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 1
  • 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 1
  • 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 3

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...