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

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

Instead of adding penalties and rewards that'll drive off more players that play these times, why not explore this solution? It's also 1000x better than adding ai towers all over town (which just admit isn't a legitimate solution- someone just drives a tank or spawns aa gun from afar and kills them all). Most other proposed "penalty" or "reward" solutions will take coding changes, so might as well focus on a permanent solution like this instead of putting bandaids on it. Just my 2 cents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
3 hours ago, DOC said:

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.

The reality is that high friendly pop play is best play.

Super unbalanced is not, because there are not enough targets, but many friendlies is the only play that... feels right.

Even when it is unbalanced that remains true up to some point, there may be fewer targets, but if there are any, the large group tends to play as if there was risk, and paradoxically it might even feel like it's not that unbalanced because of the occasional return fire, friendlies dead, etc.

 

2 hours ago, BMBM said:

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? 

I tend to think that at the least the AO placement rules should take the balance into consideration.

So last night was 3:1, trending to 9:1.

3:1 is actually an odds ratio that can completely make sense on the map. AOs should be limited to relative supply of attacking linked towns to defending linked towns match to server pop ratio. If the Axis are 3:1, then they can only set AOs from 3 linked units of supply to a target with 1 supply unit. If the town has a BDE and Garrison, then they need 6 units of supply. All rounded up, so 3.1:1 means they need a 4:1 supply ratio. At 9:1 to set an AO they would have to have a set of towns linked to a target with 9 units of supply to the 1 at the target (3 towns with 3 units of supply vs a town with just a Garrison).

This would not solve the terrible gameplay, but at least the town losses would make sense—if 9 Divisions was thrown against 1 Division, the outcome is not in question.

Some of the problems are very much a function of what I think is bad gameplay at all pop levels. The 3 defenders faced EFMS I think on all sides of town (as I was shooting at guys at the S one coming in, and CPs started falling all over before mine did). This 360 attack nonsense is—nonsense. Always has been, always will be. on-side FMS deployment should always have been a thing. 3 people might have sort of defended an enemy THAT WAY —> , but it's impossible in 360 degrees. I was not on long enough before to say how long EWS had been on, but my past experience includes being spawned in within a minute of EWS going on in many times in the past as the first responder, so I'd wager last night it had not been on that long. At the time I spawned in, I was literally in game as the 232 was killing the AI on the E side of town, switched in time to kill it before it took out the S AI, at which point 2 paks took out the S AI, and close ei shot me. The whole no time to establish a defense aspect of play also hurts. A handful of people with time can defense some places (terrain matters), but not from 360 attacks where the enemy is already in town.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2
35 minutes ago, dfire said:

Instead of adding penalties and rewards that'll drive off more players that play these times, why not explore this solution? It's also 1000x better than adding ai towers all over town (which just admit isn't a legitimate solution- someone just drives a tank or spawns aa gun from afar and kills them all). Most other proposed "penalty" or "reward" solutions will take coding changes, so might as well focus on a permanent solution like this instead of putting bandaids on it. Just my 2 cents. 

I would argue that would debase one of the fundamental USPs of game by adding AIs  bots  that mimic players 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I would argue that would debase one of the fundamental USPs of game by adding AIs  bots  that mimic players 

Bots is the only thing that could ever have made ww2ol feel like a 24/7 battlefield, IMHO.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli

Bots drain servers and they are so difficult to code, even the most advanced AI is dumb and can be easily gamed. 


I think bots in WW2 are not only a red herring but a bad idea in general.

It's not feasible and it would be crap for player experience.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

*** because they see their prime time efforts as worthless

While I understand this to some extent, I think it is faulty reasoning and non sequitur.

When I log in, if axis has lost a bunch of towns, sure, I say 'bummer'.

But, that isn't going to change my actions for the few hours I'm playing.

I'm going to defend the town I'm in and towns we have left.

I'll play, I'll defend, maybe attack a bit.

When my few hours are done, if we have lost no towns, great... I and axis did good and I had fun.

I go to bed, axis loses 10 more towns.... does it matter to my gaming experience?  imo, very little.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Bots drain servers and they are so difficult to code, even the most advanced AI is dumb and can be easily gamed.

True at crap bot level, but the current system is easily gamed. Advanced AI (real machine learning) would just be better than any player, not easily gamed at all, even if somehow limited to player like FOV.

We have "AI" that is certainly "artificial," but also not even slightly intelligent.

Even improving current "AI" would help (I hate that that is the code for it given how lousy it is). All the gun crews need extra AI added. No more complex than steal an inf model, and it is a rifleman or SMG that crouches next to each gun, and fires 360 degrees within some short range. Running into town with inf and "taking out the AI" alone should not be a thing. Maybe 1 guy runs, drawing fire, another pops out and nades it should be possible (or mortars, grenadiers, etc). Inf running around enemy towns should be slaughtered by "AI."

 

18 minutes ago, saffroli said:

I think bots in WW2 are not only a red herring but a bad idea in general.

It's not feasible and it would be crap for player experience.

Meh, much of the time it's a crap experience anyway.

An alternate "bot" system I have proposed for years is to have infantry equalized a little with other units in game. If you play a tank, you are spawning 3-5 men at once, at least 2 of whom are armed (turret and hull gun). Spawn a FMB and you get a multiple of that as armed men. So when I spawn an LMG, I get the LMG, his assistant, and 1-2 ammo bearers. So call it 1 LMG, 3 rifles for this example.

In a complex coded version, they could "follow the leader" and walk in a line, spaced out behind me. In a less complex version they cannot move at all unless I move them (this is exactly like having 3 alt accounts for reference). But I hit "1" and I'm working the LMG guy, 2, 3, and 4 switch to the rifles. Advance LMG, build foxhole, deploy. Hit 2, bring up rifle nearby. 3, move other rifle to a flank, still close, etc. The only "bot" aspect would be that any of the units I am not actively controlling will shoot their weapon at ei withing some really short range, and a FOV (180?) that the player points them in. The goal is NOT bots killing you at range, the goal here is that the player has a sense of support. You can set an LMG, concentrate on a base od fire for your team mates, and not worry about being stabbed in the back assuming you put a support guy facing backwards to protect your back.

This would instantly increase the inf in game by 4X (assuming 4 man spawns). The number could ALSO be used for balance. If the OP side is 9:1, they get ONE inf per spawn, and the defenders might get the 4. The default is the 4 though, we want more inf, and we want more thoughtful play. Every "lone wolf" is then a fire team. If you get just 3 players working together, that's a squad.

Yeah, CPs will have bots shooting you if you run in the door. Good. You should have to assault it. They don't duck, they don't move, it's not draconian, but it leverages what we have.

ATGs could get them, too. That 88 would have riflemen to face out and protect it. Maybe they get placed out a few hundred meters to warn of ei (even if they die, you know the ei are there).

Share this post


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

*** because they see their prime time efforts as worthless

While I understand this to some extent, I think it is faulty reasoning and non sequitur.

When I log in, if axis has lost a bunch of towns, sure, I say 'bummer'.

But, that isn't going to change my actions for the few hours I'm playing.

I'm going to defend the town I'm in and we have left.

I'll play, I'll defend, maybe attack a bit.

When my few hours are done, if we have lost no towns, great... and I and axis did good and I had fun.

I go to bed, axis loses 10 more towns.... does it matter to my gaming experience?  imo, very little.

yeah you play axis  but playing as allied right now  is a slog delems and on the balances of averages its more often a slog that not.   Almost every town we take is hard fought and well won.  This campaign allies primarily cap towns between 1900 to 2300GTM.  the total number of cap per town taken in that time period is  194 cap per town at 1900 and then drops to around 40 caps per town per hour until 2300GTM.

 

Axis this campaign primarily cap towns between 0300 and 0700 GTM the caps per town taken in this  time period  is  21 at 0300,  14 at 0400  10 at 0500. 

 

so why shouldn't any allied player who has fought hard not feel like there prime time efforts are worthless,  when these towns just get steam rollered with no fight back.  its not just 1 night either for the allies its almost constant thing.  I still think look at the webmap and seeing 10 towns fallen is worse for morale and seeing a few towns fallen and the rest cut, a cut gave you a window to fight back from this TZ3 roll does not. 

 

 

source for the data is http://www.campaigncharts.com/

 

P.S Delems please learn to use the quote button it is at the bottom left of a post just make the thread tidier and easier to read. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfire

If you look at games like COD or Battlefield, a team of bots can be surprisingly very good and is a legitimate force to fight against based on how much you dial the knob on accuracy and other factors. 

In my opinion its better than adding penalties, more complex rules for AO limitations, spawn delays, etc.

I'm not a coder so have no idea about the coding aspect, I assume it would probably be the hardest part. Just pay some 13 year old code whiz in China 150 bucks to write code for it hehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfire
2 minutes ago, foe2 said:

Delems please learn to use the quote button it is at the bottom left of a post just make the thread tidier and easier to read. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N8
28 minutes ago, delems said:

I'm going to defend the town

Defend the town by sitting in the emergency exit ladder? While the enemy is capping the CP?

:D

4 minutes ago, foe2 said:

but playing as allied right now  is a slog delems and on the balances of averages its more often a slog that not.   Almost every town we take is hard fought and well won.  This campaign allies primarily cap towns between 1900 to 2300GTM.

This.

Share this post


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

True at crap bot level, but the current system is easily gamed. Advanced AI (real machine learning) would just be better than any player, not easily gamed at all, even if somehow limited to player like FOV.

We have "AI" that is certainly "artificial," but also not even slightly intelligent.

Even improving current "AI" would help (I hate that that is the code for it given how lousy it is). All the gun crews need extra AI added. No more complex than steal an inf model, and it is a rifleman or SMG that crouches next to each gun, and fires 360 degrees within some short range. Running into town with inf and "taking out the AI" alone should not be a thing. Maybe 1 guy runs, drawing fire, another pops out and nades it should be possible (or mortars, grenadiers, etc). Inf running around enemy towns should be slaughtered by "AI."

 

Meh, much of the time it's a crap experience anyway.

An alternate "bot" system I have proposed for years is to have infantry equalized a little with other units in game. If you play a tank, you are spawning 3-5 men at once, at least 2 of whom are armed (turret and hull gun). Spawn a FMB and you get a multiple of that as armed men. So when I spawn an LMG, I get the LMG, his assistant, and 1-2 ammo bearers. So call it 1 LMG, 3 rifles for this example.

In a complex coded version, they could "follow the leader" and walk in a line, spaced out behind me. In a less complex version they cannot move at all unless I move them (this is exactly like having 3 alt accounts for reference). But I hit "1" and I'm working the LMG guy, 2, 3, and 4 switch to the rifles. Advance LMG, build foxhole, deploy. Hit 2, bring up rifle nearby. 3, move other rifle to a flank, still close, etc. The only "bot" aspect would be that any of the units I am not actively controlling will shoot their weapon at ei withing some really short range, and a FOV (180?) that the player points them in. The goal is NOT bots killing you at range, the goal here is that the player has a sense of support. You can set an LMG, concentrate on a base od fire for your team mates, and not worry about being stabbed in the back assuming you put a support guy facing backwards to protect your back.

This would instantly increase the inf in game by 4X (assuming 4 man spawns). The number could ALSO be used for balance. If the OP side is 9:1, they get ONE inf per spawn, and the defenders might get the 4. The default is the 4 though, we want more inf, and we want more thoughtful play. Every "lone wolf" is then a fire team. If you get just 3 players working together, that's a squad.

Yeah, CPs will have bots shooting you if you run in the door. Good. You should have to assault it. They don't duck, they don't move, it's not draconian, but it leverages what we have.

ATGs could get them, too. That 88 would have riflemen to face out and protect it. Maybe they get placed out a few hundred meters to warn of ei (even if they die, you know the ei are there).

Honestly coding AI in a game as old as this is going to be an absolute nightmare task. That's why its not feasible or realistic suggestion to offer. 
This game isn't based on unity engine or something which people can learn a base level of knowledge from before they start coding, it's a bespoke code which has to be learnt by any member of staff working with it. They have to decipher and then apply, this in itself poses problems ontop of that will your code even be supported, or does it need multitudes of sublevel coding to implement. Each AI bot's programming goes through the host machine. Much like any Arma mission, you play on your own it runs like gold, now import AI missions with constantly spawning/despawning units plus their movement and response commands. You will have horrendous server performance. The game just ISN'T built for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vanapo

I have to admit that I didn't read all proposals. I am not a friend of penalties for people playing the side they played for the last couple of hours or even days would do any good. And I don't think bonusses won't motivate people enough to switch from the side that is rolling the map. This has all been said.

As the map gets extended anyway, it might be a good idea to think about (a) certain map area(s) that would be better suited for small pop warfare, which doesn't affect the campaign too much while still having somewhat of an impact (like RDP bombing does). For me, as I like combined naval/air/land warfare, Zeeland comes to mind. Or a small invasion bridgehead or something. AOs on this area are only allowed if we are down to 1 AO and if we are down to 1 AO, only this area is allowed. What happens if axis/allies can cap and hold a bridgehead far behind the lines? They get an airfield there to help with RDP and annoy the other side f.e. - axis could also benefit from a navel base closer to England. If Axis would get some more factories (which they should) on a shore line in the upper zeelands, this would be true for allies as well. It could make the whole map look more dynamic without breaking the current frontline system. And it would give deep water navy something to do.

Share this post


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

P.S Delems please learn to use the quote button it is at the bottom left of a post just make the thread tidier and easier to read. 

I think literally ever person on this forum has told this to him. I think he does it on purpose to trigger us :'D

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Zeeland comes to mind

The only thing about the Zee's, is that nobody wants to fight in them, and they call them a waste of time, so that is why majority of the players don't like fighting there.

Share this post


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

Honestly coding AI in a game as old as this is going to be an absolute nightmare task. That's why its not feasible or realistic suggestion to offer. 

Yeah, I agree on the autonomous bots issue.

We have AI though, and it would be possible to add a SMG guy to all the AI emplacements that fires 360 degrees out to 20m or something. I've literally been shot by ei hiding in the AI emplacement (still up). That's just stupid.

 

1 minute ago, saffroli said:

This game isn't based on unity engine or something which people can learn a base level of knowledge from before they start coding, it's a bespoke code which has to be learnt by any member of staff working with it. They have to decipher and then apply, this in itself poses problems ontop of that will your code even be supported, or does it need multitudes of sublevel coding to implement. Each AI bot's programming goes through the host machine. Much like any Arma mission, you play on your own it runs like gold, now import AI missions with constantly spawning/despawning units plus their movement and response commands. You will have horrendous server performance. The game just ISN'T built for it.

The idea I just suggested (again) is no different than multiple accounts, it's just easier to work as a player. Switch crew. AI does almost nothing except shoot inside the FOV of the unit, inside some VERY short range. The point is leverage players, be able to tweak extra units based on balance, and allow units to have their back covered to more realistically occupy an area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N8
2 minutes ago, vanapo said:

axis could also benefit from a navel base closer to England. If Axis would get some more factories (which they should) on a shore line in the upper zeelands

I mean they have Scheveningen, but that is a long sail, and also Hellevoetsluis, also a long sail.

It would benefit the Allied navy too, if CRS add German factories on the coastline of the Channel, would actually be useful for the Allied, maybe add 1 or 2 factory towns near Scheveningen and make that just like an RDP place where you can RDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vanapo
2 minutes ago, N8 said:

The only thing about the Zee's, is that nobody wants to fight in them, and they call them a waste of time, so that is why majority of the players don't like fighting there.

Really? I like them. But it's just a proposal anyways. Like I said: Limited bridgeheads would probably be the better idea for a defined low pop fighting area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N8
5 minutes ago, vanapo said:

Really? I like them. But it's just a proposal anyways. Like I said: Limited bridgeheads would probably be the better idea for a defined low pop fighting area.

Yeah. I like them as well, bunch of good navy fights.

Imo, CRS should add a closer deep water port for the Axis, maybe in Gorisboek, or something, because that sail takes forever from Hellevoetsluis, once you die, you gotta sail back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vanapo
9 minutes ago, N8 said:

I mean they have Scheveningen, but that is a long sail, and also Hellevoetsluis, also a long sail.

Yeah, Axis could fight for a bridgehead far more to the west at an early stage of the campaign. Allies should be able to do the same thing on the other side as well, probably north of Den Haag. If successful, each side gets an airfield and a deep water port at a meaningful position.

Edit: Like I said - if you restrict this to low pop times only, TZ3 guys can have meaningful fights without rolling the complete map

Edited by vanapo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus

We just need to be more creative.

 

Just dont listen to the words... instead think of the team leader realizing... CRAP we are OP!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
4 hours ago, dre21 said:

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 .

That would be a good thing to try. Personally, I want to see active management of player side-choices, with penalties for consistently being OP, the severity of which varying with how often you log in as OP, the degree of OP when you are logged in (each mission) with a modifier which looks at the overall server-pop as well, with the lower server pop attracting the more punitive penalty. (Fighting 300:100 in TZ1 is a very different proposition to 30:10 or 3:1 in TZ3). I would suggest loss of rank, faster than it can be attained by kills or captures to the point where you eventually would lose the ability to spawn higher tier stuff if you persist with playing 9:1 in TZ3. Such rank loss would be side-specific, so you couldn't regain this lost rank in one side by playing a campaign in the other. The only way to maintain rank would be to help balance the numbers.

Such a system would need to look at data from numerous campaigns, and in particular tiers, with nuanced modifiers. So, if you're an axis player, who plays and suffers during tier 1 contending with Matties and the like, then you'll suffer less than an axis player who only starts to play when the Tiger arrives. Similarly, OP due morale collapses towards the end of a campaign would be treated less severely than one where the campaign starts with that imbalance. 

It's achievable, but would need very careful and considered design to produce pressure on repetitive OP players in the right degree for the right circumstances.

Edited by fidd
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

Yeah, I agree on the autonomous bots issue.

We have AI though, and it would be possible to add a SMG guy to all the AI emplacements that fires 360 degrees out to 20m or something. 

 

 

Yea, I don't see much wrong with this but I don't think it really add anything to the game in all honesty as in, it would just be annoying even if it served a purpose.

In regards to crew ai I vehemently oppose that idea. Whole fun of a vehicle is manning the individual slots. I shouldn't have my hull gunner on red alert when I'm driving my tank around. Infact you'd be able to just drive around and your ai crew mates would clean up at FMS and you could shoot on the move. I get the sentiment, but imo its a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems
1 hour ago, foe2 said:

so why shouldn't any allied player who has fought hard not feel like there prime time efforts are worthless

Because they did their job when they were on.  They held their towns or maybe took a few.

They had fun while they were playing, attacking or defending.

I can't control what happens the other 20 hours of the day, but I can do my best for my 4 hours.

 

It's like the starfish story, an old man walks down the beach and throws a starfish back into the water.

While 1000s more die along the beach.  A little boy asks, why do you even try?  You can't make a difference.

Look at all the starfish still on the beach.  The old man says.. made a difference for that one.

Share this post


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

Yea, I don't see much wrong with this but I don't think it really add anything to the game in all honesty as in, it would just be annoying even if it served a purpose.

It would force a methodical approach to dealing with the AI, and eliminate an AO starting with enemy troops already holed up in and around CPs before capture is possible.

I would in fact add such an AI to MSPs. Have persistent MSPs (not linked to a player, sticks around until BDE it's attached to moves, town or FB falls, etc) that include a short ranged, limited FOV AI inf.

Imagine we think a town will probably be attack later tonight. So I go and set a DMSP on that town now, for tonight. My MSP is a line of inf foxholes (say 4, they get built just like a normal foxhole, but it is 4 in a line, some meters between each one (if any hit the wrong terrain it goes red, so tricky to place). I set one in a bush line, facing where the enemy should come from. One of the center ones is placed and has an inf model prone in it. Might just be a rifle, some might be LMG. The inf is AI. he has some narrow FOV (like a MG arc of fire deployed), and only shoots inside 100m or whatever works best.

We've now added player-placed AI. A minor hassle to advancing inf, but something that they need to address. If that AI shooting turns on EWS, then players who respond might be shown a red dot on that mission (AI just fired, enemy nearby!). As soon as any players spawn, the AI goes away.

 

46 minutes ago, saffroli said:

In regards to crew ai I vehemently oppose that idea. Whole fun of a vehicle is manning the individual slots. I shouldn't have my hull gunner on red alert when I'm driving my tank around. Infact you'd be able to just drive around and your ai crew mates would clean up at FMS and you could shoot on the move. I get the sentiment, but imo its a bad idea.

I'm not fond of it for ground units, but for air and naval units it is pretty much required, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...