Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About knucks

  • Rank
  • Birthday 12/07/1998

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
  1. wasn't the point of steam to get recognition that you otherwise wouldn't have? Why are you doubling back on that. All you had to do was throw players a bone and you would've had a few hundred dedicated f2p players filling your game, bringing it even more attention and praise. Should listen to the reviews, steam discussion and youtube comments all saying that. The formula has already been unlocked, all you had to do was follow success and steam would've been wholefully worth it. I hope when this game does leave early access (it has to at some point right?) that you'll reconsider your decisions. The game had all the attention it needed at first to draw players in, youtubers, live streams. Hardly any of them stuck around to play rifleman only. You gotta invest a bit into players if you want them to stick around this old game. You gotta adapt and realize the reason all these big MMOs are expanding their F2P options is because there's monetary value to having as many people possible getting involved in their game for the longest achievable time without cutting into sales. If a youtuber or streamer jumps into the game, you have to be able to foster in the players they bring, they must be welcomed to play, not immediately locked into the most boring 2% of the game. Do you really think you're winning anyone over charging 8 bucks for no tanks and 1 plane? From the outside you're whole business looks like a scam, and the way you run steam discussion makes it seem like this game is like you don't really care for feedback as long as you get sub money. You only have 1 more opportunity to make right to this game. That is taking it our of EA which puts it on the open market which puts it back on front page new releases where it will either be gassed off by the same old reviews or left largely irrelevant and under populated. People watch EA games, there's groups dedicated to it on steam, some people will do what they can in their power to give the right feedback to small developers (most of which have their own echochamber that lacks outside perspective) There are literally armies of players out there who fight tooth and nail to defend and promote their favorite games so more people play them (you think I'm BS? You have one too but it's here on these forums, the good reviews left by the regulars of this game were no match for the people on steam, who very veraciously fight against any and all forms of p2w, shovelware and untrustworthy developers) If this game was half of what other f2p games are, in that they don't beg for money 24/7 and respect players decision to support a game that they think is worth their support then you'd have all the respect from these people. You would get people supporting and showing off your game and it would translate directly to more players, more positivity and more money. It's just impossible to help this game atm. You've figuratively built a wall around this title with the near-mandatory sub. Any new player who's attention is grabbed by promotion is stopped at the gates being expected to pull their wallet out and spend big bucks (game-relative) just to get base features. You do not win yourself any fans or respect doing this. The many communities on steam will not help if you cannot show respect to the service and to the players. You will just get more enemies, more people driven away from the game (like it's hard, you drive plenty away yourself already). You tried to use steam as free marketing, you tried to trick people into thinking this was an EA/f2p game. You ignored the advice, and it bit you hard in the [censored]. If you really are fine with keeping the game exactly how it is playerwise and not grow because you like your small community, then you should just say it and drop the title from steam. You frustrate too many people by having such a gem of the game with no intention of treating it like a regular title with the goal to gain popularity and fill the servers with players. You're putting yourself up as the antagonist on steam with your manipulation and overselling yourself. I get you have pride in your game, you should; but posing yourself as the victim of greedy selfish gamers who want everything for free gives us disdain. You know the formula, you've played other successful F2P games that everyone loves and appreciates with devs who broke their backs paving the way to the perfect f2p model, but you refuse to follow the path of the greats. I hope you reconsider and bring a full functioning, non-intrusive f2p model back to steam, one that is worthy of our time and patience with a 17 year old game that in all truth can't hold a candle to newer games. Sure you have the sole supply of a very specific material, but I can get stronger, more polished material for much cheaper elsewhere. This game could be a staple of the steam F2P market, a must have for anyone who likes WW2, sims, tactics, strategy, teamwork and large scale combat. It could be the game that every history nerd 13 year old kid playing on his dads laptop and his dorky friends play all day. It could be a front pager with a active playerbase of 1000 instead of 300, but chya gotta want it. I certainly do and I personally know about 350 other people who pick up this game tomorrow if you offered air gameplay, an ability to combat armor as infantry, and some kind of fighting vehicle with proper aa/at capabilities on the F2P. If you did the historical cammos thing like War Thunder does, and really outdid yourself on the F2P we would buy those cammos. Like I can't state over text how much money we would spend of real historical cammos that we could put on our planes in tanks inside a game like this. People are literally foaming at the mouth for War Thunder to drop World War mode for this very reason. You got something here, devs. You have a real special game in your hands. On behalf of the Steam WW2&Sim community, I implore you too explore these options. We all want to see this game succeed and thrive. The game desperately needs population and spotlight, we cannot promote your game if you continue to isolate 90% of today's demographic with an outdated monetization scheme. Maybe 10 years ago you could've gotten away with it, but people expect better now. best regards, -knucks
  2. It was also f2p, more like free to try. Says so in the trailers and on the website. Yet you stopped offering it for steam? hmm
  3. Why would they launch F2P on steam then switch services? Because they pushed a P2W game onto F2P without considering those F2P players who would've repopulated the game. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.
  4. That's total general players. The peak total players in game at once per 24 hours hovers around 250ish. The most players ever recorded in game at once since steam sits at 401
  5. Its a hub for all things PC gaming, owned by Valve, the people who made juggernauts like Half life, Counter Strike, Portal and TF2. You download the client, create an account, and you can buy games, discuss games, review games, add friends, join groups, play with people, voice chat, tons of other stuff. Its a huge step for any game to release on Steam because that's where 90% of all PC gamers are. WWIIonline be up to see for all 125 million of Steam's active users
  6. There's nothing wrong with offering more options to players. Some people will never touch air or naval combat, why make them pay for that? Lets not forget, just having population is the greatest payment, since more people=more content for everybody. If giving more flexible payment will keep someone in the game longer, then why not offer it?
  7. If you can afford a little bit extra go for the Thrustmaster T16000m, Its the cheapest joystick with Hall sensors which are much more accurate and will last longer than the the pot sensors on the 3D pro. I have had mine for about 2 year now and have only lubricated it once and its still dead accurate with 0 noticeable deadzone. Its very future proof if you ever want to get yourself a throttle which the newest version of the stick comes with optionally. (I have the older green one but they're roughly the same) Seriously, you will be blown away at how precise it is, you won't regret it.
  8. Then perhaps not require the commander open to order the gunner to aim the gun. I was trying to think in terms of balancing but forgot french tanks have the hatch on the back. What would probably work better is to allocate keys (numberpad?) that let the commander order the gun to move the same way you'd drive with wasd so you can do a rough aim and also have the ability to drive at the same time with wasd and look around with mouse and another key to order the gunner to fire. That would allow the use of all crew of the tank at once like a tank would be used in combat and make tanking more fun and intuitive. As for vehicles where the commander is also the gunner, well they would just function as a gunner with the ability to order the driver
  9. Currently tank commanders only serve one purpose as an observer. This makes tanks feel less like a crew of men working together, and like a crew of one jumping between seats, which makes them clunkier than they should be. Tank commanders should be able to give orders to his driver to drive, and his gunner to "aim in this general direction" with binocs. This gives commander more use realistically, and a big risk/reward factor because if you want to give your gunner a bearing on a long range target, you got to come out to get your binocs on him. If you die not only do you loose valuable line of sight, but the ability to give orders to your crew. This video is tank command how it should be
  10. Ah ok. It would be nice to have a starter account title too, I feel on certain matters your opinion can be taken less if people think you aren't a paying user, but thanks
  11. Wow that's a bummer. So we can expect no new vehicles to be added? Please tell me this isn't true
  12. But isn't the fact that the Allies, having more consistent access to armor that for the most part, outclasses their German counterparts enough to justify giving Axis an 88 with a gunshield, that IRL if would've had, without having to boost something on the allies side because of it? Allies have great armor like the Sumoa, and the Daimler. Not to mention heavy tanks early on, all of which retain usefulness through tiers. Unlike the Germans who only have a select few tanks that are useful against armor, which aren't as good as the allied counterparts, and are quickly obsolete. The 88 is considerably the German's only early war heavy tank, but its a glass cannon, and with the gunshield it will still be a glass cannon.
  13. Another thing we could do is keep the 88 we have now, but only give it like 5-10 AP rounds and the rest HE, and perhaps as a tier 2 unlock we can get a gunshield 88, but with only 5-10 HE rounds, resp AP that way one can be more of a AA/arty piece, and the other can be a a more strict AT gun to balance it out.
  14. Agreed, if CRS is trying to go for an AT/AA 88, then it should have a gunshield. I doubt the germans by 1941 ever not used a gunshield for any gun they'd consider to have an AT role.