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.

stump

FBs should not be able to be destroyed if a town is contested

Recommended Posts

stump

The objective of this idea is to keep populations higher and not dismantle battles.

If the point of putting AOs in the game is to concentrate the population and not let a few people take an undefended town, then that concentration needs to be reinforced during said attack.  If a town is enthralled in a heated battle, with multiple depots captured , a few players should not be able to dismantle the entire attack by going and blowing up the FB. 

The argument that it is part of the game really is not valid, and the saying "you should have defended your FBs" does not stand.  If locking the population into a limited amount of attacks exists to ensure bigger battles, which to me, and many people will agree with this, is more fun, then allowing the destruction of forward-bases in the AO of a contested town is counter-productive. 

Say what you want, but that is the truth.  As soon as major attacks are dismantled by this, a lot of the population drops.  Most people that are trying to get into this game and have fun really just want to be in a big battle and not drive around in the wilderness blowing up FBs.  That's why not-so-many people drive out FMS', even less blow up FBs, and even less defend said FBs.

Our number one objective for this game should be increasing the population.  When I started this game was at 3-4 AOs during most of the day.  We need more people.

Edited by stump
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

I got a lot of opinions about this, most negative some positive, but here is a big one- how do you resolve when an AO goes on a town and then an AO is countered back to one of the origin towns of the original AO?  Do FBs flip?  Do both FBs open?  Or are counter AOs blocked from being done?

The business of how FBs are handled in the ruleset count very much, so if you are going to seriously push this you need to think through how this is done and the downstream effects.

Doc's proposal of 'FBs stay down both directions until an AO goes up, then they stay up and aren't able to be destroyed' seems more rational then most schemes, and speaks to Tater's objections about defenses not having time to setup.  Of course, a really dedicated and/or overpop team could drive all the way from attacking towns and be waiting on the AO and place soon as the FBs are up with no audio to suddenly spawning defenders, but that would at least have been extra earned effort.  Anyway, issues like that need to be thought through.

I'll get into the full set of positives and negatives later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

Agreed about many aspects of this, but it's complicated, and tied into all the other problems with the capture paradigm.

The point of FBs was initially to shorten time to battle (truck riding days), and functions still as the "jump off point" in what are presumed to be "the lines" of attacking forces. Like the FMS it's an abstraction of the massing of forces.

Because the the spawn castle nature of everything in ww2ol, it is of course a single point. So it gets blown by being "attacked," and of course, like every other attack in ww2ol that attack can come from every direction, even to the FB's own rear (whatever direction has the best approach to the FB). Just like most "attacks" in ww2ol on towns, the most successful happen when the defenders show up too late—in the case of FBs, usually none show at all, even a single defender can wreck many FB busts. Some will use that as a rationale to "guard the FB," but guarding in ww2ol is AWFUL GAMEPLAY. It is in the bunker, it is in the CPs, it is at a FB. Yeah, eventually they "come to you," but gambling a long chunk of time on that so that eventually you get bored, look at the map, and get killed is annoying. Boring, repetitive work in the modern world should be done by computers, not people ;)  .

That said, I've had some fun fights at FBs, sometimes attacking, sometimes defending. It's fun to play out of town, even if the defense of an FB like town defense is stupidly 360°.

What could be done, and since I always have an eye towards the fact that in ww2ol attackers are wrongly the defenders in terms of advantage, what would make better gameplay?

I could see the FB being immune if the attacker holds the same town linked spawnable.

Current attack paradigm is, roll trucks, "AO incoming," set FMS, spawn inf move towards or even into town, some defenders come to EWS, AO hits, town is already crawling with attackers.

Ideally it would be AO set, the first defenders can at least arrive and have the full expectation that short of paras, ZERO enemy are actually in town, or indeed much closer than a few hundred meters.

6 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

Doc's proposal of 'FBs stay down both directions until an AO goes up, then they stay up and aren't able to be destroyed' seems more rational then most schemes, and speaks to Tater's objections about defenses not having time to setup.  Of course, a really dedicated and/or overpop team could drive all the way from attacking towns and be waiting on the AO and place soon as the FBs are up with no audio to suddenly spawning defenders, but that would at least have been extra earned effort.  Anyway, issues like that need to be thought through.

So this would be Town A  attacks Town B, and when they set the AO, only then (or once the AO goes live) the FB to town B pops up?

Certainly this gives the defenders a crack at deploying, but the lack of any FB busting means that one of the only drivers for out of town fights ends, even if FB busting in the face of even a lightly manned defense is nearly impossible (except FBs where engies can sneak in easily like suicide bombers —more bad gameplay).

The Doc idea, maybe combined with the FB immunity being predicated on holding the spawnable (to same linked town as FB)? Perhaps if you drive an attack back to the FB, then take it (perhaps blowing is part of it, but maybe capture is a thing as well some how?), then it bounces the AO?

I wonder if bombing the FB could still factor in? Like damage to FB can be upped, but the % down somehow controls the supply for spawnable/FMS? Some incentive for defending AF to attack the enemy supply. Bomb both veh and inf until both wrecked (can happen from the start), then to finish off FB capture is required units occupy the tents and cap like a CP (unless the AO gets pulled, then FB goes away)?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

See my thread "Elastic FB's" in game suggestions. This deals with the issue of attacks being stopped by FB's being blown, but also gives the defender some some time to establish defeneses. By requiring ever more infantry to capture a succession of FB's before the one which allows the AO to be placed, it also means that battles go through phases, all infantry small patrols colliding, followed by platoon strength infantry fighting, followed by infantry, AAA and light vehicles A/C's. Only then can armour be spawned from the AB and final FB. As un-manned FB's re-centre to a neutral position over time, it also helps the game in low-pop by continuing to concentrate both attackers and defenders over a period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

I think the elastic FB idea is a good one, but it's rather more complicated to actually accomplish I assume.

It does give a better sense of lines/progression from A to B. (gonna add a comment to your thread)

Observation:

Towns are attacked from 360 degrees.

FBs? Also attacked from 360°.

FMS? Yep, attacked from 360°, too.

ZOC is a great concept, but as in many aspects of play in ww2ol, it's highly dependent on player numbers to accomplish (and my pet peeve of course is that those numbers are entirely uncoupled from the "map level" units).

We all know that play requires (attack or defense) 1 player per CP and bunker, plus some floaters. That's the min defense, but attackers need to guard what they cap as well, so the number is the same. With ZOC factored in, and FB busting, the attackers also need at least 1 guard at the FB (assuming they can hit chat and instantly zerg defense as needed), and in a sense we also need 1 guard per FMS to maintain that ZOC (could be armor nearby, I suppose). A single unit watching a FMS is tricky, since someone will head to the rear of the FMS, shoot the defender, then shoot anyone spawning (360 attacks again).

The daisy-chain MSP concept is a good one, as the MSP moves back each time one is taken out. Might be hard to add, though.

Players blowing a FB to stop an attack seems goofy, and if the enemy has a spawnable it is supposed to mean they control that side of town. The mechanism to "uncontrol" it is to recap it. Meanwhile, you could bus the EFMS on that side of town... which if they control that side of town is also their rear. Somehow they have supply into town, but not at some random spot between the FB and Depot (the former FMS).

1. On-side deployment for all MSP (max deployment range is unit spawn point (town or FB) to town or Xkm (whichever is less)). (last bit to avoid gaming it)

2. Something like Doc's suggestion on FB invulnerability, predicated on capping the spawnable (someone on the forum suggested that ages ago,taking spawnable protects FB).

3. Once spawnable is capped, FMS from that town/FB are also protected (can be pulled, not blown). Remember, the attacker now controls that side of town, and with on sides FMS, all FMS are not in their rear area.

So AO turns on FB. Players bring armor, set FMS. Defenders move out in direction of attack (they know which towns are linked). Attackers have to at least take out the defense on their way in. If they elect to take other CPs they can, but then the defenders can knock out FMS/FB. I assume usually you try for spawnable, then. If that kills attacks (spawnable too easy to defend), then I suppose we start thinking about other changes. Making the Depot less of a sniping tower ( @delems has a thread about that), and perhaps changing the CP (something I have discussed as well). The spawn list is another possibility, maybe the Depots have a smaller spawn list with slower resupply such that attackers will be able to take out the defenders, and be able to hold when the defense have to come from somewhere else in town, not leaping off a roof onto another roof.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
krazydog

I think FBs are fine the way they are now.

Taking down a FB is one of the best ways for a seriously underpop side to slow down the momentum of  a heavily overpop side.

This game also loses players when the overpop side gets too much momentum.  

In fact, I think lopsided momentum swings are the biggest single factor for decreasing player population in this game.

 

Share this post


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

I think FBs are fine the way they are now.

Taking down a FB is one of the best ways for a seriously underpop side to slow down the momentum of  a heavily overpop side.

Fair point, but I still think it makes little sense. I can get the gameplay aspect of it empowering the UP people, but it represents what? Commandos doing a thing, I guess. Blowing up the fuel dump?

2 hours ago, krazydog said:

This game also loses players when the overpop side gets too much momentum.  

In fact, I think lopsided momentum swings are the biggest single factor for decreasing player population in this game.

Yeah, the low pop period, combined with severe OP than cycles is a huge issue (whatever side won was OP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godart32

The issue is people not reacting and not defending, FB fights are a breath of fresh air, if anything there's not enough fb fights as i've seen the defenders never going for the FB despite being able to do so, it brings the fight outside the town and is a change from the infantry pile up inside cities. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
warspite

FB fights are great fun, some of my most memorable moments are taking or successfully defending an FB

The problem is  when you are defending an FB and no enemy turn up.

I've always thought that FB's should have there own EWS but in the past that idea was always shot down by the player base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
2 hours ago, godart32 said:

The issue is people not reacting and not defending,

This is a fundamental problem with the game, and speaks to my (dead horse) thoughts about the fact that the map is uncoupled from the on the ground play. For the game mechanics to work in a way that makes some sort of sense WRT "the Map," some players need to be spawned in all along the front, everywhere. Really not just 1 player in each place, multiple players.

Imagine ww2ol gameplay with some huge number of players, plus magically players stay where they are told to spawn in (as if they were in the military, and had no choice).

So many that at bare minimum all the places on "the front" have 5 players. So the side that owns the FB has 5 defenders at every FB they own. If you own a town, 5 defenders are there, 24/7.

Areas with AOs have more players.

This pretty much means FB busting during an attack (at the linked FB) would not be a thing as the bored, trigger happy defenders are itching for something to shoot at. FB busting elsewhere on the line? Better be a legit attack on the FB, else it fails. Gonna need more than 5 guys and a truck.

2 hours ago, godart32 said:

FB fights are a breath of fresh air, if anything there's not enough fb fights as i've seen the defenders never going for the FB despite being able to do so, it brings the fight outside the town and is a change from the infantry pile up inside cities.

I agree, love anything out of town, indeed my favorite play, I think.

That doesn't mean it makes sense, though.

 

1 hour ago, warspite said:

FB fights are great fun, some of my most memorable moments are taking or successfully defending an FB

The problem is  when you are defending an FB and no enemy turn up.

I've always thought that FB's should have there own EWS but in the past that idea was always shot down by the player base.

This is the problem with defending in ww2ol in general. You have some time you can play the game. So you pop on for a couple hours. Do you spend your time staring into empty space on the off chance someone attacks (since you've placed a FMS in a great spot, then pushed your ATG to a cool place to attack approaching armor), or do you actually join an attack, or a reactive defense of a place already under attack?

How many times have all of us seen on the chat that we have enough people in this AO, we need a few to join another AO, or a DO that is in trouble? Literally every time we play we see that. It's because the "Map" level game is uncoupled from the actual game. ALL the BDEs on a side (dunno what the stacking rules are if any, it's just showing how silly it is) could be tasked with defending an important town, and the town could fall to a Garrison attacking it if not enough actual players show up to defend it. If that is even possible the 2 games are not related to each other in a meaningful way. I'm having fun in some AO, but I need to go guard a CP in a town under attack, because regardless of the BDEs in the town, it actually needs a human in a CP to stare at a wall to protect it for a tiny force designed to pull attackers away from the AO I just left.

 

Share this post


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

This is a fundamental problem with the game, and speaks to my (dead horse) thoughts about the fact that the map is uncoupled from the on the ground play. For the game mechanics to work in a way that makes some sort of sense WRT "the Map," some players need to be spawned in all along the front, everywhere. Really not just 1 player in each place, multiple players.

This is why I came up with Elastic FB's, as it requires more and more attacking players to gain each progressive FB, and such movements are notified to the other side. If the attackers are "spoofing" then all that effort it for naught, and the process, with all it's inherent delays has to be repeated. Consequently I'd expect attackers to move as many FB's as possible to start with (5 players required per FB), then advance half of these (10 players now) only, with half returning to the neutral position again. For the final possible pair of potential attacks they'd need 25 players per FB win, probably requiring 60 or so players to achieve the final FB. By this time the location of the impending AO is known to both attackers and defenders. 

Conversly, the defenders would need one of two situations to occur to kill the attack. Either they get 25 infantry into the attackers final FB, or, the attackers cease spawning from it and it commences re-centering. A minimal guard - if any - being required at the FB to serve notice of the attempt to capture the attackers last fb. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

probably requiring 60 or so players to achieve the final FB. By this time the location of the impending AO is known to both attackers and defenders. 

Do we have any data on what % of the day there are even 60 players to do this?

Seems like the threshold there would have to be considerably lower. In fact almost any arbitrary number of players to do a thing much greater than 2 is likely not workable, IMO (as much as I like the idea).

I need to reread the idea again, but what about low-pop? If a side has just 5 players on for a few hours, they just do nothing, or skirmish at FBs? Of course there is nothing they can do right now, either, lol.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OHM

You can make a Mission from a town to town and by pass the FB , Then that mission will not end if the FB is taken down.  That is old school play ,,  have some mission from a town and some from the FB.   But no body wants to drive anymore. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Don't think that works anymore.  Actually, not sure it ever did.  Maybe back in the dino days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tr6al

It still works . Why wouldn't it ? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Doesn't work, just tested it.  Made mission at german town, target allied adjacent town; but allies own FB.

Does not allow MS to be built,.  It has never worked best I know.

LOL, besides, players would have figured this out LONG ago if it actually ever worked.

KM learned every trick to get MS to enemy towns (as couldn't use FBs), and this wasn't one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

Would love to see a bunch of spawn-related things change at once. @delems idea of reducing the Depot castle, plus maybe CP changes, FBs not destroyed at least if spawnable is owned, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
15 hours ago, OHM said:

You can make a Mission from a town to town and by pass the FB , Then that mission will not end if the FB is taken down.  That is old school play ,,  have some mission from a town and some from the FB.   But no body wants to drive anymore. 

 

I did it with combos of truck driving from the town, then walking in an infantry FRU when that was a thing.  Stay alive in town, FB gets flipped back, I drop my FRU and the defenders are gobsmacked when depots start falling without any delay.  It's a powerful tool, but nowadays tough to keep that truck alive in a relevant spot to reopen an FMS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21

I could get behind the none destroyable FB if the Defender gets a notice so he can set up a good Defense all before the enemy is already at the door steps aka EWS is set off before the AO goes live and one can't leave a AB anymore.  

The way we have it now is enemy decides to attack town  , if AO is set before EWS is active , a few might show to see if EWS will become active or to see if this is just a mole attack or it was just set because system did or HC had too set another AO.

If EWS goes active without AO and one knows it's a 1 AO limit then , it could be a random new player setting it off , it could be enemy will pull the 1 AO they have to set new AO . It could be a full blown hard switch .

Most scenarios here will pull players from a active AO to either hunt down a lone player that doesn't know what he is doing , shut down a pre attack by killing anything that moved and is the enemy . Or in other occasion the hard switch will work but then it wasn't much of a fight . And people either complain or relish in glee cause they took a town .

Maybe instead of having none destorable FB , the holder of said FB that attacks a town gets a notice when the FB has a certain % of dmg .

A number of %of dmg where I'm thinking that either side has a chance of success. The Attacker has to decide to pull resources to defend FB and maybe have to reset attack , while the defender needs to make the call go for FB or take advantage of the break to recap town and get defence organized better.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
19 hours ago, delems said:

Doesn't work, just tested it.  Made mission at german town, target allied adjacent town; but allies own FB.

Does not allow MS to be built,.  It has never worked best I know.

LOL, besides, players would have figured this out LONG ago if it actually ever worked.

KM learned every trick to get MS to enemy towns (as couldn't use FBs), and this wasn't one of them.

NO that doesn't work, you have to have the mission up and in the area before the FB gets blown.  FMS goes away, BUT THE MISSION DOESN'T.  Stay alive, FB gets blown back, truck can reset FMS without transiting in again.

 

I DID IT MANY TIMES in the FRU era, because to me the infantry FRU IS the most powerful unit ever introduced into the game and I used it well.  I regularly walked into a town to get a FRU in, ultimate stealth.  Why do you think I understand the thing so well?

In the post no-FRU era, I still will walk in just to contest and mole.  No truck sound, everyone is asleep at the wheel and doesn't see it coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh

Maybe not allowing FBs to AOs to be able to be destroyed might help the under pop side.   Because of the number of charges it takes to destroy one, it is almost impossible now for the underpop side to blow an active FB anyway.  The underpop side really cannot spare the manpower to blow an 
FB anyway, so would be able to keep more players on defence.

Likewise, for their own FBs on AOs, the underpop side cannot spare the manpower to defend them.  This would at east free up some manpower for the underpop side and allow them to have active AOs.  Typically now the underpop side is holding on for dear life at their D1 and not attacking at any of the their AOs, since they cannot keep an FB intact. With FBs not being able to be destroyed, they underpop side could try and keep a few diversionary attacks going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
csm308
1 hour ago, blakeh said:

Maybe not allowing FBs to AOs to be able to be destroyed might help the under pop side.   Because of the number of charges it takes to destroy one, it is almost impossible now for the underpop side to blow an active FB anyway.  The underpop side really cannot spare the manpower to blow an 
FB anyway, so would be able to keep more players on defence.

 

This has been ameliorated somewhat by the bombable vehicle spawn.

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stump
On 7/17/2020 at 10:33 AM, Kilemall said:

I got a lot of opinions about this, most negative some positive, but here is a big one- how do you resolve when an AO goes on a town and then an AO is countered back to one of the origin towns of the original AO?  Do FBs flip?  Do both FBs open?  Or are counter AOs blocked from being done?

It stays the same as long as the side with the FB isn't contesting the town.  I'm proposing that the town has to be libbed before an FB is blown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
9 minutes ago, stump said:

It stays the same as long as the side with the FB isn't contesting the town.  I'm proposing that the town has to be libbed before an FB is blown.

Well objection #1, big towns become intolerable moles.

Also, not sure I saw a good answer to my first query about what happens with counterAOs on linking towns to existing AOs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stump
On 7/28/2020 at 10:14 PM, Kilemall said:

Well objection #1, big towns become intolerable moles.

Also, not sure I saw a good answer to my first query about what happens with counterAOs on linking towns to existing AOs.

I might not understand.

An AO is placed on a town from another town that has an FB -> The town that was just AO'd counter-AOs the town that is ordered to attack it.  -> There can only be one FB in between them. 

That is what you are referring to, right?  In that case, FB busting is fine, again, as long as the town with an opposing FB is not contested. The goal would be to make more of a tug-of-war, instead of completely nullifying the one side's AO with a FB take. Am I missing the situation?

 

 

Side note on another thought: I would rescind this argument if bombers could destroy entire FBs (they can't, right?).  That would also bring more life/players into the game, as the air war would become more meaningful and bring in more players in that arena.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...