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

bmw
50 minutes ago, jwrona said:

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. 

Isnt this just a survey and or discussion?

Share this post


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

- 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.

Not really.

People are in game, playing. Someplace. Any EWS reports, etc require that they decide that their current sortie is boring, so they despawn, then pop in to respond to EWS, or maybe someone is there at the target, and posts that there are numerous trucks driving around, they need boots, etc. In that case you might leave an already fun town/sortie to try and put out this new fire.

In short, the only good reason to switch to new EWS is because you are not having sufficient fun at some other location.

Time to battle is constantly minimized, which is fine, but underlying this is the problem that we all know that spending time for good position can be worth it—but it's also a crap shoot. Move an ATG to a good position and wait... and the attack never comes.

It's all because of lack of persistence.

How about having a new kind of despawn? It leaves the unit that despawned AFK on the map. If it is still "alive" you can switch back to it later. It's a sort of free second acount (or third/fourth account). Maybe the number scales with pop and pop imbalance? The goal is to reward prepping a little. Move ATG screen likely approach. Leave it there, and respond to actual EWS someplace else as inf/whatever. Situation stable? Check back with ATG. Go elsewhere again. EWS at town with your ATG goes off, quickly switch back.

Players are forced to be reactive in ww2ol, but in the current paradigm this requires that they start over at a new spawn castle. Knowing they are forced to be reactive, try and have some sort of persistence. Since the units are left out in the field, the enemy still gets to kill them.

 

 

Share this post


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

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.

There are some encouraging aspects there. Not entirely sure what you mean by "meaningful", but if you mean vy that adequate time for players to arrive at a threatened town, to put out (say) 6 ATG's and some AAA and DFMS's before the attacker leaves the FB, and time for attackers to spawn at an FB and organise themselves into something more subtle than "roll trucks and armour ant-trails and fast cycling AO's" then I'm all for that. Defoliating the terrain is a must also, as our world looks nothing like Northern France/Belgium. (I walked from London to Madrid via Calais when I was 19, so I know the area!) More to the point we need to extend tank combat ranges which are frequently around the 400m mark currently. Making towns less porous to ei who havn't first defeated defending armour and infantry is likewise a must.

I'd be interested to see how you respond to Jwrona, as he's got a good grip on this stuff imho.

I don't see the point of the 10-15 minute possession of depot gives AO. If there are defending players, it simply won't be contested that long 99% of the time. If there arn't defending players, frankly you have bigger problems to solve than helping a side already massively OP - they'd have to be for that circumstance to arise. That particular idea has little merit I fear, and even less if it takes a lot of dev-time to code? We need to concentrate players - within vis limits of course, not split them up into smaller groups all agitating HC to give them an AO, or worse, creating AO's outside of the HC system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
59 minutes ago, bmw said:

Isnt this just a survey and or discussion?

Well, leaving aside it's a bloody awfui set of poll questions, as it admits no answer in opposition to the posed questions, this is those of us who see significant problems with, or no case for, prox-AO's  correcting that deficiency!

Share this post


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

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.

Thanks for your feedback jrwona, I know how much you love sneaking in FMSs and I am really trying to make all voices heard. You know how much belgian people love compromises ;)

I have mentioned in my initial topic that so far there is no discussion about increasing the number of total AOs. So we would be more in this other scenario:

2 hours ago, jwrona said:

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.”  

It's up to us to define how many players will actually trigger the heavy EWS, hence make it aligned with the current rules.

These extra players, obviously not required to keep existing AOs strong, can still launch a new preparatory stage but should not expect an AO to come there yet (Attrition only), but eventually they can be ready to switch an AO there after cancelling a failed one, allowing a better continuity of action , especially during TZ3 where we are just waiting to be smatched AO per AO, with 20 minutes dead moments in-between.

I personally would prefer these kind of human sized battles, more focused on PvP than flag capture, from both sides. It also contributes to balance the active AOs, I.e. if a side has the luxury to add an extra EWS without any available AO, it means the other side mathematically hasn't enough population to balance a new battle. 

Now, if a squad launch their attack not following HC orders, and dry out a HC objective, well then we would start an interesting discussion about who should be leading players.

 

Share this post


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

Well, leaving aside it's a bloody awfui set of poll questions, as it admits no answer in opposition to the posed questions, this is those of us who see significant problems with, or no case for, prox-AO's  correcting that deficiency!

Question 2 fixed for tater and you. If anyone wants to change his vote ask me! :p (remind t's just a brainstorming for an upcoming online poll, and be sure I can indeed gather all opinions)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

More and more I think the FBs should be neutral, and capping the FB should be the thing that starts a battle. Not sure if there is a proximity way to do this.

The trick is that the FB should also be defended, it should be a fight, even if the FBs had reduced, "outpost" spawn lists.

Set AO. FB becomes a target (maybe the offensive one, but owned by the enemy? Maybe the normal enemy offensive one gets an even smaller spawn list (it's a speed bump)?

Ie: town —> FB1 —> FB2 —> AO target

Set AO, attack FB 1. Blow it, opens FB 2. Supply trickles to FB2. Attack town.

 

No good way for proximity to matter here. Maybe if Garrisons were 100% defensive, the "proximity" move would be to move a BDE? Maybe there could be a new unit made, a truck convoy. It requires a few players to do, and they spawn from one BDE, and if they despawn at a new AB, the BDE moves? They spawn a truck, and the game generates a train of trucks. X trains of trucks need to arrive for the BDE to move. If you have a fresh BDE in a town, the server will prioritize that fresh BDE for an auto-AO?

 

Share this post


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

It's up to us to define how many players will actually trigger the heavy EWS, hence make it aligned with the current rules.

What is it now?

If the number is above 1-2, TZ3 has a side that is not allowed to use this mechanic most all the time.

Also, how to address the simple fact that more players in a given battle (both sides) is always "best gameplay." Anythign that forces players to chose where to spawn is bad, IMO.

Who here has had this happen?

Having fun in some attack or defense. EWS goes off some other town. Some other player posts on side chat that there are truck noises all over. I'm now stuck. To help my side, I should probably help that defense, but I'm having fun here, or heck, I'm NOT having fun here, I'm guarding a %$#@%$ CP, but if I leave, this attack/defense might be compromised, because many people don't guard. Then maybe HC says that the AO I am in is secure, some should move to the defense at the other town.

This gives lie to the operational large map nature of the game. Player numbers on the ground matter more than anything else. Assume in my above example both towns are defenses for what I say next. The 2 towns have equal "supply." 1 has players, the other doesn't yet. Assume both are being attacked by enemies with identical supply, and identical numbers of attackers. The success/failure of the 2 battles entirely depends on the balance of where players are. At the map level this is simply not true, both towns are the same.

We would have better fights if they were all serial up to max visible players.

1 AO, not 1 per side, ONE battle. Finish that, then do the next battle.

I think @Kilemall had suggested something like that, but more zonal—an AO structure that encompasses a group of towns along the front (so the target town, and 1 town on each side?).

This makes a lot of sense. All the players in one small region of the map at a time. In the happy circumstance where vis limits are hit, another region opens.

Share this post


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

Question 2 fixed for tater and you. If anyone wants to change his vote ask me! :p (remind t's just a brainstorming for an upcoming online poll, and be sure I can indeed gather all opinions)

Not seeing how it is fixed at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Powpapow
5 hours ago, BMBM said:

FBs limited to infantry and guns

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.

On the surface and at first glance I really like this idea.

Share this post


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

Not seeing how it is fixed at all.

New option: "I don't favor any EWS-based constraint for AO placement"

All other questions are contextual and not related to proxy AO

Share this post


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

New option: "I don't favor any EWS-based constraint for AO placement"

This presumes proximity AOs.

No EWS constraint means 1 inf can set an AO, making an already bad idea worse. Higher #s of units required means it's completely broken for TZ3.

What is current heavy EWS?

Question #1 is a false choice. I think AOs are desirable to the extent they give defenders time to arrive (before there are ANY ei even at the outskirts of town), and to the extent they make fewer, larger battles. Sadly, AOs currently do neither well. I can be first responder to EWS, literally in the time it takes to despawn, make a mission in the EWS town, and spawn in... and still get shot in the back by an ei within pistol range. That should literally never happen. With just 1 AO per side, there are 2 battles. If one side has fewer than 2X minimum number of players for a defense, then that's too many AOs. Min defense is roughly the same as min offense since in either case you must have enough players to guard every single Cp, and every bunker, plus you need a few floaters to assault, bust EFMS, etc. So a town with 6 CPs and an AB needs at least 7 players just for guarding, plus some floaters.

I'm beginning to think there needs to be 2 different "EWS" levels. One is the warning we see, maybe set much farther out, like 1.5 km. Another, closer EWS (maybe more like what we have now) is really mostly for the attacker. They get a warning before they cross that line, regardless of normal or prox AO. Long range EWS is fine, and might even be required to set an AO. The shorter ranged EWS is a no-go line. Any attacker crosses it before tables are hot, and the AO is pulled/delayed/reset. The alternate way to achieve this is ridiculously powerful AI, 360 degrees. Before tables are hot, AI is indestructible, and anyone within X hundred meters is hosed down. The setting are adjusted via testing. Get some good players to run in vs this AI, and if they make it into town, ever, it's not powerful enough. Try with inf, and the fastest and most powerful vehicles. No enemy inside X hundred meters of town until tables are hot (at which point AI goes back to normal—though the idiotic 45 degree gaps need to go away, AI should have slightly overlapping fields of fire, approaching town should require taking it out.

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

We would have better fights if they were all serial up to max visible players.

1 AO, not 1 per side, ONE battle. Finish that, then do the next battle. (...)

All the players in one small region of the map at a time. In the happy circumstance where vis limits are hit, another region opens.

What about the idea proposed elsewhere that the defender is allowed to determine the location of the One AO / One Battle?

(Inherent to the mechanic is the assumption that the UP side is the defender.)

Give the defending side a short period of time to make that declaration, if they have HC on. If no action is taken, System auto-decides based on which front line town has the greatest number of ((UP ground players + PPOs placed by that side) - (OP ground players + PPOs placed by that side) in proximity.

Defender-Determines would solve the problem of the defender not being present and ready...to the extent possible, anyway.

It would eliminate the ninja cap concept from the game. Some people would see that change as positive, others as negative.

Create an end condition for a battle: the attacker has lost if their number of involved players (ground + air + sea) decreases by more than X, or of course if they run out of supply. The defender's loss conditions remain as traditional. (Because the game is a business, and if its current activity isn't holding customer interest, it's time to move to the next battle.)

Quote

BMBM said:  The point of the game is to have battles

To that end, rework the campaign victory conditions. Eliminate the victory relevance of, as well as the mechanics for, non-battle town captures. Make winning a battle a step toward victory. (So, a UP side could win a campaign by winning a string of battles. Unlikely, but possible.)

***

During nearly balanced-pop periods, maybe at the end of one battle, the side-roles would flip?

And of course, if pop was significantly shifting during a period, the UP side at the end of a battle would determine the location of the next one...even if they had been the OP side for the prior battle.

 

 

Share this post


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

What about the idea proposed elsewhere that the defender is allowed to determine the location of the One AO / One Battle?

The problem is that the attacker needs to make that decision on the map level. You might have a strategy as to where to advance, the defender cannot do this for the attacker. I know, we will chose to have the attacker take a town sideways, for reasons.

I suppose there could be a mechanism such that the attacker plots attacks ahead of time, and of possible attacks, the defender chooses which one gets done.

In a system where Garrisons are 100% defensive (they should be that, or vastly reduced in supply, IMO), the towns with BDEs are possible attackers. Any BDE on a front line town is then a possible attack. If the attackers want only a narrow front to have their possible attacks during a given period, they only put BDEs on a few front towns at a time.

Then the attacks would alternate attacks by side, unless pop was above some large level for both sides, then another attack is allowed at the same time (other team), if way more players then another might be added, and so forth. There can be a time limit such that if the system declares an attack during TZ3 and there are not enough players, those players can ignore the attack, and after X minutes it switches (severely UP side can only really defend, though I suppose they can spawn into the attack and waste the OP side's time, limiting rolls).

I tend to think that instead of "EWS" proximity setting an AO (guaranteed to result in more of the same play where defenders spawn in to a "friendly" town with more enemy than friends), the proximity should be a sufficient number of BDEs.

If typical attacks require 2:1 odds or better, and we assume the current ~BDE strength Garrisons, then give players the ability to move BDEs (via driving, probably, needs "follow the leader" AI to make a huge convoy of trucks), and if they get 2:1 BDEs vs a target, it can set an AO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

I posited that idea more as an indictment than a serious suggestion, but it would solve a lot of issues. Perhaps a further step is needed so that the attacker effectively tells the defender where he'll attack, the defender sets out his defence, attacker place AO? (in sequence)?

If attritional battles - of some duration - are the goal here, then there would have to be some asymmetry in the TOE's. It gets complex however, to find the right ratio between the defenders and attackers TOE's, when a town has more than one enemy Bde to it. If you take 3:! ratio (in TOE) between 1 Bde attacking one Bde as a start point, then having 2 links to the AO would confer a 6:1 ratio of TOE's, attackers to defenders. Then there's the effects of numeric player imbalance, and possibly scaleable TOE's to deal with that.

In effect you'd need a "dynamic" TOE, which varies with TZ, has offsets to counter imbalance, and deals with the multiple link deal to keep that workable. I say workable, because if it remained as 3:! for every link, you might well see an "unzipping" effect where multiple captures became sequentially possible, once one side was able to bring two or more links to a single AO.

There's a lot to think about there.

I do really like the idea of AO's being much slower, more cautious and planned by ML's/HC/Squad leaders rather than the "P1 xyz, roll trucks, AO shortly!" attacks which are pretty dull.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
53 minutes ago, tater said:

This presumes proximity AOs.

No EWS constraint means 1 inf can set an AO, making an already bad idea worse. Higher #s of units required means it's completely broken for TZ3.

What is current heavy EWS?

Question #1 is a false choice. I think AOs are desirable to the extent they give defenders time to arrive (before there are ANY ei even at the outskirts of town), and to the extent they make fewer, larger battles. Sadly, AOs currently do neither well. I can be first responder to EWS, literally in the time it takes to despawn, make a mission in the EWS town, and spawn in... and still get shot in the back by an ei within pistol range. That should literally never happen. With just 1 AO per side, there are 2 battles. If one side has fewer than 2X minimum number of players for a defense, then that's too many AOs. Min defense is roughly the same as min offense since in either case you must have enough players to guard every single Cp, and every bunker, plus you need a few floaters to assault, bust EFMS, etc. So a town with 6 CPs and an AB needs at least 7 players just for guarding, plus some floaters.

I'm beginning to think there needs to be 2 different "EWS" levels. One is the warning we see, maybe set much farther out, like 1.5 km. Another, closer EWS (maybe more like what we have now) is really mostly for the attacker. They get a warning before they cross that line, regardless of normal or prox AO. Long range EWS is fine, and might even be required to set an AO. The shorter ranged EWS is a no-go line. Any attacker crosses it before tables are hot, and the AO is pulled/delayed/reset. The alternate way to achieve this is ridiculously powerful AI, 360 degrees. Before tables are hot, AI is indestructible, and anyone within X hundred meters is hosed down. The setting are adjusted via testing. Get some good players to run in vs this AI, and if they make it into town, ever, it's not powerful enough. Try with inf, and the fastest and most powerful vehicles. No enemy inside X hundred meters of town until tables are hot (at which point AI goes back to normal—though the idiotic 45 degree gaps need to go away, AI should have slightly overlapping fields of fire, approaching town should require taking it out.

Why not just have an AI artillery strike, killing anything that attempts getting too close?

Share this post


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

The problem is that the attacker needs to make that decision on the map level. You might have a strategy as to where to advance, the defender cannot do this for the attacker.

I'm proposing that it'd be better to have tactical gameplay functional and fun for both sides, but the map/strategy game broken, than the other way around. So for now, screw the map game. Turn it off until the pop is larger.

I agree with BMBM: the game is first and foremost about good battles. That is the most saleable characteristic of the game...more so than the strat game, good though that strat game may be when everything is working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
9 minutes ago, fidd said:

Perhaps a further step is needed so that the attacker effectively tells the defender where he'll attack, the defender sets out his defence, attacker place AO? (in sequence)?

No, that still allows the attacker to plan and prepare for his actions ahead of the defender. Workable defensive gameplay won't result. If we want viable defenses from the UP side, let them decide where to prepare defenses.

Strategic plans should not matter. They're getting in the way of good battle-gameplay. Jettison them. Change the victory conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwrona

Last post on this thread before I get out of here, as the idea still very much disgusts me. 
 

thx for the info ZEBBEEE. Helping shed light on this a little more. I’m still not quite sure what the initial driver/reason is behind this change though. 
 

My biggest concern is, with any add-on to game play, is feasibility + fun. An idea may be feasible and fair, but not fun. An idea might be fun, but not really feasible (and this goes beyond coding limits or the feasibility of executing the change , but just into terms of who the most subscribed/active/supportive players are and what they’re capable of). An example is the trenches patch. SO FUN: build defensive positions, create a new element to the open field gameplay, ability to fortify FB or help establish ZOC. FEASIBLE: somewhat. If you’re alone, it takes a LONG time to get 3-4 trench pieces (the normal amount for this to be effective) up. You and I have discussed the idea of a shorter build timer, just to make this more interesting and more involved in gameplay. All in all, great idea on both fronts. What about the Trawler? A marvel in itself, beautiful to see the crew build something from scratch, armament is unique and purposeful, fun piece of equipment. But floating at negative 3 knots from deep water ports... I feel bad for the axis who’s only real deep water near any frontline is so far north it’s a 3 hour sail! So fun, yes, but feasibility needs work done. This idea... I can’t see either happening, and it seems so left field that I’d guess an outsider came up with it. 
 

I’d LOVE to go compare the TOM I’ve had from map 169 till now with the up guys who had this idea (or anyone who’s got all these gameplay add on ideas to be fair). I’d love to know if they have played with (nearly) every single guy on one side’s discord. I can tell you, there are very few “regular” guys now in game or on comms that I don’t know (on the allied side, even including those who’ve popped over for a map or two). I bet you I’ve got greater than the sum of that entire brain-pool, to toot my own horn. Maybe I’m still missing something, or maybe this idea feels a little like those making this change up there don’t actually SEE what’s happening down here, and how badly FUBAR’d this can be. 
 

The LAST thing this game needs is an exodus. Don’t be the one to allow that to happen. 

Edited by jwrona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
11 minutes ago, fidd said:

Why not just have an AI artillery strike, killing anything that attempts getting too close?

Or heck, just make it a force field. And note, it has to be a hemispherical bubble that keeps out paratroops, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

I'm starting to think, and I can't believe I'm even going to stay this, maybe we should just try 1 AO per side for a while, as a test.

The main issues with the game as I see it are:

1) extreme over pop times

2) initiative by the playerbase

3) lack of HC

4) 360 degree battles (no front line)

Having a single AO basically helps alleviate all of those to some extent.

 

Next, I think a few of you have very bad and wrong initial conditions.

Which leads you very astray in your thinking, because your starting out point is flat out wrong.

Fast cycling of AOs doesn't happen.... 1) you CAN'T fast cycle them LOL, and 2) HC doesn't try to do that (from my experience)

What does happen is rapid switch of players from one AO to the next when there are two AOs.

If we have 1 AO at all times, there is no more rapid switch.  Thoughts?

 

There are some other issues, for example many town layouts not conducive to good battles.  But, we'll leave them out for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

Combine one AO at a time with a mechanism to keep attacking-side players X distance from any town with no AO on it, or despawn them if they're within that radius.

That'd allow defending players to prepare defenses before attackers show up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE
51 minutes ago, jwrona said:

An example is the trenches patch. SO FUN: build defensive positions, create a new element to the open field gameplay, ability to fortify FB or help establish ZOC. FEASIBLE: somewhat. If you’re alone, it takes a LONG time to get 3-4 trench pieces (the normal amount for this to be effective) up. You and I have discussed the idea of a shorter build timer, just to make this more interesting and more involved in gameplay. All in all, great idea on both fronts.

Sorry to bring you back in this thread, but in the next patch the build timer of trenches will be lowered down to 60 sec instead of the current 90. Cool down timer will also be decreased from 60 to 45sec. 

One step at a time, but we need to try things out. 

A single AO per side, whatever the Population online, but removing the mandatory placement, is something I would also be open to test and see its consequences, although I am not convinced it contributes to sell our wide open map. But that's a @OHMdecision 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwrona
20 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

Sorry to bring you back in this thread, but in the next patch the build timer of trenches will be lowered down to 60 sec instead of the current 90. Cool down timer will also be decreased from 60 to 45sec. 

One step at a time, but we need to try things out. 

A single AO per side, whatever is Population online, but removing the mandatory placement, is something I would like to test to see its consequences.

Good to hear on trenches. 

I can agree on an element of that... right now there’s 2 AOs online. Both sides have 1 dead AO, one side has light EWS and no Fms at one, and 1 with a good fight going. Mandatory placement is dumb as feck. 

42 minutes ago, delems said:Having a single AO basically helps

If we have 1 AO at all times, there is no more rapid switch.  Thoughts?

I’d argue the rapid switch is not caused by AO options or HC yanking everyone’s wieners, but by “this AO failed, we’re gonna try another” 

typical players don’t drive mobile spawns. You can have 30 guys on and 3 FMSs. Once those 3 get blown or camped... or the approach is cut... guys get bored and go elsewhere.

interesting, but I don’t think it solves that issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
20 minutes ago, tater said:

1 AO, not 1 per side, ONE battle. Finish that, then do the next battle.

I think @Kilemall had suggested something like that, but more zonal—an AO structure that encompasses a group of towns along the front (so the target town, and 1 town on each side?).

This makes a lot of sense. All the players in one small region of the map at a time. In the happy circumstance where vis limits are hit, another region opens.

Close.  I call it NAO for New AO, and each side gets 1 NAO, 2 only if we get to 2006 pop levels.  Every town connected to the NAO is AO'd, including the attacker's linking towns.  NAO isn't done until all towns are captured by one side or the other, so a defender with aggressive counterattacking can end the attack by seizing the linking attack towns.   Alternatively, the HCs can pull their NAO, but only after a minimum of two hours, maybe longer.

It's intended to create a regional battle, free up the HCs to concentrate on managing that battle, not have AOs get pulled every 30 minutes cause D is out, more countryside battle, the town being taken isn't fight over it can be taken back and it's worth the trouble to try.

 

PN absolutely must be right if we are opening up so many towns at the same time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...