nugitx

The experience of a new player that starts to play

233 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Sudden said:

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.

What Nugitx wants is to be able to make his own fun without the whip hand of AO's and TO&E's.  That is anathema to the "keep what we've killed" crowd.  There is no chance of a "middle ground" for them.  They will fight it to the death and drive anyone who thinks otherwise, from the forums.  Poor Nugitx is just the latest example.  Sacrificed to the altar of "keep what we've killed."

VR

Edited by csm308
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I say again, this is a (limited) simulation of World War Two.  Was WWII fought between millions of single soldiers, wandering wherever they wanted, across Europe, hoping to find an enemy to kill?

 

NO!

 

It was fought by UNITS...GROUPS of soldiers from each side, fighting over CONTESTED AREAS of STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE.  Which better simulates that...a "no AO, go anywhere you want" game or a game with actual battles over objectives?

 

Oh, and one thing no one seems to have brought up...  If we go back to no AOs, the weapon the soldier uses will be FAR less important, which means a percentage of the playerbase will let their subs expire and play for free, and a LOT of the "returning players" (if they would even exist) would be coming in with free accounts as well, which make the Rats ZERO income.  And don't forget the tankers.  Why drive a tank if you can't capture anything and won't ever see an enemy?  They'll be gone to War Thunder or some other such game, in a heartbeat.

 

 

 

-Irish

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, odonovan1 said:

 

I say again, this is a (limited) simulation of World War Two.  Was WWII fought between millions of single soldiers, wandering wherever they wanted, across Europe, hoping to find an enemy to kill?

 

NO!

 

It was fought by UNITS...GROUPS of soldiers from each side, fighting over CONTESTED AREAS of STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE.  Which better simulates that...a "no AO, go anywhere you want" game or a game with actual battles over objectives?

 

Oh, and one thing no one seems to have brought up...  If we go back to no AOs, the weapon the soldier uses will be FAR less important, which means a percentage of the playerbase will let their subs expire and play for free, and a LOT of the "returning players" (if they would even exist) would be coming in with free accounts as well, which make the Rats ZERO income.  And don't forget the tankers.  Why drive a tank if you can't capture anything and won't ever see an enemy?  They'll be gone to War Thunder or some other such game, in a heartbeat.

 

 

 

-Irish

 

 

Sooooo, I can count you in the "keep what we've killed" crowd?  No chance at a middle ground or compromise.  Only the game that YOU want, right?

'Mkay, thank you. 

VR

Edited by csm308
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

All my tigers blow up to zooks. I don't need a premium account anymore.

Yes you do, you needed that LMG after i popped you with the rifle in the bunker :) 

Share this post


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

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

way too harsh. you can't use the word 'playerbase' in your particular assumptions and then go on to 1. accuse some else of allied bias and at the same time, 2. show your axis bias or point of view  ("the number of axis players lost... etc). 

this is an old player/side split and an old argument and both are boring. reach out like sudden suggested above and try to find some middle ground - which is what the new Rats are trying to do with 1.36 and town supply, lesser emphasis on hc etc. and maybe some tweaks or even live tests on open AOs or tactical/squad missions/AOs whatever. they may be slow and cautious but then, this is their game now and their livelihood -such as it may be. 

I'm sure any plausible suggestions would be listened to and might even be helpful to the game, the current playerbase, as small as it is, and maybe even the much hoped for and needed 'new' playerbase. (whether actually new or returning). 

the game evolved and changed (right or wrongly, whatever one thinks of those changes) and has survived - it must continue to evolve and experiment to survive. going all the way back to 2001 ain't gonna do it. 

Image result for hal 2001 I think we both know what the problem is dave

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sorella said:

I'm sure any plausible suggestions would be listened to and might even be helpful to the game, the current playerbase, as small as it is, and maybe even the much hoped for and needed 'new' playerbase. (whether actually new or returning). 

the game evolved and changed (right or wrongly, whatever one thinks of those changes) and has survived - it must continue to evolve and experiment to survive. going all the way back to 2001 ain't gonna do it. 

 

You really believe that?  Jwilly,, odonovan1, Capco and the rest of the "keep what we've killed" crowd have already shown that middle ground and compromise are not in their vocabulary.  Only their game matters.  The rest of us don't matter to them.  The number of Axis players lost does matter to me, the loss of my entire original squad, Panzer Lehr, matters to me.  A squad with hundreds of players, gone due almost exclusively to AO's and TO&E's.  It certainly doesn't matter to Jwilly, odonovan1 and Capco.  Only lost Allied players matter to them.

Are you in that category and only paying lip service to middle ground and compromise?  I wonder.  Is any "player driven fun" possible at all in YOUR game?

VR

Edited by csm308
2 people like this

Share this post


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

You really believe that?  Jwilly,, odonovan1, Capco and the rest of the "keep what we've killed" crowd have already shown that middle ground and compromise are not in their vocabulary.

No they haven't, none was offered, only a single absolute
"let us randomly go off alone and attack and capture anything anywhere anytime"
There is no compromise in that, it's "any colour you like as long as it's black"

And it works about as well as a gloss black tank hiding on a snow field.

Yay, 2 towns away from Amiens! Victory is at hand!

SYSTEM: A FACILITY IN ESSEN HAS FALLEN TO THE ENEMY
SYSTEM: A FACILITY IN DUSSELDORF HAS FALLEN TO THE ENEMY
SYSTEM: A FACILITY IN BERLIN HAS FALLEN TO THE ENEMY


The reaction i envision goes like this "uh wtf? CRS?? Seriously??"
That truly sounds like fun for the whole playerbase to you?

Edited by merlin51
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, merlin51 said:

No they haven't, none was offered, only a single absolute
"let us randomly go off alone and attack and capture anything anywhere anytime"
There is no compromise in that, it's "any colour you like as long as it's black"

And it works about as well as a gloss black tank hiding on a snow field.

Yay, 2 towns away from Amiens! Victory is at hand!

SYSTEM: A FACILITY IN ESSENCE HAS FALLEN TO THE ENEMY
SYSTEM: A FACILITY IN DUSSELDORF HAS FALLEN TO THE ENEMY
SYSTEM: A FACILITY IN BERLIN HAS FALLEN TO THE ENEMY


The reaction i envision goes like this "uh wtf? CRS?? Seriously??"
That truly sounds like fun for the whole playerbase to you?

Delems offered a compromise early in the topic, which I just re-stated. What compromise do you have to offer?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre-AO, campaigns were won by squads. They had to be organized and squads worked together with occasional mutinies against "high command". "High command" needed to keep squads happy. Post-AO, squads became obsolete. HC became the only squad and the AO was your only mission-take it or leave it. The front disappears, now we jump around to different arenas (wack-a-mole). Most of the strategic feel was lost when we lost provincial squads (the front).

Edited by gavalink
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

No they haven't, none was offered, only a single absolute
"let us randomly go off alone and attack and capture anything anywhere anytime"
There is no compromise in that, it's "any colour you like as long as it's black"

And it works about as well as a gloss black tank hiding on a snow field.

Yay, 2 towns away from Amiens! Victory is at hand!

SYSTEM: A FACILITY IN ESSEN HAS FALLEN TO THE ENEMY
SYSTEM: A FACILITY IN DUSSELDORF HAS FALLEN TO THE ENEMY
SYSTEM: A FACILITY IN BERLIN HAS FALLEN TO THE ENEMY


The reaction i envision goes like this "uh wtf? CRS?? Seriously??"
That truly sounds like fun for the whole playerbase to you?

Eveybody seems to think that that was the MO for the entire Axis side, "tribal raiders of France."  Only one squad actually operated that way, Sturmgrenadier, and really, only a portion of that squad.  A combination of hubris and game coding took them out.

The rest of the Axis side simply played in a highly organized manner.  Our pre-TOE&S HC was a tightly run organization, run by the squads themselves.  Individual HC officers didn't really matter, the squads did.

That organization, and its game, were virtually destroyed over night.  It took a few years, Rome didn't fall overnight, but numbers don't lie.  That Axis playerbase is almost entirely gone.  Only a few diehards like myself are left.  All the rest are gone.  Several thousand Axis players (and subscriptions) gone due to a then management attitude of "we're right and you're wrong" and outright hostility from the "keep what we killed" crowd.  I have to ask you Merlin51, was that Axis playerbase offered a "middle ground" or compromise?  They were not.

I'm more than willing to give the current management a chance, mine and my current squad Blitzkader's personal donations of hundreds of dollars to the various go fund me efforts bear this out, but this latest RDP debacle is really pushing their luck.

VR

Edited by csm308
2 people like this

Share this post


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

Pre-AO, campaigns were won by squads. They had to be organized and squads worked together with occasional mutinies against "high command". "High command" needed to keep squads happy. Post-AO, squads became obsolete. HC became the only squad and the AO was your only mission-take it or leave it. The front disappears, now we jump around to different arenas (wack-a-mole). Most of the strategic feel was lost when we lost provincial squads (the front).

People that couldn't cut it, being part of a large successful squad whined until they were driven away.(Tribal Raiders of France comment)

Squads like 31st WC, 3rdPzG, Panzer Lehr, Sturmgrenadier, 10st Airbourne, BKB, 23rd Armor, KWG, etc...ALL GONE

Also the  thousands of players that made up these squads when old CRS chose to herd people into meat grinders are gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, try no AOs, open frontline (every town hot on frontline), but require 2 players to capture? (or 3 etc.)

There are ways to reduce the bad effects of an open front.

Squads drive the game, not HC, not AOs; squads need to have the ability to move the map imo.  Squads are what drive more players to join I believe.

You not in a squad?  Then you can't capture unless it is a system AO... If we really wan't to keep both 'HC/system' AOs and player generated ones.

You FPA?  Then you can't capture unless it is a system AO. (no capture the frontline towns in general)

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

...occasional mutinies against "high command". "High command" needed to keep squads happy.

Post-AO, squads became obsolete. 

There's additional relevant history that should be part of this discussion.

All just my understanding, based on information discussed in the old-CRS-led Design/Beta Forums:

One or more players controlling one or more large squads made a "business proposal" to Killer and the owner group: either CRS would agree to make substantial ongoing payments to that person or persons, or they would take their squad out of the game.

There were other demands: a change to the game to make missions visible to and joinable by only the squad that created them, other changes to basically require all new players to immediately join a squad in order to play, and a veto on development plans. Old-CRS's perception was that there was an intentional economic threat. 

Killer wasn't favorable to the offer. Design changes to diminish the game-operational role of squads followed as soon thereafter as they could be developed. 

Old-CRS already was fully cognizant that the original game design decisions that allowed moleing/zerging gameplay were a major problem for CRS economically, because they drove away more players than liked them. Changes to that original gameplay weren't directly brought about by the squad situation, but were consistent.

Again, just my understanding.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, csm308 said:

You really believe that?  Jwilly,, odonovan1, Capco and the rest of the "keep what we've killed" crowd have already shown that middle ground and compromise are not in their vocabulary.  Only their game matters.  The rest of us don't matter to them.  The number of Axis players lost does matter to me, the loss of my entire original squad, Panzer Lehr, matters to me.  A squad with hundreds of players, gone due almost exclusively to AO's and TO&E's.  It certainly doesn't matter to Jwilly, odonovan1 and Capco.  Only lost Allied players matter to them.

Are you in that category and only paying lip service to middle ground and compromise?  I wonder.  Is any "player driven fun" possible at all in YOUR game?

VR

in my game 'player driven fun' is up to me, the player, within whatever design parameters are going at the time. I have fun, so I pay, and I play. did so in 2001 etc as well as part of 24pzr  then later 13th armoured, btz, etc etc. and now in a very small squad, qor. 

the squads owning part of the front was a good thing and fun as well. but I understood as a (then) axis player the weirdness of the split french/brit forces and the overwhelming numbers of axis players, large squads etc made the game 'not much fun' for the allies. I also saw the big squads gradually get smaller and/or leave - but always considered that as part of the squad/clan/guild game psyche of the times when certain squads considered themselves 'elite' or 'pro' or whatever (nothing wrong with that) BUT - (also see Jwilly's comments on the big squad actual threat to CRS - which also happened a lot in other games) - squads/clans/guilds moved on, from this game, and many others.  

that moving on was/is for a myriad of reasons - age, new challenges, real life, blah blah etc. - so I never really took that seriously the 'gotterdammerung of the squads' - more like a pop decrease was bound to happen, as has happened and continues to happen in every other game - maybe AOs/HC was part of that - but certainly not all -

why ever the squads left or pop decreased, many of the current game issues and debate over mechanics have to do with one simple thing: not enough players - when the americans were introduced there were 6 AOs for a campaign or two; steam launch got up to 5 last year - with tons of players, the game feels, acts and functions differently and is a lot more fun for everyone - no matter the exact mechanics: free front, multi-AOs, HC, Squads, whatever. 

and surely we shouldn't be continually discussing and debating history and blame rather than looking for solutions with some of the more fruitful and possible and hopefully successful compromises proposed above, to wit: (or not)

  • squad missions / squad AOs 
  • ews triggered AOs
  • optional campaign styles to change the game up (ie. as is, then next campaign open front, no AOs, then squad AOs, etc) both as an ongoing option and/or a live test of what works for players and draws/keeps numbers 
  • main AOs (HC) and secondary AOs combination (secondary could be squad AOs, ews triggered AOs or even open front non-AOs) 
  • economic AOs (the way certain dungeons or pvp arenas were opened to high value guilds/clans in other (mostly chinese/korean) games - ie. builders get a secondary AO; a squad with 10+ or 20+ premium subs can drop their own AO; and so on
  • some kind of squad/brigade/unit ownership for squads to actually be/move/AO with a brigade or division
  • I'm sure there are more

 

Related image       Image result for dorothy parker of course I talk to myself

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It needs to be a compromise between a system like now where HC can force some lonewolves to attack objectives, and a system that could bring back players not playing anymore because they want to be allowed to make "their" game. 

The case @merlin51 exposed SHOULD happen to simulate a large map with a continuous frontline, and would happen if we had 1k population online 24/24 with the current AO system anyway.

The debate here is about pointing out that the forced AO may have contributed to disband large squads and thus keep thousands of players away.

@XOOM I liked Gophur very much but I have never agreed with the priorities of the old team nor the way they based their decisions on. They hoped to increase population by making it a fast paced-action game with content and graphics instead of building on squads. And see where they have landed and how hard you need to struggle today.

What we may have forgotten in 2018 is that HC used to be squad CO and XO. Dreaming about more HC involvement and more wwiiol moments is indeed THE answer to a better wwiiol experience and thus player retention but at some point it became useless as you cannot expect this behaviour from a playerbase that has never been asked to take themselves in charge, take difficult strategic decisions and take real command over groups like I have rarely seen after 2004. AO = herds of lonewolves. Nothing else.

If some don't believe me, just count how many squads were created after 2005, how many players they have had and how many are sill playing. Many started playing pre-AO (2001-2004) and remain involved because they experimented something strong that is no longer there but that they hope to see back in the 2.0 project. Myself included.

The problem is that at this stage it became rolling a dice... The issue could maybe have come from depot spawning, introduced at the same period and making the game very exhausting for attackers to keep players alive without adopting ninja  cap-the-spaWnable tactic. Hence the AO was needed at that time to force players to try out a real battle.

Of course we must keep rules that limit the amount of towns that can be captured per hour, especially since we have the FMS capabilities. But with a different approach than AO count based on the lowest populated side.

still, I am not sure that 1k population online with 8 AOs auto-placed (or by HC) would bring the same result as squad-driven initiative. Giving a fish to a hungry man isn’t the same as learning him to fish.

People will pay subscriptions for freedom on a XXXXL map. Not for a shoebox experience. That’s why I propose a compromise: leave the initial phase of a battle to players, THEN focus other players to that same place with the HC structure.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, csm308 said:

Jwilly (...)

...middle ground and compromise are not in their vocabulary.

Wow.

You think I'm arguing against your proposal, and by implication that I'm arguing for the status quo as a design approach that's good on its own merits...?

I've been trying to explain why the game is where it is, as I understand it, anyway. I've been trying to explain the relevant history. I've been trying to explain that your perception of economics seems to differ from explanations I've heard from CRS of their numbers-based reality.

You seem to be arguing that it was dumb of CRS to part company with the big squads. I explained above about a key event that led CRS to decide not to allow particular big squad leaders to effectively take over the company. Under the circumstances, you think that choice was dumb?

I don't seem to be getting through.

 

Edited by jwilly
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, csm308 said:

Eveybody seems to think that that was the MO for the entire Axis side

I never said axis.
Ive seen stellar people at 4:30am beating tracks in a beddy back when you could just run amok

 

6 hours ago, gavalink said:

What compromise do you have to offer?

Things like presence based AO's
Rally enough people around you (based on ingame pop at a given time) and show up at the place, and system sets the AO

Paratroop type missions where you can not capture, meaning you can not flip ownership or cap the AB on a non AO or non frontline town
but you can disrupt the supply link, the depots would go into limbo for as long as you could remain alive and hold them.
If you leave them, they will auto uncap themselves based on cap time of 1 player inside.

Maybe something with bridges...

Share this post


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

Wow.

You think I'm arguing against your proposal, and by implication that I'm arguing for the status quo as a design approach that's good on its own merits...?

I've been trying to explain why the game is where it is, as I understand it, anyway. I've been trying to explain the relevant history. I've been trying to explain that your perception of economics seems to differ from explanations I've heard from CRS of their numbers-based reality.

You seem to be arguing that it was dumb of CRS to part company with the big squads. I explained above about a key event that led CRS to decide not to allow particular big squad leaders to effectively take over the company. Under the circumstances, you think that choice was dumb?

I don't seem to be getting through.

 

And your "key event" is blown way out of proportion in order to suit your narrative.  I was not present for the "key event' but I know exactly what happened to that ONE squad in its immediate aftermath.  As I'm sure you are aware since you appear to know "everything" about an Axis squad in the Axis player base, it wasn't the squad at large, nor its members that did what you allege, only its leadership.  The squad members who wished to remain in the game were placed in the old 4th Panzer Division, and I was the Division commander when they finally "joined" the GHC (something the squad had previously said they would never do), immediately after the "key event."  I was given "history 101" on them, what to expect from them and what to do if they reverted to form again.   I went with them on every one of their squad nights and became quite familiar with them and their "situation" as a result for as long as I was the 4th PD CO until I was promoted out of the position some months later.

The squad members who remained turned out to be great players and glad for the opportunity to remain in the game.  Not all of them got to after that "key event."  Oh, and that "key event" occurred way before AO's and TO&E's.  

The only other Axis squads who had the kind of pull to threaten CRS they way you say, would've been the 31st Wrecking Crew and the 3rd Panzergruppe.   Those two squads controlled entire Armee's in the GHC.  Nobody else had the pull that they did.  If they did participate in that "key event," guess what...…..absolutely NOTHING happened to them and they went on to bigger and better things until a series of unfortunate events many years later. 

And yes, it was dumb of CRS to part company with big squads if that was indeed their intent.  The "shadow" of a game population speaks volumes to the stupidity of that.

VR

 

 

Edited by csm308
1 person likes this

Share this post


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



Paratroop type missions where you can not capture, meaning you can not flip ownership or cap the AB on a non AO or non frontline town
but you can disrupt the supply link, the depots would go into limbo for as long as you could remain alive and hold them.
If you leave them, they will auto uncap themselves based on cap time of 1 player inside.

Maybe something with bridges...

Interesting!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jwilly said:

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

mole/zerg was not fun

*ability to move the map*, that was fun.

Just bring back ability to move the map,  and stop mole/zerging.

--------------------------------------

AO stopped mole/zerging, but it stopped ability to move the map - took away the fun from ww2ol

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AO didn't stop mole/zerg. It still goes on today and I hear more complaints about it now than I did pre-AO. It's always going to be there. How many currently hear statements from HC such as "We need to set off some ews'"? or "This AO is a mole AO"? Maybe in the old days, I was too wrapped up in my large squad doing combined arms attacks (squad air included!) to be overly concerned about mole/zerg. It was part of the game, like spawn camping and taken into account when developing tactics.

 

Edited by gavalink

Share this post


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

AO didn't stop mole/zerg. It still goes on today and I hear more complaints about it now than I did pre-AO. It's always going to be there. How many currently hear statements from HC such as "We need to set off some ews'"? or "This AO is a mole AO"? Maybe in the old days, I was too wrapped up in my large squad doing combined arms attacks (squad air included!) to be overly concerned about mole/zerg. It was part of the game, like spawn camping and taken into account when developing tactics.

 

 

It stopped in the sense that it made people quit the game, lol.

No players left = no mole/zerg.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 minutes ago, nugitx said:

*ability to move the map*, that was fun.

Just bring back ability to move the map,  and stop mole/zerging.

AO stopped mole/zerging, but it stopped ability to move the map - took away the fun from ww2ol

This is a useful post because it gets at  what I understand was a key finding of exit interviews with leaving customers:

Some players want to capture in the most efficient way possible. They're most motivated by winning, and winning requires lots of captures, so they want to capture. The most efficient way to cap is to avoid or minimize fighting. If they have to fight, they want to have the enemy camped, and/or for the enemy to have as small a force as possible.

Other players are here for the fighting. That's the fun part of the game for them. They don't much like camping. They'd rather win by attrition, or by busting the morale of the other side by good tactics. They tend to like large battles.

My understanding...maybe I'm wrong, but this was discussed on a couple of occasions in the old Design/Beta Forum:

CRS originally designed the ground game expecting players to be the second type. The problem they then faced was that the mechanics allowed the first type of gameplay, and that type of gameplay caused large numbers of the second type of player to leave.

AOs were added to the game with the intent that they would focus gameplay on fighting and (relatively) larger battles, i.e. the second type of gameplay, so as to stop the loss of the second type of player.

But, CRS needs every customer. So there has been a lot of design effort and mechanics-tuning, trying to have the game be fun for both player-types.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, jwilly said:

 

This is a useful post because it gets at  what I understand was a key finding of exit interviews with leaving customers:

Some players want to capture in the most efficient way possible. They're most motivated by winning, and winning requires lots of captures, so they want to capture. The most efficient way to cap is to avoid or minimize fighting. If they have to fight, they want to have the enemy camped, and/or for the enemy to have as small a force as possible.

Other players are here for the fighting. That's the fun part of the game for them. They don't much like camping. They'd rather win by attrition, or by busting the morale of the other side by good tactics. They tend to like large battles.

My understanding...maybe I'm wrong, but this was discussed on a couple of occasions in the old Design/Beta Forum:

CRS originally designed the ground game expecting players to be the second type. The problem they then faced was that the mechanics allowed the first type of gameplay, and that type of gameplay caused large numbers of the second type of player to leave.

AOs were added to the game with the intent that they would focus gameplay on fighting and (relatively) larger battles, i.e. the second type of gameplay, so as to stop the loss of the second type of player.

But, CRS needs every customer. So there has been a lot of design effort and mechanics-tuning, trying to have the game be fun for both player-types.

 

With that knowledge, make a system that will give both type of players what they like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.