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.

delems

SD and cap times.

Recommended Posts

jwrona
On 9/3/2020 at 12:54 AM, delems said:

Close, I need to change my approach to the game, I will work on it.

Also remember this... in lower pop times, let's say, arbitrarily, there's 25 guys online one side, 10 online other side (usually at this time of day, only active battles are at the one objective, so the under pop is condensed into one town). If 5 are flying, 3 are in tanks, 2 guarding FB, 2 working a different FB for next AO... you're down to 18 v 10. Add in, say, 3-4 guys who dont do much else but run in the fields... you're down to 14 v 10. You'll still get 30SD and a molasses cap timer, but you'll feel like you're not THAT overpop. It counts EVERYONE spawned in, every 5 mins (So I'm told). We definitely had to manage in 173/174 when we were overpop, keeping guys on task, on the right objective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwrona
16 hours ago, dijpa said:

I'd get rid of AOs completely and open up the entire front line for action wherever the players decide. Heavy EWS alone should trigger an attack objetive, not the system or HC (who are very often absent), and it would also remove the daft mechanic that allows 1 player to trigger ews and solo ninja the spawnable on a dead AO. The game should encourage group play and action for all, not monotony or boredom!

Little birdie told me this is coming.

When it does, I'll be gone.

It's hard enough to funnel guys into the right objectives when HC sets them... let alone run all over... I'm just picturing a Glorified 6 v 6 with heavy inf EWS in 5 diff towns. Or better, that 30 you mentioned in 5 towns and 1 defender in each. And isn't this game better when its all condensed into 2 or 3 big fights rather than little ones all over the map?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

Yeah, the only time "No AOs" would ever make sense would be literally if there were so many players every front town was likely yo hit visible player limits. Short of that? No.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OHM

Sorry for the delay on responding here as i was waiting on confirmation on the Capture timers as they can only be change by a Dev. 

This is the current capture times with a BALANCED population.  

 1 = 240s
2 = 120s
3 = 90s
4 = 80s
5 = 70s
6+ = 60

As the population becomes more unbalanced the over pop side will start seeing an increase to the CP capture timer.  It can be doubled and even a little more depending how much of an imbalance there is. 

These numbers were set in May 2019 and have not changed.  

 

So yes you can see up to a 8min cap time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** As the population becomes more unbalanced the over pop side will start seeing an increase to the CP capture timer.  It can be doubled and even a little more depending how much of an imbalance there is. 

This is what has changed.  When the map 163 capture times were debuted, the claim was capture timers would increase up or down 50% based on population.  This is still a staggering 300% difference in timers, with only 50% more pop......

Now it is increased over 100%, what is the decrease?  Still 50% or more?  That is an over 400% difference between over and under.  So, we have 55% more players, but our capture timer is 400% slower?
 

This is the problem.  It is completely unreasonable to ask a solo capper to capture in 8 min while a solo defender caps in less than 2 min when the attackers only have 50% more players.

This is simply awful imo.

 

Also, SD and capture penalties shouldn't kick in until a side has over 25% more players, not if they just have 1 player more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
On 9/3/2020 at 3:00 PM, tater said:

All the incentives are wrong, and the game mechanics are lousy.

Spawn castle is dumb.

Pretending that "the map" matters, but not having local battles connected to map-level operational forces is dumb. Ie: if it is possible for a reduced Garrison to attack multiple fresh Garrisons and BDEs and win, the game mechanics are broken. Can 30 people in a trashed Garrison attack a city in ww2ol with multiple Garrisons and BDEs and win vs 3 defenders? Yes? Map level game is broken (period).

Incentives? OP play is best play. Why? Because it feels better to have friendly units alongside you. When you are surrounded literally everywhere in town it's a crappy deathmatch. When there is supposedly an "attack" and you spawn an ATG to defend against incoming armor—and a SMG shoots you at point blank range even though the attack supposedly just started—crappy gameplay. When the few defenders not only have to guard each CP and bunker vs multiple attackers, AND try to bust EFMS spread 360 degrees around town (because attacks in warfare always jump off from friendly rear areas with teleporters, right?) is crappy gameplay.

It needs a more fundamental change.

Units need far slower resupply so that losses mean something.

Attacks need to somehow be scaled to defenders based upon relative unit strength. 1 BDE vs 1 BDE or 2v1, or 3v1, should have the same chance of success (on average) regardless of the number of defenders who happen to be there, or the map is just a garbage concept.

On-sides FMS placement should ALWAYS have been a thing, and if it's possible for attackers to be in town (unless paras) before a defender can spawn in an walk literally anywhere in town before attackers are in range to shoot at, then the game is broken.

People side switching every X campaigns to roll the other direction tells us nothing about how even things are, it's trading crappy play on 1 side for crappy play on the other (and good for good).

Agree 100% with everything you've written there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
On 9/4/2020 at 6:24 AM, jwrona said:

Little birdie told me this is coming.

When it does, I'll be gone.

It's hard enough to funnel guys into the right objectives when HC sets them... let alone run all over... I'm just picturing a Glorified 6 v 6 with heavy inf EWS in 5 diff towns. Or better, that 30 you mentioned in 5 towns and 1 defender in each. And isn't this game better when its all condensed into 2 or 3 big fights rather than little ones all over the map?

Likewise, I'd not be sticking around if this comes in, it's totally counter to decent battles and would be an utter-disaster. To any CRS2, this has been done, it has been tried, and it sucked so badly it'd take the chrome off a trailer-hitch. Time for the duct-tape, I fear, only a marketing guy could come up with something as asinine as this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
On 9/3/2020 at 1:23 PM, Kidd27 said:

I appreciate the underlying motivation.

IMO there are far too many intangibles tied to a paying customer to have a system that forces them in one direction or another. I cant support.

Free accounts are a different story, However you'd have to consider that many paying players have 2nd accounts that couldn't be forced to play the other side either.

Intangibles, are by definition, not cogent reasons to adopt, or fail to adopt, a measure. We need to establish what players of all sides consider to be the maximum player number inbalance they consider reasonable and after that point, it's only sensible that measures start to be taken to address it. I take your point about free-accounts being first on the you need to change sides hierarchy, but I have no sympathy for players who log in  at the same time of day knowing full-well that they outnumber the opposition by numbers which render the game essentially effortless for one side, and impossible for the other. Whether they pay or not, are a builder or not, they're part of the problem and should be dealt with.

If you look at the metrics in green and red above, I hope you note that I have forseen the need for things like "If you've played all campaign for the winning side, though not generally at times when the overpop is out of limits, then you won't be asked to change sides", as the inbalance is likely due to the losing side not logging in, rather than the victors accepting their overpop situation as somehow "okay". Regardless of the inbalance, the pop-balancing measures need to take this sort of thing into account. I first put this idea out about 17 years ago, but CRS1's utter inability to say "no" to customers has led to it still leading to pretty sub-optimal gameplay 17 years on. 

The ludicrous thing is that were this tried, the number of people affected, who were also paying customers would be pretty minimal, and it would (for example) confer benefits to players who've stuck to their side through the early tiers, as when they want to spawn a Tiger, it would be less-likely to have been spawned by some "tier-tourist", or a side-swapper onto the victorious side... It's the threat of being compelled to change sides if a play behaviour is undesireable that's the required pressure, the actuality of forcing someone to swap, or log in later or earlier, is a final sanction. As no-one knows their own personal score, all the player will know is he's skating on thin ice once he get's the warning on log-in. If he's smart, he'll change his behaviour to be higher in the hierarchy, and out of the danger-zone so to speak.

Share this post


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

*** As the population becomes more unbalanced the over pop side will start seeing an increase to the CP capture timer.  It can be doubled and even a little more depending how much of an imbalance there is. 

This is what has changed.  When the map 163 capture times were debuted, the claim was capture timers would increase up or down 50% based on population.  This is still a staggering 300% difference in timers, with only 50% more pop......

Now it is increased over 100%, what is the decrease?  Still 50% or more?  That is an over 400% difference between over and under.  So, we have 55% more players, but our capture timer is 400% slower?
 

This is the problem.  It is completely unreasonable to ask a solo capper to capture in 8 min while a solo defender caps in less than 2 min when the attackers only have 50% more players.

This is simply awful imo.

 

Also, SD and capture penalties shouldn't kick in until a side has over 25% more players, not if they just have 1 player more.

Imagine my sympathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

Provide the UP side with significant numbers of virtual artillery missions on call. Any subscriber-player in a given immediate area can take artillery control; any more-senior subscriber-player can take over control, but gives it up if he (1) despawns (2) leaves the area (3) doesn't call in an available mission within 2 minutes. The artillery control player calls down a mission by placing a local map-mark. A mission might be 4 rounds of 105 or 25 pounder, x 6, rapid fire. Each round is randomly distributed around the target designation.

Share this post


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

*** As the population becomes more unbalanced the over pop side will start seeing an increase to the CP capture timer.  It can be doubled and even a little more depending how much of an imbalance there is. 

This is what has changed.  When the map 163 capture times were debuted, the claim was capture timers would increase up or down 50% based on population.  This is still a staggering 300% difference in timers, with only 50% more pop......

Now it is increased over 100%, what is the decrease?  Still 50% or more?  That is an over 400% difference between over and under.  So, we have 55% more players, but our capture timer is 400% slower?
 

This is the problem.  It is completely unreasonable to ask a solo capper to capture in 8 min while a solo defender caps in less than 2 min when the attackers only have 50% more players.

This is simply awful imo.

 

Also, SD and capture penalties shouldn't kick in until a side has over 25% more players, not if they just have 1 player more.

Game-mechanics for low-pop and high pop do need to be handled differently, in the sense that being outnumbered 2:1 in TZ3 is much more severe a problem for the underpop than the same ratio in TZ1; all other things being equal. It's a different set of problems for both attackers and defenders to deal with in each case. In my view corrective game-mechanics should be more severe and earlier in TZ3, and less and later for TZ1 and its larger server population, for the same ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

SD and capture timers won, done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
On 9/5/2020 at 7:02 PM, fidd said:

Game-mechanics for low-pop and high pop do need to be handled differently, in the sense that being outnumbered 2:1 in TZ3 is much more severe a problem for the underpop than the same ratio in TZ1; all other things being equal. It's a different set of problems for both attackers and defenders to deal with in each case. In my view corrective game-mechanics should be more severe and earlier in TZ3, and less and later for TZ1 and its larger server population, for the same ratio.

That's already built-in- the larger pop crew can stuff more facilities simultaneously with more people, reducing a lot of overall cap time if they don't do constant ninja caps.  The greater number of AOs also means more split defenses and the ability to switch between them and so a 'looser' more open opportunity for the overpop to effectively threaten many places and get through at least one.  OTOH TZ1 will usually have at least some 'extra' to mount a credible AO, which is a BIG point of the PN stuff in the first place- maintain as much and broad a content for both sides without an 'IWin for showing up' button for the overpop.

TZ3 overpop is less likely to be interrupted/disrupted seriously by the underpop so yes under the current conditions they are more likely to succeed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
griffon

Wow there's a lot here and I don't come with a solution. I know I miss the open map and I see a lot of players from that time express that view as well. I suppose the fun thing about it was that if nothing was happening you could walk to town and start a battle by taking the spawn. If it was a successful attack depended on if your side brought tanks and trucks with men and atgs or did they just use the spawn and get camped and shut down by tanks and inf? It felt pretty good to start an intense battle.  That said if the numbers are 4/5 to 1 or worse its hard to see an open map working well for those hours. 

Tz3 used to be filled up with non North American players? Where did they all go?!

 

As for cap timers and games that kill and play the objective. New players will always look to either kill/ are inclined to be players who are good at killing and focus on k/d or 2) will look to play the objective hard and damn k/d focus on win/loss. And lastly some will play in between both pto but look to do so in a way that keeps their k/d "competitive." 

So if you're a new player in wwiiol and let's not forget long time players this game has always come with a long learning curve. There's a lot to learn. It could be tough to become a good killer off the bat. And if you're trying to cap a cp by yourself with 8 min timers either its boring long [censored] time to cap it or you feel like you're sitting on time bomb waiting to get over run as you know will happen. Part of the problem with long cap timers is it assumes the attackers are using full strength to attack the objective and that is often not the case. I've seen underpop defend extremely successfuly because "op" has few guys actually attacking and 3-6 "up" dudes run from cp to cp in town killing cappers before they can actually cap and out capping them if they do. Frustrating being useless because of game mechanics and waiting to die again and again to an overwhelming squad. Now I've digressed a bit from where I was going but had to be pointed out too. What I wanted to say with shorter cap timers both attacking and defending becomes more exciting. Defending is more intense because you dont have 8 mins to check each cp in town which you can often do in less than 8 mins. And attacking is more fun because you can one actually take your objective and then you can choose to defend from outside or press defenders by going for more but at least your not trapped inside a death bomb for 5-8 mins. 

I straight up like to play a fire and move system, I'm the hybrid of the k/d w/l. I like to kill but end of the day ill throw that out the window to win. With 8 min cap timers I can't strike at the objective and then 'move' nearby to defend around it like I could and would in games like cod and battlefield and this one back in the day. I can do that and have exciting heart pumping captures and defends with say 3.30 caps and less (depending on numbers) but I don't have exciting heart pumping attacks or defenses with 8 min timers. 

I respect not wanting to have the map rolled cause of extreme population odds i dont want that either but maybe just maybe you're 8 min cap timers are fuelling that overall population peoplem too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

I think part of the issue is that when the server population gets very low, there's no other event than a capture by which success can be measured, and that forces abominations such as always having an AO placed, even if your side hasn't the numbers to do anything other than attrite themselves by attempting to. With the elastic-fb's model, it's possible to have a prolonged infantry v infantry battle, to capture FB's and attrite the enemy with the eventual aim of achieving the final FB and being able to apply an AO. As the FB's auto-revert, if unmanned or are likely to be forced back to the neutral position if too lightly held, it'd be no longer possible to flood a town with armour before defenders are not in the area in some numbers.

That has to be a good start-point for achieving "decent battles" v the TOE, rather than "surprise" ones v absent defending players.

Naturally, it's only a start-point, other mechanics would be needed to ensure that there's not just endless "draws". One way of doing this might be to vary the amount of the TOE available to defense or attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
57 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

That's already built-in- the larger pop crew can stuff more facilities simultaneously with more people, reducing a lot of overall cap time if they don't do constant ninja caps.  The greater number of AOs also means more split defenses and the ability to switch between them and so a 'looser' more open opportunity for the overpop to effectively threaten many places and get through at least one.  OTOH TZ1 will usually have at least some 'extra' to mount a credible AO, which is a BIG point of the PN stuff in the first place- maintain as much and broad a content for both sides without an 'IWin for showing up' button for the overpop.

TZ3 overpop is less likely to be interrupted/disrupted seriously by the underpop so yes under the current conditions they are more likely to succeed. 

I realise the intention of SD and cap-timers, I was suggesting to delems that there may have been good reasons for them. (that said, I think they're fairly poor, insufficient to achieve more equal actual numbers in game, and completely useless in terms of making attritional battles the key to taking a town, as opposed to the "more players" taking a town, even if it's defensive TOE is intact.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Well, all I see is more players complaining and quitting due to SD and capture timers.

I don't even play when we have SD anymore.  Hear that?  I don't play, I sit at map and watch.

You can't attrit enemy towns hardly, is to easy to bring in backline MS.  Not to mention the ridiculous amount of armor in game. (and aircraft)

So, we try and send players to cut back roads; SURE - then there is no one left to attack.

Well, you are over pop, NOT really, half the pb is trying to cut back roads or searching, bunch guarding stuff.

The last few are attacking with 30 sec SD and 8 min capture timers - it is disgusting.

You have to have over pop to take towns in real life, same with this game; should not be penalized for it.

The penalty should only occur at extreme over pop, not over pop by 2 players.

And lets not forget the EnterWorld bug that constantly arises, causing another 20 second delay.

Towns need to fall in this game, and not just when it is 30 players to 4 players.

Players becoming very frustrated over this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

In Warmerville right now, town is very low in supply... should fall.

But, allies have dMS in from Reims, Neuf and Bethen.

Axis has 8 min capture timers and 30 sec SD.

Impossible to take town.

Impossible to attrit.

axis are starting to quit.  I haven't spawned once the entire battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

And now game shows sides even, axis still has 21 sec SD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

Perhaps then, the attack was ill-judged, or ill-prosecuted, insofar that if the defenders were able to establish such dfms's from surrounding towns, it wasn't practical to take it? You'd expect a town with 3 friendly links, and therefore a great deal of potential support, to be very hard to capture, assuming decent numbers available on both sides...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
3 minutes ago, delems said:

And now game shows sides even, axis still has 21 sec SD.

I presume there's some lag between the sampling and the SD level, which affects both sides equally. Nothing to see here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** Perhaps then, the attack was ill-judged

Or, perhaps when a town is empty and the attackers have 2 links and more pop, they should be able to take it?

Anyways, did it's job, I just logged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
26 minutes ago, delems said:

You have to have over pop to take towns in real life, same with this game; should not be penalized for it.

The penalty should only occur at extreme over pop, not over pop by 2 players.

Penalties obviously depend on the degree of over-pop, and should be, and is, inversely proportional to the  server pop and overpop. So, the penatlies for outnumbering your enemy are more severe at 30:10 players than they are at 300:100 players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
Just now, delems said:

*** Perhaps then, the attack was ill-judged

Or, perhaps when a town is empty and the attackers have 2 links and more pop, they should be able to take it?

Anyways, did it's job, I just logged.

Clearly not, if you failed to take it, as the friendlies at 3 links to your 2, and were able to establish dfms's. Had you had more links, or had in place measures to intercept dfms trucks before they could establish, then you'd probably be experiencing the warm inner glow of making a difficult capture instead of moaning at failing to I contend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
3 hours ago, fidd said:

I think part of the issue is that when the server population gets very low, there's no other event than a capture by which success can be measured, and that forces abominations such as always having an AO placed, even if your side hasn't the numbers to do anything other than attrite themselves by attempting to. With the elastic-fb's model, it's possible to have a prolonged infantry v infantry battle, to capture FB's and attrite the enemy with the eventual aim of achieving the final FB and being able to apply an AO. As the FB's auto-revert, if unmanned or are likely to be forced back to the neutral position if too lightly held, it'd be no longer possible to flood a town with armour before defenders are not in the area in some numbers.

That has to be a good start-point for achieving "decent battles" v the TOE, rather than "surprise" ones v absent defending players.

Naturally, it's only a start-point, other mechanics would be needed to ensure that there's not just endless "draws". One way of doing this might be to vary the amount of the TOE available to defense or attack.

This.

As I have said before, there are a minimum number of players required on a side for ww2ol to work at all under the assumption that one side has at leats that min minimum number. If neither has the min number, everything is uselessly lame, nothing to much to do, and certainly nothing to "move the map" short of the enemy literally not showing up at all.

The min number is something like what? 5-6 people? Attack or defense, same thing, you need to cap the things, and guard the things.

As such, contrary to the idea that the map needs to move all the time, I think that the game needs tiers of activities based on population. This might require rethinking a few things, and would certainly require either some coding, or maybe it's possible by sliding the levers they already have.

My primary suggestions to move existing levers are:

1. Make resupply much slower for BDEs.

2. Massively cut Garrison spawn list, but Garrisons resupply faster. The idea is that it's tuned so a real attack by a BDE will attrit the Garrison assuming the attack is rapid/violent, but a low-key moling attack can't kill supply faster than it comes back.

These 2 mean that the underpop side can damage attackers (I'm assuming they are on defense if UP and really unbalanced vs the OP side) in a meaningful way.  If the FB paradigm could change somehow, maybe there is a mechanism for more "skirmish" like play. @fidd's EFB concept is probably too much work to accomplish, but it's a good idea.

 

Brainstorming.

Garrisons are a thing because HC can't always move BDEs around, right?

What if BDEs moved automatically as a function of gameplay?

Real attacks would want intelligence first. Right now blowing an FB in advance of an attack is something like this, except people blow them in general. Wonder of both FBs could be open at the same time, but minus the armor (borrowing a little from @fidd here). Smaller FB, can be capped. When you own both FBs, the one closest the enemy turns on as a "real" FB with armor, etc. Owning both sets an AO (AO limits still apply, so the HC sets an AO by suggesting which FB to cap). Default is both inf-FBs open, and if the AO gets booted (blowing the offensive FBs would do this) or pulled, the offensive FB retreats (armor moves back to linked town, goes back to 2X mini-FBs). The mini-FB areas might replace the inf/veh with smaller versions where 1 needs to be blown to enter it (and cap), and the other is not open until the first is taken. The idea is to create small inf actions, not ninja FB attacks, the goal would be defenders as close to 100% of the time as possible.

The HC moving BDEs around can be eased since maybe the server could move BDEs forward based on capturing an offensive FB. BDEs are in towns, and can move forward along a supply link towards a town with an offensive FB. I haven't thought this through, but there must be some simple rules such that you attack an FB, and any BDE within a few town links moves towards the offensive FB through the links. If the town the attackers started from already has a BDE, the attack is good to go. If the nearest BDE is 1 town sideways on the line, that BDE needs to shift a town, then move to the offensive FB. This might require the attackers hold the FB a while...

Cut it apart, the idea is something akin to the EFB idea with maybe less work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...