kemiozz

Give players more freedom?

94 posts in this topic

Hi, I've tried the trial of this game few years ago, now with steam release i want to get into it, but one thing I have instantly noticed during my free trial back in the day, is that everyone is restricted in what he can do by High Command, essentialy other players who tell them where to go and what to do, which is off putting and IMO hurts the gameplay because when I played it I had a feeling of restriction, there is the massive world and I'm locked only to few areas marked by other players.

What I'm asking of CRS is to give players more freedom so that when I enter game, I do what I want and not what someone else 'ordered' for me to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are you suggesting exactly? That you could decide yourself where to go and attack? Because thats not going to happen and to be frank with you, it never should. With more players in-game, there will be more options to choose from in terms of defense and attack objectives. If you want to have your opinion considered regarding where the playerbase should be attacking, join the High Command. Until some kind of voting system for AOs is implemented, your choices are either to recommend the objective or join the HC (and even then, it's about tactics and team work, instead of choosing what you personally would want). 

If you want complete freedom or the current system doesn't suit you, this game isn't for you.

 

Edited by gretnine
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' So what are you suggesting exactly? '

 

Well, I've left that for CRS to decide because it's their game so they know what would work best.

 

 

' That you could decide yourself where to go and attack? '

 

This would be for the best, because it would give players the freedom to choose and decide for themself, there is nothing worse in a game than restricting players from doing something.

 

 

' If you want complete freedom or the current system doesn't suit you, this game isn't for you. '

 

I like the game, but I don't like this one system in the game, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other people who feel the same way also.(maybe not the current players who are playing for over 10 years)

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


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

What I'm asking of CRS is to give players more freedom so that when I enter game, I do what I want and not what someone else 'ordered' for me to do.

This is a team game, not a single player game.
People in general dont exactly like trying to figure out which one of 100 locations they are going to find actual action at, and they dont like chasing 1 guy who just keeps randomly bouncing around the map attacking what ever. The game had that once, it was not exactly its most highly popular feature.

These are people you are playing against not AI.
People tend to like things organized so they know whats going on, so their playtime is not wasted chasing ghosts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' This is a team game, not a single player game. '

 

Corret, but a team consists of single people, If everyone could decide for themself, eventualy single people would find themself in the same location forming a group.

 

' People in general dont exactly like trying to figure out which one of 100 locations they are going to find actual action at '

True, but when a few people start attacking one location, eventualy others will join and defenders will have to come and defend the town or it will be lost.

 

' and they dont like chasing 1 guy who just keeps randomly bouncing around the map attacking what ever '

 

Well there can be a limit set that for example there need to be atleast 5 people in order to start capturing a town, but a one person could do damage or something similar.

 

Capturing a town with small squad would give a much more personal and direct input on the war, in a big battle you are lost in the numbers of players and your effort is lessend.

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kemiozz said:
Quote

' This is a team game, not a single player game. '

 

Corret, but a team consists of single people, If everyone could decide for themself, eventualy single people would find themself in the same location forming a group.

With the current size of the playerbase, it wouldn't happen as often as you'd like. This could be correct if and when the population each side would be big enough. It all comes down to the playersize in-game. During different timezones, each side ALREADY have problems to defend/attack one or two objectives. You can imagine what would happen if players whould be free to choose any town on the front line. You might actually like it, considering what your opinion is, but many others wouldn't. This would quickly become a lonewolf show, which would hurt the coordinated objectives decided by High Command. Not to mention the frustration that would certainly occur with the underpopulated side. 

Edited by gretnine

Share this post


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

Maybe with steam the playerbase will be bigger and then something to consider.

As i said earlier, with bigger playerbase comes more options to choose from. The game has an AO limit tied to the current pop in-game. During the highest population peaks in the last ~couple years, i've seen 10 objectives (DO/AO) to choose from. But I personally have a hard time believing this game will ever let anyone choose their objective completely freely.

Share this post


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

Corret, but a team consists of single people, If everyone could decide for themself, eventualy single people would find themself in the same location forming a group.

No, they wouldn't.
Ever play baseball?  Try playing it your way

4 minutes ago, kemiozz said:

True, but when a few people start attacking one location, eventualy others will join and defenders will have to come and defend the town or it will be lost.

No, they wont, because half of them are wandering about willy nilly doing the same thing you are doing.
They other half get tired of chasing ghosts all over and call it a day.

Been there, done that.

6 minutes ago, kemiozz said:

Well there can be a limit set that for example there need to be atleast 5 people in order to start capturing a town, but a one person could do damage or something similar.

You can damage towns to your hearts content at will now.

So 300 people nearly prepped for an OP have to suddenly stop and go fix the fact that you and the scheister 5 have brought the enemy attention to someplace they did not want it being yet and are not prepped to have it?
Lovely, what shall we call you after your crucifixion?

13 minutes ago, kemiozz said:

Capturing a town with small squad would give a much more personal and direct input on the war, in a big battle you are lost in the numbers of players and your effort is lessend.

Umm, i dont smoke, not even up my arse.

Do you play the game?
Have you any idea how many captures come down to just 1 guy? How much more personal does it get?

If the enemy has any brains about them (which they do) you and your 5 man army get bent over and tomato plants sown in your rears.
I suppose that can be personal too.

Exactly what team combat game are you playing that has this wonderful personal freedom you crave?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the highest population peaks in the last ~couple years, i've seen 10 objectives (DO/AO) to choose from

Even higher, it is still a limit.

 

' But I personally have a hard time believing this game will ever let anyone choose their objective completely freely '

From my personal opinion it would only be for the better if everyone could choose their objectives freely.

I play also other mmos where players choose their objectives freely, and they also have problems with population in the game, and I assure you, sometimes I wish I could attack the target alone in peace, but there is ALWAYS a player who will find me and attack me.

 

For every attacking player there would be a player who will come after him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 300 people nearly prepped for an OP have to suddenly stop and go fix the fact that you and the scheister 5 have brought the enemy attention to someplace they did not want it being yet and are not prepped to have it?

Lovely, what shall we call you after your crucifixion?

a 300 attack OP will not abandon itself to go after 5 people... there will be others who will go after them.

 

Share this post


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

I play also other mmos where players choose their objectives freely

What team mandated MMO do you play that you just go do whatever?

And dont say something like WOW, because if you are in any group functions in WOW, like PVP or Raids you definitely do not.

If you're the priest, you heal, cause that's what you do.
You dont go clubbing the dragon, you dont wander off to explore some hallway alone, you target the tank and you heal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Aces High, it's a flight sim mmo.

I used to play also planetside 2, there you can go and do what you want also.

 

Priest in WoW is a role..... but no one is telling you as a priest to go this way or that way.

 

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kemiozz said:

a 300 attack OP will not abandon itself to go after 5 people... there will be others who will go after them.

They will damned well have to when you decide to go open up another unplanned front someplace, because the enemy will come stop you like grapes and then roll through the place because you wanted to go poking sticks at them.
And they will have to spend the rest of their night jumping around to address the messes made by the fab five there, which they will cease to find much fun in rather quickly and will get fed up with the entire show.

You really not getting this?

8 minutes ago, kemiozz said:

Well Aces High

Is not team mandated, it's 3 loosely grouped furballs of do what you want
Except during scenarios, in which case if you arent doing what you are supposed to, you get unliked and sandbagged fairly quick

 

13 minutes ago, kemiozz said:

I used to play also planetside 2

Which you can play eternally solo if you want.
PS2 is not WWII Online

 

14 minutes ago, kemiozz said:

but no one is telling you as a priest to go this way or that way.

Dont think you have played WOW, or if you have, you have not run raids instances or guild PVP events etc.

Think feeding time is over
keep-calm-and-dont-feed-the-troll-26.png

Edited by merlin51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All games have restrictions.  By necessity they must.

 

In baseball you're not allowed to tackle the runner to stop them getting to a base.  That's a restriction.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' You really not getting this? '

 

Like I said I only tried the trial a few years ago and it was my instant feeling with the game even though i do not have a great deal of experience with the game.

Pretty sure if there would another front opened up by 5 guys somewhere, instantly other players would start to defend it there.  The 300 player attack would not abandon itself for 5 people because it would be just silly.

There would be small and big battles and you could decide if you want to help in the big battle or open up another front with your faboulous five.

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, dale said:

All games have restrictions.  By necessity they must.

 

In baseball you're not allowed to tackle the runner to stop them getting to a base.  That's a restriction.  

 

 

Yea but WW2 online is not baseball :)

 

Compare WW2 online to other games and mmo's in general.  I don't know any other game from top of my head where you would be dependant upon other players for basic game mechanic which is 'go and attack'.

 

IMO in WW2 online 'go and attack' is unnecessarily complicated.

Share this post


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

Compare WW2 online to other games and mmo's in general.

It isn't any other MMO in general, it isnt any other game in general, it is what is was designed to be.

Now, digest that slowly, cause im not feeding your only created 45 minutes ago troll account any more troll cookies
You sure never tried the game as this persona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

it is what is was designed to be.


And I agree on this, but this is the ideas/suggestion forum.

So this is my suggestion on what I instantly felt when I started to play that is detrimental to the gameplay because it restricts people on a basic game mechanic which is 'go and attack'.

 

' You sure never tried the game as this persona '

Nope. I said in my 1st post I tried the trial a few years ago and now I will play it when it will be available on steam.

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ kemiozz

Both side are happy about any new Soilder they want join the HC.

Without HC and any if any Town is possible to capture on the map, we have no real battle because the Map is to big.  

 

And in real every Soilder have a assignment and can not do what he want.

Edited by sajuk
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, dale said:

 

In baseball you're not allowed to tackle the runner to stop them getting to a base.  That's a restriction.  

 

baseball has umpires too. kind of like HC. 

   Image result for baseball tackle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

It isn't any other MMO in general, it isnt any other game in general, it is what is was designed to be.

Now, digest that slowly, cause im not feeding your only created 45 minutes ago troll account any more troll cookies
You sure never tried the game as this persona

You are really starting to sound like a broken record labeling everyone who disagrees with you or you disagree with, a troll. Calm down. 

Edited by gretnine
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

@ kemiozz

Both side are happy about any new Soilder they want join the HC.

Without HC and any if any Town is possible to capture on the map, we have no real battle because the Map is to big.  

 

And in real every Soilder have a assignment and can not do what he want.

 

But is it realy fun to take part in a battle of 300? Sure it's nice to see plenty of units etc but your impact on battle is low.

There would be a lot of smaller battles on the map, sure, but some of them would turn into big battle, and if someone likes big battles he would stay there, if someone likes smaller battles, he would go fight somewhere else.

Currently the system wants to lump everyone together into big battle, with having more freedom, people would decide if they want to fight in the big battle or go make smaller one.

Isn't having more options better for play than restricting what is possible?

Edited by kemiozz

Share this post


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

 

Currently the system wants to lump everyone together into big battle, with having more freedom, people would decide if they want to fight in the big battle or go make smaller one.

 

 

You already have that option, albeit limited, as long as there are more than one objective. Main AO/DOs are ALWAYS there, where the majority of people will contribute. With secondary AO/DOs right now, it's exactly how you are detailing it. You can always make a smaller secondary attack as long as there is an attack objective on that town from the high command. 

Edited by gretnine
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.