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.

dijpa

Congrats Axis !

Recommended Posts

dijpa

A 10% swing in town ownership in the last 48 hours ... sadly almost the whole of yesterday we had no allied HC online which meant nobody was able to do anything of any tactical worth like blowing bridges/repairing bridges etc, as town after town fell with hardly a whimper in response.

Some battles were so laughably one sided it was actually entertaining to watch as 3 defenders tried to fight off 20 axis attackers. The highlight for me though, towards the end of the "battle" for Montfaucon as a handful of bedraggled allies tried in vain to save the final flag against overwhelming odds was being told by a recent "axis" switcher, that "the allies suck, I'm going back axis"... that made me smile (especially as I then killed him several times over when he switched back!) :))

Spawn delays and extended cap timers do nothing to redress such massive population advantages and its frustrating to hear all the comments on side chat from relative newcomers expressing their shock that such imbalances are allowed to persist. Everyone wants to have fun, but believe me, its no fun when you play this game and every time you spawn in is like a reenactment of the final scene from "Butch Cassify & Sundance Kid" (if you havent seen the film, I heartily recommend it for our younger audience!)... you'll know what I mean when you see it!

I realise that population swings and there will be times in every campaign that one side dominates. But do we really want that to continue? So many people have suggested a side lock for a campaign, why dont we just try it? You pin your colours to the mast at the beginning of the campaign and you're locked to that side for the duration... if you dont want to commit to one side only then you can only join the underpopped side. Sound fair? What are the arguments against this?

 

Share this post


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

Yup, it's been asked, pleaded for and begged for for almost 2 decades. Sidelocks. pick a side or chose to  go underpop. But won't happen. I'm sitting out this campaign since day 3 we keep getting overrun every town we try to defend. But what is one of the main contributing factors for the underpop side to lose so unequivocally is the change to the fms distance placement. It can be placed way too close to a depot making defense impossible.

 

But this might be the way we are heading.  

Edited by denisd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2

I think a major problem we face as allied players is that for what ever reason playing Axis is just a more popular choice not just in this game but across all ww2 games.  A side lock will just highlight the issue.

 

 

I've also come to the conclusion after 18 months of 1.36  it has made the low pop situation worse.  Now you can  roll town far easier that you could before, As HC  you don't have to worry about timers for supply as supply is everywhere across the front and as garrison pop up backline means you can constantly drive forwards.  Remember if the past you would get to a point where towns were no longer linked to any supply and with 1 AO and you couldn't soft cap it.  

another issue  is  you can now  take a town wait 10 minutes for the supply to trickle in and go straight on to the next town as you supply builds. knowing that with the pop imbalance that you will take the town. I know because I've done that as  HC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adam1168
32 minutes ago, foe2 said:

I think a major problem we face as allied players is that for what ever reason playing Axis is just a more popular choice not just in this game but across all ww2 games.  A side lock will just highlight the issue.

 

 

I've also come to the conclusion after 18 months of 1.36  it has made the low pop situation worse.  Now you can  roll town far easier that you could before, As HC  you don't have to worry about timers for supply as supply is everywhere across the front and as garrison pop up backline means you can constantly drive forwards.  Remember if the past you would get to a point where towns were no longer linked to any supply and with 1 AO and you couldn't soft cap it.  

another issue  is  you can now  take a town wait 10 minutes for the supply to trickle in and go straight on to the next town as you supply builds. knowing that with the pop imbalance that you will take the town. I know because I've done that as  HC. 

but with no hc on for hours at a time, what relevance does this point have to low pop? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21

May I address a few things.

1st , no HC  Online for hours is hardly the other sides fault but with that I also know the motivation goes by the wayside for the side with no HC , solution sign up , it's not as bad as one thinks to be in the HC.

2nd to say doing the side lock thing will just show the imbalance , it maybe  so but CRS can then actually have a snap shot picture,   on the other hand it might even work out but we won't know cause it has never been tried. Plenty of ideas have been floated out there how to do it , myself have given the same idea time after time and I still stand by it that it should be given a shot.

3rd it always baffles me , when Axis almost had all of the map and the patch came in where Axis lost FG42 in the regular Army , Allies pushed back and won, then after was the map where Allies where OP everytime I logged in and Allies rolled and won that map too. And I can't say that any names popped up on my kill list or killed by, that I  have ever seen play the Axis side , so where have all these players gone?

4th ,wasn't it said that taking away the Rambo LMG will bring the players back? Then it was the Firefly and Achilles that would do the trick cause the Tiger won't rule supreme anymore and it be more of a level playing field , I'm sure there is one or 2 more points that I'm forgetting here.

 

In my eyes the best solution is sidelock, why ? Cause then you don't get these players like the player Djipa was talking about, and if you are a player that chose the Underpop side you already know what you are getting yourself into .

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

sadly almost the whole of yesterday we had no allied HC online which meant nobody was able to do anything of any tactical worth like blowing bridges/repairing bridges etc, as town after town fell with hardly a whimper in response.

I realise that population swings and there will be times in every campaign that one side dominates. But do we really want that to continue?

I'll take the blow for no HC online... (prepare for fireside rant with jwrona...)

When I took CinC over my whole idea was "fix what is broken," starting with our High Command. I went bananas to recruit new guys, and had about a half dozen new, good HC join the fold. Most of them have been screwed now by real life (COVID, personal time, school exams, etc) and so a lot of the names that I really was looking forward to having coverage with competent officers. And through 173 and most of 174, we would go 23 of 24hrs a day with at least a body online. Obviously, as a map moves west, especially the old-hc guys don't want to log in. People just "cant be assed" to jump on and attempt to hold towns with overwhelming odds, and that speaks to the character of a lot of guys who've been in the blue chat for years. My solution was to take over the map, sometimes 12hrs, up to 28 hours, at a time. I wanted to kinda "lead by example" and hope to get the rest on the same page; how to manage multiple AOs/DOs, cheerleading on .allied beyond "trucks to this AO plz"... but all that I ended up doing was being a crutch, a donkey carrying way too much workload and not actually getting that problem solved. Now we're getting proper c0cked on, and when we do get numbers of HC or players online, instead of doing something semi-tactical to get the map moving, we just sprint for whatever the action is. I feel like I failed in that goal of a better HC, and for that I apologize. 

Going onto your second point... yes. One side will lead in TOM and they will 99% of the time win the campaign. My stance on that is pretty simple... I'll win or lose any town OR campaign, as long as there's a good fight for it. Wrapping up towns in 30mins because the other side can't keep up with you is a REALLY not fun way to play this game. There were instances in our two winning campaigns where we'd go attack something less vulnerable (paras to veere for example) to try and make a fight rather than roll up 5 more towns on the map, and normally those fights would be longer and significantly more fun for both sides. I applaud those who have continued to log in, make fights, hold CPs, etc. BIG props to the few that continue to do the jobs. Pop imbalance is going to happen, but it's always ebbs and flows with this game. The key would be to make the ebbs and flows a bit less dramatic, maybe there's a way to insert some sort of mechanism to make that happen, maybe it requires the guys on the losing side to have a little maturity and not quit when going gets tough. 

I've got waaaay more thoughts on this than I can put into a forum post... but you get my drift. 

Share this post


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

Dang, I didnt even play yesterday either.

They need to find a way to add infantry or even tank bots to the underpop side to even out the population during lowpop and high underpop. Bots, in many successful games, even as old as wwiiol, run around and cap, kill, guard, etc. Their skill level randomly varies to mimic variable skill of a team of humans playing. Then once enough people log in the bots get auto kicked

Edited by dfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xcas
6 hours ago, dre21 said:

 

4th ,wasn't it said that taking away the Rambo LMG will bring the players back? 

Actually this made alot unsub.

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

I saw a bunch of Allied green tags last night, and we were still grossly overmatched with players. I'd kill a few, all unique names, then get killed by different unique names.

I don't understand the way the delay to join a side works, but when I popped on last night the delay to join Germans was 59 minutes. I have joined the game in the past when we (Allied) was OP, and sometimes I had to wait 59 SECONDS to join. How are those 2 values related?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
6 hours ago, dre21 said:

May I address a few things.

1st , no HC  Online for hours is hardly the other sides fault but with that I also know the motivation goes by the wayside for the side with no HC , solution sign up , it's not as bad as one thinks to be in the HC.

2nd to say doing the side lock thing will just show the imbalance , it maybe  so but CRS can then actually have a snap shot picture,   on the other hand it might even work out but we won't know cause it has never been tried. Plenty of ideas have been floated out there how to do it , myself have given the same idea time after time and I still stand by it that it should be given a shot.

3rd it always baffles me , when Axis almost had all of the map and the patch came in where Axis lost FG42 in the regular Army , Allies pushed back and won, then after was the map where Allies where OP everytime I logged in and Allies rolled and won that map too. And I can't say that any names popped up on my kill list or killed by, that I  have ever seen play the Axis side , so where have all these players gone?

4th ,wasn't it said that taking away the Rambo LMG will bring the players back? Then it was the Firefly and Achilles that would do the trick cause the Tiger won't rule supreme anymore and it be more of a level playing field , I'm sure there is one or 2 more points that I'm forgetting here.

 

In my eyes the best solution is sidelock, why ? Cause then you don't get these players like the player Djipa was talking about, and if you are a player that chose the Underpop side you already know what you are getting yourself into .

1. Nope its not the other sides fault (but for the sake of argument it's your fault - yes you dre21. We place the blame at your feet)  See now its not the Axis sides fault :) You are correct, when no HC is on it does effect the side.  PPl log out or dont stay logged in when things go sideways because no HC is on to move supply in or out of an area.

2. I rather be rollled then lock the sides. I think that would be seen as a non-negotiable to several players and they quit.

3. I saw a lot of side switching and it was going on even on the allied side too. One day the guy saves you from being sapped the next day he shrecks you and the next time you are on, hes the guard in your spawn.

4. Rambo LMG is gone - I dont ever want it back. We have smgs, Bars, Stg44s and even semi auto riffles that all fill the role of CP clearing.

 

The BEST solution is to increase the Allied Bench.  The Axis has always had a much bigger bench.  We cannot kill the Axis bench to satisfy the Allied players, we need to increase the allied bench to compete in the numbers game.  Its just that simple.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
james10
7 minutes ago, stankyus said:

The BEST solution is to increase the Allied Bench.  The Axis has always had a much bigger bench.  We cannot kill the Axis bench to satisfy the Allied players, we need to increase the allied bench to compete in the numbers game.  Its just that simple.

Wot' he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2

but as as @Quincannon will tell you axis are more popular side to play. so how can you increase the allied bench when any new players are more likely to play axis to begin with? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

I figure wusses who need 20:3 fights would just unsub if they were actually opposed, so just as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
7 hours ago, stankyus said:

Nope its not the other sides fault (but for the sake of argument it's your fault - yes you dre21. We place the blame at your feet)  See now its not the Axis sides fault :)

You can fault me , being in HC and member of an Axis only during campaign squad,  I can't just switch sides and help anymore.

And I think at least from the welcome I usually get  , is that my player tag is well liked when I run around in Allied colors, of course probably hated as much when I sit in my Stug somewhere in the game world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
denisd
7 hours ago, stankyus said:

 

2. I rather be rollled then lock the sides. I think that would be seen as a non-negotiable to several players and they quit.

 

I say good riddance to any player who prefers rolling towns  every day for weeks at a time than to balance the game and actually see an increase in numbers  (not directed at you but anyone who threatens to leave   a game because it fixes imbalances, are not welcome) .

 I don't like it when  it's done on the allied side either. During the end of campaign  173 (the big one where allies pushed back from defeat to win?), I was pissed to see that majority of allies was made up of  players who were axis at the start.  

It has to stop. It just does. been almost 20 years of this.  Enough is enough.  I am sitting out this campaign in protest and not sure if i will renew my sub.    It's like being in an abusive relationship, you keep coming back but eventually you finally wake up and walk away.

Edited by denisd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Well, no doubt allies need to somehow keep players in game playing, vrs logging off.

Your awards list shows you have many players on your side, if accurate.

HC has a huge influence I think on players staying on or not.  No question there.

Kile, I fear for you, your posts are deteriorating at a rapid pace :(  what has got into you?

Step back and look...  maps are 36-35-4 over the last 75 maps...... it isn't that bad.......

I think a lot of analysis has shown, both sides have a pretty good fair number of players.

The issue is, how long do those players stay in game and play.

I do think axis has an edge in general with players... think many play the bad side.

Would a USA  infantry only division in tier 1 or tier 2 help allied players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** I say good riddance to any player who prefers rolling towns  every day for weeks at a time than to balance the game

idk, there is more to that I think.

I'm in HC, I'm in a squad....  we can't just willy nily go allied when pop swings, nor can my squad members.

And, some of this IS allies fault, I and my squad went allied and were going to stay for a year.

(disbanded our squad and joined an allied squad)

We got so much SHxT you wouldn't believe it, even after helping for 40 days kick axis butt.

So, we went back axis.

Finally, I think each side getting some overpop is really good, but yes... extreme over pop is not good. (though, not sure where that level really is)

Share this post


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

Well, no doubt allies need to somehow keep players in game playing, vrs logging off.

Your awards list shows you have many players on your side, if accurate.

HC has a huge influence I think on players staying on or not.  No question there.

Kile, I fear for you, your posts are deteriorating at a rapid pace :(  what has got into you?

Step back and look...  maps are 36-35-4 over the last 75 maps...... it isn't that bad.......

I think a lot of analysis has shown, both sides have a pretty good fair number of players.

The issue is, how long do those players stay in game and play.

I do think axis has an edge in general with players... think many play the bad side.

Would a USA  infantry only division in tier 1 or tier 2 help allied players?

One: I honestly doubt that anyone in any WWII game will ever be able to find a way to balance game populations, short of limited numbers matches in some games where people who prefer to play Axis play Allies because they are bored.

Two:  This is a game. Some of us may be diehards who play regardless of the outcome,,, but a lot of folks will play something else of they aren't having fun here. And we really don't have a leg to stand on to stand on to criticize that. It's not like there is a commitment required to play the game.

Three: As the one who does the Allied awards, I would say that the list is not actually something you can use to get any type of accurate assessment of our player numbers. For many awards, the same people are earning multiple awards. In addition, ANYONE can earn almost any Allied award. This includes folks who swap sides.

All we can do is keep on trucking and hope for the best.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
12 hours ago, Quincannon said:

Three: As the one who does the Allied awards, I would say that the list is not actually something you can use to get any type of accurate assessment of our player numbers. For many awards, the same people are earning multiple awards. In addition, ANYONE can earn almost any Allied award. This includes folks who swap sides.

I agree there,  been with game since 2001, I got 1 FB award in all these years while other names keep popping up for awards on a consistent basis .  So to go by awards is kinda pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwrona
13 hours ago, denisd said:

I don't like it when  it's done on the allied side either. During the end of campaign  173 (the big one where allies pushed back from defeat to win?), I was pissed to see that majority of allies was made up of  players who were axis at the start.  

Name 'em. I saw a half-dozen, plus quite a few low-rank guys who snipe in fields, probably jumping to winning side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sideout
1 hour ago, dre21 said:

I agree there,  been with game since 2001, I got 1 FB award in all these years while other names keep popping up for awards on a consistent basis .  So to go by awards is kinda pointless.

That’s what we have to fix. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quincannon
6 hours ago, dre21 said:

I agree there,  been with game since 2001, I got 1 FB award in all these years while other names keep popping up for awards on a consistent basis .  So to go by awards is kinda pointless.

I understand. Yeah, some awards show up because of statistics. The others are because of nominations and we don't get enough of those. Sometimes it means that folks don't get recognized nearly as much as they deserve. Unfortunately, I can only issue what comes to my attention. That said, Thanks for everything you do.  S!
 

5 hours ago, sideout said:

That’s what we have to fix
 

The only "Fix" for this would be if more players, Officers and players alike... would take about 1-2 minutes of their time during or at the end of a Campaign, and send the High Command some recommendations.

We have a unique Awards system/ it is a hybrid of Statistics and Manual recognition. Now I know that some folks would prefer ONLY automatic awards. But consider that we HAVE a number of those. As far as pure combat statistics, we are able to record much of those. the only ones we can't record automatically so far are the Top Campaign stats (Kills/ Caps), because the CRS statistics do not separate sides. This means that the Top people on the lists on the stats page are using combined Allied AND Axis stats. So , after every Campaign (For the Allies, at least) we have to look at the very top person and then manually try to check to see if they have any sorties on the opposing side. That's an iffy proposition, because CRS erases all the stats very quickly, and B2Ks site , which we use as our primary source, does not compile every player's sortie information.

But where we stand out from every other game,  I believe... is in our capability to manually recognize people. No automated system can issue awards for non-statistical achievements. In this game, People can recognize their compatriots for their efforts and achievements... or for their efforts or service, Heck, there is even an award that allows players to be recognized by their opponents. You don;t see that sort of thing in any other game that I know of.

But if people don't take the time to tell HC what happens... if they don't take a moment and recommend their Squaddie for a job well done... then we can;t know... and we can't issue that well deserved recognition. Both High Commands need the players to tell us when someone stands out. If that happens, then we can do our part.

S!S!S!S!S!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
On 10/9/2020 at 12:08 PM, xcas said:

Actually this made alot unsub.

 I'm aware of that , I think CRS lost most of the 250h squad . But hey if they are willing to part with that revenue , and here we are going through the same topic once again .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vicfranko

409k Axis time on mission. 

313k Allied time on mission. 

 

That's basically all you need to know.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Ya, 31% TOM difference is huge.

Sure shows how much garrisons has slowed the roll though.

Back in TOE days, an 8% TOM difference usually meant complete map roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...