this thread is mainly to discuss question of mentoring and raising newbies.
i talked to Tiger and he said that huge amount of new players who start mentoring games usually just leave it after first few turns.others play first game to the end but again leave it not starting new games.the queston is....why dont they like multiplayer gamestyle?what does frighten them?
looking at chat...i usually see different newbs being discontent about game
first of them are RTS fans.they just can not accept turn-based gaming they want it to be continuous.i seen some of their yellings like "aaargh i am waiting for 5 minutes already damn SIX minutes and i still waiting"
others dont like learning... seen several times newbs just enter the chat and ask "how do i play this game":not reading manual not playing tutorian scenaries...
some of them become frustrated after they lose first battle against mentors.they think they should begin winning instantly...once played with one guy who messaged me something like "hey marshall i gonnal kick you ass".of course he lost and i never seen him again.

Perhaps new players shouldn't be allowed into the Multiplayer area until they've completed the tutorials, the scenarios, and played one game against the AI?

hey marshall....i wanna chance to kick your ass, send a challenge

this thread is about newbies
use private messages for challenge requests etc

One thing that I've suggested on the forums that might help is including a .pdf or .txt of the MA boxed-version game manual with the MAN download and having it ask if you want to read it when the installation is finished (in the same way that many programs ask "do you want to read the readme now?" when they finish installing). It won't help those people who are too stupid/lazy to read it, but it WOULD help those who simply can't find the info they're looking for.

Thinking about it, I suppose that massive assault is such a unique game that I can see how most gamers might find it difficult to pick up. There are so many games out there nowadays that fit into a few different molds that gamers may not expect to have to learn anything new. For example, if you pick up another FPS or RTS, you will find their controls to be basically the same as all other games in that genre. These people probably are used to just picking up a game and jumping right in.

I would assume that people that are used to TBSs would be used to having to learn something new for each game, but some of them find Massive Assault too simple for their tastes. Some of them are used to knowing about or controlling every aspect of a battle.

One interesting thing about MA is it draws from a large crowd of gamers that may like it. It is a game that makes its own genre. This stated I still don't know how to help people when they first pick up the game to get right into it. If they don't do the training, or at least look at a replay, they're in for a lot of surprises.

This game does have a completely unique style, so I guess the only way is to pound it into peoples heads that this isn't your run-of-the-mill game.

This may be a good solution too. Good idea. I would say that they should at the very least be forced to do the training, as some people want to jump straight in, and may not have the patience for the scenarios and world wars.

i agree with that idea, force them to complete set tutorial scenarios which demonstrate the turns of the game and different units and suggested ways to use them before letting them play online. maybe something where they are being trained as a pl/fnu general,. but need to pass certain tests before being granted access to a real fight (username/pass given then)

yes that's good idea - to allow to register the online account only after completing the tutorials
because they probably think this game to be easy as any RTS but when they face a mentor they get beaten badly and then get upset and leave

I don't think forcing anyone to do anything is a good idea, but having a dialogue pop-up suggesting they complete the tutorials first would be a very good idea.

kids won't ever learn read or write if teacher not forces them to

Right, but this isn't education.

Question is: Can people successfully pick up Massive Assault and play well without doing the tutorials? Will they be more frustrated by the fact that they have to do certain things before jumping in, or more frustrated by the fact they end up losing all the time when they do, because they don't have the slightest idea what to do?

This game is a thinking-person's game. No doubt we'll lose people that don't want to think, just want some mindless entertainment. But what about those that could like the game if given the chance? I think we should balance this of course. Require only the minimum to get by (tutorials), and then strongly suggest to do the scenarios and a World War, but not force them to do those.

I'm thinking people need to be forced to play the tutorials before going online the first time. I just had a conversation with Artanis where he described a mentor game with someone who just disclosed nothing but transports on the first turn. Then he invaded with them.

That's great Taking the general advice to use lots of transports a little too seriously...

MAN is definately a different style of play from RTS, and even from regular MA vs the AI because turns aren't made immediatly. The first day I played MAN I must admit I didn't like it because I had to wait for other players to make turns, so I'd sit in the chat room and try to play a whole game with someone else who was on-line. After about a week I got used to it tho, and enjoyed it far more than vs the AI just because of the variety of play styles I encountered.

Ultimately, I subscribe and continue to play because I have enough skill to win (or at least give others a hard time ), so the game is enjoyable. It can also be frustrating when I have a stroke of bad luck, or make a foolish mistake, but I take the good with the bad. Most people do enjoy winning (and probably even more people dislike losing), so if we just wanted to increase the chances of newbies sticking around, we could simply have all the Mentors purposely lose their games against newbies. How many of you Mentors would be into this idea?

I agree we need more players, but I don't think we should worry too much on newbies who play and leave right away - you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. This game is similar to chess, you either get it and like it, or you don't and you quit. Instead, the focus needs to be on getting the right kind of player to play the game, players who are used to this style of play from table-top, pen and paper, or other turn-based games. This isn't really something the Mentors can do, it's more about marketing by wargaming.net, but Mentors might try to actively search out these types of players and invite them to play a game.

I already spot them an SA (without telling them this, of course), but some of these guys...well...I'd have a better chance of beating you on Bizarria than I would of successfully throwing a match to them. Last night, I had a newbie whose opening disclosure was 8 LTs. ONLY 8 LTs. And then he invaded a neutral country with them.


One thing that I want to know if the other Mentors are doing is positive commentary. I know that the newbies will mostly learn from me telling them "that was bad, don't do that", but sometimes, even in only the dozen or so mentoring games I've had, I run into somebody who has real potential. I think that it's a good idea to try to soften the blow a bit so that they don't get frustrated and leave (while still telling them where they fuck up, of course), and wonder if any other mentors do that.

Definately. Its hard to give a lot of individual attention with so many games as Mentors, but I try to do it as much as possible by pointing out good deployments and strategies. I also make sure to punish them if they do something bad (like invading with one unit), as they'll just get pounded when they play someone else if they don't learn. Better to do that and let them know what happened in this setting than in the cold, hard, multiplayer environment where they get no feedback.

Another thing I did for a while was to give them an intro message when I disclosed letting them know of the in-game messaging and offering to answer any questions they had. Not too many responses though, and with 80+ mentor games it gets tedious.

I suspect most of them don't know how to send a message.

Perhaps some kind of newbie game room is required? Perhaps conscripts should only be allowed to play other conscripts? It's hard to say... redfox is right, people don't like to lose, I don't like to lose, and losing a lot early on, or being decimated, is off-putting. I was lucky, I beat Tiger and it felt pretty good (mainly because I had to really work for it).

I think they need to be guided towards more equal challenges.

Some, I suspect, just can't hack the time frames and there's really very little to be done there.

i tell them how to send me a message in my opening welcome to the game statement, but very few reply. But the alrge nubmer of games is a problem with keeping track of what u've told who. But i wouldn;t have any problem with purposely playing bad. (if i can play any worse than i normally do) and like mael said above we mostly keep 1 sa hidden to give them an advantage. Also makes the game abit mroe challenging for us unless they do some silly things like invading with 1 unit etc..

HAve to admit if by about turn 6 i still haven;t got a emssage from them i stop offering them advice beyond that was a mistake because..