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.

ZEBBEEE

AO mechanics: proximity concept feedbacks

AO-related feedbacks  

25 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

delems

What if CPs still go hot after 10 min, but you can't capture unless full INF EWS at town?

That would remove all moles and defense would be reasonably sure a real attack is coming.

 

Attacks from flags only wouldn't work, not enough flags; couldn't even attack on half the map then or more.

Also, really increases the HC burden.

Finally, garrisons would prolly need to be cut in half in size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
26 minutes ago, BMBM said:

Here’s a stupid idea, so shoot me:

AOs are only allowed from brigade towns. Garrisons are defensive only. 
FBs are limited to infantry and guns (screen baby screen). 
If you want wheels and tracks, you must bring them from the AB (columns!).

And increase vehicle EWS range.

The first two are good ideas. #3 (If you want wheels and tracks, you must bring them from the AB (columns!).) not so much, as who would want to drive a CharB1 from an AB! Or an R35? What does perhaps make sense is for armour, trucks and a/c's not to be immediately available from FB's or AB's, except from FB's to the rear of the threatened town. (if that can be done). Once the pre-AO conditions are met - I favour an infantry intensive task occurring about 2/5ths of the distance between FB and town, for the attacker when complete: - the AO can be placed, and armour trucks and a/c's then become available from the AB (def), FB (attk), and rear town AB's for both sides (def/attkl) . Armour columns from AB's encourages pre-camp battles, so not a good idea.

Increasing vehicle EWS is a double-edged sword. On the face of it, it's a good idea, however, it also means an attacker can spawn a whole bunch of armour from an FB, then despawn it without loss or delay, then spawn at the real target's FB. Preventing attackers from setting FMS's until the AO is live, and likewise the player intensive pre-AO phase would help in this regard.

The aim, at all times, should be to have some form of player operated defence being in the field before the attackers have armour of FMS's in place. IMHO of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2

If you want to make a battle with more defenders, one system would be have objectives between towns. So for example blow the Fb, fight your way past enemy ops. Fight through the main line of resistance before even being able to attack the town.

Share this post


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

I have spent a lot of time thinking about the battle dynamics. But you forget there are two sides , one attacking VS one defending, and not all players can play 20 hours a week or more.

The priority is to find easy-to-implement mechanics that will more often generate battles where both sides have the time to deploy, and where the probability to win will mostly depends on leadership and tactical skills; NOT balance numbers, gameplay exploit or bugs...

Launching AOs without any significant forces ready on the attackers side will only results in ninja depot capping and thus playing cat and mice. You cannot prevent attackers to setup their ZOC or people will no longer try anything, but you can ask them to regroup first. So introducing EWS as a constraint makes sense. The different timers are enough to keep things balanced for defenders.

About the question whether HC officers should be the only ones to initiate attacks, no it shouldn't as long as there aren't enough officers online 24/7. If good (HC) officers are online they will always keep the lead anyway.

Regarding answer options: sometimes life will ask us to decide between different options that don't fit any of our preferences.

So have we all. "Easy to implement mechanics" have been the bloody bane of this game, or what I term "minimum viable fixes". Personally, I'd far rather you spent 2 years actually solving an "intractable" problem, than introducing 10 MVF's in the same period, none of which deal with the actual issue. SD is the classic case, as in TZ3 it only serves to "make things fair" if indeed there are UP defensive players in town, and in a sufficient number to undertake the required tasks, and in a timely fashion so as not to spawn into a fait-accompli pre-camp.

In short, please FORGET easy to implement fixes, and start solving the underlying problems:

In order of priority (IMHO):

1. TZ player numbers limits to 4:1 or less, inducements to correct, or enforcement of same if required. Retain cap-timers, ditch SD.

2. Defoliate the current terrain significantly, no colliderless hedgerows.

3. Make all game-mechanics driven to getting defenders in place with ATG's, DFM'S set, before nme FMS's can be set or armour arrives. - but make FB Not blowable until an AO is lifted.

4. Dev a load of axis cheap TD's, and allow HC's to select the TOE of individual Bde's within a points-based system. This will be essential to do if the Panther/Jagdpather are modelled if we're to avoid the "Tiger effect" where loss of a handful of uber vehicles causes a morale collapse for that AO, which will frequently be the case on flat ground. By having a small number of Bde's with uber tanks, bit more of them, these can be positioned where the topography is best suited to their use. The forseeable problem being that if uber tanks are increased in number in every Bde, then you start to enter territory where the allies need an OP just to be on an equal footing. If it takes (say 4? ) Sherman 75's acting together to take on a Tiger on equal terms, and the axis Bde's have loads of them, then..... you see my point? So devving cheap TD's to give some depth to the axis lists is going to be required, based on what we can already see happening with the Tiger.

Deal with that little lot and you'll directly, or indirectly, have addressed the causes of 90% of the game's issues.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

What if CPs still go hot after 10 min, but you can't capture unless full INF EWS at town?

That would remove all moles and defense would be reasonably sure a real attack is coming.

Full EWS still happens before there are hardly any defenders spawned in.

In TZ3, hardly any defenders will ever spawn in.

Much fun, such wow.

 

1 hour ago, delems said:

Attacks from flags only wouldn't work, not enough flags; couldn't even attack on half the map then or more.

Also, really increases the HC burden.

Finally, garrisons would prolly need to be cut in half in size.

Garrisons should be slashed anyway.

I get why they exist, but they make no sense at all, and make the existence of BDEs silly, and with them, they make the "map" game silly. "Maneuver warfare" is not about trucks careening around to the enemies rear to establish teleporter stations (since in the real world there are not such a thing), it's the movement of large scale units on "the map."

If the HC can't move them, the server can if required, but attacks should only come from BDEs. Not attacking half the map seems fine to me. How many players are visible at once? Any AO with fewer than that number of players... there should not be any other AO. When possible every AO should have max visible players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
4 hours ago, ZEBBEEE said:

(...) mechanics that will more often generate battles where both sides have the time to deploy

Why would that not be 100%...a mandatory condition...?

Defenders should be settled into their preferred positions, emplaced, dug in, wired, ammo caches in place, mines laid, mortars registered, before there are any attackers present.

In return for that, the size of the defending force should be limited to no more than 50% of the attacking force, assuming symmetry of force types.

That's classic infantry battle mechanics for even odds of winning.

Quote

Regarding answer options: sometimes life will ask us to decide between different options that don't fit any of our preferences.

You give us meaningless polls, we'll give you meaningless responses. Just don't tell us that we were involved in choosing the particular design-direction that the poll was designed to rubber-stamp.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
34 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Why would that not be 100%...a mandatory condition...?

Defenders should be settled into their preferred positions, emplaced, dug in, wired, ammo caches in place, mines laid, mortars registered, before there are any attackers present.

In return for that, the size of the defending force should be limited to no more than 50% of the attacking force, assuming symmetry of force types.

My only issue would be that at the map/operational level, to me the entire point is the possibility of creating situations where the above is NOT the case. At the front, 100%, that's the case. After a breakthrough? Not so much.

The game has always failed at any good breakthrough mechanic. The trouble is that the #1 priority of this game is combat, and breakthrough means that we need more complex mechanics to secure the desired combat. So as things are, I agree with you, even if I would prefer a better map level mechanic.

For breakthroughs to be a thing, we'd need grossly smaller garrison forces, and more BDEs. HC would leave BDEs on rear towns as stopgaps, probably (if they were smart).  Movement times for BDEs would be realistic (how many km/day a BDE could move and redeploy), and supply would trickle in slowly so that losses were more meaningful. Your rate of advance would require moving fresh BDEs to the spearpoint as the depleted ones lick their wounds, or maybe get placed as rear bulwarks until they recover. Some towns would totally roll in such a scenario, but without the infinite Garrison supply, any "bulge" becomes vulnerable.

Under such a model, prox AOs might well become a thing. Where a BDE faces a BDE on the front, the sides get to prepare, when a BDE smashes into a Garrison, no need. Maybe a mechanism to result in more of a meeting engagement once a breakthrough is in progress. At that spearpoint, play (BDE vs BDE) is closer to what we have now, but if the attacker moves to another part of the front, the lines reform, and the defenders need time to prepare.

Such a system needs a carrot and a stick, however. The promise of rapid gains (breakthrough), with the concern about being stretched too far and vulnerable.

Share this post


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

The game has always failed at any good breakthrough mechanic.

No PvP game can be about operational-level breakthroughs, because when Side A achieves "rapid gains (breakthrough)", Side B is smashed and defeated; and, history provides few if any examples of campaigns in which either of the sides plausibly could have broken through. So, with such a mechanic, one side more often than not would lose big-time. That's not a business model for a successful game.

PvP games must consist of a succession of battles, with some won by Side A, others by Side B.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
15 hours ago, ZEBBEEE said:

Please expand 

Well I wasn't looking for a whole comprehensive set of issues saying what I said, although many of the issues brought up by others are very wrapped up in implementing this mechanic and others unexamined like what happens to spawnlists with this in place.

My point is that if you have an EWS trigger set to something like say 5, UP in the dead of night can't even do one attack, and set that EWS that low or lower and OP can easily pop those AOs up.

The latter issue becomes even more a problem if there is no limit to how many AOs can be triggered at once.  Then if there IS a limit like we have now, then after a successful AO, is there going to be a race between player groups for who 'triggers' the AO available in the AO budget?

One of the more needed mechanics is not prox AO, but AO drop.  0 EWS for x time, and/or all FBs enemy, possibly no caps for y time, should trigger an autodrop and new selection, by either HC or AUTOAO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM
8 hours ago, sideout said:

The problem with this is we have 3 divisions, 3rd Pnzr, 4th pnzr, and 16th Inf. each have 3 brigades, so thats 3 X 3 equals 9 flags. If other side knows AO can only come from one of these, pretty easy to figure out where and what is going to be attacked. 

That’s a problem only if you prefer attacking unprepared towns. The bait and switch routine is just... old. Like you said, people prefer fights, and you can only have them by letting on that it’s happening. Flags can easily be added.

There are other problems with my suggestion, most of all cultural. With longer travel times you have to be more circumspect with your gear (tactics and teamwork to the fore).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM
8 hours ago, fidd said:

who would want to drive a CharB1 from an AB! Or an R35? What does perhaps make sense is for armour, trucks and a/c's not to be immediately available from FB's or AB's, except from FB's to the rear of the threatened town. (if that can be done).

Armour columns from AB's encourages pre-camp battles, so not a good idea.

Some vehicles are just more defense-oriented than others, and will continue to be operated on defense. When’s the last time you drove an R-35 from a FB in any attack?

Also, distances between towns vary.

No, we can’t program a delay at the FB as it is just a porthole for the AB spawnlist.

How does the column encourage precamp any more than the insta-army we now have, especially if tank EWS would betray them sooner? To the contrary, you’d get scout cars and light tanks moving ahead (aka recon) to meet up with the inf/gun screen from the FB, and slower tanks joining last as a wow event (unless the transit is otherwise regimented).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2

If the point of this is to give defenders time to set up a defence, then a simple answer is:

1) increase the time to place an AO 

2) FMS can't be set until the AO has been an placed.

3) the defending side get a message saying "allies/axis have placed and AO on town X stand to" or something to that affect.

 

That would allow the defenders time to get tanks/arts etc out. This would mean as BMBM encourage a recon screen and more coordinated attacking gameplay.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
3 hours ago, BMBM said:

Some vehicles are just more defense-oriented than others, and will continue to be operated on defense. When’s the last time you drove an R-35 from a FB in any attack?

Also, distances between towns vary.

No, we can’t program a delay at the FB as it is just a porthole for the AB spawnlist.

How does the column encourage precamp any more than the insta-army we now have, especially if tank EWS would betray them sooner? To the contrary, you’d get scout cars and light tanks moving ahead (aka recon) to meet up with the inf/gun screen from the FB, and slower tanks joining last as a wow event (unless the transit is otherwise regimented).

I drove both a Char1 and an R35 in the attack in within the last 72 hours. Which is about the time it took to get the R35 there. I'm a patient player what can I say? That said, I didn't see any others

I think you need to look into what is possible in terms of sequencing the release of armour from rear AB's, FB's and from the defending town. Such controlled release of specific unit type could go a long way to dealing with the issues of pre-camping play. What's needed is an >>>interval<<< between EWS/AO and the town being infiltrated with ei, in order that a proper defence can be established through defending players having time to arrive from elsewhere and spawn in, get themselves organised.

You also need to get rid of around 50% of the foliage and above all, no more colliderless hedgerows. Ideally make them lower too.

Armour columns, historically (in game) were simply about driving massed armour into every corner of the AB and preventing the spawnage of any armour whatsoever. if you recall, this gameplay was so bad that the 1Rats subsequently devved "Hold at all costs" and "fall-back" game mechanics to try and deal with it. Yes it was fun in the columns, but the actual "battle" was pretty poor and very repetitive. Admittedly this was a long time ago, before EWS iirc, but to my mind returning mechanics so that sort of "battle" becomes the norm, is a seriously bad idea.

We've been there before, it basically sucked, so why on earth would you wish to return to it?

Edited by fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM

The point of the game is to have battles, preferably engaging/engrossing ones between two reasonably balanced forces.

The community however has evolved tactics that aim at capturing towns with as little effort (no defenders) as possible. This is not new - I'd say that the culture became manifest with the very first release 20 years ago. I don't think I'm alone in finding the hollow victory ninjacap blitz routine detestable since it's anathema to the "engaging/engrossing battle" concept. The more sordid ninjacap sessions you endure, the greater the likelihood of becoming an ex-customer. 

The Prox AO concept - far as I understand the general concept - is considered as a means to hand some control over AO placement to the players themselves since HC isn't able to direct proceedings 24/7 and because auto-AO is a somewhat blunt instrument. That is not to say that I'm particularly in favor of this tentative development.

We know for a fact that the bulk of players prefer balanced battles where the defender shows up and has a chance to deploy - at this juncture this is not the case for the majority of "battles", because of the short TTC and because of an evolved game culture that does anything to circumvent the proper forming of defense.

Personally I think it would be great if we could nudge the game towards a more inf-centric initial engagement and again set the stage for the forming (and interdiction) of vehicle columns - this would reduce the 360 degree battlefield to a more manageable and believable sector, and give the defender time to erect fanciful trenches. The drawback is of course that the defender is given a very strong armored component for defense and has a much shorter TTC, requiring the attacker to site ATGs beforehand, erect trenches of their own, and wait for their own armor to arrive for an equal (armor) fight. The canny attacker would have to prepare his armor well in advance, setting a premium on organization and teamwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM
20 minutes ago, fidd said:

Armour columns, historically (in game) were simply about driving massed armour into every corner of the AB and preventing the spawnage of any armour whatsoever. if you recall, this gameplay was so bad that the 1Rats subsequently devved "Hold at all costs" and "fall-back" game mechanics to try and deal with it. Yes it was fun in the columns, but the actual "battle" was pretty poor and very repetitive. Admittedly this was a long time ago, before EWS iirc, but to my mind returning mechanics so that sort of "battle" becomes the norm, is a seriously bad idea.

We've been there before, it basically sucked, so why on earth would you wish to return to it?

There's currently nothing to prevent a side to blitz into the AB going from the FB in less time than it would take them to do so from an AB, so I fail to see how your argument is valid. With an armor column you at least get some time to prepare and have options to prevent it entirely, currently you patently do not. 

Having tanks issue from ABs only would *reduce* the number of (attacking) tanks and delay their arrival; increase the use of ATGs (for the attacker) to whittle down the defender; reintroduce intervening terrain ZOC and interdiction; create conditions for both sides to focus on attacking and defending in a reduced, believable, sector of the town. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
3 minutes ago, BMBM said:

The point of the game is to have battles, preferably engaging/engrossing ones between two reasonably balanced forces.

The community however has evolved tactics that aim at capturing towns with as little effort (no defenders) as possible. This is not new - I'd say that the culture became manifest with the very first release 20 years ago. I don't think I'm alone in finding the hollow victory ninjacap blitz routine detestable since it's anathema to the "engaging/engrossing battle" concept. The more sordid ninjacap sessions you endure, the greater the likelihood of becoming an ex-customer. 

The Prox AO concept - far as I understand the general concept - is considered as a means to hand some control over AO placement to the players themselves since HC isn't able to direct proceedings 24/7 and because auto-AO is a somewhat blunt instrument. That is not to say that I'm particularly in favor of this tentative development.

We know for a fact that the bulk of players prefer balanced battles where the defender shows up and has a chance to deploy - at this juncture this is not the case for the majority of "battles", because of the short TTC and because of an evolved game culture that does anything to circumvent the proper forming of defense.

Personally I think it would be great if we could nudge the game towards a more inf-centric initial engagement and again set the stage for the forming (and interdiction) of vehicle columns - this would reduce the 360 degree battlefield to a more manageable and believable sector, and give the defender time to erect fanciful trenches. The drawback is of course that the defender is given a very strong armoured component for defence and has a much shorter TTC, requiring the attacker to site ATGs beforehand, erect trenches of their own, and wait for their own armor to arrive for an equal (armor) fight. The canny attacker would have to prepare his armour well in advance, setting a premium on organization and teamwork.

I agree with everything you've just typed. but I'm extremely concerned about anything that promotes fast-cycling AO's, which are dropped at the 1st sign of it "not being a walk-over" - hence my opposition to prox AO's. The TZ3 game, in particular is so poor - and hideously one-sided - that the notion of prox AO's in that TZ is literally insane. I'm not saying prox-AO's couldn't eventually be made to work well, the issue is that there's a lot else that needs sorting before introducing them makes any  sense.

The other question, is will prox-AO's only be available when no HC are on? (which basically means TZ3)

It seems to me that this should be on the office wall at CRS "Any game-mechanic which doesn't work well in TZ3, doesn't work."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
1 minute ago, BMBM said:

There's currently nothing to prevent a side to blitz into the AB going from the FB in less time than it would take them to do so from an AB, so I fail to see how your argument is valid. With an armor column you at least get some time to prepare and have options to prevent it entirely, currently you patently do not. 

Having tanks issue from ABs only would *reduce* the number or (attacking) tanks and delay their arrival; increase the use of ATGs (for the attacker) to whittle down the defender; reintroduce intervening terrain ZOC and interdiction; create conditions for both sides to focus on attacking and defending in a reduced, believable, sector of the town. 

I fear we're talking at cross-purposes here. You're quite right of course that the current system offers very little response time - virtually none in fact off-peak. My concern with armour columns from the AB is that they can form up without tripping EWS, and by the time they pass their attacking FB, they'd be moving at speed, and be fairly well concentrated, in a way that doesn't happen often with armour attacking from an AB with the current AO system, as opposed to prox-AO. I believe that the upshot of this is a reduced period of EWS before the now considerable armoured column arrives at the town.

This is not conducive to having defending players put out a screen of dfms's and ATG's.

I hope that clarifies my thinking. Perhaps you're assuming EWS range would be extended to a mid-point between two towns? Either way, I can see problems, specifically how on earth tier 0 French armour will "attack" when so much of their armour moves at infantry pace....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM
5 minutes ago, fidd said:

I agree with everything you've just typed. but I'm extremely concerned about anything that promotes fast-cycling AO's, which are dropped at the 1st sign of it "not being a walk-over" - hence my opposition to prox AO's. The TZ3 game, in particular is so poor - and hideously one-sided - that the notion of prox AO's in that TZ is literally insane. I'm not saying prox-AO's couldn't eventually be made to work well, the issue is that there's a lot else that needs sorting before introducing them makes any  sense.

The other question, is will prox-AO's only be available when no HC are on? (which basically means TZ3)

It seems to me that this should be on the office wall at CRS "Any game-mechanic which doesn't work well in TZ3, doesn't work."

I think mostly everyone is opposed to the fast-cycling AO's because of their character to seek out the least-defended town for yet another hollow ninjacap. It leaves the n00bz and the patient folks disappointed and confused at the abandoned AO, paving the way for more unsubs. The problem here is that the ninjacap is firmly rooted in the established gottawinitis culture, which also clamors for that minimal TTC that leads to disjointed, chaotic and unsatisfying battles for both sides alike. This is a culture that we as game developers have allowed to exist, through shortcomings of the fundamental strategic design (CP/FB/FMS/strat) and spawn-travel-warning-cap structure, and as you know it's not an easy matter to fix.

I have no idea of whether the ProxAO will be introduced and what it actually looks like on the drawing table, so I won't comment on it.

I'm speaking purely as a player here, and vehicle development dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrAnit

I would rather CRS spend resources limiting the placement of MSP’s to eliminate a 360 degree battle.  CRS should alter placement rules so they can only be place in a 180 degree arc around the town in the direction of the fire base.  That would be a step in the right direction in simulating a front line.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

My concern with armour columns from the AB is that they can form up without tripping EWS, and by the time they pass their attacking FB, they'd be moving at speed, and be fairly well concentrated, in a way that doesn't happen often with armour attacking from an AB <sic!> (FB? ) with the current AO system,

I'm entertaining the idea that tank EWS extends farther than the current setting and that AO placement is notified to the defender more in advance.

11 minutes ago, fidd said:

I hope that clarifies my thinking. Perhaps you're assuming EWS range would be extended to a mid-point between two towns? Either way, I can see problems, specifically how on earth tier 0 French armour will "attack" when so much of their armour moves at infantry pace....

Yes. The French have the reasonably fast S-35 and H-39. You and I belong to a select group of freaks using Rennies, and the Char B1 is only a few minutes later to the battle than the S-35 given a mean TTC of 10-15 minutes, which is acceptable. All factions have their behemoths and clunkers, them's just the breaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B2K
14 hours ago, BMBM said:

Here’s a stupid idea, so shoot me:

AOs are only allowed from brigade towns. Garrisons are defensive only. 
FBs are limited to infantry and guns (screen baby screen). 
If you want wheels and tracks, you must bring them from the AB (columns!).

And increase vehicle EWS range.

will end up with some enterprising HC pulling flags back to prevent AOs from being placed (demonstrated by both sides doing the same in the past) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2
17 minutes ago, B2K said:

will end up with some enterprising HC pulling flags back to prevent AOs from being placed (demonstrated by both sides doing the same in the past) 

But under BMBM suggestion that would only prevent them from placing their  AO,not the opposition and no side would want to limit their AO options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
24 minutes ago, B2K said:

will end up with some enterprising HC pulling flags back to prevent AOs from being placed (demonstrated by both sides doing the same in the past) 

Only if garrisons are left at their current strength. I'm not sure in my mind what should be done with them, but my instinct is that they should not be possible to initiate AO's from them, but that if they're linked to the AO'd town, then they should be able to support an AO from a Brigaded town. Personally I don't have a problem with HC's "getting creative" with Bde placement. YMMV of course.

I'd love to carry on with this fascinating thread,  but I've a workshop to reorganise, and there's a deal to do before it's sorted....

Edited by fidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

Bunny-hoping AOs is of course not the targeted objective! But attack failure can remain part of the preparatory stage.

The fundamental objectives of proxy-AOs, as discussed 2 years ago, are focused on making the preparatory stage more meaningful and fun for both sides, and ultimately generate more field leadership (more co-op):

1. Let attackers still deploy their ZOC like they do now with a "ninja-style", because our spawning mechanics doesn't allow to sustain regular truck rides between FB and the frontline, nor to move MSPs back when defenders come too close. I would be 100% supportive of a MSP audit but let's be careful to what will trigger demotivation on the attackers' side.

2. Let defenders setup sooner and guarantee an initial attrition battle far away from flags and depots (boring and repetitive), but not at the risk of seeing camped FBs or cutoff roads making it impossible to get a ZOC close up (no one want to run 1000m in the open fields, not with our current terrain at least). Using the EWS as a pointer is therefore the best option. Maybe initial capture timers should be increased (e.g. XX minutes continuous heavy EWS > AO > XX minutes hot timer). I would personnaly try out 15 minutes Heavy Infantry EWS + 5 minutes hot timers. So if the defenders push attackers back during their preparatory stage, there is no AO to cancel and both sides did have fun, at least. This can be re-started on a different town, at will, until they managed to knock down defenders long enough. Adapt, setup new tactics, play smarter, ambush... That's how  squad initiatives to "run for the AO" can offer positive consequences.

 

Two extra observations:

- We know how little defenders show up before the AO is actually up, or even before the depot is down. Because we all know there is only 2 or 3 guys at work until the radios are up, and it repetitively ends in ninja tactics or MSP/depot camping. So if you change the rules, you bring the opportunity to change the mentality and the way everyone is actually playing.

- In TZ3, with the current numbers, I also doubt the UP would be able to sustain any attack. That's a pitty but we should fix TZ3 by other means, including the business model. Now, what if a side doesn't succeed to mobilize and sustain EWS? Offensive players will more likely go play defense but setup counter-attack maneuvers. They will also probably setup diversion events (hotdrop and hold), altough I am sure there will be players that will step up and enjoy this new easy way of creating action.  

 

My personal preference, instead of the EWS constraint, would be to allow attackers to capture any flag without AO, but only one (depots wouldn't be supplied). If they manage to keep it for 10-15 minutes they get an AO. That would require a lot more coding though.
Allowing AOs only from brigades also has my preference, as to keep HCs' influence strong with no longer the risk to have a cutoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwrona

This is by FAR the dumbest “official” idea ever proposed. Let’s paint a picture of the opening hours of a campaign... picture the opening lines for me. Assume each side has squads ready to pick their own op, with enough guys to trigger whatever nonsensical threshold one needs for an AO. Call it 50-70 per side. 
 

Axis has one squad go to Schilde with the HC calling it P1. Ends up being Allied D1. Classic opening move, good fun battle there for a bit. A group of allied guys wants to mole Luxembourg. They do. With the bare minimum (call it 6). Axis have to send a few from their P1 to defend it. Let’s pretend both sides have naval geeks on, 6 go to veere, 6 go to krabbendijke. Allied HC wants to hit Feschaux and declares that P1. A group of axis think “we want to get pressure on Brussels” and goes to Leuven. Allied has a similar group who goes to Boullion to try and get to Bertrix. 
At this point, we have 7 objectives on map. Everyone gets to do what they want, yay, love it. But now you have what’s essentially glorified 10v10. This game isn’t fun playing small ball. Everyone’s most memorable fight is always some big nasty one during prime time where both sides are SLOGGING. I can’t see these kind of fights still happening if EVERYONE gets an AO where they choose... the guys not included on these ops (how many times have I seen [censored] like “limited access Fms” where a guy will build, spawn his squad, and delete, leaving 2nd account there to rebuild if someone dies, or when the next AO or something isn’t declared via text but just  on one squads discord channel) will be all over the place running around while HC advertises some missions, squad leaders spam the channels with their stuff, and some AOs are a total “mystery” as the mission won’t appear on active battles list (another gripe I got with that one, to be fair).

 

now let’s use our imagination further... what if we limit the maximum number of AOs (as we do now) to try and condense into battles. The whole idea of this is to give people options to do what they wish. What if all the AOs are used up and this group has heavy EWS with their band of dorks and can’t get their AO? They log or they [censored] and moan about “your idea is stupid, let me do my idea.”  
 

I truly and honestly don’t see what in the wildest best case scenario we accomplish with the proximity AO. At all. Show me one, unified, concrete answer as to why this is on the roadmap and try to sell me on it. The way it’s being brought up and the execution being so gray area, when this goes the way it seems to be going, that’ll be the end of playing this game, for me. Not that I think HC makes good choices ever (I’ve done AND seen some really funny effed up things done by the HC to manipulate playerbase into their plans) and I do wish players and squads had more input (solution: have an CO or XO join the HC to give the two cents of “I got 9 guys online. We are willing to set up X as the next AO”), but this is going to break a game where already there is very little initiative from 75% of the player base. 
 

Bottom Line: sell me on WHY this is the future, prevent the TZ3/small ball/lack of initiate mentioned by me and the others, and maybe you’ll keep my dinero when 2.0 comes out with this feature. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...