The Beatles wrote:I don't think it's because of our features. Look at ME, that had servers with 200-300 people at a time, easy. It's (mostly) our background, heritage, theme, etc.
Ruddertail wrote:However, I think perhaps that the lack of a simple, intuitive, strategy might be harmful to new players. Even with a tutorial, we're left with starting newbies on either a counter-intuitive strat, a complex strat, or both.
Mr President wrote:I would def agree with shortening the manual some. I like how detailed it is, but when someone opens it and has to read that much to find out how to play, they will lose interest.
Theme is everything. Graphics is everything. When people come to a site they need to be interested long before they even play the game.
Shadow I wrote:Also, have we considered the possibility that our password setup drives people away? It's not insanely complicated, but I know it's confused more than a few people in the past.
I agree with all of these statements (among others). I do think that, rather than hindering, the features are what make FAF potentially rise above the other Promisance-type games; the feature disparity between FAF and even the newest release of the QM code (which is, of course, the topic of this thread
) are simply astounding. As the other codes literally become further deprecated, the future of Promisance games are likely going to be based on this code.
Of course, that rhetoric doesn't solve anything for FAF itself. But it does lend credence to the idea that the necessary changes are rather superficial, and largely aesthetic; the code itself is solid.
Unfortunately, there are googles of Promisance games, most of which look rather similar and have similar capabilities. While FAF does have additional features,
unless one checks around, they won't be aware of these features. So, what helps people stick around?
1) An uncluttered, aesthetically pleasing front page. At the moment, there's nothing that makes the game initially stand-out. First looks are important: making FAF look "shnazier" might make people take a second look and, perhaps, sign-up.
2) Easier sign-up. I'd recommend making it the bare basics: username and password. If e-mail is necessary for validation, that's reasonable. However, global accounts could help in this regard, making sign-up -- and validation -- a singular event. If there aren't global accounts, then it might be tactful to have validation after using turns -- simply to get people playing quickly and easily.
3) Simpler interface. I'm an advocate if irreducible complexity. By no means remove any features, but make them as simple as possible. Similarly, I would advise maintaining the guide as a comprehensive account of the gameplay. Rather than simplifying it, perhaps make an introductory tutorial that is more brief, to give new people a quick and easy reference to the game. This will, at least hopefully, encourage people people to take the (brief) moments necessary to comprehend the unique aspects of the game. Perhaps also make a generically easy strategy, just to get people playing and interacting.
4) Higher gamefactor. Knowing the code, I know that this is quite simple, thanks to Beatles. As was mentioned before, people (at least of gaming age) like bigger numbers. While I'd speculate that it's because gaming is an escape from reality (and realistic numbers), the important thing is that it'd likely help FAF to have bigger ones. Gillions of units battling gillions of units -- that's the stuff.
5) More generic names. In my opinion, a further difficulty is that the game is, perhaps,
too nuanced in its theme. The more nuanced you get with a theme, the fewer people who relate to it. Likewise, to gather a rather large playerbase, a more popular and generic theme may be preferable.
In terms of larger changes, I think that the market ideas are important. Currently, Promisance is largely war-based. In my opinion at least, I think that making it more "empire running" based would help: in particular, this would mean a larger appearance of diplomacy and economy to supplement the military aspect.
Of course, ultimately it's the community that retains people, and it's difficult to get a small community to grow. But I do think that if just a few people join here and there, it'll be increasingly easier to attract new people. And the game is certainly worthy of a far larger playerbase, that's for certain.
[/URL]
