Mining into problems - Hard to learn and even hard to master?

[Stratego (dev)]

i read an article (link) about RTS games and some points are really true for our AO* TBS games.

Time Commitment: RTS games have quite a high skill floor as well as skill ceiling. It takes a while to get to even passable in RTS games and it takes a long time to actually get to the point that you are good. This makes the genre rather inaccessible to new players as they might feel too intimidated to even try or try but spend all their time losing which is going to make them give up. It also makes it easy to hemorrhage more experienced players as if they drop out of the game for a while (for whatever reason) they might decide that it is too much effort to pick it up again later.

do we have this problem?
i saw several comments that our game is "easy to learn - but hard to master" but i also saw mentioning it is too hard (mostly AOF maybe?)

so question: Do we have this problem?

[DreJaDe]

This is definitely a problem for the AO franchise.

My initial play on this game is through single player to multiplayer but I keep seeing this players who only come here for multiplayer too.

In my case. I have a chance to learn the units through single player while you will just get overwhelmed now if you just play the multiplayer. This is the reason why we advice new player to just play single player first to earn the gems to get units and to learn them.

I can think of two solutions.
1. Encourage player to play single player while making single player experience more worth.

2. Have campaigns specifically for teaching play styles LOL. I mean, this is easily doable by introducing them to Culture campaigns which is surprisingly not abused by the AO franchise.

We could have Historical campaigns for cultures and races while simultaneously teaching them their play styles.

[b2198]

Definitely agree with Drejade's points on this one too. The second solution he proposed sounds like a really good way to improving the "teaching players how to multiplayer" in the game.

Another one that would be REALLY hard and time-consuming to do (and as such I'm really not sure if it's viable to do), but if done would probably also help significantly with this, would be another AI level higher than our current "hard", since the gap between the majority of multiplayer players and the hard AI is massive, so what they learn to play against in single player is vastly different than what they face in multiplayer. Making one that knows some basic plans, and has at least some basic knowledge of research importance (like knowing that it should have a blacksmith if it wants to use mostly units that benefit from it, and knowing to research first things that benefit what it's planning to use next), as well as not just sending units blindly would improve the learning curve from single player to multiplayer, make single player more fun for longer, and in the same style, also make games against people who were kicked a lot less tedious.

[TntAttack]

i read an article (link) about RTS games and some points are really true for our AO* TBS games.

Time Commitment: RTS games have quite a high skill floor as well as skill ceiling. It takes a while to get to even passable in RTS games and it takes a long time to actually get to the point that you are good. This makes the genre rather inaccessible to new players as they might feel too intimidated to even try or try but spend all their time losing which is going to make them give up. It also makes it easy to hemorrhage more experienced players as if they drop out of the game for a while (for whatever reason) they might decide that it is too much effort to pick it up again later.

do we have this problem?
i saw several comments that our game is "easy to learn - but hard to master" but i also saw mentioning it is too hard (mostly AOF maybe?)

so question: Do we have this problem?

Gosh. This calls to out so accurately. I have played AoS many years ago, never reached quite the level of "good" but it was fun. Fricking lose my account password, so I had to restart.

I believe this happened twice. Imagine replaying the game twice in singleplayer, just to get the units you once had.

This killed some joy out of the game. Anyhow, I had to leave the game for private reasons, and frankly jumped on the AoW beta when it came out.

It never did give me quite the same experience as AoS but it was sufficient. One day, last year, I came back to AoS and it was so beautiful in terms of all the new fractions and units and....

"It also makes it easy to hemorrhage more experienced players as if they drop out of the game for a while (for whatever reason) they might decide that it is too much effort to pick it up again later."

I deleted the game.

[Stratego (dev)]

i am sorry i would have helped recover your account

[b2198]

"It also makes it easy to hemorrhage more experienced players as if they drop out of the game for a while (for whatever reason) they might decide that it is too much effort to pick it up again later."

I've seen that point a lot in League of Legends too. They (at least used to, I'm not updated on its state nowadays) make changes and additions a lot faster than AoS, so if you stopped playing for a few months you might've gone back to find an entirely different game to learn again.

That point has this downside, but at the same time it has the upside of not making the game feel "dead" for those who are still playing it. Againt, can't say what is the optimal point of balance between those, but it's another thing to consider when planning speed and size of updates.

[Endru1241]

There is one thing that could make switching between Ao games easier.
Some sort of unified account option, that would allow to skip too many single player plays required for veteran players of another Ao version.

Maybe gems/gold/whatever it's named conversion option?

[Stratego (dev)]

i think this

if they drop out of the game for a while (for whatever reason) they might decide that it is too much effort to pick it up again

was not about the "upgrades section" items, but the "skills" you have in a game, your customs, your good "rush tactics" that you might forget, or the game changed a little so they need adjustment. So not the gem-locked purchasable items, in general you never lose those, only if you forget your account - but that us unlikely imho.

actually opening everything is quite easy i think, many ways to get them: eg: a proper review on any (gaming or other) forum gives 200 or more gems (so first is ready in about 20-30 miutes, all other forums (mostly having it written) is about 5-10 minutes)
but maybe i am not seeing it good way / something.

[Endru1241]

I just remember Makazuwr saying he wanted to check AoS, but don't want to spend time to get all the upgrades again. Few more agreed, that it's harsh.

[Stratego (dev)]

harsh? what do u mean?

[Lucifer]

It really is an issue.

An "easy" way to solve this, is to simply have a well designed single player. Currently, in AoF at least, much of single player is just unplayable.
As a player, you don't know which map is bugged or not, and whether its even winnable. It's highly discouraging to try a bugged single player campaign and lose over and over again, thinking "It's a skill issue, I'm not good at this game".

Single player campaigns should guide the player, teaching them the intricacies of the game. Different strategies, different races, etc etc.
Without them, the multiplayer just leads to newbie players losing again and again to veterans.
I'd even say fixing single player should be priority #1.

[Stratego (dev)]

good point, any idea how to fix those many hundred of maps? (that were once good, but with the many unit and race changes they might got unwinnable)


or alternatively making a new like "introfuctory campaign" that is for beginners? and that is surely eaasy anought to play tru?

[Lucifer]

good point, any idea how to fix those many hundred of maps? (that were once good, but with the many unit and race changes they might got unwinnable)

I think the only way is the hard way. Doing it manually one by one.

Another way is to remove the turn based winning system. Maps were initially fine tuned to be winnable in 17, or 13, or however many turns the creator found appropriate. That changes with changes to units, so this kind of hardcoded winning condition isn't good imo.

One shortcut I can think of is somehow enabling AI vs AI play. For every map, make the AI play instead of a human manually doing it. Make the game easy (remove enemies, add allies, etc) until the AI can win. Then make the map slightly harder (to account for the fact that AI sucks). This way, you consistently, and quickly, get maps that are winnable, but require more tactics than the AI.

or alternatively making a new like "introfuctory campaign" that is for beginners? and that is surely eaasy anought to play tru?

That would be good too. It'll require a whole lot of effort as well.