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.

fidd

PPO defense degradation rate

Recommended Posts

fidd

I'd like to see a more nuanced approach to this. I gather that currently ATG positions disappear after 30 minutes, unless touched or occupied, and that other features such as "wire" disappear after 3 hours.

First change:

Any player can ask an HC'er to nominate a town or FB as "fortified". Once HC applies this with a command, any fortifications already made, or subsequently made are permanent, until the town changes hands, or until the .fortified (town) command is lifted. In both cases, such defenses commence disappearing 10 minutes after capture, unless the opposing side also then applies a .fortified (town) command to the same town. Of course HE hits on PPO's will cause them to disappear in the normal way.

Second change:

All defenses applied by a single player are permanent provided he is generally in the town or FB. The countdown to PPO's disappearing being held or restated when he respectively stays or leaves that town. This will allow engineers to produce a set of defensive features and then enjoy seeing them in use if that town comes under attack, rather than (as currently) disappear shortly after the enemy take the FB and start arriving at town.

Third changes:

Ability to link defensive items, I would suggest up to 5 times.

Addition of marked, spoof marked, and hidden minefields, of AT or Mixed or anti-personel.

Fourth change:

Friendlies "mouse-hovering" over a PPO can see the name of the player who positioned them, and when (if at all) they will expire. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
undercova

way too complex. every developer/coder would slap you with your proposal paper into the face ! :D

 

make it as simple as possible

  • PPO built => 3 hour timer starts
  • as long as an friendly/enemy unit is nearby/touches it => timer stopped or reset
  • done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
undercova
2 hours ago, fidd said:

....

Fourth change:

Friendlies "mouse-hovering" over a PPO can see the name of the player who positioned them, and when (if at all) they will expire. 

 

 

are you a Roleplayer or what ???

nonsense info no one needs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

(brainstorming)

What about seeing PPOs on map within a 100 meters radius?
This would allow to close parts of the town without frustrating defenders as they would see where to run through. Actually everyone would better plan their moves, especially if vegetation also showed up on the map.

Eventually hoovering your mouse of the PPO would provide some info (e.g. timer before disappearing, player that build it)

Share this post


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

way too complex. every developer/coder would slap you with your proposal paper into the face ! :D

 

make it as simple as possible

  • PPO built => 3 hour timer starts
  • as long as an friendly/enemy unit is nearby/touches it => timer stopped or reset
  • done

I'm thinking what you want is the least server cpu time possible involved with these things, as well as the most gameplay benefit. Keeping a timer stopped or reset based on player position involves checks and cycles, having persistence doesn't. Might need to cap the number, but some sort of persistence might be more cpu economical. As well, such persistence might prove great for gameplay, with more ready, war-like defensive positions to have to go through, something more akin to real than what we have. The PPOs are just never going to realize their full potential without it, building anything effective being much harder when under fire. Its very frustrating to spend some time making defensive positions that go away in full or part by the time the fight arrives, it is very dissuasive to their use. You want players to be happy to invest some time in making the battle field more interesting and various. Frankly, I don't think 3 hours is enough. There ought to be some way for HC to lock them in. At least having HC involved might keep gaminess on the low side. Give's HC more tactical involvement to.

This feels akin to the current situation with the AI in that players aren't allowed to set up clones or whatever for rdy defense even against overwhelming odds, or to man AI positions, yet in this pvp game these little bastages (AI) get to be always out there. So it is with defensive works, they're everywhere, and always the same, yet a player's works disappear. It is frustrating. I say get the heck rid of the current defensive works, and let the player's works persist. And let players place AI and man it, but that's another thread.

Also, the FMS PPO ought to persist, so when you make a mission in a locale, the FMS PPOs in the area show on your map, then you may choose one as a spawn for the mission.

If you ever want the game to play more akin to a real war in the deployment sense - of armies fighting, moving, and redeploying; of ever shifting lines - evolving the FMS and PPO tech, to create such things as mobile FBS, which would obviously include persistence, is the way to go. While that may not be everyone's thing, it is the vision of many players, and a sort of ideal. I just wanted to note that adding persistence to player created positions goes beyond the defensive works themselves, and is one of the essentials for such further gameplay evolution. Something to consider, and something to possibly shoot for.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

I think Biggles makes a good point, making defensive works for a town already - or very shortly to be - under attack is pretty pointless. I also take your point about persistent PPO's being less onerous on the server. On the other hand, as the front moves, if all PPO's well behind the lines are still tracked, then the total number of persistent PPO's could in itself become unwieldly.

So perhaps instead of giving PPO's a finite time they can last before disappearing, the persistence - or degradation should be position-based, rather than time-based. In other words, (say) within 5 links of the front line. So if your side advances a town, the PPO's in the town now 6 links back disappear, and the other side is now able to build persistent defenses one town further back than they were before they lost a town.

That would keep the overall PPO's being tracked as persistent within a tolerable level, whilst giving players time to fortify important or vulnerable towns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
4 hours ago, undercova said:

are you a Roleplayer or what ???

nonsense info no one needs

There are two reasons for doing this. 

1. If defensive PPO's are well done, you can thank the player who did them.

2. If the PPO's are in effect griefing or ill-considered, then the player who positioned them can be trained or otherwise dealt with. The knowledge that PPO's you place will indicate you placed them, will help prevent them being employed for griefing purposes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles
21 hours ago, fidd said:

I think Biggles makes a good point, making defensive works for a town already - or very shortly to be - under attack is pretty pointless. I also take your point about persistent PPO's being less onerous on the server. On the other hand, as the front moves, if all PPO's well behind the lines are still tracked, then the total number of persistent PPO's could in itself become unwieldly.

So perhaps instead of giving PPO's a finite time they can last before disappearing, the persistence - or degradation should be position-based, rather than time-based. In other words, (say) within 5 links of the front line. So if your side advances a town, the PPO's in the town now 6 links back disappear, and the other side is now able to build persistent defenses one town further back than they were before they lost a town.

That would keep the overall PPO's being tracked as persistent within a tolerable level, whilst giving players time to fortify important or vulnerable towns.

Was thinking something similar. Garrisons run two towns deep from the front, seemed logical that persistence might depend on the town being occupied. Including empty towns towns further back though, if not unmanageable, might be much better for when one side has very low numbers, and the other is quickly rolling the map.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

Hmmm. I see these as separate and distinct problems. Fortifying a town won't make a whit of difference if the numbers aren't there to defend it. Management of player numbers is, imho, the single most important nettle which CRS needs to address. Once that occurs, a whole slew of previous issues and interventions will reduce and become more useful respectively.

But in general, I really like the idea of HC'ers being able to nominate a certain number of towns up to (say) 3 links behind the front-line as "fortified" meaning that all PPO's within those towns are persistent until that fortification status is lifted. Some care would be needed in this, in particular potential anti-griefing measures already in place beforehand, such as the notion of 2nd accounts having to be the same nationality and registered with CRS. I would also suggest a long "no engineers or combat-engineers" restriction be placed on players who have recently changed sides. This should help prevent the potential grief of someone using such PPO's in a town or city to slow the defenders ability to react only to attack the same town having changed sides. Further consideration should be that if one sets persistent PPO's, that all those PPO's disappear if you subsequently change sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

PPOs for attack are possible because the attackers know where there will be battle.

Defenders, supposedly in place ina  town, waiting for an attack—they don't get to make defenses, because they only know about attacks after the enemy is effectively in town.

These "defensive" PPOs are in fact exactly backwards in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

Not sure I buy that. Fortifications are usually applied well ahead of time to areas or towns you don't want to lose, or, which you want make very expensive for the enemy to take, or where you want to be able to defend for long enough with minimal troops long enough to get reinforcements there. So there's 3 examples of fortification  ahead of time, for the defense, with reasoning for this.

Attacker's fortifications are, and should be, very very limited. In terms of gameplay, I'd suggest that PPO's for attackers should be limited in types, and not persistant. Opposing trench-systems being pretty rare in WW2. You can pretty much number the occasions this happened on one hand. Indeed I'd venture Stalingrad, Leningrad and some parts of the North Africa Campaign being about the only occasions this happened, that  I can recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...