• Announcements

    • Dodger

      Seeking Squad Leaders!   04/09/2017

      Soldiers!

      We are seeking Squad Leaders to volunteer their squads to help us test the upcoming Squad Forums system. This system will integrate squads who wish to participate into a self-sustained "forum within a forum." You will be able to add members to your squad, assign permissions, and create forums/calendar events on your own. The idea behind this system is part of our commitment to support squads as a integral part of our community. This service will be offered free of charge to all squads of World War II Online upon launch. Our goal is to offer all of the services a squad off-site forum can offer but free of charge and tied in to our existing forum service. So what do you need tested? We need willing volunteers to test the whole system - make forums, post threads, assign permissions, etc. The idea is to have several squads giving it a test run to point out any flaws before we launch it publicly. What are the requirements? We are ideally looking for medium to large squads - Ideally ten people or so plus, but smaller squads feel free to apply - and a willingness to use our platform. It's important to note (as of now - these may be included at a later date) we are unable to convert posts from a private forum if your squad previously used one, and you (or your XO's and recruiters) will need to assign individual members permissions. It is entirely possible that in the future this system will be automatically linked to the game's squad roster, but as of now developer priorities are elsewhere (1.37 and steam, w00t!) How do I sign up? PM me ( @Dodger ) on the forums, or email me at dodger@playnet.com - Please indicate your squad name and how many members you have. I will get back to you with more instructions.

    • GVONPAUL

      Recruiting drive.   04/16/2017

      With the anticipated influx of new players on the heels of this summer's Steam release, there is a reasonable expectation that forum traffic will increase. I'm looking for volunteers, not just to moderate, but to help answer new players' questions or direct them toward the correct answers. The forums may be a player's first contact with the game and we want to ensure that it is a positive experience. A happy player is a player who sticks around and the more new players we can retain, the more resources we will have for development.
      With that in mind, we are looking for current players with a positive attitude and posting history. PM me if you are interested.
lipton

It's a shame reallly...

47 posts in this topic

Some things never change, and I guess they never will... no matter how much we wish they would.

A couple squads switch sides and the campaign is totally one-sided.

Then, they switch to the other side and it's the opposite. 

I wish we could have a campaign where both side are balanced and it last long enough to see all of the equipment. 

Getting tired of these one-sided fights. Boring. 

I'll say it again. 

FTP should be required to log onto the under pop side. If you don't like logging onto the under pop side, then pay the friggin $5 and log on whatever side you want. This isn't rocket science CRS. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Camp 134 w those squads being Axis and Camp lasting 36 Days through ALL Tiers incl. 8h+ AOs Halle/Brugge/Maub - Key towns such as Mons / Schilde / Pope / Maldegem / Albert / Bapaume et al changing hands 2-3 times and all that was "totally one-sided" as well then - Got it

 

This Camp here was won on Day 9 ! The last 5 days the oh so merciful Axis squads over there were trotting in place so as to TRY and avoid making it all to obvious, the "one-sidedness" that is...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gsc said:

So Camp 134 w those squads being Axis and Camp lasting 36 Days through ALL Tiers incl. 8h+ AOs Halle/Brugge/Maub - Key towns such as Mons / Schilde / Pope / Maldegem / Albert / Bapaume et al changing hands 2-3 times and all that was "totally one-sided" as well then - Got it

 

This Camp here was won on Day 9 ! The last 5 days the oh so merciful Axis squads over there were trotting in place so as to TRY and avoid making it all to obvious, the "one-sidedness" that is...

 

 

I think you're getting offended for something that isn't directed at you. This is the general TZ1 issue where a handful of squads are capping towns and ending maps. Personally I don't like it either way. If axis roll then it sucks because you log in to see more towns gone during low pop. If it's allied then it means the map is moving with no effort by yourself ( I play allied). 

Generally the argument is the map is being determined by a handful of people that live in a low pop TZ.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lipton said:

Then, they switch to the other side and it's the opposite. 

...you missed this part - implying that it was the same in the previous camp just reversed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gsc said:

...you missed this part - implying that it was the same in the previous camp just reversed...

I don't know if that's the context he was going for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last few maps, (this map, 134 133) each side has had about 14% op, the longer map 132 was about 2.6%

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

within the first 2 days of a new campaign you can say who will win the campaign. in 95% of the cases it will end like predicted then. only very few times the map suddenly goes backwards. mostly because of WB events or sideswitching players/squads. has always been like that :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, gsc said:

So Camp 134 w those squads being Axis and Camp lasting 36 Days through ALL Tiers incl. 8h+ AOs Halle/Brugge/Maub - Key towns such as Mons / Schilde / Pope / Maldegem / Albert / Bapaume et al changing hands 2-3 times and all that was "totally one-sided" as well then - Got it

 

 

 

Haven't seen you or bronco on much this campaign. And by the looks of it, not many others either. The difference with this campaign and the last one in terms of length is that Allies actually fought back, despite getting their asses kicked during certain timezone. 

 

But hey, you both keep whining like a bunch of little [censored]. Thats what suits you best anyway. See you on the battlefield when your side is rolling again, more to kill anyway. 

Edited by gretnine
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I switched to Allies this campaign and eventually I got bored.

Edited by kill11
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gsc is missing the point and is just looking for a fight I guess. 

I'm not trying to place blame on anyone.  I'm just stating the obvious. 

If you don't see a trend in how one side or the other becomes over pop from day 1 in a campaign... then you're blind or ignorant. It's either side switchers or easy-moders.

The point is... CRS needs to do something to fix it. Longer spawn delay for attackers or short cap-timers for defenders will NEVER help balance the game. NEVER!  People will still play the side they want to play.

It has been made clear that most people are side specific. Most, but not all.  And those that aren't are swaying the balance one way or the other... usually. 

CRS should try the concept I put forward on numerous occasions. Require the Free-to-Play players to log into the under-pop side when joining the game. 

This will help balance the game at any given time and in the long run, it will increase subscriptions.

How you say? Because when a FTP wants to chose their side, they will pay the measly $5 for a minimum subscription for the option to CHOOSE their side. 

If anyone here tries to argue that someone can't afford $5, then once again... I'll call you either blind or ignorant. I could list 20 ways they could save $5, but why bother. EVERYONE probably knows more than 20.

But if they can't afford $5, then they can STILL play the game for free.  They just have to play for the side that needs help. How is that a bad thing?  Just about every other online game does it. 

Edited by lipton
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Scking said:

I agree with lipton on this one.. 

Someone agreeing with LIPTON!!!!! OMG!

 

Actually he makes a very good point and it is a simple fix. So, CRS how about it??

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lipton said:

CRS should try the concept I put forward on numerous occasions. Require the Free-to-Play players to log into the under-pop side when joining the game.

I suggested this awhile ago also and the argument was that F2P were inexperienced and wouldn't help the low pop side.

I think most of the F2P are players who are too cheap or don't want to give CRS $$$$ for a game they say they hate but can't stop playing..LOL

Something has to be done because doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where my thread go @XOOM about reducing RDP times?

 

Quote

I wish we could have a campaign where both side are balanced and it last long enough to see all of the equipment. 

 

How about take last 10 maps, how long it took and average it out, then divide by 4 to get how fast tiers should be ????

paying for 2 premium accounts here, and not even getting a full product from either due to map not getting past Tier 2 or pretty  much over when it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The ONLY issue with FtP players having to switch sides to play underpop is the squad mechanics.  How would you feel, ending up playing against most of your squad mates?  How would you feel not being able to join a squad at all, or getting kicked from your squad because you had to side-switch?

 

And I don't agree about everyone being able to afford the $5/month.  I'm the in-home caregiver for my disabled wife.  We've had months where we BARELY squeaked by, and would have loved an extra $5.  If we plan well, we can feed our two boys dinner one night for that much.  Also, remember the announcement, "Effective May 1, 2017 the price for starter accounts will be $7.99 USD per month."  That's an increase of 60% in one fell swoop.

 

How about this?  FtP players will have the OPTION to play the underpop side.  If they do, they get access to slightly better equipment, such as semi-auto rifles.  Playing with a bolt-action only is a drag, especially if you're "lone-wolfing" it.  That way, they can either play with their squaddies and use the bolt action rifle (hopefully as part of a squad mission or team-up), or play underpop and get better toys.

 

 

 

-Irish

 

 

Edited by odonovan1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how any of you can think that flooding a struggling team with a bunch of clueless players which can't even spawn basic equipment is a remedy.

 

You have this obsession with numbers but the performance of a team routinely hinges on a handful of players doing the right things while the rest spawn in mindlessly or otherwise jack off. F2P can't set spawns, drive trucks, or blow FBs so WTF do you think they'll do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Says the guy that is milking the Free to Play Account.  Bodies with rifles will ALWAYS help defend and recap a town. 

If you can't afford $5, but still play this game... you need to rethink your priorities.  

Hell, I collect $10 a month in my change bucket. 

This is the only option I've seen that will actually do something to Fix the ridiculous balance issues this game has. 

If this problem isn't fixed before the Steam release, they will laugh us out of existence. 

Not to mention increasing revenue for CRS. Their begging for money is getting a little old.

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FPA can bust FB, just slower - 4x FPA is same as one engr at a FB.

And now, they can capture quickly - so they are good.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, david01 said:

 

I'm not sure how any of you can think that flooding a struggling team with a bunch of clueless players which can't even spawn basic equipment is a remedy.

 

No way in knowing this unfortunately...Seems like a lot of F2P are former subscribers just mooching...They need to try something and stop driving away paying customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, lipton said:

If you can't afford $5, but still play this game... you need to rethink your priorities.

Sorry this is harsh but it's reality. Probably shouldn't be playing computer games if you can't fork out $5...

Collect 100 bottles and go to the supermarket..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, lipton said:

Says the guy that is milking the Free to Play Account.  Bodies with rifles will ALWAYS help defend and recap a town. 

If you can't afford $5, but still play this game... you need to rethink your priorities.  

Hell, I collect $10 a month in my change bucket. 

This is the only option I've seen that will actually do something to Fix the ridiculous balance issues this game has. 

If this problem isn't fixed before the Steam release, they will laugh us out of existence. 

Not to mention increasing revenue for CRS. Their begging for money is getting a little old.

No, even if they make it to town they're just fodder for the auto weapons and tanks. If you don't want to believe me then go bump that thread where that streamer decided to try out this game with his friends, and when they actually found a town they got massacred by the AI pits. I also remember when some guys from 4chan got together and started playing this game during a promotion and they were just farmed by AEF in tanks for maybe two hours before uninstalling. There's a pointless grind to get basic equipment like AT weapons and there's no training whatsoever on how to use them properly.

 

Anyway go ahead and  force every F2P to play the underpopulated team as I don't really care that much. Just like the brigade system and any number of bad game decisions people here have to crack their heads against a wall before realizing what is bad gameplay.

 

Regarding being a cheapskate or being poor I could afford $40+ a month like when I had multiple accounts subbed at full price for years but I don't like wasting my money:

A campaign here lasts a month and one, sometimes two weeks of that month are the ending doldrums where one side has clearly lost and the other is just grinding away victory conditions. The game is very low pop 12-18 hours of the day. If you play TZ3 the devs will actively seek to curtail your enjoyment, so if you are US and work a weird schedule you're screwed. Intermissions generally take place on the weekends (this campaign was an exception) so if you're a working adult and most of your free time is on the weekends you're often screwed. If you like organized teamplay you're screwed because there aren't any squad/private missions and AOs aren't under your control, so your ops are disrupted by interlopers and your night of fun is up to the whims of someone else. If you like FPS simulation gameplay and don't care about the flags you're screwed because a brigade movement will either make you fight tanks with rifles all evening or not be able to spawn in at all. So for $18/month you can play an old game in a certain way at certain times of the day and under certain conditions. That's not a good value. Personally I think that some occasional F2P sorties just to check things out are fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on everything you just said... you agree with my proposal.

If the only argument for not doing it is that it gives the over-pop side more bodies to shoot at... I'm not sure that's a bad thing. But I think you are totally wrong on this point. 

And you just admitted you could afford a subscription. You just don't FEEL like it. Well, that's your choice. But when push comes to shove, I bet you'd still be here and paying the $7.99 when all was said and done. 

The Free to Play concept is not working to the benefit of the game, and it's definitely not working to the benefit of CRS. 

I'm sure we would lose some of the free-loaders and as you called them... "cheapskates". But the improved game play from a more balanced game, would increase and maintain more subscriptions in the long run.  It's time to make a better mousetrap.

This is a common business model here guys. Anyone who has run a business or managed a business would have a hard time disagreeing with this. It's just common sense. Unfortunately; around here, sense isn't common. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.