hans1939

Game Strengths and Weaknesses

32 posts in this topic

There's just no reason for veterans and noobs to play together. There's no tie-in mechanic that promotes people stick together, there are no squads just everyone in the mission doing their own thing. You really can't blame the new player, when you have quite literally full creative power over each aspect of the game, and new players are directionless, not working together and not sticking around then that's cue to look at your design, because the game is 90% played how intended by design, or lack there of.

Share this post


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

There's just no reason for veterans and noobs to play together. There's no tie-in mechanic that promotes people stick together, there are no squads just everyone in the mission doing their own thing. You really can't blame the new player, when you have quite literally full creative power over each aspect of the game, and new players are directionless, not working together and not sticking around then that's cue to look at your design, because the game is 90% played how intended by design, or lack there of.

7thAST would take issue with 'there are no squads' as many others would I suspect. Choose to do your own thing that's up to you, we choose to do what and where and how to do it AS A SQUAD. 

Share this post


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

7thAST would take issue with 'there are no squads' as many others would I suspect. Choose to do your own thing that's up to you, we choose to do what and where and how to do it AS A SQUAD. 

So veterans will play as a squad while new players run around chicken headless. Meanwhile the other game is built to work from the get go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already posted those ideas at some suggetions threads many times. But some ultra important ideas that would help noobs (and also make gameplay better for veterans too, so you are not only, using your time to do something that only noobs would experience) are:

 

1- Allow players multicrew with vehicles already at game/battle.

1.1-This allow noobs to spawn closer to battle, if they die this would increase player retention. New players can die alot, and this help them reach battle faster.

1.2-This allow them to train by playing with a more experienced player, discovering vehicle tactics and etc... while they play.

1.3-They would reach battle faster, this is important if new player can't handle long distance travel yet and feel bored about it.

1.4-This would help everyone, by fixing the chicken and egg problem when someone don't try to multicrew because, no is waiting to join multi-crewed vehicle, and people don't wait for people wanting to create a multicrew request. As I said this part here will help everyone and so you wont waste development time at something that will only help new players.

1.5-This idea is important even without polycrew, so if polycrew would be to hard to add to the game, just add this feature before polycrew.

 

 

2- If you are an infantry and despawn at some transport vehicle the infantry will stay there immobile and vehicle driver will be able to RTB all those infantryman. Players will be able to spawn as one of those infantryman.

2.1-This solves some of the chicken and egg problem with some vehicles, where some people don't spawn with a truck and wait people to join it, because almost no one will join, and people don't join because there is no one with a truck. Here some player can spawn as a infantry and join the truck and despawn, then spawn another person and join the truck  and despawn, "loading" many infantries at the truck, then after this is done the truck move to the position he wants and players are able to spawn as the soldiers there.

2.2-The idea 2.1 helps noobs or people that can't handle longer distances yet, spawn closer to battle by being able to spawn at vehicles already moving and closer to battle. It also help noobs that don't want to wait to transport vehicles to fill or to someone spawn an transport vehicle.

2.3-If someone needs to leave (go to work, sleep.....) and its more distant from RTB position or whatever and there is an transport vehicle near him, he can despawn at an vehicle closer to him and not go MIA. This helps everyone

2.4- 2.3 Increase immersion by not having an character magically dissapearing when he despawn outside of battle (assuming he despawn at vehicle).

2.5- By having those infantryman at vehicle to make them move from place A to place B. You make transport vehicle work more like it should and be more immersive.

 

3-When you try to despawn as some vehicle or infantry, you must click ok to despawn. If you click ok and the timer has ended you despawn, but if you didnt done that yet, people trying to spawn at the game are able to spawn as your vehicle, infantryman, they spawn at the exact position you are with same amount of bullets, health, stamina........., they are basically taking control of your vehicle.

3.1-This helps noobs that don't like to walk longer distances and want to get right into the action, WITHOUT being some non immersive thing. If someone is despawning a player can take control of him and continue from there, near the battle.

3.2-This make the game more immersive to everyone by not having characters magically dissapearing everytime someone needs to leave.

3.3-Sometime an person is too distant from battle or whatever and he want to quit and play something else or join another mission or whateaver, this allow this vehicle/soldier (if someone spawn as him) to stay at battle....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. Nothing has changed, lol.

I agree with much of what OP says, and while I understand moving is better than not moving, it's also true that in ww2ol, the larger units are entirely abstracted, and as a result, everything is more porous than RL. Every single battle in ww2ol becomes a homogeneous mix of inf in a town. You are never safe in any direction (even inside an AB with supposedly an entire brigade there). It just feels wrong a lot of the time, and it's exacerbated by the fact that CQB in this game is where it is weakest, yet that exactly what is required for the only game move that really matters---capping something.

Still wish it was more a ZOC type system, and I want some sense that at some level, tactically, there is indeed a "rear" where I am not going to get shot from (except paras, they're supposed to be surrounded all the time).

Share this post


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

Interesting thread. Nothing has changed, lol.

I agree with much of what OP says, and while I understand moving is better than not moving, it's also true that in ww2ol, the larger units are entirely abstracted, and as a result, everything is more porous than RL. Every single battle in ww2ol becomes a homogeneous mix of inf in a town. You are never safe in any direction (even inside an AB with supposedly an entire brigade there). It just feels wrong a lot of the time, and it's exacerbated by the fact that CQB in this game is where it is weakest, yet that exactly what is required for the only game move that really matters---capping something.

Still wish it was more a ZOC type system, and I want some sense that at some level, tactically, there is indeed a "rear" where I am not going to get shot from (except paras, they're supposed to be surrounded all the time).

If I were speccing WWIIOL 2.0, one of the first things I would is focus the game design on force-on-force destruction, with blowing out the enemy which allows garnering major transport  assets like road and rail- but it's more organic, not a capture the spawn castle game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was always the "realism" fights of old on the forum, but to the extent some things are more realistic, they also result in better gameplay. To me I think maximizing gameplay is the goal. Heck, I was against a lot of the comms in game, frankly, I'd prefer more fog of war, particularly given the way cover and concealment work in game. Mark target on map, poof, someone kills it. jwilly mentioned moving up the thread, but in reality movement was not really an option much of the time. You're assigned a spot, and told to hold, you have a little tactical leeway for exactly where to position, but you're basically sitting where told, and you defend that position. You might counterattack the next day, and have new positions to defend. The current terrain scale size is such that there is basically no protection, and weapons have huge signatures, so you fire, you die very often. It all combines for a sort of spastic gameplay.

I was defending a CP, and realized (again, as I did years ago) how awful the capping mechanic is. It's better, far better, than table humping, because you can fight, but it still rewards sneaky behavior, hiding in the corners, etc. A ZOC system would be better. Heck, "cap" every building or block of buildings. Clear them, hold them, and you can only hold buildings that border another one you hold. I'm spitballing... I really like ww2ol, seriously thinking about coming back for a while, but the fact I liked it, and supported it for a long time makes me wish the things that I've always thought were broken would be fixed/changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.