Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

sydspain

WWII Online: Current state and future

Recommended Posts

delems

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.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kgarner
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
kgarner
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 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** 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.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kgarner

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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
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
kgarner
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
kgarner
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
tater

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

***  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
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
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.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** 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
tater
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
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kgarner
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
nc0gnet0
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
Poker

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
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2

We can all argue about supply and game mechanics and FMS etc until the cows come home. However  I still think a big issue that the game faces is how to retain new players and that's something I've not really seen discussed.  World war two Online is a big nuanced game that does a really really terrible job of explaining how the game works.  There is so much to learn.  New players come in and generally don't have a clue what to do, get killed two or three times and then give up.  We have all seen greentags walking from FBs or diving a truck not understanding that they are the truck.  I think the Rats may need to look at new ways of trying to keep these new players beyond the trainers program because its clearly not working.  maybe we need tutorials that get them to Cap a CP or something to help drive some understanding of the game  but I'm not sure I have an answer to that greentag question. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

First step at retaining players has to be reducing the price or maininting some sort of f2p model. Let's face it .... the game takes time to learn, and if it is too cost prohibitive to invest the time, people simply won't. Vets don't neccessarily mind paying the current premium price .... as we understand and appreciate the game. However ... if there is no one to shoot at, well then ... that becomes a problem for everyone ... vet and newbie alike. And ... that is what we are starting to see.

In game voice comms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kgarner

yah.... content for noobs.... like how-to videos should be a thing...... and they should be promoted far and wide by CRS...... 

I would be willing to put some time and energy into making some

anyone else?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capco
2 hours 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.

Imo, this would be a good rule set for player placed FBs.  Applying this to truck based mobile spawns is a bad idea imo.

 

What I would like to see is an inf FRU that is connected to an FMS where the FRU is placement must be within so many meters of the home FMS.  Probably no more than 200m.  

 

That way if you get flanked by an inf FRU it's because you already allowed a very loud and defenseless truck flank you.  Likewise, destroying the very easy to locate and camp FMS destroys the associated inf FRU.  

 

Forcing people to bring supply more manually to the battle is a recipe for failure.  It's too much work for too little reward.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

How is knowing roughly where the enemy is coming from less action, exactly? It means the defense (particularly low pop) can concentrate where the enemy is. If they want to shut down the attack they don't need a half a dozen people wandering away from town in every direction to find the EFMS, those same 6 people can go in the directions that the EFMS must be (look at map, see linked towns, look in those directions only).

Since the defense won't have to disperse literally everywhere, the attackers might ahve to, you know, attack. The current attack paradigm:

Roll trucks.

Set FMS all over the place.

Move towards/into town. AO gets set (takes a while, this might be after the above or before, varies (I'm not HC, don't know the specifics)).

Inf all over town, either capping, or securing.

Defenders appear. If enough zerg in, the attack likely fails, or gets put on hold til they leave, then restarts. If few appear, the town rolls. If most kills happen as camping, that's not a battle.

Such battles, much wow.

I'd rather have to fight my way in to a CP, frankly. My favorite gameplay is honestly recapping a CP the enemy holds in our town that is displaced from the rest of town. It becomes an actual battle. Once in the CP... same crappy in CP play, getting there is the fun play.

there are very very few people willing to set spawns, it needs to be addressed.

Share this post


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

Exactly.

I'd wager all day long that lower sub prices and existing gameplay mechanics would bring in and retain more new players than same sub prices and new mechanics.

Even Just looking at the new guys and inactive guys who commented on this thread, a $5 sub would win back their subscription. It would win back mine too. I didnt see any of them say or allude to that same sub prices and different game mechanics would get them to resub.

/myopinion

during the WBS's, the guys that left my squad checked in. they left for the same reason they unsubbed, they got bored.

free wasn't even worth it for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
matamor

Fog of war : Remove the white skulls.

Anyway people keeps running in them to get killed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21

Well 1st thing CRS should or would have to do is get the new players to respond to text chat as we don't have VP in game and only have discord , which myself don't use I find it clunky .

We had that exact discussion right after the Steam launch , that we got tons of green tags but us VETS came here to the forum frustrated that hardly anyone would respond.

What was done about it . NOTHING sorry to say so. Players can still toggle the chat bar away.  PM messages are still just the typewriter sound. 

It was proposed ( I actually did that ) that green tags , would have the chat bar locked, that if they get a PM it actually flashes on screen and not just typewriter sound.  That if they are from another country and not speak English there be a menu that they could choose from and reply , like sorry I don't speak English but in their tongue but once they send it, it would come back to the receiver as a English sentence that one maybe be able to send that player into the right direction. 

Myself tried many times during the steam launch to contact player , just to either run into the language barrier,  and I speak 2 English and German fluently, or get no response at all . If I did get a respond I would actually stop playing and explain things the best I could and give them basic knowledge.  Like not to run out of town , how to look for action, how to read the map, what the objectives are. The short abbreviation that we use and what they ment. If they did listen they were always happy.  But unfortunately it was a rather rare occasion and in the end a frustrating endeavor trying to get new players to respond.

But to this day we got nothing that makes it easier for us VETS to help and  to retain new players.  

 

  • Like 1

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.

×
×
  • Create New...