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

sideout
34 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:But yes it is do-able, just a matter of time, ressources, priorities and courage regarding the fear to blow up our remaining supporters.

Great quote! 
intermissions don’t have to blow up any supporters, in fact I’d bet most want to see things tested here......nothing to lose. Again, I’ll volunteer to help set up......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
8 hours ago, jwrona said:

Have you played this campaign? Super even TZ3 at the moment. Prime time actually matters, its enjoyable fighting.

I posted either up the thread a bit or in another thread about playing the other night in TZ3 (early TZ3 I think?) where there were 2-3 of us defending, and more EFMS than defenders. About as many EA as defenders, and way more ei than defenders.

I pop on usually TZ2/3 (night time in US Mountain time, after 9?).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
9 hours ago, sideout said:

Great quote! 
intermissions don’t have to blow up any supporters, in fact I’d bet most want to see things tested here......nothing to lose. Again, I’ll volunteer to help set up......

Intermissions happen on production servers.  They would have to make changes to them, then back them out before next campaign, and have patches then unpatches if there are any client components.

I don't think you are thinking this through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sideout
38 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

Intermissions happen on production servers.  They would have to make changes to them, then back them out before next campaign, and have patches then unpatches if there are any client components.

I don't think you are thinking this through.

Cmon Kile. I’m just a player...I know nothing of production servers....and all the following stuff you just mentioned. I’m a player throwing out ideas, then offering to help in any way to set up. 
wouldn’t it be nice if we all lived in a world where we all know what the game mechanics will or will not do. Why don’t you list them with your vast expertise so that way, when computer nerds like me come along, we can sift our ideas through your list........that way, we can think this through and not bother you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2

one thing I've been thinking about is upping the timer for the garrison supply trickle. its currently at 10 minutes but what if was upped to 30 or 45 minutes. 

For example on the opening weekend of this campaign. The allies threw everything including the kitchen sink at Heiderscheid,  now we took the town after a long hard fight and in the process completely  drained Wiltz of supply. Both flags and Wiltz garrison were near enough empty.  now Pre 1.36 we wouldn't have been able to hold Heiderscheid for any length of time, because even  when moving a flag in it wouldn't have held under a serious counter attack.  However the reality was as allied HC nobody bothered to move any supply in knowing that the garrison would start appearing  shortly. 

if the trickle timer was increased it could have the benefit of slowing down the map. As a side would want to be sure that they can hold the newly taken town.  Of course one way to ensure the town has supply in it is  HC move a flag it but the other option would be manual resupply from any linking town.  This would have the potential of generating the interdiction fights that were lauded as great point of 1.36 that have never materialised.    This could generate new types of gameplay  and slow down the map as the OP would have less attackers available for the next AO. 

 

Thoughts?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
1 hour ago, sideout said:

Cmon Kile. I’m just a player...I know nothing of production servers....and all the following stuff you just mentioned. I’m a player throwing out ideas, then offering to help in any way to set up. 
wouldn’t it be nice if we all lived in a world where we all know what the game mechanics will or will not do. Why don’t you list them with your vast expertise so that way, when computer nerds like me come along, we can sift our ideas through your list........that way, we can think this through and not bother you?

My list would be highly unofficial and some parts incomplete and inaccurate, but years of patching and changes should have made it clear to long term players that coding change that's not preprogrammed options/data change is pretty much a one-way ticket and not casual.

Remember when they reversed the map, Allies were coming from Germany and Axis coming from the West and had to take the opposite factories/countries?  Doc said they nearly never came back from that in a 'game done' sense trying to get it back to original.  That's an example of how dangerous 'trying things out' can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
1 minute ago, Kilemall said:

Remember when they reversed the map, Allies were coming from Germany and Axis coming from the West and had to take the opposite factories/countries?  Doc said they nearly never came back from that in a 'game done' sense trying to get it back to original.  That's an example of how dangerous 'trying things out' can be.

I don't actually remember that, but it's unfortunate.

The lesson is that "trying things out" on the main server is apparently troublesome.

What about the training server? It seems like it would be really useful to be able to try stuff out—not impacting the production server—then if something works, only them migrate the lessons learned to production.

Intermission has different rules, etc, if those changes are "canned," and executed/removed via a script or something, could that be done with suggested changes? Just spitballing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sideout
1 hour ago, Kilemall said:

 That's an example of how dangerous 'trying things out' can be.

The best we can get to is somewhere between doing nothing and danger of trying................hmm

lets backup for a moment shall we? This is a game. Games should be fun. If games arent fun, no one wants to play them.

Explain why some of these things cant be done during intermission. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems
3 hours ago, foe2 said:

one thing I've been thinking about is upping the timer for the garrison supply trickle. its currently at 10 minutes but what if was upped to 30 or 45 minutes.   Thoughts?

Would have to think this through.

At first glance, seems interesting.  But, the now attacker turned defender would have no supply in town.

Also, there would be no FB to the town.

And finally, no FAIRY spawns would work in the town because AB still owned.

Only way for the new defender to hold the town would be to move a flag in or run MS from backline towns.

(or not remove the attack MSs they had setup while attacking)

But, of course those backline towns were just frontline when they took the town in the first place, so might be low.

Meanwhile, the old defender (now attacker) would be attacking from full backline towns w/FB and spawns if captured.

Like the idea in theory, but have to really work out details as don't think it would work how game plays atm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

IMHO, a fix that should start out ASAP, would be:

All spawns except the AB and FB have either a fixed spawn list, or VERY slow resupply.

This means those facilities can be attrited to zero.

This includes MSPs.

MSP spawn lists would be a function of what their parent spawn was, and distance. If you spawn truck from an AB or FB, the list is the AB/FB list as it is now, if you spawn from a Depot it drains that Depot's fixed list. The list would be reduced with distance from the spawn point with distance, eventually dropping to 1 truck load (maybe unrealistically packed, say 15-ish inf, and 1 ATG). The distance could simply be some distance below typical FB to town distance.

Downside is that if the FMS is placed where it is now, it would have maybe a few truckloads of inf, no more. The plus side is that people could still attack from the rear, but only with a truckload of inf.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
james10
21 hours ago, Quincannon said:

Well that would destroy the entire concept from start to finish, I guess. Because, based on the arguments brought up, there can be no solution. The underpopped side can and would just stop the entire campaign forever, either by not having enough people on their side to win... or by somehow Ninja capping every hour forever, thus stalemating every campaign, no matter how undermanned they are?

Come on, man. Think about how that sounds.  The closest we have in the game that I know of like this is when there is a full blown DO in one city and someone from the defending side in another city at their AO tries to mole it to draw people away. It can be an effective tactic, but once the side that owns the moled city can send more folks, that mole usually gets killed pretty quickly.

The fact is that it's just about impossible to Ninja cap any CP that has guards in it. You can't 'game' that. And  I have to say that if a defending side is overpopped and keeps getting Ninja moled every hour... it's on them for not guarding their CPs.

Yes, every so often an AO could get drawn out by the Underpopped side, but I still really believe that even so, this concept would work well enough most of the time that it would benefit the game.

S!

I have thought about how that sounds. Just because it sound absurd doesn't make it any less relevant. Yes it does have the potential to stalemate the campaign so just simply ignoring it is poor design.

Cheers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Need to up the threshold to 2nd AO some too imo.

Just don't have player numbers at current 2 AO limit.

So, should require more to invoke 2nd AO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Bump, 2 AOs right now and not enough population on to engage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

bump, 4 AOs, 3 with no EWS.......

 

1 Up the number of soldiers needed for 2 AOs in game.

2 On sides MS

3 Extend EWS to 1k or 1.5k

4 Move MS distance to 500m

5 Cut everything in supply list with a motor in half. (but not HQs)

 

That my ideas to work for better battles.

Would prolly have to cut capture timers down some to help the attacker.

And, if get on sides MS, maybe move MS distance in some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

I literally spawned into a couple places just now. One I was the first responder, within seconds of the EWS.

232 drove right through town and killed me pushing ATG to "prepare defense." Some others show, already SMG fire inside town. I leave.

Next town people spawning in for defense, I literally run out of depot because it's being hit with a pak to blow it, lay on ground after checking CP. Ei kills me, already there right next to me (of course).

If it's POSSIBLE for ei to kill you in town before defenders can set up literally anywhere in town pushing an ATG, there should be no AO.

Seriously, force field, 100% deadly AI, or simply any enemy within 1 km of town, and the town becomes immune from attack for 1 hour. No one should be that close before the tables are hot.

This prox AO idea is idiotic. Fix the regular game first.

 

Edited by tater
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Again, further EWS and MS range would help....

And I understand your frustration trying to get out on D, even when respond immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

IMHO The best battles are those that settled up AFTER multiple successive frustrating experiences on both sides, until a balance is achieved between a good ZOC and deployed defenders.

Although these frustrations are more frequent and more intense when population is low on any of both sides, if we removed that initial phase, we would also remove the variety of our battles and kill the concept of our freedom game, and WWIIONLINE would just look like any other FPS.

Being able to piss of a whole enemy side for hours, days or weeks is part of the addiction to our game.

The real fix is total population number. Achieved by improving graphics and lowering the cost. But since none of these can be achieved in a short period of time, we are down thinking about simple gameplay mechanics changes to make things a bit more fun to play despite there being no magic solution. 

As already argued, Proxy AO at least would bring some fair amount of attackers in/near town, that need to be pushed out first before they settle (the surprise effect). Both sides at least can find action where it is no longer about 1 or 2 guys trying ninja tactics to setup a battle. Finding action is our main issue regarding new player retention.

Maybe the mentalities regarding town win/loss and AOs would be different if the victory conditions were based on how many AO you won VS you lost, including the canceled ones. Not sure how that could be designed though.

Share this post


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

Although these frustrations are more frequent and more intense when population is low on any of both sides, if we removed that initial phase, we would also remove the variety of our battles and kill the concept of our freedom game, and WWIIONLINE would just look like any other FPS.

This is simply nonsense.

There is already no variety. The attack maybe coming primarily from a slightly different compass direction is not "variety."

Literally everything about play is the same 99% of the time.

I want it to also be the same much of the time. Read some ww2 history about small unit actions. They are often pretty similar, too—just nothing like this game. If play is going to be repetitive, I want it repetitively more like actual ww2 combat in terms of tactics, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

Take this poll to help think about the ews/timers/... Settings as these could help balance proxy AOs as well

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

Further thinking about how to explain why we are speaking about proxy AOs, but why the system as depicted by james10 - and resulting from some players' fear of HC collapse or Christmas garland frontline - would unfortunately just become a small bandage for TZ3 and not a fundamental gameplay fix for all timezones:

If we go back in time and ask ourselves what could have been done differently, we would remind how much the whole brigade spawning system was hijacked by the mechanics of AOs. If we wanted to go back to that idea of giving moveable supply to the squads that were actually leading initiatives over the[their] frontline, we would fix it by allowing any brigade flag (nominated) OIC to setup his own AO.

But to make that work, considering that the potential number of simultaneous AOs would then be proportional to the amount of brigade flags deployed in frontline towns, the ews-constraints would then become necessary : HC would keep the power of brigade flag movements (hence battle areas) and OIC nomination, but players can volunteer to launch a battle at the conditions they gathered enough troops. If no HC is online the system is already fully automated. 

The problem of AO bunny hoping before supplies are attrited, which has always been part of past frustrations as well, could be thought about and handled with other simple mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...