Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by knucks

  1. Planes also have some cool variations as well, bf-109s especially though I had to log into a site to see more
  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
  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.
  16. It's more valuable to free up the DLC and push cosmetics instead. Tank DLC=$!5. 1 tank skin=$15 so the equipment DLC is pretty worthless compared to customization. No one has a problem paying for skins either because it doesn't effect gameplay and isn't pay2win, while at the same time drawing more player population because games which are free tend to do that better than subscription titles, or games which as for a 1 time fee of a hundred something dollars for the very basic kit, which is what the equipment DLC is.
  17. $3.99-$12.99 depending on whether it's something small like a decal, or larger like a tank skin, also on it's eyecandy factor. That's about the price I pay for cosmetic stuff in my video games, also the average price of a good vinyl sticker. From that I'd like to see more f2p content that brings players in. I think it would work well because then the F2P crowd could buy cosmetics for the equipment they have and not be locked to only rifles and trucks. That would be a good alternative to having people subscribe for most equipment, as long as there are people buying the visual goodies then it's well worth giving them the most stuff to buy for Especially if just one skin is practically what the sub cost, f2p won't be such a burden as long as those same people are interested in some vanity items, which they surely will be. If someone doesn't want to subscribe, but wants to deck out their full kit from infantry to armor to air, we should give them every reason to do that.
  18. Well, yes that's the point Yes those too, decals if you will. Yes a skin, probably a few Mb each and a couple of hours in program of your choice for a HQ one. LOL that's war son. You don't see people in warthunder crying about historic cammo schemes on their planes and tanks! Do you want CRS to make money or not? THEN QUIT YOUR BELLY ACHING SOLDIER!
  19. Microtransactions are already in game with the DLC, problem is they're woefully overpriced for what you get and combined it comes out to like 100 dollars which is still way above what this game is worth 1 time buy, and it's some of the most basic equipment there is wholefully outmatched past tier 2. So basically you have to subscribe or you're going to be at a huge disadvantage which generally, most people don't buy into subscription service games anymore. Cosmetics that don't effect gameplay are usually the best sellers, actually most f2p games make all their money from cosmetics alone. Hands down the best way to do it. Also there's no reason to buy the DLC if you're already subbing so it's pretty empty money potential unlike cosmetics which are universally sought after as premium items. Just think like this, if every tank had a few historical paints, each costing $3-5, then that's hundreds, potentially thousands of dollars on top of sub money which every player is exposed to, unless for some reason they don't have the unit to buy it for. That's small price variation, the best looking items can be up to 10 a pop and be huge revenue ON TOP of the sub, as with subscribers there will still be incentives to buy them, and it's all per player so some people will buy everything, and that 1 person will practically pay for the servers for a year. (not really but you know what I mean)
  20. Sapper already has 2 AT charges? That's two tanks which is more than enough AT power imo. I would prefer seeing that AT power go into engineer class. Also a infantry weapon for AT/AA guns would be great.
  21. Fair enough. I still think this game has huge untapped potential and you could easily supplement your own wages putting in the same time you do now, but reaching out to more players, which translates to more customers by offering easier entry for all, improved controls and a payment model more in line with competing titles. No doubt this game plays well with 1000 players, and the last time it had it was too far back for people nowadays to remember, or even know this game exists. The people who do find this game seem overwhelmingly disappointed in 1.the population numbers and 2.the manditory subscription, which is bottlneck on potential customers, exposure and reception.
  22. So in the case you got a bunch of players and revenue would you still consider yourself volunteers? One would think at some point you'd have to consider yourselves developers and somewhat of a business if you're making money, unless you're fine with the game only having 200 players. In that case I would retract support if CRS had no ambition of growing the playerbase, especially because there are volunteer run MMO's out there that don't accept any sort of payment, not even donations due to legal obligations. You don't have the same obligations so I'd ask why you consider yourself volunteers when the potential to be the true developers is there, you're only not making money off of this game because of poor monetization.
  23. Nah, I'm being real. WWIIol advertised itself as F2P offering a trial in a rifleman and at the same time E.V.E got rid of it's trial and created Alpha accounts that got 50% access. You guys are behind and/or backwards in the gaming landscape. You can't call yourself F2P and not be f2p and expect people to not take exception. Not saying it was malice slicing the AA/AT gun out of f2p and selling it as DLC, it certainly wasn't bright and backed by market trends. You'll still ignore the fact that F2P based games are making more money and pulling more players than any subscription based game which is what all your competitors are doing.
  24. Marketing this game as f2p was a blatant lie, you clearly had no intention of offering more than a trial to people and even that was too much so you pulled out. The average person wouldn't pay 15 a month for this game, you should've accepted that and worked with the f2p market instead of acting like you're better than that putting it under f2p with a "free to try, pay to play" disclaimer. You can't pull one over the consumer, they know what the landscape is and when you can get hundreds of units in games like War Thunder, or play half way through E.V.E before paying and then look at this game and you're still asking for a subscription for basic access, of course they voted with their wallets. If you went with the f2p and not against it you would have more customers, asking the average person the highest premium for basic units has gotten you very little support, and that shouldn't be a surprise because no other developer today does that and expects positive results from fans. You went backwards and lost hundreds of potential customers by ignoring the fact that F2P games are on top, and subscriptions are below that of even microtransactions for companies interested in profit, and it's been like that for years now.
  25. Ironically, you'll see now that subscription truly is not means of entry, it's a means of support. People don't buy subscriptions anymore to play games, they buy them to support the developer. People withdrawing their support, probably because you've ignored the playercount issue and failed to promise a competitive f2p model to draw new players in. You don't see many other MMO's ask subscription from every single person. They accept all and they not only gain more players because of it, they earn more money. You really should've not turned your back on the Steam market. Your percieved greed, lack of ambition and inability of adapt as put you in negative spotlight. Instead of asking everyone to subscribe, you should be asking everyone to join in and play. Beggers can't be choosers, and in this day and age, the consumer has all the power.