Revitalise or close down?

[JanSorensen]

Lately the ladder has been anything but busy.

Either the active pool of WaW players is too small or the ladder just is not desired so I am looking for suggestions and/or opinions.

Is there anything we can do to get more people interested in playing WaW with (or without) the ladder?
Is there anything that can be done to get the games that are infact played to register on the ladder?
If not - is it worth keeping the ladder going with the current number of active participants?

[Forwarn45]

I really like the ladder and appreciate the time you've put into it. I hope you continue it for a while. As to your other questions, I'll have to think about it some more. But I hope the improvements in the beta patch encourage some older players to try a game or two. Maybe when a formal patch is released, a message to the user could be included encouraging them to visit the forum and try some ladder games. It would also be nice if more of the games being played were played as ladder games - as you note. Maybe a sticky message in the opponents wanted forum?

But thanks again, I like the ladder Jan. I have played some good games with people there and it's nice to know who's playing what side and how well people are doing. It makes it easier to look for new games. [8D]

[SeaMonkey]

Ditto Forwarn's statement

and thanks, Jan




Brad

[philturco]

I think the ladder is a good idea and would be sorry to see its demise. I am a beginner-intermediate player and would be happy to play a laddered game if anyone is interested. Email me at anke__55@hotmail.com

[Lebatron]

I'm interested in seeing it continued. Granted I have not used it for my last few games, but I was going to start using it again. My last couple opponents were not interested in being ranked. But maybe my next would be. Well to your questions.

Is there anything we can do to get more people interested in playing WaW with (or without) the ladder?
Hmm... not much we can do if people have drifted off to play other games. I remember when this forum was buzzing several months ago. Many of the names I recognized are no longer dropping in for a visit. Granted this always happens to computer games after a while, but I thought this game would have more staying power. Its so elegantly designed that its an instant classic in my opinion. No other WW2 computer game is like it, because of that, I'm not to worried this game will drift into obscurity. It will have a following for years to come just like Axis and Allies. Out of curiousity, has another game of similar depth with a WW2 theme currently drawing interest away from WAW?

Is there anything that can be done to get the games that are infact played to register on the ladder?
Maybe one of the reasons players don't bother listing their game for ladder ranking is that both are required to make a statement on the forum when their game starts. I know what the purpose and intent of that was, but maybe that requirement should be relaxed. Instead of a two step process, make it one step. All that's needed is for the winner to post his victory to you including the relavent game info. This one post is as simple as it can get. Also if both players agree to have their game listed either before/during/after the game I think that should be relaxed too. For instance, take my last game as an example. Dobeln and I didn't bother listing the game as a latter game before we started. Should it be to late for us to change our minds and choose to list it? I would think not. After all, didn't you recently say this ladder was less formal than others.

If not - is it worth keeping the ladder going with the current number of active participants?
If my suggestions above are taken perhaps more may list their wins on the ladder.

I have another idea that may help interest. Add a new function to the ladder page. Instead of just ranking players with points what I had in mind was also using it as a kind of player registry. All that are interested can ask to be included on this list and rank themselves, hopefully honestly, on a scale of 1-10. Players can then look at this list and challenge others of similar skill level if that's what they are looking for. Or maybe they might want to challenge someone that considers themselves an expert or master. What do you think?

[stonewashedjackson]

i am brand new at GGWaW as i have just started my first pbem game today. i am very interested in having the games i play in a part of the ladder.i would like to have the games i play count towards some goal or level of recognition whether i win or lose and for my opponent also.
i am not familiar with the procedure to have my games listed on the ladder.please direct me to where that info is so i can get my games to count.
i have just recently intoduced this game to another player who might be likely to join the ladder after he gets up to speed on playing the game.
over the next year or so i intend to intoduce this game to several people in the hopes they will enjoy the game as i do and i would hope they would join the ladder also.
thanks for maintaining the ladder and i hope its use will increase.

[JanSorensen]

Stonewashedjackson,

Welcome to the fun of WaW. In this post you will find the procedure for the explained. Its not complicated at all - basically you and your opponent both post when you start the game and then again when its finished.

[Uncle_Joe]

Hmm... not much we can do if people have drifted off to play other games. I remember when this forum was buzzing several months ago. Many of the names I recognized are no longer dropping in for a visit. Granted this always happens to computer games after a while, but I thought this game would have more staying power. Its so elegantly designed that its an instant classic in my opinion.

I know I sort of 'drifted off' when all of the completely ahistorical strats started to win more and more games. I am less interested in trying to 'beat the system' than I am in trying to beat my opponent. And most of the then 'winning' strategies usually revolved around going down completely ahistorical (and in some case totally unrealistic) paths. Sure most of those strats were not sure fire wins, but they made the game no longer feel like WW2.

Couple that with the way the Pacific Theatre just really doesnt quite cut it and I just havent really had too much desire to want to continue to invest large amounts of time in the game. I was hoping to really get back into it once the TCP/IP was finalized and whatnot, but I've realized that play at any real competitive level will likely just frustrate me as people try to use extremely ahistorical (but viable in the game) strategies to beat me.

I too was really hoping this game would have some serious longevity for me, but unless things have markedly changed in the last few patches I just dont see many 'hardcore' WW2 gamers sticking with it for MP games. I realize there are mods and whatnot to tweak things here and there, but modding is an endless pit. The mods are always changing and you never really get a feeling of playing a 'finished' product in that atmosphere. I can definately appreciate all the work that goes into the modding, but for games like this, its just not my cup of tea.

Anyways, thats my $.02 on it.

[Forwarn45]

I would give it a try again, Uncle Joe - or check out the list of changes. In particular, one welcome change in the current beta patch has been to dramatically slow down research of more than 2 over the WS. I think the "super units" was one of the more ahistorical and problematic issues before - and this has helped to address the issue. As to the Pacific Theatre, that is pretty much the same - other than Japan has more militia with which to defend itself. I think there is the possibilty of a change in the future, however, as there has been a lot of talk about it. [8D]

[Uncle_Joe]

Hey Forwarn,

Thanks for the info. As it happens, I am getting back into the game and experimenting with the newest beta. I definately agree with all of the changes made so far, but in all honesty, most of those things were only side contributors to the problems I see in 'competitive' MP games.

Most of the 'winning' strats that I've seen center around the secure knowledge of 'x' or 'y' in the game rules rather than being realistic strategies and thats where I see the problem. For example, shortly after the game released, the 'banzai into Italy' appeared. This was a result of the Italian surrender rules where players knew that they only had to hold a space for one turn and then BAM, Italy is out. So, they would stretch and just BARELY be able to take one of the two spaces secure in the GAME knowledge that Italy was gone.

From there, the Russian 'double team' came on with the Axis secure in the knowledge that the US would be guaranteed to sit idly by and watch until a certain (usually too late) date. After that, it was the 'neutral hunting', where again, the players were able to use the game knowledge that the US/Russia would just sit there and if they overextended and just barely took enough neutrals, they won. Somewhere in there was the UK bombing of Japan thing to pre-activate the US. Finally, the 'banzai Sea Lion' where players could afford to direct their entire national effort to taking Britain (including all builds and research) because, again, they have the perfect game knowledge that Russia wont attack them (and thus wont even be a threat in time).

Please note that I am not condemning any player coming up with or using the above strats. Within the game's framework, they are simply coming up with a valid strategy. But to me, it takes any notion of WW2 and throws it out the window. It makes the game more of a puzzle than a WW2 strategy game...ie 'how can I best work within the rules restrictions to win' rather than 'how can I best use my troops/production/research to win'. They are related, but not the same...at all IMO.

I definately applaud the efforts being made to reign in these strategies, but honestly they are just band-aids. The real problem is the rigid rules structure in some areas (entry of the war and frozen areas) while other areas the players can go hog wild without any form or realistic restrictions (going all out on anti-Britain research while ignoring the potential Russian problem).

To me, if one side of the rules are going to have 'enforced realism', the other part must follow suit. So perhaps some sort of ball park restrictions on builds, research and direction would have been in order (ie, Germany cant just lay down 8 transport hulls on turn 1 or cant just gobble up neutrals without fear or retaliation from the US/USSR). Alternatively, loosening up the 'historical restriction' in a ahistorical environment might be allowed (ie, if Germany has taken 'x' neutrals, the US/USSR activations are accelerated or if Germany takes Scotland, the USSR/US enter immediately etc).

So, FWIW, I think the game is mile ahead of where it was in terms of discouraging known 'exploits', but the real problem hasnt (and probably cant be) attacked. So, while I think the game is awesome for casual play and between players who are more or less seeking to refight some sort of viable WW2 scenario, it losing something when played competitively and players are simply seeking victory more through the game rules than through strategy.

[SGT Rice]

Jan,

One possibility would be to move the ladder to someplace like www.theblitz.org. I've been a ladder member over there for over a year and I vouch for the functionality of the website and the cameraderie of the vast majority of the members. And they've recently gotten a lot of exposure with Matrix since Matrix purchased the rights to the Campaign Series.

So perhaps we could sell Jim Krieg and company on the idea of a "WWII Strategy" ladder on theblitz supporting rated games of W@W, SC, HOI and the like. Once it's up and running it would relieve you of having to calculate ratings, monitor game reporting, etc.; it's all automated.

If anybody's not familiar with theblitz, have a look; it's a great service by gamers for gamers.

[SeaMonkey]

Man Uncle Joe are you ever right. The one big drawback of WaW is the predictability of of the major belligerents entering the conflict, specifically USSR and USA.

It makes for the development of the "cookie cutter" strategy, albeit it has not been cemented yet, but never the less, coming. Only the constant manipulation of the game mechanics through patches or modded scenarios will forstall that inevitable conclusion.

Even SC with its randomizing diplomatic feature of ramping up the percentage of a major's DoW entry was predictable to a certain extent and led to the puzzle being solved. Alas, WaW doesn't even have diplomacy.

But we are enjoying the game presently, and a great game it is, with many variables of combat mechanics at our disposable, a fascinating puzzle.

But as time marches on and the devs' and modders' attention is turned elsewhere.....the pieces will fall into place.

But.......I've been wrong before.[;)]

[JanSorensen]

Chris,

I will take a look at the Blitz - that might be a good idea.

My issue is not really the work involved in maintaining the ladder - infact, its the opposite. I am hoping for more volume of play meaning more work - so only if we think moving to the Blitz might increase rated play would I consider it a good move.

What do others think?

[Harrybanana]

I'm one of the persons who was playing WaW a lot when it 1st came out, but I have played it a lot less lately. I still play WaW and try and have 1 game going if I can; but a few months ago I was playing several games at once.

Part of the reason I slowed down is that I was waiting for the new patches to come out. But the primary reason is that many games began playing out the same. The Axis only really seem to have 2 primary strategies. The "Capture England and win the AV before W43 Strategy" or the "Attack Russia from both sides Strategy". With the new rule changes all that has happened is that the Capture England Strategy has become more popular. The main difference in most of the games I played was not in the strategy itself, but in the Skill of my opponents in executing the Strategy. In this respect the game was not much different then Axis & Allies. The problem, of course, is that many of these fine opponents appear to be absent now. Will they come back? I don't know, but I hope they will. Not just for my sake, but for the sake of the Developers who listened to us and put so much time and effort into patching and improving the game.

The game is still not "stale" for me and I expect I will continue playing it for some time to come, albeit not at the pace I was playing it at before. So to answer your question Jan, I hope you keep up with the Ladder, even though I have no advice on how to attract more participants.

On a side note, I would like to thank Sgt Rice for introducing a new strategy (to me anyway). I will not reveal this strategy until Sgt Rice has had the chance to try it on several more opponents.