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

fidd
5 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 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfire
12 minutes ago, fidd said:

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 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.

I could see this resulting in many people quitting or unsubbing, personally. Penalties are not the answer, as shown by spawn delay and cap timers

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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

but I don't see how that solves or alleviates the TZ3 problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
28 minutes ago, dfire said:

I could see this resulting in many people quitting or unsubbing, personally. Penalties are not the answer, as shown by spawn delay and cap timers

Spawn delays and cap timers, unpopular as they may be with the OP side, are more popular than the alternative. Considerably fewer people have quit or unsubbed than the projected trend back when those game mechanics were implemented...that trend pointing toward CRS having to shut the game down.

Or so it was said by Old CRS in a prior design discussion forum.

That's not to say that spawn delay and cap timers are anyone's favorite solution. It's just been difficult to get enough agreement on what would be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
6 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Spawn delays and cap timers, unpopular as they may be with the OP side, are more popular than the alternative. Considerably fewer people have quit or unsubbed than the projected trend back when those game mechanics were implemented...that trend pointing toward CRS having to shut the game down.

Or so it was said by Old CRS in a prior design discussion forum.

That's not to say that spawn delay and cap timers are anyone's favorite solution. It's just been difficult to get enough agreement on what would be better.

I just think one or the other. Spawn delay OR cap timers. But if spawn delay is to be in effect seriously [like surpassing the highest number of SD we have now], then other issues need to be solved like enter world bug etc.

Imagine waiting 1 or 2 minutes to spawn in just to get a CTD....

I don't have a problem with spawn delay per se, what I do have a problem with is the number. What is the data requirement for SD? A percentage offset? Also what mandates increase in SD timer.  I actually think SD can only affect the game if its more than 45 seconds but as a player its unbearable.

Edited by saffroli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
58 minutes ago, dfire said:

I could see this resulting in many people quitting or unsubbing, personally. Penalties are not the answer, as shown by spawn delay and cap timers

Nonsense. We're talking about a tiny  minority of players here, perhaps 20 or so in all, being responsible for heavily lop-sided TZ3 play. Some of whom will not mind. If preserving the perceived fairness of the game costs the subs of a tiny amount of players, relative to the subs lost in frustration at TZ3 map-rolls by a tiny minority, then the loss of the those few subs is cheap at triple the price.

The penaltles I outlined do not affect game-play, the ability to spawn stuff, or affect, in the short term, the outcome of battles in any way. What they do do is apply sustained and increasing pressure on those who reportedly think it's okay to outnumber the opposition by 9:1 (as measured recently) This is plainly absurd and highly damaging, behaviour by a tiny minority. The suggested penalties in no way affect the huge majority of players, in the way that SD does. I am not a supporter of SD, it is a bit of a blunt-instrument MVF to the symptoms of a problem, not a solution in itself, and is predicated on there actually being adequate defending players in game for it to work. With 9:1 imbalances, plainly we have long moved out of any numbers can be considered viable for SD to function as intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
28 minutes ago, saffroli said:

I just think one or the other. Spawn delay OR cap timers. But if spawn delay is to be in effect seriously [like surpassing the highest number of SD we have now], then other issues need to be solved like enter world bug etc.

Imagine waiting 1 or 2 minutes to spawn in just to get a CTD....

I don't have a problem with spawn delay per se, what I do have a problem with is the number. What is the data requirement for SD? A percentage offset? Also what mandates increase in SD timer.  I actually think SD can only affect the game if its more than 45 seconds but as a player its unbearable.

My estimate is that SD simply looks at the ratio of players. In my view this is why it doesn't work well, as 300:100 or 3000:1000 is a very different proposition the the same ratio but with far-fewer players. This is why TZ3 has been such an intractable problem, (but also due to the yellow text in the post above)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfire
28 minutes ago, fidd said:

Nonsense. We're talking about a tiny  minority of players here, perhaps 20 or so in all, being responsible for heavily lop-sided TZ3 play. Some of whom will not mind. If preserving the perceived fairness of the game costs the subs of a tiny amount of players, relative to the subs lost in frustration at TZ3 map-rolls by a tiny minority, then the loss of the those few subs is cheap at triple the price.

The penaltles I outlined do not affect game-play, the ability to spawn stuff, or affect, in the short term, the outcome of battles in any way. What they do do is apply sustained and increasing pressure on those who reportedly think it's okay to outnumber the opposition by 9:1 (as measured recently) This is plainly absurd and highly damaging, behaviour by a tiny minority. The suggested penalties in no way affect the huge majority of players, in the way that SD does. I am not a supporter of SD, it is a bit of a blunt-instrument MVF to the symptoms of a problem, not a solution in itself, and is predicated on there actually being adequate defending players in game for it to work. With 9:1 imbalances, plainly we have long moved out of any numbers can be considered viable for SD to function as intended.

Agree to disagree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kazee

Its becoming quite worrisome and even more annoying when a very small percentage of the players, only active in the forums and rarely in-game, are trying to make such drastic changes to a game where people actually play. 

When members are so active in the forums but have less than 20 sorties in this campaign and then try to lobby for their personal changes...its a problem.

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

but I don't see how that solves or alleviates the TZ3 problem.

It doesn't at all for bombers and ships. I was referring to different AI, not tank gunners.

 

10 minutes ago, kazee said:

Its becoming quite worrisome and even more annoying when a very small percentage of the players, only active in the forums and rarely in-game, are trying to make such drastic changes to a game where people actually play. 

When members are so active in the forums but have less than 20 sorties in this campaign and then try to lobby for their personal changes...its a problem.

Good ideas are good, and bad ideas are bad.

People with loads of game experience might come up with good ideas because of that, or they might be so used to bad ideas already in game they don't want to let them go.

If an idea is bad, you should be able to explain why it won't work. I tend to think some of my ideas floated are not unreasonable and worth considering, but on some of them I have been convinced here they might not work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC

It's always a good idea to cast your awareness to as far a horizon as you can if you want to gather as much information and knowledge as is available. A player might have the most sorties in game as anybody in history, and not have a clue how to put that experience into meaningful development for game builders. Just like someone not in that league for sortie stats might have the very best mindset to achieve exactly that.

If you put limits or filters on the value of ideas without even considering the idea first, you'll just not have many ideas.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
Quote

 

Its becoming quite worrisome and even more annoying when a very small percentage of the players, only active in the forums and rarely in-game, are trying to make such drastic changes to a game where people actually play. 

When members are so active in the forums but have less than 20 sorties in this campaign and then try to lobby for their personal changes...its a problem.

 

Perhaps a reason why CRS maintains these forums is because often bugs and opportunities for improvement are brought to light, at minimal cost to the company, and occasionally someone proposes an actual good idea.

CRS for many years has needed a way to increase their revenue. It's conceivable that that problem might require changes...maybe even drastic changes...to the status quo.

If a game change is not liked by some number of current paying customers, but results in a greater number of new paying customers, that may be a net gain.

In such a circumstance, the loss of prior customers is unfortunate, but justified for the greater good.

And, there's nothing inherently qualifying or disqualifying about how much the suggestor of a solution to a CRS problem plays the game, or anything else. The suggestor might be a long-time subscriber with a hundred thousand sorties, or a little green man from Mars. All that matters is that the idea is found by CRS to be good.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus

I hate penalties.

MB if OP gets to big, access to the spawnables is stopped.  The attack has to rely on the FMS and holding CPs.

I really think the issue of OP should be fixed by the PB.   The bottom line is that the Allies need more TZ3 players on a consistent basis.  The allies have always had a smaller bench to pull from overall but most definately since the Anzacs numbers dropped.  They used to present a good showing for the Allies in Tz3 but that was over 10 years ago.

 IMHO the focus should be on providing carrots for the underpopped side, not whipping the OP side.  Not exactly sure what carrots are needed... but mb instead of trying so hard to choke out the Axis, mb that effort should be better served into positive reasons to bolster the allied numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dijpa

I'd like planes to have the ability to blow veh and inf tents if their side is UP by more than 100%. It would force the OP side to spawn aa to defend FB and give the UP side a fighting chance to end attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quincannon

I had an idea quite some time ago. I d never really got around to suggesting it in the forums.

I agree that the way the game is designed, bots running around is unlikely. Not only would this be a huge departure from anything designed in the game... BUT... I don't know if the volunteers have the experience to create the AI necessary in the engine the game uses. I don't even know if the engine was ever designed to allow such in the first place.

BUT... what we DO already have in game... is static AI emplacements. Those require almost zero AI.

So consider this as a possibility... CRS creates a number of static emplacements in towns and places them there... much like FBs. Some would be ATGs. some would be MGs on the ground/ Some might be some Riflemen or SMGs inside a sandbag emplacement. Some of these units would have the standard limited range of fire... some would have 360 degree.

They way they work is based on the same method used to determine spawn delay. If the pop disadvantage reaches a certain point, then these AI become active in the towns on the underpopped side. Once the pop equals out... the AI despawn.

These are DEFENSIVE emplacements ONLY. They can be blown and repaired. They can not be used for attacks.

============================================================================================

A variation on this might be to  give certain units the ability to create PPO AI emplacements.  In such a case, the unit that can create the PPOs would only be available to the underpopped side, while they are underpopped,  and would only be able to create a limited number of AI PPOs at one time.

One possibility for this might be to limit this unit to the High Command, to keep it limited.

In both suggestions, the models already exist. No artist should be needed for the most part. I believe that the big issue would be getting such emplacements to work right. The Population based AI emplacements would mean that the system needs to track the pop and cause them to spawn and despawn at the right times... PPO based AI would need to somehow connect and function no matter where they are placed on the map.

In all cases, these emplacements should be destroyable using a satchel or grenade, just like current AI. These AI would have a built in miss chance... No laser accuracy.

I know that a LOT of folks hate the AI we have now... Some believe that every aspect should be humans versus humans... but the simple fact is that we don't have enough humans on both sides. Giving the underpopped side the chance to have some more static AI that the attackers will not be able to see and destroy even before an AO begins could be a viable measure to help with the pop imbalance.

Just a thought...

S!S!S!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

+1.

Also, 360 degree AI emplacements should be added to the terrain to either side of every town, along the theoretical front lines depending on who holds what...with those emplacements that correspond to the current front line turned on, and the others off. These emplacements would kill all ground objects that came within range, of either side, and would be indestructible. The point would be to represent the defender's missing front lines. and thereby eliminate driving or running around a town and entering it from the rear.

Also, 360 degree AI emplacements should be added behind every UP town. The point would be to represent the defender's missing rear area security troops and checkpoints, and prevent rear attacks by enemy ground units that notwithstanding other measures, manage to get behind enemy lines.

None of this would have any effect on enemy attacks from their lines toward the enemy, which could be as sneaky as desired. The added AI would only limit the ability of the attacker to unrealistically move through where a realistically populated defender would have defenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
On 10/30/2020 at 1:00 AM, jwilly said:

These emplacements would kill all ground objects that came within range, of either side, and would be indestructible. 

 

Sigh, seriously. Now consider that YOU'RE playing on the OP side it's going to be so little fun to play that instead of switching sides, you're going to quit the game and never come back.

To many of these solutions are driven by a "not my problem" attitude interms of the affect it would actually have on the OP side. You don't want people to *stop* playing. Because then the OP balance changes and everyone stops eventually then allies are OP TZ3 and you haven't fixed the problem, you've just been removing players the whole time. It reminds me of the Martin Niemöller quote... first they came for me.. etc etc. Eventually it's your [allied] problem and then what? 

Please don't be short sighted

Edited by saffroli

Share this post


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

Sigh, seriously. Now consider that YOU'RE playing on the OP side it's going to be so little fun to play that instead of switching sides, you're going to quit the game and never come back.

To many of these solutions are driven by a "not my problem" attitude interms of the affect it would actually have on the OP side. You don't want people to *stop* playing. Because then the OP balance changes and everyone stops eventually then allies are OP TZ3 and you haven't fixed the problem, you've just been removing players the whole time. It reminds me of the Martin Niemöller quote... first they came for me.. etc etc. Eventually it's your [allied] problem and then what? 

Please don't be short sighted

On my end, I'm not trying to be short sighted. But I have to ask this question...

Are you saying that the ONLY way for the game to be fun is for one side to be OP and rolling the map; and that it's a bad thing to try to change that dynamic because some of the folks who enjoy that would quit if they had to fight a more even fight?

I personally never suggested that anyone stop playing. But the truth is that if one side remains incredibly OP all the time,  sooner or later, the folks on the UP side will begin to find other games to play.

If nothing is ever done to try to make it a fairer fight, why should the UP side continue to play?  I remember campaigns where almost all Allies logged off... the Axis had pretty much won... and some Axis players came to our forums to chastise the Allied players for logging off, and to blame the Allied side for losing because they were giving up. The fact was that these people were upset because they didn't have enough targets to shoot at, and were angry with the UP side for not continuing to log in just so that THEY could have fun. No matter that it wasn't any fun for the UP side.

I want BOTH sides to have fun. Anything I suggest is hopefully along those lines. If the Allies were heavily Overpopped, I would hope my suggestion regarding AI would help that side too.

And I DO understand the crowd that says this should always just be human players versus human players. But unfortunately, not enough players choose both sides to make it fun for people on both sides. We need to do something; and there have not been many truly viable suggestions.

And anyway...CRS isn't intentionally going to take any actions that alienate the majority of players on either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
On 10/31/2020 at 10:41 PM, Quincannon said:



Are you saying that the ONLY way for the game to be fun is for one side to be OP and rolling the map; and that it's a bad thing to try to change that dynamic because some of the folks who enjoy that would quit if they had to fight a more even fight?

I personally never suggested that anyone stop playing. But the truth is that if one side remains incredibly OP all the time,  sooner or later, the folks on the UP side will begin to find other games to play.

If nothing is ever done to try to make it a fairer fight, why should the UP side continue to play?  I remember campaigns where almost all Allies logged off... the Axis had pretty much won... and some Axis players came to our forums to chastise the Allied players for logging off, and to blame the Allied side for losing because they were giving up. The fact was that these people were upset because they didn't have enough targets to shoot at, and were angry with the UP side for not continuing to log in just so that THEY could have fun. No matter that it wasn't any fun for the UP side.

I want BOTH sides to have fun. Anything I suggest is hopefully along those lines. If the Allies were heavily Overpopped, I would hope my suggestion regarding AI would help that side too.

And I DO understand the crowd that says this should always just be human players versus human players. But unfortunately, not enough players choose both sides to make it fun for people on both sides. We need to do something; and there have not been many truly viable suggestions.

And anyway...CRS isn't intentionally going to take any actions that alienate the majority of players on either side.

1. No, I'm not saying that at all

2. No, you didn't. But some of the suggestions in this thread are just a one way ticket to tumbleweed simulator

3. There is a vicious cycle where losses = loggs = losses = loggs etc all I can say for certain is that when axis are OP during Tz3 allies don't organize at all regardless of the numbers they have, having 2 guys spawn DAC/PAN and just sit 800m from town and 3 guys flying in spitfires isn't going to help but even that is part of the vicious cycle, I get that. People are bored of trying to run into a bunker already being capped by 5 guys just to get killed repeatedly but there does come a point where people need to take responsibility in how their actions cause losses in the game. There has been a trend in this game for many years now where the OP side is the one that wins and by virtue of winning gain OP, again, another vicious cycle... 

I don't know the perfect solution, all I know is why alot of axis players quit over the years, and some of the suggestions here would just add to yet more reasons why they don't play anymore.

Maybe limiting available FMS placement.. maybe disengaging spawnables [but it would have to be a big pop ratio for that to be fair and even].. the reason why I suggest those is because they don't change the game too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quincannon
6 minutes ago, saffroli said:

all I can say for certain is that when axis are OP during Tz3 allies don't organize at all regardless of the numbers they have, having 2 guys spawn DAC/PAN and just sit 800m from town and 3 guys flying in spitfires isn't going to help but even that is part of the vicious cycle, I get that. People are bored of trying to run into a bunker already being capped by 5 guys just to get killed repeatedly but there does come a point where people need to take responsibility in how their actions cause losses in the game.

Having played TZ3 most of my WWII Online career, I can tell you that I agree about the inability of Allies to organize at times. Part of it is that there is no way to know exactly who or how many we have online. Many won't use Discord or respond to chat requests. They help or not... I can tell you that there are almost no Allied Squads during TZ3, which means that for the most part, everyone is a solo player, member of an old Squad that only has 1 or 2 people left, or they belong to a bigger Squad, but that Squad doesn't play in TZ3. A few years ago, I looked into the idea of creating a TZ3 Squad, and there was no interest.

So then there are a few who try to work together, but it's usually not enough, and yes, people get tired of doing nothing but trying the same thing: defending CPs against overwhelming odds. So some guys do fly. Some try to spawn some armor in hopes of making a difference. Some bust FBs. They know that this lowers the DO defense, but it keeps you from going crazy. Some guys have said that if they are going to lose anyway. they might as well do something that THEY like doing.

You talk about taking responsibility about how actions cause losses.. but you don't mention that there comes a point at which the numbers mean that NO actions on the part of the UP side will really matter. At that point, it's beyond ludicrous to say that any actions taken by the UP players are the cause for their losses. Heck, at one point, as the MOIC, it was so bad that I suggested to the 3-4 Allies on the map that they all just go bust FBs because at least then they might have some fun.

S!S!S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dijpa

sad that abbeville was lost without one single allied defender. Not one.

Axis may have won the campaign but hollow "victories" like this are killing the game we love.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jsilec

Tz3 problems?....not playing or caring has helped me with it but i not sure if thats the best way to deal with it

Share this post


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

sad that abbeville was lost without one single allied defender. Not one.

Axis may have won the campaign but hollow "victories" like this are killing the game we love.

Just a few campaigns ago Allied capped Essen with no defenders online - It`s all swings and roundabouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N8
39 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

Tz3 problems?

Yep, J.

Axis only took towns during TZ3, and early TZ1, and Allied primetime, were rolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jsilec
1 hour ago, N8 said:

Yep, J.

Axis only took towns during TZ3, and early TZ1, and Allied primetime, were rolling.

Oh noes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...