pvtpetey

Rapid Assault was a stab in the right direction - change my mind

10 posts in this topic

5BeV4mAanKcd.jpg

 

In my opinion Rapid assault was imho was a good stab in the right direction with a long term vision to cater to players wanting short term action over the long term action of wwiiol's campaign mode. What it lacked however was the kind of graphics capability of  a modern engine like the unreal engine (combined with high quality models/artwork) and arguably the scope for hundreds of players participating in a single battle. Hell let loose and Post scriptum have both capitalised from cornering this section of the market so why not CRS?

This may be wishful thinking but In my opinion much could be said for giving it another go to release an expansion with a similar focus of providing large scale operations (Dunkirk, Normandy etc) - nothing can be lost by at least giving it a go on kickstarter or patreon. The game would benefit by using high quality concept artwork or renders from unreal engine scenes over using a modified version of the wwiiol engine that looked poor even by the standards of its days. By taking this approach a lot more interest could be gained in the regular campaign and vice versa, the deficit in the artwork (ue4 standard high quality models/animations (artwork)) and technical (game programming, network programming, STOs) could be achieved light years sooner than the current iterative model of small short term changes to the main game over the course of a year (what i'd really like to see is more of a long term vision (more than a year) for the game).

So in short change my mind :).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...I have conflicting thoughts about this. I ponied up cash for RA; a nice chunk of currency.

If it takes resources away from the main game...maybe not so good. What continues to draw me into the main game is the community and human interaction with a "big" goal in mind...i.e. winning the map... a big map...for all it's challenges. 

the other games mentioned are fun in their own way...but competing head to head with them may not really be feasible (unless new funders, not the regular go funders pony up...big money).

Integrating a more limited game with the larger WWiionline is an interesting idea, especially if cash is generated to improve the main game.

Jus some thoughts.

S!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of CRS's strategic development efforts over the years have had to consider limited resources. Rapid Assault was built on WWIIOL's engine because that allowed RA to utilize a large part of WWIIOL's code, and all of its live-object models.

WWIIOL, as a game that to a significant extent is about maneuver and how to win the campaign game, cornered the quite small market for that game-type. The commercial premise of RA was that it would ditch the maneuver and the campaign game, and focus instead on the vastly larger market of players that want to play a game that is mostly about fighting.

Quote

graphics capability of  a modern engine like the unreal engine

The WWIIOL engine is fully capable of presenting much higher resolution terrain. It doesn't do so now mostly because the very large map practically requires large (800m x 800m) terrain tiles, which inherently then deliver insufficient texture resolution and are very limited in ability to model steep or sharply modulated terrain. RA's terrain was to be built with much higher terrain texture resolution and a much greater capability for high-value slopes and small features.

Quote

(combined with high quality models/artwork)

It was critical to the RA project being commercially realizable that it mostly use the existing model set. There definitely was no chance that all those models could be re-built.

Quote

Can't we at least transplant the capability to knock down trees?

The existing game models trees using a library and code system that doesn't inherently provide that capability.

In order for a tree to be able to fall in any direction, that tree must be a live object. It could not be a several-state terrain element, with one state for "tree downed to the north" and another for "tree downed to the east". There is a fixed limit on how many live objects can be managed within the interaction radius of a given player, set by the design of the database that holds the current status of all the live objects in the game. That's also related to the design of the data packet that is the basis for client <---> server communications. The game can manage more objects than was the case ten years ago...but not an infinite number. The database and packet stream still must be designed for a maximum number of objects. And, every one of those objects that was a tree would displace a player-object from the largest possible battle. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying Jwilly and i agree that wwiiol's long term campaign is what is it's real unique selling point (USP) - when RA was announced i thought abandoning this USP was a mistake because it lacked the vision that the main game offered of a common campaign. I also understand that CRS's resources are limited but if you look at other games out there such as SP HLL or star citizen they started from nothing as well. I think RA could've been better sold a bolder vision for the game with some proper concept art/graphics and a better elevator pitch. The approach of star citizen has been to split up the games development into different self contained parts such as fps combat, ship combat and the persistent universe.  If WWIIOL did so to approach development in a divide and conquer manner for a ground war/air war/sea war released in different self contained parts it would allow accelerated development of higher quality models. At present CRS has stated that all new models would be UE4 ready but this way of doing things would be considerably slower than dividing and conquering the development of the game and pitching it (with better graphics/functionality/better scope for a USP) to a new audience. I guess people might say that's implausible or impossible but I'd say there's no risk to at least trying to re pitch the game to a wider base of players out there looking for an experience like WWIIOL.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2020 at 9:17 AM, pvtpetey said:

I get what you're saying Jwilly and i agree that wwiiol's long term campaign is what is it's real unique selling point (USP) - when RA was announced i thought abandoning this USP was a mistake because it lacked the vision that the main game offered of a common campaign. I also understand that CRS's resources are limited but if you look at other games out there such as SP HLL or star citizen they started from nothing as well. I think RA could've been better sold a bolder vision for the game with some proper concept art/graphics and a better elevator pitch. The approach of star citizen has been to split up the games development into different self contained parts such as fps combat, ship combat and the persistent universe.  If WWIIOL did so to approach development in a divide and conquer manner for a ground war/air war/sea war released in different self contained parts it would allow accelerated development of higher quality models. At present CRS has stated that all new models would be UE4 ready but this way of doing things would be considerably slower than dividing and conquering the development of the game and pitching it (with better graphics/functionality/better scope for a USP) to a new audience. I guess people might say that's implausible or impossible but I'd say there's no risk to at least trying to re pitch the game to a wider base of players out there looking for an experience like WWIIOL.

That wasn't the problem with CRS' approach to RA.  The problem was they pitched it to us to fund it, when we already knew why we were here and it was for the campaign big world game not something like H&G or WoT.

Great, dev something to sell that crowd, just don't expect us to fund it when we are already funding what we want.

One smart move is to expand client capabilities to console games.  They have multiples of potential players, and having either a separate arena game or using a separate arena game to dev WWIIOL clients for consoles would be a multiplier move.

Share this post


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

The problem was they pitched it to us to fund it, when we already knew why we were here and it was for the campaign big world game not something like H&G or WoT.

Great, dev something to sell that crowd, just don't expect us to fund it when we are already funding what we want.

The CRS argument was that funding RA would be an investment in the future of the campaign game, which had proven itself to not have a large enough market to support a paid staff, and at that point had nearly burned through all the funds its formal investors were willing to sink into it.

The plan was that RA would generate much more revenue and would be able to support a much larger paid development team, which would be shared with the campaign game since much of the technology was to be used in both games.

That could have worked. Certainly plenty of other tactical combat games were making money in that time period, and CRS had a bunch of technology that could be re-purposed in that direction. 

They just started the original company with the wrong product concept. The big-map, expensive-to-develop campaign game should have come after they had a solid revenue stream from a shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately there were a lot of real world things going on inside the company that many critics, if not all ... could not factor into their assessment of our choices.  I'm not here to tell you you're wrong or or any of that "convince you" stuff in the event you and I differ in our opinions ... trust me there were those of us on the inside that hated the way some of this was done/decided. It's just not the simple choice that people on the outside will always assume it was.

If we were (you and I) to ever sit down with a drink or 10 some night and just explore that period of time in conversation ... without pre-conceived notions ... man the stuff you might learn that no one has ever told you.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.