david01

World War 2 Online's Steam Reception

95 posts in this topic

Presently World War 2 Online is at 61% positive (“mixed” review status) with a slight downward trend.

enpbml.jpg

Problems I expected from the Steam release:

-new players not enjoying the infantry combat

-new players getting camped badly by tanks

-new players being outgunned despite the free access to better equipment

-not enough ingame leadership to guide new players to the active battles

-lulls in the action despite far more AOs and players than usual

-brigade supply and other parameters having to be adjusted on the fly

-new players confused by AI pits and towers

 

 

Problems I did not expect:

-new players being forced to go through the tutorial and either getting stuck or quitting

-many players having initial configuration problems with game resolution, frame rates and other basic technical issues

-launching on Steam while the map is in a later tier, so new players are totally helpless against Church/S76/Tiger on the ground and Mk9/P38/190+G6 in the air

 

 

Right now I’d say that forcing the tutorial has had the biggest impact on player reviews. There are substantial number that have left a negative review of the game with less than an hour played. A company has maybe 20 minutes from the time that a Steam user installs a F2P game to hook them, so if they were going to force something it would have been much better to spawn them as a rifle on the biggest mission in game instead of confining them to a long and apparently buggy tutorial.

 

I’m going to say that the next biggest is that this game’s infantry combat just isn’t very good, and I mean this due to issues unrelated to those inherent with playing a FPS on a global server (not simply latency). I would have said that the infantry combat needed a full overhaul before a Steam release, but the current poor state of infantry combat is accepted or dismissed by many here so I’m not sure if that would’ve done anything. Many of the negative Steam reviews mention running for too long and poor controls and feel.

 

Overall the game is having a rough reception because in order to appeal to the modern Steam userbase it needs to have a good FPS element. Steam players aren’t interested in the HC application process or the strategic layer. For many years though the FPS gameplay has been made worse in order to stabilize the strategic layer and keep it from breaking so often. The rest of the time it’s been neglected. To aggravate matters the game is marketed as a MMOFPS instead of a strategy/roleplaying game with a FPS element, so many Steam players are rating it only on the FPS experience. So now that the game is finally on Steam the best bet for player growth would be to improve the FPS gameplay. Of course the first step in problem solving is recognizing the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast majority of those getting stuck in the tutorial are not reading the directions.

Example, of the ones I've helped that were stuck on the hud tutorial my estimate would be that 90% of it turned out being even though the info says "hit the left ctrl and y keys to restore the huds to default" and with me telling them in chat "hit left ctrl and y together" I invariably had to pm each one and ask "are you hitting left ctrl or alt?" Answer was always "ohhhh i'm hitting alt, nm I got it now."

So how exactly do you prevent user error?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in a town that literally had 20 new players. I PM'd a couple: no response. Sent instructions to them on Target channel: no response. Nothing. Notta. Zip. 

Oh ya, the ews was single, no one was around but the new players. This is not an isolated incident. They have to be willing to listen and learn.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the problems this game had in the past I think the reviews are actually pretty good. Also surprised how well the servers are handling the numbers, last time I played that wouldn't have been possible.

 

But yes, the tutorials are a bit of an issue.  I don't think they were ever well received as people got stuck with some keymapper issues or didn't need them. Only way to fix this is to make the gameplay self-explanatory for newbies: optional HUD overlay with important buttons. Keymapper in the location you would expect (hit escape, go to options).

Best option is probably to pay one of the more popular youtube guys to do a series of brief videos that show how to operate vehicles and some basic useage hints (see a lot of green tags taking their PzIIs and Vickies out against Shermans and Tigers).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is as good a thread to jump into as any, instead of making a new one.  This will probably also be my only post so take from it what you will. 

 

Quick background:   Bought this game on the day of its release 17 years ago, still have the original box and CD.  I had never been more excited for a game release as I was during that period.   I played religiously for many many years which transitioned to became a couple months at a time followed by a break and repeat.  Then I finally had to step out of the game a couple years ago but got excited to see the steam release so I figured I would check this out.   In the way back days I was part of and then eventually held leadership the US2AD squad in the dirty south, joined HC for a period under Badgers Reign and introduced near 2 dozen players to the game.   Not a single one of them lasted much more than a couple of months.

 

 

This game is it's own worst nightmare, plain and simple.  It is a war simulation that barely simulates anything very well, yet can provide an unmatched immersive feeling AT TIMES.     The second biggest problem with this game is also a very important aspect which is it's veteran players.  Veterans have put the time in to know every facet of this game and can kill new players mercilessly and efficiently adding to the frustration.   Quite a few will help out however they can of course but comments like some above putting the blame on new players for the games shortcomings is not helping a thing and is just blind.  Getting youtubers to show off this game is also not going to help.  You are looking at it through the eyes of a parent with their own child.   There are youtubers playing this game and have videos up like DevilDogGamer.  The overall consensus in the comments is that the subscription is the instant no play, and free players to pay the bills.

 

A game that is this out of date relies on its existing player base to hold the ship together because quite frankly, if this game was just launching brand new it would be failing HARD!!  I cant emphasize that enough.  The majority of positive remarks in Steam are from existing players that have already found their niche in the game.   There is something like 140 reviews up right now, 90 of those are positive and without really going through too much it is clear the majority of those are existing playerbase.  

So Im just gonna lay this out here for the people above and anyone else... IT'S NOT THE NEW PLAYERS FAULT AT ALL!    It doesnt matter what YOU think they should or shouldnt be doing, it is what the majority of them actually do.   This game makes it terribly hard for people coming in with low or no expectations to want to continue playing, and it has always been this way.  

 

The graphics are terrible.  I really don't care how anybody here tries to spin it (because I used to spin it myself to others).   It was ok to try and get away with that 12 years ago, heck even 5-7 years ago you could try but it is far far beyond that point now.   It is not a pretty game to look at and is distracting for todays gamers.  If you think the graphics are still acceptable you have simply been here TOO LONG.

The UI is one of the worst and most outdated I have seen in many years, especially in a game trying to warrant a freaking monthly subscription.   Everything from the initial load up to the training and right into the map navigation and combat.

Speaking of the subscription, I just cant honestly believe in 2017 this is still a thing.  Especially at the price being asked here for the value given.   I know the history of this game has relied on its veteran membership subscriptions, builders plans and lately pledge drives, but asking todays gaming population for a subscription fee for the quality of the product is outrageous. 

The core combat of this entire game relies on its ground infantry play.   I played this game for so long that I just got used to how clunky it actually was and the immersive feeling this game does well simply outweighed it.   But my god, nowadays its beyond unacceptable.     The mechanics, the netcode, the optimization and the graphics are all just ...well terrible.    If even just one of those was a standout success the rest might be given a pass, but in its current state its a total failure for 2017.  

The in game communication system is just the worst and it really has been forever.   Map navigation and battle information is confusing and for someone who has never seen this game before would be a nightmare (as relayed by a couple of friends I personally did not recommend try the game, but did so anyway because they saw me in it). 

There are many other issues that just dont seem to have changed over the years which is very disappointing but I won't go into those, except one.

 

Who is this game actually being marketed to now?   There were moments in the past where you could market this game as the biggest MMO around, or the only true war simulation, but my god thats just stretching it now.     Gamers tooday are vastly different than gamers 17 years ago. The disconnect between the old gamers who had some direct connection to wwii through family and movies..etc has been replaced TWICE OVER and now sits with those who think Battlefield 1 is an accurate portrayal of WW 1.     I understand the difficulty the current team has had transitioning from the old guard and keeping the game alive.  It's a true testament to their character and will.  But at what point  is either a massive reinvestment made into this game made or the lifelines pulled?   I personally dont see how all this effort into launching on Steam in the current state of the game was prioritized over some sort of reinvestment and doing a proper launch.  

The potential of this game is very very real, just as it has been for 17 years.  But I think that tells a more true story of where it isn't going now.  I used to say in the old forums when I was much younger, if I was a millionaire I would invest a million dollars to make this game great and I really meant it at the time.  The potential has always been huge but completely unrealized.  A few years ago I realized just couldn't justify paying monthly to this game anymore and I can't see how many new people will either and definitely not at those prices or long term.     When the core of you're game is infantry, yet infantry cant do simple things such as jump.  climb over a railing or a hop through a giant window right next to them for cover there are issues.   That doesnt take into account the warping, inconsistent kills and deaths and combat in general.  

 

I really loved this game, and even now I can see where its greatness can be.  But I wont pay for potential anymore, I spent hundreds on that already over a couple of accounts.    I wish the dev team the best in the future and hopefully things will align to make this game great and draw a huge playerbase in the future with a better pay model. 

 

 

   

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SANDMAN:  interesting and long review from a vet. two questions: 

1.  "The overall consensus in the comments is that the subscription is the instant no play, and free players to pay the bills."   What does this mean? 

2.   "  I used to say in the old forums when I was much younger, if I was a millionaire I would invest a million dollars to make this game great and I really meant it at the time.  The potential has always been huge but completely unrealized.   "  Why not continue as a subscriber (as the surviving vets have) as your small part of that million bucks? Or would you suggest a 3-5 year open beta with in game purchases and perqs to fund development like Shroud of the Avatar is doing? (2013-2017 $3M+ so far)  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, OldZeke said:

The vast majority of those getting stuck in the tutorial are not reading the directions.

Example, of the ones I've helped that were stuck on the hud tutorial my estimate would be that 90% of it turned out being even though the info says "hit the left ctrl and y keys to restore the huds to default" and with me telling them in chat "hit left ctrl and y together" I invariably had to pm each one and ask "are you hitting left ctrl or alt?" Answer was always "ohhhh i'm hitting alt, nm I got it now."

So how exactly do you prevent user error?

Proper instructions.

The text is simply confusing if you have 20 people a day (or more) doing this step wrong.

Three key things to address imo:

1. Resolution issue

2. Training is not smooth enough.

3. Players still don't understand how to find proper spawnpoints (UI). 

Edited by monsjoex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to have to commend Sandman on a very accurate post, all of his points resonate in me and I have mentioned the very same concerns over and over... his points are worth taking seriously. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, monsjoex said:

Proper instructions.

The text is simply confusing if you have 20 people a day (or more) doing this step wrong.

Three key things to address imo:

1. Resolution issue

2. Training is not smooth enough.

3. Players still don't understand how to find proper spawnpoints (UI). 

1: Being addressed.

2: The following is my suggestion only, not a CRS recommendation being I don't have caps :) .

Type .graduate false in the chat and then you can go through the tutorial just as the new players have to. Take notes as to improvement and post them up.

3:  Agreed UI is a issue but requires time and coder available. But the UI, the number of clicks to actually get into the fight being too many needs IMO to be improved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sandman nailed it

 

you could argue with noobs day and night telling them they're playing the game wrong...

you can't argue there's a lot of them with the same issues though. unless they're fixed fast, ignoring the issues will do more harm than good.

 

the RPATS are a good example of not acknowledging a problem.

Share this post


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

SANDMAN:  interesting and long review from a vet. two questions: 

1.  "The overall consensus in the comments is that the subscription is the instant no play, and free players to pay the bills."   What does this mean? 

2.   "  I used to say in the old forums when I was much younger, if I was a millionaire I would invest a million dollars to make this game great and I really meant it at the time.  The potential has always been huge but completely unrealized.   "  Why not continue as a subscriber (as the surviving vets have) as your small part of that million bucks? Or would you suggest a 3-5 year open beta with in game purchases and perqs to fund development like Shroud of the Avatar is doing? (2013-2017 $3M+ so far)  

Apologies, that is just my bad grammar as I was rushed writing that all up. 

 

1.  The overall consensus in not just the youtube comments but also in other places that I have been around is this.   The game looks interesting but extremely dated and clumsy, and the fact that there is subscription makes it an instant "not going to play".    In addition to that, yes you can go with a limited free play of the game, but free play members are not going to pay the bills around here.  In my opinion and what seems like a large majority of opinions, the game is asking for a premium subscription for a game that doesn't warrant it. 

2. This one is quite simple actually and it comes down to this.   Why am I as the gamer/consumer CONTINUALLY paying for a game that has had no major improvements in 12 years.   A game that always promises more, but has rarely ever delivered on that promise.   From 2001-2005 minus any free months that were given due to issues, I ran my main account as long and as much as I could afford.  Money was very very tight and sometimes it was hard to justify it, but I legitimately was in love with the game even with all of the issues it suffered.     For about 2 years I had a secondary account as well that I used to ferry troops and AA/ATG guns (especially my own) to get into battle quicker and more efficiently, which is how I justified that extra dough.   Over the next few years I fumbled in and out of subscription, usually on my secondary account and took part in welcome back soldier events.  The game kept calling me back, always hoping to see improvements or reading updates about things that were "coming soon".   Things were also changing in my life at the time with new family and children, new job and house..etc.  Money was never plentiful so I had to justify the money to enjoyment factor.  2009-2010 was my last major  long term subscription period followed by backing of  "Rapid Assault" which once again went nowhere.   In that entire time nothing has improved mechanically for this game.  The odd vehicle or character was added and some minor updates to the map as well.  The frustrations of this game have also never changed.  The constant need to literally invest HOURS sitting in a bunker or CP or FB.   Maps rolls in the after hours and extreme camping to win.  Why would I continue to throw money at that was the question that I had to finally make a decision on.   Last night I logged in at 10pm central time.  I didnt have a super long time to play, but there was absolutely nothing going on.  That happens far too often and is a constant reminder of why I kept leaving.  My terrible frustration is fed by my deep rooted love for everything this game should have been and that's  a terrible cycle to be paying for.      

 

I don't have an answer for the last part of your question.  I'm positive if the RATS had a good answer for that they would have implemented it as well.    The only thing Im fairly certain about at least in my opinion was that this particular launch was not done correctly.   There was far far greater harm in showing off a dated and broken game to a population that largely didnt even know it existed and has no incentive to pay for it.   It's almost like the original launch that left a bad taste in so many mouths after so much anticipation, except this time there was far less anticipation and just bad aftertaste.    I think this game has an identity problem and that's what will be the final death blow.    The concept behind it is brilliant, but I feel the dream of what it could be gives some who stick around a sense of imagination when they play, making it something that it isn't.    Having the biggest map in gaming does absolutely nothing when 99.8% is never used at any given time.  I mean even if you wanted to I don't believe you can spawn into any location other than where the HC has placed a division, and even half the frontline is abandoned most times.  

 

If tomorrow CRS launched a massive Early Access campaign which would completely transform the game over including a complete Unreal Engine 4 upgrade, new Mapping system with easily editable maps and cities, towns and farms,  area and point capture, and a total revamped infantry combat at least on par with todays lower FPS games; well I would be all in.  But it would have to be a legit early access with a single up front fee, and a lot of finished production shots of the new game world and assets.    Throw in trusted community mod support to help develop buildings..etc.    

 

Again though, I don't know the position they are in, what kind of debts they have or how much personal money has been thrown at this game.  I have nothing but respect for what this team has gone through.     I think that with the experience this team and community have, and the equipment they already upgraded in place, redoing this game and taking a chance on success rather than bandaging a long slow death is worth it.  But it's not my money and everyone has their own opinions on what this game should be..... I'm just a guy.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandman, I must agree with what you said but on another hand you may not compare GOPHUR's wwiiol with XOOM's wwiiol which is 100% volunteer/community based! 

The old wwiiol is dead, its team is no longer there as they went virtually bankrupt. If you believe in the potential of this simulation, supporting the new team is the only answer to it. And it has already proven promizing work capabilities in less than a year (new PPOs, extended FMS, new units, steam release, new infrastructure...).

I would have waited to add new/improved teamplay tools before going live on steam, but if steam can just double the number of subscriptions it will at least confirm its second chance to fulfull its potential.

Edited by Zebbeee
2 people like this

Share this post


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

 

2. This one is quite simple actually and it comes down to this.   Why am I as the gamer/consumer CONTINUALLY paying for a game that has had no major improvements in 12 years.   

> For those of us still paying the simple answer is that there is no game like it, despite all its flaws and faults over time. 

If tomorrow CRS launched a massive Early Access campaign which would completely transform the game over including a complete Unreal Engine 4 upgrade, new Mapping system with easily editable maps and cities, towns and farms,  area and point capture, and a total revamped infantry combat at least on par with todays lower FPS games; well I would be all in.  But it would have to be a legit early access with a single up front fee, and a lot of finished production shots of the new game world and assets.    Throw in trusted community mod support to help develop buildings..etc.    

> dunno. its a weird paradox. would this be like trying to recreate the magic of an old game - the way people still remember and play Ultima and also subscribe to /support Shroud of the Avatar because its Garriot/Lord British (pretty much using the Early Access model you mention above) 

Has any old time 'magic' game been able to do it?  Might even be better to consider the 'Early Access / Work with the Devs' idea as a sequel - brand new & improved from the people who brought you WW II Online. Capture the original vision but all new dev, mechanics & design. Big job, that. Right now there's a lot of simple practical steps (tutorial, wording, help chat etc as per posts above) that at least could be tweaked to help new players.  

Perhaps this Steam Launch is one big learning step - with the hope that it brings in enough players and cash to carry on

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandman.. It speaks in volumes, the enthusiasm that you put into your posts, to me at least. All of the points you raise are valid, and have been talked about quite often. I am a Day 1 player, and I play other games with a few folks from those days. My heart is in WWIIOL because I have always seen the potential. And that is why I stick around, and invest as a builder. 

Just the other day, I was trying to convince some of the guys to come have a look, and the first question to me was... "have the graphics improved?"  Sadly, we all know the answer to that. As an old skool gamer, I cringe at the graphics, and mostly it is what keeps me from playing more often. The second thing, is the ego and arm chair Generals that come with a majority of Vet players. Third is gameplay; and a strong majority of veteran players who know every vantage point and can very easily camp any spawn point.

 

I have a strong belief that if there were a strong foothold in this game, and if the players wanted more, the important thing to do is invest. The only real alternative is getting someone like Nvidia involved, financially. It would take a lot of code... 

 

What we have, is no where else. I would kill for towns that did not all look the same, and a more real feel environment. The fact that folks can turn off terrain and see someone crawling/hiding in terrain that they have turned on.. wtf is that? Friendly kill bombs should alert players to GTF OUT of buildings about to be destroyed by proximity... massive list of wants out there. 

 

Biggest thing for me, is graphics. This is 2017...  Imagine...

call-of-duty-wwii-screen-03-ps4-us-14jun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with getting rid of a subscription basis for the game is that it would have to be replaced with a microtransaction one.  No doubt this would also have to come with a number of pay 2 win features such as paying money to get a health boost for so many days, or you pay money, like in WoT for HVAP ammo, buying each shell individually (as I said, with real money).  Or perhaps we earn credits after each sortie and it is used to purchase our next equipment.  Tiger tanks for 700,000, Sherman for 50,000, LMG for.... whatever.  Then you can have people pay real money to just buy in game money so that they never miss out on the best stuff.  

 

Of course forums for those types of games are filled with people who never spend money complaining that it's unfair that people who are willing to pay money get an advantage, that their exact same piece of equipment isn't as good because they haven't paid real money for special boosts.  Those types of games also employ shrinks and the like to make them almost fun to play without spending any money.  This encourages people to spend money to make the game actually fun, but only for a short time.  The average person who spends money on these types of games no doubt ends up spending a lot more than $15/mth.  

 

Your average gamer today wants to spend $0 to play their online game and they also want the people they play against to spend $0 so that they're on a level playing field.

I think this approach would ruin this game.  

Edited by dale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm spending $30 a month on a game I believe in, WWIIOL. Regardless if I play or not, I am still paying a builders subscription. Because I see the potential. Perspective, I don't go to the bar one night a month so I can pay the sub fee.

Problem with most folks today, is that they believe everything should be free. I don't agree with that. Currently I am active in another game that requires a subscription for new content. And they deliver, frequently!!  ...almost too frequently!
I believe in getting something for your money. No one should ever expect to get something for nothing. That is a problem outside the realm of WWIIOL or any other game. Nothing is free, there is always a hitch. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


WW2online’s subscription model and price point are issues, but I don’t think that they are terribly relevant at this instant. This is because for the Steam launch players are given the entire game for free. So the game is free and yet a number of Steam players aren’t staying online for very long. What to do about the price can wait until the players are staying online for more than a few hours.

 

I haven’t looked through the ranks to see if they’ve been changed recently, but last time I did it took hundreds of points in order to rank up and get access to some common units. And the points system is still broken, awarding too little for difficult combat, almost no points for teamwork and making cheesy behavior like plinking bridges by far the fastest way to gain rank. Having a promotional period, and putting a broken grind between the F2P players you’re trying to hook and the equipment you’re trying to hook them with isn’t a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dale said:

The problem with getting rid of a subscription basis for the game is that it would have to be replaced with a microtransaction one.  No doubt this would also have to come with a number of pay 2 win features such as paying money to get a health boost for so many days, or you pay money, like in WoT for HVAP ammo, buying each shell individually (as I said, with real money).  Or perhaps we earn credits after each sortie and it is used to purchase our next equipment.  Tiger tanks for 700,000, Sherman for 50,000, LMG for.... whatever.  Then you can have people pay real money to just buy in game money so that they never miss out on the best stuff.  

 

Of course forums for those types of games are filled with people who never spend money complaining that it's unfair that people who are willing to pay money get an advantage, that their exact same piece of equipment isn't as good because they haven't paid real money for special boosts.  Those types of games also employ shrinks and the like to make them almost fun to play without spending any money.  This encourages people to spend money to make the game actually fun, but only for a short time.  The average person who spends money on these types of games no doubt ends up spending a lot more than $15/mth.  

 

Your average gamer today wants to spend $0 to play their online game and they also want the people they play against to spend $0 so that they're on a level playing field.

I think this approach would ruin this game.  

Just to add my 2 cents to this. But you wouldn't have switch over to a pay 2 win. There are many ways to earn money without going into p2w. The ranking system could be worked in a way that anyone can go up to max rank. But make it so that a f2p player would take almost forever (i.e. a year of non-stop playing) to reach max rank. Where a subscription would give you a boost making it quick to rank. The other thing that could be add is cosmetic stuff. Skins and addon to vehicles, I would not mind dropping $5 to get a thunderbolt skin for the Sherman. Or dropping money for some boxes, tracks, jerry can, ect to make my tank look more lived on. Like this Tank_Crew_Atop_M4_Sherman_Tank_named_Ato

Now for me personally, I don't care that the game is subscription base. But I do agree that the current sub price it too much. Sadly as much as I enjoy the game myself. It too old for a 17.99 subscription. At the most the game should be 11.99 a month. If not just 9.99 a month for the full premium sub.

Edited by jojcib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Sandman. I love this game a lot but really... she needs a new engine, new art, new game map, new UI. It's like driving the 1998 Ford Explore with 300,000 Miles on it. Sooner or later... the engine, transmission is going to give out and its going to be very very painful to replace.

As sandman said, the concept is gold, but it really needs to go back to the original drawing board. Identify the target consumer, identify how you'll receive money (examine other models WoT, Squads, ARMA 3, Battlefield)... understand how those devs keep the lights on without alienating the player base (BF1). It's a complex discussion that requires multi-facet individuals that understand the gaming market, financials, design, and user acceptance. People nowadays want a game that 'forces' action or keeps you driving for that 'Oh ****' moment like this game did for me back in 2003 - 2010. The tough part is 'how do you do that'.

Also, if I ever won the lottery or made it large, I would invest in this idea/concept. There is money to be made since this market hasn't been captured... the tough part / reason why no one has is because its vast and challenging. But with the current state, I gritted my teeth everytime I go in. Recalling all those 'open field' getting gunned down by tanks or sniped before I even see action gives me some PTSD of the low lights of this game. My high lights of this game was the Squad play, Squad Night, bonding with random people you don't even know to obtain an objective... capture a city or drive in supply relief... Gave me a sense of purpose as if I was helping a true front. If I pushed hard, we could win... was it going to be easy...? HELL no, never was, but I felt like I achieved something. Now I just log in, maybe fly a few sorties, or attempt to help a defense... but the feeling isn't there anymore. There isn't any sense of achievement when we liberate a town.

Other enjoyments I had even though was short lived was AHQ, I remember leading a battle, telling folks to flank on the other side of the town and cut the supply lines. Running ATGs and AA Guns to the front, setting up MSP, telling folks to defend this depot... only to have my squad step in and help me lead that defense point. THATS what sold me on this game. The team work, the responsibility of achieving the end goal, then turning around and doing it all again on a more complex town. I would memorize maps and vantage points, inform squads to hit the side of town while the main force hit the west. The squads were everything in this game... from the 31st Wrecking Crew, to 3rd Canadian Division, to my current squad 4 Wing... we all played certain roles. Personally, that's what I miss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully if subs rate go up they start reducing them.  It did use to be cheaper.  I wouldn't be opposed to cosmetic micros but p2w would ruin the game for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread, good thougths from everybody.

I have no time atm for writting a wall of text, so my bullet points would be:

1) The day this game becomes P2W or go into the microtransactions model, with impact in the equiptment, so players cannot be potencially equally competitive, I quit inmediatly. Inmediatly. Same would happen with my whole squad and with the vast majority of the folks I know here. I don't believe at all in this as a solution, and I think I am not alone in this.

2) We all have memories from the past. Very well. Most of the things people remember are still posible to see ingame NOWADAYS. I still live moments like in the past at times. But probably you won't watch them if you just log in 30min from time to time.

3) If we could catch 10% of the Steam guys who will try the game during the next months, would be a success. That would be hundreds of new players. Then focus would be make them new suscribers. In my opinion, new Steam prices would never be further than 7,99$ or so, for a total access. Only we the vets will keep paying 17 or 30 bucks/m. I honestly don't see a new suscriber dropping that for WWIIOL. But I don't know if CRS can afford lowering the prices or what is the Steam role about this, I guess they want their share too...

4) I created a F2P from Steam and went through the tutorial for trying to help the new guys. It's a pain in the *ss. But in the other hand I understand that a minimal guide is needed. Maybe it can be more brief and simple (get rid of the HUD part, it is not needed actually; eliminate the armor part etc.). Maybe tutorial could be designed as optional tips showing up directly ingame in campaign server, in small screens or tabs, depending on what unit you spawn in. I don't know. But the main matter here is: if CRS can know the % of players who don't even pass the tutorial and get in the real game and it is higher than 25%-30%, maybe the tutorial would have to go optional and not mandatory.

5) There's once a dream that was WWIIOL.  Well, still is. For most of us here it always sounded like the eternal promise... But there isn't ANYTHING like this out there. So we still have to believe in it. I respect those who decided to abandon the ship, they have their reasons. But that bring us to nowhere. I think the new team is doing a vast and great job. I am not always fully aligned with their concepts and decisions, but I have to respect how hard they are trying... So if they are on it, I cannot give up now.

S!

 

Edited by erasmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes make the tutorial voluntary again...

Let squad officers tell them to complete it. it's awful... Just bad, having nothing would be better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I spawned into the tutorial area a few times immediately after the Steam N/S America launch.  It was a Keystone Cops movie, with guys going everywhere and shooting everything...doing everything EXCEPT what they were supposed to be doing on the tutorial.  Then, these same guys complain the tutorial takes too long.

 

The problem isn't the tutorial, it's the intelligence level of the gamers.  This is a thinking person's game and retains mainly the most intelligent players.  To expect that to change with the Steam release is unrealistic.  If they're kids who like quick shoot-em-ups and don't give a Cornered Rat's azz (See what I did there?) about actually playing a strategic role in an ongoing campaign, we couldn't retain them no matter what we did.  Let's take our 10% or 20% or whatever of the new Steam players and call it a success.  As it's out over time and attracts more of that type of player, the word will spread and we'll get better numbers.

 

Oh, and regarding the graphics...  The two games my boys play the MOST are Minecraft and Roblox.

 

35-minecraft-xbox-one-edition-screenshot

Minecraft

 

 

mad-paintball-i.png

Roblox

 

Those are the two games with perhaps the LEAST realistic graphics in the world, yet they're both insanely popular.  I believe, as with most of US, once the new players get used to the gameplay, the graphics will no longer be anywhere near as important.

 

 

 

-Irish

 

 

Edited by odonovan1
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, odonovan1 said:

The problem isn't the tutorial, it's the intelligence level of the gamers.  This is a thinking person's game and retains mainly the most intelligent players.  To expect that to change with the Steam release is unrealistic.  If they're kids who like quick shoot-em-ups and don't give a Cornered Rat's azz (See what I did there?) about actually playing a strategic role in an ongoing campaign, we couldn't retain them no matter what we did.  Let's take our 10% or 20% or whatever of the new Steam players and call it a success.  As it's out over time and attracts more of that type of player, the word will spread and we'll get better numbers.

 

 

 

 

THIS!!!! ^^^^^

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.