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.

dfire

What Needs To Stop Happening On The Forums

Recommended Posts

dfire

What needs to stop happening on the forums is people coming here to argue about spawn lists when their side is losing the campaign. The spawnlists aren't the reason why a side loses the campaign, it's the population. Any side can beat the other side at any given time if they have the pop (mainly tz3) for that campaign. If it were the spawnlists, then why have campaign victories been close to even? Now if you give another side 300 extra smgs that might make a difference, but what I'm saying is the spawnlists are close enough as they stand where it's not the sole reason a side loses a campaign. Let Rats focus on other issues instead of using their time trying to nickel-and-dime the spawnlists. Seen both sides do it so it goes for everyone!! 

There, I said it

 

Edited by dfire
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwrona

But what are we gonna do if axis has 5 ATRs less than allied.

 

*gasp*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
2 hours ago, dfire said:

What needs to stop happening on the forums is people coming here to argue about spawn lists when their side is losing the campaign. The spawnlists aren't the reason why a side loses the campaign, it's the population. Any side can beat the other side at any given time if they have the pop (mainly tz3) for that campaign. If it were the spawnlists, then why have campaign victories been close to even? Now if you give another side 300 extra smgs that might make a difference, but what I'm saying is the spawnlists are close enough as they stand where it's not the sole reason a side loses a campaign. Let Rats focus on other issues instead of using their time trying to nickel-and-dime the spawnlists. Seen both sides do it so it goes for everyone!! 

There, I said it

 

I just fined you 100 G43, 100 mg34 and 100 Tiger tank spawns...  In replacement, you get a spoon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
3 hours ago, dfire said:

What needs to stop happening on the forums is people coming here to argue about spawn lists when their side is losing the campaign. The spawnlists aren't the reason why a side loses the campaign, it's the population. Any side can beat the other side at any given time if they have the pop (mainly tz3) for that campaign. If it were the spawnlists, then why have campaign victories been close to even? Now if you give another side 300 extra smgs that might make a difference, but what I'm saying is the spawnlists are close enough as they stand where it's not the sole reason a side loses a campaign. Let Rats focus on other issues instead of using their time trying to nickel-and-dime the spawnlists. Seen both sides do it so it goes for everyone!! 

There, I said it

Problem is, the spawnlists often greatly affect what the numbers are.

Exhibit A, the whole FG42 thing.

 

I also disagree greatly that numbers beget wins.  I think it more like leadership and tight tactical orgs begets numbers, numbers and make it easier for leadership and org to get over the hump of a win.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Problem is, the spawnlists often greatly affect what the numbers are.

Exhibit A, the whole FG42 thing.

 

I also disagree greatly that numbers beget wins.  I think it more like leadership and tight tactical orgs begets numbers, numbers and make it easier for leadership and org to get over the hump of a win.

I think it depends when you have the numbers. TZ3 seems to be the period when the frontline is most volatile, with an increased capture-rate, and an increase in captures where the defenders TOE is largely intact. If you have the numbers in TZ1, the reverse is the case, relative to TZ3. Meaning solving the issues of the TZ3 game is pressing, as they have a considerable impact on the TZ1 and TZ2 game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwrona
18 hours ago, Kilemall said:

I also disagree greatly that numbers beget wins.  I think it more like leadership and tight tactical orgs begets numbers, numbers and make it easier for leadership and org to get over the hump of a win.

Yes & No. 

Leadership certainly helps retain guys... if comms are active, people are moving, fights are brewing, its apparent that guys stay logged in later (@stankyus i see you at 4am!) But if its quiet, screw it, just go to bed when you get bored. So leadership definitely helps wins.

BUT: Look back at campaign stats of the last campaigns... Winner = More TOE. 

It's also to be said that having a 30% disadvantage with 50 (random number that seems fitting) online your side is way better than a 20% when there's 10 online... 50 guys can hold a town against 60, taking into account random greentags, snipers that don't shoot anyone, planes that are flying into the ground (that's me!), etc.  But if you have 10 online against 12... and you got 2 greentags, a plane in the ground (me again hey!), a guy working an FB, and your church sniper who hasnt learned his lesson as his 6th corpse lands in the pile beneath the steeple... best of luck. In that scenario... no, numbers DO beget wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
On 9/26/2020 at 2:00 PM, jwrona said:

Yes & No. 

Leadership certainly helps retain guys... if comms are active, people are moving, fights are brewing, its apparent that guys stay logged in later (@stankyus i see you at 4am!) But if its quiet, screw it, just go to bed when you get bored. So leadership definitely helps wins.

BUT: Look back at campaign stats of the last campaigns... Winner = More TOE. 

It's also to be said that having a 30% disadvantage with 50 (random number that seems fitting) online your side is way better than a 20% when there's 10 online... 50 guys can hold a town against 60, taking into account random greentags, snipers that don't shoot anyone, planes that are flying into the ground (that's me!), etc.  But if you have 10 online against 12... and you got 2 greentags, a plane in the ground (me again hey!), a guy working an FB, and your church sniper who hasnt learned his lesson as his 6th corpse lands in the pile beneath the steeple... best of luck. In that scenario... no, numbers DO beget wins.

It's been done several times by both sides, superior leadership on more hours of the day wears down the opposing side's leadership, retains more players for longer, and buys time for a side to believe that others will show, play organized and it's worth their time.

This campaign was partially about an Allied pitchfit about supply and air interaction, but much more about the Axis having a few more key personnel like N8 and Delems driving smart attacks and defenses and a few more squads operating, negating a lot of Allied attaacks in Allied advantage times and getting those few key towns per day that ground the Allies into hopelessness.

Yes TZ3 has been disastrously decisive for over a decade, and people forget that the great ANZAC generals did a lot of their work during that time frame and materially aided a string of victories then.  Karellean and Zack later on singlehandedly changed Allied fortunes from TZ3 when Allied primetime was a wasteland of suck.  And let's not forget Potthead, any argument on either side that his presence in Axis TZ3 HC would have led to anything other then a much faster crushing victory?

Bloodhun and Tman are still the best Axis strat leaders ever IMO, there were guys equal to them early on but had serious squad org/country divide opportunity going for them so not as impressive to me, although squad wrangling in the early days was a lot tougher on the Axis side.

The numbers can be good, but are not decisive on their own.  DIRECTED INTELLIGENT TEAM numbers are much more damaging, and consistent enough can generate the numbers from minority to majority in a matter of weeks.

Re: spawnlists, no question they affect numbers too, but wouldn't if CRS ever got it in their heads to get the spawnlists to not red/blue but even game capability re: capture and defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odolf
On 9/25/2020 at 4:54 PM, dfire said:

What needs to stop happening on the forums is people coming here to argue about spawn lists when their side is losing the campaign. The spawnlists aren't the reason why a side loses the campaign, it's the population. Any side can beat the other side at any given time if they have the pop (mainly tz3) for that campaign. If it were the spawnlists, then why have campaign victories been close to even? Now if you give another side 300 extra smgs that might make a difference, but what I'm saying is the spawnlists are close enough as they stand where it's not the sole reason a side loses a campaign. Let Rats focus on other issues instead of using their time trying to nickel-and-dime the spawnlists. Seen both sides do it so it goes for everyone!! 

There, I said it

 

Solve the problem by everyone moving to Chicago, you’ll never hear a complaint or anything from that person again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sideout
6 hours ago, odolf said:

Solve the problem by everyone moving to Chicago, you’ll never hear a complaint or anything from that person again.

i spent a week there one afternoon..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
On 9/27/2020 at 2:31 PM, Kilemall said:

 

This campaign was partially about an Allied pitchfit about supply and air interaction, but much more about the Axis having a few more key personnel like N8 and Delems driving smart attacks and defenses and a few more squads operating, negating a lot of Allied attaacks in Allied advantage times and getting those few key towns per day that ground the Allies into hopelessness.

 

Was there a pitchfit about supply? Honestly I dont recall a pitchfit I did see some concerns on the forums but not ingame tbh... well some about the stG44 numbers. Having incredible accuracy out to 300m and excellent cqb performance was getting the goat of some of the players on the server... however by the time it entered, the allies where already losing the map and Tz3 was already often an allied grave yard.  I think, but could be wrong that was the only change to infantry supply that I can recall, everything else seemed normal to me. I actually played a few extra days this past map that where not just Sundays with my usual hours ingame. I think that the Stg44 numbers should remain low until they can fix the full auto dispersion and ppl should be ok with that until CRS has the resource to do so.  As for T2 ground game, its done its damage but I think ppl are getting used to it and dont see any more loss of players. It seems stabilized.  I still see T0 French tankers bleeding players and tbh, the french are the ugly step child in the game, they really do not get any real advantage through out the map ever since the Pak38 and PzH entered T0.. and it gets worse as the map goes on. PPL in general just do not like to play with that kit anymore when there are better parts of the game to be played. 

 

The issues with the Air game have picked up some steam, ppl will hang for a bit without changes but over a longer period of time it does just get too much.  IE, no AP ammo.. then there has been the focus on Axis planes with nothing really to show for the allies other than strapping bombs onto existing planes with out any performance upgrades or better choices to keep up with the Axis FBs.  An H2B jabo is not a E4 jabo after the bombs are dropped. The e4 then becomes a fighter plane ready for A2A, the H2B becomes a target.  Then there is the 09G2 with no allied answer and the Ju88 with no Wellington. Then the 190 jabo which does make it tough to compete... and mb it would not be such an issue but in reality the Axis pilots still have the lions share of more skilled pilots which adds too the feeling how hard it is to compete.  Some of those Axis pilots can kill you in just about anything they fly if they chose to do so.  I think in order for the Allied air guys to log in and possibly grow their squads is specific to fixing the AP issue, as treating it fairly - either we all get it or nobody does. Then there is the fact that we need something that the run of the mill player can compete with. I share their concerns and have sympathy for the allied pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, stankyus said:

... I still see T0 French tankers bleeding players and tbh, the french are the ugly step child in the game, they really do not get any real advantage through out the map ever since the Pak38 and PzH entered T0.. ...

Both of these changes are literally indefensible. If the 88 is unable to contend with Matildas and Chars due to the combination of the bloody-awful 1.26 terrain, and porosity of the "front line" to infantry, (and lets remember the PzIVD and Stug can both kill both allied types too), then fix the terrain, don't "augment" tiers like. Both sides have enormous issues with forming a front-line due to the issues with terrain. Personally I'm sick to death of these "MVF's" (minimum viable "fix"), which address the effect of a problem, but not the cause.  The axis problem with the 88 in tier 0 is perfectly legitimate, and the allies have similar issues with the M5 and 17pdr in later tiers. Throwing even more ATG's into the TOE, is NOT the solution to them being ultra-vulnerable with the bocccage levels of visual cover now in game. 

Fix the problem, not the symptom, CRS.

Edited by fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

I disagree on numbers not mattering, numbers are literally all that matters at a certain level.

You must have the min number of people to defend what you have with some slop (attack or defense doesn't matter, don't guard it, and you lose it). That number varies by town, but it's probably what, 6-8 people assuming the enemy has equal numbers. If the enemy has much larger numbers even that min is not enough.

The idea that "leadership" somehow improves numbers?  You don't need leadership with numbers if the numbers are right, the cats will herd themselves.

 

 

As for the terrain, part of the problem is very simply the mini size of the game world. 1:1 scale (same number of square meters at unit scale, but on a smaller map) would always have been a better choice. In this situation, the map could be more or less spot on, but all the distances would be half, right? So eyeball a map, and make the right areas open fields, etc—and sight lines will be too short by half.

 

And supply? It has two elements, how much "best" stuff there is that people spawn at the start before they settle for less good stuff (this is pop dependent), and as the supposed operational level of the map—the big picture units. It fails in both regards as game design, IMO. It bears zero relationship to "the map," and as a way of doling out units related to how rare they were, just abject failure.

We need a system to "buy" units perceived as more valuable. The "hardest campaign" is often alluded to in terms of the problems with the HC micromanaging that, which is why the cost of units should be somehow calculated in much more simple terms (smallish whole numbers of points per weapon). Instead of the HC deciding—the players decide. Everyone is given some points at the start of a campaign. They spend them on units. If the unit is RTBed, they get the points back. RES? Somewhat fewer points than the unit cost. MIA zero points back. KIA, minus the unit cost? Certain activities already tracked earn points. Capping (needs to be set so you have to stay there, not touch CP, leave, etc), setting an FMS, etc. The idea is to get the balance of units right via these costs. Pick "best" items all the time, and you will burn your points unless you always RTB, or accomplish a lot with the unit. This also incentivizes playing a little more carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tater said:

I disagree on numbers not mattering, numbers are literally all that matters at a certain level.

You must have the min number of people to defend what you have with some slop (attack or defense doesn't matter, don't guard it, and you lose it). That number varies by town, but it's probably what, 6-8 people assuming the enemy has equal numbers. If the enemy has much larger numbers even that min is not enough.

The idea that "leadership" somehow improves numbers?  You don't need leadership with numbers if the numbers are right, the cats will herd themselves.

 

While I agree that the game is not viable with less then 6-8 that can/do communicate (and that's a problem TZ3, a lot of people on that simply won't talk, play to marks, etc), I utterly disagree on the leadership side. 

I've seen it, both sides for 19 ears now.  Other factors like a lot of people showing, some desirable bit of kit intro or a pitchfit on equipment/spawnlist/rules that mess with favored play, yes they can be major, but great leadership can turn that around and conversely can make a slight advantage much greater.

 

As to a player spawn point system, just enhances the overpop side who will walk in with more points and more ability to make mistakes while the underpop gets camped and blown out, or don't spawn to fight at all.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

As to a player spawn point system, just enhances the overpop side who will walk in with more points and more ability to make mistakes while the underpop gets camped and blown out, or don't spawn to fight at all.

The nice thing about an arbitrary point system is that like other arbitrary "gamey" aspects of play, it is amenable to balancing based on conditions on the server.

We're pretty much stuck with spawn castle, right? Camping is basically a design element of the game. Precamping is BAD™, but regular camping? That's called "playing ww2ol!"

What is there were incentives, and disincentives? Get points by capping. Get points for kills.

Don't get points for kills made from the spawn building—and don't get points for targets IN the spawn building. Dunno how to avoid FMS camping, but maybe kills made inside X seconds of spawning don't generate points. UP side gets more points, and has no disincentives added in.

Unlike now, points would sort of matter, so there's an incentive then. The joy of camping, the pain of not getting credit. I'm sure we could come up with some ways to "allow" any sort of play, while none the less disincentivizing it.

All these could vary based on pop, too. UP side gets kill multipliers in points.

Actually, related to supply—what if below some number of players, or above some imbalance %, kills take out more from supply (in addition to any points benis)?

Say it's TZ3, and 3 players are on one side, and 15 are on another. 5:1 odds. Every kill the UP side makes could take out 5 of the same type of unit. Take out a "best tank" the OP side is driving? You just removed 5 from the spawn list. Kill a few of something, you might have killed all of them. 5:1 is still gonna win with nothing but rifles, but it feels less discouraging if all the SMG fire dies down because you've killed all of them. Note that the multiplier need not be the OP ratio, it might be more. Maybe by some outrageous ratio (5:1 is pretty absurd) it's 10:1 kills to make up for the fact they can barely leave a spawn alive.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

History of the game shows that the attack would simply move elsewhere as the premium unit types were attritted. I think therefore this is a little counter-productive, as lots of sudden across map "surprise attack" AO's provide much poorer gameplay than a single prolonged battle. Consequently I think we need to be doing everything possible to slow down the rate of changes of AO's, and work towards captures being consequent of attrition, and not of ninja-capping against an absent enemy.

As for TZ3, I think we really need active numbers management, so that players who log-in when frequently their side is greatly more numerous than the enemy, suffer an accelerating series of sanctions, as whilst they may be few in number, the harm done to the game is out of all proportion to their numbers. I'd also very much like to see the ability even to place an AO, be dependant on using a lot of infantry to capture the final FB position, so that the attackers are not first in the field with force-multiplying weapons such as tanks, but likewise the defenders are not able to stop the final FB position being taken with tanks involved. Rather, that once taken, armour becomes available to the attacker from his FB, and from the AB and behind lines FB for the defender, at the same instant. This occurring after a prolonged infantry combat to suck in players from both sides. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
44 minutes ago, fidd said:

History of the game shows that the attack would simply move elsewhere as the premium unit types were attritted. I think therefore this is a little counter-productive, as lots of sudden across map "surprise attack" AO's provide much poorer gameplay than a single prolonged battle. Consequently I think we need to be doing everything possible to slow down the rate of changes of AO's, and work towards captures being consequent of attrition, and not of ninja-capping against an absent enemy.

Fair point. The only rational reason for more than one AO as I see it is if there are too many players for 1 (like visibility limit issues). We'd be better off with serial AOs, honestly. The "distraction" ones that force limited players to pick which place to fight (when both have "supply" and hence should be equally protected) is kooky.

As for my idea above being counterproductive, why? TZ3, one side OP as hell. Defenders kill all the good stuff (kills X10, say). Attackers move to a new AO to have more good stuff. Defenders are in the same position they were a few minutes ago, except the last AO failed—the defenders won, when they should not have due to being grossly underpop. That seems like a win to me. The OP side sliding around AOs, never winning any? OK, fine by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
james10
Posted (edited)
Quote

and work towards captures being consequent of attrition, and not of ninja-capping against an absent enemy.

Not all that in favor of "captures being consequent of attrition".

Here is how it can be gammed:

Quote

In the towns the defender doesn't want the enemy to capture simply don't defend.
No defenders = no attrition, therefore no capture.

Will it be gammed? I do believe you should already know the answer.

The larger the number of "If's, but's and wherefores" a mechanic requires to be implemented, is an indication of how unsuitable the mechanic is. The most suitable requires few if any "conditionals" to operate effectively.

Cheers.

Edited by james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, james10 said:

Not all that in favor of "captures being consequent of attrition".

Here is how it can be gammed:

Will it be gammed? I do believe you should already know the answer.

The larger the number of "If's, but's and wherefores" a mechanic requires to be implemented, is an indication of how unsuitable the mechanic is. The most suitable requires few if any "conditionals" to operate effectively.

Cheers.

I agree that the "no-one defending" as a game "tactic" to prevent an AO being placed will need to be designed out. That said, there are times of day when even two AO's plus two DO's can mean insufficient players available to cover both the DO's. 

When I suggested captures should be consequent of attrition, not ninja-capping, I was describing the nature of the battle, not an absolute ban on non-attritional captures. I think few, on either side would disagree that long, hard-fought battles, without much, if anything in the way of pre-camping, provide the best sense of accomplishment and fun, relative to non-attritional captures v very few opponents.

Consequently, pretty much all of my game-mechanic suggestions are driven by optimising the longer attritional fights, and dissuading gameplay that capitalises on numeric advantage, especially in low-pop; and also by seeking to limit the advantage of teleporting dozens of players  one part of the map to another, seeking full TOE's and a period where attackers will not be spotted as FMS's are set-up all around, and close to the town, as if the troops and vehicles of the TOE are all elsewhere. Hence the suggestion of infantry-only tasks requiring ever more attackers with each movement towards the town being attacked. This will tend to focus defenders to the "right" town, and provide some time for them to get there and set out a defence, without being able to assault the FB with armour, which is available to neither side until the final FB position is captured, the AO placed (it can't be until the final FB is taken).

So, the forseeable pattern would be:

1. Gradually increasing infantry only fighting between FB's, EWS alerting other players to join. ATG's and AA and inf spawnable from AB

2. First FB position taken (now trucks available from FB position, also towable AAA (but no trucks at FB or AB that can set FMS's, nor any armour. Trucks can be used from AB to tow out ATG's.

3. Second FB position taken: Trucks, AAA, ATG, A/C's Infantry spawnable from FB and AB, however, second FB cannot be set as an objective for FMS's, nor can town be set as objective for attacking FMS's.

4. Third FB position taken: Trucks, AAA, ATG, A/C's, light tanks spawnable from FB and AB, however, second FB cannot be set as an objective for FMS's from AB, neither can town be set as objective.

5. Fourth (final) FB position taken, No opposing FB. Everything spawnable from FB or AB or behind lines (undestroyable) FB, once AO is placed. For 30-60 minutes, (imbalance dependant) no "tables" are hot, to promote fighting around and outside of towns. No limitations on FMS setting between town and FB, however, no FMS can be set from the AO'd town to any other 1st, 2nd or third FB  from another town. This basically tried to ensure that inter-FB fights cannot have one side gain the ascendency by taking tanks and trucks from a town under attack from the W, to a 1st, 2nd or 3rd FB between town and (say) the south.

Edited by fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...