. Therefore making a learning right-angle isn't really a good idea when your battling for players with full commercial products.
Then we'll just agree to disagree on what type of methods to create learning curves has greater mass appeal. It's not like I get paid to draw on years of market research.
Reality >> market research
When I do market research I always use something that is based on reality. Anyone else doing otherwise has marketing research that blows or was taken out of a newspaper clipping without a proper context of the research involved.
and we've seen a number of games with fairly steep learning curves fail in the past years.
Part of my intent was for players to find a comfort zone. They don't have to progress up to a different levels of controls as long as they are having fun.
If you have one control scheme you are only going to appeal to the people who can adapt to that scheme.
If anything cut it down to "arcade" and "sim," make it a server option (i.e. so-and-so's 24/7 citymaps arcademode server" and boom there you go. People that want simple action play on arcade servers, people that want sim play in sim servers. Its no different than when people played on the unlimited ammo or not heat servers.
I like the idea of just putting segregating the seperate schemes for the reasons you stated.
I don't like that idea because of the risk of diluting servers. I was pissed trying to get back into Starcraft in these past few months after quitting in 2003(4) and seeing the number of mucho money/ scripted encounter maps were in the majority. It's disgusting how few people don't play the game with limited resources anymore on bnet.
First time I ever played a multiplayer game while being in favor of the least popular server type. I wouldn't wish that experience on other players.
