BMBM

Your idea of Fun

281 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, david06 said:

what's your plan for growing the game

As I've already stated, 1.36 is a good step forward because it removes softcaps and drastically mitigates the effect of not having HC online.  At every turn, CRS should strive to remove frustration from the game wherever possible.  I think that's the key to both retention and growth right now.  

 

1 hour ago, david06 said:

if five people not doing what you want them to ruins your fun?

I reject this premise entirely.  It's not about what I  want them to do.  It's about what needs to be done to succeed, to win.  Most people like to win.  Winning is fun.  Losing frustrates people, but that should be the only frustrating part of losing; the battles themselves should be entertaining even if you lose.  

 

Again like I've said above, ideally we are in a situation where 5 guys going sight-seeing in the Alps is not a bad thing for the success of your side.  Right now it is a bad thing.  That can change with more overall population and better balancing mechanics.  We can get more population with the changes that 1.36 brings.  

 

Don't crucify me for pointing out the facts of the paradigm that we currently exist in.  

Share this post


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

Again like I've said above, ideally we are in a situation where 5 guys going sight-seeing in the Alps is not a bad thing for the success of your side.  Right now it is a bad thing.  That can change with more overall population and better balancing mechanics.  We can get more population with the changes that 1.36 brings.  

You can't be picky about what people do when you have maybe 150 active players max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, knucks said:

You can't be picky about what people do when you have maybe 150 active players max.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.

 

The fewer the people that play, the more each player impacts the outcome of the battles.  5-10 players going off on their own is a big slice of your side that is potentially doing nothing.  You don't have to be as picky when you have many more players.

Share this post


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

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.

 

The fewer the people that play, the more each player impacts the outcome of the battles.  5-10 players going off on their own is a big slice of your side that is potentially doing nothing.  You don't have to be as picky when you have many more players.

5-10 players is A 50% increase on the steam charts, and potentially hundreds of dollars of revenue. I would rather have them in game then not in game, even if they were just driving around.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, knucks said:

5-10 players is A 50% increase on the steam charts, and potentially hundreds of dollars of revenue. I would rather have them in game then not in game, even if they were just driving around.

I'm sorry, but no one is going to pay $17.99/month to drive around in WWII Online.  

Edited by Capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I occasionally run platoons in planetside 2 which are about 36-48 people, nice to know that even if I somehow got half of them to grab F2P accounts and play for an evening I'd be ruining the game lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, david06 said:

what's your plan for growing the game if five people not doing what you want them to ruins your fun?

The penalties for being "overpopulated" - i.e. people spawning into the side that the rest of their squad / friends / relatives / whatever is/are on, how dare you!! -  are responsible for ruining everyones fun already, so not really sure whats your angle here but regardless..:

Due to aforementioned penalties ( SD and recently Pop-based Capture timers ) those 5 people are pi$$ing off everyone else actually playing the game as intended ie Defending and Capturing towns by imposing said Spawn Delay and longer Capture Timers on them and thus causing Frustration & Log-Offs further magnifying the issue.

This was rather painfully brought to the attention of everyone sometime back in 2012 already on Axis, when one Squad decided it would be a rather BRILLIANT idea to bring in 50+ people for some event 200k behind the front for 2 hours and thus imposing, due to SD (un-)limited to..240? 300? secs at that time a 200+SD on the whole side i.e. the 30 ppl actually trying to PLAY the GAME - over the course of those 2h we lost 5 or 6 towns in rapid succession.

It was also brought to CRS attention back then by some 3 letter guy that splitting up SD by Branch would make more sense rather than imposing a general SD on the WHOLE side just because 5/10/15 guys in DDs are trying to see who can sail north the farthest before falling off the map or 20 (actual quote: "going for epic RPD[sic] raid, woot") bombers sitting on an AF for 45mins configuring their joysticks or some such nonsense.

10 planes in the air and 3 Navy vessels somewhere being useless as usual while being underpopulated on the ground should NOT make those 5 guys facing 10 ground attackers  endure SD and longer Cap Timers to boot for example and so forth etcetc....

One could also split SD not only by Branch but additionally by Towns links / Proximity to enemy linked towns - if you spawn from a frontline town you have SD - by branch, up to 2 towns deep - everything else doesnt get SD but that would require coding and thus "work".

Once those "5 guys" playing horseshoes somewhere in England or Düsseldorf are not contributing to the overall gameplay penalties imposed on the rest of the playerbase of your side anymore, i would care more about the proverbial sack of rice that just tipped over in China...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Spawn Delay is to blame?  You can't impose balance when you're not pulling enough players to have a war with many battles. What this game really needs is 500 active players or more, these battles aren't being worth it when they're so slow and actionless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, david06 said:

I occasionally run platoons in planetside 2 which are about 36-48 people, nice to know that even if I somehow got half of them to grab F2P accounts and play for an evening I'd be ruining the game lol

Gsc gives a perfect example above about why that could be catastrophic for your side if you had 25 guys spawned in but not participating.  And tbf, the reason why this has the potential to ruin the fun of others is not because you all are nefarious, it's because of the way the game's balancing mechanisms operate.  It's not your fault, it's the game's fault for not being able to accommodate both your group and everyone else on your side at the same time.  

 

Personally, if I know my actions are going to have potentially negative consequences for my side, I rethink my actions.  I'd feel guilty otherwise.  Players who knowingly have a detrimental impact on their side but do it anyway annoy me because I myself would never do that, and I think it's a selfish thing to do until it can be fixed.  

 

11 hours ago, gsc said:

Once those "5 guys" playing horseshoes somewhere in England or Düsseldorf are not contributing to the overall gameplay penalties imposed on the rest of the playerbase of your side anymore, i would care more about the proverbial sack of rice that just tipped over in China...

^ This is how the game should be structured david, that way you could bring players over here to your heart's content without having a negative impact on others no matter what you are doing.  That's what CRS should be striving towards.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

last month at the end of TZ2, i was playing with biga5s's (not allowed to spell his tag) group in axis, there were more people flying than we had capping.

we softcapped 2 towns till i got bored and defected. i saved 8 CP's and had fun.

 

the guys flying only increased the cap speed. in total there were about 12 people on the ground (both sides) and 6 allies in the air, axis made up 9 of the 12.

when i defected, i know the axis players had fun. we were very tactically maneuvering and cutting each other. i sure as hell had more fun than when we were winning towns

 

ps. edm## is a trooper for trying to stop axis singelhandedly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could distille fun in a gaming environment it's essence would be all about game loops, so no gameplay dead ends.

For example you drive a tank to town and you get detrack by a bomb after 20mins of driving, in a game environment you have to have a possibility to repair that track of that tank and continue your gameplay, that might required other players but there needs to be a workaround or ability to overcome that.

Game loops multiply gameplay of course, in the previous case that would it self create gameplay for a player to get to that tank and repair it, the same goes for the tanker who would have to keep the truck safe or nearby infantry and for the enemy more targets and more possibility for more content and engagements.

WW2ol in terms of gameplay dead ends has a lot...

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pbveteran said:

WW2ol in terms of gameplay dead ends has a lot...

That's actually a really good point.  Imo, the textbook example of that is playing "perfect" defense.  

 

In our game, "perfect" defense is not about playing out a huge battle and then driving the enemy out of town through superior comms and tactics.  "Perfect" defense is stopping the battle from starting in the first place.  If you are able to shut down all FMS placement at the first sign of EWS by immediately spawning to hunt trucks or camp EFMSs until engineers can sap them, that is considered "success" in this game.  

 

Better still, you can have the "perfect" defense by controlling and defending all the FBs on the map.  If you manage to kill off all the engineers in the process, the enemy side cannot AO in a given sector for hours because they simply lack the capacity to flip the FBs.  

 

As an extension to that, the softcap is in the same way the "perfect" attack, because you will capture the town in question without any casualties.  In both cases, the main source of "fun" in our game (the battle) is nonexistent.  

2 people like this

Share this post


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

If you could distille fun in a gaming environment it's essence would be all about game loops, so no gameplay dead ends.

For example you drive a tank to town and you get detrack by a bomb after 20mins of driving, in a game environment you have to have a possibility to repair that track of that tank and continue your gameplay, that might required other players but there needs to be a workaround or ability to overcome that.

Game loops multiply gameplay of course, in the previous case that would it self create gameplay for a player to get to that tank and repair it, the same goes for the tanker who would have to keep the truck safe or nearby infantry and for the enemy more targets and more possibility for more content and engagements.

WW2ol in terms of gameplay dead ends has a lot...

EXACTLY! THIS GUY GETS IT!! Gosh I hate the arguments here against Medics and Repairing vehicles, working together is FUN. 

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 4:43 PM, Capco said:

As I've already stated, 1.36 is a good step forward because it removes softcaps and drastically mitigates the effect of not having HC online.  At every turn, CRS should strive to remove frustration from the game wherever possible.  I think that's the key to both retention and growth right now.  

 

I reject this premise entirely.  It's not about what I  want them to do.  It's about what needs to be done to succeed, to win.  Most people like to win.  Winning is fun.  Losing frustrates people, but that should be the only frustrating part of losing; the battles themselves should be entertaining even if you lose.  

 

Again like I've said above, ideally we are in a situation where 5 guys going sight-seeing in the Alps is not a bad thing for the success of your side.  Right now it is a bad thing.  That can change with more overall population and better balancing mechanics.  We can get more population with the changes that 1.36 brings.  

 

Don't crucify me for pointing out the facts of the paradigm that we currently exist in.  

If in game “leaders” can’t effectively engage and communicate this to those five guys on their side then they lose. It’s as much a failure of leadership as anything else. Perhaps leadership is more than moving a few flags around the map as a glorified logistician. 

Share this post


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

If in game “leaders” can’t effectively engage and communicate this to those five guys on their side then they lose. It’s as much a failure of leadership as anything else. Perhaps leadership is more than moving a few flags around the map as a glorified logistician. 

Yes, leadership is more than moving flags.  I have been able to engage and communicate these exact concerns to players.  You know what happens?  Sometimes people listen.  Sometimes people tell me what david is trying to say, that he should have the right to go wherever he chooses even if it is detrimental to his side, and to go pound sand.  There are some people who play this game that do not care at all about the bigger picture, and even get a kick out of how their actions make other players mad.  And sometimes they don't even respond at all because they either don't read chat or don't care.  

 

Don't even suggest for a moment that all I do as an officer is move flags.  How much have you done for the health of the game besides unsubbing and whining your [censored] off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, knucks said:

EXACTLY! THIS GUY GETS IT!! Gosh I hate the arguments here against Medics and Repairing vehicles, working together is FUN. 

vehicle repair is a no brainer - medics though ... i'm not a 'realism' guy but at some point even my ability to suspend disbelief has it's limits. you catch a solid copper jacketed bullet from ANY rifle in this game and you're not getting 'patched up' and put right back in action. more often than not you're dead. the logistics behind this @scotsman can talk about - post ww2 though NATO's statisticians pushed for smaller rounds that would wound instead of kill because of the logistical load wounded soldiers place on the enemy. while not popular amongst the grunts who's lives were on the line if the bad guy doesn't drop the numbers driving this change are sound - until you start fighting radicals that don't tend to their wounded.

my point, its super unrealistic - so much so that it trips even my filter.

100% on board for repairing tracks. I'm even ok repairing road/main drive wheels, if it takes a 'reasonably' long time. someone who took a bullet to the chest though getting back up after a medic 'repairs them' ... meh.

the one case you've got a point are minor shrapnel hits. even these though, rtb on defense and respawn. if on offense, take the rescue if you can. that infantry will be back in the lists in 15m. another way around this, if it were to be determined to be a real problem, is just increasing the number of infantry to back end account for 'field medics' decreasing troop attrition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% for repair of vehicles..............BUT:

NO MEDICS

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@madrebel

There are other opinions why not make a medic class a near pure PvE class.

Example:

Each dead infantry corpse would save it's injury state as fatal or not fatal, a player with a medic class would approach that corpse give medical support and a res ticket of that infantry unit would get back to the supply.

Might even add an interesting post-battle gameplay for stranded enemy units with targets of opportunity and allow smaller "brigades" and/or extend resupply since you could recover some extra supply through this way.

 

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i get it - still could be done on the backend. i'd be shocked if @scostman doesn't have really solid data on how many injuries in ww2 translated directly to soldiers returning to battle. use said data to just issue X number of additional infantry resupply tickets every Y minutes per brigade that has casualties the assumption being "these soldiers would have returned".

i'm not 'against' the idea per se. just, the list of things far more important than this non combat role is lengthy, like mechanical battlefield repair. keeping tanks on the field, far far more important to the flow than augmenting attrition for the most numerous/least cared for unit type in game.

example question, how many people have logged off/unsubbed after dying as infantry X times in a row? its a non zero number for sure - is it as large a number as tankers who afterdriving X minutes in a matty/char/tiger/etc only to get insta tracked by something and essentially left useless - seething mad logs/unsubs? its SUPER frustrating for the tanker and only mildly frustrating for the infantry - IMO.

i wish we were in a state where adding role play support type classes/units could be done cause, well, we've got more players than we can handle and need more roles ... but we can barely get people to drive trucks as it is (throughout our history). i just dont see this moving the bar at all population wise.

tank recovery vehicles like bergepanzers and their allied equivalent - along the same lines as your medic idea but again - much greater value in game. also has precedent from other games like warthunder, which IMO do this kinda poorly/simplistically, but at least you can repair track damage.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, knucks said:

Gosh I hate the arguments here against Medics and Repairing vehicles, working together is FUN. 

I'm all in favor of old-CRS-Gophur's Medic plan, which was close to what pbveteran discusses above. It would have the potential to attract an additional type of customer: Carers, in addition to the current game's Fighters and (a little bit, lately) Builders.

Per Gophur, it was to apply to what we now consider corpse avatars of wounded-but-still-alive players for a brief time after despawn. The faster the medic got to the "wounded man", the more likely it would be that he could be stabilized and saved. Wounded-character avatars would disappear as KIA if not successfully stabilized within a suitable timer, or as Rescued (evacuated) if stabilized. Medics would be unarmed, and could not capture. Killing one would not give the killer any points. The Medic player would get points for each "Save" (stabilization/evacuation). The more Saves a Medic accomplished, the better he'd be at it.

Per Gophur and other Rats at the beginning, the infantry torso/limb collider model was intentionally scaled to be smaller than the visual body so that flesh wounds and grazes wouldn't be modeled at all. The only modeled wounds are ones that are at least disabling and serious threats to life. That's why the original game didn't have any mechanism for bandaging up a flesh wound or graze so that the soldier can return to fighting. That kind of bandage-up-and-go-back-to-fighting action was inferred to be automatically happening, just not visually modeled. So, every wound that isn't already fatal would be eligible for medic stabilization leading to despawn-evacuation.

Per Gophur, Medic players would also have a Rescue function. Gophur was planning toward a system in which planes with damage and/or a wounded-but-still-alive pilot would allow the pilot to despawn, upon which a bailed-pilot NPC would appear from the popped-canopy plane model. (Just one for multi-place planes.) The plane model would continue to the ground, as would the bailed-pilot NPC. All pilot NPCs would be assumed to be seriously wounded/burned/injured in bailout. Upon getting to the surface, the parachute would disappear. If on ground, the pilot-bail-NPC model would be replaced by an unarmed prone pilot-NPC, auto-relocated to under the nearest bush. If on water, the pilot-bail-NPC would be replaced by an unarmed pilot-NPC-in-an-inflatible-raft. Within a time-until-death timer, the Rescue player, in a truck or a Fairmile, could pick up the wounded-or-injured pilot, would get credit for a Save, and the ex-pilot ticket would be changed from a KIA to a Rescue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No medics, no game. What a crime it would be not to include the medical corps in a game like this. You seriously want to leave all that on the table?

Edited by knucks

Share this post


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

No medics, no game. What a crime it would be not to include the medical corps in a game like this.

17 years, no medics. provide some sort of market analysis showing the upside, until then its a 'might be nice to have' and little more.

Share this post


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

17 years, no medics. provide some sort of market analysis showing the upside, until then its a 'might be nice to have' and little more.

Ahaha, no way. You have to be joking, pass this game along to someone who can do it, people love the medic class in video games, a guy laying their bleeding out, that you could potentially save and you walk right past him? Talk about a missed opportunity. Not a very team player either, I would be suspect of any "war" game that doesn't have medics in it. What are you trying to avoid hmm?

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.