Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Quincannon

  1. I saw a post on Steam mentioning that voting for finalists will happen during their Winter sale... so pretty soon. Please watch for this and vote for the game folks. Assuming we made it into the finals. that is. (Fingers crossed!)
  2. Hey everyone! I just saw that nominations for this year's Steam awards are up. One category this year is the Labor of Love Award for games that are still being developed and receiving updates from the Devs well after release. If any category fits WWII, this is it. No Dev team has ever worked as hard or as long as the rats. So if you're on Steam PLEASE nominate WWII Online for this award! It can only help our community and game pop!
  3. Apparently. I'm not sure I looked at on day one, but as soon as I saw that there was a category that WWII Online was eligible for, I started posting it on all of our group sites. It was a really short voting period, though.
  4. It looks like the voting is over. I cant find any option to vote on Steam now. Thanks to everyone who voted!
  5. Bump! Just to keep it on the feed and up there for people to see. Vote for the game folks!
  6. Nothing personal, But you apparently have very little idea of exactly how pervasive this attitude is across WWII games in general. I have talked to a lot of people. I have scoured message boards from other games. Talked to role players in tabletop RPGs even. I have reviewed articles on WWII fan gamer web sites. I have found that there is an overwhelming majority of players who come into almost every WWII game with the intent of playing on the German/ Axis side before they even try the games. Many people don't want to play "the good guys" or they want to try the Tigers, or their friends play Axis. Most want to WIN, and they see the German side as a way to do that. Some are just tired of playing the Allies in most single player games. The reasons keep on coming. Now maybe CRS will find a way to entice OUR population to even out a bit more someday. I truly hope so. But let's be honest. If CRS changed (nerfed) the Axis equipment to make the Allies more enticing, they would lose the majority of the Axis player base. But they won't, and I certainly wouldn't want them to. It would be a terrible business decision. I don't believe that any game will change the overall attitude of gamers who play WWII games in general. Most will always play German if given the chance. The balance that you mention has to exist within the overall player base for WWII games in general. Currently it does not.
  7. There's been a lot of research on it. But it IS a form of gambling. You pay real money for a chance at something. Now if it was a given reward... i.e. for $10 you get a Sherman tank from a gold box... well that's an in game purchase... but a loot box says that you get a ,001% chance of getting that tank if you pay $10 to open it. People who really want that tank have to keep trying. Sure they get stuff with every box, but they have to gamble on every try that the reward they want will be in there. It's been shown that this has big effect on minors who play in online games, as they already have poorer/less developed impulse control than adults. So the real fact is that it's a form of perspective as to the reality of whether or not loot boxes fit the normal definition of gambling. Either way, they are a part of gaming that should never have arisen (IMO).
  8. 1. Multiple accounts are a financial necessity to the game. Their loss would be a loss of revenue and some players. (unfortunately) 2. It ONLY makes the game more fun for the player who has the multiple accounts. I can assure you that it does NOT make things more fun for the single account player who has to face them. 3. There is no way for you to say that there are exactly the same number of multiple account players on each side. Are there a bunch on each side? Yes. Are there an exact number on each side, and do they meet each other equally in game? Of course not. But I agree that overall,the number if multiple account players may be small enough that it doesn't have a major effect on the overall game. As to the last part... I agree that, generally speaking, a player who plays longer tends to have a bigger impact for that time period than someone who plays less... but the number of accounts a player plays has no direct correlation with how much they play.
  9. Once AGAIN you are "putting words in my mouth" and none of it is correct. It's more than a bit out of line, neighbor. I was very clear as to my meaning. I will be extremely specific. If it is not in the words that I write exactly... Then any suggestion that you might make as to what I believe would be an outright lie. 1. I believe that an FPS should be one person:one unit. Period. One soldier. One plane... Our game is unique in that an avatar does not get into a vehicle, which essentially makes the vehicle a unit. Unique, also, is that when this happens, while the player's unit is the vehicle, the vehicles are also designed to be multi crewed, causing the issues where one person can not effectively use a unit to it's full combat effectiveness solo. I said that it might be easier to use such units if this were not the case. I did not say that i believed that it needed to be changed, or that I was for or against such a change. I simply meant that I believed that controlling such units might be easier if they were designed to be operated by a single player. That does not change my opinion of FPS versus multi-unit RTS games. 2. I do NOT believe that some people should have only 1 avatar and others should have more than one. I believe that everyone should have one only. 3. I recognize that, based on economic needs of the game, that CRS allows multiple accounts. This doe not mean that I am in favor of the process. It means that i accept that this is a "necessary evil" that must exist for the game to continue operating. I explained my experience in my earlier post. In my experience against players with two accounts, I lose every time, because they can be in two places at once. they can achieve multiple missions at once. (ex: fight and cap/ fight and guard FBs) while I can only achieve one. They can fight in town and cap my town while stopping me from busting an FB. Your standards are different, and you are looking at different effects. My issue is what I believe is an uncounterable issue: a player with multiple accounts can be in two places at once and do two jobs at once, while a single account can only be in one place and do one thing at a time. This gives the multiple account holder an advantage. And I want to be very clear here. There is a huge difference between owning multiple accounts that get played one at a time, and playing multiple accounts at the same time. If a player only uses one account at a time, it does not matter how many accounts they own. The effect on the game is not changed, because they are still only playing one person to one avatar in the game. Even if a family member is allowed to use a second account, this is the same, because it's still one player to one avatar in the game. Does the population change? Yes, but the problem caused by one player playing multiple avatars does not occur. At what time did I say that I was anything? Again you are putting words in my mouth. And what arguments did I make in that response? I never mentioned AI. I said that I was not interested in the gameplay that you suggest. I suggested that you discuss it in the suggestion forums. How does anything that you wrote here have anything to do with what I wrote? I get that you want a game change. OK. But you're trying to argue with ME about it...when I don't want to argue about it in the first place. Do me a favor, neighbor and find a different target. I made a simple post about my experience against Multiple accounts, and noted that their effect can be very demoralizing to single account players, which is true. Anything else about game mechanics has nothing to do with what I was posting. Have a nice day.
  10. "By your definition then, tanks, ships, and bombers should only be allowed to spawn if every crew position is filled. " Please show me where I wrote this exact statement. Oh wait. You cannot, because I did not make it. I did not infer it. I simply said that I thought it might be easier if one person could control an entire vehicle solo. That was it. No discussion about every seat filled or not filled. PLEASE do NOT "put words in my mouth" as the saying goes. With all due respect, I am not going to be part of a drawn out conversation about your suggested changes. I was discussing one thing. Multiple accounts. If you wish to discuss something else, then please do it with someone else. As far as your tests. I spoke as to my own experience. I KNOW how encountering multiple accounts affected my own game, and see how they can affect others. If you don;t agree, I don't intend to try to convince you. In addition... maybe you have a terrific idea for a game. I don't know. What I DO know is that what you are describing is not WWII online. You are describing a completely different game, with incredibly different play and mechanics. And with all due respect. That's great for you to suggest. Put it up on the Suggestion board where it belongs. Discuss it to death. Have fun. But PLEASE do not use me to launch your arguments for such a conversion. I am not remotely interested in it. I personally would not want to play the game that you suggest. You can not convince me that what you are suggesting would be a better game, no matter what you do, and in any event such a discussion belongs in the Suggestion forums. Have a nice day.
  11. OK first... unless you personally can change the mentality of the current generation of gamers... no one can 'fix' the pop imbalance in a non match open choice game like this. I have spent a LOT of time looking at a number of WWII games, and the exact same problem exists in pretty much every game. Most players want to play Germans/ Axis... CRS can't change that. As far as a spawn delay package? I certainly wouldn't pay for it. Why? Well, let's tell our subscribers that they need to pay MORE to prevent spawn delay... I can pretty much guarantee many folks would want to know why premium subscribers don't have that Queue priority over Free to Play already. In a subscription model game, that is something that is expected to be taken into account when determining the monthly subscription prices... not done as an ad hoc add on. And as I said, just because we have one exception to Pay to Win does NOT mean that we should embrace it, and make it regular accepted way of running the game. Maybe YOU don't have an issue with it, but many do.
  12. I have seen you espouse this concept. It would be interesting in another game. But this is NOT another game. This is supposed to be a First Person Shooter experience, rather than an RTS. I DO admit that sometimes I think that the vehicles would be easier/ better if they were fully crewed when occupied by a single player, and could be controlled in such a way that one person could completely control the vehicle and all of its positions for combat purposes. As this game is actually designed... yes, i feel this way.
  13. NOTHING would generate as much revenue? Seriously? Maybe some players would be willing to pay for a no spawn delay package. but others would never accept that some players could just pay to gain such a ridiculously overpowered advantage. What's next? Pay for faster capping? Pay for special ammunition? Pay for physical perks, such as less stamina usage? Where do we draw the line? In game play advantages for money are a really, really bad idea. I agree with you about the fact that Multiple accounts are a certain level of Pay to Win. I agree less about the packages that CRS sells, because those packages give a player access to a limited number of units, but not weak versions of what Premiere or Builders get. There have been a lot of ideas floated for CRS to make money over the years. I admit I love the Amazon ads one. Personally, I used to suggest the concept of varying National uniforms, such as Polish, Romanian, Scottish.... People have their own favorite nationalities...I believe that these could sell... but it would be a lot of work, and CRS has never been much for mini transactions.. Actually, however, I believe that if CRS could gain the ability to let folks vary their subs over time, it would help their revenue. In the past, if a player is a vet and wanted to come back but wanted to play for free for a temporary term, they could not play their previously Premium character. They had to create a second account for Free to Play. I know some players simply stopped playing because of this. Now most MMOs allow players to upgrade and downgrade their accounts as they need; and the only real change is the player's access for each particular time period. I think that if CRS can do this in the future, it would help greatly with player retention, and increase subs in the long run.
  14. I love the game and want to say first that I truly appreciate that folks are willing to pay for multiple accounts to support the game. That said... MY problem with multiple accounts is that they give a GEOMETRIC advantage of multi players over single account players. Now for this I will completely ignore TOW only players, but I normally count them in this.... I was defending an AB...I went into the bunker and found FOUR enemy players waiting to start capping when it went hot. I thought I was dead. But they were all immobile. I killed them, realizing they were second accounts. Not 1 minute later all four ran into the bunker and killed me. I stood ZERO chance of defending that bunker at 1-4 odds, and because they all had second accounts, they could man a bunker in my town, cap the rest of the town with their other accounts, and swap back and forth at a moment's notice. They knew where I was and could kill me with ease and even if I could beat 4-1, no way I could beat 8-1. I was beaten before I started fighting. And at the time we were underpopped and outnumbered as well. I couldn't just call for help. As far as the FB defense... If I decide to bust a FB, I mark off the next half hour or more, unless I have a whole crew to bust an FB, and it's still 15 minutes. Assume that I'm alone. I have to spend 15 minutes or more just to SET the bust... then I have to run in and start blowing the FB. This will take me another 15 plus minutes, if nothing goes wrong and no one is there. This is a half hour that I am NOT doing anything else to fight the enemy. I am not killing, I am not capping. This takes ALL of my capability. On the other hand, the guy who has TWO accounts can just set one at the FB... then he plays during that 20 minutes. He is killing, capping, and helping beat my team. Then he grabs a coke and looks at the map and sees that I have started blowing the FB. he spawns in... kills my engineer and my FMS, layghs at how easy that was, and goes back to playing with his other account. HE has spent maybe 5 minutes at the FB, and has accomplished at least two missions, while I am back at square one. Again, because he had a second account, I had zero chance of success before I even started. When I think about it, it means that I lost, not necessarily because he was a better player than me... the fact is that he didn't even have to stop what he was doing to make a mission to the FB to stop me. He could sit there without even TRYING, and was already set up to stop me. There's no effective way to counter that. Now, people will say "adapt". OK... But there is NO adaptation, unless one goes with Fight fire with fire, and can do the same kind of thing. Let's be honest: the fact is that single account holders can not compete effectively against multiple accounts. They can do very well in stats and so forth... but they can only be in one place at one time. The ability to be in two places at one time is not something an opponent can counter, at least not in a game like ours. Every time I think about it, It makes me feel like single account holders are nothing more than fodder for multiple account holders, and sometimes that thought actually keeps me from logging in at all. I know that I can't be the only one. (And this comes from a Builder who has the right to use a second tow account.) I'm not criticizing anyone for having multiple accounts... but I wanted people who DO to understand just how overpowered multiple accounts are against single account players; and how demoralizing that knowledge can be to players who don't have it, and then scream that the game is PAY to WIN. It's NOT just whiners crying because they are losing.
  15. I have to agree with Kilemall entirely here. Pay to Win must be prevented in any possible way at ALL costs. Your statement about multiple accounts notwithstanding. Personally, while I believe in supporting the game, I have never been in favor of multiple accounts. But the fact that the game feels that multiple accounts are allowable and necessary does not mean that we should fully and happily embrace the Pay to Win culture. It's beyond ridiculous that in this game the winner should be the guy with the deepest pockets. If that's true, then why should anyone who isn't loaded even try to play at all? This is the kind of discussion they have had for years on the Star Citizen boards about development, where the big money folks pressure the devs to make the game push high end systems that only they can afford to own, and who cares if anyone else gets to play the game? There are other ways that CRS could earn extra money.
  16. That is not necessarily true. If there is a population imbalance,,, say 60% Axis / 10% swappers/ 30% Allied The we increase the overall population across the board by 20 %... All ratios remaining equal... The imbalance will always remain at the same percentage... The reason some folks think that the imbalance is helped by greater population is because the numbers increase, and the imbalance is not so glaringly obvious.. If we have 60 Axis, 10 swappers, and 30 Allied... the pop is 2-1, but there are 30 Allies... not necessarily that bad. if we have 30 Axis, 5 swappers and 15 Allied... the pop is still 2-1, and 15 Allies can still potentially hold out/ But when we drop to 6 Axis, 1 swapper and 3 Allies... things get pretty grim for the Allies... Unfortunately, it's rarely that specifically even.. when the numbers drop, the ratio tends to get greater in my experience... often putting the axis at a 3-1 advantage or better during TZ3. This is often because there are TZ3 Squads on the Axis side, and none on the Allied side.
  17. It only affects the Axis side when Axis players swap sides. I have been playing TZ3 Allied for 7 years. I have missed out on a few campaigns. but in that time I have never played in a campaign where TZ3 Allied was anywhere near equal to the Axis overpop unless Axis groups swapped sides. THAT's what your list is missing... it doesn't take that into account; therefore it is a flawed population model. Show me more than two or three campaigns that the Allies won purely on their own in the past few years... Then maybe you can convince me that I might be wrong.
  18. I don't know where you came up with that list... but before you use it for proof that the imbalance doesn't exist, I suggest you look at every time it showed Allied overpop and see if there weren't a significant of people who normally play Axis swapping to the Allied side. You can't use a swapover campaign as proof that the Alllies were overpop. It's a false positive. I personally have been of the belief that there needs to be a moratorium on Axis players coming to the Allied side for at least 6-7 campaigns, so that everyone can clearly see how a purely Allied side performs. Regular side swappers are generally an insignificant percentage, but I would assume that they can affect the numbers by 10-15%. It's unfortunate that it's unlikely to happen, when it is so clearly needed to make the issue unquestionable to everyone. The imbalance is not a joke or conspiracy. It's a fact that has been recognized by folks on both sides. From what i have seen, with a VERY few exceptions, any time the Allies get the better pop is when Axis folks want to "help" or decide that the Allies need to win for the sake of the game. There have been a few times when the Allies were able to make substantial sacrifices of time that they normally cannot dedicate to the game to help out in TZ3... but it has never been sustainable. People have real lives. The Allies have to gain real dedicated Allied players who can play during TZ3 on a regular basis, or nothing will be solved.... ever.
  19. There could be some options... but none would overcome the main problem.... Most people who play WWII games come into the game intending to play German. It's not just this game...it starts at from what I can guess is at least a 70-30 Axis vs Allies preference before anyone even logs in. Then... because of this base imbalance... and the fact that most players are not willing to play on an underdog side... many of those who DO come in planning on playing Allied in TZ3 learn just how unbelievably hard it is, and either quit or go over to the Axis because they want to win. Add to that there is no way the Allies can invite new players in TZ3 to join a squad or take the time to train them... if we get 1 in 1000 players who stay... we are lucky... Meanwhile Axis players come in.. get invited to squads... usually have the freedom to play any units and have people free to show them the ropes... get to play and not be overrun all the time... and have time to just chat and have fun... and the Axis squads recruit aggressively as well. So, of course the Axis side continues to grow, while the Allied side shrinks... because the Z3 issue also disheartens the main Allied pop in other TZs who decide that what they do doesn't matter because it all goes away in TZ3, and we lose players from that player base as well. Sooner or later, people are going to have to decide to join the Allied side permanently, or the Axis are going to have to start fighting themselves. I have mentioned the only way I think that the Allies can gain any new permanent players... but we need more Allied players and a perma TZ3 Squad to do it. I would have tried to start said Squad but I couldn't find enough unaligned TZ3 Allied players to meet the minimum membership requirement to create a squad.
  20. I get what you're saying, but we already KNOW that the majority of players would choose Axis. Asking them to choose a side would not have much, if any, effect on the population. I'm pretty sure CRS already knows, at least in the ballpark, the numbers on how bad the imbalance is. Sidelock only has an effect if it is somehow a limiting factor.
  21. I don't think that's it. People like having a large variety of units. I think a lot of players could always mention a few more that we want to see. But the poll asked what we felt mattered AND made WWII Online seem unique. When playing a WWII game, most folks expect to see a lot of WWII weapons... so having them doesn't make the game unique in and of itself. Now some of our missions ARE unique...most games don't have Naval units to patrol rivers or provide coastal bombardments; Most WWII games don't have Engineers that can build and repair fortifications and AI; This is the first game that I've played where players can organize Strategic Bombing missions that effect overall supply production. We love all the units. I don't think many folks would be unhappy with more units. Some would prefer more unique units (expand the Italian units available, for example). But most of our units aren't really different from other WWII games. And as far as new players are concerned, I'm pretty sure most will view one M1 Garand the same as the other, even if ours IS more historically accurate than those in other games. Also, the poll said "weapons" and not units. I think most people will see the two terms differently. That said, map expansion is important, as well. Having such a large WWII ETO map but not having Paris has raised a few eyebrows over the years. But if asked, I think may people would consider map revision just as important as expansion. (New CP buildings. more of the revamped Bunkers... the new city blocks)
  22. Ability to play 5 different factions - US, UK, French, Italian, German Most games have only 2-3 (US, UK, German)
  23. I hate to say it, but I fail to see how side lock would help. One: If the side lock simply has a player locked to a side... it doesn't change anything except for side swappers, who would have to choose one side or the other. Two: If the side lock was set to a percentage, and then prevented players from signing up for the side they want until the opposing side is equaled out, people will get VERY upset, especially those who belong to side specific squads and can't sign up for the side their Squad belongs to. Three: If CRS attempted to mitigate #2 above by giving priority to those who belong to side specific Squads, then lone wolf players would become very upset. Four HC members would have to be given a pass.
  24. I have to ask... what's the niche? What reason to add them? What unique aspect do they bring to the table?
  25. There has been discussion about allowing TTs to have their own FMS capability. I am all for that. That said, I think that normally the Axis tend to use paras to cap spawnable CPs in England. This is yet another reason to get rid of link spawns. I would MUCH rather see a seaborne invader either have to sail TT over and set some sort of Naval dock FMS, or see them have to bring a truck over and disembark it. The fact that they can drop paras, grab ONE CP and suddenly have a foothold in England is ridiculous. I don't see the destroyable must be brought across the sea FMSs as the real issue...They can be destroyed.