• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by XOOM

  1. 2 hours ago, tatonka said:

    Ok then the Hero is premium, and I see they no longer have the Builder account  for sale , so I will sign up for hero account .  Still wondering by having hero account you get a free account for towing etc. , and I was wanting my second account to be that free account with hero sub.

    Builders are still available. If you need a hand, submit a ticket here: https://playnet.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

  2. A series of changes are in progress to create a better onboarding experience for new users joining WWII Online and shaping an appropriate set of expectations for what our game service is all about. As of today, perpetual Free Play access will no longer be offered and has been replaced with a 30 day free trial account which gives you all infantry and a truck. We have 5 subscription options available and we will no longer be selling downloadable content. Continue reading this article to receive full details and an explanation for why CRS has made these necessary changes to our game service experience.

    Home page article


    1 person likes this

  3. 6 minutes ago, odin67 said:

    Okay looks like my Steam DLC purchases (all but the para DLC) are still in effect. While I wanted to wait to purchase the DLC on my WWII Online account and not my Steam account I suspected it was going was never going to make it to the WWII Online account so went ahead and purchased it. Wanting to support the game I have signed up via Steam for the Starter account for the $4.99/mo. There is a bit of overlap but I wanted to support CRS but $15/mo is a much imo and the Starter account is good value. I hope that isn't going to be tinkered with. 

    All that said, I have a sinking suspicion the ship is starting to list with this announcement/decision. I hope I am wrong. 

    Starter recently received a little bit of a boost to make it more viable. It's going to remain as-is.

    We're doing okay in terms of the ship, but it's a necessary set of decisions to avoid it listing.

    Please read my announcement here: https://www.wwiionline.com/support-bulletins/accounts-billing/all-in-on-free-trial-subscriptions 

  4. 28 minutes ago, ojsimpson said:

    I'm a new player, just started in #165. Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents, FWIW. I've mostly enjoyed the game so far and was strongly considering purchasing a sub. I didn't feel it was necessary as I only intended to play as a rifleman either way, but figured it was the right thing to do to support the game. In the short time I've played here I've come to meet some great people and really enjoy the teamwork aspect of the game. I'm a long time CoD player and was looking for a break from the toxicity and mindless arcade action.

    With that being said, I was surprised to login today and find out I was no longer able to cap CPs. As of this post I am the #1 capper so far in this campaign, so F2Players clearly provide value to the community. I certainly understand from a business perspective the reasoning for limiting/removing F2P, but it's unfortunate. I've played at various times of the day, peak and dead time, and even during the peak hours the game didn't feel like a grand-scale war to me. In the dead times I've seen towns taken with only 1 or 2 EI trying to defend. I can count on 2 hands the number of Axis players I've consistently encountered during this campaign. I feel that this game has such immense potential, but hasn't reached the size of community necessary to achieve it. Removing F2P will obviously increase cashflow, but it will undoubtedly shrink the community further.

    The appeal of this game is the realism factor for me. WWIIO has no true competitors that I can see, and while it is a bit of a niche market..it should dominate it. While some aspects seem absurdly unrealistic and out-of-character for the game (roof jumping, wall clipping, only registering 'hit' to the chest/stomach from 10m with a rifle, the horrendous lag that causes you to die before the enemy shows/no gunshot audio, the entire team using autos when historically riflemen dominated the numbers) I understand on a basic level the technical difficulties behind fixing some of these things, and how some are simply consequences of design (looking at you, grey murder box depots). I also understand that resources are needed to improve, and while I haven't been here long it seems that CRS is dedicated to progress and continuing to provide a great experience for the community. It's very commendable that they listen to the community and not just pump out content blindly for financial gain (90% of AAA studios).

    With all things considered, I will stop playing for now. I know the value of the subs to the continued development of the game and community, however I would like to see the consistent in-game numbers increase before I see the value of a sub as a consumer. As @XOOM mentioned the slow season should be ending relatively soon so I'll check back in later and hopefully there is a more robust community to play with then. Good luck everyone and thanks for the fun experience!

    Thank you for writing this all out. I think it's a pretty balanced and fair position to take. I don't think closing the door and walking away is going to solve the concurrent player numbers. You are well within reason to do as you decide, my job is to keep the game running so that when you are ready to come back it'll be here for you to play again. 

    All of the experiences that you have had has been made possible due to subscribers shouldering the financial burden to keep WWII Online and CRS operational. It will continue to be made possible by those guys who are currently subscribers, and those who are realizing that subscribing for $4.99/mo is going to give them a lot more content to play with and provide resources towards a cause that they believe in and find value in.

    In case you did not know, WWII Online is 100% community funded. Without you, we are done. So instead of closing the door, consider that you can be part of the solution, and that each individual effort and decision you make has a greater or equal effect.


    1 person likes this

  5. 30 minutes ago, GrAnit said:

    I agree that a player should be able to choose a lower tier subscription after they have a higher tier one.  As long as they pay, they can play!

    Premium guys stay premium because we need to build our subscriber base (foundation) before we can risk losing premium guys. That is the business decision as to why we don't allow downgrading.

  6. 1 hour ago, delems said:

    *** Our decision to remove free play as a new option

    Well, answer one question if you will.

    I haven't seen 3 AOs in years.

    Yet, both Sunday and Monday we had 3 AOs in game.

    This tells me finally our pop is growing??  If so, isn't this the worst time to remove FPA?

    "Years" ago the settings for what 3 AO's were different. We made 3 AO's more easily achieved if the underpopulated side had enough personnel online. We right dab in the middle of our slow season and will be coming out of it shortly (September-October'ish).

    Removing FPA now is all about setting up the better season for success.

    1 person likes this

  7. 17 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

    If you shut down FTP (besides the trial period), and it sounds like the team has made up its mind on this point, then I strongly advise you to do a couple of things:

    1) Make sure that the "starter" subscription is available to us at any point. When I went premium, my question was whether I could roll back to starter if I decided to - and I was told I could not, that once you move up, you can't move back down to starter. This might have been changed, but if it hasn't, it should. That way if someone does decide they need to save a little $ for a few months for whatever reason, they will be able to move down to $4.99, rather than being locked out of the game completely. (Another whole topic might be whether it should be called "basic" instead of "starter." I'll let the marketing folks handle that one).

    Our decision to remove free play as a new option is not a catalyst to change what has been. We originally called it the basic account, then modified it to a starter later on after trying some different things.

    17 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

    2) Evaluate how this change is affecting the game - ESPECIALLY population wise - every 3 months or 6 months - don't wait 12 months, as was suggested earlier in this thread. As others have pointed out, the game experience is directly affected by having enough other players online to make this a fun, dynamic game. At certain periods/timezones or whatever, I feel WW2OL is already pushing the lower limits of this experience. 

    This isn't a fantasy game with AI monsters and creatures to fight, or quests to undertake. When there aren't other human players to play with, there's simply nothing to do.

    I am not as concerned because we are not removing a free option entirely. The new flow of incoming customers shouldn't be impacted by this, because their timeline will go from 2 weeks to 4 weeks. Perpetuity is indeed a valid position to be concerned about, but that's a decision non-paying customers need to make. We do not have an appropriate way to monetize free players (like serving advertisements), so we have to get back to reality with what we can and should be doing.

    17 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

    I'm concerned with some edginess I'm perceiving in certain posts lately. A question about when something might be delivered (that was asked politely) answered with "when it's ready." And the concept of people needing to "pull their weight," monetarily speaking. I get it, and you guys take a lot of grief on these forums and I sympathize. But at the end of the day, especially if FTP goes away, then those us us who are still playing it are - by definition - customers of this game. We are a community, but we don't have a lot of direct input into development or upper-level decisions being made.

    Not everyone of our staff members are experts at providing commentary. Some just answer in their spare time when they can, and in some cases, should probably provide some more meaningful feedback when they have the appropriate time to answer a genuine question. I can understand how that may come off wrong and it's important to remember, not everyone is a customer service specialist. What is uniquely important is that the people who are responsible for doing the development of the game are actually here integrated as part of the communication platform and sharing feedback with you / answering your questions. That remains a very rare find in any online industry, particularly gaming / software services.

    17 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

    The cost for a premium subscription to this game isn't trivial (it's more than Netflix, for example). For many of us, it's worth it - but I point that out to remind that we're still essentially just consumers. Consumers who, individually, don't always need or deserve to get what we want (because everyone wants something different) -- but everyone should be treated with respect, at least when acting in good faith. And I understand that respect needs to go both ways. 

    You are right, WWII Online's plans are more than Netflix's $7.99/mo. That is how Netflix has valued its company and it has enough volume to allow for that. Netflix has also gone all-in on the subscription model, as has other companies, for example:

    1. Netflix
      1. 30 day free trial (card required)
      2. $7.99/mo for service
      3. No perpetual free services
    2. HBO Now
      1. 7 day free trial (card required)
      2. $14.99/mo for service
      3. No perpetual free services
    3. Apple Music
      1. 90 day free trial (card required)
      2. $9.99/mo for service
      3. No perpetual free services
    4. YouTube Red
      1. 30 day free trial
      2. $11.99/mo for service
      3. Monetization by ad bombardment

    So the sooner we realize what we are and stick true to that, the better we are going to be for managing everyone's expectations and get rid of confusing, hard to manage plans. 

    Our experiment failed, that's the bottom line, and there's no easy way to sugar coat that or discuss it in a sensitive manner. Corrective action is necessary and that is the position CRS is taking after careful consideration and 7 years of doing the very best we could with what we had to work with.

    I am spending some extra time here to explain because I believe it's important for you to know the lead up and the effort.

    I agree by the way that respect goes both way, we need to hone in on that and contribute to respecting each other and cultivating the very best community we can. Coming together under the banner and cause of WWII Online's success and passionate belief in its potential should be a dominating force, not the loud anti-everything voices. That's a responsibility the community should take a bit more of to protect the core of our community as CRS can only do so much without being called out as too heavy handed btw.

    1 person likes this

  8. 1 hour ago, rote4 said:

    First of all, back in the old days I used to bust FB´s with some HC guy named XoomXoom or something, was that you?

    Secondly, yes it worked. Thank you very much!

    Thirdly, if you could do some magic and let me reactivate the old premium subscription I might ask wifey for permission for one year subscription, deal?

    1. Yup that was me, xoomxoom.
    2. Great!
    3. We can arrange a Bronze Builder account for you, which is a 1 year subscription + you get some goodies from it.
      1. It will cost $215.99, and I have to manually add it to your account.

  9. 44 minutes ago, rote4 said:

    So, long time ago  when x-bushes where still around I used to play alot.

    Couple of days ago I payed a infantry subscription and it worked fine since the but today binoculars stopped working because system thinks I´m free to play or something.

    The old premium subscription could not be reactivated which I would have loved to have done but it said I own money back from 2007, wtf?

    So now there a 3 subscriptions shown 

    1: free play 

    2: all infantry

    3: Premium Sub 

    Help anyone?


    P.S. Money has been debited from my account,  I should not be free to play.


    @rote4 Should be fixed now, my apologies - this one is on me. Please check it again and let us know it's good to go. Thanks for reporting it and being patient.

  10. 38 minutes ago, delems said:


    But we haven't tried locking FPA to under pop side?

    And we haven't tried side balancing locks?

    Just an option.

    The time it would take to implement that outweighs the advantage for them. This is the point I keep coming at in my thinking, free players are not experiencing a very "great" WWIIOL experience because we've had to retain the value in our subscriptions, and therefore we have to find ways to limit their experience. This is counter productive and not very helpful. It also makes managing their expectations, when everyone else is pulling their weight and paying subscriptions, borderline impossible, as we have found over all of these efforts and attempts.

    4 people like this

  11. @delems It’s not working. We have tried since 2012 to get this to work. As we are doing internally, it’s time to get brutally honest about how this has all played out. And don’t say CRS hasn’t done enough or hasn’t exhausted every possible thing we could within our means. We have, and it’s time to refactor and add appropriate value to what we are doing.

    3 people like this

  12. 9 hours ago, GrAnit said:

    Gold Builder and Monthly Hero Builder here.

    I don't understand anyone why would unsub and then play for free as 'a protest'.  To me it seems that they like the game well enough and just didn't want to pay.  No reason they can't buy starter account IMO.  $5/month is extremely reasonable to grab a rifle in this game.

    I support the two week free sub then no free play; perhaps with the clock resetting every 6 months so folks can have a second look.

    The only free play I support are vets on hard times.  To that end, I would donate my Monthly Hero account, which I never use, to the Rats to distribute to a vet who needs help as they see fit. @XOOM, let me know if that is possible.


    For $4.99/mo you actually get quite a bit more than just a Rifle in-game, I actually made some adjustments to further enhance this subscription about a month ago.

    I immensely appreciate your willingness to step up, even more than you’ve already demonstrated to further help a veteran out. We at CRS have tried, and tried, within the resources and technical means we can to deliver alternatives that are affordable and reasonable. This is all about the recognition that we are a subscription based game and we have survived 18+ years of continuous operations because of this decision, unparalleled game play, and outstanding community. You @GrAnit are representative of the best of our community, as you’ve already done so much and are willing to do more in an effort to help others.

    Don’t you think that more people should help contribute to the total weight of keeping things operational? 

    In the near future, Free Play will be phased out, as we will be offering new players signing up only a 30 day upfront trial giving all access to infantry, with no perpetuity plan to support logging in. We have to get back to basics and be honest with who we are and help better manage the expectations of people coming through the door, and who are already here, about what is absolutely going to keep WWIIOL running healthy.

    We are willing to work with folks for one-off contributions to reactivate other users accounts, yes we can do that. We are very much willing to provide promotional periods to kick numbers upwards and promote recent works.

    Free Play was introduced under my leadership and strategy in September 2012. We tried, I tried, there’s no saying we didn’t. It doesn’t work and it’s time get really honest about that and make decisions that honestly create the right mindset and set of expectations that we can deliver on. Those users who will be transitioning from Free Play over to a subscription, will receive so much more and be much happier with the available content there is to work with.

    We now have a step up ladder of subscriptions here organically that is very reasonable.

    Step 1: 30 day free trial (all infantry access)

    Step 2: Starter Subscription: $4.99/mo

    Step 3: All Infantry of All Air Force: $9.99/mo

    Step 4: All Ground Forces (Army Persona): $12.99/mo

    Step 5: Premium Subscription: $14.99-$17.99/mo

    We’ve never had this line up before, and each one of them contribute monthly to our increased potential to succeed.

    26 minutes ago, Capco said:

    Granit's tag didn't work, so I'm tagging you for him, @XOOM.

    Thanks for doing that.

    1 person likes this

  13. 6 hours ago, major0noob said:

    you guys are falling into the "whale" business model of F2P games... relying on big spenders to stay afloat and ignoring the average customer

    We currently do not have an effective way of translating Free to Play into a monetization path. Serious considerations about the future of Free to Play are on my mind and I am considering going back to strictly a 2 week trial and shutting down perpetual free play. If we were able to provide some form of in-game advertisement, that would at least justify it or be the next best move to make. However for our desktop application game and considering what sort of negative impact that may have on the users experience, to date it has been a non-starter.

    WWII Online is designed as it was from inception to be a subscription based game, our best exploratory efforts to attempts to appeal to the markets transition has not proved to be fruitful, and it is doubly disheartening to see a large number of those veterans using free play in protest.

    5 people like this

  14. 11 hours ago, csm308 said:

    I hear ya.  In addition to my Hero Builder account, I am also a Patreon supporter of WWIIOnline.


    Thank you, and I hope more will join you. 

    What ever our disagreements, what ever our hopes and intentions, there is only one WWII Online, one WWIIOL community, and one CRS. 

    We must stick together.

    5 people like this

  15. On 6/11/2019 at 0:38 PM, Augetout said:

    I think a good clue as to what is feasible given the resources can be found in the roadmap, and in the in-game polls.

    I will say this:  If the current version of CRS had anything resembling the resources the original crew did, this game would improve by leaps and bounds in a quick fashion.  I'm not denigrating the original CRS crew by saying that.  The current CRS has the ability/willingness to learn from the 18 years of development to this game.  All that is currently lacking is the proper amount of resources to get all that CRS wants done, accomplished.

    All in all, this is still the best game I've ever played, and the best gaming community I have ever dealt with.  The passion of community members is clearly visible, and most (not all) approach this game as it should be approached:  Warts and all, the best WW2 game ever, still looking to get better.

    CRS has never been more responsive to the community, and has never shown the willingness the current bunch has shown to make changes (resources allowing), to improve the in-game experience of all players.

    I'll leave specific answers to those far more qualified than I to answer them.


    This is spot on and greatly appreciated. We could, and are willing to do, so much more if we can simply purchase the time of our developers and get them here and dedicated on a full time basis. That is our desire.

    I hope that the community as a whole recognizes just how special it is, what we have here, WWII Online, and despite those grumblings and things that come up, remain steadfast in their support morally and with their subscription. Those two things make the total difference and can not only help us go onwards into the future, but actually do real development that has a good return for all.

    2 people like this

  16. 1 hour ago, jwilly said:

    My non-Xoom, non-CRS's/Playnet's-owner perspective is that at some point CRS will have to decide whether to continue competing with the giant game companies in the fantasy/unrealism-but-fun/sci-fi market slot, or instead commit whole-hog to the realism niche; and clearly communicate that decision to the marketplace.

    Over the past eighteen years or so, CRS has failed to retain thousands of customers who wanted fantasy/unrealism-but-fun/sci-fi gameplay, and moved from WWIIOL to one of the giant games because they have better graphics and more toys. CRS also has failed to retain many hundreds of customers who wanted realism, and concluded CRS wasn't sufficiently interested in going there.

    It's hard to convince customers what you are when you can't make up your mind, or feel you have to keep pretending to be multiple game-types at once.

    We've made a conscious decision to bring the game more closer to reality in a lot of ways since forming CRS 2.0. This can be demonstrated through audits, reworking supply lists and making historical introduction dates for weapons and vehicles more accurate. I don't intend to claim perfection here but these changes were made with good intention to follow through on the realism of our game. There's more work to be done.

    CRS collectively is aware of our strengths and what WWII Online represents, along with its community. That is the primary motivating drive that keeps us all going and pressing into the challenges and eventually, we have been able to conquer them.

    We'll continue that, with your subscription and moral support.

    2 people like this

  17. On 6/15/2019 at 7:08 AM, SCKING said:

    Until there is a way to automate brigade movements without player intervention, I don’t see a way to justify making brigades the dominate supply for each side. 

    100% agreed. Brigades taking a dominant role, as it currently stands manually maneuvered, is contradictory to the entire design purpose of 1.36. Brigades were intentionally optional with an automated movement of stable supply known as Garrisons, and we have seen players be quite a bit happier about that, and our High Commanders have more room to breathe. These are in keeping with the design goals and it seems we have succeeded in that regard, which is a win.

    To this day, we do not have a sufficient number of HC officers online (though it seems to be getting better) to manage supply like this. 

  18. Just now, jwilly said:

    Seems as if the marketing logic would be that subscribers...paying customers...would get less, or maybe no, spawn delay.

    Keeping a healthy balanced game play experience takes precedence. Otherwise the rest of it goes out the window and becomes difficult.

    Undoubtedly, if such a thing was to be considered, such as force pushing traffic to the underpopulated side, paying subscribers would be exempt.

  19. 4 hours ago, shagher said:

    Can we free Riflemen from SD at least? So then you have the option to still play??? I insist SD is against players game enjoyment, Allie or Axis. 

    And if it is noted it affects a side more than the other then it should absolutely be reduced. 


    I know it is, no need to preach to the choir on the adverse effect. However the worser of the two evils is to not have it (it is defined balance of some sort, even if that means an imbalance in numbers but a balance in avoiding a roll against the under populated side).

    Freeing Rifleman from Spawn Delay would counter many who argue for Free Players (predominately Rifleman) from being forced to participate in the act of spawn delay. Some even suggest highly that they should be forced to the underpopulated side as a way for the game to balance itself without impacting paying users.

    Cause and effect.

  20. 51 minutes ago, tinjo said:

    I have an all air subscription which the website states includes access to light aaa and atgs. However, at rank lt. col. they are not spawnable online. I Don't know which has it right, the gameserver or the site, this is just a heads up. 

    This is now resolved, thanks for reporting it @tinjo. S!