sydspain

WWII Online: Current state and future

248 posts in this topic

*** the calculus here isn't hard.......... A causes B ........

Ok, I'll bite.

Please explain what A, B and C are.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** With some exclusion range around enemy facilities, yes.

Yes, the same MS distance rules would apply regarding facilities.

So not everywhere a MS could be placed... until the attacker took that facility.

Then the MS could be moved closer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's funny is that the @kgarner idea up the thread is basically on-sides spawning, without the player placed (MSP) addition.

Spawn FB.

Capture spawnable (generally on the same side of town as the linked FB). We're all on sides right now... then capture nearby CPs to the spawnables (still on-sides).

Linked, spawnable depots were precisely to make it so we could have more fights, short of driving in on trucks. They are de facto an on-sides paradigm. All attacks to really have a chance vs defense needed the spawnable. Now, with MSPs... not so much. Spawn and warp in. Spawn and simply jog in if it is close. Spawn right there for HC FRU.

So the FMS killed the on-sides nature without modifying anything else in return, or any MSP rules that matched the old paradigm.

Look at river or island towns. The spawnable usually on the right side of the river meant that you'd blow a bridge and the towns stay separated, or you literally have to drive attacking troops over some other bridge (or they swim down river someplace safe). Now? Do that with 1 HC, or a single truck.

Assume the @kgarner idea up thread. 1 CP at a time comes live for capture, plus spawnables (presumably all those are up for each linked town, right?). Every single attack is then required to take the spawnable to progress. In that case, on-sides MSPs change nothing at all. it's not like you're gonna set an FMS on the W side of Antwerp to capture the ECP, and the only CP you can start with is the ECP. The defenders KNOW what you are going to attack (just as they do with on-sides rules). How is this different? I am literally proposing the same sort of gameplay, but without changing the capture code, just with MSP rules (and as I said above, I sorta like your idea).

Edited by tater
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lack of player numbers = killing the game....... somehow you pondered this question and came to the conclusion that the lack of MS's restrictions is the cause/MS's restrictions will increase player numbers and fun all around

if the reductio ad absurdum isn't obviously clear here...... then I don't know what to say

Its like.... ok you wanna make some gameplay mechanics suggestions that will increase PB numbers?  OK cool........ but at least make suggestions that aren't insane and ridiculous 

Share this post


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

What's funny is that the @kgarner idea up the thread is basically on-sides spawning, without the player placed (MSP) addition.

Spawn FB.

Capture spawnable (generally on the same side of town as the linked FB). We're all on sides right now... then capture nearby CPs to the spawnables (still on-sides).

Linked, spawnable depots were precisely to make it so we could have more fights, short of driving in on trucks. They are de facto an on-sides paradigm. All attacks to really have a chance vs defense needed the sapwnable. Now, with MSPs... not so much. Spawn and warp in. Spawn and simply jog in if it is close. Spawn right there for HC FRU.

So the FMS killed the on-sides nature without modifying anything else in return, or any MSP rules that matched the old paradigm.

Look at river or island towns. The spawnable usually on the right side of the river meant that you'd blow a bridge and the towns stay separated, or you literally have to drive attacking troops over some other bridge (or they swim down river someplace safe). Now? Do that with 1 HC, or a single truck.

Assume the @kgarner idea up thread. 1 CP at a time comes live for capture, plus spawnables (presumably all those are up for each linked town, right?). Every single attack is then required to take the spawnable to progress. In that case, on-sides MSPs change nothing at all. it's not like you're gonna set an FMS on the W side of Antwerp to capture the ECP, and the only CP you can start with is the ECP. The defenders KNOW what you are going to attack (just as they do with on-sides rules). How is this different? I am literally proposing the same sort of gameplay, but without changing the capture code, just with MSP rules (and as I said above, I sorta like your idea).

Capture of City cap should eliminate all onsides restrictions. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

lack of player numbers = killing the game....... somehow you pondered this question and came to the conclusion that the lack of MS's restrictions is the cause/MS's restrictions will increase player numbers and fun all around

Better gameplay can't hurt. The only way to get more players is either better play so they try it and stay, or maybe lower price. <shrug>

1 minute ago, kgarner said:

if the reductio ad absurdum isn't obviously clear here...... then I don't know what to say

Its like.... ok you wanna make some gameplay mechanics suggestions that will increase PB numbers?  OK cool........ but at least make suggestions that aren't insane and ridiculous 

The MS rules are basically a way to change one small set of rules, without changing the entire capture mechanics. Your idea up the thread has some real merit---but I think it is likely more work (MSPs already have some rules, after all, so change them a little), and interestingly your idea is an on-sides sort of gameplay. You take spawnables, then move across town away from spawnables... almost like, what to call it... a front.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Capture of City cap should eliminate all onsides restrictions. 

That's interesting, I guess, but why? So that we force the defenders to constantly sit in the city CP we've been telling everyone to ignore forever? ;)

Not against it, though clearly that doesn't work in the kgarner concept up the thread (which I really do like for the way it slows rolls low pop, in addition to the sense of front vs random islands of capture).

I suppose the MSP rules could be pegged to distance from spawn point to the target City CP if enemy owns it. If you own City, then that range becomes infinite. What would happen if they cap it back? Your FMS all get auto-pulled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tater said:

That's interesting, I guess, but why? So that we force the defenders to constantly sit in the city CP we've been telling everyone to ignore forever? ;)

Not against it, though clearly that doesn't work in the kgarner concept up the thread (which I really do like for the way it slows rolls low pop, in addition to the sense of front vs random islands of capture).

I suppose the MSP rules could be pegged to distance from spawn point to the target City CP if enemy owns it. If you own City, then that range becomes infinite. What would happen if they cap it back? Your FMS all get auto-pulled?

Yes, just like when you lose the AO FB. make the city cap worth something. 

I also believe the majority of the caps should be outside of town. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tater said:

Better gameplay can't hurt. The only way to get more players is either better play so they try it and stay, or maybe lower price. <shrug>

The MS rules are basically a way to change one small set of rules, without changing the entire capture mechanics. Your idea up the thread has some real merit---but I think it is likely more work (MSPs already have some rules, after all, so change them a little), and interestingly your idea is an on-sides sort of gameplay. You take spawnables, then move across town away from spawnables... almost like, what to call it... a front.

I agree with the first part

yes Time limits would be more work than MS's restrictions.  But it would be work well spent in a gameplay direction that would foster a more fun experience for everyone.  MS's restrictions would not.

Time limits and MS's restrictions ARE NOT comparable in the OUTCOMES each would produce.

Time limits would open up the battlespace and offer game mechanics coded chunks of time set aside for killing each other.

MS's restrictions would limit the battlespace to the point of making battles nonexistence

OUTCOME is the only thing that matters

and the OUTCOMES of these 2 different suggestions would be DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT 

Share this post


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

MS's restrictions would limit the battlespace to the point of making battles nonexistence

I'm not seeing how limiting the spawn points for attackers to half the available compass directions (which is the maximum limitation in such a scheme where 1 town attacks 1 town) makes battles nonexistent. Your own scheme where you take the spawnable limits battles to a single CP, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree tat, if anything kgar's proposal would be FAR more restrictive than on sides MS.

Also, completely fixed every battle.

Town A attacks B - must take spawn first, then CPa, then CPb.... no other attack option is available - boring.

Vrs on sides MS rules, town A attacks B;  hmm, they going for main CP?  or maybe a flank CP?  Battle is far more interesting and variable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a paper map of an AO area that includes the attacking towns, attacking FBs and the target town.

Set compass to the distance between the center of town (City CP?) and the attacking town. Put the pin in the attacking town (this is the town you spawn the truck from, or the town linked to the FB you spawned the truck from).

Draw arc. That's where you can set MSPs, inside that circle, minus some exclusion circle around enemy facilities (whatever that is X hundred meters).

That's basically ~50% of the area around town for each attacking town.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a hardcoded point to get to is not the same as a hardcoded point to start from......... in fact they are the opposite 

Share this post


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

a hardcoded point to get to is not the same as a hardcoded point to start from......... in fact they are the opposite 

What hardcoded point to start from?

Half the available area towards the town you came from is a "hardcoded point?"

14 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Yes, just like when you lose the AO FB. make the city cap worth something. 

Maybe the City CP has a large exclusion zone for MSP placement (1km? More?) and other facilities have much smaller ones, then taking the cty ends up allowing MSPs much closer to town?

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am saying.......... I dont care where you start from but u gotta get here

u r saying............ I dont care where you go as long as I know where you are starting from

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have a problem with most of the current game mechanics so im going to let everyone else keep duking it out over that. Just some outside the box things to consider though with some of the proposed ideas:

-If you could only make an fms in the general dir your fb is, then the first thing I would do as a defender would be to drive a dfms in from a backline town for extra supply since you know that direction will be clear of efms and likely clear of ei.

-Makes it 50% easier to find an ems since half of the directions are out of the equation. I would immediately flank a dfms out perpindicular to the dir of the fb and flank it. Or just push it with tanks right away. These would be easy to shut down especially in later tiers when you can only spawn ligjt atgs vs heavy armor

 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

I am saying.......... I dont care where you start from but u gotta get here

u r saying............ I dont care where you go as long as I know where you are starting from

I'd rather the attacker be able to chose what they attack, but be slightly limited in where they come from. I think the 2 systems (small MSP limitations and your time limit system) are not incompatible, either.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I dont have a problem with most of the current game mechanics so im going to let everyone else keep duking it out over that. Just some outside the box things to consider though with some of the proposed ideas:

-If you could only make an fms in the general dir your fb is, then the first thing I would do as a defender would be to drive a dfms in from a backline town for extra supply since you know that direction will be clear of efms and likely clear of ei.

-Makes it 50% easier to find an ems since half of the directions are out of the equation. I would immediately flank a dfms out perpindicular to the dir of the fb and flank it. Or just push it with tanks right away. These would be easy to shut down especially in later tiers when you can only spawn ligjt atgs vs heavy armor

 

yes causing a complete failure in game mechanics that would be no fun for anyone

Edited by kgarner

Share this post


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

I'd rather the attacker be able to chose what they attack, but be slightly limited in where they come from. I think the 2 systems (small MSP limitations and your time limit system) are not incompatible, either.

of course, they are not comparable....... they are complete opposites in the outcomes they would produce........ so suggesting they would have similar outcomes is absurd 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting points dfire.

But, this is exactly why on sides MS would create so much more battle.

If I'm attacking you, I know you are going to flank, so I will flank first with my left and right flank teams.

(You don't know I'm attacking yet)

Then the main assault will move up the middle or to one flank or the other.

I will also assign air to patrol backline roads, or just drop a para team on the backline road, to interdict :)

 

All of a sudden, both sides kinda know where they coming from, each can try and out flank the other.

Wala, battles, action, engagement.

 

Or, I can guess where your HCMS guys walked to - anywhere around the town, completely silent - and set MS to spawn entire army 200m form town - blech.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** they are complete opposites in the outcomes they would produce........ so suggesting they would have similar outcomes is absurd 

But I agree with tat, your idea would be far more boring and a worse outcome imo.

 

Share this post


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

Interesting points dfire.

But, this is exactly why on sides MS would create so much more battle.

If I'm attacking you, I know you are going to flank, so I will flank first with my left and right flank teams.

(You don't know I'm attacking yet)

Then the main assault will move up the middle or to one flank or the other.

I will also assign air to patrol backline roads, or just drop a para team on the backline road, to interdict :)

 

All of a sudden, both sides kinda know where they coming from, each can try and out flank the other.

Wala, battles, action, engagement.

 

Or, I can guess where your HCMS guys walked to - anywhere around the town, completely silent - and set MS to spawn entire army 200m form town - blech.

 

I am glad that in your imagination there are 30 or more players on each side playing out your fantasy 

Share this post


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

Interesting points dfire.

But, this is exactly why on sides MS would create so much more battle.

If I'm attacking you, I know you are going to flank, so I will flank first with my left and right flank teams.

(You don't know I'm attacking yet)

Then the main assault will move up the middle or to one flank or the other.

I will also assign air to patrol backline roads, or just drop a para team on the backline road, to interdict :)

 

All of a sudden, both sides kinda know where they coming from, each can try and out flank the other.

Wala, battles, action, engagement.

 

Sounds great in theory, but it would take NUMBERS to achieve this type of play. This would fall apart in minutes with current game population

Edited by dfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your suggestion requires a PB we do not have.  

Mine would work with many or few

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but this sort of game play would keep players I believe, as there is action.

There is a front line, there are flanks, the enemy is in 'front' of you.

 

I'm not some solo defender scrounging about town looking for a silent enemy to come in from any random angle cause he solo walked a MS in......

 

Right now is complete chaos, is terrible imo;  never know where the enemy is coming from, there is no front line, no secure area you can setup in, no flank.

Completely porous battle all around the town - no sense of purpose or direction, just random walk all about town hunting for a solo ei coming in from some random direction.

You can't even setup a defense area, cause the enemy can just come in BEHIND your defense area at any time.

 

That is the whole point, grow numbers by providing meaningful predictable action.

 

Edited by delems

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.