knucks

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About knucks

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday 12/07/1998

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
  1. Planes also have some cool variations as well, bf-109s especially though I had to log into a site to see more https://gyazo.com/99067fa0f0bc935af3f82e65a1564cac
  2. Here's some Allied camo schemes, a little harder to find, allies must've been a bit more rugged and practical in their designs https://gyazo.com/dc89bd05fe4352a6e4340609edb0e9f7 https://gyazo.com/0c002b12ca3128d6038f2908f80ebbbe https://gyazo.com/21989d30a86aa80035eecfb463c3f824 https://gyazo.com/a28032b540144b68f6b38373333abf59 https://gyazo.com/0ddc4b32ab9f8693b13b10492f7ad12e https://gyazo.com/246ee6ae864d95cea676a2136e5ad1ec
  3. I just want to say I was really disappointed in the sunday event, I hopped on around 9am to play some and see how many people were in game for the event, I was dismayed to find out that the event hadn't even started, and wouldn't start for another 5 hours. I didn't check how long it was going to last but I came home around 10pm and logged in again only to discover no new units were unlocked for me, and that the event must've ended some time inbetween. As much as I wanted to join the party and play with everyone who showed up, I was unable to due to the time window. I hope for future events this lasts for at the very least the full day, as not every one of your players will be able to fit such a time into their already busy day.
  4. I agree, for everyone allies equipment audited, a similar and comparable axis unit should receive the same treatment. It's not bias to introduce some limitations to certain equipments, that's suppose to be the beauty of asymmetrical, that each side brings it's own strenghts and weaknesses. It should be attempted to remove all biases that don't match up with the equipment, given if a tank is using one man doing the jobs of 3 on other tanks, well that's just a weakness of the tank and should be noticed historically that hey, this tanks suffers from a cramped turret therefore it's reload speed is diminished to reflect as close to historical numbers as gameplay allows us, ya know before it starts becoming a drag.
  5. Yes reload speeds are modeled too fast across the board, rifles even.
  6. Don't builder accounts get a second account for free? I'd say that's who's doing your spying, the regular player probably doesn't care enough to do such a thing. Also a F2P who buys 2 skins a month is worth more than a subscriber, it's really that simple. If you don't treat that type of player with their due value and respect then you'll be missing out on the most potential support you could possibly get for this game and really be shooting yourself in the foot leaving so much money on the table.
  7. Post Scriptum is not an MMO, nor claims to be or is even classifiable as such. Trust me, I know what an MMO is. 50 tiger skins at 10 a pop is more profit you could ever make from a subscription, that's why it works and there's hundreds apon thousands of examples you can pull from. Multiply that by 100 or so and you have a healthy max of $5000 or so per player. Expect 1-2% to reach the cap, those are the whales yes their well documented. 17-24% will at some point buy a cosmetic, many more than one. The rest is F2P and the great thing about the way these games do it is that they make so much money off the former they can maintain the f2p base, which is great for everyone else because without healthy population you can never have a self sufficient game. The reason this game doesn't see any population boost for any time is because you're already under the threshold of a game considered "alive", with numbers dropping into the dozens every night, people look at the charts, pop in game and see a dead server and they know the game isn't worth any sort of manditory payment. Even WoW if it ever found itself shrinking fast would quickly employ F2P, that's what saves MMO's these days and prevents them from going under.
  8. Not true, you very first example was PS2, an MMO with many running server packing HUGE bandwith, same with E.V.E. Yes these games have subscriptions but F2P is the initial attraction. The Subscription is still an anchor since these games came out during a time when that was usual, now ? Maybe not so much. I know the concern with unrealistic camos, honestly a quick google search provides hundreds of clean looking, realistic camo schemes that could be used in WWIIol and fit right in. Tons of examples out there.
  9. Because the subscription isn't a solid way of monetizing a game and hasn't been for years. Just about any 1 time buy item will overtake having to pay a bill every month. That's why a bunch of MMO's went F2P and did cosmetics, after TF2 and CS:GO showed you can monetize a game 100% on vanity items that don't effect gameplay. The benefit is you can easily pull 10's of thousands of free players, if just a small percentage of them buy the cosmetics (and they will because status is human nature) then it pays, so not only do you have a big playerbase, you're making just as much if not more for your game. That's why subscription is usually now a side piece for the top tier of premium, so few people buy into subscription models nowadays, and just about every game lets you pay with in game currency, rewarding dedicated players.
  10. It works in theory, lots of game's go for F2P/microtransaction/Cosmetics or F2P/subscription/Cosmetics The difference is those games are F2P first, giving them the advantage of a larger playerbase to market too. So if your F2P isn't happy, you don't have many customers. In short I agree DLC being a dead end.
  11. So you'd specifically be against DLC units, and the subscription if that was the case.
  12. +1
  13. How is it arbitrary to build something, yet not to have it pre-built? If anything player made FB's make more sense now, static FB's are a thing of the past.
  14. it shouldn't be assumed that it is somehow the game's fault for failing to reward poor play. it's the game's fault for allowing poor play in the first place. Rule #1, it's the resposibility of the developer to protect the player from himself. You cannot blame the player for playing how he does, we play in the intention that the game is built. I mean, it's safe to say any mechanic or feature has some type of behavior-effecting intention right? We play that intention, which is most certainly in the game's hands. If players are playing poorly, avert them away from it using your game building powers.
  15. Squad does attack/defense the best. Take inspiration from games who do it better I say.