User Choice...

[orlok]

Hello,

Firstly, apologies if this has been covered or isn't in the correct thread.

Right, with that out the way, here is my two pennies worth on AS.

As in the heading, "User Choice" IMHO is key in any game, especially in strategy games (I've not played MP as yet so some of this may not apply there).

When initiating a game, rather than just choosing a side and a map, allow us to have more input as to how we want to play the map.

ie:
Map (any available, so if i want soviets on a Desert map, then its available)
Day / Night and weather settings.
Enemy nation (even unrealistic choices eg brit vs AI brit or americans vs AI british etc.)
Enemy time line types (early / middle / late war equipment)
User time line equipment (as above for user)
Amount of Flags to take. or perhaps allocate a number of resource points for you and the AI and a simple last man standing wins setting.)

Basically, I'm suggesting that some end users like to play with realistic settings and some don't. Some want a simple game, whilst others want a more complex and involving game.

(I'd also like to see more support units like engineers, so i can reclaim those destroyed vehicles. Again something that a use could turn on and off to suit their play style)

Rather than trying to please the middle ground, enable us to use this amazing engine to get the result we want in a (THE) WWII Strategy Game .

Even simple changes to ammo values distances, hit-points etc drastically affected how the campaign played in F.o.W. and with simple mods made the game astoundingly replay-able.

Give us the choice and the ability to play how we want, i'm sure you'll see the benefits in commercial return and community support, it will please the masses, which will keep the finance chaps happy and it would please us niche gamers who want something not embedded in the mainstream.

Settings/choice/customisability, call it what you will. I believe it's key.

rgds

OrLoK

EDIT : ah, also a "What If" setting to includes those prototype vehicles that never really saw combat and obviously a setting for the realism guys who see their inclusion as heretical.

Again, a simple setting that alters the whole feel of the game.

[orlok]

no one has any thoughts/critisisms?

rgds

l

[DemonicSpoon]

Going to quote my post in the "Add combat mode" thread because the same argument applies here


The problem with that is that adding a gamemode gives implied approval to it. Combat does not play well in normal games. The problem is that a new player starting MP will look at the server browser, see "combat", and join it as it sounds simple...and then be turned off by the poor gameplay.

You can't just add everything to the game in the name of letting people play the way they want. People starting the game don't know how everything works and how all the modes play. The developers need to steer people towards a good, fun game mode.

I wouldn't mind Combat showing up in a mod or something, but certainly not in the base game. If I may use an analogy to a vastly different game....

Team Fortress 2 is a FPS that is balanced around teams of 16-24 players. Pretty constantly, the forums are bombarded with whines that certain spammy classes are overpowered and how other classes are unnecessarily difficult to play. People leave the game because they claim that it's too spammy and unfun.

Guess why? Because public play is dominated by modded servers which allow up to 32 or more players and remove the respawn time, pretty much BUTCHERING normal gameplay. Those servers are popular as they seem the most obvious to join to a newcomer, but it's caused a lot of bad experiences and other issues. It's not that people made a conscious choice to play the game like that, it's more that it seems like normal gameplay to them.

Pretty much the same thing in MoW. Combat isn't -bad- if people play all game modes and honestly prefer it, but people generally won't. People will play it, get bored and leave.


Ultimately, the game is going to be balanced in such a way that only one mode is really fun and balanced for most people. The developers SHOULDN'T make it difficult to maker or find a fun game. I don't want to have to keep joining and leaving games until I find one hosted by someone whose settings I find acceptable. I don't want to have to keep experimenting with settings until I find a way to make the game balanced.

I should be able to start up the game, join a game and be treated to a relatively enjoyable, balanced MoW game. Having a couple different options of fun, balanced games is always good and maybe even some lenience in more core settings (like resource amount for example), but nothing as extreme as what you suggest.

All those ideas would work fine...Against the AI. But as far as I know, outside of skirmish, there is no working AI nor is there likely to be one.

[orlok]

Hello there,

I suppose I should have stated that i'm talking from an SP point of view rather than MP, as I've had no experience in that field with regards to this game.

Im MP, for me, I love having many game-types to choose from to suit my mood/time limits.

Again, I cant speak for FoW/MoW/AS as I've not played online, so I bow to other peoples greater knowledge.

But, in SP a good amount of choices will tailor the game to your style. The more limits one imposes the smaller the appeal to the audience.

For example: 3rd person games (excluding strategy ones) in general don't do it for me, so I don't buy them, no matter the review score. I just cant handle the perspective.

My choice, my problem you might say, but if the developers include a first person view, then i'll snap it up.

Ie Fallout 3 I bought and indeed occasionally use the 3rd person view, whereas Mass Effect, although widely acclaimed didnt get purchased by me. As the developer included the choice, he increased the market.

Now, players do like different gamemodes / equipment loadouts etc. Why not let the player choose?

I firmly agree that the core "basic" gameplay and modes must be correct BUT if folk want to be suicidal and pit a Stuart vs a Maus, then let them.

Some people like realism some like action. The more you appeal too the more will buy.

I understand folk hesitating and thinking, "hey, Im a hardcore player, I dont want some COH players coming in and ruining things!" but, if there's servers catering for em, one doesn't have to go there. The hardcore chaps are bound to have their servers up also.

As long as there's a decent server naming convention in place, then it shouldnt be difficult to filter out the ones that don't suit ones playstyle.

Also, I am saddened there's no campaign to speak of and think the lack of being able to take ones kit/loadout with you to the next map ie (DCG) is flawed (and negates the use of the engineer to some degree) but i can understand why given the SP game mode.

Also, slightly OT, with the scale of the SP maps, you tend to lose sense of commeraderie that you get with smaller engagements and indeed with earlier versions of the franchise and very little do i need to adjust the loads of any individual soldiers, as i can quickly spawn some new ones which kind of makes the ability to do so pointless, although I'm glad the left it in.

Again just my PoV.

rgds

LoK