• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
nugitx

The experience of a new player that starts to play

233 posts in this topic

13 minutes ago, nugitx said:

 

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

DING DING DING DING DING ! <- there's the winner

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This approach would be a non-starter for several reasons...it would need more customers, and it would double the work for the game managers and moderators...but I'll put it here for discussion.

The problem with having one system for both types of players is that the more fun the Type 2s have, the more Type 1s leave. Not good.

But what if the Type 1s and Type 2s were playing separate instances of the game?

KFS1 did a lot of work on instancing. Make use of that work to run two instances. Call them "servers" for communications ease, even though there'd be just one set of hardware and software to support.

The Type 1s and Type 2s can't see each other and don't affect each other. Each player can be on either "server"...that's self-selected at each spawn.

Server 1 (battles oriented) has AOs and maybe a capping requirement of 10% of the current side population or 10 players, whichever is smaller, plus a relatively long hold time. Server 2 (capping oriented) is basically the early-game mechanics, i.e. moleing permitted, zerging permitted, one man capping with minimal delays, whatever is popular for that player type.

There'd be a ton of mechanics to sort out, of course.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idealy, it would be the best if everyone was in the same instance, because separate ones, separate the playerbase.

Ofcourse this is an option, but can ww2ol afford to separate the playerbase further?

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


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

Idealy, it would be the best if everyone was in the same instance, because separate ones, separate the playerbase.

Ofcourse this is an option, but can ww2ol afford to separate the playerbase further?

Agreed. 

Edited by gavalink

Share this post


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

This approach would be a non-starter for several reasons...it would need more customers, and it would double the work for the game managers and moderators...but I'll put it here for discussion.

The problem with having one system for both types of players is that the more fun the Type 2s have, the more Type 1s leave. Not good.

But what if the Type 1s and Type 2s were playing separate instances of the game?

KFS1 did a lot of work on instancing. Make use of that work to run two instances. Call them "servers" for communications ease, even though there'd be just one set of hardware and software to support.

The Type 1s and Type 2s can't see each other and don't affect each other. Each player can be on either "server"...that's self-selected at each spawn.

Server 1 (battles oriented) has AOs and maybe a capping requirement of 10% of the current side population or 10 players, whichever is smaller, plus a relatively long hold time. Server 2 (capping oriented) is basically the early-game mechanics, i.e. moleing permitted, zerging permitted, one man capping with minimal delays, whatever is popular for that player type.

There'd be a ton of mechanics to sort out, of course.

Both types can survive on the same server. Why would this be more work for managers/moderators? I'm more for a compromise than segregation.

Edited by gavalink

Share this post


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

 

KFS1 did a lot of work on instancing. Make use of that work to run two instances. Call them "servers" for communications ease, even though there'd be just one set of hardware and software to support.

The Type 1s and Type 2s can't see each other and don't affect each other. Each player can be on either "server"...that's self-selected at each spawn.

Server 1 (battles oriented) has AOs and maybe a capping requirement of 10% of the current side population or 10 players, whichever is smaller, plus a relatively long hold time. Server 2 (capping oriented) is basically the early-game mechanics, i.e. moleing permitted, zerging permitted, one man capping with minimal delays, whatever is popular for that player type.

There'd be a ton of mechanics to sort out, of course.

1. wasn't the reverse contemplated for a while with the 'sudden battles' (or whatever it was called) normandy instance? wherein an AO on the map became a smaller, more detailed instance of a battle (attrition/squads/lonewolves) the result of which could have/would have/might have then affected the campaign map? 

2. there is a lot of personalized, skewed history being thrown about in the open front/squad debacle/AOs/HC stuff - which is normal - but from the beginning, even on the original 2001/2 GAME BOX - the notion of HC and strategic layers were already contemplated, just not executed 

3. 'ability to move the map' - sure. issue is human nature here. when squads moved the map in the old days, people complained. when softcaps move the map recently people complained. when competitive alert HC on either side move the map via snakes and cut offs today, people complain. when 12 RDP pilots shape and move the map, people complain 

this has always been a quite hard, unforgiving pvp game, no matter the mechanics. and no matter the mechanics the pop is likely to stay low until the subscription/free/free to play / dlc/micro transaction/ loadout package options issue is solved since there is a new generation of players or would be players. 

is getting back some of the old players / old squads actually possible with some of the free front/open AO / town supply compromises suggested above? will it/would it be enough to float the game till new players/more pop come on board? 

Share this post


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

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.

And I repeat, only ONE squad deliberately operated that way, "avoid the fight."  Don't smear an entire player base with those tactics.  It simply didn't happen the way you "remember."  It rarely  happened the way you remember.  

Whatever AO's were intended to do, they killed off almost an entire player base with its thousands of subscriptions gone.  But then, the "keep what you kill" crowd doesn't care about "them?"  They deserved what they got all of them being "tribal raiders of France."

I'm glad you think CRS needs every customer, but its too little to late.  Certainly not soon enough for the thousands of subscriptions AO's killed off.  TO&E's could've actually worked the way it was intended, but the combination with limited AO's killed it completely.  When I was Axis CINC I had over 250 plus HC officers under my command and we recruited enough to maintain it.  How many are left in the OKW now? 

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to write a book here, but I'll share a couple of observations in brief . . .  ;)

I'm sure this post would come out sounding better if I thought about it for a few days and made some notes in advance, but I hope it will be at least adequate without so doing.

I started playing the game in January 2002 and for a couple of years I was as "hooked" as any drug addict may be attached to his or her particular glorious poison.

I've not complained about the changes that the Rats made to the game for the simple reason that the game was never meant to cater to my personal tastes and I always knew this and did not expect anything.  I'm older than all of you.  ;) Shame on me for playing video games at my age. 

I merely enjoyed what  was for as long as it existed.  For a period of time, the game mechanics accidentally supported what I enjoyed, but as things changed, I realized they were changing because they needed to change.  I never felt a second's worth of resentment.  Allow me to flesh this out just a bit.

 

When the player base is large enough, the game can meet many of Nugitz likes, and my own likes - while satisfying the desires of others who think differently.  Numbers are everything for this game.  AOs came about, in my view, mostly because a shrinking player base needed to be concentrated into an area where a good fight may occur.  This is partly why the necessity of driving to front in a Beddy or an Opel was eliminated.  Too much waiting around time for all but the most dedicated and nuttiest of players.  The hope was that more grognards wold come and stay.  That was nearly always the hope.  Twitch-players were a necessary evil and fodder for the true believers.  But hopefully, many twitchers could be converted. 

The smaller the overall dedicated player or subscription size, the more the need for areas of focus to exist on the map and the smaller the map becomes for any given period of time.  I got to play on my chosen area of a vast canvas.

Back in he days when there was a larger number of players on at peak times, one could literally pick a town and instigate a good fight in it, pretty much at will.  My squad years ago used to alternate between the flat north and the hilly south, just for variety sake and, as we were Germans, we'd sometimes like to fight the British kit and sometimes, we'd like to fight the French kit.  We had the luxury of choice.  North to fight the Brits; south to fight the French.  Anhee was our home town, though we had others whose names I no longer remember.  if Anhee was Allied, we'd cap one flag and wait for the Allies to start spawning in and a really good fight would be practically guaranteed. There seemed to be enough players on either side (East Coast US peak after dinner and into the wee hours) to maintain a battle at the front while allowing for players to defend or attack seemingly randomly selected towns.  I loved town-centered finite spawn lists because, as the fight developed and the enemy's spawn-list was attrited, they'd have to bring up supply - visible supply - from neighboring towns.  Invisible spawn-list swapping became anathema to me.  For me there was real opportunity right there - in the days of visible supply - as I was a certifiable mad bushwacker.  I  lived for the opportunity to create WTF moments in the brains of my opponents.  I'd take my Opel (Jamsbus) and my ATG and I'd roam the countryside setting up one ambush after another each night.  Oldzeke and I could occasionally decimate an entire British armor spawn-list with a pair of Pak-36s.

Back then, you could be in the middle of nowhere, discover a field with flowers growing in it that you never saw before . . . and come across an enemy taking a long drive bringing up his favorite tank from three towns back.

As I loved to kill tanks, not only did the death of visible resupply hurt my game play, but then inf players, constantly complaining about too many tanks eventually got their wish to reduce the armor spawn lists while at the same time, new and competing methods of killing tanks was introduced.  My kill per hour rate plummeted.  Interest flagged.  I shifted to AAA for a rime.

It's a constant struggle for the developers to please the flyboys, to please the armor guys and to please the foot soldier and as there are always more foot soldiers that need pleasing, the game has to favor them.

I saw the player numbers shrink.  I saw the Rats being forced to compromise what they actually had on their white board to try and change a negative churn into a positive churn.

Few of you probably remember this, but there was a time when the Rats wanted the game to have unit cohesion.  Some of the true believers back then did not only believe that one should earn rank by army type or side, but also by unit.  If you were in the Duncan Donut brigade and you earned rank there, you'd have to start all over if you switched to the Tim Hortons brigade and . . . in the vision of the Rats at the time, the player base was going to be so large that one wouldn't even know what was going on in other parts of the map except on a need-to-know basis - so you weren't tempted to bail on Duncan Donuts to go and assist the Tim Hortons.   There was going to be a separate noncom class and a distinct officer class.

I could say a lot more, but why?

Bottom line is that  the only way to keep the game alive is for the developers to keep experimenting so as to find a model where the churn is at least slightly positive - no matter what it takes to do so.

The continuing existence of the game depends upon more people coming than going . . . and individuals must either embrace the changes or else move on.

 

Edited by jam

Share this post


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

 

I saw the player numbers shrink.  I saw the Rats being forced to compromise what they actually had on their white board to try and change a negative churn into a positive churn.

Few of you probably remember this, but there was a time when the Rats wanted the game to have unit cohesion.  Some of the true believers back then did not only believe that one should earn rank by army type or side, but also by unit.  If you were in the Duncan Donut brigade and you earned rank there, you'd have to start all over if you switched to the Tim Hortons brigade and . . . in the vision of the Rats at the time, the player base was going to be so large that one wouldn't even know what was going on in other parts of the map except on a need-to-know basis - so you weren't tempted to bail on Duncan Donuts to go and assist the Tim Hortons.   There was going to be a separate noncom class and a distinct officer class.

I could say a lot more, but why?

Bottom line is that  the only way to keep the game alive is for the developers to keep experimenting so as to find a model where the churn is at least slightly positive - no matter what it takes to do so.

The continuing existence of the game depends upon more people coming than going . . . and individuals must either embrace the changes or else move on.

 

+10. thoughtful, poetic and hard truths - especially the last two lines.  a large double double and a S! 

Related image

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two versions of what happened: 1. The player base was shrinking so AO was implemented. 2. AO was implemented which caused a massive loss of players.

I subscribe to the latter based on my own experiences and observations from that time; When we had an open front, we had a large player base. When AO was implemented, players left in mass.

Edited by gavalink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Pittpete said:

Here's the magic question...How do we get them back?

I think the best way without losing other players is a compromise. A few good compromises have already been proposed throughout this topic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pittpete said:

Here's the magic question...How do we get them back?

Buy more RAM!

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about focusing on improving the suggestions put forth; squad AOs, paratrooper objectives, etc. Try not to use the words "allied" or  "axis" or allude to a side bias as this just minimizes your credibility to the discussion.  If you are a reasonable person you'll realize that going back in time is not really possible, however, going forward is totally within the realm of possibility.  Focus on improving what we have instead of what we had.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

I like the idea of an ews triggered AO.

Agreed, this makes a lot of sense, but I think an element of control (maybe with the mission leader) as to the time of deployment.  And I think you'll also need to muster a fair amount of team members (that number will have to hashed out) in order for it to work.  Also helps solve the lack of HQ when that occurs.

Share this post


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

I like the idea of an ews triggered AO.

Thanks, come help brainstorm it here:

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's certainly room for improvement in many facets of the game, and AOs are no exception.  

 

Like was said before, none of us refused compromise as was claimed.  If we want to talk about how to improve the AO mechanic or replace it with something better, let's do that.  

 

But going back to square 1 is simply a non-starter.  I think that's what was trying to be conveyed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO its pretty disingenuous to lay blame at the feet of AOs and only AOs. what if we had been given AOs without TOEs/flags. What may that have looked like?

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

There's certainly room for improvement in many facets of the game, and AOs are no exception.  

 

Like was said before, none of us refused compromise as was claimed.  If we want to talk about how to improve the AO mechanic or replace it with something better, let's do that.  

 

But going back to square 1 is simply a non-starter.  I think that's what was trying to be conveyed.  

You had me up until "But...", then you lost me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm I correct in perceiving that, in general, Allies is pro AO and Axis is pro open front? I never really saw it as a side issue until this topic got rolling.

I'm Axis and prefer an open front, but not because I'm Axis.

Edited by gavalink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, gavalink said:

Two versions of what happened: 1. The player base was shrinking so AO was implemented. 2. AO was implemented which caused a massive loss of players.

I subscribe to the latter based on my own experiences and observations from that time; When we had an open front, we had a large player base. When AO was implemented, players left in mass.

I won't comment with any authority as to whether the introduction of AOs caused a further decline in the player base or not.  It certainly was an attempt by the Rats to stem the outgoing tide.  But anyone who thinks that the player base was not in decline before AOs were introduced is flat-out wrong.

The Rats saw that the number of active players was insufficient to stimulate and sustain a fight in any one area when those who were available roamed too far afield failing to find action.  If you happen to think AOs are evil, then they were a necessary evil.  With AOs, one could be sure that there was always a fight even though the fight might not be in a place of personal preference.  I did not like the introduction of AOs one bit, but in a fairly short time, I had to accept them as a necessity.  I wanted to continue to play the entire map and I felt that AO turned the game into a moving shoebox game - but what real choice was there?

In my view, it was not necessary to eliminate visible resupply, but I may well be wrong.

You either believe what the Rats were saying at the time or you don't . . . and what they were saying was that they were getting exit interviews from players as they quit the game, and as I remember it, the leading complaint was that it took too long to get into a fight and the departing players were simply bored with the game.  High learning curve, low satisfaction.  AOs concentrated the ground players (and also gave the flyboys some concentration of fleshy targets without them having to fly all over the map for a one kill here and another there.)  Brigade swapping - instant refresh of the spawn lists - made it possible to sustain longer fights.

Spawning away from the front and taking a lot of time to get to the fight and having to drive up units from the rear while risking interdiction - visible supply - was just a royal pain in the arse for too many players - those who lacked the requisite patience of which there were many. 

Can anyone actually blame people for wanting to experience fun in a short time rather than often suffer long periods of tedium?  This is a video game we are discussing, right?

So the game I once played faded and disappeared.  Had it not, there probably would be no game at all today.

I stopped playing the game a few years ago and I don't really know what it is like today.  I'd like to see the game survive without me though.  ;)

 

 

Edited by jam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is getting back some of the old players / old squads actually possible with some of the free front/open AO / town supply compromises suggested above? will it/would it be enough to float the game till new players/more pop come on board?

Ofcourse part of them will come back (how many? I don't know), but also new players expect a form of open front mechanic when they start to play this game.

Not having an open front, makes new players quit the game.

When someone hears 'ww2 online' the first thing that comes to his mind is - massive front on a large scale which paradoxicaly was deleted, lol.

 

m glad you think CRS needs every customer, but its too little to late.

Hey it's never too late, when Rats will make the new sub model + combine that with a form of a new open front, I bet the game will start to get alive again, and with more players, more will come. (and later with graphic enhancement even more should come, but move to UE4 engine should not compromise gameplay for graphics, because it will kill WW2 ol, if Rats would have to compromise gameplay when they would have to go UE4, it would be better if they didn't enhance the graphics at all)

 

I  lived for the opportunity to create

WTF moments in the brains of my opponents. Back then, you could be in the middle of nowhere, discover a field with flowers growing in it that you never saw before . . . and come across an enemy taking a long drive bringing up his favorite tank from three towns back.

This is what made the magic of WW2ol, this is what can happen when the people have freedom to do what they want to do, the unpredictability.

 

If we want to talk about how to improve the AO mechanic or replace it with something better, let's do that. 

Replace it with something better !

 

Can anyone actually blame people for wanting to experience fun in a short time rather than often suffer long periods of tedium?  This is a video game we are discussing, right?

It's a specific video game, this is not Battlefield or Call of duty, they are their games,  keep ww2ol being ww2ol, if i would want to play COD, i'd go play COD.

People that come and play this game, expect it to be something that those games are not, and sometimes a type of a game likes this, requires more time investment than call of duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading your posts guys, it seems 'old Rats' took the game in wrong direction.

Instead of keeping front open and adding things that would make players want to be in the open world, they made the world small.


Current Rat team - do the opposite of 'old rat team'. Add things on map that encourage people to go and destroy things and capture.

Like the current RDP factories for pilots - this is the way to go.

Stear the game in the way of open front mechanics.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.