Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • 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. Bad idea. BGE needs f2p if it ever wants to grow. Sub can only do so much, f2p and cosmetic microtransactions is what carries the torch these days.
  2. You can look at it through simple business terms, I'll use drug dealing as an example. Ok so you buy your drugs, 300 dollars worth to be exact. The drugs are alright but money is where it's at. Now you have a choice, you can sell the drugs, keep the profit and buy the same amount of drugs to sell again. Easy right? Well 300 dollars worth of drugs is not much, you make little profit each time you sell your stock. What do drug dealers do to circumvent this? Invest of course! Take your profit made, buy MORE drugs the next time around and now you have 400 dollars of drugs, keep doing that until you get 1000 dollars worth of drugs and you're making more money each time, while also having more drugs. So say BGE has 300 players. That's a good start but not really enough to have a party with. What do you do? You take the profit from those 300 players, and you invest it into more players. Using some good f2p marketing (which this game wants, look at WBS) you gain up to 500 players. Well now you're having fun and if your prices are good, you're making more profit than you were with less players, and as a bonus everyone is having more fun collectively with bigger battles and more action. Now usually this can't go on forever, there's a peak where you've attracted all the customers in your area, and you're making enough profit as it is to sustain yourself and your players. From there you can start massive development easier than before because you're making a lot more money, and have a lot more players to put content to which makes each update immensely more valuable on a player satisfaction level. As the wise Wiz Khalifa once said, "slow money's just as bad as getting no money". It's really a choice, you can be selling little drugs to few people with little profit and no party, or you can sell lots of drugs to loads of people for big profit and parties every night. It's an evolution really, it's proven this way. There's too many examples to put it to fluke. I challenge everyone here to look at the top 10 selling games on steam. There's the proof. Thank you.
  3. Para missions show up under infantry mission tab, with a plane icon instead of the soldier icon. You can't miss it. Para missions are started under the airforce tab. You spawn in one of the transport planes and that missions is delivered to the infantry tab for people to join as para. There's no training ground for this as far as I know. Para missions are Air missions that also go to infantry tab.
  4. Are you sure? Foxhole has you being shuttled from spawn to the front line every time you log in.
  5. what's the benefit? are we getting more players from this subscription, or is it only to please the current consumer base. I don't see any other top tier games doing this? are we the overlooked geniuses? it's only a matter of time before the world realized how great wwiiol is. Give us your money, we're worth it! -new campaign slogan.
  6. MMOFPS details, people.
  7. Now if we could just extent this to the market we might have a game here!
  8. You can, just take the mission counter and add up the players. I mean it's no secret what the population numbers are, no point in hiding it.
  9. Me neither, at these prices you might as well go the full sub which is only a few bucks more. I think where you lose the most people is paying monthly for a game that isn't really going anywhere. What I mean by that is at minimum this game probably needs 500 average daily to be fully playable at all times of day, and take 1000 daily to thrive. We're still around >300 daily, often dropping below 100 every day. For me paying monthly isn't worth it because I cannot actually use most of that time paid for. If there isn't at least a few hundred players online I'm not really enjoying the fights all that much. You could call them night flips but there's many hours in the day where there's a handful of people doing nothing but working cap zones. Not my cup of tea.
  10. So veterans will play as a squad while new players run around chicken headless. Meanwhile the other game is built to work from the get go.
  11. There's just no reason for veterans and noobs to play together. There's no tie-in mechanic that promotes people stick together, there are no squads just everyone in the mission doing their own thing. You really can't blame the new player, when you have quite literally full creative power over each aspect of the game, and new players are directionless, not working together and not sticking around then that's cue to look at your design, because the game is 90% played how intended by design, or lack there of.
  12. Suite yourself, if the player wants to poke himself constantly over supply numbers be my guest. I for one enjoy the tactical coordination gained from the method proposed. I look forward to the armor zergs if the game ever reaches that height.
  13. Sorry, but I don't think dropping total numbers is going to achieve the result you want. What will end up happening if you drop the numbers in the case of too many tanks, you'll end up raising them in the case there's not enough availability in equipment to sustain extended fights. Here's what I think is the best solution, and it's what Squad does with it's deal. It would go like this, one mission is split into many squads, complete with squad leaders and various roles. Certain roles would unlock as others are filled. So once you have a squad of say 10 infantry, one tank is unlocked for use by anyone in the squad. Who gets to use the tank will ultimately be up to I guess the squad leader. Otherwise you can just multi-crew which would increase the functionality without overdoing it with another tank. This way you could balance for the length of fights, given that any mission has say, 4 or 5 tanks at it's fullest for every 10 infantry, then you'll only have to adjust for how long you want that side to have that number of tanks during a battle, instead of dealing with variables such as oh what if one team decided to pull 20 tanks yet only have 5 or 6 men on the ground. In general that has it's place in war but it's such a ridiculous thing to balance when you're dealing with actual supply numbers it may just be tuned for optimal play and not limitless freedom.
  14. That sounds like a weakness of the subscription, not the f2p. The f2p is needed to pull players, whatever monetization that follows is cashing in on the pool. That or a one time buy starter pack, followed by subscription for unlimited access like Albion online does. The biggest problem with this game as an MMO is that it's population generally isn't much larger than it's non-mmo counterparts. There's many hours of the day where the game is generally unplayable, in that there's so few players that certain content just doesn't take place. If the cosmetic route was taken, then some kind of expanded f2p or a more affordable accessable 1 time buy would have to be employed, otherwise you're just asking for more money from the same old people who already pay the sub, which doesn't solve population. Actually the strong part of cosmetics and why it's so widely used is because it targets everyone including f2p, but if the f2p doesn't have the equipment to put the cosmetic on then it's a loss.
  15. If the game were to grow to a thousands active player then this is something you'd want and expect to be there. It's a mild injustice that the 88 doesn't serve it's main purpose in a game that aims to be historically authentic. even if now it would only be slightly useful.