• 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

1 hour ago, lipton said:

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.

Yeah Doc also thought that he had a captive audience and even gloated about it in the forums, but how did that work out for him in the end? The game doesn't provide the experience that it did and I'm not even that regular of a player anymore. People might play and hope the game gets better but they aren't going to pay while doing it. Every time I see something positive and think about subbing I then witness what's left of the community here stomp their feet about the same change.

1 hour ago, lipton said:

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. 

 

What's going to happen is that instead of getting any benefits for being underpopulated, the underpop team is going to get saddled with a bunch of new or gimped players and then population will be equal. The first time that the overpopulated team gets or keeps their 2nd AO, and rolls the map due to the F2P crowd being pushed to "help" the underpop team there will be some major drama.

 

F2P works in other games because the F2P players provide content (in some manner) for the people that pay. F2P doesn't work here because:

--the experience is so miserable that most leave within hours and so there are very few F2P players on the server; you're supposed to bait the animal not scare it away

--the F2P guys are actually prevented from being targets for the subscribers, if CRS knew what they were doing they'd give F2P a weenie tank and bait bomber (along with fat spawn lists) so the paying tankers and pilots have plenty to shoot at

--the F2P relationship is completely reversed; the subscribers here are expected to provide all the content by driving trucks, setting spawns, placing AOs, managing HC, and rotating brigades while the F2P get to spawn mindlessly if they want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the way you assume F2P players are a bunch a worthless newbs. And yet... you're a F2P player yourself. 

Once again, your argument is moot. You just don't want to be required to play for the side that needs the most help when you log into the game for free

Not a very good argument. 

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL I just love this kind of crap...if you cant afford $5 how the hell can you afford internet connection and cable tv lol bunch a cheap [censored]'s

You can stand on a street corner and beg for a day and get over $100 I bet lmao

Malvoc out....

Share this post


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

 

I love the way you assume F2P players are a bunch a worthless newbs. And yet... you're a F2P player yourself. 

 

Hahahaha you beat me to it...I'd bet most F2P moochers are guys that left because DOC was rude to them...LOL

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I love the way you assume F2P players are a bunch a worthless newbs. And yet... you're a F2P player yourself. 

Once again, your argument is moot. You just don't want to be required to play for the side that needs the most help when you log into the game for free

Not a very good argument. 

Look I've told you what is going to happen. I hope that CRS does accept your proposal just so you can see what a bad idea it is.

 

I got maybe two dozen sorties this map and I'm playing Planetside 2 right now, I really don't care if this account will be forced to play a faction because I'll just go play something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like lipton's proposal, although, with some exceptions, I assume that most F2P players are less experienced and will be less helpful at moving the map.   Still, every boot helps, so forcing them into the underpop side makes sense.

The unfortunate reality, as I see it, is that there are only two properly functioning squads in the game right now, the 250s and Whips.   By properly functioning, I mean a squad that maintains consistently good numbers in game and coordinates its efforts.  That is what really moves maps.   A single squad with 10 or so online working together can make a HUGE difference.

 

Share this post


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

 

The unfortunate reality, as I see it, is that there are only two properly functioning squads in the game right now, the 250s and Whips.   

 

Damn. You made me shoot my beer out through my nose.  I really lol'd at this statement. 

2 hours ago, david01 said:

Look I've told you what is going to happen. I hope that CRS does accept your proposal just so you can see what a bad idea it is.

 

Trust me david... CRS will NEVER accept my proposal. Mainly because it's mine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody wants to lock F2P to underpop side, and yet everybody hates sideswitching.

2 years ago when I was a newbie I tried sideswitching, after a week everybody was insulting me, axis and allies...I don't blame them, it's not pleasant to have a player helping you to cap an ab one day, and then getting killed by him on that same ab next day.

So I have a question for those who want F2P lock, would you be able to deal with Sydspain switching sides over and over and over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sydspain said:

So I have a question for those who want F2P lock, would you be able to deal with Sydspain switching sides over and over and over?

They should get rid of F2P and you should pay for a subscription like the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sydspain said:

So I have a question for those who want F2P lock, would you be able to deal with Sydspain switching sides over and over and over?

Reading is fundamental. Let's try this again...

NOWHERE did I suggest that F2P should be sidelocked for an entire campaign. I didn't even suggest they be sidelocked for a day. 

I suggested they be required to log into the underpop side when they join the game.

Underpop can change from one side to the other several time a day.  So obviously they would NOT be sidelocked to any particular side for the duration of the campaign. 

And no, they would not be required to move to the other side when/if it became underpop. That requirement would only be necessary when Joining the game. Don't want to switch side when pop changes... Don't log off. 

Now, if you log out and come back 3 hours later and lowpop is on the other side... then yes, you would be asked to join that side. 

But again... If you don't like this... You can always buy 1 less 6 pack of beer a month. 1 less Pack of cigs per month.  I could go on and on with examples, but I think you get the idea. 

And THEN... CRS increases Revenue. TahDah!!!

Edited by lipton

Share this post


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

They should get rid of F2P and you should pay for a subscription like the rest of us.

You like it or not, right now this game needs f2p players, we increase game population and we use weapons that sub players don't want to use, like bolt action rifles. Maybe if Steam release it's a success and this game has a healthy population again, CRS can get rid of F2P, but until then, you are stuck with us. 

Edited by sydspain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that games and plays free games understands very well that there is no such thing as a free lunch. People that play for free generally accept that there will be some restrictions/disadvantages when compared to paying players.

I think incentivising F2P players to play low pop is the single best idea that's ever been suggested to address balance. It's not perfect, but to me it seems like the least of many evils

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Di11on.  Common sense prevails... occasionally.

The carrot/stick approach is never going to work. People will always be willing to wait 60 seconds to spawn in. They will be willing to use a bolt-action rifle...  if it means they get to continue clubbing the baby seals. Human nature at it's finest. 

I started playing video games in the early 90's.  I was addicted to Half-Life. Hell,  I was an original Counter Strike  Beta tester running around a single room with Gooseman and Cliffe with nothing but crowbars, beating each other over the head. (no knife at that time) 

When those games were released, everyone simply accepted auto-balance as the only fair thing to do. The concept has been around ever since.  Games being release this year STILL use this common core concept of fair gameplay.

Practically every gamer knew when they logged in, they were going to be placed on the team that was underpop. It's an accepted norm because it JUST MAKES SENSE to offer fair game-play. 

It is beyond understanding that anyone would argue against having balanced numbers. It is also beyond argument that just about every other game does this. Well the successful games do.  

The others games just get pushed aside and become irrelevant and forgotten.  As I get older, this is the only game I like. I'm tired of it being small and forgotten. I want it to be remembered.

I want this game to be huge! And it has the capability. But if this; the games most glaring problem, isn't addressed before the Steam release, then it will be THE missed opportunity of a lifetime for this game and it's community. 

The argument has always been that Squaddies want to play together and that's why we don't have auto balance in WWIIOL.  I agree with that argument. So, here's the only other option. 

I think it's a reasonable option and one that NEW F2P people will understand. If they want more choices, (including picking their side) then they pony up and pay the minimum fee. AND... CRS makes more money.

And when CRS makes more money, we get more toys. We may even (eventually) see the implementation of WWIIOL-2.  But it will never happen if we don't fix our biggest issue. Side balance. 

This concept is incentive for F2P to move into a paying sub. But I would never want to get rid of the F2P account. It would always be a balancing mechanism. 

There may not be enough F2P in game to balance the underpop side, but it's better than having no one joining the underpop side because they would rather join the roll. 

There is no down side to this idea.

 

Edited by lipton
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, no idea why FPA get to choose their side to play on.  I'd say allow a small bit of over/under pop.  Maybe 10% (no idea what level to use as don't have access to pop numbers), but after that, the FPA must log into the under pop side to play.

This way a side can have some over pop - game doesn't have to be 50 to 50.  It could be maybe 50 to 54 and still be balanced.

This will really be important as steam arrives, as I guess most players will play axis at first - pop imbalance going to be horrendous my imo.

 

If ya want to play a side, pony up $5.  (though, heard it may be going to 7.99 - and that is not good imo)

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2017 at 7:34 PM, Pittpete said:

Hahahaha you beat me to it...I'd bet most F2P moochers are guys that left because DOC was rude to them...LOL

 

A lot are...Or think that CRS stuck it to their side somehow...the Antwerp whiners, the axis get the only APC guys, etc...

...badmouthing the game everywhere but still play...LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Pittpete said:

That $2.99 is a killer...LOL

I tip the pizza guy 5 bucks.  My bar bill used to be 400 bucks a month. I spend 3 bucks a day on Dunkin Donuts coffee. 

If the price of a subscription to this game is going to bankrupt you, you probably shouldn't have an internet connection in the first place. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure would like to hear from a Rat on this. Are we way off base here. If so, feel free to put us in our place. :-)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

I tip the pizza guy 5 bucks.  My bar bill used to be 400 bucks a month. I spend 3 bucks a day on Dunkin Donuts coffee. 

If the price of a subscription to this game is going to bankrupt you, you probably shouldn't have an internet connection in the first place. 

LOL, i wish i only spent $3 a day on coffee.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, F2P players should not get a choice OR if they do, it should be for the campaign, as in choose allies, stay allied all map. That way, squaddies can still play with their mates but if they want to switch sides, then they're at the mercy of the online player count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.