sydspain

WWII Online: Current state and future

248 posts in this topic

I do like the garrison (hybrid) supply change. It isn't yet perfect ... but makes for better battles. I would tweak the garrison supply lists a bit lower and add a couple more moveable flags to supplement. Give the moveable flags more of the high end toys. Lesaer so in garrisons.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol delems..... lets be real......... what do you care what direction the enemy is coming from?......... as soon as they get close ...... you run to the opposite side of town and yell on chat that the CP clear across town is under cap and u need help

Share this post


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

I do like the garrison (hybrid) supply change. It isn't yet perfect ... but makes for better battles. I would tweak the garrison supply lists a bit lower and add a couple more moveable flags to supplement. Give the moveable flags more of the high end toys. Lesaer so in garrisons.

Yah I agree that the tweeking of spawnlists could have a good impact on gameplay 

thats a darts-at-the-dart-board sort of thing though

Edited by kgarner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, funny, but not quite :)

I'm often in CPs for 3 reasons:

1) The enemy always comes there eventually - guaranteed combat - as little as it is.

2) Few others are in CPs, so I do it.

3) I've tried guarding from outside, but when I guard N, enemy comes in S, when I guard E, enemy comes in W - only way to guard is to be in CP.

Now, with on sides MS - I could most likely guard from out CP a lot more - and be more in the game fighting.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

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 

This is an assertion made without evidence, so it can be dismissed without evidence. I am not seeing any obvious problem at all.

N1ckB1C.jpg

Assume the Allies control Profondville (or vice versa) (snapshot of current map, but wanted 2 close towns to show facilities in 1). The attacker from Prof can place an MSP inside that circle (minus whatever the enemy facility limit is now X hundred meters).

So limiting. Note that nothing prevents driving a truck full of men to anyplace you like, or driving armor anyplace you like, or having ATGs have to take a tow---anyplace they like. This ONLY limits where armies of men can spring forth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Yah I agree that the tweeking of spawnlists could have a good impact on gameplay 

thats a darts-at-the-dart-board sort of thing though

Juat trying to find the balance to bring back some of those HC type players that were lost.

Share this post


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

Heh, funny, but not quite :)

I'm often in CPs for 3 reasons:

1) The enemy always comes there eventually - guaranteed combat - as little as it is.

2) Few others are in CPs, so I do it.

3) I've tried guarding from outside, but when I guard N, enemy comes in S, when I guard E, enemy comes in W - only way to guard is to be in CP.

Now, with on sides MS - I could most likely guard from out CP a lot more - and be more in the game fighting.

 

1 for sure.... I wish noobs took to this ideology

2) YESSSSSSSSSS kind of my main point ...... this is a problem..... most dont do it cuz its boring

3) yes...... but changing the game mechanics to make your style of play more enjoyable for you....... is a dangerous endeavor to advocate for 

Share this post


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

This is an assertion made without evidence, so it can be dismissed without evidence. I am not seeing any obvious problem at all.

N1ckB1C.jpg

Assume the Allies control Profondville (or vice versa) (snapshot of current map, but wanted 2 close towns to show facilities in 1). The attacker from Prof can place an MSP inside that circle (minus whatever the enemy facility limit is now X hundred meters).

So limiting. Note that nothing prevents driving a truck full of men to anyplace you like, or driving armor anyplace you like, or having ATGs have to take a tow---anyplace they like. This ONLY limits where armies of men can spring forth.

bro I have spent more time in this game in the last month then u have in the entire existence of the game........

yes my assertions are opinions

but, I dear say ,opinions put forward with a wealth of understanding and experience 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** changing the game mechanics to make your style of play more enjoyable for you

It isn't just more enjoyable for me ( I can now actually play outside the CP instead of sitting inside it).

It is more enjoyable for everyone - more joy, more play, more subs.

 

Everyone complains about the random ei picking off their ATG, or sapping their tank - behind the 'line' so to speak.

It is total random, not like a battle that has frontline and flanks.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again...... just cuz a player gets beat........ doesn't mean the game is broken......... it just means u got beat

3 people like this

Share this post


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

but, I dear say ,opinions put forward with a wealth of understanding and experience 

Nope, since you have exactly zero data on the alternate suggestions. The only way to see how it works is to try, and iterate.

This is why gameplay changes should ideally be using tools that are as easy as possible to mess with. Set up MSP rules once, then try them. It's not like campaigns are lasting months. Try, see what works, change it, try again. Perceptions don't matter, data matters.

You claim that I am advocating a hardcoded point. A point is a single place in space (that's the definition of a point). I just showed you a map with a finite number of placement points every possible place inside that circle where an FMS fits minus terrain like trees, etc. It's not infinite, but it's a very large number of places, certainly not ONE, and certainly not hardcoded.

So your assertion is demonstrably wrong. Or did you mean to use some other word, other than "point?"

Perhpas you meant to say, that your idea fixes where people can attack to a single point (the spawnable CP, so we will include areas as big as a CP in "point" which makes sense), and my idea limits attackers from spawning to a very large number of points, but not all points.

 

Share this post


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

*** changing the game mechanics to make your style of play more enjoyable for you

It isn't just more enjoyable for me ( I can now actually play outside the CP instead of sitting inside it).

It is more enjoyable for everyone - more joy, more play, more subs.

 

Everyone complains about the random ei picking off their ATG, or sapping their tank - behind the 'line' so to speak.

It is total random, not like a battle that has frontline and flanks.

 

Im sorry if I get a bit flabbergasted in my replies to you delems

I have to constantly remind myself that your style of play is about as far away from the average style of play that is possible...... and that your perceptions and advocations are focused threw the lens of that experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing it so msp's can not be set 360 degrees from town is silly IMO. So is limiting the amount of troops allowed to be spawned from one. That kind of idea is made for a version of this game with 6x the playerbase.  

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Nope, since you have exactly zero data on the alternate suggestions. The only way to see how it works is to try, and iterate.

This is why gameplay changes should ideally be using tools that are as easy as possible to mess with. Set up MSP rules once, then try them. It's not like campaigns are lasting months. Try, see what works, change it, try again. Perceptions don't matter, data matters.

You claim that I am advocating a hardcoded point. A point is a single place in space (that's the definition of a point). I just showed you a map with a finite number of placement points every possible place inside that circle where an FMS fits minus terrain like trees, etc. It's not infinite, but it's a very large number of places, certainly not ONE, and certainly not hardcoded.

So your assertion is demonstrably wrong. Or did you mean to use some other word, other than "point?"

Perhpas you meant to say, that your idea fixes where people can attack to a single point (the spawnable CP, so we will include areas as big as a CP in "point" which makes sense), and my idea limits attackers from spawning to a very large number of points, but not all points.

 

sure....... but who's suggestion would you rather listen to when opinions on changes are suggested

More experience?

or 

Less experience?

1 minute ago, choad said:

Changing it so msp's can not be set 360 degrees from town is silly IMO. So is limiting the amount of troops allowed to be spawned from one. That kind of idea is made for a version of this game with 6x the playerbase.  

yes and it annoys me that this isn't just common sense for everyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding ATGs, etc, there have been borked from the start.

The move too fast in many situations (driving around as silent hunters, with tons of ammo), and they cannot be deployed in decent defensive positions ahead of time (not enough players/boredom). They have no defensive weapons, either.

Really there should probably be an ATG FMS of some sort that is larger in extent, but lower (berm they can shoot over?). Have a long range where they get ammo resupply, then massively reduce their on hand ammo so they need to be near that supply point, or a truck. Let the FMS for them spawn some defensive inf maybe, as well.

That and/or give the CO a gun.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***  have to constantly remind myself that your style of play is about as far away from the average style of play that is possible

I play the way I do because there is no ZOC, no setup, ei can randomly appear anywhere.

The only place you can go is the CP - guaranteed - to both find action and to defend town.

 

And for the record, MSK use to setup superb ZOCs on attack; our entire squad was structured for it.

HQ would setup ZOC, with point, flanks and MS security.

Support squad brought in 2 ATGs, if more were on, panzers or AA.

Assault squad (when we had that many on) would move on the town.

We provided a great player battle experience, it would always take allies like 30 min to come get our ZOC.

And if axis was op, we often would move our ZOC up, right to where our MS was as the first CP captured in town.

 

 

*** Changing it so msp's can not be set 360 degrees from town is silly IMO

What is amazing, is I 100% disagree with that, the fact that we have NO frontline and no flanks is absolutely ludicrous / silly to me.

 

 

*** More experience? or Less experience?

Well, I have played this game every day for a few weeks shy of 10 years.

Prolly averaging 4 to 6 hours per day.

I have more german NAVY sorties than ALL my allied sorties combined; over 35,000.

I have been in HC multiple times.

I have been CO of squads.

Pretty sure I have the experience needed to make comments :)

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I have to constantly remind myself that your style of play is about as far away from the average style of play that is possible...... and that your perceptions and advocations are focused threw the lens of that experience.

Someone has to guard CPs all the time, on attack, or defense. It's the very worst in WW2OL gameplay, and the most required. Those of us who do it are sick of doing it.

5 minutes ago, choad said:

Changing it so msp's can not be set 360 degrees from town is silly IMO. So is limiting the amount of troops allowed to be spawned from one. That kind of idea is made for a version of this game with 6x the playerbase.  

No, exactly the opposite. How does a game with a small player base function when the capture paradigm of towns requires a certain minimum number of defenders vs a 360 degree attack? You need a guard per CP, and you need some people to go out and hunt/destroy the EFMSes around town to turn the attack away. If there are EFMS in multiple directions on opposite sides of town, you need more of those people than if they are "limited" to the huge arc I showed in the image above. Still huge, but maybe it save 1-2 people from looking in the wrong (and a silly) direction. Take the ultimate edge case, the UK. The enemy can be attacking your coastal town from an inland direction. Because magic.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** The enemy can be attacking your coastal town from an inland direction. Because magic.

Bingo!  Case for ZOC, frontline, flanks and on sides MS.

That is game, set and match :)

 

Share this post


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

What is amazing, is I 100% disagree with that, the fact that we have NO frontline and no flanks is absolutely ludicrous / silly to me.

You should not articially create a front line for a battle. If you want one, setup a defense to create one. It shouldn't be baked into every single battle. That is more in keeping with realism right?

Edited by choad
2 people like this

Share this post


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

You should not articially create a front line for a battle. If you want one, setup a defense to create one. It shouldn't be baked into every single battle.

How short of 100X as many people, and all of them willing to sit and wait without ever seeing the enemy?

We already have this, BTW, it's called fixed spawn points.

The enemy controls a bunch of contiguous towns, and we control a bunch. Include the FBs, and connect the dots. That is the meta "lines." Presumably you are against that, and you think we should all spawn in some capital city of our side, then walk/dive to some place where whe hold our ground, and wait for the enemy (or attack, alone)? If not, you are for "lines," but a different abstraction. You're fine with them abstracted at 3km resolution, but not 1km resolution, or 500m resolution?

N1ckB1C.jpg

In most attacks from Prof to Anhee, you'd also own the town East (if German), or West (if Allied). Draw those circles, and only the SW or SE would be "no go" zones for the attackers (SW if Germans attack from Prof and E, SE for Allied attacks from Prof and from W). For some towns this might be really useful for defense (since any enemy coming to attack you in the rear areas has to actually approach you, instead of teleporting to you, and you might have useful terrain in that no-MSP zone). Note of course that there is a similar circle the other direction, so the Venn diagram of the 2 means a football shaped area where both sides can set MSPs.

Edited by tater
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

How short of 100X as many people, and all of them willing to sit and wait without ever seeing the enemy?

We already have this, BTW, it's called fixed spawn points.

The enemy controls a bunch of contiguous towns, and we control a bunch. Include the FBs, and connect the dots. That is the meta "lines." Presumably you are against that, and you think we should all spawn in some capital city of our side, then walk/dive to some place where whe hold our ground, and wait for the enemy (or attack, alone)? If not, you are for "lines," but a different abstraction. You're fine with them abstracted at 3km resolution, but not 1km resolution, or 500m resolution?

N1ckB1C.jpg

In most attacks from Prof to Anhee, you'd also own the town East (if German), or West (if Allied). Draw those circles, and only the SW or SE would be "no go" zones for the attackers (SW if Germans attack from E, SE for Allied from W). For some towns this might be really useful for defense (since any enemy coming to attack you in the rear areas has to actually approach you, instead of teleporting to you). Note of course that there is a similar circle the other direction, so the Venn diagram of the 2 means a football shaped area where both sides can set MSPs.

sigh...... we all understand what you are suggesting

 

just no one but delems thinks its a good idea

Share this post


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

The enemy controls a bunch of contiguous towns, and we control a bunch. Include the FBs, and connect the dots. That is the meta "lines." Presumably you are against that, and you think we should all spawn in some capital city of our side, then walk/dive to some place where whe hold our ground, and wait for the enemy (or attack, alone)? If not, you are for "lines," but a different abstraction.

Ahhhh nope. I am not for spawning in some capital city. It's about finding a balance. Yes we do have lines of town and fb control. Which is great and necessary. Those towns were fought over and earned. If u wanna keep them, spawn from them and setup a defense. If an enemy truck wants to invest time and try to setup behind those lines ... good for him. We have EWS. We have an AO system. There is opportunity to defend and setup a line. If you feel there isnt enough time to get out, well talk about tweaking timers on placing AO's and cp's becomong hot or something.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about cap timers not being based on global side balance? Rather ... base them on a town by town basis. The side with fewer controlled cp's get a faster cap rate. So at battle start ... the first cp the enemy caps goes "fast". Then the 2nd slower, etc. And from a defense standpoint .... by the time they get down to 2 or 3 cp's left it goes progressively slower . But recaps go much faster. Plus only make the AB cappable when you have over 50% of cp's under your control. No need for a timer. If your side loses the AB, you have to regain 50% cp control in order to recap. Saves people from the dreaded bunker duty for a bit. And will make for a longer battle in many cases. Stupid idea or brilliant?

Edited by choad

Share this post


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

Ahhhh nope. I am not for spawning in some capital city. It's about finding a balance. Yes we do have lines of town and fb control. Which is great and necessary. Those towns were fought over and earned. If u wanna keep them, spawn from them and setup a defense. If an enemy truck wants to invest time and try to setup behind those lines ... good for him. We have EWS. We have an AO system. There is opportunity to defend and setup a line. If you feel there isnt enough time to get out, well talk about tweaking timers on placing AO's and cp's becomong hot or something.

I agree with this, with the exception of multiple HC fms should not be an option

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game requires at least 1,000 additional active (in-game / regular) subscribers, ideally pushing to 3,000. Those multi-hour battles aren’t going to happen anymore without it.

You obviously need to find these additional subscribers (and they need to hang around), so it’s a combined marketing and UX strategy.

Not only does this require sizeable cash, it requires a very bespoke strategy as the game is niche and the games on the market today are very, very good.

I see this situation very regularly:

Business needs to turnaround, cannot without cash, requests cash, model is outdated and  cannot find cash, dies by a thousand cuts (this isn’t “doom and gloom”, it’s business).

@XOOM, leave the spawnable and merge squads with a better operator just starting out who might have the resources to implement what this game does have.

There are opportunities who I imagine would be keen to talk.

 

 

Edited by poker
1 person likes this

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.