nugitx

The experience of a new player that starts to play

233 posts in this topic

9 minutes ago, nugitx said:

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.

The problem with an "open front" is that it will degenerate into a total roll for the over populated side. That's proven, because it happened for years before AOs. 

When you are on the under populated side, you can't defend everywhere. You have to pick your defense and let the rest go. That's exactly what happened in the old days. I player Axis for 2 years when I started, and saw it. I switched to Allied and saw it. I was on the rolling side and the rolled side. 

AOs, regardless of what bad they brought, let the under populated side hang in there and give them some hope. If you get rid of them and bring the "open front" back, it will be worse. 

People always like to point a finger at a certain thing to blame why players left...Could it be that players left because they were just done with the game? How many games have you played for almost 20 years?  

Edited by Mosizlak
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with an "open front" is that it will degenerate into a total roll for the over populated side. That's proven, because it happened for years before AOs.

What about auto-balancer?

Otherwise it's a dead game, or  under popped game - is it better to have a dead game or under popped game?

 

 

Share this post


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

 

 

What about auto-balancer?

Otherwise it's a dead game, or  under popped game - is it better to have a dead game or under popped game?

 

 

If you start forcing the dedicated squad players to play opposite their squads affiliation, it will get dead and underpop fast.
It's catch 22.

If you got a solution to that...

Share this post


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

If you start forcing the dedicated squad players to play opposite their squads affiliation, it will get dead and underpop fast.
It's catch 22.

If you got a solution to that...

Have the balancer move the whole squads, for the duration of the 'war'.

Players without squads then could be moved independently to fill in the gaps.

 

Have an option for squads and single players to *flag* themself, do they want priority in axis or allies, so the balancer can set everyone as close as they want to - if it's not possible because it would unbalance the game too much, than it would move them to other side.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ofcourse it would never be perfectly balanced, becuase it would depend also on currently logged in the game population.

But it would be A LOT more balanced than 'steam rolling' which could occur without it.

 

So at the start of the war, everyone would be setting their side,  and if  allies would have 100 players and axis 70 for example, then every next player and squad, would be designated to axis untill the population would reach 100.

There would need to be player difference ratio at which the balancer kicks in and designates the players to one side. - and if a player does not log for a long period of time during the war, he gets removed from the list of players, so the list up to date with players playing.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the balancer would not move the players currently in the war - only the players joining the war, to keep the population in the list intact.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But only if it goes above the player difference ratio of course.

For example there are 100 players on both sides, anyone joining the war can choose his side now...... but lets say the next 30 players choose allies only (or squad with many people takes a side),  so it's 130 allies now and 100 axis - so the balancer kicks in and every next player joining the war has to go axis untill the player number is 130 vs 130.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


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

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.

Sounds like a "keep what we've killed" adherent.  Better watch this one.

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is going to grow without a graphics upgrade.  The people saying it doesn't matter and it's a niche game, well, most of the people it didn't matter to are already gone. 

The Steam release was a failure mostly because of graphics (and somewhat because of having the release with the glaring resolutions bug, something DOC would have been proud of). 

Edited by Mosizlak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Capco said:

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 do see the inconsistency in your two statements don't you?  Also, I seem to remember the hysterical and near hysterical posts from you and the other "keep what we've killed" crowd when the HC control of the game was threatened with the original 1.36 version.  There wasn't a lot of compromise in any of those posts.  Caterwauling is the more apt description.

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol.  You want to have the freedom to take any town but restrict a players choice of side to play.  That would eliminate a good of the remaining player population.  

Edited by GrAnit
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one have zero interest in auto-balance of any kind. I choose which faction I fight for, not other players or the system. Even in other games with auto-balance I will sit and spectate until I have the faction I want because role-play is important to me in a war game. This is a non-starter. 

I’d much rather deal with being underpopulated or being rolled for a few maps than deal with auto-balance of any kind. In fact, I feel off balance is just part of a serious war game most of the time. It is what it is, it’s up to the players to make it work or not. 

Edited by raptor34
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Sounds like a "keep what we've killed" adherent.  Better watch this one.

VR

Sure, watch me all you like!  I just returned to the game after taking over a decade off for personal reasons.  I really don't remember much of the politics of the game when I left (I still loved it, but RL had to come first).  This perspective lends itself to a somewhat more objective view of this discussion.  You see, we are at a point; how we got here does not really matter.  We're here, for better or worse, that is our fate.  How we go forward does, however, matter.  You clearly love this game, why jeopardize your input on future features by focusing on lost battles from the past?  I'm not saying forget what you enjoyed back then; rather, try to figure a way to implement things you enjoy or used to enjoy into a better future version of this game.  Nobody is cooking up a conspiracy against you... just reasonable thought processes at work here.

5 people like this

Share this post


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

You do see the inconsistency in your two statements don't you?  Also, I seem to remember the hysterical and near hysterical posts from you and the other "keep what we've killed" crowd when the HC control of the game was threatened with the original 1.36 version.  There wasn't a lot of compromise in any of those posts.  Caterwauling is the more apt description.

VR

There is no inconsistency.  I said I'm open to new ideas.  NEW ideas.  Not old ideas that were proven to be detrimental.  

 

Also, that 1.36 thread is dripping with compromise, at least from the pro-TOEs crowd (CRS didn't compromise and go down the hybrid road until later).  It was compromise that lead to the very genesis of the hybrid concept.  

Share this post


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

Have the balancer move the whole squads, for the duration of the 'war'.

Players without squads then could be moved independently to fill in the gaps.

 

Have an option for squads and single players to *flag* themself, do they want priority in axis or allies, so the balancer can set everyone as close as they want to - if it's not possible because it would unbalance the game too much, than it would move them to other side.

Somehow you are failing to grasp the idea here.
 

31st Wrecking Crew does NOT play Allied
Black Knights Brigade does NOT play Axis

Ever

Force them to switch sides and the entire squad logs off, keep doing it to them and they log off forever.

 

I dont mean to sound rude, but perhaps you should actually spend some time in the game, meet the game, meet the player, meet the squads, before
posting rather poorly thought out suggestions and toting them as must be changes.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it stands right now I will remain a FTP player. There is nothing other than nostalgia that brings me back. I log into an FB for an attack and there is maybe 10 people there. You don’t have enough people to defend your FB and maintain an offensive all the while someone is screaming for people to defend their CPs. The map honestly has grown beyond the population of the game and it shows in every battle I have been in since invited back. Forcing people to a side is definitely not the answer but sadly I don’t have an answer. I honestly hope this game hangs on but there is no draw for new people, there is no hook other than the persistent state of the battle, that is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Capco said:

There is no inconsistency.  I said I'm open to new ideas.  NEW ideas.  Not old ideas that were proven to be detrimental.  

 

Also, that 1.36 thread is dripping with compromise, at least from the pro-TOEs crowd (CRS didn't compromise and go down the hybrid road until later).  It was compromise that lead to the very genesis of the hybrid concept.  

You are the definition of the "keep what we've killed" crowd.  Open to "new ideas" except ones you don't like which threaten "your" game.  And no, it was not compromise that led to the hybrid concept, it was outright naked threats to unsubscribe by the pro-TO&E's crowd.

VR

Edited by csm308
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Sure, watch me all you like!  I just returned to the game after taking over a decade off for personal reasons.  I really don't remember much of the politics of the game when I left (I still loved it, but RL had to come first).  This perspective lends itself to a somewhat more objective view of this discussion.  You see, we are at a point; how we got here does not really matter.  We're here, for better or worse, that is our fate.  How we go forward does, however, matter.  You clearly love this game, why jeopardize your input on future features by focusing on lost battles from the past?  I'm not saying forget what you enjoyed back then; rather, try to figure a way to implement things you enjoy or used to enjoy into a better future version of this game.  Nobody is cooking up a conspiracy against you... just reasonable thought processes at work here.

Ah yes, the "reasonable" "keep what we've killed" crowd.  If you had half Axis sorties and half Allied sorties, you might be considered objective, but you don't.  You are a near exclusive Allied playing player and member of an Allied squad.  There is nothing objective about you at all.  Nothing.  You will shoot down anything that threatens "your" game and it is a near metaphysical certitude it will be anything that you think threatens the Allied side.  No, you are not "objective."

The past matters because it colors everything that happens and how people view the game and that includes you Mr. Objectivity.

VR

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

 

56 minutes ago, viper69 said:

 The map honestly has grown beyond the population of the game and it shows in every battle I have been in since invited back. 

People always like to point a finger at a certain thing to blame why players left...Could it be that players left because they were just done with the game? How many games have you played for almost 20 years?  

+10 to the above comments: / lets move on and find some solutions that can be tested live and adjusted and evolved - solutions that the current CRS sees as possible/viable for survival both as a game and a business. 

1.36 / town supply etc is a start > what else could make the game better, more fun, attract new players? 

Share this post


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

+10 to the above comments: / lets move on and find some solutions that can be tested live and adjusted and evolved - solutions that the current CRS sees as possible/viable for survival both as a game and a business. 

1.36 / town supply etc is a start > what else could make the game better, more fun, attract new players? 

Player generated AO's outside of HC control.

VR

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, the rats have already decided on a solution, explained what it is in detail, and are well into implementation.  There are no other paths that is the works.  Now the system in development might be tweaked, and those discussions in the forums might be useful.  But this discussion of radically changing paths at this point is not worth much if anything, especially from persons unwilling to identify themselves.  If you really want to make the game successful, help with the path forward as best you can.

Edited by GrAnit
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Player generated AO's outside of HC control.

VR

I believe there has been a hybrid version of this discussed.. Our initial priority is garrison supply and then the UI.. I am sure other mechanics will fill in there somewhere as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

lol.  You want to have the freedom to take any town but restrict a players choice of side to play.  That would eliminate a good of the remaining player population. 

Quote

I for one have zero interest in auto-balance of any kind. I choose which faction I fight for, not other players or the system. Even in other games with auto-balance I will sit and spectate until I have the faction I want because role-play is important to me in a war game. This is a non-starter. 

I’d much rather deal with being underpopulated or being rolled for a few maps than deal with auto-balance of any kind. In fact, I feel off balance is just part of a serious war game most of the time. It is what it is, it’s up to the players to make it work or not.

 

Not realy restrict. Did you guys 'get' what I did write?

Every player/squad chooses a side at start of the war (or later when he joins the war), and only if the game gets unbalanced, for example there will be 60 allies and 30 axis, the balancer kicks in and only then the *next joining the war players* have to go to axis untill it is 60 vs 60.

So if you and your buddies choose axis at start of the war, you will be axis for the whole duration of war.

 

Quote

I dont mean to sound rude, but perhaps you should actually spend some time in the game, meet the game, meet the player, meet the squads, before


posting rather poorly thought out suggestions and toting them as must be changes.

Merlin, you wanted an 'idea' so I gave you one, i never said it's a 'must be change'

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That type of forcing players to play a side they do not want to will never work.  They'll just not play. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.