OK, i've been in a few 22 player games. All seem to be nearly full but after only 4 or 5 days there are onl 2-4 players active.
Why is this? It becomes frustrating because I don't to bash AI. I want to play real players.
Why do they leave? Is it because of the slow gameplay or is it perhaps that PLUS the fact that you can do very little for the first few days.
Researching and building in order to produce the minimum required to go to war (some tanks, arty and an air force or navy) takes at least 2 days to get your first units out. Then it takes the best part of a day to march them to a border and assemble the force. So that means effectively 3-4 days were u can do very very little.
I can see this as being very demotivating to most players.
Would it be possible to have an option when creating a game where you start with a reasonable army/airforce in the middle of your country. I know we have a couple of AA, Armd Cars and infantry but perhaps we could have 6 ;ight tanks. 3 med tanks, 5 artillery pieces, a couple of motorised infantry and a couple of antianks and tank killers?
It would allow you to march a relatively fast moving army somewhere and do something with it.
It would perhaps retain more players.
I'll probably be flamed by older more experienced players but let's think about it. A game where 9/10 players drop out after 4 days, probably never to play again is probably an indication something is not quite right?
Am also only suggesting it's an OPTION and we don'e have to redo everybodys habits of years of play?
Please log in to post a reply.
I agree with everything that you said. It's just that people are complaining that players aren't staying, but they offer very far-out there reasons and solutions. It's just really simple what needs to happen if we want players to stay around.
I agree with this, but not completly since young kids will be more keen on pushing that gold button....we saw it with EA lootbox deal that makes up for almost 60-70% of theirs income....for Bytro even if those will join to try the game and pay to get stuff done quick and then drop it’s better becasue will get more money in the short term. Obviously will kill the community even further so it’s a tricky situationQuasi-duck wrote:
Darragh is right, but I would hate for this game to be fast paced, it is what attracts me, as well as *paying adults* who like to log in once or twice at work and in the evening. If the 24 hour time rate is changed, I think much of the paying user base will go in exchange for kids who won't be buying gold or HC.On the other hand, these new players will bump the ad revenue, but I do not know which makes Bytro more money at them moment or if it is a good gamble for the company.
If we want to try and keep more player perhaps doing the tutorial on the quick game? I saw the speed run even, so making them play on something like that could work better becasue it engages them quickly and if someone finds it good they will stay for match on normal speed
Yeah definitely a speed round kind of deal should be set up for new players, and if they want then they can join a normal round. It will also help clear out server space due to rounds full of noobs ending quicker.
Just what I was thinking.JCS Darragh wrote:
cough You guys get distracted easily, Lol. I thought we were talking about retaining players, not capitals. Lol.
Call of War is a game that requires patience, so I am not sure of the value in going to great lengths to keep the impatient players around.
One possibility would be a smaller map for the tutorial. You wouldn't have to change the pace or the speed of anything if you made a map that was fewer kilometers from place to place.
Perhaps focus a map just on a few countries. France, Germany, Italy, Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, Ukraine, UK. Make the countries half their dimensions for a fast experience.
Add in the suggestion to start with a few more units, and maybe a few more units researched and that will be a fast map
Or maybe start with the english channel map (It's like the smallest), but make it with more players, so there's more fun to it, and at the same time, have a small space so it's more fast paced.
So basically a map of Europe?Little Racoon wrote:
Or maybe start with the english channel map (It's like the smallest), but make it with more players, so there's more fun to it, and at the same time, have a small space so it's more fast paced.
Well, no. What I mean is to make the map smaller so there's less space to move, and therefore, fast-paced.
I think they can just increase the game speed, pretty sure that is what they do for the speed rounds.Little Racoon wrote:
Well, no. What I mean is to make the map smaller so there's less space to move, and therefore, fast-paced.
However, the speed rounds are for high levels, and in the beginning, you're forced to play a tutorial round with other noobs. Maybe make tutorial rounds faster?Quasi-duck wrote:
I think they can just increase the game speed, pretty sure that is what they do for the speed rounds.
That is exactly what I proposed in what you quoted lol.Little Racoon wrote:
However, the speed rounds are for high levels, and in the beginning, you're forced to play a tutorial round with other noobs. Maybe make tutorial rounds faster?Quasi-duck wrote:
I think they can just increase the game speed, pretty sure that is what they do for the speed rounds.
I think they can just increase the game speed, pretty sure that is what they do for the speed rounds.Quasi-duck wrote:
That is exactly what I proposed in what you quoted lol.Little Racoon wrote:
However, the speed rounds are for high levels, and in the beginning, you're forced to play a tutorial round with other noobs. Maybe make tutorial rounds faster?Quasi-duck wrote:
I think they can just increase the game speed, pretty sure that is what they do for the speed rounds.
Mistakes are madeQuasi-duck wrote:
That is exactly what I proposed in what you quoted lol.Little Racoon wrote:
However, the speed rounds are for high levels, and in the beginning, you're forced to play a tutorial round with other noobs. Maybe make tutorial rounds faster?Quasi-duck wrote:
Please log in to post a reply.
