Game Balance and Free to Play

[saronin 450]

Just a thought on side lock, spawn delay, and balance issues. Why not limit free to play players to the low population side only? If the population is balanced either side can be chosen. Otherwise only the low population side can be chosen for free to play. Choice of side at all times can be reserved for any type of paying subscription.

[jphartt 30]

Just a thought on side lock' date=' spawn delay, and balance issues. Why not limit free to play players to the low population side only? If the population is balanced either side can be chosen. Otherwise only the low population side can be chosen for free to play. Choice of side at all times can be reserved for any type of paying subscription.[/quote']

I think this is a very intelligent point. Might I include that only paid accounts are accessed to Host Squads and Not recruit-able.

7thAST has I think over 7500 members. I was going through the list, looks like a list of bots. Anyway there could be a better way to manage this?

[saronin 450]

I think this is a very intelligent point. Might I include that only paid accounts are accessed to Host Squads and Not recruit-able.

7thAST has I think over 7500 members. I was going through the list, looks like a list of bots. Anyway there could be a better way to manage this?

I think that issue probably needs to come in fixing the recruitment issue. Any player that is not promoted after a certain time should drop from the list. That is the way the game is intended to work anyway.

[PITTPETE 541]

Very good idea.

Give F2P players a bit more than they have now and let them play the underpop side.

[Kizmet 0]

I like this idea as well. As stated, maybe it will cause the Free to Play accounts to pony up to the bar and get themselves a paid account.

[sydspain 0]

• It won't solve balance problems, you just will have one side full of greentags.
  
• Squads will be not available for f2p
  
• Daily changes of sides don't promote teamwork
  
• Good f2p won't want to play with the other side, they will prefer to not log in before playing with the enemy side.
  
• F2p will be doomed to defensive gameplay. They will never attack.
  

In conclusion, f2p+lonewolf+side switching+defense= f2p dead

[vasduten1 405]

I don't know...

The whole point of FTP was to get people interested in this game without having to commit to pay right away.

Making them side lock to underpop would show them the WORST aspects of this game.

"Wow, it's a tank camping zerg-fest. I can't even get out of the spawn building!"

"Wow, the entire town is surrounded by fags in heavy tanks and nothing can get out. How do they even GET 20 Shermans and M10s?!?"

That sort of thing.

Show them QUANK and they'll go play something else in a hurry.

Leave FTP alone and just focuse on making HC balance out for now.

[PITTPETE 541]

Maybe they login during TZ3

[saronin 450]

I don't know...

The whole point of FTP was to get people interested in this game without having to commit to pay right away.

Making them side lock to underpop would show them the WORST aspects of this game.

"Wow, it's a tank camping zerg-fest. I can't even get out of the spawn building!"

"Wow, the entire town is surrounded by fags in heavy tanks and nothing can get out. How do they even GET 20 Shermans and M10s?!?"

That sort of thing.

Show them QUANK and they'll go play something else in a hurry.

Leave FTP alone and just focuse on making HC balance out for now.

Why should we allow them to join the Quank and make it a worse experience for people paying to play the game?

Sides are not under pop at all times so they will have the ability to choose their side at least some of the time. That should give them a chance to experience the game and make a decision as to whether or not to sub. It has the added bonus of allowing a side that is routinely under pop in a given time zone to reach out and try to recruit the new players that are testing the game out. If squads do enough recruiting and retention of new players then the population may even out over time.

[saronin 450]

• It won't solve balance problems, you just will have one side full of greentags.
  
• Squads will be not available for f2p
  
• Daily changes of sides don't promote teamwork
  
• Good f2p won't want to play with the other side, they will prefer to not log in before playing with the enemy side.
  
• F2p will be doomed to defensive gameplay. They will never attack.
  

In conclusion, f2p+lonewolf+side switching+defense= f2p dead

No offense sydspain but I think CRS should worry more about the people who are paying to play the game than f2p. Why should f2p get to pile on a side that is having a rough go of it to make it worse?

You say that it won't solve balance problems because you will just have one side full of greentags. This a good thing for the squads that play a time zone that is typically underpopulated. It allows the squads in that timezone to reach out to those players and try to recruit them and maybe even get them to pay for a sub. Over time it may allow populations in timezones to even out since the underpop side gets the first shot at new recruits.

Not only that, it is one more carrot for CRS to offer in terms of paying for a sub. The ability to play whatever side you want when you want.

As far as playing defense... What is the incentive for paying customers to continue to log in to a low pop time zone and get thrashed? Your logic works both ways here. Except instead of potentially not recruiting someone who is just testing out the game anyway, CRS is losing someone who has already made the decision to pay for a sub. It makes sense to me to look out for the people who have already decided to make that contribution.

I understand this may upset some long term f2p players. However, maybe if they have developed relationships with squads on their prefered side they can pay for a basic/starter sub. In any case, CRS should look out for those that give them the resources to push the game forward.

[PITTPETE 541]

Because hes a F2P.

What stops a F2P from logging in now, getting gangbanged and then jumping to the overpop side?

Nothing does, so make it viable for F2P to stay with the underpop side.

Give them the a weapons upgrade if they remain on the underpop side.

If they chose not, business as usual.

Perhaps they get a taste of better weapons and they sub.

Remember there will still by F2P joining the overpop so these F2P will have some advantage still with the upgrade.

[saronin 450]

Because hes a F2P.

What stops a F2P from logging in now, getting gangbanged and then jumping to the overpop side?

Nothing does, so make it viable for F2P to stay with the underpop side.

Give them the a weapons upgrade if they remain on the underpop side.

If they chose not, business as usual.

Perhaps they get a taste of better weapons and they sub.

Remember there will still by F2P joining the overpop so these F2P will have some advantage still with the upgrade.

The idea here is to side lock the f2p players to the low pop side for as long as it is low pop. In other words, anytime there is a delay to get in game for paying players for a side like there is now, f2p players are locked to the low pop side.

If we're worried about f2p players not getting a good chance to try out the game/both sides, then maybe we can consider a grace period of a certain number of days (say 14 days?) during which they are exempt from the side lock. After that if they have not signed up for a sub they are forced to log in to the side that is low pop when the game population is not currently balanced.

[f2p 0]

Hey, I'm game. It's free so nothing to lose.

[motorhead 0]

All I here in World chat is how this one side switched and that one side switched and people don't like them anymore so on and so on.

Now we want to dump new free to plays over to the underpop side ? (damned forced side switchers must die) lmao

Make up your minds

[saronin 450]

All I here in World chat is how this one side switched and that one side switched and people don't like them anymore so on and so on.

Now we want to dump new free to plays over to the underpop side ? (damned forced side switchers must die) lmao

Make up your minds

Ignore most of what you see on side chat. Too many people just like to take shots at other players.

In the end I think an attempt at game balance is probably more important than side loyalty. I don't know if there are enough f2p players to make a difference honestly but every bit would help.

Look at it this way, it's what f2p players would contribute to the game. A better experience for all by helping to balance out server population.

[Kizmet 0]

Depending on population at the time the individual logs in determines the side they play. Will give the F2P an opportunity to play both sides during the campaign. This will not side lock someone on one side only........most all of the time. I cant imagine a campaign where Allied forces are underpop every tz 24/7.

[denova 0]

F2P player here, recently playing again. I'm inclined to agree with those defending F2P in its current state. It seems to me that a primary weakness of this game is the lack of players. It's a great free game, but it's not really an MMO anymore. While the longstanding subscribers of this community are attached to it, there isn't much to convince most new players to play WW2 Online instead of, say, Red Orchestra 2, especially when the newer games seem to run better on modern computers.

F2P access is already very limited, and restricting that access further would probably only dwindle the numbers because it's pretty easy for an F2P player (new or otherwise) to play something else. One of the key draws for me, at least, is being able to pick the faction/locale I want during a given session. If I couldn't due to some restriction, I probably would choose to play something else for a while.

If you want to encourage F2P to balance the teams, then I would suggest incentivizing rather than restricting. As someone else suggested, maybe temporarily allow access to a kit/weapon if they join a side that needs reinforcements. That would give them an incentive to balance as well as a hint of what the subscription could offer.

Edited January 22, 2016 by denova

[trevil 0]

Dear all,

like Denova i'm also a f2p player. In my opinion, this proposed change would be a very bad one. When fighting for my side, I really feel part of a team that works together to achieve a goal. Switching sides during a campaign would feel like betrayal to my comrades.

If I would be forced to battle my former allies, I would just feel bad and wont play. And I don't think I will start up the game an hour later to see if maybe I can join my side again. No f2p better loadout would change this I fear.

Maybe it is me being sentimental, but this game invokes loyalty.

[BADGER 38]

We at CRS appreciate every account and player that plays the game. The FTP folks are important to our game right now. They will not be utilized as a tool by us. As pointed out, our game requires numbers, and those folks fill the need.

Of course we could use the money, but we also realize that the game requires bodies to make it work. Who knows, one of the FTP guys might win the lotto and invest one day. We know everyone is not equal when it comes to funding. Some of our FTP folks are college students on a limited budget, some are family folks who are raising kids and do not have the additional funding needed to take a different account, some are sick and not able to work and use the game to relieve stress. No matter how they get here, they make targets for all you paying subs. Yes they get access for free, but lets say the FTP make up 30% (number out of the air, do not know the number myself, but just for grins) of the targets you shoot at in the game. If you remove them, you will have 30% less targets, 30% less teammates.

As for sides, everyone who plays one side, they develop a loyalty. Loyalty is a key reason many players log in daily. They want to support their side, their team, and their fiends. Even though they are FTP, they are human and they are an important part of both sides.

Like me, before I joined the team at CRS, if someone forced me to play the other side, I would not had logged in. I formed a loyalty to my side. Do not get me wrong, I am loyal to the game, but as a player my role was to play for a side. I took that serious. Many times I did not feel like logging in, but I did because my team needed me. To me, side loyalty is very important to many players. When someone attaches to something, they become more responsible for that thing. If someone joins a squad, they are loyal to the squad and when they play, they want to play with their squad where they have made friends and become attach.

Some do not respect the FTP guys, but many of them have become strong members of squads in our community. They have made friends and they fight along side their friends just like you do. For whatever reason, they play the game for fee through either choice or force (due to financial reasons). Either way those folks help us all keep this game going. When we ask most people why the continue to log in, the number one reason is friends and squad mates.

At first glance it appears to be a good solution if you take the human aspect out of it, but when we look at why we have the FTP accounts, it goes against the purpose in the long run since it removes the number one reason most log into the game.

We are about to open up to gather ideas from the community on side balance. Be prepared for that topic to pop up in the days ahead. We will be doing it in a way that allows us to get the most information out of the subject. We are preparing to look past 1.35 and this is one issue we would like to fix once and for all. Keep your heads thinking on the topic and be prepared when that thread opens by one of us so that all the ideas go into the same thread for ease of following. This gives you warning that we will be picking your brain in the days ahead.

Edited January 23, 2016 by BADGER

[monsjoex 164]

Agree Badger.

Pushing f2p players onto the underpopped side is an easy balancing method but theres two negatives:

1. Usually the f2p are recruits and its the # of veterans online that really makes the difference, especially in extreme lowpop where the balancing is most urgent. A veteran/HC member will be much more likely to clear that important spawnable, check a vital FB etc. In this game 1 well-positioned tanker can whipe out an entire armor column/attack. One ace-pilot can BnZ 5 others out of the sky.

2. You take away 1 of the key strengths of this game: the campaign. In this game you can play for 1 side and your efforts can have longlasting effects on the campaign. You can be responsible for clearing that last depot at 95% that allowed your side to recap the town, to keep 2 enemy divisions cut off.

Push f2p from 1 side to another and you take away this key strength.

[saronin 450]

Badger,

I see your points here and don't completely disagree. This solution was the quickest I could think of to address some of the problem. I'm glad to see you will be starting a thread to address the issue. Some good ideas have already come out of this thread. For example, pittpete's idea to add a carrot instead of the stick. Give f2p players more equipment if they log in to the under pop side. Not a bad idea to entice those who are not particularly side loyal.

As for people disrespecting f2p players... people need to pull their head out of their @##. Instead of taking shots at each other, all players should be working together to make the game better. A better game means more population.

As I said before, I'm glad you're giving this some attention in its own thread. Something has to be done about the imbalances that have plagued the game of for years. You see people losing their mind over TZ3. Imbalances happen on other time zones as well. I have played this game for 14 years only taking breaks generally for real war. I've been on both sides for a number of years at a time and I've won and lost many campaigns. Win or lose the game has been fun.

Lately is the first time I've considered finding a new game to play all together. In fact, I've heard entire squads discussing the proposition. At some point imbalance reaches ridiculous levels and means losing players that pay for the game. On one side it becomes impossible to do anything and frustration mounts. On the other side the game provides very little challenge and turns into a bore. Meanwhile, we get told how awesome things are. It reminds me of Baghdad Bob standing there proudly exclaiming victory.

I look forward to see what you guys come up with to address the issues.

saronin

[delems 729]

I still say just lock the 'in game world' if ratio gets out of balance. Start at maybe 3 to 1; or 5 to 2. Have to look at pop stats and game play to know the right ratio.

Players can get into game, but can't spawn into game world if their side has too many spawned in. They have to wait for a player to leave, spawn out, die or more enemies log in. This wouldn't be to long, as people are dying all the time.

[vasduten1 405]

The issue of "balance" is NOT a player or player base responsibility.

It's CRS' issue.

Please don't expect us to go around cheer leading and recruiting new or returning players.

We pay to play.

Stick the FTP guys on the low pop side.

[BADGER 38]

I still say just lock the 'in game world' if ratio gets out of balance. Start at maybe 3 to 1; or 5 to 2. Have to look at pop stats and game play to know the right ratio.

Players can get into game, but can't spawn into game world if their side has too many spawned in. They have to wait for a player to leave, spawn out, die or more enemies log in. This wouldn't be to long, as people are dying all the time.

I know this would drive me nut. I already get upset that I have to wait on spawn delay. I could only imagine how postal I would get if I could not play the game when I wanted to play.

[BADGER 38]

Please don't expect us to go around cheer leading and recruiting new or returning players.

I know I do not expect anything from you. If you do this, it is greatly appreciated and helps the health of the game.