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.

blggles

Poll: Kill Funnels or Mole Tunnels

Kill Funnels or Mole Tunnels?  

18 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

blggles

New building has long hallways allowing inf to run through big cities avoiding "kill funnels" as the post says. Nothing against the art, but the way I see it these are akin to the bushlines around towns: run through the bushline, to get to the flag building, to hide in the closet, to capture the depot, becomes run through the mole tunnel, to get to the flag building, to hide in the closet, to capture the depot. Its a giant game play step backwards if you ask me, at least if they model most big city buildings after this fashion. Better to have places where you can nip in to avoid fire, but you must push down the street, you must fight, to get to the flag building, to hide in the closet, to capture the depot. So what should it be, kill funnels, or mole tunnels?

Edited by blggles
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

I think I voted exactly wrong. I think the building is  a mole tunnel, I think we need kill funnels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

I like being able to enter buildings. But, realism is important. No infantryman in his right mind would run through a building not known to him to already be in friendly hands, and cleared of booby traps and tripwires.

Heck, that infantryman wouldn't even know where he was going unless he'd been to that town before, and in that building. The power of course would be off, so the building would be dark. He'd run into the building, down a hall, around a corner, through a door, and find himself in a broom closet.

I 100% agree with Biggles' analysis above. Yes to enterable buildings, but they must be a slower way to get from Point A to Point B than just running around the building outside. The reason to enter a building is to clear out defenders fighting from within that building.

If the design-intent is to eliminate the ability of defenders to set up effective standoff defenses, so that attackers always can close on the defenders and all game-fighting becomes melee-in-the-round...well, that's dumb, but the much more realistic way to accomplish it would be to add more effective smoke ordnance and full-battle-length smoke duration.

 

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC

You'll never achieve "full realism" in this respect on those terms Jwilly. Even if tripwires/booby traps/possible enemy presence was a distinct possibility and risk, I'm not really gonna die so it's an acceptable risk in many situations. If there was a real possibility of booby traps then my "dying" would simply clear the building for the guys to follow me, so again, no big deal and a possible good tactic to boot. I think there's a lot more to be gained by focussing on things that aren't some long shot "will mimic real life better" if that part of real life you're chasing happened as a result of you only being able to die once, and then never do anything ever again.

The game cannot offer us that brutal an incentive to be realistic. Focus on that specifically, and you'll miss a lot of other opportunities that might also get you some increased realism. Just not "I don't do it because I'll die" realism.

 

Edited by DOC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

It's a confusing poll - I'm in pain and havn't slept in some time so I may be a bit dense - but are you saying in option 1 to get rid of (kill) funnels, or, are you asking should be keep "kill-funnels". You might care to elucidate what exactly you mean by kill-funnel as whilst I could take a good stab at inferring the meaning, it's not something I've read as such before. A clearer poll may help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
2 minutes ago, DOC said:

You'll never achieve "full realism" in this respect on those terms Jwilly. Even if tripwires/booby traps/possible enemy presence was a distinct possibility and risk, I'm not really gonna die so it's an acceptable risk in many situations. If there was a real possibility of booby traps then my "dying" would simply clear the building for the guys to follow me, so again, no big deal and a possible good tactic to boot. I think there's a lot more to be gained by focussing on things that aren't some long shot "will mimic real life better" if that part of real life you're chasing happened as a result of you only being able to die once, and then never do anything ever again.

 

Sounds like a good argument for largely unenterable buildings. My take in it is using Arnhem or Stalingrad as references. In both cases, moving openly in the streets was near instant death, so holes were blasted in interior walls or floors to gain entry to the adjacent building - known as mouse-holing in the British Army. Buildings with unfeasably long internal corridors are the urban equivalent of 1.26 bloody-hedgerows, and render cities too porous to infantry in much the same way as the bloody-hedgerows. If that's what is meant by mole-tunnels, then I'm decidedly against them and pro-funnels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
Quote

Even if tripwires/booby traps/possible enemy presence was a distinct possibility and risk, I'm not really gonna die so it's an acceptable risk in many situations. If there was a real possibility of booby traps then my "dying" would simply clear the building for the guys to follow me, so again, no big deal and a possible good tactic to boot. I think there's a lot more to be gained by focussing on things that aren't some long shot "will mimic real life better" if that part of real life you're chasing happened as a result of you only being able to die once, and then never do anything ever again.

You missed my point.

Game design shouldn't provide for, and encourage, actions that are blatantly unrealistic because of factors that the game can't, or isn't willing to, model.

Any such unrealism is on the designers for their design choices. 

So provide ways to fight effectively defensively from within buildings. Provide ways for defenders to enter those buildings to get to where the defensive position can be. Provide ways for other defenders to defend the inside of the building. Attackers then can enter the building and fight their way to where they can eliminate the defensive position...which then allows them to advance outside a bit further on their way to the location they're trying to capture.

To do that, you want a complicated building interior...ideally with local destructability, and a lot of interior clutter and complexity to provide cover and hiding spots...but not ways to use the building as a fast shortcut from one end to the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC

Baby steps. Perhaps the building interior model and functionality you'd prefer is not a viable option to even model in game. It's ok to be a dreamer but don't overdo it when we're trying to be practical. It's like yeah, you fly high and can see all, but it's not helping me down here on the ground.

I didn't miss your point I'm just at a lower altitude.

Edited by DOC

Share this post


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

Baby steps. Perhaps the building interior model and functionality you'd prefer is not a viable option to even model in game. It's ok to be a dreamer but don't overdo it when we're trying to be practical. It's like yeah, you fly high and can see all, but it's not helping me down here on the ground.

That makes no sense. A building model that further breaks urban gameplay by providing the equivalent of a bush-tunnel, and thereby makes the town significantly less defendable, is not a "baby step" toward improved city battles. 

The medical profession's Hippocratic oath makes sense for game designers, too: First, Do No Harm.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


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

That makes no sense. A building model that further breaks urban gameplay by providing the equivalent of a bush-tunnel, and thereby makes the town significantly less defendable, is not a "baby step" toward improved city battles. 

The medical profession's Hippocratic oath makes sense for game designers, too: First, Do No Harm.

Um ... well ... what you're asserting or implying ... isn't anything I have said. I think you're a trifle aggressive in response but ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Not sure exactly how to answer the question.

But I'm in favor of more detail and more interiors, makes game more fun imo.

Even the big bldg rubble we got now is a step forward.

Any way to maybe cut infantry speed in half while in bldgs/rubble?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC
Just now, delems said:

Not sure exactly how to answer the question.

But I'm in favor of more detail and more interiors, makes game more fun imo.

Even the big bldg rubble we got now is a step forward.

Anyway to maybe cut infantry speed in half while in bldgs/rubble?

That's an excellent point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

We have a few very low-res enterable buildings. The white ones you run through the same way you run through bushes. You know where the doors are, you never need to slow except to regain sprint.

It's an awful paradigm.

The new one is no different. Enterable? Yes. I'd honestly say they should dead end. Have a room, and maybe have a place to shoot out of. One way in, one way out (or more than 1 way out, but on the same side).

As @jwilly says, it doesn't help gameplay, it HURTS gameplay. The problem with the urban inf game is porosity. This would be less of an issue with large numbers of inf operating close together, but that is not a thing.

Better would have been fewer enterable buildings, and more street level "terrain" in the form of abandoned vehicles, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

urbldg01_hallway.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE
2 hours ago, tater said:

I think I voted exactly wrong. I think the building is  a mole tunnel, I think we need kill funnels.

Fixed the poll count for you. 

I personally vote kill funnels. Running through buildings while there are already too many run around ways, bleh..

Although I wouldn't mind if we could setup sandbags sticking to other objects like buildings and thus using these to block doors. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
3 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

Fixed the poll count for you. 

I personally vote kill funnels. Running through buildings while there are already too many run around ways, bleh..

Thx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles

Alright, changed killing to kill, as per the news post. And, if unclear, what I meant was: long halls allowing unseen transit through interconnected buildings = mole tunnels, having to advance down the street = kill funnels, which do you prefer?

 

Edited by blggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
james10

Hello all,

Fundamentally cities, (collections of buildings) "should" be very porous to infantry but not at any significant speed, damaged or un-damaged. Cities should also be places of fear and dread for armored vehicles or vehicles in general and should force vehicles to follow a limited path. Potentially the biggest issue with the infantry movement through buildings is the simple lack of variety with the buildings. Any experienced player knows the exact internal layout of a building even before they enter the building in-game. Although I did get seriously lost in the new pentagon bunker and couldn’t get out :(.

Well how to resolve the dilemma? Definitely slow infantry movement down inside ANY building. I’m not sure if it is at all possible but a solution to the accumulated layout knowledge might be to have several variations of internal structure for each building to be loaded randomly. I suspect this approach would entail a lot of artwork to accomplish and it wouldn’t take long for players to be able to remember the variations and adapt.

Anyhow cities should be “killing funnels” for vehicles and not high-speed “mole tunnels” for infantry. Infantry should be able to move around inside cities far more than is possible currently BUT NOT at any significant speed.

Cheers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles

Just wanted to reiterate, didn't mean nothing against the art, I thought the new buildings being worked on looked very nice. But I thought the halls were probably on order of the Rats who are stinky, devious and live in sewers. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
14 minutes ago, james10 said:

Fundamentally cities, (collections of buildings) "should" be very porous to infantry but not at any significant speed, damaged or un-damaged. Cities should also be places of fear and dread for armored vehicles or vehicles in general and should force vehicles to follow a limited path. Potentially the biggest issue with the infantry movement through buildings is the simple lack of variety with the buildings. Any experienced player knows the exact internal layout of a building even before they enter the building in-game. Although I did get seriously lost in the new pentagon bunker and couldn’t get out :(.

You are of course correct, but there are two conflicting factors here.

One, that you mention is the lack of variety. The way "through" the building might be unclear, or it might in fact not have a way through at all. In RL, it might have people in it, and depending on what army you were in, that might actually mitigate your behavior (you're there to fight the enemy , not murder civilians—at least some of the armies).

Two, and this one is perhaps more important WRT the game—we simply lack the people. In RL if a platoon was given some part of town to defend, or were sent to attack some part, doesn't matter—that's what they did. All of them, as a group. If those 30-40 guys occupied a block they had people around them. The "terrain" of buildings can be as porous as anyone could imagine—but the guys with guns everywhere make it less porous. In ww2ol, it's a city block with a single inf in it.

Added to that game problem is the ease with which we kill other infantry. An MG34 in a ruined building laying fire someplace where I need to pass should be a huge problem. In game it is when you are alone. You run (everywhere) across a street, and riiip, yer dead. If there is a guy in front of you, and that happens, or you see the "skull," you can hunt the MG, and take it out with a couple shots. Maybe he sees you shooting maybe you trade... easier than RL, to be sure.

One solution would be more PPOs, particularly ones that are doors, or even defensive window protection. Or a table/etc inside a house to set up a MG on away from the window. Trouble is porosity means while the MG is covering that street... someone walks in and knifes him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

No option for both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kidd27

would an LMG at the end of an interior hall not turn a "mole tunnel" into a "kill funnel" ?  A possibility for a specific inf vs inf battle seems like a good addition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC

Whatever you do, it's still a numbers game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quincannon

City battles are always  a frustration to me. As infantry, ou spend way to much time just running out in the open. There is almost no cover.

No cars. No trash cans. No broken boxes. A few bushes or a park. Oddly enough, the gas station pois... one of the few PPOs that have such things... seem almost exclusive to the small towns. Didn't people in the larger cities have cars and need gas?

The fact that they are making cool new buildings is great. Some people have asked for awhile now for buildings where you can go upstairs and shoot from the roof. Also consider this new building. If I'm right... won't they replace buildings that we can duck into and hide already? And... don;t we NEED some cover in cities? What other cover do we really have?

 If the speed at which people can move through the new building is the issue... then why not simply ask for stuff inside the hallways to slow people down?

Personally, I wish that cities had a few cars and trucks on the street... a news stand or flower stand or two... 2 or three gas stations per city... How about some checkpoints with the little guardhouses?  How about when a building gets blown up, the sidewalks for it have rubble, furniture, or boxes on them?

Villages aren't too bad for the most part... but the cities seem very empty and open... adding destructible buildings you can enter is pretty cool. But what would really help is cover.

One thing that would also help is Urban PPOs. Consider that some of the few PPOs in the cities are the green atg pits... on city streets...

Why not let some units build barricades out of boxes and furniture?   Maybe a destroyed car PPO for cover... an overturned cart? (We already have that art.)

S!S!S!
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No option for both.

Fixed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...