• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      RAT Chat Sunday 12/8 3pm server time!!!!   12/07/2019

      CRS is working overtime preparing and setting up the NEW SERVERS at the Portland colocation. This Sunday, December 8th, at 3:00 pm CST/9:00 pm GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). XOOM and the RATs are hosting a live chat discussing the move, and what services will be temporarily impacted in the process. Live chat link will be provided in discord channels when available. We look forward to chatting with you!
nc0gnet0

Multiple accounts accounts need to be eliminated.......

77 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, sgthenning said:

do you have any idea how many dot reports are against you right now matamore

Haha i love this...mata you are the dot report king you have de throned BAR congrats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My XP machine I used to play on with just one account would have lag very bad when multi players are around .  One time at Sedan ,years ago, the axis had the AB shut down and had just the bunker to get .  I ran in the bunker and all the ei acted like I wasn't even there. I shot all 5 and complained to the player base . Everyone said it was over anyway , don't worry about it etc .  To me I robbed them of there Alamo .  :(   Now with my new  win 10 PC  , I always have high FPS, and I notice the 250 crews lags more than before . 

Share this post


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

My XP machine I used to play on with just one account would have lag very bad when multi players are around .  One time at Sedan ,years ago, the axis had the AB shut down and had just the bunker to get .  I ran in the bunker and all the ei acted like I wasn't even there. I shot all 5 and complained to the player base . Everyone said it was over anyway , don't worry about it etc .  To me I robbed them of there Alamo .  :(   Now with my new  win 10 PC  , I always have high FPS, and I notice the 250 crews lags more than before . 

I still have xp ffs but the game runs very smooth for me ping fps whateves is usually between 19-28 always in the green....got auto despawned once in the last 2 months...only reason i can think i might lag more is because i moved from queens ny in the middle of the biggest city in the world to Mooresville nc where there are substantially less people and my internet isnt as strong as it used to be

Edited by Jsilec
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 10:35 AM, nc0gnet0 said:

Sure, great idea if you want to turn this game into a warping lag fest. For every 2nd,3rd, 4th account you have in game, that account is still monitoring everything in it's field of vision, whether he his active or not. Put that same account on auto-walk and all of a sudden he is not only receiving information, but uploading information. And for the typical user, it is the upload speed of their internet connection that is limited. 

Two points.

One, they could only allow auto-walk for the guy you are actively using, or only within a short range of the other avatars.

Two, how is it that tanks don't do this? Or DDs? Or ATGs? They have multiple crew positions, after all.

The second question is serious. Is it simply that they are near each other? What's the longest distance between POVs on a DD? What about aircraft---the gunner might only be a few meters behind, but if it takes a second to switch between them, and the aircraft is moving at a couple hundred kph, the distance between the 2 POVs could in fact be hundreds of meters (distance between cockpit and gun is "d", then the distance between a POV shift is d+vt where v is the velocity, and t is the time to swap POVs).

If the distance matters, then require that those 4 inf be within whatever distance, or the one's left behind get despawned.

Such a system would instantly improve the game in ways that any lagging that resulted would be worth the trade, IMHO.

Right now CQB in the game is awful, regardless of lag. Nothing is going to improve it. Giving inf a few "lives" per spawn (multiple crew positions) means that people will tend to be less spastic, and more thoughtful about how they use them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, pings will be changing in the next patch.. they are showing 1 way values, it will be 2 way value in next patch so the numbers will essentially double

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2019 at 10:58 AM, OLDZEKE said:

I guess I forgot to mention I also have a 2nd PC as well as a MacBook I use to test with. When testing the lag and auto despawn I had other accts up on those observing as well as the other QA guys. We actualy do test this stuff to the best of our abilities. 

We tested running around corners and shooting, running up and down stairs etc. We had east coasters, west coasters as well as a euro or to testing this.

Now can the lag and late deaths be replicated? Yes we could replicate in some instances but multiple accts on the same machine was not one of them. This machine has had 75 clients spawned in at once back when we were testing the 1st 1.35. That was all my connection I had at the time would support before the host dumped me. That's info we don't generaly give out and it may bite me, we will see.

So yea I think I do get it and have studied and tested it from pretty much every angle I and my team can come up with. The only times I've had lag in the live game that I knew was my end (and I've tested this for a while now so have a few ideas as to clues) was when I still had a 10/2 connection and my grandkids were here with grandson on xbox and granddaughter streaming Netflix on 1 of the tvs.

1 clue it's you is you see everyone start warping or get jiggly in movement, the other is your little white connection line starts getting shorter. Also, if you are getting the "enter world button bug" and there was still several of the unit you picked in the list or you get the stalled death cam where it starts spinning out, stops, then starts the spinout again.

Enter world bug.... If you pick the last of the unit in list, last rifle, last lmg left in the spawn list then you will have to click the enter world button twice to spawn. If during that process you lose that last unit then your connection dropped out. 

If there are still several of that type in the list and you still get the greyed out enter world that you have to wait out till green and click again then your connection dropped out mid spawn and it couldn't connect you with the cell host to place you ingame.

It's been my experience in testing that this can be intermittent but the thing is I can only test this and get a lag result by manipulating my connection as in general I never get any of these under normal circumstances.

It's impossible for us to test every possible user setup as well.

Example of weird stuff that can happen. We use MS teams meeting software sometimes. I had installed MSI afterburner vid card software because it will display cpu/gpu/mem use/and temps in a overlay. I was using it to see what dift things ingame actually hit harder, cpu, gpu or memory. All of a sudden my Teams would lockup so that I couldn't even unmute to reply. Shut down afterburner and no teams issue. Was same with a CAD program I use to look for issues with the models, afterburner crashes it.

 

Bottom line is we can't know what software everyone is running to test against every possible setup.

 

On 10/28/2019 at 10:58 AM, OLDZEKE said:

 

Err, yeah, but sorry not even close. So many assumptions here you got wrong, I don't even know where to start. 

 

"Now can the lag and late deaths be replicated? Yes we could replicate in some instances but multiple accts on the same machine was not one of them."

Try playing in TZ3, because I see it almost every night. And I am not alone. And it is always the same players, but not all the players. What players is it you ask? Oddly enough, it's the players playing multiple accounts. Could it be that these players also just happen to have bag connections? Possible, yes, but awfully and extremely coincidental, don't you think? And it's just not me that is seeing this problem with these players either, so the "it's happening on my end argument gets thrown out the window. 

"1 clue it's you is you see everyone start warping or get jiggly in movement, the other is your little white connection line starts getting shorter. Also, if you are getting the "enter world button bug" and there was still several of the unit you picked in the list or you get the stalled death cam where it starts spinning out, stops, then starts the spinout again."

As for the warping argument, it's not all the players that are warping around, it  is just one, with the others working just fine, disproving your theory. If I have 5 soldiers in my field of view, and only one is warping, it means the problem is happening on your side, not mine.

 The enter world bug almost always happens at a depot, when supply lists are limited (maybe only 2 Sterns, etc, in spawn list). It's a known bug. Most likely caused by multiple players being stuck in SD purgatory, with some of these attempting to spawn in the same low supply unit, giving the server a massive brain fart.  Fix it. Or, get rid of the spawn delay which exacerbates the problem. Sorry, but your going out of your way here to try to come out with scenarios that simply are not true. Why?

 

"Enter world bug.... If you pick the last of the unit in list, last rifle, last lmg left in the spawn list then you will have to click the enter world button twice to spawn. If during that process you lose that last unit then your connection dropped out. "

Not the problem, and you know it. My ping is always around 15-20 ms, have tested my Internet connection across multiple locations and and different times of the day. Has nothing to do with my internet connection "dropping out". Has everything to do with the server having a brain fart. 

"It's impossible for us to test every possible user setup as well."

But it is possible for you to MONITOR real world, in game performance. Are we seeing an increase in ping/drop packets/etc in game when multiple accounts are being used? It's not hard. Log this info, make it public. 

 

Bottom line is we can't know what software everyone is running to test against every possible setup.

No one is asking that, but a re-evaluation of how connection speeds are monitored and forced de-spawns are deployed is not platform specific. 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I and my team have tested the scenarios I described. I have no desire nor do I attempt to mislead. When I post about things, I've already tested what I am posting about.

I don't post to try to one up or browbeat. My intent is to try to explain and inform but being we have rules as to what depth we can go into as to testing tools and procedures I can't lay it out step by step. 

Multiple accounts, I just tested on a test server with 5 accts on this rig. Ping was the same across all 5 and was the same on 1st as when it was the only one online. All are HC on that server so was getting chat spammed with HC notifications as well.

With 5 spawned in  my fps did drop into the 30s and 40s but yea I was running 5 clients simultaneously.

1 guy warping while others are smooth = the warper has a issue. I've watched a few and generaly they end up getting auto despawned.

Enterworld bug, it happens with the last available unit of that type but it will happen with several left if you are dropping packets.

Note: current version is only displaying 1 way ping ie ½ actual. Next patch will show full ping and I think quicker polling(not 100% sure on the quicker polling but to me it looks so), so everone's  ping will double from what the game shows now.

And next patch does have changes to the netcode, we are still refining it.

 

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***  Fix it. Or, get rid of the spawn delay

Agree, remove all SD until this bug can be fixed.

Besides, with 300% capture penalty, not much need for SD.

This bug is going on 10 years old (easily),  remove the SD or fix the bug.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 0:59 PM, OLDZEKE said:

I and my team have tested the scenarios I described. I have no desire nor do I attempt to mislead. When I post about things, I've already tested what I am posting about.

I don't post to try to one up or browbeat. My intent is to try to explain and inform but being we have rules as to what depth we can go into as to testing tools and procedures I can't lay it out step by step. 

Multiple accounts, I just tested on a test server with 5 accts on this rig. Ping was the same across all 5 and was the same on 1st as when it was the only one online. All are HC on that server so was getting chat spammed with HC notifications as well.

With 5 spawned in  my fps did drop into the 30s and 40s but yea I was running 5 clients simultaneously.

1 guy warping while others are smooth = the warper has a issue. I've watched a few and generaly they end up getting auto despawned.

Enterworld bug, it happens with the last available unit of that type but it will happen with several left if you are dropping packets.

Note: current version is only displaying 1 way ping ie ½ actual. Next patch will show full ping and I think quicker polling(not 100% sure on the quicker polling but to me it looks so), so everone's  ping will double from what the game shows now.

And next patch does have changes to the netcode, we are still refining it.

 

 

 

Enterworld bug, it happens with the last available unit of that type but it will happen with several left if you are dropping packets.

 

Again, as I have already pointed out, the most common occurrence of the enter bug is spawning in from a depot. Don't try to minimize the problem. As the availability of preferred units are quite often 2 from a depot, this is a HUGE issue.  Its rate of occurrence is much much higher when faced with high SD. Fix it. 

 

Multiple accounts, I just tested on a test server with 5 accts on this rig. Ping was the same across all 5 and was the same on 1st as when it was the only one online. All are HC on that server so was getting chat spammed with HC notifications as well.

With 5 spawned in  my fps did drop into the 30s and 40s but yea I was running 5 clients simultaneously.

Ok, great, you tested it on YOUR RIG. Not everyone is running "YOUR RIG" with your Internet connection. That's the rub. Who knows what firewall settings, anti-virus settings, connection speed, etc etc some of these players have. You can't draw any type of conclusion from such a limited test, you have to collect actual in game data. I guess I can start posting game clips to show you what I am seeing, would that help?

Note: current version is only displaying 1 way ping ie ½ actual. Next patch will show full ping and I think quicker polling(not 100% sure on the quicker polling but to me it looks so), so everone's  ping will double from what the game shows now.

And next patch does have changes to the netcode, we are still refining it.

 

Played last night with the new patch. Ping averages around 50, but bounces between 25-75. Never once did it go orange. 

 

 

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depots have a fraction of the supply a ab has and it trickles in from the ab so yes you are far more likely to get to the last one in the list type deal.

 

Yea I can only test on my 2 PCs and 2 macbooks across both a hardwired and wifi connections. Can't test on others setups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few questions, to anyone reading here.

Ever see the despawn window come up with green ok then the timer starts and ok greys out until the timer hits 0? If you are quick you can click it before the timer goes active?

Ever have the despawn spinout stall for a second or longer then resume?

Notice that it takes several seconds after you click enter world before you spawn?

And lastly ever notice the little white packet ticker/bar in the fps hud get shorter?

All the above are indications of packet loss.

If during the spawn process the client loses connection to the cellhost then the game can't place you into the cellhost. In most cases the enter world button greys out then comes active/green again without spawning you. Extreme cases it can cause your mission to become invalid or tell you your unit is not available even though the list still shows available units of that type.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there are other causes of the EnterWorld bug (though don't think I have ever seen one).

I just know, the map there was no SD, there was never an EnterWorld bug.

And everything I use to spawn had 1 in the spawn list often.... because I spawn from CPs and used navy when it had infantry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still thinking of the opposite of this supposed problem, and the fact that it's not multiple POVs, it might be multiple clients running on a machine.

Regardless, I think that multiple spawns per player would be a huge improvement. In the balance thread I just observed that large numbers are always more fun. It feels like there are friends on your flanks, and it's not like hide and seek hunting, it feels more battle like, and less random deathmatch with more units on the field.

Allow each inf to spawn 4. 1 is active at a time, but you switch exactly like gun/tank/aircraft/ship crew.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2019 at 1:30 AM, tater said:

I'm still thinking of the opposite of this supposed problem, and the fact that it's not multiple POVs, it might be multiple clients running on a machine.

Regardless, I think that multiple spawns per player would be a huge improvement. In the balance thread I just observed that large numbers are always more fun. It feels like there are friends on your flanks, and it's not like hide and seek hunting, it feels more battle like, and less random deathmatch with more units on the field.

Allow each inf to spawn 4. 1 is active at a time, but you switch exactly like gun/tank/aircraft/ship crew.

 

Multiple accounts also  add to increased SD and longer Cap timers, and my guess is they are responsible for the Wild fluctuations of each during low-pop. 

Park your clone account into a depot and you get instant notification that the depot the clone is on is being capped. 

Gamey at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keep i on  the sd  swig  905 of time is  related to  group logg on and off ( work schoool etc))  also ther is a corilation to when  ao's are about to swtich and people are  mving in mass to new one  and cathcing the the sd timer  at tath moment

mulrti acounts are helping to keep gaem going do not blaim your  miney ticket ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

keep i on  the sd  swig  905 of time is  related to  group logg on and off ( work schoool etc))  also ther is a corilation to when  ao's are about to swtich and people are  mving in mass to new one  and cathcing the the sd timer  at tath moment

mulrti acounts are helping to keep gaem going do not blaim your  miney ticket ;)

I am not even sure what a mulrti acount is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Multiple accounts also  add to increased SD and longer Cap timers, and my guess is they are responsible for the Wild fluctuations of each during low-pop. 

If everyone could spawn multiple inf, the server would simply track players (as it does now). Two accounts would then of course have 2X that, so maybe you remove second accounts, or limit them.

Quote

Park your clone account into a depot and you get instant notification that the depot the clone is on is being capped. 

Gamey at best.

Not gamey at all. Not even slightly gamey.

How many men are in a Brigade? How many are in the field at one time in game? The entire BDE should be in the field all the time. We don;t have enough players for that, but it's closer if each inf is 4 inf.

Sneaky caps are idiotic and should not be a thing anyway.

Sneaky caps are in fact gamey. There are X hundred troops in a small town. 1 guy could capture the entire town in WW2OL via moling with no defense. How is that not gamey?

Edited by tater
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the game and want to say first that I truly appreciate that folks are willing to pay for multiple accounts to support the game.

That said...

MY problem with multiple accounts is that they give a GEOMETRIC advantage of multi players over single account players. Now for this I will completely ignore TOW only players, but I normally count them in this....

I was defending an AB...I went into the bunker and found FOUR enemy players waiting to start capping when it went hot. I thought I was dead. But they were all immobile. I killed them, realizing they were second accounts. Not 1 minute later all four ran into the bunker and killed me. I stood ZERO chance of defending that bunker at 1-4 odds, and because they all had second accounts, they could man a bunker in my town, cap the rest of the town with their other accounts, and swap back and forth at a moment's notice. They knew where I was and could kill me with ease and even if I could beat 4-1, no way I could beat 8-1. I was beaten before I started fighting. And at the time we were underpopped and outnumbered as well. I couldn't just call for help.

As far as the FB defense... If I decide to bust a FB, I mark off the next half hour or more, unless I have a whole crew to bust an FB, and it's still 15 minutes. Assume that I'm alone. I have to spend 15 minutes or more just to SET the bust... then I have to run in and start blowing the FB. This will take me another 15 plus minutes, if nothing goes wrong and no one is there. This is a half hour that I am NOT doing anything else to fight the enemy. I am not killing, I am not capping. This takes ALL of my capability. On the other hand, the guy who has TWO accounts can just set one at the FB... then he plays during that 20 minutes. He is killing, capping, and helping beat my team. Then he grabs a coke and looks at the map and sees that I have started blowing the FB. he spawns in... kills my engineer and my FMS, layghs at how easy that was, and goes back to playing with his other account. HE has spent maybe 5 minutes at the FB, and has accomplished at least two missions, while I am back at square one. Again, because he had a second account, I had zero chance of success before I even started. When I think about it, it means that I lost, not necessarily because he was a better player than me... the fact is that he didn't even have to stop what he was doing to make a mission to the FB to stop me. He could sit there without even TRYING, and was already set up to stop me. There's no effective way to counter that.

Now, people will say "adapt". OK... But there is NO adaptation, unless one goes with Fight fire with fire, and can do the same kind of thing. Let's be honest: the fact is that single account holders can not compete effectively against multiple accounts. They can do very well in stats and so forth... but they can only be in one place at one time. The ability to be in two places at one time is not something an opponent can counter, at least not in a game like ours.

Every time I think about it, It makes me feel like single account holders are nothing more than fodder for multiple account holders, and sometimes that thought actually keeps me from logging in at all. I know that I can't be the only one. (And this comes from a Builder who has the right to use a second tow account.)

I'm not criticizing anyone for having multiple accounts... but I wanted people who DO to understand just how overpowered multiple accounts are against single account players; and how demoralizing that knowledge can be to players who don't have it, and then scream that the game is PAY to WIN. It's NOT just whiners crying because they are losing.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is the fact that maney play both sides at the same time , happend maney times to me busting an fb someone spawns in my mission or even just sits in town i originate from sees MS location and i have Tanks and infantry all over MS 2 minutes after i put it up, maney of my MS for busting fb are out of audio rang yet enemy goes right to it, or join mission takelead and delete my MS.

Would like to see an notification on screen or chat screen when a player joins your mission.

Nothing against having more than 1 account, but to maney are playing both sides same time.

Also know the Rats are looking out for it and need players help with it using  .report.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Quincannon said:

Every time I think about it, It makes me feel like single account holders are nothing more than fodder for multiple account holders, and sometimes that thought actually keeps me from logging in at all. I know that I can't be the only one. (And this comes from a Builder who has the right to use a second tow account.)

You actually think this?

I've only ever been a single account holder, and while I can see there are advantages possible---for example if the number of humans on each side were exactly balanced, but one side was all with 2 accounts, then while the combat odds are not 2:1, there is certainly some force multiplier there---I'd consider at the tactical level, the fodder is more the other way around.

Perhaps when I run in to clear a CP, and the guy doesn't shoot me, and isn't in map view, he's a second account, and busy with the other unit? Doesn't matter, he's dead now.

I think that multiple inf spawns should in fact be the norm (not as separate game instances, but within the game exactly as there are X crew positions for vehicles). If a tanker gets 2-4 crew, why not inf? How many does a DD player get? It's exactly the same, more positions to shoot from, but you can only shoot one at a time.

Assume that at some busy AO there are a handful of friendly aircraft, maybe similar armor and ATG/AAA, and maybe as many inf as both those 3 combined. We have 15 aircraft/tanks/ATG, and 15 inf. That'd be a lot in game, but of course not nearly enough inf to feel realistic. What if there were 3-4 inf per inf spawned? No special code for "AI" inf to follow the leader, shoot, etc, literally player moves inf, switches to a new inf, like crew position changes. I don't particularly care about autowalk being allowed, it's fine, IMO (anywhere near the enemy likely a group suicide). Now we'd have 15 air/armor/atg units in the AO, and 45-60 inf. This would be a HUGE positive change, IMO. Yeah, you're more than one place at once, you leave a guard in a CP, and move guys to cut, or grab the next one. The one left alone... yeah, he's gonna die without shooting back---but you'll know the enemy is recapping it, and you'll have to then clear it. I honestly think this is a plus. You could leave a rifle near an ATG, and if the ATG PMs you that he needs help, you switch to that rifle and defend the ATG from ei. Maybe there's a max distance or extra inf despawn, too. ATG crew are obviously all together. Maybe any inf more than a few hundred yards from whatever inf you currently control are despawned.

Thinking out loud... Do the DD 5in guns slave together? In that case, maybe inf multi-spawns could do that. Have a key to toggle that mode, and all inf point at the spot the one controlled inf is pointing at. Ie: I point my rifle at a brushline where there are ei, and I hit a key for them to fire where I fire, and they use my aim point however a DD does, and fire.

 

Share this post


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

You actually think this?

I've only ever been a single account holder, and while I can see there are advantages possible---for example if the number of humans on each side were exactly balanced, but one side was all with 2 accounts, then while the combat odds are not 2:1, there is certainly some force multiplier there---I'd consider at the tactical level, the fodder is more the other way around.

Perhaps when I run in to clear a CP, and the guy doesn't shoot me, and isn't in map view, he's a second account, and busy with the other unit? Doesn't matter, he's dead now.

I think that multiple inf spawns should in fact be the norm (not as separate game instances, but within the game exactly as there are X crew positions for vehicles). If a tanker gets 2-4 crew, why not inf? How many does a DD player get? It's exactly the same, more positions to shoot from, but you can only shoot one at a time.

Assume that at some busy AO there are a handful of friendly aircraft, maybe similar armor and ATG/AAA, and maybe as many inf as both those 3 combined. We have 15 aircraft/tanks/ATG, and 15 inf. That'd be a lot in game, but of course not nearly enough inf to feel realistic. What if there were 3-4 inf per inf spawned? No special code for "AI" inf to follow the leader, shoot, etc, literally player moves inf, switches to a new inf, like crew position changes. I don't particularly care about autowalk being allowed, it's fine, IMO (anywhere near the enemy likely a group suicide). Now we'd have 15 air/armor/atg units in the AO, and 45-60 inf. This would be a HUGE positive change, IMO. Yeah, you're more than one place at once, you leave a guard in a CP, and move guys to cut, or grab the next one. The one left alone... yeah, he's gonna die without shooting back---but you'll know the enemy is recapping it, and you'll have to then clear it. I honestly think this is a plus. You could leave a rifle near an ATG, and if the ATG PMs you that he needs help, you switch to that rifle and defend the ATG from ei. Maybe there's a max distance or extra inf despawn, too. ATG crew are obviously all together. Maybe any inf more than a few hundred yards from whatever inf you currently control are despawned.

Thinking out loud... Do the DD 5in guns slave together? In that case, maybe inf multi-spawns could do that. Have a key to toggle that mode, and all inf point at the spot the one controlled inf is pointing at. Ie: I point my rifle at a brushline where there are ei, and I hit a key for them to fire where I fire, and they use my aim point however a DD does, and fire.

 

I have seen you espouse this concept. It would be interesting in another game. But this is NOT another game. This is supposed to be a First Person Shooter experience, rather than an RTS. I DO admit that sometimes I think that the vehicles would be easier/ better if they were  fully crewed when occupied by a single player, and could be controlled in such a way that one person could completely control the vehicle and all of its positions for combat purposes.

As this game is actually designed... yes, i feel this way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Quincannon said:

I have seen you espouse this concept. It would be interesting in another game. But this is NOT another game. This is supposed to be a First Person Shooter experience, rather than an RTS. I DO admit that sometimes I think that the vehicles would be easier/ better if they were  fully crewed when occupied by a single player, and could be controlled in such a way that one person could completely control the vehicle and all of its positions for combat purposes.

By your definition then, tanks, ships, and bombers should only be allowed to spawn if every crew position is filled.

Also, "so-called "RTS" games are neither real time (they all seem to move in accelerated time to me), nor strategy (the accelerated time makes them tactical to my eye). They'd be better called ATT (accelerated time tactical) games. Regardless, what that I suggested was even remotely like "RTS?" RTS game units do things themselves. Place a unit, and it replies if attacked at least. I have not suggested that.

ATGs have a pusher position with binos (the useless CO, who doesn't even have so much as a pistol), and the gunner. That's 2 units you are spawning with every ATG. One dies, and you can still RTB. I can't die with a rifle and RTB.

How many positions are in a DD? How many should there actually be? Should a "first Person Shooter" experience have every single crew member at their GQ position modeled? Why not?

How about then if ANY crew gets killed on a ship/ATG/AAA/tank/bomber the unit is lost? Bad idea? I agree.

For some reason it's fine for DDs to switch between guns as needed, or even for the guns to slave together (that's a thing, right?), but not lowly infantry--the only unit that the game would grind to a halt without, since inf are the only units that are necessary to play the game as it exists.

Allowing people to control a few inf at a time would improve this game immensely.

1. Easier to set up a ZOC.

2. Faster access to battle (if 1 dies, the guy next to him plays on, no respawning and hiking in to where the fight is).

3. De facto more coordinated inf play.

4. More inf around, hence more targets for units that engage inf.

5. More inf around means a more realistic feeling battlefield (the vast, overwhelming majority of units in view should almost always be infantry).

6. A more level playing field vs crewed vehicles, many of which can continue killing (mostly inf) long after one or more of their multiple lives is spent.

7. For people butt hurt about the very idea of AI---this has zero AI. The extra inf do nothing at all (except maybe auto walk) without a player doing it.

8. Population imbalance---this idea can be set to allow more spawns per player on the underpop side. This accomplishes the same functionality as SD, without SD. In addition, it might vary with server pop---max numbers at lower pop, if the server was at XXX per side, then maybe it's the current game (1 per spawn), or at most 2. The units could be standardized. A rifle spawn would be 1-4 rifles (pop imbalance dependent), a SMG spawn would be 1 SMG, up to 3 rifles. Grenadier might be 1 Gren, up to 3 rifles. LMG? 1 LMG, up to 3 rifles. Mortar? 1 mortar, 3 rifles (seeing a pattern?) Snipers might be 1 sniper, 1 rifle (spotter) (never more, they are rare units). Engies? 1 engie, up to 3 rifles.

How would this work tactically? Like an "RTS?" I think not. You'd be moving a guy like normal, running to the next cover, and looking/shooting if required, then you's switch to the next guy, and do the same. If a guy gets shot, then you know he did, and you think about where the trouble is, and how to engage. Maybe one of the gusy chucks a smoke, then you switch to a guy with a view, and wait for the gunshot, then engage the flash. Instead, now we have a "skull" and we chat after death explaining where the enemy is---so FPS, much wow. That skull, those map marks we make---are abstractions of what it might be for actual units on the ground, except in ww2ol they are globally shared in an area of the front, when instead it should be that the guy on point got hit, and his buddies drop and engage the threat. I'd kill all the skull markers with this.

 

Quote

As this game is actually designed... yes, i feel this way.

I've been playing again for several months. I play almost exclusively infantry.  I don't see this even a little. If a guy has 2 accounts, he's only playing 1 at a time. It just means I have 2X chances to shoot him. They both can't shoot back at once.

A simple test.

Test 1: You spawn into an FMS, move a few hundred m, then stop in some terrain to look across an open field. A shot hits the dirt near you. You move a little, then shoot the bush where the first shot came from. More shots come from a berm to the left of the guy you just shot at. There's some back and forth shooting, and you get killed.

Test 2: Exactly the same as test 1, all the results are the same.

Test 3: exactly as #1, except it seems like both might be shooting at you, and no one gets killed, stalemate. Bang, bang, bang, etc. One shoots, then another. Are they 2 people, or one player switching between riflemen?

Test 4: Same as 3.

OK, which test was vs 2 players, which was vs a single player with 2 accounts? If you couldn't do these tests, with the shots matching shot for shot (you killing the first guy, the second one killing you). If you couldn't tell, there is no difference. In my examples you can't tell (shot for shot identical). The only thing all of us know, is that if the 2 riflemen you faced were 2 different people---you'd be worse off, not better off. One person playing 2 is not as effective as 2, just as a multicrew vehicle is more effective than a single crew vehicle. This is identical, and to be logically consistent, if you are against infantry with multiple "positions" to switch you, you must also be against the same thing in vehicles. Forcing multicrew on vehicles might fix side imbalance, actually...

If a side is too OP, then armor, etc start requiring multicrew to spawn. At some level, you only need 2 crew, if the sides are heavily unbalanced then maybe 3 crew vehicles need 3 crew. Insanely unbalanced? Every crew spot manned or the unit can't spawn. This would be great except they'd all spawn the only non-multicrew unit, infantry, which is the only unit that matters anyway...

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

By your definition then, tanks, ships, and bombers should only be allowed to spawn if every crew position is filled.

Also, "so-called "RTS" games are neither real time (they all seem to move in accelerated time to me), nor strategy (the accelerated time makes them tactical to my eye). They'd be better called ATT (accelerated time tactical) games. Regardless, what that I suggested was even remotely like "RTS?" RTS game units do things themselves. Place a unit, and it replies if attacked at least. I have not suggested that.

ATGs have a pusher position with binos (the useless CO, who doesn't even have so much as a pistol), and the gunner. That's 2 units you are spawning with every ATG. One dies, and you can still RTB. I can't die with a rifle and RTB.

How many positions are in a DD? How many should there actually be? Should a "first Person Shooter" experience have every single crew member at their GQ position modeled? Why not?

How about then if ANY crew gets killed on a ship/ATG/AAA/tank/bomber the unit is lost? Bad idea? I agree.

For some reason it's fine for DDs to switch between guns as needed, or even for the guns to slave together (that's a thing, right?), but not lowly infantry--the only unit that the game would grind to a halt without, since inf are the only units that are necessary to play the game as it exists.

Allowing people to control a few inf at a time would improve this game immensely.

1. Easier to set up a ZOC.

2. Faster access to battle (if 1 dies, the guy next to him plays on, no respawning and hiking in to where the fight is).

3. De facto more coordinated inf play.

4. More inf around, hence more targets for units that engage inf.

5. More inf around means a more realistic feeling battlefield (the vast, overwhelming majority of units in view should almost always be infantry).

6. A more level playing field vs crewed vehicles, many of which can continue killing (mostly inf) long after one or more of their multiple lives is spent.

7. For people butt hurt about the very idea of AI---this has zero AI. The extra inf do nothing at all (except maybe auto walk) without a player doing it.

8. Population imbalance---this idea can be set to allow more spawns per player on the underpop side. This accomplishes the same functionality as SD, without SD. In addition, it might vary with server pop---max numbers at lower pop, if the server was at XXX per side, then maybe it's the current game (1 per spawn), or at most 2. The units could be standardized. A rifle spawn would be 1-4 rifles (pop imbalance dependent), a SMG spawn would be 1 SMG, up to 3 rifles. Grenadier might be 1 Gren, up to 3 rifles. LMG? 1 LMG, up to 3 rifles. Mortar? 1 mortar, 3 rifles (seeing a pattern?) Snipers might be 1 sniper, 1 rifle (spotter) (never more, they are rare units). Engies? 1 engie, up to 3 rifles.

How would this work tactically? Like an "RTS?" I think not. You'd be moving a guy like normal, running to the next cover, and looking/shooting if required, then you's switch to the next guy, and do the same. If a guy gets shot, then you know he did, and you think about where the trouble is, and how to engage. Maybe one of the gusy chucks a smoke, then you switch to a guy with a view, and wait for the gunshot, then engage the flash. Instead, now we have a "skull" and we chat after death explaining where the enemy is---so FPS, much wow. That skull, those map marks we make---are abstractions of what it might be for actual units on the ground, except in ww2ol they are globally shared in an area of the front, when instead it should be that the guy on point got hit, and his buddies drop and engage the threat. I'd kill all the skull markers with this.

 

I've been playing again for several months. I play almost exclusively infantry.  I don't see this even a little. If a guy has 2 accounts, he's only playing 1 at a time. It just means I have 2X chances to shoot him. They both can't shoot back at once.

A simple test.

Test 1: You spawn into an FMS, move a few hundred m, then stop in some terrain to look across an open field. A shot hits the dirt near you. You move a little, then shoot the bush where the first shot came from. More shots come from a berm to the left of the guy you just shot at. There's some back and forth shooting, and you get killed.

Test 2: Exactly the same as test 1, all the results are the same.

Test 3: exactly as #1, except it seems like both might be shooting at you, and no one gets killed, stalemate. Bang, bang, bang, etc. One shoots, then another. Are they 2 people, or one player switching between riflemen?

Test 4: Same as 3.

OK, which test was vs 2 players, which was vs a single player with 2 accounts? If you couldn't do these tests, with the shots matching shot for shot (you killing the first guy, the second one killing you). If you couldn't tell, there is no difference. In my examples you can't tell (shot for shot identical). The only thing all of us know, is that if the 2 riflemen you faced were 2 different people---you'd be worse off, not better off. One person playing 2 is not as effective as 2, just as a multicrew vehicle is more effective than a single crew vehicle. This is identical, and to be logically consistent, if you are against infantry with multiple "positions" to switch you, you must also be against the same thing in vehicles. Forcing multicrew on vehicles might fix side imbalance, actually...

If a side is too OP, then armor, etc start requiring multicrew to spawn. At some level, you only need 2 crew, if the sides are heavily unbalanced then maybe 3 crew vehicles need 3 crew. Insanely unbalanced? Every crew spot manned or the unit can't spawn. This would be great except they'd all spawn the only non-multicrew unit, infantry, which is the only unit that matters anyway...

"By your definition then, tanks, ships, and bombers should only be allowed to spawn if every crew position is filled. "

Please show me where I wrote this exact statement. Oh wait. You cannot, because I did not make it. I did not infer it. I simply said that I thought it might be easier if one person could control an entire vehicle solo. That was it. No discussion about every seat filled or not filled. PLEASE do NOT "put words in my mouth" as the saying goes.

With all due respect, I am not going to be part of a drawn out conversation about your suggested changes. I was discussing one thing. Multiple accounts. If you wish to discuss something else, then please do it with someone else.

As far as your tests. I spoke as to my own experience. I KNOW how encountering multiple accounts affected my own game, and see how they can affect others. If you don;t agree, I don't intend to try to convince you.

In addition... maybe you have a terrific idea for a game. I don't know. What I DO know is that what you are describing is not WWII online. You are describing a completely different game, with  incredibly different play and mechanics. And with all due respect. That's great for you to suggest. Put it up on the Suggestion board where it belongs. Discuss it to death. Have fun. But PLEASE do not use me to launch your arguments for such a conversion. I am not remotely interested in it. I personally would not want to play the game that you suggest. You can not convince me that what you are suggesting would be a better game, no matter what you do, and in any event such a discussion belongs in the Suggestion forums.

Have a nice day.

S!

Share this post


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

"By your definition then, tanks, ships, and bombers should only be allowed to spawn if every crew position is filled. "

Please show me where I wrote this exact statement. Oh wait. You cannot, because I did not make it. I did not infer it. I simply said that I thought it might be easier if one person could control an entire vehicle solo. That was it. No discussion about every seat filled or not filled. PLEASE do NOT "put words in my mouth" as the saying goes.

You are against the concept as being "RTS" when applied to infantry, but not only are you NOT against it for units which are defined as having multiple crew, you'd even like it to be easier (I agree, there, actually).

A "First Person Shooter" in your mind requires what? That a % of people each have to serially play ONE human avatar, while other people somehow get to serially play 4 people at a time, and some people get to serially play up to 300 people at a time (lucky them!).

Either each player spawns ONE human, or they don't, which is it to be? I think we all agree that they don't have to spawn just one human---so why is giving infantry this capability---the one unit that should by far have the most unique "targets" on the ground at once---a problem, but it isn't a problem for a player to play 300 DD crew (with "AI" apparently doing all the stuff that is boring)?

Quote

With all due respect, I am not going to be part of a drawn out conversation about your suggested changes. I was discussing one thing. Multiple accounts. If you wish to discuss something else, then please do it with someone else.

I agree, I added that multiple spawns for inf concept to the thread---which is different than multiple accounts, because there is not the extra load on the player's machine possibly causing issues, but you could then just address my comments regarding multiple accounts in general, not multiple spawns.

Quote

As far as your tests. I spoke as to my own experience. I KNOW how encountering multiple accounts affected my own game, and see how they can affect others. If you don;t agree, I don't intend to try to convince you.

How? I'm actually curious. Specifics so I know what to look for in my own play. That you kill someone, then seconds later the second account kills YOU? If another player was playing the second account (say the guy let his kid use it on another machine), could you tell the difference? (you could, it would likely be more, not less dangerous for you).

That's the test for any second account deaths, what about it is unique to one player serially playing both accounts. If you could not tell minus the names in the AAR, it's simply put not an issue.

Quote

In addition... maybe you have a terrific idea for a game. I don't know. What I DO know is that what you are describing is not WWII online. You are describing a completely different game, with  incredibly different play and mechanics. And with all due respect. That's great for you to suggest. Put it up on the Suggestion board where it belongs. Discuss it to death. Have fun. But PLEASE do not use me to launch your arguments for such a conversion. I am not remotely interested in it. I personally would not want to play the game that you suggest. You can not convince me that what you are suggesting would be a better game, no matter what you do, and in any event such a discussion belongs in the Suggestion forums.

Glad to know you and you alone are the arbiter of what constitutes "real" ww2ol.

I've seen those arguments before. AI is not in WW2OL, and never should be---except at any given moment in game for as long as it's been around there are far more AIs than people. So WW2OL is no AIs, just PvP---except for 12+ per town, those don't count, for reasons.

WW2OL is also apparently ONLY ever one player, one person in game, always, anything else is a different game---except for all AAAs, ATGs, Armored Cars, armed trucks, tanks, bombers, and all water craft. Each of those is one player plays 2-300 humans at once (those also don't count---for reasons).

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple thoughts:
1) With no multiple accounts, wouldn't there be a loss of revenue? (if you say not much, then there can't be many multiple accounts......... hence, not an issue anyways)

2) Sure, a player with multiple accounts is a bit more effective, but it also makes game play more fun.  I can sit in an AA gun, bored at a FB - but with my 2nd account run an MS to town, or run ammo to other players; now I'm engaged, and making more content for game; and yet can still have fun shooting AA when ea finally comes.

3) Finally, statistically I'm sure this is a wash; with lots of players playing, there are the same number of multiple account players on each side.... so no one side gets an advantage.

 

Last, think of this, it isn't pay to win, it's play to win.  Who has the advantage here....  1 player, 2 accounts, plays for 2 hours per day.   1 player, 1 account, plays 6 to 8 hours per day......

See, it isn't the pay, it's the play.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.