Bringing in the Numbers

[Quaker]

This will be anathema to many, but if WoR is ever to transcend the “1 or 2 servers at most” syndrome and a small player base, I think we need a more open version (purely optional) of the game that allows people to play as they want without all the strict game rules.

That’s right - an arcadey type version of the game. Minimal reload times. No formational rules. No suppression. Minimal respawn time. A Holdfast version of WoR if you will. Let the masses play a Civil War FPS where the players pretty-much do what they want. This will bring in more $ and a steady flow of recruits.

This version of the game will never affect you and I. And it would take CG minimal time and effort to create it.

An influx of arcade gamers would underwrite the venture going forward and develop the game for those of us who want to play authentically. We can have our own (locked) servers and recruit serious players from the open game.

This is a game of numbers. WoR needs many more players 24/7 if it is to become a long-term iconic title we will be playing well into the future.

[TrustyJam]

Thank you for the suggestion. :)

We have no intentions of doing anything of the sort as this is a passion-driven project with a clear goal of staying as authentic as possible while still providing an engaging game experience.

There are plenty of others out there catering to the masses with arcade focused games - Campfire Games won't be.

- Trusty

[Poorlaggedman]

Pacific Storm had that. There weren't a lot of 'hardcore' mode servers.

People like nifty extra features and have been trained by other video games to think they need certain stuff. One shooter I played for a long time (Day of Defeat) had a server-side option to turn off death messages. I don't think a single server did for very long because they couldn't compete even with such a petty feature. Other games make it so the player could choose to play without crosshairs or without a HUD but you'd be stupid to turn them off for just that one case in which all that information might help you.

The thing about realism is it's just changing the playing field. You almost subconsciously feel disadvantaged when you are denied certain information or just general free reign. Yet the constraints are the things that hold players together. When a player is denied comforts it's easy to forget that the enemy are denied the same comforts. Without those desertion zones on the edge of the skirmish areas (not that anyone's proposing getting rid of them), it'd feel like you were playing Day Z wandering around looking for enemy and friends. I dunno about you but with zero consequences I'd much prefer shooting at guys in formation rather than being in formation myself and being a big target.

Getting rid of that isn't going to give players a better experience. I don't think it's realism that pushes away the majority of people. What you're asking players to do is real hard and won't come naturally, it won't come without set constraints based on formation status or whatever. Half-measures wouldn't cut it. And yet I've got mad hours of footage of just totally random players new to the game working together and filling roles from December and January alone. I think a huge issue is leadership being up in the air. You can't really have a formation easily without some level of leadership, you can't move it at least.

There's no recourse if you've got a bad officer, and there's a lot of them. A lot of people don't want to play the caricature of the WoR officer just to try and lead. It's just "Darn, this guy sucks... my choices are stay with the team or leave the experience and go it alone." I find myself forming a judgement when I come into a server as to whether I want to play on this team for the person who's taken charge or whether to play at all.

[EneCtin]

Passion driven game is good, passion driven game that brings revenue is better. For that, you need numbers 24/7, many people enjoying the flavor enough to keep trying. Please think at it objectively, you cannot not see it.

A few days back I was considering my own WoR server, me who does not pay one cent after purchase, but 2 questions turned that away:
. who would play it?
. all servers are alike so why pay another?

Since the matter has been tabled, here is what I would maintain a server for
- replace morale for plain reinforcements available
- no more morale penalties, killing all the enemies is the sole objective
- random location
- keep classes, sway, suppresion, long reloads, spawn system, those are good but do away with lines. After wild while, people will realize playing as a unit is a force multiplier.
- some arcadey hit marker or sound, plus the competitive K/D during and at the end of the game.

There may be a few more but those will do.

To maintain people interest, you need either something like this or a meaningful progression system and a sort of battle mode, in the simplest form a succession of 9maps, first map played in the middle, campaign being won by the first team pushing the enemy back. Something you would want to invest energies in.

I believe you will see the benefit of having a reasonable 24/7 number of players. As everything in life, to get that requires compromise...

[Mark L. E. E. Smith]

Lock me, Amadeus.

[LeFuret]

I just don't feel like to play this game when I login and that I see one single server going with only 25 lads...

[Poorlaggedman]

Come on late evening your time and there will be more players.



A few days back I was considering my own WoR server, me who does not pay one cent after purchase, but 2 questions turned that away:
. who would play it?
. all servers are alike so why pay another?
.
Yes it's true that all servers are alike other than the map choice and name. That's why a lot of people are upset right now about passwords and stuff. You can tinker with the map controls and ban / kick players but you're liable to pay for an empty server if you don't have the infrastructure of steam friends and players to come by and play.

[Quaker]

I just don't feel like to play this game when I login and that I see one single server going with only 25 lads...

Unfortunately this is we’re we are at with this game just 4 months after public release. It’s a weekend game with soon-to-be locked private servers.

Last night I logged in at 9.00pm my time and there was one player shown across all servers in the entire game.

The modelling in this game - terrain, uniforms and weaponry is superb.

But we need a total revamp of gameplay if we’re to get decent numbers in and make this game viable at all times of the day.

[Leifr]

Unfortunately this is we’re we are at with this game just 4 months after public release. It’s a weekend game with soon-to-be locked private servers.

Last night I logged in at 9.00pm my time and there was one player shown across all servers in the entire game.

The modelling in this game - terrain, uniforms and weaponry is superb.

But we need a total revamp of gameplay if we’re to get decent numbers in and make this game viable at all times of the day.

9PM Australia is 12PM GMT, and earliest 9AM on the Eastern USA. You're never going to see any real numbers in the latter two timezones then, even at the weekends. Logging in at 9PM GMT and there is usually a server that is mostly populated. I am under the impression that Australian players tend to struggle in many online games if it doesn't draw in enough from the southern hemisphere, it's just a simple fact of geography.

That said, I do agree in that we need to see more gameplay elements added or enhanced. This will take time though.

[Quaker]

9PM Australia is 12PM GMT, and earliest 9AM on the Eastern USA. You're never going to see any real numbers in the latter two timezones then, even at the weekends.

That said, I do agree in that we need to see more gameplay elements added or enhanced. This will take time though.

Re first sentence, we had a critical mass playing for the last few months 24/7. I could log in at any time of the day including off peak times and have a decent game.

Now that is impossible. The shallowness of the gameplay has taken it’s toll.

The potential is still there though to exceed the developers’ niche expectations.

I’m a little concerned that like so many other devs who get wrapped up in a game that is also their real-life passion, too much of the focus is on modelling weapons, uniforms and maps while gameplay is treated as secondary.

[LaBelle]

Like any game, a balance has to be found between beauty, utility, and game play. With wor, beauty and utility are exceeding expectations, but game play is slowly coming around. Like everyone has said already, the shallowness of game play with Skirmishes is starting to show, but... Honestly, I'm happy they're focusing on making the game better performing in this regard. I got picket patrol already, I'm not about to start asking for another game mode :D

[Quaker]

I’m yet to play PP. is it proving to be popular in peak time? What % of the community would be playing PP compared to Skirmish?

[LaBelle]

No, it's not exactly popular. It's one life, and people hate having to spectate for 15 minutes when they can go and play skirmish. But the battles are tactical, the high risk brings high rewards, and seeing your team win just based through sheer brain power instead of meta is fantastic.

[Sgt.Nightfire]

Holdfast is more arcade, and it has pretty much the same amount of players, its not how the game is played, realistic or arcade, weaponry from the Civil War era are not that popular, not many people like to stand there and slowly reload for one shot.

[Vankovski]

My idea for a more arcade-y mode was that each player would control a line of 5 men, with the middle man being the player controlled character that you maneuver the line with. I think it would be a goofy mode that could possibly evolve into something bigger after the organized community gets it's hands on it. It would also avoid the one-life gameplay that the casual fanbase has demonstrated to steer clear of.

Edit: Forgot to highlight the main point that playing such a mode would allow for more characters on the field while maintaining the same amount of connections, which could allow for the game to scale closer to the size of an authentic battle (especially in smaller engagements).

Might be worth throwing a bunch of game mode ideas at the wall to see if anything sticks if/when the devs find time in their cycle to experiment.

[LaBelle]

Like a commander battle, but instead of actually controlling the troops they just kind of parrot what you do?

[Vankovski]

Yeah but ideally there would also be a variety of inputs such as hold position, fire at will, switching between open and closed order, ordering a rally on PC, etc.

[EneCtin]

So, basically bots. That does not address the low player counts though.

[Vankovski]

With 5 characters to each player, a 200 man server would look a lot more like an actual battlefield which could draw many more players to the game, thus increasing and addressing the low player count. I'm aware that putting the time into such a system would be costly and that it would be hard to justify creating it without a guarantee that it would actually draw more players.

[Grumpytoo]

I’m yet to play PP. is it proving to be popular in peak time? What % of the community would be playing PP compared to Skirmish?

I don't like it as much, probably for the same reasons that some do.

[Grumpytoo]

Thank you for the suggestion. :)

We have no intentions of doing anything of the sort as this is a passion-driven project with a clear goal of staying as authentic as possible while still providing an engaging game experience.

There are plenty of others out there catering to the masses with arcade focused games - Campfire Games won't be.

- Trusty

This is what keeps me coming back to play, it's not like other games, as far as I know it's the only one of it's kind.

[Matt(Fridge)]

This game should never have bots. It works out decently for a game like Verdun but it would never work in WoR.