nugitx

The experience of a new player that starts to play

233 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Zebbeee said:

Behind the lines IMO both sides’ units should be unveiled on map to each other. Different kind of gameplay .

Can you say a bit more?

If behind the lines players were unveiled, they would be easy target for other players fighters/bombers

Share this post


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

Can you say a bit more?

If behind the lines players were unveiled, they would be easy target for other players fighters/bombers

Precisely. Intense combats and no surprise effect as the map is too big and I wouldn’t like to be killed after a 20min ride. But still I want the adrenaline of spotting some enemies doing interdiction. 

Edit: only behind the frontline as reminder

Share this post


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

Precisely. Intense combats and no surprise effect as the map is too big and 8 wouldn’t like to be killed after a 20min ride. But still I want the adrenaline of spotting some enemies doing interdiction. 


Oh, so you mean you want to see that someone is coming for you?

Well that is a thought, this way defenders could prepare defenses in a town

BUT

then again the other players that like 'surprise' would not be happy about it, again a compromise is needed.

 

What if other people could be only visible from a certain distance?   You would not see anyone on the map - only if they come in certain distance to you. - this would work good with the currrent marking, because the player that sees other players - could mark them for others.

The same for town - when attackers are a certain distance from town, they show on the map.

 

Maybe even the players could 'dissapear' from the map if they crouch down or go prone,  imagine whole squad sneaky crouching to a town LOL !

and it would be great for ambushing tanks

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, this would give so much more tactical options, just brainstorming here.

1) Town being attacked by 'open fronters' - if they don't crouch down, they are visible on map from a certain distance, and instantly when they become visible, put a DO on the town, so defenders can build defenses before the attackers get into town

2) If they 'sneaky crouch' to a town unseen, put a DO on town the moment they start to capture, so they gain an advantage over the defenders as a reward for the time they took to sneak into town, defenders would spawn without the defenses.

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vehicles/tanks/planes would ofcourse be visible at all times (from a distance)

only players could dissapear by crouching, this would allow for sneaky attacks on towns, and ambush of other vehicles - just like in real life !.

 

A squad would drive with a truck to a certain distance of a town (so they are not visible), get out and sneak into town.

Or if they would drive into the town (neglecting that they are visible at this point, they just want to rush the town as fast as they can)- make them visible from such a distance that defenders can spawn and build stuff for defense.

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought as I, personally, can't keep up with all your suggestions at this point and the main idea is getting lost.  I think if you focused on just one or two aspects at a time, you'd have a much better time keeping folks attention and would have a much better chance of seeing the idea implemented.  Right now we've got you suggesting a ton of stuff... if I was a CRS programmer I'd just be ignoring all of it right now.  Not because the ideas are not good, the whole thread is just noise right now.  I know there's a lot you want; nothing wrong with that; however, articulating your pitch clearly and concisely is what will convince others you're onto something.  Prioritize and pitch the ideas one at a time; just a thought from a guy who comes from a family of lawyers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nugitx/nugitxx, any design change that enables or enhances "sneaking" will do damage to the prepared-defence/planned-attack concept.

I appreciate that you want to bring back one man accomplishments such as caps and so forth, and that you think that gameplay was fun. The fundamental problem is that that even a little bit of that gameplay guts the other kind of gameplay...large battles...that AOs were designed to maximize, and that (I think) CRS correctly decided was the game's best marketing future.

No game can have a split personality. To be successful, a game has to have a target market and a consistent concept. It took CRS several years to sort that out after their difficult start, and they're still working to correct all of the design implications while trying to finesse their revenue situation and gain and keep as many customers as possible.

It appears to me...just my opinion...that you want this game to be different than the current concept, more like the original game, which was a bit of a disaster for CRS. Anyone would give you points for being focused and persistent, but I don't see how your quest can succeed, because (just my opinion again) I don't think CRS could afford at this point--even if they wanted to--to take the huge gamble and take on the work commitment to turn their market concept and design direction 180 degrees,

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, reefmon said:

Just a thought as I, personally, can't keep up with all your suggestions at this point and the main idea is getting lost.  I think if you focused on just one or two aspects at a time, you'd have a much better time keeping folks attention and would have a much better chance of seeing the idea implemented.  Right now we've got you suggesting a ton of stuff... if I was a CRS programmer I'd just be ignoring all of it right now.  Not because the ideas are not good, the whole thread is just noise right now.  I know there's a lot you want; nothing wrong with that; however, articulating your pitch clearly and concisely is what will convince others you're onto something.  Prioritize and pitch the ideas one at a time; just a thought from a guy who comes from a family of lawyers.

 

Hey reefmon i was just brainstorming at this point to the Zebbee suggestion ;)

 

Quote

The fundamental problem is that that even a little bit of that gameplay guts the other kind of gameplay...large battles...that AOs were designed to maximize, and that (I think) CRS correctly decided was the game's best marketing future.

WW2ol cannot function as the concept it was originaly without an 'open front', it's a different game at this point - new people expect a form of a big front when they start to play.

 

Quote

more like the original game, which was a bit of a disaster for CRS.

You say it was a disaster, but this thread has brought back plenty of people who say otherwise.

Maybe the 'execution' was not ideal, but the CONCEPT is great.

 

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.