sydspain

WWII Online: Current state and future

248 posts in this topic

ask the guys in-game if they want on-sides restrictions.

there are only 10'ish subs advocating it over the hundreds wanting battles.

 

 

me and 2 others in lancers were the only ones for truck-FRU's (before FMS's), 3 of us were happy while over a dozen including our leadership unsubbed during the 3minFMS.

the 3 of us weren't paying 100$/mo.

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** ask the guys in-game if they want on-sides restrictions;  there are only 10'ish subs advocating it over the hundreds wanting battles.

I really think you are very confused. (or I am)

Front lines (or on sides MS)  IS having battles.

It is the removal of the porous attack from any angle, no front line, no ZOC, and no flank battles we have today.

If you want battles, you WANT on sides MS.

If you want no ZOC, no front, no flank, ei everywhere - then vote for MS as is. (and might well keep INF MS in that case)

 

The ability to ninja silent, solo a MS 200m ANY direction to a town, is completely against every thing this game stands for imo.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lowpop solutions would be welcone i am sure....i am getting ALOT of squaddies logging off for long periods of time because of this chronic lowpop problem and some might not be coming back without it being addressed....you know where i stand if you been watching these forums the last 3 years

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Lowpop solutions would be welcone i am sure....

There is only one solution to this, and everyone knows what it is.

Lock the in game world to a maximum of 2 to 1.

If your side already has a 2 to 1 advantage, in game, then you can't spawn in.

Till someone dies or someone on other side logs in.

Simply amazing our game allows 22 to 2 in game.......... :(

 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Can you please expand on this, maybe with some data and some recommendations?

Call it an incentive.

a thing that motivates or encourages one to do something.

Potential customer - FTP get the tricycles, 09-1, spit1, hurri1 etc, some baby tanks, also let em cap, they need a goal to achieve. Think of Mata's stats.

5 $ you get higher equipement, 10 even higher etc, scale.

Pay full! you get the big Toys, recompense for a paying customer.

In your position - a payment or concession to stimulate greater output or investment.

Drop the RDP cycles, bombers can still slow them down, extend resups for garrisons by Factory damage %, make it hurt, put in the toys Xoom.

Stop trying to please everyone, MAKE WAR upon them!

Put in the Toys.

 

Share this post


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

*** Lowpop solutions would be welcone i am sure....

There is only one solution to this, and everyone knows what it is.

Lock the in game world to a maximum of 2 to 1.

If your side already has a 2 to 1 advantage, in game, then you can't spawn in.

Till someone dies or someone on other side logs in.

Simply amazing our game allows 22 to 2 in game.......... :(

 

If I am “locked out” from the side that I have been playing  for the last 10 years.  

Then I will unsub.

Need to find a different solution.  Sorry.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

*** That won't work, your just setting up for a continual stalemate.

Sort of, but the whole idea is to have combat for the town - not ninja around some angle of town where there is no defenders.

With limited angles of attack, defender does have a bit easier time imo, but it allows far more player density, hence battles. (so maybe lower capture timer or SD a bit?)

The stalemate (meaning continuous battle for town - ala action.....), will continue till the attacker runs low of supply, or the defender does.

 

I have to totally agree with tat, very disgusting to have ei coming at you from all angles when they only have 1 link to town.

Look at Aalst attack from Nin, like axis did this AM;  any reason they should be allowed to place MS N of Aalst ???  No.

Having a front line means you know an area is kinda secure (woah, concept, a flank....) and that enemy comes from a main direction or some flank.

 

Removing HCMS and creating a frontline for MSs would allow for far more player density - statistically density would double immediately.

And density is the missing component, more players in one area having a battle, so it feels more like war- not some ninja MS walked in and flooded from some obscure direction.

 

A lot to reply to here, some I agree with, some I don't. 

Any battle for a town, would have the attacker do just what your suggesting be eliminated. Encircle the town, attack from all directions or starve the town by cutting off supply. The only time this wouldn't be the case would be do to some natural landscape (mountains, ocean, river, etc). I get that your trying to concentrate the battles, I understand why, I just think the way your going about it is entirely wrong. As I said earlier, if you want to concentrate the attack, concentrate the locations of the depots. Have the flags turn yellow when under cap (and visible as such on the map). Give us EWS warnings when a Fb is taking damage. Your taking a good part of the strategy out of the game and just turning it into a bludgeoning match, last man standing wins. 

As disgusting as it might be to have ei coming from you at all directions, it does take time to set an attack up this way. 

Are you sure your going to see more activity, or are people just going to stop attacking altogether, because they never succeed? Defending against a one direction attack would be easy. 

I am all for removing the HCMS, or at least limiting it to 1-2 per AO. I see this as a separate issue entirely. 

 

Edited by nc0gnet0
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

If I am “locked out” from the side that I have been playing  for the last 10 years.  

Then I will unsub.

Need to find a different solution.  Sorry.

Come up with a solution better then “i will unsub” is a good start

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** If I am “locked out” from the side that I have been playing  for the last 10 years.  

You are never locked from your side, ever.

If there are 22 axis in game and 2 allies in game world.

Then all it means is no more than 4 axis can spawn in to game world at once.

When one dies, another can log in.

You could have 50 to 2 in game, but not in game world.

So, you will always be able to join your side, just not necessarily spawn into game world immediately.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont want this to start circling the drain in lowpop nastiness so overall solutions are important 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Your taking a good part of the strategy out of the game and just turning it into a bludgeoning match, last man standing wins. 

You encircle a town operationally by taking the towns that surround it.

Encirclement at a tactical level is population dependent, and should not be a thing most all of the time. 40 guys spawning from a single depleted Garrison can "encircle" a multi AB town with multiple BDEs manned by 4 people. They encircle them because they are unrealistically attacking at 10:1 odds in their favor, when they should be attacking at more like 1:4 or more against.

MSPs behind the lines represent nothing except the existence of teleporters in the same world as bolt action rifles and propeller driven aircraft.

Want encirclement with MSPs? OK. Truck MSPs where each truck hold the number of men a single truck could actually hold, no more, and if the truck is knocked out, those men are attritted from the spawn list. Want 50 guys behind the lines? Drive 5 trucks there. Also, reduce offroad speeds to what they should be (very, very slow).

 

Edited by tater
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

You encircle a town operationally by taking the towns that surround it.

Encirclement at a tactical level is population dependent, and should not be a thing most all of the time. 40 guys spawning from a single depleted Garrison can "encircle" a multi AB town with multiple BDEs manned by 4 people. They encircle them because they are unrealistically attacking at 10:1 odds in their favor, when they should be attacking at more like 1:4 or more against.

MSPs behind the lines represent nothing except the existence of teleporters in the same world as bolt action rifles and propeller driven aircraft.

Want encirclement with MSPs? OK. Truck MSPs where each truck hold the number of men a single truck could actually hold, no more, and if the truck is knocked out, those men are attritted from the spawn list. Want 50 guys behind the lines? Drive 5 trucks there. Also, reduce offroad speeds to what they should be (very, very slow).

 

As I said earlier, this will kill the game. It will become Delems death match 2020. The defenders will know where the attack is coming from as soon as an AO is launched. It will fail, and fail in a big way. 

Game would be nothing but FMS camp-o-rama

Not sure how to respond to the MSP's as teleporters, that topic has been beat to death. 

Edited by nc0gnet0
2 people like this

Share this post


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

*** If I am “locked out” from the side that I have been playing  for the last 10 years.  

You are never locked from your side, ever.

If there are 22 axis in game and 2 allies in game world.

Then all it means is no more than 4 axis can spawn in to game world at once.

When one dies, another can log in.

You could have 50 to 2 in game, but not in game world.

So, you will always be able to join your side, just not necessarily spawn into game world immediately.

 

Low pop solution:

 

Allow only one AO at a time for a determined period of time, like 2 hours. If Axis has the Attack AO, then Allies cannot have their own AO, only a DO. 

If Axis fails to achieve objective, then the lose the AO, town get set back to allied control, and Allies are now on the offensive. Axis can only defend for a period of two hours. 

If the side with the AO achieves it's objective in less than two hours, then the opposing side now has the AO for two hours. 

Kinda like football or baseball, you can only score while on the offense. 

This would allow for overpop to exist, but at least slow the damage that could be done. 

It's far from perfect, but nothing other than getting more players in game or making players sit out and wait or switch sides would work, and people are just not willing to do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh....... good thread highjacked with rawr rawr nonsense

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

Dont want this to start circling the drain in lowpop nastiness so overall solutions are important 

+10/  Mates. This is going off-topic. Go to OT for that. Stop with the endless tactical problems/solutions - AOs, Sidelocks, Frus, bleh. 

Syd started with an insightful post on the game and its future.
Xoom asked that we continue about bringing more/new players to the game.
Jwrona (not a vet) wrote a great post above about 'getting hooked' on the game. 

Go back and read them - we must stop viewing the game, as much as we like it, through our own small, bitter lenses of small-minded issues - we know they exist, we've all discussed and debated them endlessly - its also pretty clear that number of AOs, SD, FMS style, no jumping, my favourite weapon isn't perfect stuff is NOT what keeps new players from staying and subscribing in the first instance.

 Nothing -  nothing, will make this game better, greater, more fun, and more worth paying for than more new players. Time to think about how to get more of them, than always thinking about us. We've been around too long. 

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***  Time to think about how to get more of them

You actually read any of the posts here?

 

Players are trying to suggest ways to have more combat, more action, hence, keep more players.

There have been a number of ideas expressed.  And, what!?  Some actually provide reasons why the idea MIGHT make sense.

 

But, if you think having 22 to 2 players is fine in game; and think having solo ei spawn MS 200m any direction from town is ok....  then continue to post dribble.

 

It isn't graphics, it isn't toys, it isn't price.... it's game play- how fun it is it... as kgar said.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

Come up with a solution better then “i will unsub” is a good start

I am actually not so upset as you are with the way things are now mate.  Its not perfect I agree, but I can live with the current status quo for a while.

Actually, I am more concerned about the RATS spending too much time, and too much resources constantly repairing  and tweaking the gameplay rules of the existing game engine.

I would rather see the RATS spending more energy and resources to start developing  WW2 Online 2.0 with a brand new game engine!  And this is where my focus has been if you have seem my other posts.

The initial question posed by Xoom in this thread was how do we increase population levels to a massive multiplayer online game again?

The solution in my opinion is get WW2 Online 2.0 with a brand new game engine onto the market. A new game engine means large population levels again.  Large population levels again means TZ3 problems are fixed!

You guys are all spending too much time and energy trying to fix an outdated, slowly sinking ship.   I would rather if we all focus more on a conversation of how do we build a brand new ship!

A brand new ship fixes population issues in TZ3 and many other legacy problems with this game.  This is my point main mate!

Cheers!

2 people like this

Share this post


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

***  Time to think about how to get more of them

You actually read any of the posts here?

 

Players are trying to suggest ways to have more combat, more action, hence, keep more players.

There have been a number of ideas expressed.  And, what!?  Some actually provide reasons why the idea MIGHT make sense.

 

But, if you think having 22 to 2 players is fine in game; and think having solo ei spawn MS 200m any direction from town is ok....  then continue to post dribble.

 

the problem is.......... ur not making sense.

Sometimes I think you are low key purposefully making absurd suggestions in an attempt to destroy the game....... cuz u mad bro......about the whole KM inf nonsense.  Put ur vendetta away plz

Share this post


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

I am actually not so upset as you are with the way things are now mate.  Its not perfect I agree, but I can live with the current status quo for a while.

Actually, I am more concerned about the RATS spending too much time, and too much resources constantly repairing  and tweaking the gameplay rules of the existing game engine.

I would rather see the RATS spending more energy and resources to start developing  WW2 Online 2.0 with a brand new game engine!  And this is where my focus has been if you have seem my other posts.

The initial question posed by Xoom in this thread was how do we increase population levels to a massive multiplayer online game again?

The solution in my opinion is get WW2 Online 2.0 with a brand new game engine onto the market. A new game engine means large population levels again.  Large population levels again means TZ3 problems are fixed!

You guys are all spending too much time and energy trying to fix an outdated, slowly sinking ship.   I would rather if we all focus more on a conversation of how do we build a brand new ship!

A brand new ship fixes population issues in TZ3 and many other legacy problems with this game.  This is my point main mate!

Cheers!

This is probably not realistic krazy.....

changing the game mechanics is probably the only thing that can be done with current resources........ even then it will probably take months and months to accomplish

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** A brand new ship fixes population issues in TZ3 and many other legacy problems with this game.  This is my point main mate!

If you have the solution to fix all this, with ver 2.0;  maybe try implementing some of it now in ver 1.0?
 

As I said above: "It isn't graphics, it isn't toys, it isn't price.... it's game play- how fun is it... as kgar said".

Yes, graphics, toys and price matter, bit it isn't the main issue.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

*** A brand new ship fixes population issues in TZ3 and many other legacy problems with this game.  This is my point main mate!

If you have the solution to fix all this, with ver 2.0;  maybe try implementing some of it now in ver 1.0?
 

As I said above: "It isn't graphics, it isn't toys, it isn't price.... it's game play- how fun it is it... as kgar said".

Yes, graphics, toys and price matter, bit it isn't the main issue.

 

agreed....... gameplay mechanics are the only thing that really matters in any video game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, kgarner said:

This is probably not realistic krazy.....

changing the game mechanics is probably the only thing that can be done with current resources........ even then it will probably take months and months to accomplish

Well we really need to start the conversation of developing WW2 Online game engine 2.0 and get the first concrete steps into the Road Map.

The only real solution for TZ3 is to get population levels up!  Not side lock or cap lock.

I understand this is a big, big step.  But its been 2 years now since the new CRS took things over.  I have seen no serious comments from CRS on this front.  Its the only way forward long term!

Financing is one of their biggest obstacles I understand. But have the Rats spent time seriously exploring new financing options for Game Engine 2.0?  

Have the developled a business plan and at least had exploratory meetings with potential financers?  

I would at least like to see them do something like committing to developing a serious “feasability study of developing WW2 Online 2.0 Game engine with analysis of new game engine options and financing options.”  

I would like to see this in the roadmap with a goal of announcing what the feasibilty results of develiping a new game engine are - with a 6 month time frame for producing this study or something.  

And if the feasibilty study results show a WW2 Online game engine is more than they can handle, well ok, let us know that.  I will shut up then, and they can continue to tweak the current game emgine forever.  But at least I will know where they plan to go with this game in the future, and I will make my own decision whether or not I want to keep subbing to support  them.

Maybe the Rats are already studying WW2 Online 2.0 game engine in secret, but I have my doubts .that they have seriously analyzed this option yet... They have really made no big decisions on this front yet publicly.  And they seem to be really oveloaded focusing on new billing systems, getting 64 bit out out for the existing game engine, adding brigade supply, and adding a bunch of other trivial stuff like HC FRUs to the game, etc, etc.,,

I would really like to see some initial tangible steps on Ww2 Online 2.0.  A serious “feasibilty study” with results on how this could be done would be a good start for a roadmap.  Because a WW2 Online 2.0 game engine would mean pop levels back again in game, and large pop levels should fix all these  TZ3 issues.

This is my honest opinion, and I stand by it!

cheers!

Krazydog

 

PS— Don’t get me wrong I am not totally negative on what the new CRS team has been doing.  On the contrary ... I have been quite impressed so far.  

For me personally they have achieved two really impressive things:  1).  They have managed to review thousands and thousands of lines of old game code with no documentation, and they figured out how to successfully manipulate it! (This is is their single greatest achievement so far in my opinion.)  

2).  They have also demonstrated an abilty to keep an ongoing live server running 24/7 for years now  with very little downtime, and they have the ability to update the server and keep it running.

If they manage to get this 64 bit code working too -(which is a very hard coding job I know)  then I think there is really no holding them back.  

This is why I think the new CRS team has the ability to bring a 2.0 engine to market with success!  

Edited by krazydog
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 notice how the actual guys doing the damage in lowpop get so defensive its like they KNOW they are the problem and dont want to admit it....ok carry on great game we have here

2 people like this

Share this post


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

*** ask the guys in-game if they want on-sides restrictions;  there are only 10'ish subs advocating it over the hundreds wanting battles.

I really think you are very confused. (or I am)

Front lines (or on sides MS)  IS having battles.

It is the removal of the porous attack from any angle, no front line, no ZOC, and no flank battles we have today.

If you want battles, you WANT on sides MS.

If you want no ZOC, no front, no flank, ei everywhere - then vote for MS as is. (and might well keep INF MS in that case)

 

The ability to ninja silent, solo a MS 200m ANY direction to a town, is completely against every thing this game stands for imo.

 

my point is: it's not important.

go in-game and the guys will want battles, regardless of on-sides/population/flag-firepower/timezone/etc. even at the expense of any of those.

battles > realism / historic accuracy / simulation

 

whatever the game stands for, the inf-spawn did create and sustain battles more effectively than the truck-spawns. at this point, something drastic needs to be done to help battles start, and keep going.

 

sacrificing realism, historic accuracy, and simulation flavors for the sake of gameplay is acceptable.

sacrificing gameplay for the sake of realism, historic accuracy, and simulation' well there's 2 guys left in favor and a dozen that no longer play. those 2 aren't paying 120$/month

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

 notice how the actual guys doing the damage in lowpop get so defensive its like they KNOW they are the problem and dont want to admit it....ok carry on great game we have here

If you are referring to me (not sure) - I don’t play in Tz3 more than 2-3 nights per month these days because I am back in the USA now.  

But 5-10 years ago, I used to play in TZ3 a lot more when I was working overseas in Europe.  So I can relate to people who can only play in TZ3 because they have their own real life work schedules etc over there too... 

I know you want to squash the server capping when you, and your squad, are not in your squad’s prime-time online.  But the whole server does not revolve around your squad’s schedule mate. sorry.

The solution to TZ3 is to increase server population! - (At least in my personal opinion).  

You asked me for a solution, and that is what I honestly think is the best way to solve the TZ3 issue.  (Not nerf TZ3).

Cheers!

Edited by krazydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.