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

DOC
2 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

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.

Which is why I tried to illustrate the need to build functionality into the game that might make that more like 15 on 10, for example. You can't ever expect exact balance 100% of the time unless you have queue/room lobby based game play. So we'll toss that expectation before we even start.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
16 minutes ago, DOC said:

Which is why I tried to illustrate the need to build functionality into the game that might make that more like 15 on 10, for example. You can't ever expect exact balance 100% of the time unless you have queue/room lobby based game play. So we'll toss that expectation before we even start.

I agree, I just don't think 'rewards' like rank or sweeter equipment cuts it.  What's the point of having a HoverTiger if it can't last 5s coming out of the barn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
16 minutes ago, DOC said:

Which is why I tried to illustrate the need to build functionality into the game that might make that more like 15 on 10, for example. You can't ever expect exact balance 100% of the time unless you have queue/room lobby based game play. So we'll toss that expectation before we even start.

Yeah, either there's some sort of forced side balance (which I don't think works), or the game needs "levels" of play commensurate to the player pop. "Offensives" (large battles) when the pop is above some value, and "patrols" or "skirmishes" during times when pop for offensives doesn't exist. The gameplay—combined arms fighting—doesn't change, just the scale of how much they can "move the map."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
1 hour ago, DOC said:

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. 

Yes, but.

The game currently has a problem with players looking for "underdog" advantages, that make for highly unrealistic gameplay.

Panhards and Daimlers zooming around the countryside so as to sneak up on the rear or flank of medium and heavy tanks. Could that have happened? Well...(1) real ACs had offroad speeds proportional to their ground pressure, i.e. they were dog slow offroad; and (2) real AC crews didn't use such tactics because they had Fear of Death. 

HEAT-sapper and RPAT infantry running around the battlefield, even chasing down tanks that are trying to escape from them. Wholly unrealistic, if we go by WWII history.

It's fine to build scoring mechanisms to encourage underdog gameplay, as long as unrealistic underdog gameplay is designed out first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC
6 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, either there's some sort of forced side balance (which I don't think works), or the game needs "levels" of play commensurate to the player pop. "Offensives" (large battles) when the pop is above some value, and "patrols" or "skirmishes" during times when pop for offensives doesn't exist. The gameplay—combined arms fighting—doesn't change, just the scale of how much they can "move the map."

Yeah I wanted to make a strong point against "forcing" side choice (and why) and instead get thoughts directed at how to build a sense of identity with "your team" that would passively work in a similar fashion, where the end result is you don't have to force anyone onto a side or to stay there.

Edited by DOC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
1 minute ago, DOC said:

Yeah I wanted to make a strong point against "forcing" side choice (and why) and instead get thoughts directed at how to build a sense of identity with "your team" that would passively work in a similar fashion, where the end result is you don't have to force anyone onto a side ot to stay there.

I suppose this goes to your other, longer post though. If one side is intrinsically more popular, it has a bigger bench all the time. I'm intrigued by the German gear, heck I own a 1943 Mauser—never spawn Axis (and don't plan to).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC
5 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Yes, but.

The game currently has a problem with players looking for "underdog" advantages, that make for highly unrealistic gameplay.

Panhards and Daimlers zooming around the countryside so as to sneak up on the rear or flank of medium and heavy tanks. Could that have happened? Well...(1) real ACs had offroad speeds proportional to their ground pressure, i.e. they were dog slow offroad; and (2) real AC crews didn't use such tactics because they had Fear of Death. 

HEAT-sapper and RPAT infantry running around the battlefield, even chasing down tanks that are trying to escape from them. Wholly unrealistic, if we go by WWII history.

It's fine to build scoring mechanisms to encourage underdog gameplay, as long as unrealistic underdog gameplay is designed out first.

I have my own ideas about stopping unrealistic play pursuits, some would probably incite a riot with a few folks ... but I also believe very much that you'll never eliminate it entirely unless players actually die in real life as a result. So yeah ... obviously there is a desire to reduce it as much as possible, but that's a completely different problem I wasn't addressing when I spoke about formulating theories about how to even out the sides.

Edited by DOC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

One mechanism is to weight kills. "Score" is meaningless unless there is a meaningful rank/points system for gear access (where death loses points). Weighting kills would mean that if a side had a 2:1 pop advantage, and it loses a "best tank," then 2 "best tanks" are removed from the supply (if there is not one left to remove, it delays that unit's resupply). If the odds were worse, then you'd lose even more.

My dead horse I like to beat is that it should actually also include the relative supply: if a side has 2:1 players in game, but they attack from 2 garrisons to 1 Garrison, they deserve to have 2:1 players in that AO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
Quote

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.

The same psychological considerations apply in reverse. IMO Old CRS erred in the original design phase in their choices of what ground weapons and uniform-bits to model for, particularly, the French. To too great an extent, they focused on what was most historically common, and too little on what had some coolness-factor they could take advantage of...and by doing, they hampered their ability to maintain equal marketability for the two sides.

Of course, those design choices all made sense at the time, and no doubt were vetted by the game's contingent of French friends. And, second-guessing it clearly is Monday morning quarterbacking.

But there still are changes that could be made, I think, that would improve the appeal of playing French among non-grognard customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC
3 minutes ago, jwilly said:

The same psychological considerations apply in reverse. IMO Old CRS erred in the original design phase in their choices of what ground weapons and uniform-bits to model for, particularly, the French. To too great an extent, they focused on what was most historically common, and too little on what had some coolness-factor they could take advantage of...and by doing, they hampered their ability to maintain equal marketability for the two sides.

Of course, those design choices all made sense at the time, and no doubt were vetted by the game's contingent of French friends. And, second-guessing it clearly is Monday morning quarterbacking.

But there still are changes that could be made, I think, that would improve the appeal of playing French among non-grognard customers.

For sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

The problem isn't over pop.  The problem is extreme over pop.

Limit the in game world pop to a max of 3 to 1.

No more 20 to 3.  It will be 9 to 3. With the remaining 11 spawning in as the first 9 die.

Ya, so for 4 hours a day 11 players will be mad.....  Will fix the other 20 hours.

AND, if lucky, players will say, I know it can't be 20 to 3, so I'll play a bit longer.

If even one allied does that, now it is 12 to 4; and only 8 axis are waiting some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC

Yeah but I'm looking for stuff that is going to fundamentally improve more than just population at the same time as addressing population. Not saying you're wrong or incorrect, just have a different intention and seeking a much broader range of possibilities.

Edited by DOC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goreblimey

Ain't gonna happen but.. How about turn on OP name tags when the OP play at more than 3 to 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
3 hours ago, jwilly said:

Yes, but.

The game currently has a problem with players looking for "underdog" advantages, that make for highly unrealistic gameplay.

Panhards and Daimlers zooming around the countryside so as to sneak up on the rear or flank of medium and heavy tanks. Could that have happened? Well...(1) real ACs had offroad speeds proportional to their ground pressure, i.e. they were dog slow offroad; and (2) real AC crews didn't use such tactics because they had Fear of Death. 

HEAT-sapper and RPAT infantry running around the battlefield, even chasing down tanks that are trying to escape from them. Wholly unrealistic, if we go by WWII history.

It's fine to build scoring mechanisms to encourage underdog gameplay, as long as unrealistic underdog gameplay is designed out first.

You are describing an issue, but without player density (stolen from Scotsman) this is what it is.  When we have had high density play, sappers where very ineffective except in town when they did manage to sap a few tanks.  I think even in RL if a tank was separated from support they where vulnerable to infantry.  So I would not couch the entire issue a being highly unrealistic... This game rarely has 100 vrs 100 in a town, therefore there is a lot of gap that would allow for some of our tactics we use to be effective in RL if the situation presented itself.

Share this post


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

The problem isn't over pop.  The problem is extreme over pop.

Limit the in game world pop to a max of 3 to 1.

No more 20 to 3.  It will be 9 to 3. With the remaining 11 spawning in as the first 9 die.

Ya, so for 4 hours a day 11 players will be mad.....  Will fix the other 20 hours.

AND, if lucky, players will say, I know it can't be 20 to 3, so I'll play a bit longer.

If even one allied does that, now it is 12 to 4; and only 8 axis are waiting some.

Extreme OP is the problem, I dont mind some OP.

That being said, I rather SD increased then those 11 guys sitting around while 3-4 of the 9 are flying or tanking.  That leaves a rotation of 15 infantry players waiting for most likely a much longer time that what SD at its max provides.

Share this post


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

You are describing an issue, but without player density (stolen from Scotsman) this is what it is.  When we have had high density play, sappers where very ineffective except in town when they did manage to sap a few tanks.  I think even in RL if a tank was separated from support they where vulnerable to infantry.  So I would not couch the entire issue a being highly unrealistic... This game rarely has 100 vrs 100 in a town, therefore there is a lot of gap that would allow for some of our tactics we use to be effective in RL if the situation presented itself.

Good point. If population density is ever improved, a lot that happens in "just me and no one else" land doesn't happen, or produces its own incentives not to do it.

Edited by DOC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
4 minutes ago, DOC said:

Good point. If population density is ever improved, a lot that happens in "just me and no one else" land doesn't happen, or produces its own incentives not to do it.

We have had a few fights this map and last where the pop density during a fight really ate through supply and just crossing a street often meant you where going to die. Some real nail biters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

With respect to all, the problem of imbalance has never been a straightforward ratio problem, In TZ1 a defending side could probably  manage to put up a good fight outnumbered 300:100, and have fun doing it. The problem is that  30:10 ratio does not work in the same way in TZ3, it's much worse than a straight ratio analysis would suggest. Efforts to correct in the form of SD are predicated in there being actual players defending. All too often this hasn't been the case, rendering SD useless. 

We've had the mantra, philosophy, call it what you will, that "no player should be forced to change sides" for 20 years. It plainly has not allowed TZ3 gameplay to function in the same fashion as TZ1. Battles should be as indistinguishable as possible from one TZ to another, if they're not, something is, 20 years on, despite numerous attempts to correct the symptoms, rather than the problems inherent in the TZ3 game, rather f***ed. I'm certain in my own mind that this philosophy of not, in any circumstances, forcing players to swap side, play at different times, etc is actually the game's worst enemy. Closely followed by the notion that the game should operate in the same way 24/7. I think that has been proven to be hopelessly optimistic. Change is required, both from the design philosophy, and the 24 hour same mechanics/tasks etc point of view. It just will NOT work as it is now.

Edited by fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

Dunno what TZ 10 pm mountain time is, but I just popped on, made a few kills, then left.

I was the first responder in a town. There were 2 other people and a friendly plane when I left. More LW overhead than we had people (including the plane). When I showed up I was was listening for trucks, EFMS already placed CLOSE on the hill S. Heard a 232. Despawned, grabbed ATG, killed it as it was driving around killing all the AI. EI started spawning (or became visible). Just on the S side more than we had people. Got killed at some point. Almost as many paks as we had people, some multiple that number of inf. This was maybe 3 minutes after responding, mind you, showed up when EWS had been on briefly, went to double in that 3 min.

I killed a few, then quit. Not gonna bother guarding at all. 3 people can't guard a town. Not gonna do anything, what's the point?

Is this the edge of TZ3? Because maybe I actually play TZ3 a lot, I tend to stay up til midnight mountain time, and I will often pop on. I've come to expect every single time I play to be hopelessly awful, tonight didn't disappoint.

If the situation just now had been EXACTLY the same, except that instead of literally spawning to have the enemy within rifle range of the depot (including their FMS), and an enemy AC ignoring the utterly useless AI to blow it all up, I could know for a fact that no enemy was within town. If I knew that instead of the EFMS being all over (they were), they were just to "the front." If I could have picked a fairly protected spot and simply tried to hold them off a while—that would have been fun. Knowing they were already inside town, and I could not bother to look for a decent place to make a stand (get shot in the back crossing the street). Not fun. The best thing anyone can do when UP in TZ3 is to do nothing at all. Let them softcap towns, that's gotta be fun. There is no carrot, there is no stick. Deny them any combat. They can build minecraft trenches while they softcap.

/rant

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2
8 hours ago, delems said:

The problem isn't over pop.  The problem is extreme over pop.

Limit the in game world pop to a max of 3 to 1.

No more 20 to 3.  It will be 9 to 3. With the remaining 11 spawning in as the first 9 die.

Ya, so for 4 hours a day 11 players will be mad.....  Will fix the other 20 hours.

AND, if lucky, players will say, I know it can't be 20 to 3, so I'll play a bit longer.

If even one allied does that, now it is 12 to 4; and only 8 axis are waiting some.

 

you are right Delems that the extreme OP is an issue, looking at the data for yesterday: 0400 GMT axis had 75% of pop by 0500 - 78% and by 0600 GMT it had jumped to 90% of the in game pop. 9 to 1  that is completely unsuitable on any level. 

 

So @tater 10pm Mountain Time is 4am GMT  so you can see the issues you faced. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
11 hours ago, Kilemall said:

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.

Well you won't get by from "taxing the rich" as it were. They will all leave until the "wealth" is generated from another demographic until there's nobody left.

If you stop axis overpop in TZ3 to the extent suggested eventually it will be allied OP and then you won't have any players left.

Maybe the key is simple in a recruiting drive across parts of the world that would occupy TZ3 on a normal basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC

You don't want to try to force the "omg we have them farked now" high pop fans to play nice, that will never work and all you do is chase away more paying customers. Now there are a million ways to approach this subject and we've already discussed about half of those ... but the basic premise has to fall into just making it harder to succeed with extreme OP and easier to succeed with extreme UP. On a sliding scale that can stay closely associated with the degree of the OP/UP ratio. At 50/50 the difficulty would be equal. This is self regulating if you figure out how to match the degree of difficulty to population ratio accurately and without delays during which the balance might have shifted. 

Success can take many forms, there is what most people call success and then there is degrees of other things to other people that one should probably not ignore simply because they are less obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM
2 hours ago, foe2 said:

you are right Delems that the extreme OP is an issue, looking at the data for yesterday: 0400 GMT axis had 75% of pop by 0500 - 78% and by 0600 GMT it had jumped to 90% of the in game pop. 9 to 1  that is completely unsuitable on any level. 

I’ve played OP on the Axis side maybe once or twice with 20+ against 3-4 defenders and UP too many times to recall on the Allied side against those odds. It is absolutely unfulfilling gameplay on either side. The OP have to compete for kills - most go without any action at all - and earn wholly hollow victories whereas the UP are hopelessly overmatched and mere camp-fodder. The only consolation for the UP is the target-rich environment, and the seemingly miraculous saves occasionally brought about by a small cadre of incredibly dedicated CQC guys who brave the onslaught. What motivates the OP to persist in playing at such ridiculous odds, boggles the mind. Certainly the fights aren’t bringing quality entertainment to anyone, yet people refuse to self-balance. 
 

On top of that, the laughable routine of jumping around to find the next undefended town to ”conquer” belies the whole concept that HC is ordained to support: creating a wholesome gaming experience for the entire community, not merely the own side. I just don’t see the fun in these all-against-noone ”battles”. I’d suggest a measure of introspection and self-restraint, for what good comes out of a battle without opponents? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2
8 minutes ago, BMBM said:

I’ve played OP on the Axis side maybe once or twice with 20+ against 3-4 defenders and UP too many times to recall on the Allied side against those odds. It is absolutely unfulfilling gameplay on either side. The OP have to compete for kills - most go without any action at all - and earn wholly hollow victories whereas the UP are hopelessly overmatched and mere camp-fodder. The only consolation for the UP is the target-rich environment, and the seemingly miraculous saves occasionally brought about by a small cadre of incredibly dedicated CQC guys who brave the onslaught. What motivates the OP to persist in playing at such ridiculous odds, boggles the mind. Certainly the fights aren’t bringing quality entertainment to anyone, yet people refuse to self-balance. 
 

On top of that, the laughable routine of jumping around to find the next undefended town to ”conquer” belies the whole concept that HC is ordained to support: creating a wholesome gaming experience for the entire community, not merely the own side. I just don’t see the fun in these all-against-noone ”battles”. I’d suggest a measure of introspection and self-restraint, for what good comes out of a battle without opponents? 

 

the only logical answer to what people what BMBM is that they want to win, but at what cost I don't know. i  It is increably frustrating  to work hard creating fights and possibly taking towns in Prime time  just to see  the side lose between 5-10 towns in the space of couple of hours in low pop.  I know Lancers have lost a couple of vets who have unsubbed recently (one of them yesterday)  because they see their prime time efforts as worthless. 

Edited by foe2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dre21

Maybe we do need to know how many players are logged in , into each side, of course others will say OMG it will look bad for the game , big map and look at these player numbers. 

Obviously what we have now is not working , I was online when Brussels was taken and it was boring .

One way I don't understand why there are no Allied players online during that time zone, on the other hand be happy or sad that most German speaking players left the game ( 90% of them played Axis ) the map wouldn't last 1 week .

The only thing I can come up with and it has never been tried is the sidelock commitment, you pick what side otherwise no side picked it's underpop for that player.

Try it 1 campaign , hell if it looks to be a disaster turn it off in the middle of the campaign , can't be worse then what we have now.  At least there the player that didn't pick gets thrown automatically in UP side .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...