Proximity AOS are a disaster for game play

[sw1]

Having Seen the effects of This idea now for some time , surely CRS can see how bad it is for game play. 

The worst aspect which is exaggerating the fundamental side balance issue killing the active population and subscriber base. 

The under pop side cant activate an AO . (under pop in a low pop Time)  << most of the time now. 

This means the OP side can attack without restriction increasing the already lop sided battles. 

How can this be allowed to continue? 

How can you not see the effects this is having on overall HC involvement? 

Previously The under pop side could activate an Ao which would become HOT and 1 person could trigger EWS and harrass the town/flags. This draws defenders, often the best players. If the Under pop  side gets a surge of players and there is already a HOT ao maybe even contested, they could sometimes swing the fight. NOW its almost impossible. 

What is the motivation for this ? Has it worked ? Is the side effects described worse than the problem it was designed to fix? Is anyone even considering this ? 

Edited January 1 by sw1

[tater]

7 hours ago, sw1 said:

This means the OP side can attack without restriction increasing the already lop sided battles. 

Also, under the assumption the initial point of AOs was to warn the "defenders" in the hope that a defense could actually simply exist (meaning a nonzero number of "defenders" would be in a town before the enemy was in in town)—the prox AO system makes this no longer a thing. Send a few people to multiple towns, UP side has to spawn at all of them waiting for which one is the actual AO. "Heavy" EWS is 3 guys, lol.

 

[sorella]

11 hours ago, sw1 said:

 

This means the OP side can attack without restriction increasing the already lop sided battles. 

3 hours ago, tater said:

 Send a few people to multiple towns, UP side has to spawn at all of them waiting for which one is the actual AO. "Heavy" EWS is 3 guys, lol.

 

 

The AO system and its variations, much like all the other 'new' systems like FBs, EWS, etc; seem to be/have been functions or responses to either: (i) side imbalance or, (ii) more importantly, fewer players overall. There was a time, with enough players, when 'nonzero' (great phrase) players would wait in towns or guard the line for 'nonAO' attacks - which were without restriction and with only a table-bump for caps.

Might it not be best to regard all these aggravating things as live experiments in WWIIOL 1.0 whilst awaiting 2.0 and hopefully, more players? BTW, nice to see your name again SW1.  

[Capco]

12 hours ago, sw1 said:

Having Seen the effects of This idea now for some time , surely CRS can see how bad it is for game play. 

The worst aspect which is exaggerating the fundamental side balance issue killing the active population and subscriber base. 

The under pop side cant activate an AO . (under pop in a low pop Time)  << most of the time now. 

This means the OP side can attack without restriction increasing the already lop sided battles. 

...

Previously The under pop side could activate an Ao which would become HOT and 1 person could trigger EWS and harrass the town/flags. This draws defenders, often the best players. If the Under pop  side gets a surge of players and there is already a HOT ao maybe even contested, they could sometimes swing the fight. NOW its almost impossible. 

Heya sw1.

This was one of my original gripes with the Prox AOs as well.  You're a TZ3 player iirc, and this was a bread-and-butter tactic for stemming the tide in that TZ in particular.  
 

12 hours ago, sw1 said:

How can you not see the effects this is having on overall HC involvement? 

More generally (and imo, even more concerning than your first point) is the effect it has had on HC's ability to strategically herd the cats.  Setting up an AO no longer possible with fewer than 4 accounts present, so an officer's individual ability to create content for the benefit of the players is greatly diminished. 

Not only that, but getting people to leave stale or bad AOs can be an absolute nightmare.  It used to be as simple as pulling the AO with an HC command.  With proximity AOs, HC can either (1) beg people to leave and hope they listen, or (2) join their missions, .takelead, and delete the MSPs.  The fact that HC has to even consider option (2), let alone the number of times I've seen it done, is remarkable in its own right.  
 

13 hours ago, sw1 said:

What is the motivation for this ?

The motivation was to make AOs "player-driven for the first time in over 15 years."  https://www.wwiionline.com/game-news/development-notes/readme-version-1-37-2-0

It was this same philosophy that motivated the introduction of the current supply paradigm we have now (i.e., the infamous 1.36 patch).  https://www.wwiionline.com/game-news/development-notes/hybrid-supply-1-36-briefing-a-game-changer

In other words, CRS 2.0 has broadly (though not entirely) considered the HC system to be the problem, not the solution.  Consequently, their solution to the HC problem was to neuter HC's impact on the game and presumably have the squads fill in the void (spoiler alert:  that never happened).  As a result, HC basically has two tools in their toolbox left:  .axis/.allied, and deleting MSPs.  
 

13 hours ago, sw1 said:

Has it worked ? Is the side effects described worse than the problem it was designed to fix? Is anyone even considering this ? 

I recall my first exposure to proximity AOs very well.  I tried to do the same things to swing momentum that we HC have always done before, but it was simply ineffective.  I felt like I was slamming my head against the wall.  

Eventually, I realized that the energy I was putting into my HC role wasn't worth it because I was lacking the tools necessary to be more effective.  I still provide leadership and advice where I can, but as a matter of personal sanity I had to stop trying so hard to swing momentum.  Nowadays, I have accepted that the new norm is to simply ride out the changes in momentum instead of actively working against that momentum.  

That's just my own experience so far.  Take it for what you will.

[delems]

I don't know about a disaster, but can be frustrating.

I'd make the AO take 4 min, not 3; to stop the false counter attacks when a town is lost.

And I'd cut the AO pull time to 7 min from 10.

This issue is mostly just population (as are most issues?).

We need to keep more players playing somehow.

On the bright side, it does seem pop has increased a bit lately?

[saffroli]

Just need the ability for HC to veto something or at least anything above 1AO be HC dependant as it used to be.

[delems]

Yes, right now, a few players won't leave AO.

Our next AO is all setup, entire axis side screwed because a few players won't leave.

Going to see mass axis logging soon

Prolly need to have 2 AOs at all times, for proxy to work well.

 

Has happened twice now, timer finally gets low; players spawn in and EWS goes full again.

Going to be at least 30 min to change this AO now.

Edited January 17 by delems

[dpetraeus]

So i played all day yesterday. 

- Never once did we need a proxy AO until then, we always tried to get it.

- There were max two inf in the vicinity of the town, no FMS and it showed high ews.

- It was communicated  with .AXIS to go there.

You can go back to HC placement, but let's not pretend this will make people happy, when this whole example is probably not a case to show people the benefits of a HC system.

[dpetraeus]

I'm all for reducing timers though. 10 minutes ao takedown, three minutes new AO placement,  10 minutes to be able to cap. Looks too much. 

[Tatonka]

they are ok when no HC around , but I like the HC ones , they seem to last longer . Many of the player started ones end to soon when no players show up.

[Jsilec]

Totally understand the issies with underpop in lowpop not being able to get off the mat…i do enjoy prox ao’s but if it helps make lowpop more contested then bring back the old way in 1 ao situations with prox kicking in when 2 or more ao’s come up with higher pop….if we cant have both then go back to hc placed/removal of ao’s

[saffroli]

Well if we had enough players we could go without AO's at all. Like it used to be :')

[saffroli]

Well if we had enough players we could go without AO's at all. Like it used to be :') but Prox AO is tailored for extreme low pop, the moment that pop isn't extremely LOW and/or HC are online in force, there's no reason to have it

Unfortunately HC have been eunuched and most don't really get involved at all anymore

[tater]

The EWS triggers for low vs heavy are bizarrely small. Heavy is THREE people, right? I realize pop is low, but I just don't get it, particularly when EWS is 360°. It's odd as a UP "defender" to be told there is heavy enemy presence, but you look around and have literally no idea where this large enemy force is, and you need to look 360° for the 3 guys who could be waiting in bushes 120° apart around town, or already in town (clear every single enterable room in the town to find them).

Maybe EWS and AO triggers could be reformulated as a % of players on a given side turned into a number of ei/whatever?

Back to my usual idea of a minimum viable force for defense—assuming equal player pop, ~1 player per CP/bunker, plus ~1 floater—the number for a nominal AO based on average town size might be the min viable defense plus some ratio for attack. Might not be 3:1 like RL, but maybe 50% higher than the min defense? Typical town might require 7 as a min defense? 5 CPs, 1 bunker, 1 floater. So 10-11 attackers? That would make the heavy EWS 10-11 players—but the floater in defense might be armor (then the city CP defender gets a CE), so maybe of the 10-11 attackers only 8-9 are inf. So heavy inf EWS at 8 at a min? As for %, how many AOs per player are there? Ie: how many player have to exist on the UP side for 2 AOs to be a thing?

[delems]

***  Heavy is THREE people, right? 

It is any 4 infantry type units.