• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
greywhizz

Expanding Free Player option

115 posts in this topic

Fact: Players that are not interested in the concept will always find a monthly subscription too expensive for such graphics, even for $3/month. 

Fact : Players who love the concept don’t mind paying $16 (only $10 if taking a 12 months subscription).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2018 at 1:28 PM, Zebbeee said:

the wwiiol concept cannot be a real f2p.

patently false. it could easily be 100% free to play. getting there from where we are - different story but that isn't what you said. you're claiming by nature of what the game is, it cannot possibly be F2p ... it absolutely could be entirely free to play though. just have to change ... well a lot. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zebbeee said:

Fact: Players that are not interested in the concept will always find a monthly subscription too expensive for such graphics, even for $3/month. 

Fact : Players who love the concept don’t mind paying $16 (only $10 if taking a 12 months subscription).

 

Not facts. 

Sure the graphics are an issue and yes that's part of what affects the game's value, but there's much more to it than that, like gameplay, optimization, and the UI.

Take for example this guy here who had a significant amount of play time logged but we lost him as a player, enough to argue that he probably loved the concept. Why'd we lose him? He cites the subscription as one of the reasons.

icon_thumbsDown_v6.png
icon_review_key.png
EARLY ACCESS REVIEW
 
POSTED: FEBRUARY 17
lots of bugs and a $180 a year just to play anything thats a truck or rifleman
 
 
Was this review helpful?  Yes  No  Funny
33 people found this review helpful
4 people found this review funny

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And there are many more like him, too.

1 minute ago, madrebel said:

patently false. it could easily be 100% free to play. getting there from where we are - different story but that isn't what you said. you're claiming by nature of what the game is, it cannot possibly be F2p ... it absolutely could be entirely free to play though. just have to change ... well a lot. 

Precisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2018 at 10:16 AM, BLKHWK8 said:

We are staying away from micro transactions as this game is based on team oriented skills and micro transactions would jeopardize that

again, false. this could too be done in such a way as to make it not suck. again, lots would need to change/be built but it could absolutely be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, gt3076r said:

Fact: The current subscription price (for full content access) is overpriced in the current game market. 

this is NOT a fact.

https://us.shop.battle.net/en-us/product/world-of-warcraft-subscription

 

still MILLIONs of active monthly subs - and it isn't for graphics. WoW is still healthy because it has the best gameplay (in that market). <-- period people still play for gameplay on a monthly basis. WoW isn't the only subscription based MMO anymore either. 

 

took me two seconds to verify your factual claim wasn't in fact factual. if we're going to put forth ides to help, we can't do that from a flawed premise which is what you're doing here.

 

stated perhaps a bit more correctly: it's difficult in the market TODAY to charge a subscription for an MMO. Not impossible but difficult. Further, today you likely wouldn't build out a superscription only model BECAUSE the market has shown preference for booster/micro transactions. If ww2ol were to be ground up rebuilt today, chances for success might be higher using a more flexible booster/micro transaction style, but, the market still has room for 'old' subscription models too.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, madrebel said:

again, false. this could too be done in such a way as to make it not suck. again, lots would need to change/be built but it could absolutely be done.

Well, I don't think microtransactions would work per-se, such as buying units to own. The dev rate is much too slow and game itself isn't new or shiny which lessens the appeal of cosmetic goods.

However I do support the idea of letting players buy 'premium status' on their own terms which would offer its own benefits. Easiest example here would be a reward points booster of double while premium account is active. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, madrebel said:

this is NOT a fact.

https://us.shop.battle.net/en-us/product/world-of-warcraft-subscription

 

still MILLIONs of active monthly subs - and it isn't for graphics. WoW is still healthy because it has the best gameplay (in that market). <-- period people still play for gameplay on a monthly basis. WoW isn't the only subscription based MMO anymore either. 

 

took me two seconds to verify your factual claim wasn't in fact factual. if we're going to put forth ides to help, we can't do that from a flawed premise which is what you're doing here.

 

stated perhaps a bit more correctly: it's difficult in the market TODAY to charge a subscription for an MMO. Not impossible but difficult. Further, today you likely wouldn't build out a superscription only model BECAUSE the market has shown preference for booster/micro transactions. If ww2ol were to be ground up rebuilt today, chances for success might be higher using a more flexible booster/micro transaction style, but, the market still has room for 'old' subscription models too.

 

 

 

Let's take a step back here...

Not saying the sub is overpriced in general. WoW as you point out shows significant evidence otherwise. I'm saying the sub is overpriced for this product. I figured that was implied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gt3076r said:

Let's take a step back here...

Not saying the sub is overpriced in general. WoW as you point out shows significant evidence otherwise. I'm saying the sub is overpriced for this product. I figured that was implied.

can't imply anything here.

 

Wow proves otherwise, you agree. good. Now ... 'what' drives that value? Graphics? If you compare WoW directly to say ... Final Fantasy you'll quickly notice that it isn't WoW's graphics driving the value. Only two real things left ... gameplay and the intangible .. community. The community "my friends all play wow" isn't something we can talk about as we may never have the critical mass that drives this form of word of mouth. Let's skip past then although do not take this lightly. I suspect 20-30% of their active subs are little more than "well all my friends play it" type players.

 

We're left with gameplay. Many in this community will hate on WoW et al but I study this game and have for years. Its fantastically successful for a reason, and that underlying reason is - great gameplay. People by the millions still subscribe to WoW - for the gameplay. 

 

We CAN create gameplay regardless of the 3d engine's abilities or lack there of. 

 

People pay for gameplay. <-- that's the point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, gt3076r said:

Well, I don't think microtransactions would work per-se, such as buying units to own. The dev rate is much too slow and game itself isn't new or shiny which lessens the appeal of cosmetic goods.

However I do support the idea of letting players buy 'premium status' on their own terms which would offer its own benefits. Easiest example here would be a reward points booster of double while premium account is active. 

to be fair, outside of cosmetic BS I haven't been able to work microtransactions into game theory specific to ww2ol either. Limited F2P accounts (w/e that means) + cash Boosters though ... those would be trivial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, gt3076r said:

Not facts. 

Sure the graphics are an issue and yes that's part of what affects the game's value, but there's much more to it than that, like gameplay, optimization, and the UI.

Take for example this guy here who had a significant amount of play time logged but we lost him as a player, enough to argue that he probably loved the concept. Why'd we lose him? He cites the subscription as one of the reasons.

icon_thumbsDown_v6.png
icon_review_key.png
EARLY ACCESS REVIEW
 
POSTED: FEBRUARY 17
lots of bugs and a $180 a year just to play anything thats a truck or rifleman
 
 
Was this review helpful?  Yes  No  Funny
33 people found this review helpful
4 people found this review funny

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And there are many more like him, too.

Precisely.

Look at this guys other review.

He complains that H&G is pay to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infantry only packages 

Vehicle only packages

Aircraft only packages

Would be a start

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Look at this guys other review.

He complains that H&G is pay to win.

It is though..? Reto made it exceedingly difficult to unlock anything through gameplay, and those things include damage reduction, increased health, decreased spawn timers, more damage, faster rearm timers, flat-out better equipment, basically everything to do with the Generals mode, etc.

If they haven't changed anything in a couple years, there's nothing strictly premium, but someone who drops $100 on the game with 0 hours will have far better equipment and soldier buffs than someone who spent $0 with 100 hours.

Share this post


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

Infantry only packages 

Vehicle only packages

Aircraft only packages

Would be a start

agreed and i have a write up where i went one further.

$5 - choose your branch allows full access to that branches toys. doesn't protect side affinity (you get balanced automatically based on pop).

$10 - all branches 'general' sub. this sub is intended to allow you access to all general vehicles. in my write up was an analog mechanic for small medium large or -5% performance, base performance, +5% performance for the spawned kit as well as a 'noob' vehicle, a 'general' vehicle, and then an uprated vehicle you could earn via success in the field. essentially this 10$ sub would be what you try to hook people with as a baseline monthly rate, then entice boosters. at $10 you can choose your side however if you allow yourself to be auto balanced you get an additional booster while population is imbalanced

$15 - you get everything. all access, all weapons, side affinity of your choice.

 

the 3 above ALWAYS allow access to rifleman, really only relevant to the $5 sub but should be stated none the less. 

 

*edit* for the $10 option i believe I allowed side affinity to be protected if an active booster was detected. 

Edited by madrebel
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gt3076r said:

Take for example this guy here who had a significant amount of play time logged but we lost him as a player, enough to argue that he probably loved the concept. Why'd we lose him? He cites the subscription as one of the reasons.

icon_thumbsDown_v6.png
icon_review_key.png
EARLY ACCESS REVIEW
 
POSTED: FEBRUARY 17
lots of bugs and a $180 a year just to play anything thats a truck or rifleman
 
 
Was this review helpful?  Yes  No  Funny
33 people found this review helpful
4 people found this review funny

Hard to say, he gives no insight as to what he is seeing as bugs, which could be anything from a real issue to simply not understanding how the game plays.
He also seems, unless typo, as if perhaps he does not understand the 2 levels of subscription model and what is in them? Nor that one can be a part time free player / part time starter subscriber back and forth as much as one wants, nor that the free players also have SMG's, a paratroop rifleman, AND a per campaign bonus item, as well as trucks/HTs, they can also capture, gain rank, and post/lead missions.

20 minutes ago, madrebel said:

patently false. it could easily be 100% free to play. getting there from where we are - different story but that isn't what you said. you're claiming by nature of what the game is, it cannot possibly be F2p ... it absolutely could be entirely free to play though. just have to change ... well a lot. 

If i became a billionaire, it could be free to play, cause id have nothing better to do with the cash than to simply fund the thing entirely just to try to get rid of the interest.

But of the game being able to support it self from completely voluntary purchases of what would be allowed for sale?
Not sure that would be sustainable at a great enough level, people just dont buy much vanity stuff, what they want to buy is advantage, and beyond simply subscribing or not, the game wont sell advantage.

You wont be able to buy specialty ammo, you wont be able to buy specialty or premium units, you wont be able to buy armor upgrades, You wont be able to buy a unit before its tier and you wont be able to buy a unit when its out of supply.
A guy that simply pays his sub and plays wont have some nub with 200 bucks run off to the online store and presto 4 star general and he spawns a GDI Mammoth tank and nukes the place, and that unfortunately is what most people want to buy, or at least so i've observed.
Fuzzy dice stickers are an afterthought, they want to buy the hammer of God and use said hammer any time they play.

What do you think could be sold, that would sell in an ongoing basis, in enough volume to foot the game bill consistently, that does not compromise the core concepts of the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

the game wont sell advantage.

You wont be able to buy specialty ammo, you wont be able to buy specialty or premium units, you wont be able to buy armor upgrades, You wont be able to buy a unit before its tier and you wont be able to buy a unit when its out of supply.

because it currently can't.

 

all of your second line could be done (at least as an analogous partial) if the backend systems existed. 

Quote

What do you think could be sold, that would sell in an ongoing basis, in enough volume to foot the game bill consistently, that does not compromise the core concepts of the game

Edited by madrebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the entire game - 


if you base the entire backend over top an analogous ledger framework now all the sides have to finance their war ... analogously. real war takes real economy, we don't want that as it is boring as [censored]. we would benefit greatly from this concept existing at the very core of the game however. if/when you have accounting, you can now do things like allow players to reserve units using currency they've earned with successful missions in game. or, perhaps population is super out of whack - now HC on the underpop side releases early access next tier tanks as combat trials. you can allow players to 'buy' special rounds as that purchase pulls from the global TOE. etc.

it absolutely could be done.

 

*edit* fn forums ... ugh why i quoting so awful.

Edited by madrebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, madrebel said:

because it currently can't.

I think you misunderstand.
"Will not" as in violates the core concepts of the game, not as in can not be coded, anything can be coded.

42 minutes ago, madrebel said:

an analog mechanic for small medium large or -5% performance, base performance, +5% performance for the spawned kit as well as a 'noob' vehicle, a 'general'

Like this if i read it right, which maybe i dont?
Allow server to auto balance you and you get +5% performance on your gear?
So your AP rounds get +5% penetration, and if you dont auto balance -5% penetration for example
Or your aircraft gets +5% speed boost?

 

42 minutes ago, madrebel said:

$15 - you get everything. all access, all weapons, side affinity of your choice.

So this guy, logging in and deciding on his own accord to balance the sides gets out shot or flown by the 10 dollar guy?
Seems he might start to wonder why he pays the extra 5 bucks for someone else to get an ahistorical advantage for less?
Now maybe i read that wrong, if so go ahead and correct me.

I could see suggesting like a reduced starter for like 6, a 10 dollar full sub maybe, with an auto balancing restriction, and a 15 with 0 restriction
without the performance bonuses.

 

no idea why quoting is latently lame some days

Edited by merlin51

Share this post


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

Now ... 'what' drives that value?

A solid question to pose in this thread and part of what needs to be discussed in here.

I'd say gameplay, certainly, and perhaps development are the two biggest factors that determine value. Problem here is WWIIOL does not consistently deliver on the gameplay front, particularly due to population (ignoring things inherent to the game such as graphics engine or infantry "clunkiness") I think the gameplay factor can be addressed for the better by increasing population through the free to play system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, madrebel said:

agreed and i have a write up where i went one further.

$5 - choose your branch allows full access to that branches toys. doesn't protect side affinity (you get balanced automatically based on pop).

$10 - all branches 'general' sub. this sub is intended to allow you access to all general vehicles. in my write up was an analog mechanic for small medium large or -5% performance, base performance, +5% performance for the spawned kit as well as a 'noob' vehicle, a 'general' vehicle, and then an uprated vehicle you could earn via success in the field. essentially this 10$ sub would be what you try to hook people with as a baseline monthly rate, then entice boosters. at $10 you can choose your side however if you allow yourself to be auto balanced you get an additional booster while population is imbalanced

$15 - you get everything. all access, all weapons, side affinity of your choice.

 

the 3 above ALWAYS allow access to rifleman, really only relevant to the $5 sub but should be stated none the less. 

 

*edit* for the $10 option i believe I allowed side affinity to be protected if an active booster was detected. 

I can honestly see something along these lines being implemented.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

I think you misunderstand.
"Will not" as in violates the core concepts of the game, not as in can not be coded, anything can be coded.

Like this if i read it right, which maybe i dont?
Allow server to auto balance you and you get +5% performance on your gear?
So your AP rounds get +5% penetration, and if you dont auto balance -5% penetration for example
Or your aircraft gets +5% speed boost?

 

So this guy, logging in and deciding on his own accord to balance the sides gets out shot or flown by the 10 dollar guy?
Seems he might start to wonder why he pays the extra 5 bucks for someone else to get an ahistorical advantage for less?
Now maybe i read that wrong, if so go ahead and correct me.

I could see suggesting like a reduced starter for like 6, a 10 dollar full sub maybe, with an auto balancing restriction, and a 15 with 0 restriction
without the performance bonuses.

 

no idea why quoting is latently lame some days

1) no i get it, and none of those actually violate the concept of the game nor are my suggestions outside the bounds of actual reality either. 

2) this is specific to rank. green tags get crap, then you graduate to everything. I'm suggesting we add one more.

green tag = crap

'general' = current 'graduated tier'

'perked' = in addition to what we have

 

This maps back to actual reality in that all militaries produced criteria for weapons that in turn, weapon companies built out and attempted to sell. Right? this criteria wasn't for "i want a fighter plane to go exactly X and do exactly Y" these requirements were ALWAYS a spectrum. Let's use the RLM, they would say we need a fighter to do X/Y/Z and if you can do that, and we accept it, then you must deliver all vehicles to match this speficication with a +/-5% acceptance crieria. as long as the weapon you built and delivered is within +/-5% of my specification then I have to accept.

 

Map this to in game. I could then give a green tag a 109E4 in t0 and it would be balanced for 2 reasons

1) this 109E4 will have -5% performance

2) my 109E4 will have +5% performance to reflect my subscription, as well as my ability in the weapon system. if i get shot down, i have to 'rebuy' a 109E4 with +5% performance.

 

right there i've created an analog for actual reality. in reality, +/-5% performance deltas could/would sometimes exist within the planes on the same mission. in game, nobody would accept -5% perfromance unless this well defined system is in place to make sense of that for them.

 

to extend this further, jump to ... well honestly a would be T5 fits best here and again lets stick to the LW as it serves me best.

T5 options for LW:

109G10

109K4

109K14

190A9

190D13

TA152H

DO335

 

All of those are valid options for tier5. how do you rank them? what about the K4 specifically, you have two options here the 605DB or the 605DC engine, 200hp difference. is perhaps the DB K4 a green tag option? then how do you balance that over the G10 as then you have essentially the same plane? just as an example

low rank (all -5% performance) = G10, K4 w/605DB, A9

mid rank (all baseline +/-0%) = 190D13

max rank (all planes +5% perf) = K4 w/ 605DC, TA152H, DO335

 

make sense? a real qorld thing mapped to game theory that could be accelerated/offset by real world cash giving larger returns for in game success that allows you to 'buy' advantage and all that maps back to realistic stuff that real war deals with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, gt3076r said:

Problem here is WWIIOL does not consistently deliver on the gameplay front

its not possible for me to agree with you enough here. our game world is market leading/unique. the more 'gameplay' we can design ... well that imo is the future.

Share this post


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

Look at this guys other review.

He complains that H&G is pay to win.

 

39 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

Hard to say, he gives no insight as to what he is seeing as bugs, which could be anything from a real issue to simply not understanding how the game plays.
He also seems, unless typo, as if perhaps he does not understand the 2 levels of subscription model and what is in them? Nor that one can be a part time free player / part time starter subscriber back and forth as much as one wants, nor that the free players also have SMG's, a paratroop rifleman, AND a per campaign bonus item, as well as trucks/HTs, they can also capture, gain rank, and post/lead missions.

This guy is just one example taken from many others who all come to a similar conclusion: the current price for full access is too high for the product delivered. Without getting too off topic in here, keep in mind we're discussing options on how to change free to play for the better to keep server population high to better the gameplay experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F2P should receive access to the training server, with access to all units and pre-set missions in some FBs and ABs. No capture nor mission creation capabilities. Just FMSs.

If I was billionaire I would offer premium accounts to everyone but all attached to my own squad, and pay some guys to guarantee a 24/24 ingame and offline management. That would be smart f2p.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres really no way to expand freeplay without taking away from paying subs.

I agree that populating the game is important, but at what cost?

My son plays tons of "free to play" games but it ends up costing me 30-40 dollars a month?

If you allow f2p players access to most infantry weapons, what keeps strictly inf players from unsubbing and choosing f2p?

Infantry pack $5

Vehicles pack $5 

Aircraft pack $5

ATG/AAA pack $5

All access $15

Choose 1, 2 or all 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Zebbeee said:

F2P should receive access to the training server, with access to all units and pre-set missions in some FBs and ABs. No capture nor mission creation capabilities. Just FMSs.

If I was billionaire I would offer premium accounts to everyone but all attached to my own squad, and pay some guys to guarantee a 24/24 ingame and offline management. That would be smart f2p.

you want more players yet your designs for this enforce massive restrictions, the type that alienates the players you want. not, smart. 

 

paid game managers is something this game has always needed but couldn't really afford at the size/scope required. 

14 minutes ago, Pittpete said:

Theres really no way to expand freeplay without taking away from paying subs.

I agree that populating the game is important, but at what cost?

My son plays tons of "free to play" games but it ends up costing me 30-40 dollars a month?

If you allow f2p players access to most infantry weapons, what keeps strictly inf players from unsubbing and choosing f2p?

Infantry pack $5

Vehicles pack $5 

Aircraft pack $5

ATG/AAA pack $5

All access $15

Choose 1, 2 or all 4

your kids games have systems in place to capture those $30-$40 purchases. in your example, why can't the first 3 have a booster attached for X time that grants them access to ... tanks if they chose infantry? F2P is a marketing term, it's never actually existed. Free to play literally means - no money from your pocket to 'play' the game where the term 'play' is defined as "the ability to log in and see at least some of the game". right? the disconnect happens in the mind of the player "well, its free to play that means *insert some over-reaching ask here*".

 

no ... dumby. you have to pay to play games online. all F2P games that last more than their launch have a cap sheet, they have a ledger they update constantly with money coming in and money going out. "F2P" is smoke and mirrors.

 

We should, IMO, and i think many others in this thread are on this track too ... we need to figure out how to get money from more people in a way that is 'fair' for the player and the developer. Let's then stop talking about "F2P" as that is a pipe dream. Now, you could point to candykrush and other games that are almost 100% 'free' ... these games treat you, your login, and ALL the information they can pilfer from your device as their actual product. they then resell you and your information to anyone/everyone. given that reality, i much prefer to pay up front for 'something'. that way I can at least expect that the actual product, the game, is all i have to worry about in this transaction. 

 

perhaps there is some amrketing worth mentioning here? Perhaps in this modern world we reword the message around subscriptions? YOU are NOT the product of CRS. At no time will CRS treat you or your information as the product. Put together a message that says "this is why we like subs so we don't ever have to entertain the underhanded crap some 'f2p' developers use".

 

idk. i just hate the term f2p because its BS.

Edited by madrebel
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.