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.

Scotsman

Standard bunkers for which models exist

Recommended Posts

tater

Part of my sort of random statements on MSPs is also not understanding what the possible rules are that already exist. I started a thread a while ago, but it got derailed. It was about “what was easily possible.” And really I meant global things that something like a cfg could alter. Such easy (editing a couple constants) changes seem like they would be easy to test on intermission, or even live play.

Share this post


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

Another dumb PPO idea with something we already have. We have trucks. How about a truck nice looking, or a wreck) as a PPO? If PPOs can get a damage state, then place them nice looking, damaged they turn to wreck. Either blocks traffic. This can at least make the towns more inf friendly vs tanks in town. Make the placing unit for them---another truck. This limits the offensive griefing. Wrecks are a double-edged sword, too, they block traffic, but also provide cover for ei.

Already have my eye of a wrecked civilian car for placement inside towns only. They really arent an obstacle to armor...but they do provide small arms cover and can channel an approach. I'm a former mechanized infantryman guys. I have a pretty good idea of what is needed for a good defense, or offense in or out of urban areas. I've done it 'for real.'

You won't get mines this round but you will likely get  progression of things useful for both attack and defense. I'd love to do flame weapons and churchill crocs and the like but you will likely get WP grenades and ammunition before anything like that. My focus has always been on what can be done quickly to enhance the fun and game play. Not my job to tell you how to use it...

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

*** It is really hard to create a ZOC right now

It's actually basically impossible if any air are about.

One bomb destroys like every PPO in 100m radius.

 

That will not likely be the case with some of the new objects...its actually pretty hard to destroy a trenchline with bombs. You can put a hole in them and a crater but it doesn't effect the rest of the trench if its properly built with angles. I can tell you that on the trenches you will get sections of various angles to allow you to construct what you want....and there are also some cover elements planned that will make air spotting a bit more challenging. Unconcealed fighting positions are truely 'hasty'...and camo and overhead cover are always the first things done after a position is constructed. 

Thats where tier ppo might come in. Takes longer to build that 'from scratch' but right now the way things are going you will be able to add to things already built...so someone can work cover and concealment during or after construction is complete. You likely won't get it all at once...so expect tiered and series improvement as time progresses with more and more options provided. (all of them - structures, field expedients, cover and concealment, etc) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Already have my eye of a wrecked civilian car for placement inside towns only. They really arent an obstacle to armor...but they do provide small arms cover and can channel an approach. I'm a former mechanized infantryman guys. I have a pretty good idea of what is needed for a good defense, or offense in or out of urban areas. I've done it 'for real.'

Yeah, I figured that it might be unrealistic (armor could drive over it, or push it aside), but there are other unrealistic things in ww2ol, this would be nothing new.

What about a PPO that requires a ruin state? Texture looks like the ruin piles we have, but maybe includes a large wall or a beam, or something that could block armor. Placement rule would allow it to be placed ON the rubble, but the object extent is into the road. The i-beam/wall/whatever would function like the X tank trap bits to prevent vehicles from passing/crossing.

Of course some of the smaller bunker/pillbox/revetment/emplacement/whatever we call them for ATGs can make cities far, far more dangerous for armor than they are currently. One benefit of more survivable ATG emplacements is that the sappers could eventually go away or become more rare, leaving the AT role to ATGs.

Another spitballing idea (this one for the tankers, sort of).

ATG emplacements function as resupply---but that's not good for tankers! Right. ATGs then have their ammo massively curtailed. ATGs operating in emplaced positions? Loads of ammo. ATGs driving around the countryside as silent tank destroyers? Not so much. What if the emplacements (bunkers?) are also MSPs. One thing I have suggested before are MSPs that have a small spawn list, and a LONG resupply timer (hours, so that they are effectively a finite number of men). So the bunkers might have a squad of inf, or even just 3 rifles and an SMG. ATG emplacements? A couple rifles?

Emplacements (I'm gonna use this for things that you might even imagine on attack, sandbags, logs, dirt, rubble, etc) that have this capability spread out the spawning over a larger ZOC/front. This mitigates the current ant-trail thing we have going on.

Share this post


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

Yeah, I figured that it might be unrealistic (armor could drive over it, or push it aside), but there are other unrealistic things in ww2ol, this would be nothing new.

What about a PPO that requires a ruin state? Texture looks like the ruin piles we have, but maybe includes a large wall or a beam, or something that could block armor. Placement rule would allow it to be placed ON the rubble, but the object extent is into the road. The i-beam/wall/whatever would function like the X tank trap bits to prevent vehicles from passing/crossing.

Of course some of the smaller bunker/pillbox/revetment/emplacement/whatever we call them for ATGs can make cities far, far more dangerous for armor than they are currently. One benefit of more survivable ATG emplacements is that the sappers could eventually go away or become more rare, leaving the AT role to ATGs.

Another spitballing idea (this one for the tankers, sort of).

ATG emplacements function as resupply---but that's not good for tankers! Right. ATGs then have their ammo massively curtailed. ATGs operating in emplaced positions? Loads of ammo. ATGs driving around the countryside as silent tank destroyers? Not so much. What if the emplacements (bunkers?) are also MSPs. One thing I have suggested before are MSPs that have a small spawn list, and a LONG resupply timer (hours, so that they are effectively a finite number of men). So the bunkers might have a squad of inf, or even just 3 rifles and an SMG. ATG emplacements? A couple rifles?

Emplacements (I'm gonna use this for things that you might even imagine on attack, sandbags, logs, dirt, rubble, etc) that have this capability spread out the spawning over a larger ZOC/front. This mitigates the current ant-trail thing we have going on.

Crawl walk run...already looking at lots of things but the first up is what I can do quickly. as I said before you will likely see a progression of things added to the encyclopedia...but I think even the first volume will change things quite a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

Oh, agree, this isn't "pushing" it was just a place to put ideas I have where they can be found if they differ from ideas you and others have already had.

In general I think you are right, PPOs are a way to leverage what already exists. 10-20 years ago tracking them was probably a nightmare, these days does it matter really? Seems like the ability to "build" could really change things up, I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quincannon
On 11/17/2019 at 3:12 PM, tater said:

Oh, agree, this isn't "pushing" it was just a place to put ideas I have where they can be found if they differ from ideas you and others have already had.

In general I think you are right, PPOs are a way to leverage what already exists. 10-20 years ago tracking them was probably a nightmare, these days does it matter really? Seems like the ability to "build" could really change things up, I agree.

Actually, the servers will still have to track every PPO placed by every player in one way or another. They all have timers on them for one thing.
I personally, am just very grateful for all the work Scotsman and his team are doing, and for the heads up peek at the Work in progress.

S!S!S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrAnit

@ScotsmanAny update you can provide  on new PPOs?

Share this post


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

Actually, the servers will still have to track every PPO placed by every player in one way or another. They all have timers on them for one thing.\

This is self-evidently true. The point is that computing power is substantially more powerful (on the server end), and the available bandwidth to push that data to and from the client systems is also far greater. As a result, I imagine that it's not nearly as limiting as it was 10-20 years ago in this regard.

Share this post


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

This is self-evidently true. The point is that computing power is substantially more powerful (on the server end), and the available bandwidth to push that data to and from the client systems is also far greater. As a result, I imagine that it's not nearly as limiting as it was 10-20 years ago in this regard.

Tue, but it also involves exponential tracking/updating which hits resource constraints in databases and rapid fetching at our neartime feedback.  A lot of the limits are likely more software then hardware, we could be 10 years plus behind on memory buffers alone.  Data arrays also are probably very commodity rather then the sort of thing we would use at work with multiple paths, all SSDs and 90 GB+ predictive caches.

It's all got to line up and not have a bottleneck anywhere or any effort/money spent can be wasted on disappointing results.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's all got to line up and not have a bottleneck anywhere or any effort/money spent can be wasted on disappointing results.

Yeah, true. I suppose I should have added "theoretically" to what I said above about compute and bandwidth capability being less limiting. :D

Regardless, the game has a bunch of PPOs now, and things like foxholes are possibly huge in number (all inf can make them), vs the engie-only PPOs, which are limited at the very least by the number of engies at some level.

Most of the engie PPOs are pretty awful/useless, too. As an aside, I spawned a rifle the other day at an fms and an ET was rumbling close, I didn't move, I just despawned to grab an ATG---and the FMS was walled in with sandbags (hadn't noticed facing the FMS), making my ability to move the ATG to a spot where I could avoid getting murdered by the ET and get a shot (in his side, as he passed at well under 100m) not a thing. While I tired to worm my way between the bag walls I of course got killed, FMS camped, etc. So useful.

Share this post


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

Yeah, true. I suppose I should have added "theoretically" to what I said above about compute and bandwidth capability being less limiting. :D

Regardless, the game has a bunch of PPOs now, and things like foxholes are possibly huge in number (all inf can make them), vs the engie-only PPOs, which are limited at the very least by the number of engies at some level.

Most of the engie PPOs are pretty awful/useless, too. As an aside, I spawned a rifle the other day at an fms and an ET was rumbling close, I didn't move, I just despawned to grab an ATG---and the FMS was walled in with sandbags (hadn't noticed facing the FMS), making my ability to move the ATG to a spot where I could avoid getting murdered by the ET and get a shot (in his side, as he passed at well under 100m) not a thing. While I tired to worm my way between the bag walls I of course got killed, FMS camped, etc. So useful.

Unfortunately, the FMSs have a catch 22. They can be easily camped.  BUT, they stand a better chance if some folks spawning in reinforce them. to provide defense and cover for troops spawning in. On the other hand. ATGs that spawn in need some room to do their thing. Personally, if I can, I reinforce them, but try to leave some room for ATGs to get out as well. I'm hoping that at some point, Engineers can get berm like defenses that we can build so that  when we the very reinforcements we build to help defend the FMss don't turn out to be the reason that they get spotted. Some sort of camouflaged defenses, such as a berm, could, IMO, prove very useful in the future for FMS protection.

Share this post


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

Unfortunately, the FMSs have a catch 22. They can be easily camped.  BUT, they stand a better chance if some folks spawning in reinforce them. to provide defense and cover for troops spawning in. On the other hand. ATGs that spawn in need some room to do their thing. Personally, if I can, I reinforce them, but try to leave some room for ATGs to get out as well. I'm hoping that at some point, Engineers can get berm like defenses that we can build so that  when we the very reinforcements we build to help defend the FMss don't turn out to be the reason that they get spotted. Some sort of camouflaged defenses, such as a berm, could, IMO, prove very useful in the future for FMS protection.

The current PPOs don't really help, IMO. An EFMS that is spotted is dead. Sandbags might as well be smoke, IMO.

The PPOs being considered in this thread could I suppose replace some of the current ones. You are right on the berms, and or other camo. I'm all for FMS (if there were better placement rules so not in rear areas). If FMS were placed with an eye towards "front" (target direction), then if anyone is behind them they deserve to be camped, they are no longer at the front. I think I'd prefer a different MSP for AAA/ATG and for inf. I think inf MSPs should be a line of the foxhole objects, and inf spawn in prone, facing the front, and randomized among the X foxholes in the line (just like you spawn at random places within a depot, or different barracks, etc).

I think "reinforcing" FMS would make more sense in urban settings (visually given sandbags, etc), and there should be an urban version of the FMS more appropriate for that setting (visually). 

Share this post


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

The current PPOs don't really help, IMO. An EFMS that is spotted is dead. Sandbags might as well be smoke, IMO.

The PPOs being considered in this thread could I suppose replace some of the current ones. You are right on the berms, and or other camo. I'm all for FMS (if there were better placement rules so not in rear areas). If FMS were placed with an eye towards "front" (target direction), then if anyone is behind them they deserve to be camped, they are no longer at the front. I think I'd prefer a different MSP for AAA/ATG and for inf. I think inf MSPs should be a line of the foxhole objects, and inf spawn in prone, facing the front, and randomized among the X foxholes in the line (just like you spawn at random places within a depot, or different barracks, etc).

I think "reinforcing" FMS would make more sense in urban settings (visually given sandbags, etc), and there should be an urban version of the FMS more appropriate for that setting (visually). 

We will just have to agree to disagree. I think that everyone has their own ideas of what would constitute the optimum, 'dream' scenario for  mobile spawns, and very few of us would find common ground. At this point, the only ones that I'm going to concern myself with are the ones that actually exist. Heck my own thoughts for reinforcing them are complete pipe dreams unless CRS decides  on something along those lines.

As far as using the existing reinforcements, sometimes they can extend the life of an FMS, and allow  players to spawn in that otherwise might not have the chance. It can also tie up enemies who would be otherwise engaged; so I don;t consider the effort wasted.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scotsman

I’ve been out of town but everything was going ok when I last checked. Once done it will be up to Xoom to schedule the release. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

Another dumb PPO idea that might have been mentioned.

Take an existing building rubble object. Take a chunk of the rubble. Make that a PPO that can be placed on top of rubble. Can allow climbing in some places, additional cover, masking ATG, etc.

Another idea. Some PPO specifically designed for ATG and AAA guns, then allow the guns to place it. Some could be sort of grass/bush colored, others could be like the rubble idea for urban areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

This really belongs here since @Scotsman had asked for novel PPO ideas.

Along the lines of "easy" PPO infill with real gameplay impact:

A ramp. The ramp is just a board, basically a copy of the one in the trenches, maybe longer/taller? Not tall enough to cross AB wall, though maybe you could shoot over it (seems like suicide to me). It could be set to have a fairly short time out (all inf could place them, so the board falls to the ground (disappears), next inf is assumed to pick it up as needed (boards are all over, lol).

The goal here is access to places we can't go, and even an abstraction of climbing obstacles that we obviously lack. There are some walls we have, for example, where we are boxed in (the one row of buildings has the L shaped wall against that lighter colored building). You could place a ramp and go over that wall. Knowing that such a thing exists, new building designs could make areas people cannot reach in their ruined states—but they can with a ramp. It means you could make row houses with walled gardens in the back. Dead ends—unless you place a ramp.

Moving through those areas then becomes possible, but it's SLOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
On 11/30/2019 at 5:47 PM, Quincannon said:

Unfortunately, the FMSs have a catch 22. They can be easily camped.  BUT, they stand a better chance if some folks spawning in reinforce them. to provide defense and cover for troops spawning in. On the other hand. ATGs that spawn in need some room to do their thing. Personally, if I can, I reinforce them, but try to leave some room for ATGs to get out as well. I'm hoping that at some point, Engineers can get berm like defenses that we can build so that  when we the very reinforcements we build to help defend the FMss don't turn out to be the reason that they get spotted. Some sort of camouflaged defenses, such as a berm, could, IMO, prove very useful in the future for FMS protection.

Like most mechanisms in the game, we don't have enough people normally to work like that, and it would all be fine if we had a reasonable number of people to create density to defend the FMS/rally point AND attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

BTW, I suggested doors, window blocking PPOs, sandbags for inside buildings (at crouching height) for windows, etc., up the thread.

These PPOs that limit access to structures could all have pretty fast timeouts, then they disappear. 10 minutes? Less? So yeah, you can place a door on the CP, and the enemy has to blow the door to get in (or as I suggested maybe even stabbing it a few times works), but after a few minutes it just disappears, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus

Ladders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

Gophur once said in the Design/Beta Forum that ladders and climbing were in development and almost ready.

My inference was that just the animations were yet to be done.

I wonder what happened to that work.

Share this post


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

Ladders

Yeah, that could work, but for small walls that are about head tall, a board would work fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
On 6/23/2020 at 2:49 AM, jwilly said:

Gophur once said in the Design/Beta Forum that ladders and climbing were in development and almost ready.

My inference was that just the animations were yet to be done.

I wonder what happened to that work.

Wow, that would be huge. It would really impact possible town improvements, because areas could be "safe" unless climbed into. It simultaneously makes this more open, but slower, perhaps. Of course it depends on what height is climbable. Hopping a short stone wall is trivial, climbing over a man height wall in gear less so.

Related to the infantry "ramp PPO" I have suggested (fairly quick deploy time, and expires on it's own after some number of seconds), maybe there could be a ramp PPO for armor? Designed for the sort of short obstacles tanks could drive over/through. Also expires quickly—it's an abstraction of an ability we don't have. Each armor unit could have a custom one based on their ability to mount obstacles. ACs don't get any at all, but tracks do. Tank approaches wall, places PPO, carefully drives up ramp and tips down to drive off the other side (would need to be tested vs tipping). The PPO might be allowed to clip if needed (so the tank has a ramp both sides). PPO expires soon after tank crosses—some number of seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tr6al

We actually have ladders already on guard towers (that no one uses BTW) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
On 6/23/2020 at 4:49 AM, jwilly said:

Gophur once said in the Design/Beta Forum that ladders and climbing were in development and almost ready.

The context at the time was 1/2 the replacement for the original prone tree-climbing that went away when the trees went to SpeedTree, and 1/2 actual ladders...which at the time was said to include both ladders that were part of building/object models, and assault ladders that would arrive carried by a specialized assault infantryman/engineer, who would deploy the ladder and stand beside it while it was deployed.

Infantry were to have a new movement-animation, with hand/arm movement as if grabbing rungs or tree elements while climbing up/down; corresponding foot/leg movement; and upward/downward movement speed coordinated with the ladder-rung rate.

Jumping-down height without crippling injury was to be significantly limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...