• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
jeffcraft1

another rant

67 posts in this topic

everyone keeps talking about a "learning curve" i still dont see any learning curve to this its either your good or you arent no in between.

Jeff--

PvA games are kind of like childhood. The game designers are kind of like the grownups, arranging your environment so you "win" at everything and always have quick easy fun.

PvP games like this one are kind of like adulthood. Everyone that's playing, including the guy on the other side that gets you in his sights, wants to have fun. If he has more skills than you, you die and don't have fun. In PvP games, everything is a competition. In order for someone to be a winner, someone else has to lose. Pretty much just like life.

On the other hand, PvP games aren't quite like adulthood. In real adulthood, you make a decision once and you literally succeed or fail, or maybe even live or die. In a PvP game, OTOH, if you're smart and patient and "grown up" enough, you can follow vets, and join a squad, and get trained, and practice/study/practice/study, and after a while you'll be getting kills.

Whether that "after a while" is tolerable to you or not depends on your ability to "postpone gratification" for a more important goal. PvP gamers have to realize that developing skills...like for instance team tactical gameplay, which is an effectiveness multiplier...is more important than just getting immediate kills by yourself. Pretty much like in adulthood...you accomplish more if you set bigger goals for yourself than just immediate fun.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im in a squad and have been play for a few months. basically what im hearing you say is i should just continue to die and not have fun so everyone else can have fun. thats a very selfish attitude sacrifices or change has to happen so that ALL players bot new and expericed players can have fun if it means sacrifices to realisim im down for that. its not like im saying go to battlefield style game. im saying it should be a bit easier for new players. i for one will not continue to play a game that im not having fun in. and from what ive seen in the nubers of online player dwindling. this game cant afford to lose more players. the new players who also are more frustrated with this game than are having fun will also quit. its a good idea and concept and has been around for years. but times change and for this game to survive it also has to change. no new players want to die every five seconds just cause the "Experienced" player cant handle change cause it might make it fair for all parties then thats their problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, maybe my comment was too harsh. I understand you'd like the game to be easier to play successfully at your level of experience. The hard part, design-wise, would be developing a PvP game with that degree of "easiness" that would retain its vet customers, who...in order for you to be able to get kills more easily...would have to be more easily killed, irrespective of their skills and experience. That'd be a tough choice for CRS...designing the game to be more fun for noobs and less fun for vets.

i should just continue to die and not have fun so everyone else can have fun. thats a very selfish attitude sacrifices or change has to happen so that ALL players bot new and expericed players can have fun if it means sacrifices to realisim im down for that.

Fundamentally what you're complaining about isn't "realism"...it's the game's PvP design. To create a PvP game in which everyone has the same degree of fun at all times, irrespective of skills and experience, you'd have to design everything out of it that could be done better with skills and experience, such as taking advantage of cover and concealment. But vets keep playing a game because it becomes more fun as they become more skilled at taking optimal advantage of cover and concealment, and at using the weapons, and all the other design elements. Take away all of that to make the game just as easy for noobs as vets, and CRS wouldn't have any vets.

When this game was introduced in 2001, the very early environment had hardly any cover and concealment. That wasn't a commercially successful situation. Fortunately CRS was able to add complexity and difficulty fast enough to survive.

The point being: I think what you're suggesting...a game that noobs can play at the same success/survival level as vets...would turn out to be non-viable. Game industry experience indicates instead that a successful game needs a learning curve, and that the greater the degree of complexity of a game, the longer it can hold the interest of its veteran customers. And, yes--that game will lose some percentage of its noobs, because the learning curve and PvP difficulty won't be what they want. But that's still the "sweet spot" on the commercial success curve.

It's unfortunate that a game like this can't be perfect for everyone. I'm sure CRS would love to have a game that every customer thought was absolutely perfect. :)

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, maybe my comment was too harsh. I understand you'd like the game to be easier to play successfully at your level of experience. The hard part, design-wise, would be developing a PvP game with that degree of "easiness" that would retain its vet customers, who...in order for you to be able to get kills more easily...would have to be more easily killed, irrespective of their skills and experience. That'd be a tough choice for CRS...designing the game to be more fun for noobs and less fun for vets.

Fundamentally what you're complaining about isn't "realism"...it's the game's PvP design. To create a PvP game in which everyone has the same degree of fun at all times, irrespective of skills and experience, you'd have to design everything out of it that could be done better with skills and experience, such as taking advantage of cover and concealment. But vets keep playing a game because it becomes more fun as they become more skilled at taking optimal advantage of cover and concealment, and at using the weapons, and all the other design elements. Take away all of that to make the game just as easy for noobs as vets, and CRS wouldn't have any vets.

When this game was introduced in 2001, the very early environment had hardly any cover and concealment. That wasn't a commercially successful situation. Fortunately CRS was able to add complexity and difficulty fast enough to survive.

The point being: I think what you're suggesting...a game that noobs can play at the same success/survival level as vets...would turn out to be non-viable. Game industry experience indicates instead that a successful game needs a learning curve, and that the greater the degree of complexity of a game, the longer it can hold the interest of its veteran customers. And, yes--that game will lose some percentage of its noobs, because the learning curve and PvP difficulty won't be what they want. But that's still the "sweet spot" on the commercial success curve.

It's unfortunate that a game like this can't be perfect for everyone. I'm sure CRS would love to have a game that every customer thought was absolutely perfect. :)

again i never said turn it into a run around free for all i just said make it a bit more fair for newer players. its only fun for vets and more experienced players cause its easy for vets to get kills against new players. to me the way i see it after having not made any progress in getting better despite reading and watching tutorials its like giving someone two days training in boxing and throwing them in the ring with muhammed ali. i mean im only asking for a change in the spotting accuracy and proceedure its not like im asking them to give new players the golden gun. the only thing i care about is fairness making the changes i suggested is not uneasonable. to me both americas army 2 along with brothers in arms (offline) gameplay were just as realistic if not more so than this game ive beaten the main three titles in the BIA series of games and they ruined AA2 with AA3's health bar change. if AA can have a good marking system and still be fair to both new players and experienced players so can this game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give you an idea of what you are up against when trying to attack a town. I have been playing for many years, and one of the things that I like to do a lot is Ant Trail Interdiction. I can usually spawn into a town, take a look around and judge where your FRU is most likely to be and what route you will be taking to get into town.

Now don`t forget your new marking method will go both ways. Since I already have a good idea where you will be showing up and I can mark and track you, you will not get any closer to town.

On a side note, weed and tree lines show up as slight discolorations on your map if zoomed in all the way. If you spot something you want to mark, say, the next weed line over from your position, just zoom the map in as far as it will go and make your mark on the next discolored line on the map. It will be almost spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
again i never said turn it into a run around free for all i just said make it a bit more fair for newer players. its only fun for vets and more experienced players cause its easy for vets to get kills against new players. to me the way i see it after having not made any progress in getting better despite reading and watching tutorials its like giving someone two days training in boxing and throwing them in the ring with muhammed ali. i mean im only asking for a change in the spotting accuracy and proceedure its not like im asking them to give new players the golden gun. the only thing i care about is fairness making the changes i suggested is not uneasonable. to me both americas army 2 along with brothers in arms (offline) gameplay were just as realistic if not more so than this game ive beaten the main three titles in the BIA series of games and they ruined AA2 with AA3's health bar change. if AA can have a good marking system and still be fair to both new players and experienced players so can this game

I actually hear you but what you are asking is a trade off. The vets use comms and experience. Some only use experience. You are stuck on that long road to getting there experience wise but you are NOT denied comms.

You need to be on teamspeak to achieve the level of information you are asking to be built in as a crutch.

Automated marking is a no for me. Teamspeak comms is by far the best way I can think of and it will teach you a ton very fast. If you are a tanker especially (inf don't usually 'take a hit', we just die) then you need to be in comms with infantry. The best tankers in game rely heavily on information from friendly inf.

The way you are speaking you don't use voice and you're new. Stop giving yourself 2 disadvantages when you should only have 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually hear you but what you are asking is a trade off. The vets use comms and experience. Some only use experience. You are stuck on that long road to getting there experience wise but you are NOT denied comms.

You need to be on teamspeak to achieve the level of information you are asking to be built in as a crutch.

Automated marking is a no for me. Teamspeak comms is by far the best way I can think of and it will teach you a ton very fast. If you are a tanker especially (inf don't usually 'take a hit', we just die) then you need to be in comms with infantry. The best tankers in game rely heavily on information from friendly inf.

The way you are speaking you don't use voice and you're new. Stop giving yourself 2 disadvantages when you should only have 1

unfortunatly my laptop can just barely run this the highest fps i got in this game was around 40 i usually stand between 10-20 fps. when i run teamspeak it pretty much makes the game unplayable because how much the fps drops. not sure why the fps is so low because this laptop has no problem runnin war thunder seamlesly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually hear you but what you are asking is a trade off. The vets use comms and experience. Some only use experience. You are stuck on that long road to getting there experience wise but you are NOT denied comms.

Pretty much this.

You're being gunned down by people who have played this game for 10+ years.

I don't know why, if you're in a squad, that you're having this much trouble. They should be helping you.

Either way, until you get experience, you will die a lot. Can't put it simpler than that. No one is going to change the core game mechanics to make it easier for you. You either learn, or quit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not sure why people arent getting this. let me put it to you like how it really works for new players since not many seem to get it. for a new player its very very very frustrating because lets say your supposed to attack a town and someone for once actually made a semi accurate mark you do your "scan everything" deal and cant see anything. you get fired at but you cant see wher its comming from. and end up sitting there for 15 to 30 minutes while everyone else in town is doing exciting stuff and actually participating and having fun. after 30 minutes of sitting there you get tired of waiting there and do your best to move ahead or do what ever you got to do to get into town and within less than a minute you get shot dead by someone you cant see and is most likely the same person that was marked. how would you feel if you couldent make it into the AO from any direction. you are then determined to get into the AO and you die and respawn after 45 minutes of this how would you feel if you couldent get in to town. this is NOT FUN its absolutely frustrating. everyone keeps talking about a "learning curve" i still dont see any learning curve to this its either your good or you arent no in between. as i said if you poll most beginning players i would say that about 75% of them will leave the game and never come back. this is why it needs change.and i know some of you wil talk about realism but lets talk about that for a minute. this game by no means is realistic. if it were truly realistic you get one life. if you die your computer shuts off and never turns back on again, respawning is not realistic.and yet none of you all say anything about that. but try to make the game a bit more enjoyable for new people (which would increase the population of the game and give it a better of a chance of not shutting down because of how presumeably expensive it is to run this game. to keep this game up nd going i would willingly give up atleast a small bit of "Realisim" this game has to have more fun and keep the game open

Damn son.

Paragraphs.

Use em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You die a lot, I die a lot, everyone dies a lot. Don't feel like you are doing something wrong. The best infantry runs I have had involve being in the right place at the right time (being lucky). I might die 5 times in a row quickly, then kill 8 people.

You have got to spawn and push forward. Avoid following your teammates directly, but I would stay in the general area. This creates a Zone of Control. Help your teammates and sometimes use your teammates as bait. Many times you will be able to catch/pick-off enemies chasing after your friends (this is also a reason not to chase after every ei you see).

Attacking a well defended town is hard, that's why so many attacks rely on surprise and ninja cappers. There seem to be very few good old big battles any more. With our lower player population, it makes it hard to have a real battle. This is hard on new players I think, because many times there is no zone of control. New players are just dropped in the middle of a mess and expected to cap a town.

I am 100% against an auto marking system. I love flying a stuka, calling out what I see and making marks. Its about the only thing a stuka is good for.

That being said I think we should be careful about playing the "realism" card. We all know there are unrealistic things in this game. Being in a town with supply that amounts to 1000 infantry and then expecting those 1000 soldiers to have some sort of abstract target marking is not a crazy idea. Worse yet is when one or two ninja cappers cap an army base and kick 1000 units of supply. That is unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the marking system works well. Experience is needed to mark something accurately. Transferring what you see in the field at an estimated distance and transferring that info to a scaleable map is the trick. You get better at it the more you do it. But even after you get better, its still easy to mark something way off from where the target actually is. And always encourage your side to mark. Often I've died while marking the map rather than shooting at the target that's seen me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the marking system we have, but perhaps two suggestions to make it easier to use/understand:

1) As Skers mentioned, a topographical map

2) Instead of having to right click and select what you're spotting, use hot keys to drop a mark under the cursor position held over the map, eg.: put the mouse cursor over where you want to mark, and hit 'A' for armour, 'E' for EI, "G" for ATG, "B" for barrage, etc.

The keys aren't that close together that you bump the wrong one, but it removes having to right click and then choose from a menu and speeds it up a little bit.

If there is already a way to do that, somebody needs to fill me in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think your suggested solution will help you. The experience you describe is that of the new player that is making poor decisions based upon a lack of WWIIOL specific player skill and knowledge gained through experience.

Experienced players are more likely to make smart decisions because they have a better understanding of what to do and what not to do. The solution is not to give players unrealistic gaming crutches but instead assist them to develop the skills required to be successful.

Also us vets also have bad runs where we seem to die at every turn. Sometimes it happens to all of us where it feels like every time we do anything we die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is that I have a friend. We play a lot of FPS's together and he likes realism and difficulty curves in games almost as much as I do. I've tried on 2 attempts to get him into this game. He has some beef about the graphics but was willing to overlook that.

His comments are usually "I can't see anything and keep getting killed". I tell him it just takes a lot of time and to rely on sound more than sight. He says things like "What the heck is going on. What are we supposed to be doing?" I explain it to him on and off line. We are both in our 40's and 50's and we do not enjoy twitch style shooters. He just does not see the value in the long campaign thing and the time sink issue is there too. Think Arma 3 on a smaller map that usually concludes, depending on PVP mission type, with an obvious winner after a few hours of fighting. I try and explain that that is what town battles are like in the grand scheme of things.

His final observations before he stops trying. I just don't enjoy getting killed all the time and not knowing where or how it happens. I say, your dead, does it really matter and sounds like what would happen if you actually died on the battlefield. Unless you really saw it coming you'd probably have no idea. Plus eventually you can start working those out through experience most of the time. I don't like death cams although I do exploit them when they are in games. Getting rid of the deathcam would be more in line with this games philosophy I'd think. Of course this would only exacerbate the issue.

I'll keep trying to get him to play and sub, everyone else on my list is probaly out until BGE 2.0. Once we get the FMS in the game I'll try and reel him back in with a major game change/improvement. Plus I'll try and sell him on supporting the future of the game.

I've had similar experiences with most of my other friends (not many really, I tend to have few close friends) or even new players I try and help. As Lob12 has said, it's a game that is not for everyone. It is a niche' game. It is a cult game that requires a sizable cult following. If we, and I mean all of us, play our cards right at STEAM release we might retain 10% of the people that try the game. Which would be great with enough numbers trying. If we don't do it right it might be much less than that.

TeamSpeak is a great tool to use while in game if you use it. Thing is everyone does not want to use it and when you heavily rely on a third party comm system or even voice comms in-game (something not everyone is comfortable with) to play the game well, you do end up limiting you potential player base a good bit and alienating parts of your current player base at the same time.

Even if you had in game voice a lot of potential customers will not want to use it. Some folks, quite a few really, do not like or use voice comms even if they are in the game. Veterans calls, sometimes aggressively and condescendingly to get with the program and use TeamSpeak just falls on deaf ears for these potential, trial or even loyal customers.

I like the current marking system. The issue occurs when other players denigrate the marker or constantly complain about poor marks or no marks. Which by the way, squads using voice comms usually do not have the need to mark and it does take some time to mark which can result in death by marking/typing. I see some vets and players complain that no one marks. This usually occurs when a large squad on TeamSpeak is operating in the area. They simply have no real need to mark. I completely understand this although it maddens some of the player base to the point that they become detractors of the game somewhat. I find that type of behavior and logic flawed and counter productive.

Add in that you have to have the same target facility or town in order to see each others marks and it is humorous to see tons of marks on the map and newer players or even veterans screaming on channels that nobody marks. Fixing this part of the issue would be a great move forward if we continue to use the marking system which I think will continue. I would be OK if marking was removed all together. But I am not everyone. For various reasons I do not see CRS taking the current marking system out or changing it in a very fundamental way.

I'm unsure what the real solution is. I've always been an advocate that what sets this game apart is the very steep learning curve and the brutally realistic death part. For me one of the only things missing in this area is more fear of death. I would not mind a spawn delay tied to deaths without achieving some kind of enemy damage first. I tend to spot a lot. So I would often be on that list as spotting would not trigger enemy damage detection. This could also possibly curtail spawning into a camped spawn point. Of course this would frustrate new players even more in some ways but would force a little thinking time to evaluate what just happened instead of just jumping right back in without some reflection on your recent actions. It would not have to be much at all, maybe 15 seconds. An eternity in a que for some.

The bad side being that it would probably hinder extreme lower side population levels. You'd have to put in the world lock effect during the rare extremes. Which I am a fan of. I spend much more time in cues in other games for hopefully quality battles than I ever have in this game. Some of that in this game during rare population events on the server would do a lot of good things such as possibly curtail uneven populations.

Some folks are going to say that if they experience lock out they would just log out. That would happen sometimes but it is the larger population loging so that actually even things out. Plus this is not the H&G model. No one loses experience or has to stay in the cue to get the most points if we introduce something like this.

Bottom line is I get it. Only so much can be done though without moving away from the games pillars. I think, and I am NOT speaking for them, that CRS would rather fail while not straying to far away from their pillars. The studio cannot really compete by changing to what is already out there. I supplied a compromise but in the end it would not help you from getting killed aside from those times that you get killed because your marking at the wrong time and place. Just not sure it is worth it.

I hope you continue to play. I've been playing the game for some time (not lately, really am waiting for the other part of the spawning puzzle, the FMS) but I still get frustrated to the point of stepping away from the game for a few days when I get on a real bad run. Unless you more persistent and have a thicker skin it happens to almost all of us I believe. I know that really does not help much, all I can say is: It's gonna be OK soldier, keep at it.

Sorry Lob12 or any other light forum readers no Cliff's Notes for this one.

S!

Edited by stonecomet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think im done with this game for a while. im under enough stress as it is i dont need to be playing a game thats going to make me more stressed out than when i started. this game is dying. ive only been here for a few months but ive seen a dramatic decrease in population of this game. i may be back on and off sporadically but i really dont see this game lasting another 3-6 months. niche game yes but for this game to get a increase of players, changes have to be made for this game to survive. some times you have to give up certain things to continue ive seen it happen on many games. happened on AA that changed from being extremely realistic to more arcadey game play after a drop in players for sticking to "realisim" while i dont want to see that happen to this game. some changes have to be made or its going to die. ive seen it in just about every game that ive played on PC every game comes to a tipping point basically "change or die" and this game is at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think im done with this game for a while. im under enough stress as it is i dont need to be playing a game thats going to make me more stressed out than when i started. this game is dying. ive only been here for a few months but ive seen a dramatic decrease in population of this game. i may be back on and off sporadically but i really dont see this game lasting another 3-6 months. niche game yes but for this game to get a increase of players, changes have to be made for this game to survive. some times you have to give up certain things to continue ive seen it happen on many games. happened on AA that changed from being extremely realistic to more arcadey game play after a drop in players for sticking to "realisim" while i dont want to see that happen to this game. some changes have to be made or its going to die. ive seen it in just about every game that ive played on PC every game comes to a tipping point basically "change or die" and this game is at that point.

People been saying that for years. Seriously, years lol.

Dumbing the game down will kill it off completely. What keeps it here IS the difficulty. The challenge.

Not bunny hopping hit point soldiers and tanks. Not having all the enemies marked on the map. That's why we stay, because this game doesn't have that stuff.

This game isn't for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.