• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      Operation Burning Skies   09/17/2019

      All pilots scramble!  Strap yourself in for this months Community event - Operation Burning Skies! This Sunday, September 22, 11 am – 5 pm server time. In honor of XOOM and friends showcasing WWII Online at the Oregon International  Air Show – our forces too will battle for superiority in Operation Burning Skies. High Commands are on high alert to rally their forces to victory! Lift off, and see a whole new world of WWII Online… Fearless bomber pilots make the skies rain down fire – our daring fighter pilots are in pursuit of their prey- as western Europe erupts in war on the ground below! Rally your squads, rally your buddies - Combined arms are back!  …Under Burning Skies! SALUTE!
nugitx

The experience of a new player that starts to play

233 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, nugitx said:

And count how many have left and are not posting here anymore because of this change.

I would not post here either, but I sometimes come back and check and this is just a simple plea?  You say like i'm the only one who liked ww2ol 2001-2004

That's a pretty big assumption.  You know all of these folks who left?  I left too, but for my own personal reasons having nothing to do with the game.  You're acting like everybody who left did so for the very same reasons you did. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

That's a pretty big assumption.  You know all of these folks who left?  I left too, but for my own personal reasons having nothing to do with the game.  You're acting like everybody who left did so for the very same reasons you did. 

 

I don't know them ofcourse, but I remember the big portion of community was against AO back in the day so it can be assumed that AO is part of why people left.

This game is a MMO, if there is no sense of 'big scale'  what's left?   battles? I can play that in Battlefield, Red Orchestra or similar shooters.

People were not here for the battles originaly, they were for the massive front, it was the selling point of ww2 online, I wouldn't be playing it in the first place if it was 'just another ww2 shooter'

AO = battles without front

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, nugitx said:

 

I don't know them ofcourse, but I remember the big portion of community was against AO back in the day so it can be assumed that AO is part of why people left.

This game is a MMO, if there is no sense of 'big scale'  what's left?   battles? I can play that in Battlefield, Red Orchestra or similar shooters.

People were not here for the battles originaly, they were for the massive front, it was the selling point of ww2 online, I wouldn't be playing it in the first place if it was 'just another ww2 shooter'

AO = battles without front

So you don't know them, nor can you, with any certainty, testify on their behalf as to their reasoning for doing anything.  Furthermore, in your own words, it is this assumption that you're basing the entire weight of your argument.  Just, for a moment, apply a little reason to the situation... remove the desire for realism and other factors governing CRS' decision...  do you really think CRS would have sided with the minority (like you seem to claim) and implement AOs even though the "majority" did not want them?  C'mon man!

2 people like this

Share this post


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

  do you really think CRS would have sided with the minority (like you seem to claim) and implement AOs even though the "majority" did not want them?  C'mon man!

 

CRS wanted to 'complete' the game as it lacked features that were promised during release, back in those times 'community voice' did not matter as much, the companies did not listen to the players.

Paradoxicaly the features that they created (AO) killed the feature which made players buy ww2online in the first place ( big front, ability for players to move the map). It's not the first time a game company makes bad decisions for the gameplay of the game,

Just look at other mmo game examples which I mentioned before (world of warcraft, runescape, aces high). Take note that Blizzard and Jagex are fixing their mistakes by bringing back the gameplay from 15 years ago.

 

Quote

So you don't know them, nor can you, with any certainty, testify on their behalf as to their reasoning for doing anything.  Furthermore, in your own words, it is this assumption that you're basing the entire weight of your argument.

It's not my assumption, when people were making threads about AO in the past, and after Rats implemented it, people stopped posting and/or stopped playing the game, it means this had driven them away.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is that your argument for wanting this feature is severely flawed.  You keep listing anecdotal observations as "evidence".  Even though you don't realize it, other reasonable folks will.  As such, they won't see your "enlightenment" or come to your way of thinking when all you can muster is broken logic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

All I'm saying is that your argument for wanting this feature is severely flawed.  You keep listing anecdotal observations as "evidence".  Even though you don't realize it, other reasonable folks will.  As such, they won't see your "enlightenment" or come to your way of thinking when all you can muster is broken logic.

 

Here is proof:

If ww2ol  returned to pre-AO i would sub and play, and other folks in this thread said this also (which are for it).

If the word got out and the current CRS advertised they are going to pre-AO times, many people would also come back, and new players would not be scratching their heads the moment they log the game wondering what they have to do, they would just spawn with a rifle in the hand and rush towards nearest city.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey nugitx, what game names did you use previously?

Edited by GrAnit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nugitx said:

 

Here is proof:

If ww2ol  returned to pre-AO i would sub and play, and other folks in this thread said this also (which are for it).

 

If the word get out and the current CRS advertised they are going to pre-AO times, many people would also come back, and new players would not be scratching their heads the moment they log the game wondering what they have to do, they would just spawn with a rifle in the hand and rush towards nearest city.

And either find no one, no battles, or be camped most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, GrAnit said:

And either find no one, no battles, or be camped most of the time.

If players would return + new players, there would be people playing again.

 

Hey nugitx, what game names did you use previously?

check page 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do get to speak for yourself, and if your point is that CRS should upset a slew of existing players to accommodate your subscription status and the "potential" subs of an admitted imaginary base of ex-players, you're far more narcissistic than I first imagined. 

Share this post


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

Hey nugitx, what game names did you use previously?

Haha, I already tried that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, reefmon said:

You do get to speak for yourself, and if your point is that CRS should upset a slew of existing players to accommodate your subscription status and the "potential" subs of an admitted imaginary base of ex-players, you're far more narcissistic than I first imagined. 

 

It's up to current CRS to decide, what are the current player numbers vs potential of what was in 2001-2004, let them do the math.

Tell me, is it better for the game to accomodate 50 players, or have 500 players playing again ?

If I was running a game, i would gladly trade 50 players for 500 players..... it would mean that 450 is playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way, no how 500 people sub for that reason, the suggestion is, at best, completely absurd.  There are so many obvious factors influencing this I don't have the time.  Dude, you're starting to sound like Alex Jones!

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

No way, no how 500 people sub for that reason, the suggestion is, at best, completely absurd.  There are so many obvious factors influencing this I don't have the time.  Dude, you're starting to sound like Alex Jones!

World of Warcraft classic trailer has over 2 million views

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcZyiYOzsSw

 

'Old school runescape' took over the main game in number of people playing (blue is old school RS)

421aa63ae7667edf7f05eeb01180ed433f671f63

 

It's all facts.

 

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


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

Here is proof:

If ww2ol  returned to pre-AO i would sub and play, and other folks in this thread said this also (which are for it).

If the word got out and the current CRS advertised they are going to pre-AO times, many people would also come back, and new players would not be scratching their heads the moment they log the game wondering what they have to do, they would just spawn with a rifle in the hand and rush towards nearest city.

Where's the "proof"? 

I haven't counted the number of "I would sub and play" statements in the thread, but let's say there are ten or twenty, and...purely on faith, ignoring historical trends in similar instances...let's assume everyone would act as they've commented.

Maybe those ten or twenty individuals are representative of others who think the same, but we have no evidence of that.

Others in the thread seem to have indicated that they'd be dismayed by such a change. Maybe some of them would leave, though we have no evidence. 

Maybe those in the thread who might leave would be typical of others who also would leave. Again, there's no evidence.

"Proof" is hard evidence. Anything short of that is just meaningless words in a forum debate.

Net subs...gains minus losses...is what matters. I'm very sure that no one has better information...hard evidence...on what present and past customers think about the game than CRS. My impression is that they've been rationally acting for a number of years on information indicating the exact opposite of your argument, i.e. that the original game eventually resulted in net revenue shrinkage, and that the game has to change even further away from the original concepts to succeed.

***

Regarding the experience of other games: this game is not those games. If it were, we'd have millions of players, right? But we don't.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My impression is that they've been rationally acting for a number of years on information indicating the exact opposite of your argument, i.e. that the original game eventually resulted in net revenue shrinkage

The shrinkage might be result of bad gameplay decisions, the 'old' CRS team might've been killing their own game un-intentionaly.

By the time of 2005 and Battleground Europe, the game was totaly different - people could not play the same game as in 2001, so they left.

 

Quote

Regarding the experience of other games: this game is not those games. If it were, we'd have millions of players, right? But we don't.

Yes it's not those games, but it shows that people want  the 'original' gameplay, the essence of what made the game what it is.

Those games like WW2online, changed over the years loosing the gameplay of how they played before, which the 'classic' and 'old school' versions are bringing back.

Game is all about gameplay first and foremost, even a small change can ruin a game.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


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

Haha, I already tried that.

Not surprising it wouldn’t be revealed, a self inflicted shot doesn’t make sense. 

I think the poster genuinely believes in what he’s saying and wants the best outcome for the game. But there’s a certain reality and well rounded perspective, to include the supporting reasons / chain of events that occurred which led to the implementation, that may not be present.

Things don’t change here, especially some that are so fundamentally integral to game play, without reason. Admittedly I wasn’t part of the team when this change took place so I couldn’t comment on the internal workings, but I trust the reason to be good and in my discussion(s) with Gophur historically, it gave me confidence that due diligence was paid and much consideration applied.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, nugitx said:

World of Warcraft classic trailer has over 2 million views

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcZyiYOzsSw

 

It's all facts.

 

2 million views eh?

https://www.mmo-champion.com/content/7920-Battle-for-Azeroth-Becomes-Fastest-Selling-World-of-Warcraft-Expansion-Ever

Seems the new content's day 1 sales of 3.4 million copies (@$60 each or $240 mill revenue thus far) are higher than views for wow classic videos. 

lQmXFLX.png

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea but look at WoW subs

number-of-world-of-warcraft-subscribers-

 

I was showing that there are people who want to play the original game - Blizzard listened to them and is bringing this option

WoW is a behemoth compared to other games.

 

 

Now the questions stands, what was the population in WW2ol 2001-2004 and post 2005 ? Here is the real trick, because it depends on how many people could potentialy come back vs of what was after (and currently)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow numbers didn't decline significantly until WoD. steady increase every expansion until WoD. people haven't left because they long for WoW.

 

if CRS had 3.4 million subscribers, they could entertain a 1.0 environment along side current too. 

classic wow will initially have X users. after a few months it will be X minus a ton because classic wow sucked. nostalgia doesn't hold up for long.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nostalgia doesn't, but good gameplay does.

I still play plenty of old games from 2000 or ealier, because they have gameplay which none of todays games have.

WW2ol  from 2001 is also currently lost.

Edited by nugitx

Share this post


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

Nostalgia doesn't, but good gameplay does.

I still play plenty of old games from 2000 or ealier, because they have gameplay which none of todays games have.

WW2ol  from 2001 is also currently lost.

1) you're an exception. the majority of people don't play abandonware, they just don't. further, people who do play abandonware are IMPOSSIBLE to please as they don't want anything new nor do they have any sense for what it takes to keep things running and profitable - all they want is their tiny sandbox to keep playing what they see as a great game. 

2) ww2ol 'back in the day' was not good gameplay unless you were axis and part of a mega squad. from the allied perspective it was a fairly awful experience. from the axis side, those of us who wanted nothing to do with seal clubbing didn't have a great experience either.

 

AOs have their issues but fewer issues than the old way. the old way was super lame and encouraged zerging until you found a spot the other side couldn't respond too quickly enough. that isn't good gameplay, it isn't skill. its just zerging.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

1) you're an exception. the majority of people don't play abandonware, they just don't. further, people who do play abandonware are IMPOSSIBLE to please as they don't want anything new nor do they have any sense for what it takes to keep things running and profitable - all they want is their tiny sandbox to keep playing what they see as a great game. 

2) ww2ol 'back in the day' was not good gameplay unless you were axis and part of a mega squad. from the allied perspective it was a fairly awful experience. from the axis side, those of us who wanted nothing to do with seal clubbing didn't have a great experience either.

 

AOs have their issues but fewer issues than the old way. the old way was super lame and encouraged zerging until you found a spot the other side couldn't respond too quickly enough. that isn't good gameplay, it isn't skill. its just zerging.

^^ So much this.  

 

I played Axis during the clubbing baby seal days (but never part of a mega squad, I always played in smaller, close-knit squads), and at first it was fun because it was a unique experience (my first online FPS) and we were usually winning. 

 

But "winning" by capping near-empty, pre-camped towns got old quick.  I even did the thing where a truckload of us were dropped off at various towns (1 person per AB table at each town) so we could simulcap like 10-15 towns in a row.  Looking back on that now, from an HC "let's try to create fun for the playerbase" perspective, it's not something I'm very proud of.  

 

Ninja capping and zerging are both textbook examples of a game mechanic that is equivalent to shooting oneself in the foot.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.