pbveteran

Are F2P players going to loose anything?

50 posts in this topic

Taking the FMS and truck out option from F2P will not necessarily hurt the F2P it will hurt the paying and subscribers and potential new users, less FMS, Less Players engaging each other, so only dead server and empty attacks..

The game was pretty dead without any FMS up before allowing F2P to allow to setup FMS, there was like just 1 MS for a primary AO.

 

I guess the problem is the game shouldn't exist it, it has been artificial kept alive, by hardcore fans. The only thing I know is that going with those changes will hurt the game financial it might not seem but it will.

I disagree with the risk CRS is taking by removing flags from the game this is an expensive move dev time wise when there are other solutions cheaper, that would add to the game features and achieve better results like allowing subscribers to take command of their own smaller brigade, that could be lost without much harm and would force teamwork and coordination to mount an attack since it would required more of this brigades.

- My advice would be that every dev to do this as a hobby and only receive money for part time work.. so not really have a full time dev team. And just focus on adding small things like weapons and lowering the subscription price make it really attractive and cheap for people the more active players the better then start making crowd-funding campaigns to achieve particular features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, pbveteran said:

Taking the FMS and truck out option from F2P will not necessarily hurt the F2P it will hurt the paying and subscribers and potential new users, less FMS, Less Players engaging each other, so only dead server and empty attacks..

The game was pretty dead without any FMS up before allowing F2P to allow to setup FMS, there was like just 1 MS for a primary AO.

 

I guess the problem is the game shouldn't exist it, it has been artificial kept alive, by hardcore fans. The only thing I know is that going with those changes will hurt the game financial it might not seem but it will.

I disagree with the risk CRS is taking by removing flags from the game this is an expensive move dev time wise when there are other solutions cheaper, that would add to the game features and achieve better results like allowing subscribers to take command of their own smaller brigade, that could be lost without much harm and would force teamwork and coordination to mount an attack since it would required more of this brigades.

- My advice would be that every dev to do this as a hobby and only receive money for part time work.. so not really have a full time dev team. And just focus on adding small things like weapons and lowering the subscription price make it really attractive and cheap for people the more active players the better then start making crowd-funding campaigns to achieve particular features.

This is so fundamentally flawed I'm genuinely unsure of how to respond without coming across as rude.

It sounds like you're bankrupt on optimism and trying to convince someone else to buy-in to your doom and gloom mentality.

That's no way to operate or be any part of the solution equation. If we bought into this mentality and decided not to rise to the occasion, we would've been done in 2012. CRS or the WWII Online community isn't giving up, even if you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pbveteran said:

 

Quote

every dev to do this as a hobby and only receive money for part time work.. so not really have a full time dev team.

I'm in favor of everyone in the world spending their time doing things for free that benefit me. I still want to get paid for the work I do, though, because I have bills to pay.

Quote

just focus on adding small things like weapons

Yeah, modeling items using Creator is simple and easy. No big deal.  :P

Quote

lowering the subscription price make it really attractive and cheap for people

The best price of course is free, but maybe it'd be OK if we receive lots of fun value but only pay a little bit for it.

Quote

the more active players the better

Definitely. :)

Quote

start making crowd-funding campaigns to achieve particular features.

Huh. Why didn't someone think of that before?  :D

2 people like this

Share this post


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

If you go this FTP route, do you loose your previously held rank temporarily ,or maybe permanently if you should choose to subscribe later down the road?

I meant to have said re-subscribe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, blkmgc said:

I meant to have said re-subscribe.

No your rank is retained as far as i am aware

Share this post


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

Taking the FMS and truck out option from F2P will not necessarily hurt the F2P it will hurt the paying and subscribers and potential new users, less FMS, Less Players engaging each other, so only dead server and empty attacks..

? For a small ONE TIME payout, i can take my F2P and buy him a truck and drive it to my hearts content all day long.
Most F2P accounts that currently actually drive trucks and make real use of them are paying subscribers using them as a second

Most of the straight F2P dont run out FMS's
 

2 hours ago, pbveteran said:

I disagree with the risk CRS is taking by removing flags from the game

Flags will still be around, but they will evolve into something not yet revealed, probably won't be near as numerous and might be more unique and special
But absence of flag or person to move them around will no longer halt the game for everyone logged in trying to play.
If the highest ranking guy logged in is a non HC PFC, well if he can rally the masses to him, then a private shall lead them and the garrisons shall go to war.

2 hours ago, pbveteran said:

My advice would be that every dev to do this as a hobby and only receive money for part time work..

Money ??
You think we get money? Really?
Money goes to things like Operating overhead (ISP, COLO fees etc)
Licensing, Software packages and tools, Hardware equipment, normal business expenses etc etc.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2018 at 9:10 PM, merlin51 said:

? For a small ONE TIME payout, i can take my F2P and buy him a truck and drive it to my hearts content all day long.
Most F2P accounts that currently actually drive trucks and make real use of them are paying subscribers using them as a second

Money ??
You think we get money? Really?
Money goes to things like Operating overhead (ISP, COLO fees etc)
Licensing, Software packages and tools, Hardware equipment, normal business expenses etc etc.

 

For the amount of money the community has given to CRS and CRS current state, finances or at least expenses should be public.. what is this break even point what does this entail?

If I was at the head of CRS I wouldn't have the courage to keep demanding more and more and then taking stuff from players without being completely transparent and clear cut about it.

 

In a free to play model , free players are meant to provide content generation for paying players and should be burden with less "fun" or engaging tasks like driving FMS, towing etc.. Not the other way around, a good portion of these games that have F2P models, have daily tasks that promote or force free players to do this tasks, CRS has not this but at least allowed free players access to them which would always allow the creation of FMS now there isn't.

The times I check out the game when there was access to trucks I would drive Engineers to bust FB's and setup FMS this indirectly affects more positively the game than spawning a rifle and considering I don't pay for the game this is the best I could do, at this point and with so many other competitors out there I see no value on subscribing at the current price point.

@jwilly

AFAIK adding infantry weapons does not require creator software.. that's why I ask for it the cheaper solution.

IF CRS THINKS removing F2P access to truck will make them break even or they are force to do this, since things are that bad maybe the game is simply not financially viable at this time and trying to reach break even in such a poverty of content for F2P and removing a further piece of equipment that helped more subscribers than free accounts is just mind boggling and will further drive into a spiral of less new players checking the game and having fun, less new subscribers, less players playing, less content and smaller battles and low pop timezones and finally less subscribers.

This constant pressure on F2P and the split of premium content into tiers has done more harm than good to player populations maybe is time to try a new strategy focus on just increasing player population and having the absolute minimum expenses like serve costs and electricity bills etc.. and using this greater exposure to drive more ambitious crowd-funding campaigns.

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats wrong with paying for what one use? May that be a service (game) or hard prodct.

If you want to play, pay, simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, pbveteran said:

For the amount of money the community has given to CRS and CRS current state, finances or at least expenses should be public.. what is this break even point what does this entail?

If I was at the head of CRS I wouldn't have the courage to keep demanding more and more and then taking stuff from players without being completely transparent and clear cut about it.

 

In a free to play model , free players are meant to provide content generation for paying players and should be burden with less "fun" or engaging tasks like driving FMS, towing etc.. Not the other way around, a good portion of these games that have F2P models, have daily tasks that promote or force free players to do this tasks, CRS has not this but at least allowed free players access to them which would always allow the creation of FMS now there isn't.

The times I check out the game when there was access to trucks I would drive Engineers to bust FB's and setup FMS this indirectly affects more positively the game than spawning a rifle and considering I don't pay for the game this is the best I could do, at this point and with so many other competitors out there I see no value on subscribing at the current price point.

@jwilly

AFAIK adding infantry weapons does not require creator software.. that's why I ask for it the cheaper solution.

IF CRS THINKS removing F2P access to truck will make them break even or they are force to do this, since things are that bad maybe the game is simply not financially viable at this time and trying to reach break even in such a poverty of content for F2P and removing a further piece of equipment that helped more subscribers than free accounts is just mind boggling and will further drive into a spiral of less new players checking the game and having fun, less new subscribers, less players playing, less content and smaller battles and low pop timezones and finally less subscribers.

This constant pressure on F2P and the split of premium content into tiers has done more harm than good to player populations maybe is time to try a new strategy focus on just increasing player population and having the absolute minimum expenses like serve costs and electricity bills etc.. and using this greater exposure to drive more ambitious crowd-funding campaigns.

Let me start by disclosing my salary $0....

I choose to support this game by volunteering my time, as countless others do. CRS has asked for funding drives yes, and they have been very transparent on what those funds are used for, the most recent being 64bit integration of the game which is a must going forward given 32 bit is no longer being supported after September by Apple. 

Our free to play model is to attract players to the game and give them a taste of it, f2p have access to full equipment list at intermission and the training server. This move is to bring a greater value to our subscribers which is where we cover the overhead cost of the servers and equipment to run this game. We offer several options for content to be paid for the newest being the DLCs which will be tested via the Steam platform.  The starter subscription at 7.99 a month has trucks in it. You then have the Premium Sub and for those who choose the Builder program offers added perks including a second tow account. 

Change is necessary for us to remain relevant attract new business. @XOOM is working to balance content (new and existing) and bug fixes with the limited resources we do have all the while trying to grow the community here which in turn supports the development of the game. 

So your solution is to offer everything for nothing? How is that fiscally viable? Monthly subscriptions and re-occurring revenue is necessary to continue to fund the overhead. We do not sell expansion packs etc like other games we are adding new content to this game for the first time in five years. This is directly a result in the support of our community. We each decide the value of the money we put forth, so feel it is not worth x amount per month, some do. We are trying new strategies and continue to develop this game. We have US Paratroopers coming in, new vehicles, 64bit support. The 2018 roadmap shows how our progress is, and we have added CS tanks with smoke rounds, Tank Busters, new terrain and are working on a maintenance patch to fix long standing bugs all which are being done by volunteers.  

 

Adding new infantry weapons most certainly does require creator software - you need to create the artwork, then the weapon ballistics, damage model, animation model etc the list goes on and on. This is one of the most dynamic and complex games I have ever played it is what keeps me coming back year after year. It is the most satisfying and frustrating game at the same time. It requires skill and tactics as well as teamwork to master it. The complexity also keeps your ability to maintain your proficiency at a weapon type constant. 

 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, pbveteran said:

AFAIK adding infantry weapons does not require creator software.. that's why I ask for it the cheaper solution.

I'd love to know where you got that very incorrect piece of info.
If its 3 dimensional, it requires creator because that is the only model type that the game uses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, merlin51 said:

I'd love to know where you got that very incorrect piece of info.
If its 3 dimensional, it requires creator because that is the only model type that the game uses.

 

What I know is to make vehicles the game uses a third party software with a proprietary extension that required you to buy a license to be able to make new vehicles I thought this was called creator software maybe I'm confusing but the reason CRS was able to implement new weapons in the first years after the old CRS team departure was because of this.

Infantry and inf weapons do not have damage models and ballistic calculations and it doesn't use the same vehicle proprietary program.

@BLKHWK8

The credit point system is the only viable to be implemented in WW2ol, it will be the only one that will increase players, subscribers and DLC sale. Anyone with a job doesn't have the time to be comfortable playing with that model and if it has disposable income and dlc or subscription is attractive he will spend money. (It's the start Free 2 Play model and it has been proven every time, it preys on addiction and artificial rarity)

Share this post


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

Infantry and inf weapons do not have damage models and ballistic calculations and it doesn't use the same vehicle proprietary program.

Infantry weapons work the same way as all other weapons in game.
And they have ballistics calcs just like a 37mm cannon does.
They dont have breakable parts,  just doesnt make a lot of sense to develop a DM for an object whose owner is now dead anyways.
And infantry do have a DM, it's a bit more generalized than heart lungs kidneys liver spleen, femoral artery, inferior and superion vena cav but they still have a DM with different parts some more fatal than others to get hit in.

I am wrong though, i just learneded that the infantry are done completely in granny, another proprietary dev tool.
I did not realize granny could make the models, i though it only did the animations
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is that if you take away trucks from F2P accounts, you will have less FMS to attacks. There aren't enough as it is, and now we will have less.  

Watch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps premium subs should get a free tow account as well. Seems like that would help a bit in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2018 at 6:52 AM, choad said:

Perhaps premium subs should get a free tow account as well. Seems like that would help a bit in this regard.

Hero Builders do have a free towing account, so there is an option for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I wish we could ala carte the in game assets we would play. For example you could pay an amount for each unit you enjoy playing. To me the subscription model is an antiquated business model and it hurts the game. If you never plan to fly or captain a boat then what is the draw to have those. For example I enjoy flying, tanking, rifle/sniper and the guns. I have no interest in trucks, boats, smgs etc.. have you guys ever tossed around the ala carte model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Losing truck might be big issue for FPA, but if they can buy DLC, then not so bad.

But, DLC is just STEAM atm, so organic FPA have to wait.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, delems said:

Losing truck might be big issue for FPA, but if they can buy DLC, then not so bad.

But, DLC is just STEAM atm, so organic FPA have to wait.

 

Or, make the 2nd account in steam, and buy a truck (or i guess 3rd in this case?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/08/2018 at 7:04 PM, merlin51 said:

I'd love to know where you got that very incorrect piece of info.
If its 3 dimensional, it requires creator because that is the only model type that the game uses.

 

I would invest in developing an import tool for open source 3d model formats, or 3dstudio/maya formats. What happens if and when the people learning creator get proficient and leave for very well paid jobs?

DropBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRS personnel investigating use of programs such as 3D Studio and Maya in the past have reported that the structural dissimilarities between those programs' native formats and the OpenFlight format specification were too great for import/export conversion to be useful. Files created or edited in those other programs don't work right once imported.

For instance, the 3D Studio webpage containing a summary of compatibility issues currently contains many statements like the following:

"The attribute list for any node might not exactly reflect those attributes found in the OpenFlight specification. (...) This means that on export, some of the attributes will be set automatically, even though you have no direct means of changing those values."

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/3ds-max/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2017/ENU/3DSMax/files/GUID-E34D8960-1D38-4EFA-8647-61F5A35EDAD5-htm.html

The core problem with using some tool other than Creator is that no one other than MultiGen (now Presagis) has built a modeling program that fully implements the OpenFlight spec, and the game's physics code uses OpenFlight attributes that only Creator can handle.

Or so CRS personnel have said in the past, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jwilly said:

CRS personnel investigating use of programs such as 3D Studio and Maya in the past have reported that the structural dissimilarities between those programs' native formats and the OpenFlight format specification were too great for import/export conversion to be useful. Files created or edited in those other programs don't work right once imported.

For instance, the 3D Studio webpage containing a summary of compatibility issues currently contains many statements like the following:

"The attribute list for any node might not exactly reflect those attributes found in the OpenFlight specification. (...) This means that on export, some of the attributes will be set automatically, even though you have no direct means of changing those values."

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/3ds-max/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2017/ENU/3DSMax/files/GUID-E34D8960-1D38-4EFA-8647-61F5A35EDAD5-htm.html

The core problem with using some tool other than Creator is that no one other than MultiGen (now Presagis) has built a modeling program that fully implements the OpenFlight spec, and the game's physics code uses OpenFlight attributes that only Creator can handle.

Or so CRS personnel have said in the past, anyway.

What would be the alternatives to using openflight (for 2.0)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2018 at 11:37 AM, Mosizlak said:

Bottom line is that if you take away trucks from F2P accounts, you will have less FMS to attacks. There aren't enough as it is, and now we will have less.  

Watch. 

Sad but true. :(

Edited by gretnine

Share this post


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

What would be the alternatives to using openflight (for 2.0)?

My understanding would be, writing a new physics core that uses approximations and simplications, instead of calculations, because the data for those calculations no longer would be part of the models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2018 at 3:37 AM, Mosizlak said:

Bottom line is that if you take away trucks from F2P accounts, you will have less FMS to attacks. There aren't enough as it is, and now we will have less.  

Watch. 

QFT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.