you will be helping your side, and it means more things will be guarded! :)

 

Remember, anytime the pop was with in 3 to 2 (I'd guess 75% of the time or more), there would be no queue.

Though, I would think we'd want to move it to 5 to 4 later.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, delems said:

What if the player in the queue could chose a CP, FB or bunker to wait at?

Then, the system would spawn them (as rifle or SMG) to that area, and not allow them to leave say 100m from it; until their queue time was up.

Then, you will be in game, you will be helping your side, and it means more things will be guarded! :)

Interesting idea. 

Note though that only the overpop side would get the extra defenders.

From a capability-balancing perspective, it's the underpop side that needs more defenders.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

By sit and wait , I mean staring at a countdown timer till I can cash in my ticket.

When I'm in game and I decide to defend a FB w , or guard a Bunker or a CP I do so on my time and that's what I want to do right now in game and because it's beneficial for the side I play.

What I don't find very beneficial for either side or my enjoyment is sitting on a Q-ticker till it let's me spawn in cause someone died .  I can get that at World of Tanks,Warship, Plane, and there I do about 5 maps then I have my fill , cause if the ticker does take 5min I wasted 25min of valuable game time by not playing but looking at a hold screen. 

The SD that we have in game is actually a minor nuisance,  the spawn in bug is more of a pain in the [censored] then the max SD , cause now I have to reclick then have to go through it again. 

 

How much satisfaction do you really get when you take a town knowing full well you outmanned the defenders 10-2 or 20-4 though? personally it kinda leaves a dirty taste in my mouth, like I just finished clubbing baby seals. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

*** When I'm in game and I decide to defend a FB w , or guard a Bunker or a CP I do so on my time

Heh, just thought of something....

What if the player in the queue could chose a CP, FB or bunker to wait at?

Then, the system would spawn them (as rifle or SMG) to that area, and not allow them to leave say 100m from it; until their queue time was up.

Then, you will be in game, you will be helping your side, and it means more things will be guarded! :)

 

Remember, anytime the pop was with in 3 to 2 (I'd guess 75% of the time or more), there would be no queue.

Though, I would think we'd want to move it to 5 to 4 later.

 

My guess this would require a lot of coding. Most of the changes we see with spawn timers, cap timers, etc I would guess are really easy from the coding side, kinda like flipping a switch. 

With that in mind I think the time  (coding) would be better spent fixing problems that have existed since day 1. 

I really can't believe after all this time clipping (cheating) and body parts sticking out of brick walls is still a thing. 

Share this post


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

*** but it fails horribly in an underpop scenario

Basically, this is my point.  Everything fails in an under pop scenario.  So don't let it happen in the first place.

Every correction you can think of (FBs, Cap times, SD etc) doesn't work, aren't going to work, and never will work.

 

 

 

 

My point is that your making a bad thing worse. And with the majority of the map being decided when a minority of players are on, well, careful what you ask for. 

but your right in the fact that everything CRS has done in regards to underpop vs overpop has failed to fix the problem, I agree. 

OTOH, I can see the point others make by wanting to play now (NOW NOW I MUST PLAY NOW!!!!). 

Let me offer up another avenue to explore in regards to overpop.

divide the game into three distinct play times (what we refer to as TZ's)

Once daily make an in game correction. If during tz 3, Axis was Op by a 3-1 or higher margin, and captured 10 towns during that TZ, give 6 of them back (not sure of the actual number here, up for discussion). 

At least this gives the underpop side a sense of accomplishment in just trying to slow the attack to some degree, and appeases the NOW NOW I MUST PLAY NOW!!!! crowd. 

A lot would need to be decided on how to go about this, as far as what towns, how many towns, when does this kick in, etc, but it's not something that necessarily needs to be hard coded into the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

At least this gives the underpop side a sense of accomplishment in just trying to slow the attack to some degree

There wouldn't be any sense of accomplishment/"winning" psychological income for the underpop side, having towns handed back to them. Yes, they'd lose slower, but not through any accomplishments of theirs.

And, the overpop side would just take the same towns again, over and over...and they'd be unhappy that they were robbed of their accomplishments. I think from a marketing perspective, that might be lose-lose.

***

Among ideas that have been proposed before:

1. Scale the degree of difficulty of various accomplishments to the local pop ratio. You're locally down 2:1, it only takes you half as many personnel to accomplish a cap.

2. Give the locally underpop side some fire support i.e. virtual artillery. You're locally down 2:1, you get three artillery missions in the next hour.

Share this post


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

There wouldn't be any sense of accomplishment/"winning" psychological income for the underpop side, having towns handed back to them. Yes, they'd lose slower, but not through any accomplishments of theirs.

And, the overpop side would just take the same towns again, over and over...and they'd be unhappy that they were robbed of their accomplishments. I think from a marketing perspective, that might be lose-lose.

***

Among ideas that have been proposed before:

1. Scale the degree of difficulty of various accomplishments to the local pop ratio. You're locally down 2:1, it only takes you half as many personnel to accomplish a cap.

2. Give the locally underpop side some fire support i.e. virtual artillery. You're locally down 2:1, you get three artillery missions in the next hour.

Clubbing baby seals is hardly an accomplishment.  And slowing the advancement is an accomplishment in and off itself. The objective is to make it so the players on the underpop side just don't say "screw it" and log off, making a bad problem worse. 

Another option might be to for a roving squad of players that are allowed to play for free, but only on the underpop side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be possible to have localised spawn delays? I am thinking if one side has an ao on a town and is massively OP then the SD kicks in hard AT THAT AO and surrounding fbs. You can spawn in at any other town and start perhaps interdiction or a para drop for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to chime in here because, while Delems has a point, he is completely ignoring one glaring situation:

Delems has mentioned that the defenders can spawn extra units from the linking depots to defend a town "without working for it." But the opposite also holds true.
When attackers come into a town they attacking and they capture a "spawn CP", suddenly THEY can start warping inside the town, behind any defensive perimeter defenders might like to establish. THAT is just as bad or worse for gameplay as defenders being able to use linking supply.

Prior to 1.36, if there was a brigade in a town linking, the brigade could be brought in to help resupply; a tactic that took time and effort, including trickle timers. Yet many called THAT 'JWBS'. Now that there are less Brigades, and often no real reserves to call in... the depot supply makes much more sense...

Now I can agree that the depot linking is a bit much. But as long as the attacker can use spawns and warping... then it's more than an even situation.

So let's ask CRS to get rid of Link Spawning... for everyone. Keep the depot supply. There's no reason that the various armories in a town would lose their soldiers because the HQ in the AB was capped. Let's make it even. Everyone who wants people in town has to bring in supply unless they own the town, and the owners can only spawn what's there in the first place. Reduce the spawn limits on UMSs to say 10 meters. If an attacker wants to spawn inside a town they are attacking, they have to use a UMS when inside the town to do so. (Not an FMS) Make Spawn Warping/ Link spawning a thing of the past... You want better town fights? The town has supply and it is owned. If an attacker wants it... they have to get in there and cap, but if they want supply in town they have to bring it in  without having a spawn depot. Let attackers have to build PPOs to defend the UMS. This could also help underpopped defenders as well. Attackers could not spawn armor or ATGs INSIDE a town they are attacking. Remote Spawn CPs wouldn't become so godawfully hard to recap, thus eating up a lot of supply and making defenders waste a lot of time on one Spawn CP while attackers can run around capping CPs behind them with minimal resistance. And the good part is that the UMSs can't be hidden in bushes, making everyone search for the near invisible things.


None of this should effect moveable Brigades, which could still be moved in for resupply. Reinforcements did  arrive at battles...

Also, the capture timer should be increased to allow defenders more time to react, which includes driving DFMSs up from the rear.

One last thing: Wasn't there a command that would let the OIC  release full town supply to all depots? That should be reintroduced. If an AB falls and the defenders have only one or two depots, they should still be able to access the rest of the garrison supply.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say and it should be tried at least once ( yes I know it will need to be coded into the game and if it doesn't work it was wasted time but)

The player gets 3 options in the beginning of the Campaign or whenever the player logs into said campaign for the 1st time.

Option 1 , Allied only  you click Allied you commit your loyalty for that campaign to the Allies.

Option 2 Axis , same as the Allied explanation. 

Option 3  Underpop player, this player has the most freedom in that he will get spawned into the underpop side no matter Allied or Axis , but he can change sides without   sideswitch timer once the other side falls underpop ( maybe player gets a message ,so and so just fell underpop would you like to join the underpop side.  But he is and will not be forced to do so if he does not want it.

But every option 3 player will start on the underpop side. 

It would give CRS a good tool to see how many players are Option 1 , 2 or 3 players. 

And if option 1 or 2 really is lopsided , then maybe throw the players that are willing to choose option 3 a bone  ( aka entice more players to choose that option) , in maybe  a Special recognition patch , a month free or half a month . Special Camo skin for tanks , a insignia or special paint scheme for planes. Just something that would entice a player hey yeah that's worth a Campaign to do so.

Remember after each campaign is over and a new one starts you get the choice again of all 3 options . So in 3 Campaigns you can dedicate yourself to either all Allied , all Axis or the underpop side.

In my eyes this is worth a try more then , Queued Spawn , Golden Tickets that I have to wait for that another player dies so I can spawn in, being spawned in at a CP or FB with restrictions. 

Edited by dre21
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good change to investigate which could help slow the role of low-pop and imbalanced gameplay would come in the form of adjusting CP hot timers, AB hot timers based on some combination of total server population and your side's over-pop.

So - assuming TZ3 is the lowest population time, and there is a 70% to 30% imbalance. The overpop side takes longer to place AO's, takes longer to move flags, takes longer for CP's to become "hot" once AO is placed, and the "AB" timer takes longer to become capturable.

I dont know all of the numbers as they exist today off the top of my head. But maybe have CP's become hot 15 minutes after AO placed, instead of 10 minutes. Then the AB becomes hot in 15 or 20 min after the town is contested. Also - tweaking the times it takes to move flags and slow rolls would also help "pump the breaks" a bit. I think this solution should only come in to play during lower server population times, once there is an average (or slightly above average) number of total players - it just goes back to whatever the "base" timers are.

I kinda like this idea rather than ratcheting up spawn delay further or creating a player queue. This encourages players to "find something else to do" while waiting on an AO to drop - like blow FB's or something. 

I think when used in combination with a REASONABLE spawn delay and REASONABLE cap timers may help mitigate some of the low-pop rolling that is going on. I would stress to find a REASONABLE spawn delay and cap timer - we should have enough data by now to kinda know where the sweet spot is on that stuff, so not to completely kill gameplay and enrage players.

On the flip side, I guess you could speed up the times on all of the things mentioned for the under-pop side during low server population.

 

 

Edited by ch0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the largest problems in game is the lack is any sense of lines of battle. Every attack is always 360 degrees due to magical teleporters.

I'm in favor of MSP, BTW, but the original linked CP concept was an attempt at lines of a sort. The linked CPs tend to be roughly on the same side of town as the town they link to. Minus FMSes, that meant that getting the spawnable mattered in a way it simply does not right now. This has grossly exaggerated the low pop, and pop imbalance problems as the game has always had a minimum number of players required in every DO for a defense to even be possible. That number is the number required to guard CPs and ABs, with at least a couple left over to recap. You can have fewer vs minor attacks (which are incredibly unsatisfying, whack a mole gameplay), but any real attack need that minimal number to have any chance at holding.

Step one would be to make on-sides deployment rules ASAP for MSPs. Max range from the mission spawn, and a large no-go zone around any enemy facility at all. This will make spawnables more important again, particularly in cities. The large no-go circle for MSPs would mean that instead of placing a magical FRU behind the lines, you'd need to take the facilities near your spawnable so that you could then set a mission from THAT spawn point (the spawnable) to your new MSP in the city within territory you hold (ie: around facilities you own).

This makes underpop defenders at least have a chance, because they know the enemy will be coming from, you know, the direction their army is in---instead of from the direction the defenders own army is in (nearly every single attack now).

A simple (?) AI fix related to pop might be for the field of fire of the AI to change with relative population, increasing towards 360 degrees. AI is easy to take out at range, but right now the AI is basically ignored by everyone. My only recent AI death was trying to recap something in Dunk, and they had rebuilt AI, and it was facing away from the water near the CP, I rounded a corner, and got drilled. 360 AI should be a thing, generally, mole attacks should basically not even be possible, IMO, it's awful gameplay.

Edited by tater
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.