• Announcements

    • XOOM

      Volunteer PHP Developer wanted to revive the Gazette!   07/24/2019

      We're looking to properly revive the World@War Gazette and need a solid PHP developer to help take some work forward. If you have some skills with PHP and are looking for some experience and to bring important home page news / recognition for individual players back to WWII Online, I'd like to hear from you! Submit an inquiry to jobs@corneredrats.com with some details about your experience. You will need at least 10+ hours per week to contribute to the team. The Gazette's current status can be found here: https://www.wwiionline.com/resources#gazette
nugitxx

Proof from the year 2000

28 posts in this topic

And players do choose where the battles are, the key word is battles. 

noun
plural noun: battles
  1. 1.
    a sustained fight between large, organized armed forces.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

'start'

Players do start the battle. AOs are placed by High Command ( a  group of players) and if you have gone into game recently you will see the communication with the player base on suggested targets to gain a consensus which is dictated by supply, target value and ability to hold ground gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am free to spawn where I want. I am free to take the approach I'd like to take. I can take a fighter, I can drive a tank, I can set up an FMS or I can simply walk the whole way. I can grab a bomber and bomb France, I can grab a destroyer and shell England, I can team up with some buddys and drive in a vehicle column, set up a flak trap in front of an AF or try to cap an important hill next to the actual or upcoming AO. I can try to blow FBs, I can try to flank FBs etc etc etc

This game offers a lot of free decisions and a lot of  totally free and player based gameplay you won't find in any other game you try to tell us is doing "everything ww2ol does".

The only way the game is guiding you is by funneling players somewhat to the same spot by defining some zones of importance (AOs) so we don't play hide and seek with 40 players over complete northern France all the time.

Really, can you please stop this annoying schtick? Game isn't the same than 20 years ago, people aren't the same and concepts won't work anymore only because they sounded good 20 years ago.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, i will be playing the battlefield where i don't have to pay 15$ a month.

you are right, this game is not for me


WWIIOL died in 2004, cya

Edited by nugitxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, nugitxx said:

Yea, i will be playing the battlefield where i don't have to pay 15$ a month there,

you are right, this game is not for me


WWIIOL died in 2004

Again, you are incorrect. You have to pay 59.99 to play the game, or 14.99 a month with an Origin subscription. And then dont forget the DLC expansion packs which Battlefield 4 has 5. Of course if you were a Battlefield Premium member you get them for free, but there is a catch its a subscription based membership.

 

Just because you do not like this game style over what was here 14 years ago means it is right or wrong. Its different, it has evolved and continues to evolve every campaign, this is done thru Game Mechanics (which player input is utilized) new weapons, and eventually with 1.36 new ways to foster getting to the battle.

8 people like this

Share this post


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

Yea, i will be playing the battlefield where i don't have to pay 15$ a month.

you are right, this game is not for me


WWIIOL died in 2004, cya

Lmao battlefield or any other abortion of a game makes me lol do you not realize you pay for the same game with modified ui every year?  EA  is terrible now they were good at one time. If you said Arma I could at least respect you.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

Yea, i will be playing the battlefield where i don't have to pay 15$ a month.

you are right, this game is not for me


WWIIOL died in 2004, cya

And arcade hit scan and arcade controls. I will take my WW2OL even with its warts it’s still a far deeper game than any battlefield game. Games evolve and so do their populations, perhaps you are right and this game isn’t for you, but why stomp out like a toddler and bow out like an adult.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys act like he's an isolated, unhappy individual. What you don't realize is, he's an example of a much larger sample that never bothers to post. 

But you guys just keep saying.... "Fine, leave... we don't need you anyway. We like the little niche game we've built"  

How's that workin for ya so far? :lol:

Share this post


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

You guys act like he's an isolated, unhappy individual. What you don't realize is, he's an example of a much larger sample that never bothers to post. 

It's common...even normal...in advocacy of viewpoints to claim that the Silent Majority is on one's own side, and the opposing side is misguided because it's so much smaller, even if more vocal.

Maybe that's true, maybe not. Anecdotal viewpoints and personal statements as to who's an example of what, are opinions.

The only way to be certain of the viewpoint of the Silent Majority is with data.

AFAIK, CRS has the only data on this question. 

They've said in the past that their actions are consistent with what the data indicates, i.e. the game design they're working toward is the game wanted by a substantial majority of the current, past and possible future customers.

That's not to say that it's illegitimate to advocate for some other direction. It's just that advocating such a course-change based on "it's what a majority of customers want" isn't consistent with the data.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality I have perceived is that the old strategy was about reaching a population that didn't play, instead of listening to the needs of an existing niche community, which had always been considered as insufficient in size and that could therefore be sacrificed for a concept that could have generated millions of sales.

This priority was definitely proved with the development of Rapid Assault, which was IMO complete nonsense and I had stopped my subscription from there.

There was no data, just the facts of a game market and a bet that proved to be wrong as none came and none stayed.

Xoom proved to have cut the rope with that old wrong vision and is working with a team of volunteers that IMO didn't support the rapid assault vision neither.

Today it's like we have jumped back to 2008 with proven abilities to develop new content and the new bet that maybe there is an "in between" thing that will better work.

But let's not be ignorant: with an outdated engine it's just putting makeup and doing some chirurgy. We must find a balance and please different kind of players, not take extremes like some are asking here. We can then expect to increase the online population by a factor of 4, maybe 5. That would already be a great achievement before moving to a 2.0.

But we will probably need to better open the doors to Russian and Chinese populations if we want a MASSIVE population way beyond we have ever had. Probably at the cost of future compromises too.

That's just my feeling as a long time member. I don't have data to prove what I mentioned here.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

You guys act like he's an isolated, unhappy individual. What you don't realize is, he's an example of a much larger sample that never bothers to post. 

But you guys just keep saying.... "Fine, leave... we don't need you anyway. We like the little niche game we've built"  

How's that workin for ya so far? :lol:

No one is saying fine leave. 

CRS does not just read forums but we utilize polls in game, discussion with the player base in game, and rat chats like next Sundays to help steer the direction of the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BLKHWK8 said:

No one is saying fine leave. 

Actually, people say that all the time in these forums. I've had it said to me personally on many occasions. 

 

2 hours ago, BLKHWK8 said:

CRS does not just read forums but we utilize polls in game, discussion with the player base in game, and rat chats like next Sundays to help steer the direction of the game

In game polls may help to measure the temperature of the people that play the game NOW. You've already sold most of them.

Their opinion might help a little. But, is that really your target market? No. You're asking the wrong people in this specific case.

I'll assume you have other marketing strategies for learning what the OUT of game crowd want in a game and what they are looking for in a MMO like WWIIOL?     (??)   

Edited by lipton

Share this post


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

I'll assume you have other marketing strategies for learning what the OUT of game crowd want in a game and what they are looking for in a MMO like WWIIOL?     (??)   

Maybe you are thinking of this kind of polls?

https://steamcommunity.com/games/251950/announcements/detail/1698307021389361997

Or polls on the official Facebook page?

Btw, Your forum status now mentions f2p but you were premium some days ago... So you probably took part to a retention survey among leaving players, right? That's also a source of info for business development decisions. 

You are right there need to be more surveys but "smart" ones that deliver useful conclusions regarding a vision to be validated, observations to be understood or unknowns to be identified. Not to mention a right segmentation that will influence the required population sample to avoid false conclusions. You can conclude anything with data but data doesn't conclude everything. 

But considering the tone of your message and the lack of details, not sure what you are trying to contribute with?

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

You guys act like he's an isolated, unhappy individual. What you don't realize is, he's an example of a much larger sample that never bothers to post. 

But you guys just keep saying.... "Fine, leave... we don't need you anyway. We like the little niche game we've built"  

How's that workin for ya so far? :lol:

Sorry but try not to manipulate reality.

This guy has spent 1 month opening posts with his crazy suggestions like the sonar, the infantry only crouch, no rank, all stuff for all players.... etc to which CRS me and other players have commented our opinion. The user, far from listening and learning, because he also has no idea how the game works continually follow his own (He confused AO's with missions i.e.) He does not even know how the game works and he talks about changing it in deep levels.

It seems to me that your statement is wrong. We have talked with him here in the forums. Nobody said him "leave we dont need you anyway" we said our opinion and CRS has listen to this player until yesterday when he came with rants  and finally said CYA. 

It seems that WE the actual players, do we have to destroy our game to let the new shooters and one man Hero War players increase the game numbers?  Still there are people here like me that WE like the CORE game mechanics, the teamwork and we dont want to change it in favor to the new kids on the block player tastes who, speaking in general, usually DESTROY a good game. Like  the same FTP players constantly comparing the game with FORNITE, WAR THUNDER, HEROES AND GENERAL and the other MAINSTREAM [censored].

 

 

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Zebbeee said:

But considering the tone of your message and the lack of details, not sure what you are trying to contribute with?

 

I guess I'm trying to point out, again, that CRS continues to listen to a very limited and narrow opinion strain. Popularly know here as "fanboys". 

It's been a downward trend for years that, in my opinion, has contributed to the loss of subscriptions. CRS continues to listen to the same group of people over and over. 

They keep getting the same fanboy suggestions that they've come to know and love... and feed off of. But I don't believe these suggestions as a whole, or type, have been productive in a subscription count kind of way. 

Sure, the changes are making the fanboys happy. CRS is keeping MOST of the old subs. But I assume everyone is hoping for more. 

But, they keep expecting to reach this goal by using the same old formula that hasn't worked for 10 years. More of the same stale ideas from the same stale fanboys. 

CRS needs fresh ideas from the people they are trying to entice into subscribing and STAYING. Ideas and suggestions from the  younger crowd. Not a bunch of has-been fanboys. 

But I'm sure voodoo will put me in my place with a nifty reply that will make me look stupid and irrelevant. Someone will "like" his post, because BOY! he sure got me good. And life will go on as usual in these forums. 

CRS will continue taking the same stale advice and suggestions from the same old has-beens. Nothing will change. And the subscription level will continue to dwindle. 

But, man... I was sure put in my place and made to look stupid and irrelevant before the game died. 

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You only make yourself look stupid by referring to everyone who differs with your opinion as CRS "fanboy has-beens".  Nobody needs to own you, you did that all by yourself.  You see, when all you have is name calling to present the credibility of your case, you essentially concede the issue.

If you have an opinion, then state it.  If you have a suggestion, suggest it.  But know this, just like the rest of us, you speak for yourself, and only yourself.  The mythical "silent majority" needs to speak up or be ignored like people who don't vote. 

You say this game is in need of fresh ideas (I totally agree so it can continue to improve), however, the crux of the dissent is about a mechanic from the past.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I guess I'm trying to point out, again, that CRS continues to listen to a very limited and narrow opinion strain. Popularly know here as "fanboys". 

It's been a downward trend for years that, in my opinion, has contributed to the loss of subscriptions. CRS continues to listen to the same group of people over and over. 

They keep getting the same fanboy suggestions that they've come to know and love... and feed off of. But I don't believe these suggestions as a whole, or type, have been productive in a subscription count kind of way. 

Sure, the changes are making the fanboys happy. CRS is keeping MOST of the old subs. But I assume everyone is hoping for more. 

But, they keep expecting to reach this goal by using the same old formula that hasn't worked for 10 years. More of the same stale ideas from the same stale fanboys. 

CRS needs fresh ideas from the people they are trying to entice into subscribing and STAYING. Ideas and suggestions from the  younger crowd. Not a bunch of has-been fanboys. 

But I'm sure voodoo will put me in my place with a nifty reply that will make me look stupid and irrelevant. Someone will "like" his post, because BOY! he sure got me good. And life will go on as usual in these forums. 

CRS will continue taking the same stale advice and suggestions from the same old has-beens. Nothing will change. And the subscription level will continue to dwindle. 

But, man... I was sure put in my place and made to look stupid and irrelevant before the game died. 

I know that you have a great passion for this game, as do many of us but why do you feel that you know better than Xoom and the rest of the senior CRS members, they all want what's best for the game, they all want more players.

They do indeed listen to everyone's ideas and opinions (not just those that are currently playing) but no changes are made unless that group of CRS members agree that it's a good move. They don't listen to a couple of loud people on the forum and just change things willy nilly,  ideas are brought up and discussed in great detail before anything changes.

Everything CRS does is in their opinion the best course for the game, it may not be the same course that you would take but that doesn't make it wrong.

You will probably disregard everything I've just written but I felt I needed to say it anyway.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there it is

But you're right. I do have passion for this game. Some times I let it spew forth lol. But nothing ever changes. So why do I keep making a fool of myself, I keep asking.

I've hoped to see the game come out of its nose-dive. But it hasn't. 

I should stop. There is no point really.

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to be working as a team. Staying united and working together is the only way we're going to progress. I will confirm with certainty, that all well thought and possible ideas are considered and discussed, even if we do not initially agree with them, we still owe it to you to consider them and how it could play out to improve things. And, we do. 

Once our Roadmap is accomplished, which is the active frontrunner in terms of prioritization and focus (barring a couple of things here and there), we recognize we need to do something bold. Specifically how do we continue to take WWII Online into the future.

Steam has opened us up to the new age user for feedback, and what they're saying is actively being incorporated, where possible, and without compromising the integrity of the game we all know (and love): WWII Online. That is not to say we're not open to discuss or take things into consideration, but we do need to stay true to our core, philosophically to the game and physically to the people who back it.

I know that several of you have been here for a long time, and have experienced at some point or another frustration and/or disagreement, with individuals, staff or decisions made. As with families, this is part of the deal with an extended relationship. It's our willingness to come to the table and resolve issues, and potentially compromise without causing more hurt, that will be the important factor in things. 

That's what we want to do, fix issues, both technically and relationally. Personally, I really want all of our fans here to not be so upset with us as they do at times. And I don't wish for either myself or CRS as a team to make a decision that causes such heartache. We've learned that we cannot please everyone, but we can listen to everyone and consider their position / point of view.

I know that in all walks of life, there are people who feel people are out to get them. We've all been wronged by someone in our time and are always ready with one eye open for a hint of wrongdoing. This isn't your average place though, for many of you it's a hobby and a community, for all of us it's a place we're deeply passionate about and it is (in some cases) our real life. We absolutely do not intend to do harm, or wrong, to anyone or any side. We want the very best for the game and our decisions made are intended by quite a filtration process these days, to produce that (positive) outcome.

The people you have here at CRS, myself included, are capable of error as we are human, but we are absolutely caring for this game and like many of you started out as a player first. It would behoove us to listen and stay in communication. We try. But be ready to hear something you may not like or instantly agree with, be willing to discuss it like adults, and be willing to understand that not everything can press through the development funnel for a reason that you may not be considering.

I am hopeful those words give greater subsistence at least to how I think and how I like to approach things overall.

Please give each other some grace.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is that the "keep what we've killed" crowd has won again.  Nothing will change, the game will keep on dying a slow painful death and the "keep what we've killed" crowd will say and do anything to keep THEIR game.  Anybody else's game is of no importance to them. 

Squad's will never come back the way they were in the past.  Never, as long as the "keep what we've killed" crowd remains.  CRS has done next to nothing to bring them back as a force in game. 

Player controlled AO's will never come back.  Don't give me that "HC are players" drivel because its simply being dishonest.  I've been HC and I've listened to more than a few HC in game who have absolutely no respect for the player base whatsoever.  The players are simply tools to be used in "their" HC game and nothing more.  Now we have the "mercenary" HC who go back and forth on a regular basis.  You think I trust "them" to do what's best for my side?  No way.

Spawn lists also keep being cut to the bone so that players have nothing to play with because some dolt says there's too much supply in game.  The dolt certainly doesn't care about anybody else's game except his.

Just as bad is that an HC officer simply cannot count on anything to remain the same from one campaign to the next.  True planning can't be done before a campaign starts because some Rat will change something, more likely many things and won't tell anybody until the campaign actually starts.  Why should anybody stay in the HC when you can't count on anything?

Without a major change, such as Squad/Player controlled AO's, all you're doing is moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.  

Oh I have faith.  I just upgraded my subscription to founder level.  But it won't stay there for long if the "keep what we've killed" crowd keeps killing any and all dissent to "their" game.

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.