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.

blggles

Persistent PPO Poll

Persistent PPO Poll  

20 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

blggles

I really like the idea of making player works more persistent and think it could be a great and immersive addition to the game, especially with the incoming trenches and the ability to link PPOs, and so wanted to see how the community felt. The idea in question is in this thread: http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/426459-ppo-defense-degradation-rate/.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

To start with, you could just propose to increase their current lifetime. QA probably needs to test to find an optimum between expectations and performance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Yes, just find a good time or easier way to refresh (say if you are within 500m of PPO its timer resets).

That way if you prep a town, and come back every couple hours and spawn in - all your PPOs will be reset.

But, once you log off, if no AO goes there, they'll eventually all go away.

So, you can keep your nice PPO setup active as long as you are online easily.

Hard to say what a good time would be, would think 6 hours is more than enough.  Most players don't stay online that long, do they?  Then wouldn't even need a refresh method.  But if PPOs were only 2 hours, may need an easy way to refresh all the PPOs timers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

We also need persistent MSPs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles
6 hours ago, delems said:

Yes, just find a good time or easier way to refresh (say if you are within 500m of PPO its timer resets).

That way if you prep a town, and come back every couple hours and spawn in - all your PPOs will be reset.

But, once you log off, if no AO goes there, they'll eventually all go away.

So, you can keep your nice PPO setup active as long as you are online easily.

Hard to say what a good time would be, would think 6 hours is more than enough.  Most players don't stay online that long, do they?  Then wouldn't even need a refresh method.  But if PPOs were only 2 hours, may need an easy way to refresh all the PPOs timers.

To the same effect, perhaps a /refresh Amiens etc. command for HC wouldn't be too hard. Might even have an extended timer.  Could start limited and gradually scaled up - 1 town, 2 towns, 3 . . . - if there were concerns with performance. Something to use at crucial towns. Then a player who likes to build, and does it well, to the good of both team and game, may see their work bear fruit, even if they can't play for long periods. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

(brainstorming)

if PPOs were drawn on the map, we could allow HC to remove some manually. That would help against griefing but also with performances if it becomes an issue 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles

That sounds good to me. Client has local PPO info after all. Though I wouldn't know how much coding, and/or production work, it would take to render them in a distinguishing fashion, and allow them to be erased. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
42 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

(brainstorming)

if PPOs were drawn on the map, we could allow HC to remove some manually. That would help against griefing but also with performances if it becomes an issue 

Can't a friendly engineer or sapper already blow them up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

The idea of persistant PPO's, perhaps in key towns nominated by HC's, was an almost off-the-cuff idea which Biggles picked up on. After further thought, it might have a secondary effect, ie removing the need for the long almost boccage hedge-lines without colliders which ruined the armour game, and made ATG screens virtually impossible with the infamous "Vietnam" patch 1.26. The fact that I can still recall the patch number years later should give some indication  as what a game-damaging patch that was!

The other possible wrinkle that might be considered is PPO's which last for the duration on an AO. These would be particularly important for attacking infantry as they close with the town....

Share this post


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

The idea of persistant PPO's, perhaps in key towns nominated by HC's, was an almost off-the-cuff idea which Biggles picked up on. After further thought, it might have a secondary effect, ie removing the need for the long almost boccage hedge-lines without colliders which ruined the armour game, and made ATG screens virtually impossible with the infamous "Vietnam" patch 1.26. The fact that I can still recall the patch number years later should give some indication  as what a game-damaging patch that was!

The other possible wrinkle that might be considered is PPO's which last for the duration on an AO. These would be particularly important for attacking infantry as they close with the town....

many have forgotten how much the gameplay experience was impacted by that change of vegetation, indeed. But we are aware of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Don't require HC to do anything, way to limiting (how do you know will be on, will be responsive) and doesn't empower players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles

Having HC designate a level of persistence wouldn't take anything away from players. They can still lay'em down as they see fit, and it doesn't mean you couldn't increase the endurance time of the average PPO at the same time, if the game can handle it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gervleth

Would love to see this added into the game at some point along with pontoon bridges :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
On 02/06/2020 at 4:29 PM, delems said:

Don't require HC to do anything, way to limiting (how do you know will be on, will be responsive) and doesn't empower players.

I think persistent PPO's, at least initially, need to exist in a limited number of towns, and HC is ideally placed to nominate which those towns are. The reason for this limitation is that if, for unrelated reasons, the front becomes more static than normal, then were all PPO's persistent, it logically follows that this condition of a static front would become increasingly hard to move out of, as more and more frontline towns were increasingly heavily fortified.

So, in my estimate, it would be sensible to limit the number of towns where persistent PPO's can exist; at least until the gameplay feedback suggests otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

just increasing the life timer to 72 hours could provide some kind of persistence, and allow pre-build fortifications in case the frontline advances there. Just need a volunteer to patrol once every 3 days. typically a squad duty :)

 

not sure how many the server can handle though, I think there is a limit per tile.  nor what happens the limit is reached and its impact of performances. @OLDZEKE could tell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

 

On 02/06/2020 at 3:28 PM, ZEBBEEE said:

many have forgotten how much the gameplay experience was impacted by that change of vegetation, indeed. But we are aware of this.

Truly. It completely dumbed-down the armour game, as you now had armoured-cars and trucks able to cross 12' hedge-lines at break-neck speed to flank enemy forces, severely shortening typical engagement ranges for armour. It also "helped" to make towns much more porous to attacking infantry, a consequence of which was making ATG screens completely pointless, so easily could EI penetrate such screens. Before 1.26 one had to win the armour-game, before there was much scope for inserting infantry into town.

I can quite see how the earlier rats fell into this trap, as initially more visual cover could not be supported by the graphics cards of the day could handle. That morphed into better gfx cards can handle more cover, therefore more and more cover must also be better. Which is of course fallacious. Although it "looked better", the effects on the game were grieviously counter-productive.

In my estimate we need a range of different types and positions of cover, so that some towns are easily penetrated with attacking ei, and some the reverse. Above all, there should be a lot less visual cover for tanks, less in general for ei, and a change in collider types, to whit: "movement colliders" of different types to prevent an obstacle crossing if it's on foot, and/or a wheeled vehicle, and/or fully tracked. Also "fire colliders" capable of providing cover from small-arms fire, and or non HE fire, etc.

Share this post


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

I think the new PPO's look jarring and not in keeping with the current PPO graphic style.

I also think indefinite lifetime on ppo is probably the most troublesome proposal. 

It's already bad enough getting boxed into your own AB with friendly PPO, now imagine sandbag and tank trap setups on every AO approach which are remnants of an attack 5 days ago... I don't care if there's a realistic aspect to it, this is a game, and its going to suck.

The only thing I can think of is having HC set objectives for persistant PPO. that's the only way I can see it not being completely ridiculous

Edited by saffroli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OLDZEKE
2 hours ago, ZEBBEEE said:

just increasing the life timer to 72 hours could provide some kind of persistence, and allow pre-build fortifications in case the frontline advances there. Just need a volunteer to patrol once every 3 days. typically a squad duty :)

 

not sure how many the server can handle though, I think there is a limit per tile.  nor what happens the limit is reached and its impact of performances. @OLDZEKE could tell

Basicly, best as I can find out ATM, the only limit on number would be what your machine can handle before it just bogs down. But remember that everything you place into your view  has to be drawn by your machine, it all adds up. As to server resources and STO I don't know. Server side is out of my knowledge. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, saffroli said:

I think the new PPO's look jarring and not in keeping with the current PPO graphic style.

I also think indefinite lifetime on ppo is probably the most troublesome proposal. 

It's already bad enough getting boxed into your own AB with friendly PPO, now imagine sandbag and tank trap setups on every AO approach which are remnants of an attack 5 days ago... I don't care if there's a realistic aspect to it, this is a game, and its going to suck.

The only thing I can think of is having HC set objectives for persistant PPO. that's the only way I can see it not being completely ridiculous

I confess I've not yet managed to try the new PPO's, but if "friendly" PPO's are materially constraining movement of friendly forces out from an AB, then there's self-evidently a problem that needs addressing, and promptly, before persistent PPO's can be implemented. There seems to be some agreement now as this being limited to a few towns, rather than across the map, with normal degradation rates of defense-works operating in the majority of towns.

I think there needs to be some dynamic whereby friendly forces can destroy ill-considered PPO's, but this needs to be some form of collective decision of many players (especially in a fortified town), rather than a single one, because of the regrettable possibility of a griefer destroying defenses prior to his attacking the town with now reduced defenses. An alternative to the collective decision approach would be a decision by a player of superior rank to the person who placed the PPO.

Clearly there's a balance to be struck here between PC performance, total number of PPO's allowable and total number of towns capable of being "fortified" with persistent defenses.

If it's done right, then isolating a fortified town may be a better prospect than trying to attack it head-on.

On the other hand, there are situations which should result in difficulty moving vehicles through a town or city, to whit, if it has been bombed heavily, (look at Caen after the bomber-raids in '44) In theory, a lot of defensive works would rightly have a similar effect. What needs to be scotched though, is the situation whereby all possible exits from an AB are closed due to "friendly" or indeed enemy PPO's. Lots to think about I  think. Although I'm in favour of the notion of fortified towns, I'd suggest we're not quite ready for this, until the griefing or clueless application of PPO's is dealt with.

Edited by fidd

Share this post


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

Satchels and bombs from friendlies do destroy friendly PPOs btw.

The ability for HC to distinguish between what stays, and what is left to vanish, with specificity would be handy. Though it would be a bit much to have to run out and review each position.  Perhaps non-griefing players could be designated, or earn the right to have their works remain.

Edited by blggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

I like current timeout and persistence with AO/DO.  AO/DO comes off, timer starts on timeout/autoremove as though they had just been placed.  That way the AO can come back in an hour and everyone's handiwork is still there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles

Keeping them up with the AO, so they don't disappear inconveniently, is certainly logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

I don't think linking them to AO's is the right answer. It's basically a truism, that by the time an AO is placed, a town is usually invested by MSP's and EI, so the hope of an engineer, or even several of them, to put in place a meaningful set of fortifications in that situation is frankly laughable. They may be able to build a handful of strong-points for short-term use.

The whole point of persistent PPO's in "fortified" towns is to allow the HC's to build, in cooperation with players a degree of extra - and variable - resilience to the town, and to give the enemy - from time to time - a new set of problems to cope with, rather than the same old people taking the same old MSP's to the same positions in the same towns.

But, owing to the time it takes to put meaningful fortitications in place, this is really a "behind the lines" job, well before the town is AO'd. Consider fortifying Antwerp or Koln. It'd take days of efforts by many players, even with persistent PPO's, to do it well. In practice, I think persistent PPO's would arise from initially separate strong-points being linked progressively over time. 

I do however like the idea of a the degradation rate of non-persistent defenses having situations where the degradation timer is "stalled".

I would suggest that if a town is AO'd the timers of all PPO's, regardless of the side who put them there, are stalled unless manually blown up.

And they don't restart until the town is no longer AO'd, and all the FB's to it are held by friendlies. Only then would the 3 hour timer (or whatever it is)  recommence. A further AO before the 3 hour mark would reset the timer's to 3 hours.

That might be the best way of getting rid of PPO's that would need to be tracked by players pc's, whilst keeping them relevant if there's active fighting in that area?

Some thought will need to be given to aircraft, as it's foreseeable that fortified towns could become tricky in terms of frame-rate for pilots. I would suggest that if an aircraft is in the air, then certain classes of PPO are disregarded and not rendered by the players front-end to mitigate this. Specifically wire, and possibly fox-holes (as opposed to trenches)  Once an aircraft is on the ground, wire - and it's colliders would be rendered. Which might lead to some fun with denying airfields with wire. Personally I'd like to see an airfield specific "crater" (and collider) caused by sappers, engineers or bombs, which would only occur on the airfield "square", and which would provide an obstacle to landing or takeoff. A 3 hour timer would be sensible here, but it could be higher...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...