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

jwrona
1 hour ago, saffroli said:

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

I appreciate it. I know it happens on both sides. Ebbs and flows. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quincannon
17 hours ago, Kilemall said:

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.

Awwww, Kilemall...and here I thought you didn't care.

"if you don't feed red meat to your guys that wanna win, you don't retain their interest,..."  Is that supposed to mean that you have to somehow make all the guys on the other side unsubscribe and quit the game in order to keep your own guys? Is that the concept that you're espousing? Seriously?

It's simple, neighbor. If you run a game whose community is actively TRYING to make as many opposing players quit the game for good as possible; then you are completely wasting your time attempting to gain and keep new players.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't play their best, I'm not saying that people should go easy on opponents in game.

"Winners" don't have to be jerks about it. If you want everyone who plays on the opposite side to quit, and you achieve that... then you only get to play once. Because the next time no one else will play against you. You won. They quit playing for good, Yay you.

This is a game people pay to play. But we need to play it in such a manner that both the winners and losers want to play gain and again.

S!S!S!S!S!
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

I never see this guy in game, only on the forums

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
1 hour ago, dfire said:

I never see this guy in game, only on the forums

I'm in, much to the chagrin of some of the leadership, and if I'm not in on the K account I am on the 2nd.  You don't get that 'don't play the game/shut up' card, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TEX64

KILL - when you coming 'home', brother.  

Asking for a friend. :)

 

tex

Share this post


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

"if you don't feed red meat to your guys that wanna win, you don't retain their interest,..."  Is that supposed to mean that you have to somehow make all the guys on the other side unsubscribe and quit the game in order to keep your own guys? Is that the concept that you're espousing? Seriously?

I would say that my position on this has evolved.

In the early going it wasn't force them to unsub, more get them to break for the rest of a campaign.  This was necessary, particularly in the BEF sector where the local supply was always very tight and fights on edge once you got past Antwerp.

This is a NATURAL outcome of setting up situations where every fight is difficult and the maps kept on getting bigger.  At a certain point you have to BREAK your enemy.  Sorry, that's the deal.  This isn't cooperative fluffy game, this is WAR.

I think you may be misinterpreting my phrase red meat to mean forcing unsubs, no it's more like offering them meaningful battles that we have successfully as a team altered conditions to where they have a better then even chance to win with the means to do so at the time and org they bring to the table vs. the enemy.  As HC you run your actions like lalala let's drop paras and hit easy towns and do FUN things and your hardcore guys will decide to not bother.

If HC leadership is not aware and serve this portion of the playerbase, they will lose a goodly portion of their firepower and the more casual players will start getting stomped on if the other side retained their red meat guys, and now they aren't 'having fun' either.

Now then as HC you can't be wound up fighting for every town like it literally is WWII with all the consequences of losing.  Sending players into a meatgrinder or 'we gotta hit these three towns' constantly will just wear them down and make it feel like a job.  HCs HAVE to listen to the mood of the players and play up to it, while juggling AOs so Zees guys are happy while air guys are happy while North guys get some and so do South guys. 

I liken the job to being a 'party host for war', and you do need to keep entertainment going on, but entertainment towards winning and competence.  BIG thing to have the confidence of the players to where they will go do the hard stuff and they know you set them up best you could instead of running them into a shredder cause you don't know what you're doing.

 


 

Quote

It's simple, neighbor. If you run a game whose community is actively TRYING to make as many opposing players quit the game for good as possible; then you are completely wasting your time attempting to gain and keep new players.

I agree that the game should not be structured to require this breakdown to win.  However, consider all the fairness in equipment and spawnlists and formations issues going on ALL the time.  If the Rats succeed in making an absolutely fair spawnlist, then it becomes difficult to reach a decision with a campaign.

This is why I am big on getting working Pop Neutrality in so people have 24/7 opportunity to effectively attack (and double content during lowpop), then upping the ability of attack so the game goes to 'controlled instability' and gets a lot more exciting.

 

Quote

I'm not saying that people shouldn't play their best, I'm not saying that people should go easy on opponents in game.

"Winners" don't have to be jerks about it. If you want everyone who plays on the opposite side to quit, and you achieve that... then you only get to play once. Because the next time no one else will play against you. You won. They quit playing for good, Yay you.

Ya okay, SUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE.  Go easy on enemies.  Riiiiiiight.

Maybe if we were all guys like you, but we aren't.  There's a lot of bloodthirsty pirates around, it's a competitive game not an elementary school 'everybody wins participation trophies cause everyone is special' soccer game.  You know, SHOOTING people in FPS without 3/4 of the helper stuff most games have.  Conquering Europe is Not Nice.

So that isn't happening.  EVER.  Not a good business plan to count on players' choosing to 'be nice', you have to code it into the game, and in the process risk losing the killers due to the compromises.
 

Quote

This is a game people pay to play. But we need to play it in such a manner that both the winners and losers want to play gain and again.

S!S!S!S!S!


Sure, but that involves equal opportunity 24x7, not a bunch of players being 'swell'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I would say that my position on this has evolved.

In the early going it wasn't force them to unsub, more get them to break for the rest of a campaign.  This was necessary, particularly in the BEF sector where the local supply was always very tight and fights on edge once you got past Antwerp.

This is a NATURAL outcome of setting up situations where every fight is difficult and the maps kept on getting bigger.  At a certain point you have to BREAK your enemy.  Sorry, that's the deal.  This isn't cooperative fluffy game, this is WAR.

It's NOT a  cooperative fluffy game. But it's not WAR either.  It's a warGAME. That means, unlike war... if you want to play, you have to have people who actually want to play with you. Or you don't get to play at all.
 

3 hours ago, Kilemall said:

I agree that the game should not be structured to require this breakdown to win.  However, consider all the fairness in equipment and spawnlists and formations issues going on ALL the time.  If the Rats succeed in making an absolutely fair spawnlist, then it becomes difficult to reach a decision with a campaign.

This is why I am big on getting working Pop Neutrality in so people have 24/7 opportunity to effectively attack (and double content during lowpop), then upping the ability of attack so the game goes to 'controlled instability' and gets a lot more exciting

This is all great. Pop Neutrality is a laudable concept.
 

3 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Ya okay, SUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE.  Go easy on enemies.  Riiiiiiight.

Maybe if we were all guys like you, but we aren't.  There's a lot of bloodthirsty pirates around, it's a competitive game not an elementary school 'everybody wins participation trophies cause everyone is special' soccer game.  You know, SHOOTING people in FPS without 3/4 of the helper stuff most games have.  Conquering Europe is Not Nice.

So that isn't happening.  EVER.  Not a good business plan to count on players' choosing to 'be nice', you have to code it into the game, and in the process risk losing the killers due to the compromises.

Did you read what I wrote? Or are you simply disregarding it? I specifically said that I was NOT suggesting that anyone go easy on anyone else IN game. I was saying that out of game... in the forums... If we want to have a community, people don't act like jerks.

So your side won. Then be gracious winners. Take the win. But don't then go online on the other side's forum and try to psych them out about it or crow about it. This has happened.

And here's one that has always irked me to no end... One side is winning HUGE... so they have essentially "broken" the other side because most of the losing side's folks decide that it's over and they decide to log off until the next campaign..... and then the guys from the winning side come onto the forums of the side that they are beating to lambast and deride them for not logging in. I can;t count how many times I have seen posts saying that "It's your own fault is your side is losing because your guys won't log on." or " How are people supposed to enjoy the game if people who are losing won't log on?" even the old chestbut " I want to salute those guys on your side who stayed until the end and didn't give up and quit playing when things got rough."   Here's an idea... If your side is winning and the other side logs off... try not going on their forums and deriding them for doing what you wanted them to do in the first place.

I NEVER suggested being all sweet and cozy, Kilemall. I suggested that a community of gamers who want that community to grow and prosper understand that that means that winning doesn't have to mean breaking your opponent's spirits. If you don't understand that, then I suggest you read about Joe Louis and Max Schmelling sometime. It's entirely possible to fight with all you've got and lose and still show your opponent mutual respect. THAT is what I'm suggesting.

3 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Sure, but that involves equal opportunity 24x7, not a bunch of players being 'swell'.

No... you don't need players to all be "swell guys" to create an environment where everyone wants to keep playing. But you do need one where people realize that  this is a game, and that their opponents are playing against them because it's fun... not because they were drafted against their will and forced into combat. People play the game because they WANT to... not because they have to. I can't tell you how many games I have played and lost and still continued to play because it was fun...until one or two other players started to act like jerks and made logging into the game more depressing than fun.

Think about something that has happened a number of times in our game. Someone decides for whatever reason... to change sides. Not side swapping,,, but a real change, for whatever reason.  And then, because they played on the opposing side and gave it their all while they were there... people on their new side give them so much crap for having played their original side... that they either go back to their original side or quit the game. I'm all for side loyalty, but that's just wrong.

Crush your opponents in combat ... that SHOULD happen....  but then treat them like you want to be treated when you're off the battlefield. That's how it should be as well. Welcome new players to the game. Tell them that it's a War is Hell environment in the game. Make sure they know this isn't a schoolyard tussle...  But treat them like members of the community you want to have grow. If you ... if WE... don't get better at that... we won't HAVE a community.

One of the most common types of comment on Steam about games is the "OMG! What an unwelcoming and toxic community!" type post. THAT is not the kind of review anyone needs. I know that I and my friends, when looking at a new game always look for these comments to see if we want to even play ... no matter how good the game looks.

In my opinion... Real Winners are the ones who are winners on AND off the field.

I can name a few... Stankyus... VonDoosh.... Boudreau .... AOMercy .... there are a lot more. If more of us played and interacted like them... I think the game would grow a lot more than it has so far.

S!S!S!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

While people rage quitting is certainly a thing, it's poor game design.

It would be one thing if what generated rage quits was a fair game that results in a rout. 100 v 100, and they simply were better and smarter today, something breaks down, and we give up that particular battle when it's obvious the tide has turned. Fine.

When it's 10 defenders vs 10 aircraft, 10 tanks, and as many inf as the tanks and planes combined? Yeah, that's a different rage quit. There are not more people at the tip of their spear because they did anything better, they just have more people. That's what drives the map. If it's clear all you are doing is padding someone's camping stats, you might rage quit for the night—exacerbating the problem. So yeah, even then there is an issue with people leving, and making it spiral, but the cause of them leaving in the first place was that imbalance. Losing a fair fight is a "congrats, gg!" thing. Losing when the chess board was set up and you have to start with some fraction of the number of pieces... not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

Ok, perhaps I misinterpreted what you posted Quin.

And I agree with the forum decorum and ingame toxic aspects.

The former I ended up lecturing man-children that just HAD to poke the bear and if I had been in the chain of command proper would have disciplined AHC types who did that sort of thing.

The latter, the ingame toxicity, partially is this stupidity several players have of 'Rats love the Other Side/give us crap' that I've seen both sides.  It's always a bit fun to tell people that the other side is convinced they are the ones nerfed, but disheartening too, again man-children. 

But the other part is the noobs being noobs and not realizing how thoroughly they are screwing their side with popping smoke at the FMS, opening fire when it's sneaky time across an open field, rolling out 5 tanks into a camp is helping the other side block the AB gate and have inf cover from all the wrecks if nothing else, etc.   Game does a poor job of dropping noobs into a way more complex environment then they are ready for, absolutely NOT explaining attrition, and the lack of voice comms to get them straight and their lack of communicativeness in general will drive most any vet to tears.

All that being said, the vast majority of players never hit the forums.  The forums are very important IMO because it affects opinion makers who then convey it to their squaddies or people in the game.  People aren't broken by what they read in the forum, they are broken by signing on and seeing no HC and org in tatters and everyone playing selfish entertainment instead of winning team for several nights in a row.  The toxic ingame commentary just accentuates what is actually happening.

So to me the prescription is coding for orging, PN, voice comms plus a far more robust boot camp regimen that includes effective comms and attrition and finding battles, etc., cranking up offense so you can have dramatic advances AND defeats and all AOs are active and it's 24x7 terror (PN required) and making sure the spawnlists can actually allow players to play the game.  THAT is more effective then the side issue of swellness in forums.

Tater has expressed the core of the Cycle of Suck, the constant unfairness for months on end that actually gets people not to log for the campaign, but unsub.  It can happen with spawnlists and specific side impacts like the FRU removals and really bad bugs, but usually is because of the varying org levels and/or pop levels that can poison all TZs even if only one is 'bad'.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
16 hours ago, tater said:

While people rage quitting is certainly a thing, it's poor game design.

 

So people's own decisions are a fault of the game? That's backwards logic if I ever saw it.

The game doesn't induce people to rage quit, people rage quit on their own accord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2
14 minutes ago, saffroli said:

So people's own decisions are a fault of the game? That's backwards logic if I ever saw it.

The game doesn't induce people to rage quit, people rage quit on their own accord.

I don't know seeing you side lose  10 towns  in the space of a couple of hours low pop is pretty bad. Last night the whole of Brussels fell for a total of 142 deaths in Game.  Losing towns in that manor is  far worse than the old cuts I feel. With the cuts at you could try and break them or cut the other side somewhere else.  You might not have succeeded in doing that  but at least you had the means to try.  Now it is  relentless low pop grind  that most of us can't really do anything to change unless  involves changing sleep patterns. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
25 minutes ago, saffroli said:

So people's own decisions are a fault of the game? That's backwards logic if I ever saw it.

The game doesn't induce people to rage quit, people rage quit on their own accord.

Nonsense.

It makes complete sense. Some rage quits are irrational. The same guy shoots you a few times in a row, unseen, and you decide to do something else for a while instead of banging the keyboard.

I play TZ3 sometimes when my wife is on call. She'll go in at some crazy hour, and I can't sleep, so I pop on. Sometimes it's just late at night in the US (midnight), whatever TZ that is. Anyway, when I pop in and a town is down to a CP and an AB, and I spawn in, and there are literally a handful pf defenders in town, and there are more tanks camping the depot I am trying to leave than total defenders in town, yeah, I might just quit, it's too frustrating.

That's the game's fault, sorry. The spawn castle paradigm that forces me to escape someplace camped. The game world that allows odds that are completely impossible to counter (again, would you volunteer to play chess with me where I start with a normal set of pieces, and you get a king, 2 pawns, and nothing else?

In short, when the game is working properly (sides are not too unequal, and both have at least some min number of players), rage quitting is a choice. When it's 3 defenders vs 20? It's amazing anyone plays at all on the UP side.

Honestly, the worst situation is where there are just enough players to burn supply, but not enough to actually have any chance of winning the fight. In that case, you can be tricked into playing longer, or actually trying (recapping, etc). Those are where the rage quits happen for me. It;s low pop, and I figure wtf, they are low pop, too. Then I see that I killed 4, all unique names, get killed by a 5th, then a 6th, kill more, different names than before, and I realize, oh, there are many more of them than us (skulls all over the map, too). Log.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
15 minutes ago, foe2 said:

I don't know seeing you side lose  10 towns  in the space of a couple of hours low pop is pretty bad. Last night the whole of Brussels fell for a total of 142 deaths in Game.  Losing towns in that manor is  far worse than the old cuts I feel. With the cuts at you could try and break them or cut the other side somewhere else.  You might not have succeeded in doing that  but at least you had the means to try.  Now it is  relentless low pop grind  that most of us can't really do anything to change unless  involves changing sleep patterns. 

Yeah, "the map" is disconnected from actual play. In order to capture a town, you should have to kill a substantial % of the troops stationed there in some time frame.

Share this post


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

Tater has expressed the core of the Cycle of Suck, the constant unfairness for months on end that actually gets people not to log for the campaign, but unsub.  It can happen with spawnlists and specific side impacts like the FRU removals and really bad bugs, but usually is because of the varying org levels and/or pop levels that can poison all TZs even if only one is 'bad'.

Fully agree, although I'd contend the inability of CRS to recognise, let alone fix, an underlying problem like out-of-limit imbalance or off-peak map rolls v an absent player-base, is at the very root of it. SD is a classic of what I call an "MVF" - minimum viable "fix", as it does not solve the problem, merely the symptom, and even then is only effective if there are actually defending players there. Even a large SD makes no difference whatsoever if there's no defending players present. You've only to consider the old "soft-caps". No SD would affect those, because no defending player could spawn. But they still happened, and players were happy to do them - at least - I never saw a shortage of players willing to soft-cap.  Did you?

Edited by fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sideout
12 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, "the map" is disconnected from actual play. In order to capture a town, you should have to kill a substantial % of the troops stationed there in some time frame.

There is nothing but complaints from either side, relative to TZ3. NO ONE likes how it is, but no one has a solution. Perhaps we need to brainstorm, and get out of the box

Ill start:

What if...........the clock strikes midnight (wherever that is with the LEAST pop total playing) and the CAPTURE RULES JUST CHANGED! 

What if, instead of spawn delay, and capture timers, what if, the "majority" side has other tasks they have to accomplish in order to capture town. Maybe its placed ammo boxes in four corners, or build a trench from a to z I dunno. Maybe its even surprise events that popup.

What if.............we took an entire TZ that is a big negative and turned it into a HUGE POSITIVE with something creative like that? Oh wait, instead of just rolling this town, i now have to spawn a plane, fly it to this town, and pickup a combat engineer (or sapper whatever....mimics a vip civilian) and deliver by this time to this town (other side of map) tasks like that. The side thats over popped gets told at beginning of clock striking midnight, these will be the objectives occuring over the next five hours, and obtw the opposing side gets a recap at the same time what those objectives might be in case they want to try and interdict. 

I absolutely guarantee that we could get five vets from both sides, that have played low pop and understand the nuances, into a ZOOM meeting, and so ok, fellas heres your chance, and see what they come up with that is both fair, reasonable, and FUN?

On a related point, as i frankly can't grade CRS well on their ability to pivot on anything quickly, aren't these the type of ideas we should be trying during intermissions? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

Good post. Personally I'd prefer a penalty - perhaps continuous erosion of rank - the more frequently you spawn in as overpop, the longer you spend in game therein, the higher rank you have when doing so, and the degree of overpop when related to overall server-pop, with low server-pop attracting the most severe penalties far in excess with rank gained due camping. In sum, the point of this is to put real pressure on players who log in at the same time of day, in a large overpop, with minimal server pop and on a repeating basis. Conversely, other imaginative bonuses for those who do the opposite, with actual play - as opposed to just building rank by spawning into a back town and going to walk the dog, afk.

Give it a few weeks of that, and have those materially causing issues to the TZ3 game, heading fast for no longer being able to access the better units or post missions and I think (along with some epic complaints) you'd eventually see some outcomes more conducive to the health of the game regardless of if they unsub or simply change the time or side when they play - until a long-term near parity occurs in all TZ's. The definition of "Parity" not neccessarily being equal. Consequently I would suggest that the definition of the "parity band" (within which relative numbers are broadly acceptable and correct to give statistically equal results) are defined on both TZ and Tier basis, using data culled from past campaigns and continuously updated. 

If it's got right, then SD will vanish, and a tiny handful of players will have their noses put out of joint, but the game be immeasureably improved across all TZ's.

But you'e right about the need for imaginative other tasks, kudos to you for saying what many of us have been thinking, attempts to make the game function in the same way in TZ3 as TZ's 1&2 is a fool's-errand, but failure to change it or address the issues therein is highly damaging to the game overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfire
On 10/9/2020 at 11:58 AM, dfire said:

 

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

Bump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

Yeah, alternative play for tz3 would be useful (only when min pop is not reached for either side).

Some sort of commando raids?

Infantry patrols?

The EFB concept gets at it (dunno if they can code it, but it's a good idea) in a similar way by letting lower pop people move the lines closer to attack without actually rolling the map (useful prep work to move the map, but not defeating a city full of troops (supply) with a handful of players.

The AI could be randomized instead of the awful way it is now. Slowly redo towns. Add hidden AI emplacements all around town. Use existing models for ground deployed AI. They are the "destroyed" state (just the sandbags). The actual AI are randomly chosen from among the emplacements linked to a given facility. The engagement range is also random within some range of acceptable values. So maybe a CP has 3-4 possible AI locations, the AI "spawns" randomly at one of them every time an AO is booted. AI is made nastier (within some range) before tables are hot (so all the time when no AO is placed). AI respawns by itself after some time period if destroyed  (again, when no AO is placed).

Then have a new "recon/patrol" paradigm to determine where the AI is before an AO is allowed to be placed? Patrol units need to get the AI to fire on the side of all linked towns, then RTB to even enable the possibility of an AO on that town? Without an AO the MSP exclusion zone could bump to a few km making this not a situation where you set an attack FMS, then patrol, any FMS is much farther out. So players need to walk in towards town where AI position is unknown, and get the AI to shoot at them, then RTB. They could ride on a vehicle as well. Maybe they have to bring something to get the ATGs to shoot, or maybe they can mark the ATGs by shooting at them and hitting them with small arms (no need to kill, pinging them enough for a patrol). EWS could go off before they get into AI range. First responders then patrol looking for the patrol. They know the patrol has to find the AI, so they can be near it, and if it goes off, they hunt down the patrol and kill it before it can RTB, and end the AO possibility before it starts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sideout
24 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, alternative play for tz3 would be useful (only when min pop is not reached for either side).

Some sort of commando raids?

Infantry patrols?

The EFB concept gets at it (dunno if they can code it, but it's a good idea) in a similar way by letting lower pop people move the lines closer to attack without actually rolling the map (useful prep work to move the map, but not defeating a city full of troops (supply) with a handful of players.

The AI could be randomized instead of the awful way it is now. Slowly redo towns. Add hidden AI emplacements all around town. Use existing models for ground deployed AI. They are the "destroyed" state (just the sandbags). The actual AI are randomly chosen from among the emplacements linked to a given facility. The engagement range is also random within some range of acceptable values. So maybe a CP has 3-4 possible AI locations, the AI "spawns" randomly at one of them every time an AO is booted. AI is made nastier (within some range) before tables are hot (so all the time when no AO is placed). AI respawns by itself after some time period if destroyed  (again, when no AO is placed).

Then have a new "recon/patrol" paradigm to determine where the AI is before an AO is allowed to be placed? Patrol units need to get the AI to fire on the side of all linked towns, then RTB to even enable the possibility of an AO on that town? Without an AO the MSP exclusion zone could bump to a few km making this not a situation where you set an attack FMS, then patrol, any FMS is much farther out. So players need to walk in towards town where AI position is unknown, and get the AI to shoot at them, then RTB. They could ride on a vehicle as well. Maybe they have to bring something to get the ATGs to shoot, or maybe they can mark the ATGs by shooting at them and hitting them with small arms (no need to kill, pinging them enough for a patrol). EWS could go off before they get into AI range. First responders then patrol looking for the patrol. They know the patrol has to find the AI, so they can be near it, and if it goes off, they hunt down the patrol and kill it before it can RTB, and end the AO possibility before it starts.

 

definitely thinking along the same lines here...............

 

another thought............shuffle the deck? fb locations get shuffled from map to map? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N8
Just now, sideout said:

fb locations get shuffled from map to map? 

Elaborate.

Interested in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sideout
15 minutes ago, N8 said:

Elaborate.

Interested in this.

like moving the hole on the green in golf.

 

you never know where that suckers gonna be..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

Shuffling FBs would provide variability in play, but doesn't impact the low pop issue.

Seems like there needs to be something for really low pop sides to do that is both meaningful to "the map," and has a decent chance of combat (it's a combat game) where they at least have a chance.

We have all these forces in being (Garrisons and BDEs).

What if they were contingent on map level things like AOs?

That is, minus an AO or DO, a town "Garrison" is VERY limited in spawn list. Like a heavy platoon of inf, 3 trucks, and some ATG/AAA guns.

Add:

1. On sides MSP rules, including a exclusion zone around FBs (so FB attackers come from the side where the enemy are, or at least spawn on that side, and if they attack from another flank, they need to actually flank.

2. EWS for FBs. We want FBs fights to be FIGHTS.

 

This is different than the current system in that FB busts from towns that are not actively under threat of attack (have an AO placed on them), or towns that have already placed an AO on another (so are declared as attacking) can only bust FBs with a platoon. And the FB can only defend with a platoon. We create FB fights over what are in effect outposts, waiting for forces to move up and jump off. These are patrol level actions. Handfuls of players can impact this, and the limited spawn lists really help. Imagine this combined with the idea of mini-town or farm looking FBs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC

This is probably THE most difficult thing to fix "on the fly" or incrementally in a piecemeal fashion, since there isn't a single aspect to address and most if not all of the issue has never been addressed at the root causes. even if you were to experiment with some tweak here and there, such as during an intermission ... it's likely that what that intermission reveals at first glance is not wholly accurate as data simply because it's a relatively high profile moment under close scrutiny as an experiment during an intermission.

Identifying core issues is the first step. This in itself has to happen over some time since many things will be suggested and the veracity of each suggestion needs to be fully picked apart, and then point listed as an item to be addressed where possible. I won't attempt to solve the issue other than to state examples but if it were my job I would treat it as a project demanding almost full time attention.

1. The Axis Attraction. This one is not being mentioned by myself here for any good/bad judgement intention, but it is a thing and it is real. We knew this even when I was there. German sides in WWII games are just cooler and there are many factors that might be the cause of this. I love satire and the "Axis are cooler" is a veritable motherload of material for that stuff. The uniforms are definitely cooler but I think it might have more to do with common perceptions (true or false, most run of the mill people are not experts on this stuff) of German WWII weapons tech. Remember, skulls are cool even though Mitchel seems concerned about that aspect.

2. Stacks on the Mill. This works for both sides. It's a base human instinct (for many folks) to not want to be beaten up by a superior number of opponents and to basically, if given a choice ... prefer to be on the side doing the rolling than to be rolled, especially if there's then the opportunity to feel like the winner with a nicely padded stats sheet.

Now I know that there are other issues that can be brought up, and even with just these two you can drill down into the details deeper and deeper and find other things to look at or run off on a tangent pursuing ... but these are perhaps the two biggest factors and in my mind that's because they are the hardest to "fix".

Let's talk about the first one.

There isn't a lot you can do about uniforms, let's face it most people are going to imagine the type of thing popular culture throws up (the SS black/grey/silver/skull/lightning bolt, hell even the helmet shape) and find the German "look" cooler and more appealing. It's not even the look as much as the whole "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" (Luftwaffe versus "Air Force" hmmmm) or "The Tiger that Killed an Entire Brigade" and "The World's First Assault Rifle" (StG.44) and all that stuff that's populated the average YouTuber mindset for decades. We see American soldiers in popular film wetting their pants over getting "a Luger" as a souvenir but you NEVER see a German soldier doing likewise over a Colt 1911. I'm sure the Germans loved picking up 1911's in real life but it's never depicted like that whereas Lugers are all the time.

So what do you do ? I think you focus attention on game mechanisms that make being on one side or the other attractive not in these more simple and easily identifiable things, but on what makes being on a team (such as you find in sports, like football, etc.) attractive. It's your TEAM (this works on a fan level too of course, and that is probably even more to the point) and you want to win FOR THE TEAM. I opened just now on addressing the first issue, but this deals very strongly with the second as well.

Most of the time, the vast bulk of what is done to build a game to play is all about the individual. Designers are tightly focussed on players, and players are individuals with individual wishes, complaints, issues and desires. An effort is made to address these things and they are applied and shaped with overall equality in mind, or "balance" as it is more often referred to, on a side wise basis ... but the root motivation is almost always generated at an individual level. You take all the individual traits you model and you coalesce them all into a side wide structure.

How much do we examine what it means to be a part of a team and to want to represent that team on the field ? This is a culture of membership that the hardcore "fixers of the game" are well versed in and work hard at trying to develop, but the average player (whatever that is) never considers, much less pursues. People talk about side lock or not side lock and argue back and forth all the time about the pros and cons of that ... but if there were passive (and to most I expect) invisible reasons to be a part of one side or the other because it's YOUR team and you don't want to play on the other side and there isn't a need to do it anyway (for balance) ... then you don't have to force it on anyone.

Passive (and perhaps hidden to the average perspective) reasons to remain on your side work way better than forcing anyone to pick a side and stay there. In fact forcing that decision on a person often results in a rebel desire to NOT go along with that condition. [censored] you buddy, I do what I want.

So I would be looking at team building features as part of the games design (or evolution, since we already have a base design to wrap this up in that isn't going away any time soon) and do it so that they have to fit into "appeal" on a team attraction basis. Evaluate everything on it's function on this level, and if it has anything to help leverage that aspect then make that intrinsic in it's inclusion. We'll always be adding weapons and territory and ways to fight over it, but we need to be adding things that speak to why you are on a team, and if done well, the players desire to be a part of that membership will drive most of the "it's all about me" aspects to a much lower level of impact.

Sure, you're never going to get rid of that completely (human nature) but being a part of a team and feeling like you belong, well ... that's also deeply ingrained in human nature.

PS: (late edit) I had a thought just now I think is worth adding. I don't feel enough emphasis is made on disparity of equipment reward. I designed a method that evaluated each weapon on key aspects of it's attributes, based on the weapon in question and its purpose and while not perfect, it played a role that was never really leveraged properly but I didn't run the show so there ya go. I don't think it has any role these days. It basically was a score handicapper. If you pwn 150 million A13's in a Tiger tank, you don't score very well (relatively speaking) but if you sneak up on a Tiger and drop it in the arse with an A13 at point blank range then you'll do a whole lot better, relatively speaking. That's a heavily exaggerated example but it's simply to illustrate the point. Different weapons have different purposes and ways of achieving said purpose but it's not a difficult thing to set up. The good thing about this type of thing is it helps attract those who like that kind of thing, and that goes to assist mitigation of the problem of players who only play with a perceived advantage and favour the "winning side" since they often see that perception of advantage as the winning.

Edited by DOC
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
2 hours ago, fidd said:

Good post. Personally I'd prefer a penalty - perhaps continuous erosion of rank - the more frequently you spawn in as overpop, the longer you spend in game therein, the higher rank you have when doing so, and the degree of overpop when related to overall server-pop, with low server-pop attracting the most severe penalties far in excess with rank gained due camping. In sum, the point of this is to put real pressure on players who log in at the same time of day, in a large overpop, with minimal server pop and on a repeating basis. Conversely, other imaginative bonuses for those who do the opposite, with actual play - as opposed to just building rank by spawning into a back town and going to walk the dog, afk.

Give it a few weeks of that, and have those materially causing issues to the TZ3 game, heading fast for no longer being able to access the better units or post missions and I think (along with some epic complaints) you'd eventually see some outcomes more conducive to the health of the game regardless of if they unsub or simply change the time or side when they play - until a long-term near parity occurs in all TZ's. The definition of "Parity" not neccessarily being equal. Consequently I would suggest that the definition of the "parity band" (within which relative numbers are broadly acceptable and correct to give statistically equal results) are defined on both TZ and Tier basis, using data culled from past campaigns and continuously updated. 

If it's got right, then SD will vanish, and a tiny handful of players will have their noses put out of joint, but the game be immeasureably improved across all TZ's.

But you'e right about the need for imaginative other tasks, kudos to you for saying what many of us have been thinking, attempts to make the game function in the same way in TZ3 as TZ's 1&2 is a fool's-errand, but failure to change it or address the issues therein is highly damaging to the game overall.

So you've got an Axis only squad and they're from Eastern Russia or Australia. You just lost all those players by punishing them for playing on their preferred side at the time that's best for them.

Worst idea I've ever heard.

However REWARDING players who play underpop is better.

Edited by saffroli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
45 minutes ago, saffroli said:

So you've got an Axis only squad and they're from Eastern Russia or Australia. You just lost all those players by punishing them for playing on their preferred side at the time that's best for them.

Worst idea I've ever heard.

However REWARDING players who play underpop is better.

The only reward that matters to most TZ3 is more players on their side.  Having an LMG bazooka with rocket pack and bombs means nothing if there are 15 guys there to shoot you down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...