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.

enemytank

location of the FMS in the mission...

Recommended Posts

enemytank

Would it be possible to find the location of the FMS in the mission on the weapon selection screen?

 

cFWQJy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zippy33
Posted (edited)

Surprisingly, so many ideas would be genuinely helpful if there was no scope for it being misused. As people will consequently point out, this idea has a lot of potential for being misused.

*Log in 2nd account to other side, see where efms is without even having to spawn in, vanish like a fart in the wind, go flank around into perfect spot to camp or take down efms. Voila. Forum riot. New feature reversal.

How many people actually do spy vs the number of perceived spies is a different discussion, but they do exist. It would be a new addition that would make it easier to do the above-stated as opposed to the current mechanism. At present, at least when someone spawns in, and immediately despawns or sits at FMS, it is cause to grow suspicious and stick around and guard it. Could be a newb, afk dude or actual spy, but it can be a warning sign. With what you presented, someone could drop-in, check FMS location, and bail back to their side without any warning.

Hence, no.

Edit: Maybe this can be added if CRS decide to add password protected missions or squad missions. I'd be down for that. Although, previous suggestions of such mission have resulted in them getting their knickers in a twist, so...

Edit edit: Love of the MS Paint skills btw. Certainly better than Chief.

Edit edit edit: Urgh! I called it "MS Paint" like the ancient farts that started this joke on TGTCWTF. Shame!

Edit edit edit edit: To those wondering, no, I am not am crack hoe

Edited by zippy33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
downtown
1 hour ago, zippy33 said:

Surprisingly, so many ideas would be genuinely helpful if there was no scope for it being misused. As people will consequently point out, this idea has a lot of potential for being misused.

*Log in 2nd account to other side, see where efms is without even having to spawn in, vanish like a fart in the wind, go flank around into perfect spot to camp or take down efms. Voila. Forum riot. New feature reversal.

How many people actually do spy vs the number of perceived spies is a different discussion, but they do exist. It would be a new addition that would make it easier to do the above-stated as opposed to the current mechanism. At present, at least when someone spawns in, and immediately despawns or sits at FMS, it is cause to grow suspicious and stick around and guard it. Could be a newb, afk dude or actual spy, but it can be a warning sign. With what you presented, someone could drop-in, check FMS location, and bail back to their side without any warning.

Hence, no.

Edit: Maybe this can be added if CRS decide to add password protected missions or squad missions. I'd be down for that. Although, previous suggestions of such mission have resulted in them getting their knickers in a twist, so...

Edit edit: Love of the MS Paint skills btw. Certainly better than Chief.

Edit edit edit: Urgh! I called it "MS Paint" like the ancient farts that started this joke on TGTCWTF. Shame!

Edit edit edit edit: To those wondering, no, I am not am crack hoe

Ha, they log in now and throw smoke in your FMS, report the coords on Discord and then log back out.  I've reported so many accounts that have errant characters no kills EVER maybe a 50 second TOM in the entire campaign and CRS doesn't do a damn thing about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

The reason why it is not displayed is because some fear it will ease spying.

However the current system can already be abused by someone who really wants to know where enemy FMSs are. 

So we could indeed think about the pros and cons of displaying it on the spawn screen, similarly to what most games do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nc0gnet0
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

The reason why it is not displayed is because some fear it will ease spying.

However the current system can already be abused by someone who really wants to know where enemy FMSs are. 

So we could indeed think about the pros and cons of displaying it on the spawn screen, similarly to what most games do.

No, think about password protecting it so prior to spawning in the user has to pm the mission leader.

 

Remove the default in which a user has to actually uncheck a box NOT to spawn at the FMS, Rather make it so they actually have to navigate and CHECK that box instead. Would prevent a lot of issues with the FMS right there. 

Edited by nc0gnet0
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flong139
Posted (edited)

some just spawn in there 2nd and stay inside the fms and drive there tank near by to camp it why game is gettin [censored]tier

grats stat bastage cheaters

 

Edited by flong139

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorella
4 hours ago, enemytank said:

Would it be possible to find the location of the FMS in the mission on the weapon selection screen?

 

cFWQJy.png

it is already possible, given game mechanics now, if a/the Mission Leader chooses to write Orders describing (say) not only the mission orders, but FMS location. For example for the ? in your image above: 

> fms for west cp cap / 50m north of west road 750m out / cap in teams / mark everything you see or kill <

These mission orders are visible  BEFORE YOU SPAWN IN: 

  • (i) when you select a mission, in your chat bar in green on the weapons selection screen  (Ready Room) 
  • (ii) when you select a mission on the right side of the screen, bottom, on the BRIEFING TAB screen

And ONCE you spawn in: 

  • (iii) top of your hud in yellow assuming default hud and you play with hud on

In the visual example above (Ready Room/ Weapon Selection) any orders would be visible in your chat bar. A further enhancement that could help would be for those/any orders to appear on the screen itself in a noticeable colour, say above or below the:  Mobile Spawn // available toggle box line - say under CURRENT WEAPON - as MISSION ORDERS: <text>. 

Or something. Its a workaround. But it does work, if MLs want it to. 

Share this post


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

it is already possible, given game mechanics now, if a/the Mission Leader chooses to write Orders describing (say) not only the mission orders, but FMS location. For example for the ? in your image above: 

> fms for west cp cap / 50m north of west road 750m out / cap in teams / mark everything you see or kill <

These mission orders are visible  BEFORE YOU SPAWN IN: 

  • (i) when you select a mission, in your chat bar in green on the weapons selection screen  (Ready Room) 
  • (ii) when you select a mission on the right side of the screen, bottom, on the BRIEFING TAB screen

And ONCE you spawn in: 

  • (iii) top of your hud in yellow assuming default hud and you play with hud on

In the visual example above (Ready Room/ Weapon Selection) any orders would be visible in your chat bar. A further enhancement that could help would be for those/any orders to appear on the screen itself in a noticeable colour, say above or below the:  Mobile Spawn // available toggle box line - say under CURRENT WEAPON - as MISSION ORDERS: <text>. 

Or something. Its a workaround. But it does work, if MLs want it to. 

same facility for spies too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles

First thing we do, kill all the spies, then all the lawyers, then all the axis. 

Share this post


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

First thing we do, kill all the spies, then all the lawyers, then all the axis. 

Well put, Shakespeare....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

It's funny what causes people concern.

Showing the FMS is a spying risk, yet we all have too much information about all sorts of things in ww2ol.

Here's the thing, much of ww2ol is too sneaky. Surprise != sneaky, they are different. We lack much if any fog of war in this game.

So yeah, the FMS placements should be on the map, before you spawn. You should be able to PICK what mission you want based on the spawn position on the map, in fact.

Spying? Simple solution: On-sides MSP placement rules.

If we all know that the enemy is coming from, you know, the direction the enemy and his supply lines is actually in, then the FMS exact location is not super important as a top secret. All your other FMS will tend to be in the same rough arc, and if you cannot maintain a ZOC to keep them up, they deserve to go.

As for the fog of war and tactical surprise? Nothing we can do about voice comms, which give people too much information, but the game can certainly limit icons in game, and on the map. Limit the data people are given based on constraints that promote the sort of gameplay we want.

1. Lose the skulls in game, and on the map—certainly past some very short range (50m?). If there are any, they decay within a few seconds. Add them within some distance of a spawn point in the map before you spawn. Players should know what they are getting into at an FMS (they're supposed to already be there, after all).

2. No interservice map sharing or icons at all. Meaning no air<->ground icons or map sharing, as the most common example. You want to bomb that CP, no telling who is in it right now.

3. Add some uncertainty to our personal GPS locations. Perhaps we know the spawn point precisely, but then our position is not centered on the map, perfectly, but instead the map doesn't move at all until we stay still some period of time, or enter a known location? Ie: enter a CP/bunker/FMS/etc, and your map recenters. Units with navigators might have constant positions.

4. Change map icon sharing. One inf spots an ET/FMS/etc, and everyone instantly knows it. Instead of marking the map, and updating everyone's map instantly, have a system that pushes a variant of the current map to all the clients that is edited by the server. This would also be delayed. If I am an infantryman, and I mark an ET, the time for my report to get to a command post, then back to other infantry would be via runners, most likely. One, contact reporting would be generalized. So in some area where I observe the enemy, I place a mark on my map (ET, ei, etc). The server looks at other such reports, and makes a colored circle that the reports within some time period are all inside of that shows enemy activity (with icons for ei/armor/etc). So instead of a point where that ET is hiding, you get a red shading over a large area. The more reports, the darker the shading. The sharing would NOT be instant. It would propagate away from the unit reporting at a walking speed, basically—unless the unit reporting has a radio. Radio units would then share instantly (that radio aerial on the 232 now at least has a plus). Anyone in a CP/Bunker gets instant comms from radio units as well.

5. Related to 2, some units might be specially designated as air/ground or sea/ground comm units. Maybe HC players. Assume they have a radioman following them around. They can then share that with others.

What's the goal? The goal is for attackers to be able to move forward without their assets being GPS marked for easy destruction. They can mark your FMS, but it will just be a several hundred meter diameter circle of red where it might be. It's for defenders to be able to lay an ambush on a likely route of advance, and not have their killing ground telegraphed via skull markers. Cohesion is also a thing. the closer you are to friendlies, the faster your map contacts reach them. FMS placement is limited to the arcs in which the attacking towns/FBs are in, but their exact location is very hard to mark for the enemy, and all the other map icon limitations increase your tactical stealth possibilities, without adding magical teleporters to the enemy's rear.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chry

Very good points Tater...

I agree that MSPs should be dependent on ZOC to stay alive and that comms are too generous, 

default should be mission only except for mission commander and maybe 2OIC and 3OIC who can communicate with next echelon

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

It seems to me that there should be a couple of changes prior to FMS's locations being on the map:

1. 2nd accounts be permitted if "registered" by the player (not unreasonable)

2. Unregistered use of 2nd accounts be against TOS for both accounts, penalties if found to be utilised unregistered to apply to both accounts. This to include use of logins on the same account from different locations. So "lending" a log-in would be the same as using an unregistered account in effect.

3. Software to look for indicators of 2nd account use, such as similar names, greater than usual tows being linked by the same two accounts and so forth, or otherwise statistically unusual play disregarding those where the two accounts are registered as 2nd accounts, with especial concentration on suspect pairs of accounts where one of them changes sides at the beginning of play sessions.

4. Registered accounts be required to be on the same side.

5. Remove smoke and smoke mortars from free accounts of low rank. (no bad thing either!)

If the GM's are able to watch accounts flagged as suspect unregistered 2nd accounts, then observation should give a pretty clear indication of skulduggery.

My feeling is that people are unlikely to play silly-buggers with 2nd accounts if there's a chance of being caught and losing both accounts.

By the measures above, it'd help reduce the perception of likelihood of ill-employed 2nd accounts, which is probably as important as reducing the scope for actual ill-use, which is I think very much smaller.

In short, unless measures are taken to manage the use of 2nd accounts, and the mis-use of free accounts, then we will always be hobbled in this way, which helps no decent player of the game.

MODS. I'm uncertain if this post is itself against TOS - I've been away from the game for a decade or so, if it is, kindly delete.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

I put this in some other thread, but what if we made the FMS have some simple on-sides rule (FMS must deploy within X km of the truck's spawn point?). Then, we add the ability for some units (that can spawn from the FMS) when deployed to allow spawning (there could be a toggle so the player can turn it on if needed, keep it off if it would result in sadness). These MSPs have the ability to deploy closer to town, BTW. Also, they die by getting killed.

Say the HMG

Each HMG when deployed could spawn some support inf. (various inf, not a LMG)

Each ATG/AAA could spawn some support inf (various inf by type of ATG)

The way it would work is like depot or barracks spawning. A player selects a mission with an FMS, and spawns a bofors. Right now, he spawns at the FB/AB, because bofors can't spawn at the FMS—this would be like that. OK, another player spawns at the FMS mission, and spawns a rifle. Rifles can spawn at ALL MSPs, so this particular mission has the FMS, 2 ATGs, 1 AAA, and 1 HMG deployed. The rifle now randomly spawns at the FMS or one of the 4 other deployed units with spawning turned on. It's just like a row of depots, and not knowing which one you will spawn at.

So camping the FMS becomes much harder even though you know roughly what side of town they are on. A griefer can mark the HMG with smoke, but he can always just move (and report the guy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
On 6/1/2020 at 4:54 PM, tater said:

It's funny what causes people concern.

Showing the FMS is a spying risk, yet we all have too much information about all sorts of things in ww2ol.

Here's the thing, much of ww2ol is too sneaky. Surprise != sneaky, they are different. We lack much if any fog of war in this game.

So yeah, the FMS placements should be on the map, before you spawn. You should be able to PICK what mission you want based on the spawn position on the map, in fact.

Spying? Simple solution: On-sides MSP placement rules.

If we all know that the enemy is coming from, you know, the direction the enemy and his supply lines is actually in, then the FMS exact location is not super important as a top secret. All your other FMS will tend to be in the same rough arc, and if you cannot maintain a ZOC to keep them up, they deserve to go.

As for the fog of war and tactical surprise? Nothing we can do about voice comms, which give people too much information, but the game can certainly limit icons in game, and on the map. Limit the data people are given based on constraints that promote the sort of gameplay we want.

1. Lose the skulls in game, and on the map—certainly past some very short range (50m?). If there are any, they decay within a few seconds. Add them within some distance of a spawn point in the map before you spawn. Players should know what they are getting into at an FMS (they're supposed to already be there, after all).

2. No interservice map sharing or icons at all. Meaning no air<->ground icons or map sharing, as the most common example. You want to bomb that CP, no telling who is in it right now.

3. Add some uncertainty to our personal GPS locations. Perhaps we know the spawn point precisely, but then our position is not centered on the map, perfectly, but instead the map doesn't move at all until we stay still some period of time, or enter a known location? Ie: enter a CP/bunker/FMS/etc, and your map recenters. Units with navigators might have constant positions.

4. Change map icon sharing. One inf spots an ET/FMS/etc, and everyone instantly knows it. Instead of marking the map, and updating everyone's map instantly, have a system that pushes a variant of the current map to all the clients that is edited by the server. This would also be delayed. If I am an infantryman, and I mark an ET, the time for my report to get to a command post, then back to other infantry would be via runners, most likely. One, contact reporting would be generalized. So in some area where I observe the enemy, I place a mark on my map (ET, ei, etc). The server looks at other such reports, and makes a colored circle that the reports within some time period are all inside of that shows enemy activity (with icons for ei/armor/etc). So instead of a point where that ET is hiding, you get a red shading over a large area. The more reports, the darker the shading. The sharing would NOT be instant. It would propagate away from the unit reporting at a walking speed, basically—unless the unit reporting has a radio. Radio units would then share instantly (that radio aerial on the 232 now at least has a plus). Anyone in a CP/Bunker gets instant comms from radio units as well.

5. Related to 2, some units might be specially designated as air/ground or sea/ground comm units. Maybe HC players. Assume they have a radioman following them around. They can then share that with others.

What's the goal? The goal is for attackers to be able to move forward without their assets being GPS marked for easy destruction. They can mark your FMS, but it will just be a several hundred meter diameter circle of red where it might be. It's for defenders to be able to lay an ambush on a likely route of advance, and not have their killing ground telegraphed via skull markers. Cohesion is also a thing. the closer you are to friendlies, the faster your map contacts reach them. FMS placement is limited to the arcs in which the attacking towns/FBs are in, but their exact location is very hard to mark for the enemy, and all the other map icon limitations increase your tactical stealth possibilities, without adding magical teleporters to the enemy's rear.

 

Some really first-class thinking there. I particularly agree with the "sneaky" versus "surprise" clarification. I'd love to see the end of behind the lines FMS's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob

gonna agree with downtown, it's one of the few ways to detect cheaters.

however, while hopping between sides (overpop to underpop, basically winning to loosing side) i can tell you: most accusations of spying is just sourness, it's easy to find FMS's. puts the GM's in a tough spot.

Share this post


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

oops

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
1 hour ago, major0noob said:

gonna agree with downtown, it's one of the few ways to detect cheaters.

however, while hopping between sides (overpop to underpop, basically winning to loosing side) i can tell you: most accusations of spying is just sourness, it's easy to find FMS's. puts the GM's in a tough spot.

Cheating WRT FMS is not really a possibility if they are not sneaky, magic teleporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...