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

foe2
36 minutes ago, delems said:

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.

I don't think that quite true Delems. It's now far far easier to take towns low pop and very very difficult to take towns during prime time. Somehow garrisons have simultaneously sped up the map and slowed it down.

Plus it's looks as if generally campaigns are all around shorter than they used to be

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

A quick look showed the last 6 TOE maps lasted 32 days.

The last 6 garrison maps lasted 47 days.  Garrison maps are much slower.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
On 10/9/2020 at 7:59 PM, denisd said:

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.

I dont want to screw up the flow. There is a HUGE cost if we lock the sides down. This has zero to do with side switching it has to do with those who want to play with their peeps. If they log in a cannot play the side they want cause of side imballence they feel like they are not getting what they paid for.  This is from a guy who plays Tz3 often and am used to being out numbered, out gunned and out played.  I rather keep it that way, then kill the game with side lock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
On 10/9/2020 at 8:07 PM, delems said:

 

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

 

I experienced it too when I first came allied, experienced it again when I switch up back to Axis.  This kinda crap has to stop. Im sorry that happened to you.  Next time pick a good squad to roll with that is excepting of former axis.  AEF just likes ppl who like to play and dont whine all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
15 hours ago, delems said:

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.

But this early in the map it really means NOTHING.  Player pop swings like the breeze flowing through the tree branches.  ONE bad night can really turn the TOM around.  I think we all have seen that.  Tonight, allied underpopped but over supplied took a town after almost 5 hours of fighting. Most intense. I cannot remember ATM, but it was a 2 AB town. Axis brought up backline DFMSs. One of the most intense fights with ebb in flow. After that we started getting SD.. like 4 SD but we started underpopped.  The rest of this night went well for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
denisd
On 10/12/2020 at 4:23 AM, stankyus said:

I dont want to screw up the flow. There is a HUGE cost if we lock the sides down. This has zero to do with side switching it has to do with those who want to play with their peeps. If they log in a cannot play the side they want cause of side imballence they feel like they are not getting what they paid for.  This is from a guy who plays Tz3 often and am used to being out numbered, out gunned and out played.  I rather keep it that way, then kill the game with side lock.

You are misunderstanding what so many have been calling for.   This is not about loging in, and putting everyone on underpop then when the numbers swing the other put all new logins on the other side.

Sidelock as follows:

Prior to start of new campaign.

Ideally all major squads give their intent for their squad to join a side (through discord, forums whatever)  so everyone can see the rough numbers.     The entire squad remains sidelocked for remainder of campaign unless a major numbers imbalance and CRS can allow  squads to switch sides.

New campaign logins for non squad players again make a choice.  The non squad player is given the   the choice of a side   (locked in) or to chose (underpop) meaning they are placed either side depending on numbers.   These indies should also be given the chance to change sides once, then revert back to original choice when population warrants. 

I don't buy this world will implode if we give players the choice  and hold them to it.      No one  would be forced into one side or another. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
james10

Hello denisd how are you?

31 minutes ago, denisd said:

Ideally all major squads give their intent for their squad to join a side (through discord, forums whatever)  so everyone can see the rough numbers.     The entire squad remains sidelocked for remainder of campaign unless a major numbers imbalance and CRS can allow  squads to switch sides.

You are aware that Squads by their very nature, cause the side imbalances people are desperately trying to avoid.

Cheers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You are misunderstanding what so many have been calling for.   This is not about loging in, and putting everyone on underpop then when the numbers swing the other put all new logins on the other side.

Sidelock as follows:

Prior to start of new campaign.

Ideally all major squads give their intent for their squad to join a side (through discord, forums whatever)  so everyone can see the rough numbers.     The entire squad remains sidelocked for remainder of campaign unless a major numbers imbalance and CRS can allow  squads to switch sides.

New campaign logins for non squad players again make a choice.  The non squad player is given the   the choice of a side   (locked in) or to chose (underpop) meaning they are placed either side depending on numbers.   These indies should also be given the chance to change sides once, then revert back to original choice when population warrants. 

I don't buy this world will implode if we give players the choice  and hold them to it.      No one  would be forced into one side or another. 

Nope, thats what I am getting at. If I am the new log in - I want to play with my squad, not against them. Matter of fact we have squad rules that state that you must tell the squad you are taking a tour on the other side.  If I am forced to play the other side via side lock and it happens more than once.. Im not gonna log in.. and IF I cannot log in to play the game I want and achieve goals our squad works for.. Im being ripped off.

There is another side to this, you want to see protests?  Sure, ppl will help their squad.. they just keep driving tanks into a camp... spawning high value equipment etc... Whoops I fell off the roof with a RPAT... whats the point... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actonman

Quite weird to see all these HC gents here asking for pop balance and they always do.

Any HC knows the object or eventual outcome is to break the opposing side`s command structure and win the map. You have all seen the effects of morale on side population and momentum swings the map both ways,

This is a wargame - it`s more of a sport than a game never forget that, people practice, show skills, train and specialise, gain experience form teams.

In 20 years in HC i have never once asked for pop balance. Eventually every great general, burns out and fades away ; the good ones stay.

P.S. Hitler gave the Halt Order at Dunkirk and look what happened to him / maybe he wanted pop balance. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2019/01/05/hitlers-greatest-mistake-the-halt-order-at-dunkirk/

Edited by actonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
4 hours ago, actonman said:

Quite weird to see all these HC gents here asking for pop balance and they always do.

Any HC knows the object or eventual outcome is to break the opposing side`s command structure and win the map. You have all seen the effects of morale on side population and momentum swings the map both ways,

This is a wargame - it`s more of a sport than a game never forget that, people practice, show skills, train and specialise, gain experience form teams.

In 20 years in HC i have never once asked for pop balance. Eventually every great general, burns out and fades away ; the good ones stay.

P.S. Hitler gave the Halt Order at Dunkirk and look what happened to him / maybe he wanted pop balance. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2019/01/05/hitlers-greatest-mistake-the-halt-order-at-dunkirk/

Of COURSE the HC objective is to break the opposing command and org structure. 

But is that a wise business model that DEPENDS on breaking people from playing the game to win?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quincannon
On 10/14/2020 at 5:50 PM, actonman said:

Quite weird to see all these HC gents here asking for pop balance and they always do.

Any HC knows the object or eventual outcome is to break the opposing side`s command structure and win the map. You have all seen the effects of morale on side population and momentum swings the map both ways,

This is a wargame - it`s more of a sport than a game never forget that, people practice, show skills, train and specialise, gain experience form teams.

In 20 years in HC i have never once asked for pop balance. Eventually every great general, burns out and fades away ; the good ones stay.

P.S. Hitler gave the Halt Order at Dunkirk and look what happened to him / maybe he wanted pop balance. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2019/01/05/hitlers-greatest-mistake-the-halt-order-at-dunkirk/

I completely disagree.
I've been HC for 8 years in December. With one or two exceptions, I have never been in any AHC discussion where we were told that the point of our strategy was to break anyone. It was to do our best to win... Strategy was mentioned. Goals and targets have been mentioned. A lot of things were mentioned, but not trying to break the GHC command structure or to intentionally make people quit playing.

Is this a wargame? Yes. But it's not some kind of Bat$hit crazy competition where we should be trying to win at the cost of people on the other side unsubscribing. Yes, people show up, train and learn. They play in teams... and hopefully we all  work together well enough to beat our opponents.
 

That said, at the end of the day, this IS  a game. And we need the entire community to keep it going. Sports teams don't need that. If a Sports team drives the other team out of business (professional) or to lose it's players because they picked on them (little league), so much the better for them, because there is less competition. This is NOT a League with a bunch of independent teams. We are co-dependent.

Morale can be an issue. We fight to prop our guys up when we're losing and cheer their victories. But what we don't do anymore (something I saw a couple of times when I first started), is win a battle or a campaign and go to the other side's forums and give them crap for losing. That stuff had a seriously nasty effect on morale.

We're two sides, but one community. Do I want some semblance of pop balance? Of course. I hate watching 4-5 of our guys giving it their all against ridiculous odds. But I don't want it at the cost of anyone quitting the game, either.

S!S!S!S!S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwrona
5 hours ago, Quincannon said:

I completely disagree.
I've been HC for 8 years in December. With one or two exceptions, I have never been in any AHC discussion where we were told that the point of our strategy was to break anyone. It was to do our best to win... Strategy was mentioned. Goals and targets have been mentioned. A lot of things were mentioned, but not trying to break the GHC command structure or to intentionally make people quit playing.

.... well.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sideout

When people quit playing, we’ve lost, all of us, no winners here. Regardless of what side we play, when we agreed to the A of C, we agreed to conduct ourselves in a certain way. Primarily agreeing to put players first, their experiences first. The overall health and sustainability of this game is at stake. Two sides, but one community is a great way t9 look at where we are today. Nobody’s command structure is going to break on eithe4 side because of a win or a loss that’s for sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwrona
3 hours ago, sideout said:

Nobody’s command structure is going to break on eithe4 side because of a win or a loss that’s for sure. 

You know as well as I that this isn't true.

I'm anticipating if I cant roll up 4-5 towns tonight, that we'll have little-to-no HC on all weekend. Some of these guys are wimps when it comes to trying to lead a losing side (even tho leading a defense is honestly EASIER than attacking).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sideout

Maybe I misunderstood definition of “breaking the high command”. I read that as quitting the game not the current map. This game to me has always been either Cup is  half full or half empty. The half full guys are always propping up the game the half empty guys bemoan and wail for the old days. CRS meanwhile, is trying to run a business. Balancing those three issues is like watching a blind person eat an ice cream cone. It works, but it’s messy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quincannon
4 hours ago, sideout said:

Maybe I misunderstood definition of “breaking the high command”. I read that as quitting the game not the current map. This game to me has always been either Cup is  half full or half empty. The half full guys are always propping up the game the half empty guys bemoan and wail for the old days. CRS meanwhile, is trying to run a business. Balancing those three issues is like watching a blind person eat an ice cream cone. It works, but it’s messy.

I read it the exact same way. Nothing we do should be done with the intention of causing people to quit the game.
 

S!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC

Even with the best intentions at heart, it is often difficult to control the baser instincts of players in a win/lose environment. Particularly when they have to pay for it. It's a huge challenge.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jsilec
On 10/12/2020 at 6:27 AM, stankyus said:

AEF just likes ppl who like to play and dont whine all the time.

Good One Lol GIF by Justin

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
13 hours ago, Jsilec said:

Good One Lol GIF by Justin

I said “all the time....” 

Monkey boy. I will set Rans on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
On 10/16/2020 at 12:35 PM, Quincannon said:

I read it the exact same way. Nothing we do should be done with the intention of causing people to quit the game.
 

S!

That's sweet.  No really.  But that's not what winners DO.

See Doc post for clarity on the mindset.

The thing is, if you don't feed red meat to your guys that wanna win, you don't retain their interest, which impacts the sweet I just wanna play and shoot stuff guys as they get beat to a pulp if there isn't a fully implemented PN.  Which there isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
On 10/9/2020 at 10:18 AM, dijpa said:

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?

 

Dude don't even start. I've seen youtube clips of allied defence in TZ3 and its 5 people flying db7 and spitfire, one guy in an s35 and another in a panhard both in open fields as far away from action as possible applying the most lazy attempt at hunting efms whilst one or two poor bastages as inf try to hold the spawn cp. And in this instance  I'm referring to the attackers are only 12-15 guys vs 8-10. Easily holdable if people actually gave a [censored] about the map and not their stats.

The amount of times we get to a town and the first allied response is to spawn a tank for 5 cheap [censored] kills... 

You guys do yourselves no favours in defence and to be honest, axis isn't much different when we're low pop.

Having said that, side lock suggestions you made is bulletproof IMO. I don't understand why we even allow side switching during campaign, I just don't get it.

Edited by saffroli
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
On 10/16/2020 at 2:07 PM, sideout said:

This game to me has always been either Cup is  half full or half empty. The half full guys are always propping up the game the half empty guys bemoan and wail for the old days. CRS meanwhile, is trying to run a business. Balancing those three issues is like watching a blind person eat an ice cream cone. It works, but it’s messy.

Sorry, I had to respond to this. The cup half full people are the ones let the war crimes happen, just saying... 

Being critical is key to better solutions. So being half empty is more beneficial for change than just being happy with the status quo/whatever is fed to you...

It's about not being satisfied. Look at anyone successful what do they have in common? An unwavering character of always wanting to do better and improve on absolutely EVERYTHING. 
If you love this game, you should be harder on it, not easier. I'm not saying be toxic I'm just saying certain things *need* to be moaned about so there can develop a consensus for change.

You think me and Undercova would have found that 232 bug on Churchill etc if we were too busy saying how good the game was? No we found it by trying to find what's WRONG with it. Actively looking for bugs.

And believe me there's plenty more but we gave up reporting anything because nobody ever listens because for them the sun shines out of this games [censored] and they ignore any criticism anyway. I've told people multiple times about certain features much like alot of other players on here only to be shut down as a whiner or hater. 

Don't make it a cult thing

Edited by saffroli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwrona
59 minutes ago, saffroli said:

Dude don't even start. I've seen youtube clips of allied defence in TZ3 and its 5 people flying db7 and spitfire, one guy in an s35 and another in a panhard both in open fields as far away from action as possible applying the most lazy attempt at hunting efms whilst one or two poor bastages as inf try to hold the spawn cp. And in this instance  I'm referring to the attackers are only 12-15 guys vs 8-10. Easily holdable if people actually gave a [censored] about the map and not their stats.

Oh i feel this so hard.

It's the 60% rule. 60% of the guys in a town will do 0 productive to hold/take that town. Get some kills. Snipe things. Even the guy with a rifle out in the open just shouting "pz." Chimay on Saturday, I was libbing a CP, we were down to 1 AB, 1 CP, and I counted (sht you not) 20 guys at least 100m outside of town. 

But at the same time... when its 5 allies online (Boom, 175) and dijpa and I are trying to hold the whole town ourselves (again, 3 guys doing god knows what in tanks) against heavy EWS BEFORE the 15 paras jump out, it hurts. Hard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sideout
54 minutes ago, saffroli said:

Sorry, I had to respond to this. The cup half full people are the ones let the war crimes happen, just saying... 

Being critical is key to better solutions. So being half empty is more beneficial for change than just being happy with the status quo/whatever is fed to you...

 

Who said you can’t do both? That aside, it sounds like there isn’t much communication both ways. How do we fix that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
24 minutes ago, jwrona said:

Oh i feel this so hard.

It's the 60% rule. 60% of the guys in a town will do 0 productive to hold/take that town. Get some kills. Snipe things. Even the guy with a rifle out in the open just shouting "pz." Chimay on Saturday, I was libbing a CP, we were down to 1 AB, 1 CP, and I counted (sht you not) 20 guys at least 100m outside of town. 

But at the same time... when its 5 allies online (Boom, 175) and dijpa and I are trying to hold the whole town ourselves (again, 3 guys doing god knows what in tanks) against heavy EWS BEFORE the 15 paras jump out, it hurts. Hard. 

I sympathize but since I'm axis only that might seem a little snarky.

23 minutes ago, sideout said:

Who said you can’t do both? That aside, it sounds like there isn’t much communication both ways. How do we fix that?

 

By not vilifying or brow beating "detractors" [not saying you were]. That would be a start I think.

Reality is each to their own, people who play this game whether they moan or not like it and want to see it succeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...