• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by XOOM

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. @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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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. 

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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! 

  16. What was the first thought that you had when looking at WWII Online that made you want to jump-in and go for it? We all have a story that helps explain how we became quickly addicted to a game that really embodies more than just a game, but a gaming community of mature people from around the world. I’ve been reflecting lately on what were those first impressions I had when I saw the big yellow game box that caught my attention sitting on the shelf at Electronic Boutique (EB Games) back in 2002.

    I remember going to EB Games often, every single time we’d go there when we went to the biggest mall around as it was a great pass time for my brother and I, as Mom went around doing her thing. We were big into console games, but I was looking for a replacement to the good’ole N64 and I really enjoyed some PC titles like “Duke Nukem” and “Age of Empires.” I was the kid who in the morning before school would turn on the History channel (back when it was good and actually taught you stuff about History, not Pawn Stars, American Pickers, etc) and my favorite thing to watch was WWII related stuff. I enjoyed it so much in fact, I got a WWII picture book (a WWII encyclopedia if you will) and would take that to school and nerd-out with a couple of friends learning about it. History was always my favorite subject, aced it every time.

    My brother in fact pointed the game box to me, and I quickly moved over to check it out. I remember opening up the jewel box and the first thing I saw was a group of German soldiers standing there in a gated army base in formation, with a commander in the front. This was a defining picture for me because I have always enjoyed leadership and in other games I played (or sports) I naturally gravitated into that role and thoroughly had a good time with it.


    The picture illustrated to me instantly that this game was about teamwork and working together, and wasn’t your average game. As I looked around at the other pictures, I started to recognize a couple of the vehicles and weapons being used. I flipped it around to the back where I saw a British soldier looking like a bad ass holding a Lee-Enfield, with all of the countries being represented and it continued to bring in my interest.


    Admittedly at that time I did not fully understand what all of the details of the game meant on the box, that took some time playing to fully comprehend just how powerful of a game World War II Online actually was.

    The first time I had spawned in to the game world, I was alone, without a lot of direction, no voice communications (Roger Wilco, almost TS2 at the time I think) and didn’t really comprehend what was happening around me. I was a Rifleman spawned in at the Andenne - Namur Forward Base, and hopped on a Panzer II C, not really sure where to go. The guy who was driving me was “Daveezee” who was the Commanding Officer of “EzCo.” Eventually he got me into the Squad and on voice comms. That was when things started to make a lot more sense to me.

    He didn’t judge my lack of knowledge, claim I was a spy, and was very patient in teaching me how things were actually working. I recall the first time I had multi crewed was with another squad mate (Sockeye) in a Stuka. Equally, Sockeye was patient and excited to share the game with me.

    EzCo was a Kriegsmarine (German Navy) based squad, and naturally we focused on missions relating to naval warfare. EzCo was considered a Special Operations Detachment, who was assigned to the German High Command > Kriegsmarine > Marine Infanterie Abteilung II. Our commander at the time was Fmfhmcs, and we worked closely with Flotille Heinrich who was responsible for operating the FMB’s (the only naval craft in game at that time) that would ferry us around. These were the days before mobile spawns and many of the tools that we have today in WWII Online.

    I gravitated towards High Command and became a Naval Officer, Flotille Heinrich XXO, and they gave me a Rear Admiral commission. That was a big deal and I took that responsibility very seriously. Here I am, at the time 14 years old, with all of these adults actually helping to develop me into a more mature player, who were graceful and willing to work with me, at no cost or return on investment on their part. They were clear examples of a time of enthusiasm, and while the game was riddled with bugs and shortcomings, the tone and atmosphere of the community was not to attack the developers, it was rather to work with what they had and share all of the good things that this game only does.

    While there has been much history sense all of that, and now I have effectively been a member of CRS (which I never thought would’ve happened in my wildest dreams, let alone be the guy leading the team) for longer than I was a player [ Player from 2002-2010, Rat from 2010-Present ].

    I’m sharing my story here because it’s something I try to remind myself of the passion that drove me to this point, and the difference in the culture that I have seen occur over the years. Our culture as a community is within our hands and grasp to determine, it is a combination of individual actions that creates either an atmosphere which embraces newcomers with enthusiasm and a service to others type mentality, or not.

    It is our own personal decisions that sets the tone of what kind of a gaming community we are, whether that is through our communications or actions, publicly or privately. 

    I’d wager to ask, what sort of community member are you? Does it differ from when you first started? Do you still hold the enthusiasm you had when you first picked up that WWII Online box, or joined the game for the first time?

    18 years of WWII Online has happened because we all came together, and must continue to come together at present to ensure it’s longevity. I have said that our WWII Online community really is, second to none, I firmly believe that in my experience. I, like many of you, have dedicated a great deal of my play-time and now many years and hours of my life to working on it and ensuring its continuation. Many of you have kept your subscriptions active even when you weren’t playing because you cared that much. Many of you have stepped up to support the game financially during our calls to action, and many of you have supported fellow community members in their greatest hour of need to literally change their life circumstances for the better.

    Second to none sounds pretty fair to me.

    I implore all of you to continue to find the greatness in yourselves and our outstanding game / community. Create an atmosphere which embraces new people and be an inclusive leader when required. Focus on the fact that there is only one World War II Online, and all of the amazing gaming moments you’ve had are because of it. Choose to lend a hand for new players, and choose not to attack the people at CRS who are mostly volunteering now because they care about the game just as much as you do to apply their professional experience and personal free time to bettering it.

    All of us at CRS are humbled by and appreciate this opportunity more than this text can properly convey. Every day I witness first hand a series of communications and actions taken by my team that shows their maximum commitment to the cause. These guys are learning, getting more efficient, and maturing as game developers. But at the heart of it all, you’ll find an avid WWII Online enthusiast, loyal to all of you, maintaining the integrity of the game’s design and pushing new doors open that were once thought closed.

    Please, don’t lose sight of what we have or what we can do as a team when we work together, provide grace and understanding, and support one another.

    Thanks for reading.

    8 people like this

  17. As you know, the spawn Delay maximum has indeed gone up to 30 seconds. When you achieve 30 seconds, it is under worst possible conditions. The unwillingness for side balance to occur through other measures has resulted into this. It's a necessity. Majority of folks who seem opposed to it are predominately Axis players. Today, on our 18th anniversary we saw the Allies for about 4 hours have a 33% overpopulation. Guess what? They got nailed with spawn delay and felt the same thing.

    Now at hour 5, we're seeing 1:1 population, and no one has a spawn delay. This is when the game is at its best, when there's a balance. We need to incentivize this happening and we must stop massive rolls of the campaign. When side balance is prioritized more by the general player base we'll pull off this a bit and get those timers settled down. Until then, this'll have to happen.

    Remember... 30 seconds spawn delay means you have a WICKED overpopulation at this point. Our game is extraordinarily harder to balance in general because we do not fit the mold of a traditional FPS (in terms of scale). There's a lot of other considerations at play. I'll keep an eye on it but this seemed like a necessary move based on the trends we're seeing.

    4 people like this

  18. 2 hours ago, dre21 said:


    Nobody is saying make a FMS 12 satchel strong, but maybe 6  or an extreme case 9  , just something that takes the 1 Engineer out of the equation.  We want team work so it be logical that we just bump up the FMS threshold just a tadbit.

    Then, we'll hear that the defenders are unable to blow it up causing great distress for them. Every action has an equal reaction.

    1 person likes this

  19. I think it should be important to remind everyone that there is a limited number of High Command Officer playable units which have this capability to deploy the HCMS. Unlike the old days where any HC officer could spawn any infantryman and get their uniform, this is a very isolated case.

    Missions, as they are built currently, cannot deploy more than a single mobile spawn at a time. You cannot deploy multiple different spawn points, just as you cannot make normal missions which have more than one origin or more than one target. Just like depots, you can only spawn from them, or setup a mobile spawn to that mission, and you can elect to uncheck the mobile spawn option. That works the same now with mobile spawns. I cannot describe to you the complexity with changing this, because I do not fully know how, but in my discussions with Victarus about it in the past (being able to deploy multiple mobile spawns or even setting up a fallback mobile spawn position) was serious amounts of code. It's complicated.

    The notion that CRS is not considering player feedback is false. Want proof?

    1. We reduced the EWS range of trucks to make them less detectable and buy more life-time for the trucks
    2. We reduced the deployment time for trucks to place mobile spawns
    3. We made the redeployment (cool-down timer) 0 seconds so you can redeploy it again more rapidly as you see fit
    4. We increased the health of mobile spawns to increase their survivability
    5. We reduced the range of mobile spawns to reduce the travel time to town and increase action / time to contact

    This feedback was received by the players and we determined which values to manipulate and how to do it, but it was driven by the recognition that more needs to be done.

    Making the Fortified Mobile Spawn even stronger may be an option, but it's not the only thing to consider. At some point they'll become too strong as well, which could create more unforeseen issues with how battles play out. We'd really need to be careful with that and do some testing. Fortunately Air Forces can have a direct effect on blowing these up, so it's not regulated solely to the Army to do it all.

    Let's continue to see how this plays out in the live campaign before a mountain is made out of a mole hill.

    I continue to hope that High Command officers utilize this tool (HCMS) to continue the battles and keep players logged in to WWII Online. That is the primary objective.

    1 person likes this