nugitx

The experience of a new player that starts to play

233 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, madrebel said:

1) you're an exception. the majority of people don't play abandonware, they just don't. further, people who do play abandonware are IMPOSSIBLE to please as they don't want anything new nor do they have any sense for what it takes to keep things running and profitable - all they want is their tiny sandbox to keep playing what they see as a great game. 

2) ww2ol 'back in the day' was not good gameplay unless you were axis and part of a mega squad. from the allied perspective it was a fairly awful experience. from the axis side, those of us who wanted nothing to do with seal clubbing didn't have a great experience either.

 

AOs have their issues but fewer issues than the old way. the old way was super lame and encouraged zerging until you found a spot the other side couldn't respond too quickly enough. that isn't good gameplay, it isn't skill. its just zerging.

Back in the old days, some turd had 10 accounts, all numbered 1-10. He would run them into towns at the same time to see what town the allies would try and defend...then the axis would attack the undefended towns. 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

AOs have their issues but fewer issues than the old way. the old way was super lame and encouraged zerging until you found a spot the other side couldn't respond too quickly enough. that isn't good gameplay, it isn't skill. its just zerging.

If the current Rat team would bring the old gameplay and 'fixed it' in different ways than it was done, without limiting the player ability to move the map and go wherever they want on the map, it would be for the best of everyone, it can be done in many various ways without imposing on players where they have to attack.

They are on the right track with the new payment model (which will bring new players), but the game needs also the original gameplay for that extra push of making old vets return (and I bet new players would also enjoy more if they were not limited on what they can do).

I'm not saying to bring the same system exactly with all its flaws, but to enhance and build upon it.

 

 

 

Ability for every player to move the map

Ability to go wherever they want on the massive map

 

These are the 2 key features to ww2 ol, that make it stand out among other games. This should be the foundation of ww2 ol, the unmovable pilars, upon which ww2 is build upon, the essence of the gameplay.

 

 

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


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

and how exactly would you 'fix the old gameplay in different ways'. do tell.

There are many different ways ofcourse.

I'm just a player like you and anyone else, and these are from top of my head, so don't shot me down.

1)

Players would have to physicaly move between bases . Instead of 'warping on the map'.  You would choose your spawn at start, and if you would want to spawn in other area, you would have to be transported or go there by yourself in the game to make it your 'new base'.. If it's too harsh it could be set so a player can change his spawn every hour or so. This would open up new gameplay elements, players could create convoys of transports to transport other players, to move to other base, and other players would attack that convoy.

Tankers would have to drive to other base, fighter and bomber pilots would have to fly to other airfield (rifleman would have it the hardest to move, that's why others would drive them in transports, or make a 'jeep' for riflemen, so they can move faster on the map).

This would make the world alive,  you could be meeting players on the map in ways you would not expect before. And it would not be possible to move from one side of the map to the other instantly to mole attack, people would have to think where they want to go next. Where do I have to go, to make the best effort of helping others?

Deep bomber strikes and plane strafing missions, attacking with vehicles behind enemy lines, would have more meaning to intercept a player convoy that is transporting players to other base (which would respawn them in old base, which makes for a tactical gameplay because it draws back player time which they invested in moving, making an assault on other city open up.

And if someone would be constantly dying while trying re-locate, like I said earlier every hour or two or 30min have the ability to re-locate normaly.

2)

Limit the player ability to capture towns in a span of time. For example a player can attack max 2-3 towns in an hour.  This makes a player commit to a town, if he hops between first 2 towns, he is stuck at 3rd and have to commit his fighting there for the next hour or so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, nugitx said:

 

Ability for every player to move the map

Ability to go wherever they want on the massive map

 

there are at least 3 answers to your request:

1. you can do that now -  just subscribe and show up. 
2. you either want a solo game or you're asking for the special $300,000/yr subscription
3. you play in the NBA where every player is LeBron James 

you are a charming, disingenuous, enthusiastic fan and poster my friend.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, nugitx said:

AO = battles without front

That is exactly what AO's do NOT mean.

AO's are designed to increase with online population and decrease in off hours when population is low
so that you dont have a small amount of people having to constantly jump all over the map chasing one guy in (now days) a morris
looking for the spot people stop responding to (or cant respond to because they are tied up in a real fight)

If you can not see that the majority of people interested in a strategic and tactical war SIM are not interested in a huge game of hours of wack A mole
for very little game play and watching the map as some nutter in a truck goes rolling off willy nilly playing ninja capper and cutting the map into crazy patterns of auto surrender so that the campaign for both the winner and the loser is ruined then there really isn't anything anyone can say to make you understand it better.

If someone logs into tomorrow after fighting hard to gain some ground and finds that it is lost plus some, they want to know it was a blood bath losing it,
not that some random guy in a truck just drove around cutting random things off.


If there were enough people logged into the game that you could actually man the entire front line in reasonable force, you'd get enough AOs for the entire thing to be active. It's as simple as increasing the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so that you dont have a small amount of people having to constantly jump all over the map chasing one guy in (now days) a morris

AO is the reason there is small amount of people.

Like Lipton said before on page 1.  'AO's have done nothing but further reduce the population ... in turn making them necessary.'

Now you need AO, because AO killed the population. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

If you can not see that the majority of people interested in a strategic and tactical war SIM are not interested in a huge game of hours of wack A mole


for very little game play and watching the map as some nutter in a truck goes rolling off willy nilly playing ninja capper and cutting the map into crazy patterns of auto surrender so that the campaign for both the winner and the loser is ruined then there really isn't anything anyone can say to make you understand it better.

That's why i said in my earlier post that it should be done in smart way.  'fix it' but not with AO, but in a different way.

 

AO is a failed idea - make a new idea work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The essential requirement for any change to WWIIOL is that it must not allow gameplay that loses more customers than it pleases.

The old gameplay you're asking to be returned, did that in spades. A large number of customers left because of gameplay that a smaller number of players regarded as fun.

My understanding from past CRS comments is, that's what the exit surveys proved. That's hard evidence.

It would be dumb of CRS to reinstate that particular death spiral.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

The essential requirement for any change to WWIIOL is that it must not allow gameplay that loses more customers than it pleases.

The old gameplay you're asking to be returned, did that in spades. A large number of customers left because of gameplay that a smaller number of players regarded as fun.

My understanding from past CRS comments is, that's what the exit surveys proved. That's hard evidence.

It would be dumb of CRS to reinstate that particular death spiral.

Current CRS probably has the numbers, it would only require them to check and compare the numbers.

If it's true that population in 2001-2004 was lower than in post 2005 Battleground Europe, than you are correct, but if it's the other way around, and population was high at start and getting lower *because* of the detrimental gameplay changes, than i think it should be thought over. (not counting the bad launch ofcourse)

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy revelations! Nug just let it go, the only people left (all 50 of them) are firm believers in ao boxed forced crap play.  These clowns wouldn't know where to go, or what to do without them.  Let them play their garbage and wonder why so few find this game fun ...hell free play doesn't even attract people....that's a clue folks. The rest of the players that found this intolerable are long gone these days, as you can see by a majority of the responses and what the 100 player peak server numbers?  

What the old and new rocket scientists never figured out was the game should be designed to cater to as many people as possible.  So if people want to play without being forced into some stale meatgrinder ao, you could of easily had some type of freedom to start your own action.  The failed toe and hc, coupled with ao's, diluted play to some mindless, boring, cat herding.  If that's all you end up with for gameplay options with a map of Europe and all this gear....well lol

You went from mega squads that owned map sections and ran large organized op's, with layers of talented leaders, to commander corky's p1 flood the box with infinite supply and lol softcaps.  

Sadly, they could make my dream version of tribal raiders of France and the game is just to dated for my tastes.  My God the infantry play is absolutely atrocious in today's world

Love 

Oj 

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, nugitx said:

...population was high at start and getting lower *because* of the detrimental gameplay changes...

The population was higher at the start, then declined because of the bad gameplay that the original mechanics allowed.

Some players of course liked the moleing, zerging and so forth. The problem was that a larger number of players didn't like that kind of gameplay. Many of them got tired of it and left.

Per past CRS comments, the data exists, and that's what it shows. Very clear, cut and dried, no doubt.

It's fine that you liked that gameplay. A number of customers did. That however doesn't mean that it'd make commercial sense for CRS to bring it back, after it failed once.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's all you end up with for gameplay options with a map of Europe and all this gear

This is what hurts me as a player.

There is this great game underneath, and i know of it, but the potential is blocked by less than stellar ideas.

 

Current CRS, use the past experiences and failures of the previous team to bring new ideas that will MAKE WW2OL GREAT AGAIN, i plead you.

Share this post


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

The population was higher at the start, then declined because of the bad gameplay that the original mechanics allowed.

 

Sir, you are correct.

That's why im advocating for 'fixing the old gameplay'.

 

Bring the original mechanic - and fix it, without AO, but remaining the 2 pillars of WW2ol

 

'Ability for every player to move the map

Ability to go wherever they want on the massive map '

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone from going anywhere on the map, only thing you can not do is capture without an AO. You can do anything else you want. If you want to capture a town without any enemy or avoid a fight, go on the training server. Most times it’s empty. I don’t see AOs going anywhere.

Hope you realize though, if you get enough people on, you will probably have enough AOs that you could AO most towns on the front line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the AO's be tweaked so that you can placed a AO within a limit of 1 or 2 grids squares behind where ever the front line is currently is (not the other side of the map), this will provide more functionality in the missions as i described in my last post, enabling paratroopers a more useful role in the game and changes the dynamic of the virtual war so you have alittle bit of the pre-AO 2001-2005 and post-AO 2006 onwards.

 

Edited by Pegasus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me condense your arguments a bit:

Quote

The player numbers have been higher 15 years ago -> out of thousands of things that have changed in the meantime, including the playerbase and the competition, the cause must have been this one thing I liked back then that is out of the game now -> bring it back into the game and we will have the same player numbers again.

Really? That's quite some  unique way of reasoning.

Quote

An open map without any objectives but pure random choice of deployment - in the scale of complete northern europe - is suited to host a battle between 50 vs. 50 players in average.

I can't say anything about this idea that isn't offensive towards you. Who would think this could work out? Just think one second about how this would look like: Let's just glide in a Junkers to Paris with 2 guys capping the Louvre. We can have one guy driving an Opel in a circle around Dunkirk to do a distraction for it! But why distract at all? Nobody will show up anyways. They are all scattered around WHOLE NORTHERN EUROPE.

Edited by vanapo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sg1 said:

 

Sadly, they could make my dream version of tribal raiders of France and the game is just to dated for my tastes.  

Love 

Oj 

 

 

here you go. I guess you get to be Caesar. 

Image result for tribal raiders of france

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with nugitx on this and he's not alone. I think AOs have generally split the player base into 2 camps, kinda like politics. So why not a political solution-compromise. Delems posted an excellent solution earlier: Do Both. AOs for HC to maintain a strategy and players to easily find a battle (ideally) and an open map that will allow squads to flourish (squad missions implied). If squads have confidence in HC, they will show up at the AO. If not, they are free to do their own thing. This would make HC more accountable to squads which in turn increases the squad's level of confidence in HC which means the squads will be more inclined to follow HC and show up for AOs. It seems like a win for all concerned.

My historical perspective is this: I joined in '02, was lost at the beginning, joined a large squad and got hooked. Then AOs came over the protests of many who threatened to leave the game if implemented, it was implemented and players left in huge numbers, play became less enjoyable (cap a cp, blow a fb has been pretty much it unless you do RPD). It appeared to me (and considering forum comments at the time) that the vast majority of players left because of AO.

To CRS, from a business perspective, remember "New Coke"? To me, that's a good metaphor for AO. If you make a change that negatively effects business, wouldn't it make sense to return to the model that worked? Want to bring squads back?-eliminate AO or adopt the above compromise. Why are you so adamant to retain a failed model that only half(?) the player base supports? Or as Dr. Phil might ask: "So, how's that working for ya?"

I do appreciate the freedom to speak out on this subject. I remember a time here when criticisms of AO could get you banned. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, gavalink said:

I'm with nugitx on this and he's not alone. I think AOs have generally split the player base into 2 camps, kinda like politics. So why not a political solution-compromise. Delems posted an excellent solution earlier: Do Both. AOs for HC to maintain a strategy and players to easily find a battle (ideally) and an open map that will allow squads to flourish (squad missions implied). If squads have confidence in HC, they will show up at the AO. If not, they are free to do their own thing. This would make HC more accountable to squads which in turn increases the squad's level of confidence in HC which means the squads will be more inclined to follow HC and show up for AOs. It seems like a win for all concerned.

My historical perspective is this: I joined in '02, was lost at the beginning, joined a large squad and got hooked. Then AOs came over the protests of many who threatened to leave the game if implemented, it was implemented and players left in huge numbers, play became less enjoyable (cap a cp, blow a fb has been pretty much it unless you do RPD). It appeared to me (and considering forum comments at the time) that the vast majority of players left because of AO.

To CRS, from a business perspective, remember "New Coke"? To me, that's a good metaphor for AO. If you make a change that negatively effects business, wouldn't it make sense to return to the model that worked? Want to bring squads back?-eliminate AO or adopt the above compromise. Why are you so adamant to retain a failed model that only half(?) the player base supports? Or as Dr. Phil might ask: "So, how's that working for ya?"

I do appreciate the freedom to speak out on this subject. I remember a time here when criticisms of AO could get you banned. 

Just because there are two sides to this story does not make the two camps equal, whether that be equal in number or equal in meaning or whatever.  

 

Once again, look at jwilly's post.  CRS took surveys, they accumulated data on what to do and what not to do.  A certain subset of the game loved the free-for-all aspect, but the rest of the playerbase (i.e. the majority) did NOT, the same majority that was ALREADY leaving in droves BECAUSE of the free-for-all aspect.  

 

If CRS had not implemented AOs, the only ones left would be the handful of tribal raiders of France capping an empty server up until about 2006, at which point the company would have gone defunct and the servers would have been shut off.  

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Just because there are two sides to this story does not make the two camps equal, whether that be equal in number or equal in meaning or whatever.  

 

Once again, look at jwilly's post.  CRS took surveys, they accumulated data on what to do and what not to do.  A certain subset of the game loved the free-for-all aspect, but the rest of the playerbase (i.e. the majority) did NOT, the same majority that was ALREADY leaving in droves BECAUSE of the free-for-all aspect.  

 

If CRS had not implemented AOs, the only ones left would be the handful of tribal raiders of France capping an empty server up until about 2006, at which point the company would have gone defunct and the servers would have been shut off.  

And here is the reason we will never go back to anything resembling the game of old.  The only survivors remaining in game are the one's who helped destroy that game and are hell-bound to "keep what they killed."  God forbid anybody recommend against getting rid of AO's or better yet, the utterly atrocious TO&E's.  Too many of those left are too invested in a failed and failing concept because they drove the game into this ditch and they can't countenance getting out of it.

Don't anyone dare think outside the AO/TO&E box.  Don't you dare.  We MUST keep AO's.  We MUST keep TO&E's.  No ifs ands or buts.  You will be driven out of the forums if you think otherwise.  It is not a coincidence that a vast majority of the "keep what we've killed" crowd are Allied players.

And I also call into question Capco's assertion that a majority of players did "NOT" want an open front.  I want to see your facts to back up that unsubstantiated claim.  Until then, it isn't true.

The game was nothing but an "Open Front" for years.  The players of that era have sadly been driven out of this game.

VR

Edited by csm308
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SCKING said:

There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone from going anywhere on the map, only thing you can not do is capture without an AO. You can do anything else you want. If you want to capture a town without any enemy or avoid a fight, go on the training server. Most times it’s empty. I don’t see AOs going anywhere.

Hope you realize though, if you get enough people on, you will probably have enough AOs that you could AO most towns on the front line.

In short, you can do anything you want except anything of importance.  The worst part of this SCKING is that you don't really understand what nugitx is saying.  Your response to him is entirely knee-jerk.

You, as a Rat, evince no interest whatsoever in anything Nugitx had to say except to shoot him down.  That's another subscription, meaning money, that you may  have just driven away.

VR

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, csm308 said:

The worst part of this SCKING is that you don't really understand what nugitx is saying. 

I think CRS entirely understands the argument that for some people, the original moleing/zerging game was fun.

CRS also has hard proof that it drove away more customers than it attracted.

It seems that what you care about is your fun, and not the game's success and CRS's survival. OK, that's understandable, but I wouldn't expect CRS to be sympathetic to arguments from you that they're ignoring you and your inputs are of more importance than their contrary survey and financial data.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, csm308 said:

In short, you can do anything you want except anything of importance.  The worst part of this SCKING is that you don't really understand what nugitx is saying.  Your response to him is entirely knee-jerk.

You, as a Rat, evince no interest whatsoever in anything Nugitx had to say except to shoot him down.  That's another subscription, meaning money, that you may  have just driven away.

VR

I think a middle ground is needed then. If, the rats, could make behind enemy lines battles meaningful in a tactical sense it should satisfy nugitz. Like RDP but for ground pounders. Enough to hurt the enemy if they don't respond but not enough to create the chaos scking is trying to avoid.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not even think how you could make behind enemy lines meaningful with ao's, unless you made it so the cp's became instantly hot once the AO was placed. And tge AB goes hot in 5 min. 

However .... i am not sure how you could jusitfy a flag moving in if you took the town. It would have to be some sort of special brig with minimal supply.

Share this post


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

I think CRS entirely understands the argument that for some people, the original moleing/zerging game was fun.

CRS also has hard proof that it drove away more customers than it attracted.

It seems that what you care about is your fun, and not the game's success and CRS's survival. OK, that's understandable, but I wouldn't expect CRS to be sympathetic to arguments from you that they're ignoring you and your inputs are of more importance than their contrary survey and financial data.

I have never seen this "HARD PROOF" that you speak of.  Nor have you Jwilly.  It may, I repeat, may, have driven away Allied players, which is your only concern, but the number of Axis players and other players in general, driven away by the changes, SHOULD have given the Rats pause as to if what they were doing was the right thing.  It did not, and the game was nearly driven to bankruptcy because of this belief that they, and only they, were right.  The playerbase's opinion certainly didn't appear to matter.  The  number of Axis players lost does not concern you Jwilly.  Not at all.  That entire Axis population before AO's and TO&E's is almost completely gone and you just don't care, do you?  They are not of importance to you.  That is money/subscriptions gone, but they are not important to you.  Only YOUR fun is important to you.  Look in the mirror Jwilly before you make that accusation to somebody else.  You'll see yourself staring back.

The game population is a SHADOW of its former self.  You cannot deny that.  You and anyone else who would deny that are delusionary.  You Jwilly are part of the reason why.  You are part of the "keep what we've killed" crowd.  God forbid anybody think different from you.  God forbid.

VR

Edited by csm308
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.