Why didn't games like World in Conflict retain popularity?

[Samuel]

Tossing it makes balance easier.

[Stark]

Oh hilarious! Itt we learn that in Retard Land demanding a game insert military crap for no reason, even when it would hurt the game's playstyle (something idiots refuse to adapt to because REALISM is a Synonym for GOOD) doesn't mean you're demanding military tricia for no reason If there's other stuff you could ask for! LOL!

But hey Shep us so stupid he can't understand roles and can't read enough to notice role penalties are tiny now, but people rarely do it anyway because in game terms it's generally not worth it. I hear infantry should 'come with' apcs so that a squad costs more than a tank. This will make it more realistic and acceptable to learning impaired milwankers.

Factional diversity is a pure taste issue. It's generally retarded and forced and ultimately useless - it's only bought up here because milwankers thing 'M1=T80' and have aheart attack.

[CaptHawkeye]

Who gives a shit to be honest? People standing around acting like the factions need to be wildly different from one another are still just totally missing the game. WiC doesn't pretend to be a realistic game in any fashion and it doesn't advertise itself that way. I can't understand why guys keep walking into it with that approach in mind.

An Armoured Transport for infantry is 900 CP. That's only 50 CP more expensive than an anti-tank squad. For a vehicle that can attack any target, is more durable than a squad, and can shield infantry from napalm and light artillery, it's worth it when it calls for it.

Usually you can get 3 squads and 3 APCs ready for action in less than a minute. If you're patient you can get 4 pairs. That's not an unreasonable number for WiC's idea of Mechanized Infantry. Trucks + Inf usually come to 5 or 6 pairs.

[Stark]

For a laugh, I think I'll outline the features of WiC from a design perspective, to see if the mentally challenged can put down the torch on REALISM.

WiC is a fast-paced, team-based, tournament-style game.

This means that it needs to be played fast - each game is 20m. Mobility is key and anything that slows down the game has been excised. Forts are deliberately lame by themeselves. Whole TA are designed to stop people sitting still (and punishing those that do). Anything static is easily destroyed. No turtling for hours, no basegrinding, no turret wars or sandbag rushes. Equally, the reinforcement system is geared towards reducing downtime and allowing players to get right back into the fight. This is a critical design element that basically prohibits defensive structures or earthworks (as much as TA-delivered mines might be cool).

It's team-based, which means that everyone needs to contribute something to the match. You can't drive around solo (arguably unless you're air or armour, but not really). Anything you can do, you can do BETTER with teammates. Forcing/encouraging team-play is the basis of the roles - from a realism perspective, NONE OF THE ROLES MAKE SENSE, except maybe air. This is deliberate, and an essential part of the game; you MUST play as a team, and NOBODY can do everything. This has been massively softened as the out-of-role penalty has been reduced, but it's still a core feature closely linked to tournament play.

This style of play means that everyone needs an even playing field. Factional diversity, in a game where there are only ever two sides (instead of 8 players who can choose whatever faction they want) would mean that people would 'only play the good team', leading to nobody wanting to be Russian (etc) and stacked teams, harder to find games (even harder than it is already), and make the ranking/scoring system borked. As it is, the core of the game is mobility, teamwork and skill, not WE TECHED UP TO OBELISKS LOL RUSSIANS PWNT. The very idea of 'realism' (in an rts, ROFFLE) basically destroys tournament balance, and people would have an even HARDER time working out how to play.

Finally, people who like wargame spreadsheets like Combat Force Strike Mission Bravo Radar Simulator just aren't going to like this game, because it has (like every other RTS) only a thin veneer of anything 'realistic'. It's attributes are determined by the need for similar teams, fast and team based play, not ... anything else. It's a fucking GAME.

But I hear liking this game is proof you're a subhuman retard. And not, as illustrated, an ability to actually understand what games are and what the design attempts to do.

[Uraniun235]

team-based

team-based

teammates

team-play

team

I'm going to venture that this is probably why WIC never took hold; most people aren't that interested in actively engaging in teamwork, they just want to do their own thing. This applies to most all game genres - again, even in games like TEAM Fortress 2, there's usually so little actual teamwork going on that a good handful of players that are coordinated can massively tilt the match in their favor.

[Stark]

Yeah, that's pretty undeniable. Even the people who DO play don't like playing in a team, in general. It's bad enough that JSF and I showing up and doing a armoured rear penetration is often enough to tip a game.

[Serafina]

The problem is, you can hardly do anything without TEAMWORK in WiC.

Really, teamwork is great, and it is important to encourage it. But WiC does not encourage, it forces.

You can not expect players who have never played together before to do great teamwork - regardless of how much pressure you are putting on them. Thats why WiC is a crappy game for casual players.
It has potential for clans and other gaming teams, but a game gets most of it sucess from casual players.

Really, if i had some people i could play it with on a regular base, i would have stuck with WiC.
As it was, i went back to Supreme Commander - where i do NOT need to rely on the behaviour of random people.

[Stark]

Y'know, I've played hundreds of pub games of WiC, and even in horrid games there's a modicum of teamwork, even if it is just one guy, and in many there's a great deal of acomplished cooperation using nothing but the q-menu (especially from support players). It's not absolutely essential to win; it's only an advantage to have MORE than the other guy, which is why the current state of clanner wanker teamstacking makes the game basically unplayable unless you're a clanner wanker or (like me) actually have friends. I think butthurt whining about how OTHER PEOPLE lost you the game and how you slunk away beaten like a coward is fucking hilarious, though. Playing the game is fun; most people I know have w/l ratios below parity, and nobody cares; if your team loses, but you win best role, who gives a fuck? I regularly win best fort and best role, so I don't really care if the team wins (beyond DAMN THE CLANNER WANKERS). Damn random people, losing me my games!

This is pretty much the same in any team-based game with distributed objectives, however. In CTF a single good player can win; even in BF1942 inferior teamwork will mean you lose. Don't even get me started on MMOs, where teamwork is so essential clans aren't considered serious unless they've got a vent server running. Very popular games with huge playerbases require teamwork; I don't think that is the feature that kills games like WiC.

[Serafina]

Well, Teamwork ist so common in FPS and MMOs, players expect it.
Thats not the case for RTS and RTTs - those are normally 1vs1 or 2vs2.

I do not care whether i won or loose - but i want to have the feeling that i can accomplish something.
Thats impossible with a team of lousy players, because you desperatly need other roles to accomplish most things.

Don't get me wrong, thats fine as long as you are a regular player. But if you want to play one or two games a week, thats terrible.

The gane is excluding players who do not want to rely on friends (or a clan) - and thats one of the reasons why it is not that popular.

[Stark]

Accomplish what? Win roles? Win awards? Earn medals? Increase your rank? Perform better than your team, or better than the other guys? You can do all those things.

It's not impossible to win with a bad team; it's generally only impossible when the other team is stacked with clanner wankers. The game doesn't 'exclude' social retards; it just rewards social players, which is the nature of a team game.

If you're saying cooperation kills games, you'd be right, because most gamers are complete retards.

[defanatic]

Just a note on my comments on faction diversity:
It's not for realism I want faction diversity. Rather, when I choose a team, it's for the merits of the team (stronger tanks, faster whatever, different things in general). Of course, I'm thinking of this from an RTS point of view, as opposed to an FPS PoV (which usually has two very similar teams, if not identical facing off against each other). So yeah, personal taste, but that's my reason.

[Stark]

Yeah, the game is stylistically very FPS in layout (teams, short rounds, domination play, the ticket system for victory, etc). It's important to the style of play they wanted that the teams are relatively similar, but more diversity wouldn't be terrible. I just don't think lack of faction diversity 'ruins' the game; in any given battle the factions ARE diverse because different players do different things. The element of two teams of people who MUST be the same faction is relevant; it's not like in an RTS where teams (even locked teams) can be made up of whatever faction the players want - in WiC it'd form a barrier to matching up players in teams which is hard enough already.

And everyone knows NATO is the best team. Best heavy arty for area work and the Warrior's AP ammo is hilariously effective as AAA.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Fatty nerds on the official forums say NATO tanks are the best too. Obviously Russian and US heavy tanks are TOO HEAVY

[Bluewolf]

OK, to give an example of how the game can runs on low end machines, I can run it with a Radeon X1250 shared GPU and can have some unit details and bloom on etc. The game looks nice still and deserves a lot of credit for that.

Also I know this is a bit if a derailment but I am curious about this. What are nukes used for? I mean what is there tatical adventage over just using large arty stikes besides looking cool?

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Nukes "wipe" control points into a neutral state (as opposed to merely killing the enemy units and leaving the point red), as well as leaving residual radiation for quite awhile, which harms units. In others words, it's area denial.

[Stark]

If the other team only has 1 point, a nuke 'resetting' it to neutral will also cue the 'total domination' thing that can quickly end a game if you can deny them any points at all for a short time. Otherwise, other TA are more efficient.

[CaptHawkeye]

And everyone knows NATO is the best team. Best heavy arty for area work and the Warrior's AP ammo is hilariously effective as AAA.

Bah, I love the Russian Heavy Artillery. Difficult to track, strikes quickly and without warning, and will keep firing at a point without being specifically told to. NATO/US Aty actually annoys me. I feel like infantry and vehicles can literally walk right out of the barrage once it starts.

I've never noticed any difference in the tanks. I believe they are there, but WiC's matches are too fast and wide for their incredibly minor differences to even show up.

[montypython]

Having a choice for heavy arty for all sides would be nice though, such as US/Nato having M110s and Soviets getting Smerch, which would allow for more diversity of play for artillery support.

[Jade Falcon]

Me and another guy I know played on a good WiC server last night. There were no rules on amount of arty used or whether you could defend units with AA. Despite there being no such rules, it rarely happened. Throughout the games I played, I only ever used one heavy arty at a time, kepts some AA and possibly some repair vehicles, but overall I rotated throughout all the roles.

You know what, it was a great game. We were all co-operating with each other. Taking turns to pool for tactical weapons (nukes were kept to a minimum, conventional strikes were common). There was no slagging each other off or anything. Teamwork was good, and even on the occasions where you got your ass kicked, it was still damned enjoyable. Then again, everyone seemed to be using their units sensibly which made a difference.

[[R_H]]

Me and another guy I know played on a good WiC server last night. There were no rules on amount of arty used or whether you could defend units with AA. Despite there being no such rules, it rarely happened.

Some servers forbid the use of AA, AA vehicles or the AA TA? And why limit the amount of arty?

[Jade Falcon]

A lot of servers forbid the use of more than one heavy arty per player, plus they also forbid that support player from using mobile AA to defend artillery of any kind.

[CaptHawkeye]

Personally I think the fact that these shitty server gameplay micromanagement rules exist is because of gamers. They're selfish, greedy, and stupid. They always have been since the days of Quake. It turns out when no one knows who you are you can do just do whatever you want. Admins are shitty referees. They're biased nerd fundies. They interpret the rules of the server ultra literally and are standing monuments to the fallacy of "Style over Substance" when it comes to idiots.

[Hawkwings]

Those rules are to prevent your 3 support players from all getting 2 heavy arty and clustering them all together, then getting a bunch of heavy AA and putting them right on top of their arty.

Then the other team paradrops in some infantry, calls in 1 airstrike TA, and kills about 14000 points worth of units.

[Jade Falcon]

Really, massive amounts of heavy arty does more harm than good, especially if its the NATO or US rocket artillery as some players, especially new ones just like to have continuous streams of artillery without any care as to where it goes.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

With regards to the differences between multiplayer and the campaign due to patching changes, does anyone know how well the demo reflects how the skirmish/multiplayer works in the full game?