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.

Jsilec

Is it boring?

Recommended Posts

shi50

Im a long time allied player returning after several year hiatus (which thank you crs and the welcome back soldier event). I left the game for two primary reasons  #1: rambo lmg and #2: lowpop rolls in tz3 for both sides.  I was hoping to see that these problems were resolved and while there have been several positive changes to game mechanics it still kills me to log in every day to see double digit towns lost and makes it very hard to continue to play. I love this game, its probably the best concept ever made, but its utter frustration to log in and see how much can be lost in such a short period. Im thankful for the friends that I have made in game and thats the one thing that does keep me logging in! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gridiron

I've resubbed a few weeks ago but I find the tz3 rolls so uninteresting and boring that it does not excite me to really put anytime into the game...so many of us are way beyond thinking it as a boycott.

Many friends have left the game due to teamwork disintegration due to  logging in and seeing 4th down 10...4th and 20...4th and 30...night after night...map after map most of the campaigns...but if 2/3 of the player base is having fun then I have no right to complain...The game is so much more when it's competitive.... 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dustyhc

We could rename it Bataan Online. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** night after night...map after map most of the campaigns...

Interesting, last 12 maps have been 5-5-2.

Last 72 have been 35-33-4.

Seems pretty even to me?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gridiron
Posted (edited)

Yes the stats do say that but underneath those figures is the fact a lot of these maps are played with wholesale theft of territory for both sides in a tz that doesn't need much team work.  If people like to play 5-2 pickup games at that hour...and say we got the win now our all-time win percentage is X%...Well this is the league to play in...I prefer a real game not just the one where the ringers decide which side to play each map.

Edited by gridiron
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Yes the stats do say that but underneath those figures is the fact a lot of these maps are played with wholesale theft of territory for both sides in a tz that doesn't need much team work.  If people like to play 5-2 pickup games at that hour...and say we got the win now our all-time win percentage is X%...Well this is the league to play in...I prefer a real game not just the one where the ringers decide which side to play each map.

when me and Saffroli were testing on Training server it was in TZ3. we both went axis and allied side at the same time so we could test things. guess what ? 5+ allied players were AOing town by town and capping them to cut off towns in the Zees. those ppl normally play allied side ... 1 of them was even AHC and kept placing AO like on Comstrijen and Dordrecht

could have been 5 more players for allies on campaign server ...

btw mostly in TZ3 the numbers are fine and it should be posibble for allies to hold the line ... but allied players prefer to jump in a tank or plane

every day mostly it looks like:

  • 3 allied infantry
  • 6 allied tanks
  • 4 allied planes

no wonder you guys keep losing ground

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE
20 hours ago, delems said:

With 7+ minute capture timers, literally impossible to take a town, UNLESS you have 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 odds.

timers were not changed.

1 solo player can cap in 240sec (120sec if extreme lowpop, 360sec if extreme high pop).

2 players cap in only 120sec (60 - 180)

3 players in 90sec (45 - 135)

4 players in 80sec (40 - 120)

5 players in 70sec (35 - 105)

6+ players in 60sec (30 - 90)

so, if an overpop side can't manage to put AT LEAST 2 guys in a flag and just hold it for 3 minutes, then these settings are definitely good because it would otherwise become unfair for the underpoped side.

I've spent some hours in a flying cam to observe battles in different timezones. Since the new timers, I witnessed much more teamwork on capture in both timezones, most of the time seeing at least pairs of cappers, on both over- and underpop sides. 

Regarding balance, when I see this on map during lowpop I ask myself "why do people go on the overpop side if they have no one to shoot at?". How many would leave if they were forced on the underpoped defense? Yes this is business critical, but this is also player-driven.
897fa919992311e10a9b1dd57067dffe.png

But we still see nice long lasting battles where underpop holds strong for hours. I noticed this typically happens in towns where depots are stretched further out of towns and where the buildings are more concentrated around the roads, creating killing zones. So the environment, and thus the origin-target configuration, could help in that regard:

sshot.png

I however also observe a lack of organization and communication on the allied side, where most of the greentags land. I don't see HC take the lead, squads recruiting players on discord, players create new squads or fuse old ones... Axis are definitely more efficient in that regard. Since this is a player driven game CRS cannot do much about it, except work on better teamwork tools,  but which will ultimately favor those taking initiatives anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** timers were not changed.

I've timed them multiple times, they have changed.

I'll time it again to be sure, though I don't need to.

Maybe put these timers in the WWII configuration so we can see what they are set to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorella
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, gridiron said:

Yes the stats do say that but underneath those figures is the fact a lot of these maps are played with wholesale theft of territory for both sides in a tz that doesn't need much team work.  If people like to play 5-2 pickup games at that hour...and say we got the win now our all-time win percentage is X%...Well this is the league to play in...I prefer a real game not just the one where the ringers decide which side to play each map.

if the campaign stats over last 72 are even and if the issue is tz3 rolls have been 'wholesale theft of territory'  AND you credit the wins to only that for both sides (is this really true?) then one must propose solutions like: 
> close the server in tz3
> limit town caps in tz3 to 1, 2, <pick a number that makes the non tz3 players happy> or increase bunker hot timers in tz3 to 20m 30m, 60m  (no worse than SD)
> get more tz3 players all round which is a subset of get more players all round, all the time

tired of ppl painting as bad guyz players or squads that switch sides to 'balance' the game and/or 'cause' campaign rolls and/or specifically tz3 stuff . every player and most squads play differently and play different tzs that suit them. you want balance but you don't want ringers? you want no tz3 rolls but no side-switchers? then we need more players. 

of course, in your mythical 'real game' only the 'best' side would cap with 'teamwork'  in a perfectly balanced tz. doesn't happen that way. never has. dream on. current campaign is a perfect example - axis capping in all tz's all the time or in prime time, trading cities. few campaigns back - it was allies turn. 

its simple:  game needs more players or at worst a side-balance lock mechanism whilst waiting for the new players. 

Edited by sorella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jsilec
27 minutes ago, sorella said:

if the campaign stats over last 72 are even and if the issue is tz3 rolls have been 'wholesale theft of territory'  AND you credit the wins to only that for both sides (is this really true?) then one must propose solutions like: 
> close the server in tz3
> limit town caps in tz3 to 1, 2, <pick a number that makes the non tz3 players happy> or increase bunker hot timers in tz3 to 20m 30m, 60m  (no worse than SD)
> get more tz3 players all round which is a subset of get more players all round, all the time

tired of ppl painting as bad guyz players or squads that switch sides to 'balance' the game and/or 'cause' campaign rolls and/or specifically tz3 stuff . every player and most squads play differently and play different tzs that suit them. you want balance but you don't want ringers? you want no tz3 rolls but no side-switchers? then we need more players. 

of course, in your mythical 'real game' only the 'best' side would cap with 'teamwork'  in a perfectly balanced tz. doesn't happen that way. never has. dream on. current campaign is a perfect example - axis capping in all tz's all the time or in prime time, trading cities. few campaigns back - it was allies turn. 

its simple:  game needs more players or at worst a side-balance lock mechanism whilst waiting for the new players. 

Your new name is sourella now good luck tonight i hope u dont get shot or something 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silky
12 hours ago, sorella said:

think augetout won 3 and had to leave mid 4th. good guy, hope he's okay. I'll shut up about monashy (do I have the name wrong?) but its all I remember - and it was way more than 5 years ago -  that it stopped what was then the official Axis Breakfast Club. lasted at least 3 campaigns. sw1 was/is awesome to play with/for too in allied tz3. 

yeah, well, its more of a game issue than a side issue - since its so long lasting? time for crs to try something new/radical/different? what could it be? 

Was definitely Monashy’s Block. Made an impact, bringing together the TZ3 allies in way they hadn’t seen since the true ANZAC days 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mike100

To be fair to Sorella and crew, they only left after allied lost six(S I X), one side should NEVER win more than three in a row and that should be really hard. Period. TZ3 shouldn't decide a map, because they have fewer overall players, it's really a no brainer. But it can't be done, ok then players will leave, or pop will never grow. 

Please spare me your turbo rationalisation, like posting the most favourable win stats(how about last 26: 15-8), and i think most truces are axis wins also and most comeback wins. I think last map allieds initially advanced as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorella
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Jsilec said:

Your new name is sourella now good luck tonight i hope u dont get shot or something 

fair enough.  I did get shot too!  last night by the ghost of Monashy. over and over. and - saturday night tz3 till 6am est - no towns flipped. then an axis flood of players. can we somehow narrow the window? 

Edited by sorella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poker
Posted (edited)

Way back when, I was part of the team that held the BC to some degree with the ANZACs and day-time EU lot. We were always outnumbered, but had enough to hold the spawns and AB's long enough to at least slow the roll. I wanted to see if this was still the case and if the problem was more around leadership.

I've just logged in to see the current situation for myself - it's 03.45 server time (11.45 BST) - I did not engage with the game as I wanted to watch independently without being dragged into a battle (thus clouding my observations or leading to some kind of cognitive bias).

In 24 minutes Bavay (from AO being placed) was captured Axis. I saw for myself x4 Axis FMS (+ heard another Opel that I couldn't find), x2 PZ's and a JU87 (plus another Opel being driven in when the town was down to AB).

The Allies had 3 defenders for most of the "defence" (1 of which a green tag). A 4th player logged in when it was down the AB (so could do little but be a target trying to head to the bunker). The Allies also had 1 pilot over town who bombed the spawnable after capture.

All of the above is truth.

 

Edited by Poker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bus0
3 hours ago, mike100 said:

 stats(how about last 26: 15-8)

now now mike please don't make too much sense, you might confuse some folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bus0
7 hours ago, undercova said:
  • 3 allied infantry
  • 6 allied tanks
  • 4 allied planes

no wonder you guys keep losing ground

got to stay diplomatic...

The name of the game is WAR! not a defend a F**KING CP

as too losing ground, just wow, I'm sure having 20% + TOM had nothing to do with it, never mind TZ3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gridiron

Not trying to paint anybody with a bad name...just want to make that clear...no need to play the victim card and by the way I'm not saying I'm a victim just stating how stale the game play is during certain times of the day...tz3 eventually burns out HC that have tried to play at that time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jsilec
26 minutes ago, gridiron said:

Not trying to paint anybody with a bad name...just want to make that clear...no need to play the victim card and by the way I'm not saying I'm a victim just stating how stale the game play is during certain times of the day...tz3 eventually burns out HC that have tried to play at that time...

Grid you been here forever no need to explain that stuff you are being reasonable and some unfortunately cant see past the next empty town to cap

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli

If you want help from others first you have to help yourself. That's just the way of the world.

As I said before. I've seen countless people who are allied players come axis and play TZ3 with us even though, they of all, would surely be the first to log out or switch sides during that period. But they don't.

Zeebee's screenshots show Zanardi from Section 2 there for example. Not singling anyone out, but clear evidence that a veteran allied player will gladly play TZ3 as axis. So it's not a case of "axis are bad sportsmen" at all is it? That's just how you want to paint it.

Anyone allied that comes to axis always makes comments by how good the comms are. Give people more reasons to play allied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
27 minutes ago, saffroli said:

Anyone allied that comes to axis always makes comments by how good the comms are. Give people more reasons to play allied

I have been saying this for years, but guess what everytime I do /did bring it up I get flamed and called names by the usual suspects .

I'm not opposed to go Allied and help , but like I have said once before when a town is under major Attack and one can take 4 screen shots of expanded continously chat and not one is about position of enemy , situation of town or any other comms that would help players in town . Then what is one to do . Point it out and instead of these players going wait he is trying to point out a issue . One gets excuses of that's happening  on Axis side too ( true but it's rare or its one of those odd days where one can tell the player base has other ideas today) but in the end  the player base is ripping into the player here in the forum cause he is an Axis player and he pointed something out.

Like Saffroli said ,one needs to want to help themselfs 1st .

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jsilec
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, saffroli said:

If you want help from others first you have to help yourself. That's just the way of the world.

As I said before. I've seen countless people who are allied players come axis and play TZ3 with us even though, they of all, would surely be the first to log out or switch sides during that period. But they don't.

Zeebee's screenshots show Zanardi from Section 2 there for example. Not singling anyone out, but clear evidence that a veteran allied player will gladly play TZ3 as axis. So it's not a case of "axis are bad sportsmen" at all is it? That's just how you want to paint it.

Anyone allied that comes to axis always makes comments by how good the comms are. Give people more reasons to play allied.

Such bs we (AEF) went axis last year for a map because axis side was in such disarray 3 map losses and lemme tell ya the axis comms were about as bad as could be but we put the games best interests ahead of the normal “comms and organization” slogan...augetout actually wrote a pretty long detailed message to our squad pleading with us to stay allied and we left because it was ridiculous how ugly the axis were....so yes swapping sides can be better for the game as we have done and as whips has done along with many other squads....and next time the game gets bad like that i will bring the squad axis because the game has to have some semblance of balance .....did not require some sort of “self help” to make the decision on swapping either as i see you and dre preaching i mean wtf does that even mean you guys watching too much dr phil 

Edited by Jsilec
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Such bs we (AEF) went axis last year for a map because axis side was in such disarray 3 map losses and lemme tell ya the axis comms were about as bad as could be but we put the games best interests ahead of the normal “comms and organization” slogan...augetout actually wrote a pretty long detailed message to our squad pleading with us to stay allied and we left because it was ridiculous how ugly the axis were....so yes swapping sides can be better for the game as we have done and as whips has done along with many other squads....and next time the game gets bad like that i will bring the squad axis because the game has to have some semblance of balance 

You have a bias, that's the difference. Those coming from allies to axis and staying don't, like slickie1 have said the comms are terrible on allied side. @n8 has also said similar things.

I'm not telling you MY perspective, I'm telling you that of people that [some of which who played allied their whole time on WW2OL] moved into axis and that was their first responses.
My perspective is moot, because I've never played allied, so how the hell would I know? Needless to say I'd have confirmation bias if I went and played allied to study the comms.


As @Mosizlak said in response to @slickie1 when he said axis comms were better - "Allies comms are WORSE than this!? They must be horrendous!" to which slickies response was "They are.."

I think the squad nature of the allied side is still there. Certain things get done by the allies that don't really get done as much by axis, such as constantly bringing new frus to DO's and AO's non-stop even though there's already 10 MSPS on the ice and some how always getting MSP's to AO FB's to backdoor them. But, clearly the public comms are not up to the job. I've known of greedy players that won't mark stuff cos they don't want someone else to get the kills, then die to the unit and there's no mark there and they go on to wreak havoc. Or squad based ops where again, they won't mark stuff cos they want one of their guys to get the kill. And I haven't seen that often, just often enough that I know it exists. Thankfully it seems to have died out on axis side some years ago, but maybe its still a factor for the allied side, I've heard rumours but I'm not the type to jump in on hearsay but food for thought nontheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jsilec

Lol slickie1 is definitely not someone to hang your hat on for a real opinion on conms...slickie1’s comms are “guard my matty ffs ei close to me!!!!” or “My fking sherman got sapped thanks for the cover!!!”....haha i love this place 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Lol slickie1 is definitely not someone to hang your hat on for a real opinion on conms...slickie1’s comms are “guard my matty ffs ei close to me!!!!” or “My fking sherman got sapped thanks for the cover!!!”....haha i love this place 

Sounds like slickie1 is the allied version of me then. He'll fit in well here :)

hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
15 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

Lol slickie1 is definitely not someone to hang your hat on for a real opinion on conms...slickie1’s comms are “guard my matty ffs ei close to me!!!!” or “My fking sherman got sapped thanks for the cover!!!”....haha i love this place 

So who is then? 

You won't take the word from a Axis player , even that you were in one of the most Elite Axis Squads that had a strict Comms protocol that I was later ever part of in game. Makes the discord channels we have look like rookie beginnings. 

I remember the 1st time I ran into SG I tried to talk to SG  over chat bar and there was no response back , sure someone read it but wasn't sure . I think after the 3rd try of trying to get a response back of a danger I was trying to warn them  about , I said F it drive into it . And I moved on .  Not sure if they survived or not but didn't care at that time either.

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...