nugitx

The experience of a new player that starts to play

233 posts in this topic

When a new guy starts to play, he sees the map and all the towns and thinks 'oh I will just go and attack this......', after a few mins he realizes that it is NOT possible and starts to learn about the convulted command system and AO - this drives people out of the game, because people don't like it when they cannot do what they want to do.

Make the gameplay like it was in 2001, no AO's, people can attack any frontline town as they want - this will bring people back into the game, and make new players stay.

If someone wants to spend 2 hours walking somewhere for a capture, he should be allowed to, he took the time for it, and should be rewarded.

Opening the front like in 2001, would make the game fun again and unpredictable.

Unpredictability - fun

AO's - stale and boring

The current system with AO's is NOT 'ww2 online' but like any other 'room based' shooter where players are 'funneled' into a fight area, i could be playing a 50vs50 shooter like Battlefield and it would be the same, i don't have the sense of scale like it was in 2001.

2001-2004 was the real WW2 onlinr gameplay, bring it back, High Command can be done in other ways (for example the AO's can be only as a hint of where players could be attacking which is optional and they don't have to go there at all)

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw,

I would instantly sub if the gameplay was like old WW2 online from 2001, and I bet other people would also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for triple posting but I cannot edit my posts.

Having an open front like in 2001 gives a sense of accomplishment for people, because alone or with a few guys you can go and capture a town on your own, seeing this on the map and knowing it affects a whole game, one could say it is a form of an award for paying the 15$.

Is it whackamole? Yes. Is it bad? Not necessarily, because for every player attacking somewhere there would be someone else that would spring up, just like it was. Was it frustrating? Maybe a little, but IT IS A GAME,  when a town is taken, just retake it back again ! Nothing gained, nothing lost.

The developers need to acknowledge this is a GAME first and foremost, it will never imitate real life, instead of having a system that limits people in favour of 'simulating something that looks like WW2' bring back the original game that puts FUN first and 'simulation' 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, when I first started playing, that was exactly my though; how come every frontline town can't be attacked / captured?

I can possibly see the mole issues, but as long as people are paying - let em mole!

It might also provide a huge benefit to the formation and maintaining squads.

What if FPA players could only capture at AOs, but paying players could capture frontline towns also?  That would encourage more payment too maybe?

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With population as it is, i think new players would even be more lost (not being channeled into the 1 AO or DO). Perhaps if creating a mission wasn't such an enigma to new players, it would be different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for freedom. That's what the war was all about anyway. In the interest of historical accuracy make it so.

 

2 hours ago, SCKING said:

so your really not a “new” player?

you need to take your rat hat off if you are going to give smart [censored] replies :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sudden said:

I'm all for freedom. That's what the war was all about anyway. In the interest of historical accuracy make it so.

 

you need to take your rat hat off if you are going to give smart [censored] replies :)

 

While I think freedom to attack wherever is a good thing, I don’t think it’s historic (if we are looking from that perspective) for just some random private to go out alone and startup an offensive attack somewhere. I do think some day we will work beyond AOs as they are now, but I am not sure we will get past having some sort of mechanism to funnel battles. 

 

He actually said “a new player”.. so he wasn’t claiming to be a new player.. my mistake.. maybe I need to make a free play account so I can take that hat off at times.. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all you would get is "New Player" spawns at some-town after figuring out how to make a mission to it
finds no one else is interested being there, and gets bored because he is all alone.
Tries to go where everyone else is, gets that and everyone else has moved to 20 different places placing mole chase.
New Player gets frustrated cause he cant make sense of anything, and no one can explain it to him, because there is nothing to make sense of
and so he logs off and decides to play something else.

thats kind of the aspect that we did wind up with way back when.
there was no possible way to hold an organized front, then entire front would become a mole wacker until one side or the other
just got everyone tired of jumping all over and quit responding.

That is not realistic or historical, and is kind of just chaos.
Armies dont disassemble themselves into single privates running about semi randomly across the entire front.
They have to pick and choose where to press and where to leave be, so they can keep good force concentration and cohesion.

AO's came about partially because a lot of player were unhappy with the tiring chaotic randomness of what was going on
where the area of attack/defense might change 10 times in 20 minutes until suddenly a domino cap occured 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was over before it started.  

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember 2001 play, and while kinda fun it was far from being realistic.  And, since this game has made a significant effort towards simulating realism, even at the cost of graphics, I do think the AO system represents reality more than the prior bunker rush to hump the table game is was before.  Now, I agree that was fun, and I still retain epic memories from those game days, but I think WWIIOL is where you can experience a combined arms battle with WWII equipment.  Now-a-days it is far more strategic and involves a command structure.  Because the map is so large you just can't spread everyone over that vastness, while some may find that fun, most (I suspect) will not.  And the map has to be large as we have fighters and bombers with a RDP angle that helps out the ground as part of this combined arms thing.  So, as a returning player after more than a decade, the improvements weren't exactly obvious at first, but after several weeks of play they are definitely many steps in the right direction of simulating a realistic WWI style combined arms long term war.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you can figure out how to properly penalize squads for aborting attacks the nano second the attack appears to no be a walk in the park - sure - have at your freedom. the old method of stacking everyone up just outside EWS and then mad rushing to try and overwhelm the CPs before defense could respond though was NOT good gameplay and it wasn't fun either.

further, a completely open front caters more to the over pop side.

AOs aren't perfect but getting rid of them isn't the appropriate solution either.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, madrebel said:

further, a completely open front caters more to the over pop side.

AOs aren't perfect but getting rid of them isn't the appropriate solution either.

There...what he said. Overpop madrushes map, lower pop cant respond enough because you would have 1-10 people in a town while another 1-10 are in 12 other towns...at the games current state and pop...yeah bad idea. New players would quit before they finished the tutorial.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

further, a completely open front caters more to the over pop side.

AOs aren't perfect but getting rid of them isn't the appropriate solution either.

The entire game caters to the over pop side. And, until they balance sides, there will be no serious increase in numbers. 

People join, soon learn that one side or the other ALWAYS outnumbers the other... and realizes the game is rigged and not built to be fair and balanced for both sides to have an equal opportunity for success at any given time. 

 

Also, as to the OP's original comments. 

AO's were not wanted by a very large and vocal portion of the community. CRS ignored their pleas and implemented them anyway.

So, a lot of those people unsubbed. Causing our numbers to plummet. Which THEN caused AO's to be needed to funnel the smaller numbers into pre-arranged battles. 

Then add HC and TOE's. More people unsubbed. Causing AO's to be needed even more, because we needed to funnel the tiny numbers into 1 or 2 AO's. 

Add together these... less than stellar ideas... It was a domino affect that brought us to the low numbers we have today that NOW require AO's. 

 

Edited by lipton
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

so your really not a “new” player?

I played back in the time when there were no AO's, when AO got implemented, I quit. (my experience with AO at first was, I didn't know what to do at all!)

That's how new players don't know what to do with AO because it's an concept that someone has to grasp before he can play effectively.

Without AO you just see the map and instinctively think that you can attack anywhere.

 

Quote

What if FPA players could only capture at AOs, but paying players could capture frontline towns also?  That would encourage more payment too maybe?

Interesting idea.

 

Quote

With population as it is, i think new players would even be more lost

They could do what they want to do however, it's much better to feel that you can play the game you want to play, instead of not knowing what to do (that was my experience at first when AO got implemented).

Think of it this way...... with AO player logs into game and he finds out after some time he is limited to what he does and that makes him NOT want to play, so he quits without even playing.

Without AO player stays and plays the game,,,,, now the population can be a problem, but if every new player stays and plays the game because he enjoys it at first, the population might solve itself ?

 

Quote

I don’t think it’s historic (if we are looking from that perspective) for just some random private to go out alone and startup an offensive attack somewhere

Yes it's not historic, but it is a game and it was like this in 2001-2004 and it was much more fun........

 

Quote

but I am not sure we will get past having some sort of mechanism to funnel battles.

The best option IMO would be to have 'funneling battles' as optional, I mean you see on the map that the battle is 'funneled' somewhere, but it is optional, you don't have to go there.

 

Quote

I think all you would get is "New Player" spawns at some-town after figuring out how to make a mission to it


finds no one else is interested being there, and gets bored because he is all alone.

If every new player stayed, there would be people and this would fix itself.

Besides it's much more fun (for me atleast) to go and capture a town on empty server, than constantly dying and respawning, dying and respawning on a funneled battle.

 

Quote

New Player gets frustrated cause he cant make sense of anything, and no one can explain it to him and so he logs off and decides to play something else.

With all due respect, it's exactly like this with AO currently,  (not with open front).

With open front people instinctively know, they can go anywhere and attack whatever they want the moment they log into the game.

 

Quote

most (I suspect) will not.

On the contrary, back in the day when AO was implemented, people quit, because they lost the 'freedom'.

 

 

Quote

AO's were not wanted by a very large and vocal portion of the community. CRS ignored their pleas and implemented them anyway.

So, a lot of those people unsubbed. Causing our numbers to plummet. Which THEN caused AO's to be needed to funnel the smaller numbers into pre-arranged battles. 

Then add HC and TOE's. More people unsubbed. Causing AO's to be needed even more, because we needed to funnel the tiny numbers into 1 or 2 AO's. 

Add together these... less than stellar ideas... It was a domino affect that brought us to the low numbers we have today that NOW require AO's.

 

Exactly this, this needs to be sigged on the front page what makes the population numbers low in the game.

AO is the problem, it's what caused player numbers to drop back in the day, it's what makes new players quit the game.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too always have had the impression that it was the introduction of AOs that hurted the squad-based game. Or that removed an addicting part of it. This is at least what I felt.

I agree that ,before AOs, long-lasting attrition battles were inexistent in low pop timezones. Everything was about ninja capping or surprise camping rushes. But that freedom was actually what gave sense to most squads because squads mostly sticked to a portion of the map and everyday tried to hold/push in "Their" area, while lonewolves ran from one side of the map to another to fill the gaps.

And at primetime squads were mobilized on huge HC-driven operations (we even got daily battle plans).  It were small-sized and temporary fun moments but the feeling of a huge map was fully exploited.

I remind that it was difficult to gather other players as easily as it is now and that HC messages flooded the chat every second. But since then the situation is reversed and it became difficult to stick to a squad working on "his" area of operation. 

The right question should be "did AO kill the concept of a large-scaled map?", which may be today the ONLY valuable marketing argument the game can build upon to attract curious players and provide manpower for squadplay (until graphics overhaul... Or not).

The design should find a balance there. I would just expect a discussion regarding the "show" VS "being forced" where to go.

@DOCcould you please remind the past vision?

2 people like this

Share this post


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

The right question should be "did AO kill the concept of a large-scaled map?",

 

 

Yes.

WW2 online 2001-2004 = large scale map, everyone in the same one big battle

AO = separate battles, can be viewed as 'rooms' or 'servers' in any other game, like Battlefield, Call of Duty etc.

 

No one wants to pay 15$ a month to play Battlefield or Call of Duty, we payed 15$ to play ww2 online 2001-2004

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


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

Besides it's much more fun (for me atleast) to go and capture a town on empty server, than constantly dying and respawning, dying and respawning on a funneled battle.

So it's more fun to join an MMO and play it like a single player game, capturing undefended towns?  Is this game simulating WWII or "last man on Earth?"  It's like playing checkers by yourself.  Even when you win you lose.  I think you're in the wrong game, if this is what you want.  World War II was the most heavily "populated" war in the history of mankind.  When you go into a town and all Hell is breaking loose, even if there are only two AOs/DOs going at the time, is the essence of this game.  Logging in to hear bullets hitting around you, vehicles going by, planes overhead, several different types of weapons fire, and having that momentary, "WTF have I gotten myself into?" thought is what makes it exciting.  If I want to wander around empty towns, I can go onto the practice server.

 

And if it's not fun "dying and respawning, dying and respawning," perhaps you should consider killing some of the enemy rather than repeatedly just dying, yourself.  Go on a couple runs where you get eight or 10 enemy kills before you finally die, or take down an enemy aircraft with a rifle or SMG, and you'll never want to walk your avatar into an empty town, ever again.

 

 

 

-Irish

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, odonovan1 said:

So it's more fun to join an MMO and play it like a single player game, capturing undefended towns?

 

 

Even with low player numbers, if I went to attack something by myself, eventualy a defender would show up, heck attacking a town with low numbers, makes it more personal and makes you feel like you actualy have an impact on the war.

Can you really have an impact when there are 50-100 defenders? IMO it's even much better when there are 10 people in a town, there are plenty of towns, so everyone can have a real impact.

 

That's why 2001 was so FUN! because everyone felt like he can accomplish something

 

 

Quote

Is this game simulating WWII or "last man on Earth?"  It's like playing checkers by yourself.

Yes it's simulation of ww2 and the 2001-2004 was the most fun simulation,  a game is meant to be fun first and foremost.

not a fun game = people don't play

ven if there are only two AOs/DOs going at the time, is the essence of this game.

Sorry but AO is not essence of the game,  essence of the game (large scale) was lost in 2004 with introduction of AO.

 

Quote

I think you're in the wrong game, if this is what you want.

LOL,  the game was like this 2001-2004, if not for the first version, you would not be here playing 'this' version because it would not exist at all.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The design should find a balance there. I would just expect a discussion regarding the "show" VS "being forced" where to go.

Yes !

I think that the 'show' would be best option! Those that want AO could still go to the 'shown' battle, and those who like to go somwhere else, could do that also. (there can be some bonuses to to the 'shown' area so more players will go there)

win-win situation for everyone, and devs who would have more people and subs, It would make me want to come back and play.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been rehashed countless times (and at GREAT LENGTH in the 1.36 thread).  People need to stop living in the fantasy of their memories and accept that we live in a different reality today.  

 

I was there too (join date 20 April 2002).  It was a special time for special reasons that CAN NEVER BE EXPERIENCED AGAIN!  

 

Please, move on and become part the new future that new CRS envisions.  Threads like these are for reminiscing, not for shaping future game design.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think doing away with AOs is the answer.. Maybe adding more things to do outside the AOs could help.. Some groups like to RDP bomb, some like to work FBs. 

You remove AOs then lowpop will once again roll the map nonstop due to task saturation of the under popped side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Capco said:

This has been rehashed countless times (and at GREAT LENGTH in the 1.36 thread).  People need to stop living in the fantasy of their memories and accept that we live in a different reality today.  

 

I was there too (join date 20 April 2002).  It was a special time for special reasons that CAN NEVER BE EXPERIENCED AGAIN!  

 

Please, move on and become part the new future that new CRS envisions.  Threads like these are for reminiscing, not for shaping future game design.  

1.36 is technically a fallback to past gameplay :) 

It's a legitimate request to ask for other audits, especially from retired veterans and squads that we LOVE to see back out here. Please don't be too harsh :P

All their questions and concerns should be discussed. Because the new team asks for it to adapt the vision.

Now, although there is truth in all of the opinions, brainstormed content will pass CRS' filters only *IF* required changes can significantly help to increase population. 

@SCKINGdefinitely the right path to consider, I would concur. The RDP thing is however a good proof that this playerbase IS looking for hardcore things. So *could* be an open frontline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Zebbeee said:

1.36 is technically a fallback to past gameplay :) 

It's really not though.  That may have been the original genesis for 1.36, but even that original concept was nothing like the AB-based supply that we had during 2001.  And I mean nothing.  That system had so many major flaws in its design, flaws that primarily drove a wedge right through the middle of the Allied playerbase.  

 

Even though CRS initially stated that they were doing away with brigades entirely, they eventually saw the merit of a hybrid system (which is also nothing like 2001-2004).  

 

AOs may have taken the fun of ninja-capping towns away from the baby seal clubbers and thereby caused their exodus, but the gameplay of 2001-2004 was not healthy.  It was self-damaging.  The drain began well before 2004, and it was because of the core gameplay mechanic of having to defend a massive frontline at all times from people hell bent on AVOIDING a fight as much as possible in order to capture territory in the easiest way possible, and then somehow claim that they were just being "creative" and utilizing their "freedom" and "organizing their side"...

 

Why on earth do you think they even introduced AOs in the first place?  Do you think it might have been a reaction to the feedback they were getting about the [censored] poor gameplay?

 

I'm particularly harsh on this topic because it's utter nonsense.  

Edited by Capco
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your memory of that time is quite different from mine. I would go so far as to call it revisionist history.  So, we'll have to agree to disagree. 

I never wanted AO's. I've never liked AO's. I blame AO's for SOME of the downfall of WWIIOL... as I said it would back in 2004.

AO's have done nothing but further reduce the population ... in turn making them necessary. They were not necessary in 2004. 

Sure, there were times when towns got capped in a "Ninja" style. But, that was also what could sometimes make it so exciting. 

The planning. Trying to over-stock supply without the other side learning about it and preparing adequate defense. You know... like in real war. 

I really loved being part of of a squad that was responsible for 6 towns in the center of the map. We OWNED those towns. They were OUR responsibility. It made it personal, exciting ... and fun. 

Edited by lipton
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.