bicklezick

Musings on WW2OL from a teenager.

46 posts in this topic

Hello WW2OL community, i'm Bicklety2. I'm an Irish teenager aged 15 and I installed this game on Steam in November 2017. Since then, i've signed up for a Premium Subscription and i've joined the squad WHIPS, which have been very welcoming, friendly and have helped me get into the game.

I thought i'd give some musings on this game, and why younger kids don't really take to this game.

First off, let's get something out of the way. Yes, the graphics are bad, but graphics don't make a game. My friends IRL and I all enjoy playing a game called Mount & Blade: Warband, which has graphics that are equivalent or even worse than this game. However, that doesn't stop us from enjoying the gameplay. Teenagers CAN enjoy a game with bad graphics. However, some teens with especially short attention spans or teens more used to playing a game with an artstyle or a hyper-futuristic aesthetic (e.g Fortnite, COD BO4) and so might be bored when encountering a game this old with a fairly realistic aesthetics.

Most teens however CAN enjoy a game like this despite the graphics. One thing that hampers this game's popularity amongst teens is the time to contact with the enemy.  I guarantee you, amongst teens this game'd be reasonably popular IF the time to contact was shortened down. I can't offer any suggestions, but the FMS is a step in the right direction. Time to contact with the enemy is important, as it directs the flow of battle and for a teen, action is everything due to our short attention spans. Now, the main problem with WW2OL in my opinion is that often if you're like me, you don't know why you're here, who you're fighting, what you're trying to accomplish, when you'll be at the battle or how the war is going. The tier system, the strategic layer, HC, how to successfully participate in a combined arms attack, why FB blowing is important. This isn't really explained all that well, and because of this, player retention rate is low.

I'd like to end off this uncalled for tangent by saying this: CRS are doing an amazing job with the resources they have. I think XOOM and the team have really done a great job with the FMS. All i'd say you'd need to do is to explain things better in the tutorial in a clear manner for us dumb kids and make the gunplay less clunky (tall order). Take everything I say with a grain of salt for all I know I could be talking utter sh*te.

 

Edited by bicklezick
grammar corrections, interjections, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!@bicklezick, Thanks for sharing our passion! I think @XOOMwill answer you directly.

I can just say that @CHIMMis already working hard to get new tutorials out explaining all of this. We all agree the learning curve is pretty steep compared to 99% of the games. It remains a sim though and many won't take the patience to learn. You did what a few do, that's great.

Also I can tell you that @Bmbmis doing tremendous work on overhauling the UI to make it much easier to understand where we are needed.

1.36 will also help uncharge HC officers from complex map management work, so that they will be more often in the field to lead players to the real battles areas.

Furthermore, voicecomms are being integrated to the game, and many terrain objects are receiving fresh 3D models.

All this will help you convince your friends to hop on with you and share the blast of a combined arms mission :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

S!@bicklezick, Thanks for sharing our passion! I think @XOOMwill answer you directly.

I can just say that @CHIMMis ready working hard to get new tutorials out explaining all of this. We all agree the learning curve is pretty steep compared to 99% of the games. It remains a sim though and many won't take the patience to learn. You did what a few do, that's great.

Also I can tell you that @Bmbmis doing tremendous work on overhing the UI to make it much easier to understand where we are needed.

1.36 will also help uncharge HC officers from complex map management work, so that they will be more often in the field to lead players to the real battles areas.

Furthermore, voicecomms are being integrated to the game, and many terrain objects are receiving fresh 3D models.

All this will help you convince your friends to hop on with you and share the blast of a combined arms mission :)

Thanks! This was the answer I was looking for, and I appreciate the hard work going on behind the scenes. I've convinced a few of my friends to try the game out, and hopefully the 64 bit support and the UI overhaul will convince them to stick around. 

Share this post


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

Hello WW2OL community, i'm Bicklety2. I'm an Irish teenager aged 15 and I installed this game on Steam in November 2017. Since then, i've signed up for a Premium Subscription and i've joined the squad WHIPS, which have been very welcoming, friendly and have helped me get into the game.

I thought i'd give some musings on this game, and why younger kids don't really take to this game.

First off, let's get something out of the way. Yes, the graphics are bad, but graphics don't make a game. My friends IRL and I all enjoy playing a game called Mount & Blade: Warband, which has graphics that are equivalent or even worse than this game. However, that doesn't stop us from enjoying the gameplay. Teenagers CAN enjoy a game with bad graphics. However, some teens with especially short attention spans or teens more used to playing a game with an artstyle or a hyper-futuristic aesthetic (e.g Fortnite, COD BO4) and so might be bored when encountering a game this old with a fairly realistic aesthetics.

Most teens however CAN enjoy a game like this despite the graphics. One thing that hampers this game's popularity amongst teens is the time to contact with the enemy.  I guarantee you, amongst teens this game'd be reasonably popular IF the time to contact was shortened down. I can't offer any suggestions, but the FMS is a step in the right direction. Time to contact with the enemy is important, as it directs the flow of battle and for a teen, action is everything due to our short attention spans. Now, the main problem with WW2OL in my opinion is that often if you're like me, you don't know why you're here, who you're fighting, what you're trying to accomplish, when you'll be at the battle or how the war is going. The tier system, the strategic layer, HC, how to successfully participate in a combined arms attack, why FB blowing is important. This isn't really explained all that well, and because of this, player retention rate is low.

I'd like to end off this uncalled for tangent by saying this: CRS are doing an amazing job with the resources they have. I think XOOM and the team have really done a great job with the FMS. All i'd say you'd need to do is to explain things better in the tutorial in a clear manner for us dumb kids and make the gunplay less clunky (tall order). Take everything I say with a grain of salt for all I know I could be talking utter sh*te.

 

Very well written , I have a 15 year old and maybe if he gets a PC he might join. Like you said it can't be the graphics when I watch him spend hours playing mindcraft, and enter the gunegon, and other games that he has that remind me of old Atari games. 

Share this post


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

Very good post! Some good food for thought!

Thanks. I wrote the original post to provoke discussion and to give, as you said, food for thought.

1 hour ago, dre21 said:

Very well written , I have a 15 year old and maybe if he gets a PC he might join. Like you said it can't be the graphics when I watch him spend hours playing mindcraft, and enter the gunegon, and other games that he has that remind me of old Atari games. 

I think the reason those games are popular is because of the artystle. They're simple, blocky but they've got an artstyle to them. Sometimes I wonder if WW2OL should carve out its niche little artstyle that takes advantage of its limited resources rather than putting everything in the kitchen sink to update the graphics. Thanks, and condolences for having a teenage son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post. Fresh, clear insight. 'Time to Contact' or 'Time to Action' are what matters to newer,  younger players, or anyone with a short time to play in a game session or a short attention span.

This has been partially recognized before and the (then/current) solution was the 'Active Battles' tab.  Active Battles may work, but not that well, given the post above. Perhaps it gets lost without more context. And/or perhaps what is needed is a separate, simple, short; 'Fast Action' or 'Instant Contact' tutorial that leaves some of the more complex game layers out. Plus the emphasis on missions with an FMS (i.e most new players first advice other than 'join a squad' is 'get on a mission with an FMS checkmark') can be confusing. 

  • AOs/DOs: often missing is the basic understanding that Attack Objectives and Defense Objectives are the main focus of action or enemy contact and almost NOWHERE ELSE: so look for the red or green flashing boxes around city names on the map
     
  • Missions: no clear understanding (or tutorial) about missions, <origin> <target> of missions, way for new player to understand a 'spawnable in town' mission on an AO (very instant action) - many new players still leap on a big bar/fms checkmark mission outside of town when there is a spawnable in town; or a dfms mission outside of town when they are needed in an ab/depot mission inside of town on a DO (also instant or faster contact)
     
  • FMS: most players leap on a mission with a checkmark (FMS (though the mission screen still calls them 'MS') and/or the biggest/longest population bar, yet: 
  • > fms can be far from the action or camped; there is no way to know ahead of time - could be a 2k+ out ZOC fms; an about to die FMS; a leftover FMS from some old mission not linked to an AO/DO; a distant /no current action Defensive FMS; a no action FB bust
  • >fms rarely have mission orders written out or if so, no one reads them and/or no one realizes Mission Orders (if written by ML) can be read before actually spawning on an FMS or mission
  • > perhaps a new UI is needed to allow basic mission orders to be clicked instead of written, ie. rather than the current attack/defend/supply missions (basically useless, old mission definitions from years ago) there needs to be a bunch of clickable buttons to at least get the basic goal of a mission clarified; ie > defend depot x, attack depotx, AO spawnable missions, DO spawn depot defense mission;  fb bust, defend ab/town; attack ab/ general town attack; AO mission/direction (ie. n/e sw, whatever)  ; armour/tank mission, atg mission, out of town DFMS/direction etc. 
     
  •   Current Anomalies
  • > weirdness in finding Naval missions which don't show up on Active Battles and require an actual 'switching persona' mechanic to find/join 
  • > same for Air missions
  • > and often for Para missions
  • seems many new players either play without chat bar up or don't read it (or read anything) hence new missions, join missions, spawnable up, para mission etc. info gets lost or hard to communicate other than by voice 
  • lack of understanding/comprehension/explanation in tutorials of simplicity of 'join' function for missions 
  • lack of understanding/comprehension/explanation in tutorials of fast switching to new missions on an AO or DO (spawn up or down, whatever) and general reluctance of new players to hit escape/RTB/switch fast from old dead missions to new action missions quickly
  • lack of basic understanding of trucks (often called 'cars' by new players) and their role in setting FMS rather than driving people to action or around rather than waiting for or looking for missions with an FMS already up
     
  • Often wonder in talking to new players if the very notion of 'missions' is weird in the broader context of all gaming (ie missions = quests) since missions in WWIIOL aren't actually missions per se; but groupings or mechanics to achieve a  broader mission or goal since given the actual game structure, the only 'real' missions that move the campaign needle are:  cap a depot/defend a depot; capture a town/defend a town. One could add blow up or defend a FB or  CAP/CAS or RDP bombing or on a personal level -   kill xx ei or blow up xx ets; or mission: find and kill enemy FMS or look for/suppress enemy trucks/movement from a > b; or suppress enemy airfield/airplanes but that would require either a tutorial explanation or different/simpler UI or another different layer to the concept of 'mission'. 

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Hello WW2OL community, i'm Bicklety2. I'm an Irish teenager aged 15 and I installed this game on Steam in November 2017. Since then, i've signed up for a Premium Subscription and i've joined the squad WHIPS, which have been very welcoming, friendly and have helped me get into the game.

I thought i'd give some musings on this game, and why younger kids don't really take to this game.

First off, let's get something out of the way. Yes, the graphics are bad, but graphics don't make a game. My friends IRL and I all enjoy playing a game called Mount & Blade: Warband, which has graphics that are equivalent or even worse than this game. However, that doesn't stop us from enjoying the gameplay. Teenagers CAN enjoy a game with bad graphics. However, some teens with especially short attention spans or teens more used to playing a game with an artstyle or a hyper-futuristic aesthetic (e.g Fortnite, COD BO4) and so might be bored when encountering a game this old with a fairly realistic aesthetics.

Most teens however CAN enjoy a game like this despite the graphics. One thing that hampers this game's popularity amongst teens is the time to contact with the enemy.  I guarantee you, amongst teens this game'd be reasonably popular IF the time to contact was shortened down. I can't offer any suggestions, but the FMS is a step in the right direction. Time to contact with the enemy is important, as it directs the flow of battle and for a teen, action is everything due to our short attention spans. Now, the main problem with WW2OL in my opinion is that often if you're like me, you don't know why you're here, who you're fighting, what you're trying to accomplish, when you'll be at the battle or how the war is going. The tier system, the strategic layer, HC, how to successfully participate in a combined arms attack, why FB blowing is important. This isn't really explained all that well, and because of this, player retention rate is low.

I'd like to end off this uncalled for tangent by saying this: CRS are doing an amazing job with the resources they have. I think XOOM and the team have really done a great job with the FMS. All i'd say you'd need to do is to explain things better in the tutorial in a clear manner for us dumb kids and make the gunplay less clunky (tall order). Take everything I say with a grain of salt for all I know I could be talking utter sh*te.

 

Good comments.

Likely not possible, but imagine if when you select a mission, a brief pop up comes up (audio/video as well as text), even before you spawn that automatically contextualizes what the mission is about (the current wait screen information?). i.e. "you are in Brussels, you need to capture the north cp's and ab to allow us to move in a brigade, this allows further deployment for the capture of sea ports, your are fighting Axis..brigade etc.."... etc...

I know there is a mission leader input box when making missions, and a green messaging comes up when you spawn on a mission with information if the leader puts it in, but it is not that obvious.

Can you say more about "clunky" game play? I am interested in how you see that.

Interestingly enough the most productive, "sharpest" years of human thinking/creativity/cognition is from ages 12-25/26. So no!...teenagers on average are not dumb by any stretch. Inexperienced perhaps but certainly not dumb. 

I have often thought there is such a waste of this cognitive ability, "energy", initiative as we OVER regulate/dictate/control the learning experiences of this age range. In ways it's this age group that holds any promise of actually effecting change in the world in any area of endeavour. 

Welcome to the game.

S!

ps.. I have gone through 4 teenagers :)

Just wrapping up the last one at the moment, lol.

 

Share this post


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

Good comments.

Likely not possible, but imagine if when you select a mission, a brief pop up comes up (audio/video as well as text), even before you spawn that automatically contextualizes what the mission is about (the current wait screen information?). i.e. "you are in Brussels, you need to capture the north cp's and ab to allow us to move in a brigade, this allows further deployment for the capture of sea ports, your are fighting Axis..brigade etc.."... etc...

I know there is a mission leader input box when making missions, and a green messaging comes up when you spawn on a mission with information if the leader puts it in, but it is not that obvious.

Can you say more about "clunky" game play? I am interested in how you see that.

Interestingly enough the most productive, "sharpest" years of human thinking/creativity/cognition is from ages 12-25/26. So no!...teenagers on average are not dumb by any stretch. Inexperienced perhaps but certainly not dumb. 

I have often thought there is such a waste of this cognitive ability, "energy", initiative as we OVER regulate/dictate/control the learning experiences of this age range. In ways it's this age group that holds any promise of actually effecting change in the world in any area of endeavour. 

Welcome to the game.

S!

 

 

thanks for responding my dude.

by clunky, i mean that sometimes the gunplay feels a little.. off, a bit 'sticky'. i understand that this is a realistic experience, but sometimes the time to aim, the time to shoot and the animations are a bit slow. i dont mind slow firefights, but sometimes close quarters combat looks hilarious to the outsider due to the stiffness and slowness of close quarters combat. of course, i may just be spoiled by recent shooters like squad and post scriptum but that's just my opinion

Share this post


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

i may just be spoiled by recent shooters like squad and post scriptum

I think actually we collectively began the spoilage with DooM. :) 
Doom guy could run about 40mph, turn on a dime (while running 40mph no less), and lay down the lead all at the same time (though he could not jump)
doom.png?itok=Skro2tCQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That stickyness is the sprint mouse decel stuff, pretty much getting up to sprint speed and transitioning from sprint to walk/still it takes effect. You learn to work with it by just planning to be at full speed when you want to mouse move round 90 degrees but the gunplay wasn't always clunky like that. I've always felt it was a net negative to the inf controls, its unclearly laid out and I would say its inconsistent, I still occasionally find it locking me out when I think I'm using it correctly. 

I can't think of another game that changes your mouse lateral/horizontal speed like this, I think it really affects people getting their CQC barrings as infantry.

I didn't think there was a problem before but it was brought in for realism purposes, apparently it wasn't a common german tactic to sprint 360 noscope all day long :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post, and welcome to the game, obviously a young man with good taste.

 

On your two major points, the first one I don't know that I WANT that resolved.  The game arena is huge, with ground vehicles traveling kilometers and air being 10-100+ kilometers, distance and interdiction where a truck can get killed pulling up at 800m means it's a thing just to get set up.  Infantry battle can range 1-3km especially with large towns.  Faster time to battle in a sense WAS in the game with the infantry FRU, which could be set up by infantry, and so due to inf silence and sneakiness they could get a spawn closer more often.  This absolutely killed the tank game, and so now you have the current FMS version, sort of a compromise.

 

The adrenaline then becomes, I made it this far into town, I need to stay alive to not pay another 5m to get in.  It's not just shoot shoot shoot like shoeboxes get you into, stealth, looking and moving carefully, getting organized and having people watch your back are key.  I don't want to lose that to some instaspawn with inf popping out of sewer hatches or something.  And so if a teenager can't take it, I don't know that I would want to see a 'solution' that ruins the distance, Situational Awareness and thinking part.

 

As for the second one, I think you are spot on.  The big gig for WWIIOL other then hugemap/Tigers and Spitfires and Wolverines Oh My! is that battle is meaningful.  We aren't just taking some specific objective in a shoebox, we are taking the depot that helps take the town that helps win the war.  Meaningful combat is what the 24/7 arena is offering, but the average player walks in and thinks it's a second rate shooter with no one around, even though there could be a 50-player battle just 3 game km away.

 

The upcoming voice system is probably the biggest step, but I would also like to see some 'indoctrination' films or instruction or even sales vids that get across the scale and meaningful battle that is going on.  Comms is key, 3/4 of the time I try to talk to greentags and they never answer, I think because they can't handle the text system.

 

So keep those comments coming, especially since you ponied up and are paying, we need more guys like you on board!

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Hello WW2OL community, i'm Bicklety2. I'm an Irish teenager aged 15 and I installed this game on Steam in November 2017. Since then, i've signed up for a Premium Subscription and i've joined the squad WHIPS, which have been very welcoming, friendly and have helped me get into the game.

I thought i'd give some musings on this game, and why younger kids don't really take to this game.

First off, let's get something out of the way. Yes, the graphics are bad, but graphics don't make a game. My friends IRL and I all enjoy playing a game called Mount & Blade: Warband, which has graphics that are equivalent or even worse than this game. However, that doesn't stop us from enjoying the gameplay. Teenagers CAN enjoy a game with bad graphics. However, some teens with especially short attention spans or teens more used to playing a game with an artstyle or a hyper-futuristic aesthetic (e.g Fortnite, COD BO4) and so might be bored when encountering a game this old with a fairly realistic aesthetics.

Most teens however CAN enjoy a game like this despite the graphics. One thing that hampers this game's popularity amongst teens is the time to contact with the enemy.  I guarantee you, amongst teens this game'd be reasonably popular IF the time to contact was shortened down. I can't offer any suggestions, but the FMS is a step in the right direction. Time to contact with the enemy is important, as it directs the flow of battle and for a teen, action is everything due to our short attention spans. Now, the main problem with WW2OL in my opinion is that often if you're like me, you don't know why you're here, who you're fighting, what you're trying to accomplish, when you'll be at the battle or how the war is going. The tier system, the strategic layer, HC, how to successfully participate in a combined arms attack, why FB blowing is important. This isn't really explained all that well, and because of this, player retention rate is low.

I'd like to end off this uncalled for tangent by saying this: CRS are doing an amazing job with the resources they have. I think XOOM and the team have really done a great job with the FMS. All i'd say you'd need to do is to explain things better in the tutorial in a clear manner for us dumb kids and make the gunplay less clunky (tall order). Take everything I say with a grain of salt for all I know I could be talking utter sh*te.

I'd like to say thanks for the well written post, becoming a subscriber and being part of our player base now for sometime. We have a bit of a difficult job here of maintaining the interest for our existing players who are significantly more hardcore than the regular joe, and of course trying to appeal to the interest of people who are looking for a balance between hardcore and casual. Do note, WWIIOL will always lean a bit more so towards hardcore, it's just how we roll.

The time to contact is no doubt something that we currently struggle with pertaining to new users. The effort that the current game design requires for folks to setup and facilitate mobile spawns is a bit more than most folks who want quick time to action can handle or desire. 

It has been argued for a bit now that by giving FREE PLAYERS the option to deploy these mobile spawns is the key. Truth is, while it would increase the probability of more mobile spawns going up, likelihood is it'd be a veteran player on a second account setting it up. 

Tutorials and explanations is another roadblock in terms of patience. Ultimately the majority of newer folks want to come here and get to the action relatively quick with limited guidance, reading, or effort placed in. That is a very difficult thing to manage while appealing to our game design and veteran player interest. It's something I am evaluating consistently on how to improve.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey guys!  bicklezick aka Bicklety2 is also cornelius55 on Ryan's (ryman8989's) Discord server.  He's the guy who read this poem (below) at Jammyman's memorial service.

 

uFXeP4i.gif

 

Well done, sir!  Now, just join the Allies and you'll be on the right track.  ;)

 

 

 

-Irish

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, XOOM said:

I'd like to say thanks for the well written post, becoming a subscriber and being part of our player base now for sometime. We have a bit of a difficult job here of maintaining the interest for our existing players who are significantly more hardcore than the regular joe, and of course trying to appeal to the interest of people who are looking for a balance between hardcore and casual. Do note, WWIIOL will always lean a bit more so towards hardcore, it's just how we roll.

The time to contact is no doubt something that we currently struggle with pertaining to new users. The effort that the current game design requires for folks to setup and facilitate mobile spawns is a bit more than most folks who want quick time to action can handle or desire. 

It has been argued for a bit now that by giving FREE PLAYERS the option to deploy these mobile spawns is the key. Truth is, while it would increase the probability of more mobile spawns going up, likelihood is it'd be a veteran player on a second account setting it up. 

Tutorials and explanations is another roadblock in terms of patience. Ultimately the majority of newer folks want to come here and get to the action relatively quick with limited guidance, reading, or effort placed in. That is a very difficult thing to manage while appealing to our game design and veteran player interest. It's something I am evaluating consistently on how to improve.

I appreciate the detailed response and the communities' willingness to engage with a new player, especially the head developer! I'd like to thank the community, and you rats for building the game up allowing my dumb arse to get into the game when it was all nice and relatively bug free. I, of course, went into this game with the attitude that this will be a relatively slow burn and that I'm gonna have to be patient. To appeal to the teen crowd, if I were you, in the tutorial i'd place heavy emphasis on patience and give a basic overview of the strategic layer in fairly formal English. I really enjoy this game and I think the fact that  improvements suggested by the community are actually being implemented in 1.36 is a case study of how to communicate with your community. I think that the FMS and the F2P FMS suggestion is a good one.

It's difficult to design games that cater to every kind of player, trust me, I code modifications for 'Hearts of Iron IV' and if it isn't the most difficult thing on Earth to do I don't know what is. 

S!

Edited by bicklezick

Share this post


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

 

Hey guys!  bicklezick aka Bicklety2 is also cornelius55 on Ryan's (ryman8989's) Discord server.  He's the guy who read this poem (below) at Jammyman's memorial service.

 

uFXeP4i.gif

 

Well done, sir!  Now, just join the Allies and you'll be on the right track.  ;)

 

 

 

-Irish

 

 

It was an absolute pleasure to read this out, BTW. Thought I owed something to the community that nurtured this game and especially someone who organised events for noobies like me!

Don't worry, i'm rolling Allies this campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the tutorials should contain one which makes the player type "I will watch and use text chat.  I will use Discord whenever possible.  I will ask questions and listen to advise the veteran players give me."  That would solve about 80% of the problems, right off the bat.  :)

 

 

 

-Irish

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Hello WW2OL community, i'm Bicklety2. I'm an Irish teenager aged 15 and I installed this game on Steam in November 2017. Since then, i've signed up for a Premium Subscription and i've joined the squad WHIPS, which have been very welcoming, friendly and have helped me get into the game.

I thought i'd give some musings on this game, and why younger kids don't really take to this game.

First off, let's get something out of the way. Yes, the graphics are bad, but graphics don't make a game. My friends IRL and I all enjoy playing a game called Mount & Blade: Warband, which has graphics that are equivalent or even worse than this game. However, that doesn't stop us from enjoying the gameplay. Teenagers CAN enjoy a game with bad graphics. However, some teens with especially short attention spans or teens more used to playing a game with an artstyle or a hyper-futuristic aesthetic (e.g Fortnite, COD BO4) and so might be bored when encountering a game this old with a fairly realistic aesthetics.

Most teens however CAN enjoy a game like this despite the graphics. One thing that hampers this game's popularity amongst teens is the time to contact with the enemy.  I guarantee you, amongst teens this game'd be reasonably popular IF the time to contact was shortened down. I can't offer any suggestions, but the FMS is a step in the right direction. Time to contact with the enemy is important, as it directs the flow of battle and for a teen, action is everything due to our short attention spans. Now, the main problem with WW2OL in my opinion is that often if you're like me, you don't know why you're here, who you're fighting, what you're trying to accomplish, when you'll be at the battle or how the war is going. The tier system, the strategic layer, HC, how to successfully participate in a combined arms attack, why FB blowing is important. This isn't really explained all that well, and because of this, player retention rate is low.

I'd like to end off this uncalled for tangent by saying this: CRS are doing an amazing job with the resources they have. I think XOOM and the team have really done a great job with the FMS. All i'd say you'd need to do is to explain things better in the tutorial in a clear manner for us dumb kids and make the gunplay less clunky (tall order). Take everything I say with a grain of salt for all I know I could be talking utter sh*te.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I've played this game for quite some time and I agree that this game needs to improve on time to contact with the enemy and clunky infantry play.

On some days, I have enough time to play in long battles, but on many nights I only have 30  minutes to log in and play. In those situations, I am looking for quick interaction with the enemy.

The sluggish feel of the infantry movement has always felt different from other games and I agree that it could be a large turn off for new players. IMO it would be better to conform with the industry standard, if that is even possible.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

It has been argued for a bit now that by giving FREE PLAYERS the option to deploy these mobile spawns is the key. Truth is, while it would increase the probability of more mobile spawns going up, likelihood is it'd be a veteran player on a second account setting it up. 

@XOOM  I actually don't know what to make of this comment XOOM.  Are you trying to say that veteran players should pony up more money just so they can have the privilege of creating game content for the rest of the player base?  The people that are hard core and dedicated enough to actually run two accounts (or more) are usually your HC types who are also tactical battlefield leaders or non HC types in squads who are your tactical leaders.  These are the people that you are currently claiming the game has a shortage of.  These are the people that are sacrificing their own K/D or fun to ensure that other people are successful in game.  These are the people that create that precious WWII Online moment you speak of.  It's the FSJR02's, the Potthead's, the Dinker's, and a whole host of other leaders that have made the game work over the years.  Even overcoming extremely bad game mechanics to make it work.  I find it extremely odd that your in game leaders who make the game shine in its brightest moments are the ones penalized by this decision.  Not only do they sacrifice their game time for the betterment of the game and everyone in it, now you want them to sacrifice more coin for something that ostensibly benefits you far more than it benefits them.  

Share this post


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

@XOOM  I actually don't know what to make of this comment XOOM.  Are you trying to say that veteran players should pony up more money just so they can have the privilege of creating game content for the rest of the player base?  The people that are hard core and dedicated enough to actually run two accounts (or more) are usually your HC types who are also tactical battlefield leaders or non HC types in squads who are your tactical leaders.  These are the people that you are currently claiming the game has a shortage of.  These are the people that are sacrificing their own K/D or fun to ensure that other people are successful in game.  These are the people that create that precious WWII Online moment you speak of.  It's the FSJR02's, the Potthead's, the Dinker's, and a whole host of other leaders that have made the game work over the years.  Even overcoming extremely bad game mechanics to make it work.  I find it extremely odd that your in game leaders who make the game shine in its brightest moments are the ones penalized by this decision.  Not only do they sacrifice their game time for the betterment of the game and everyone in it, now you want them to sacrifice more coin for something that ostensibly benefits you far more than it benefits them.  

No, please do not take my words out of context. I'm just saying that people think by giving Free Players access we'll see some genuine new players adding in mobile spawns. I argue that while that may occur to some degree, I would anticipate more veterans taking advantage of this than not. That's all.

Share this post


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

No, please do not take my words out of context. I'm just saying that people think by giving Free Players access we'll see some genuine new players adding in mobile spawns. I argue that while that may occur to some degree, I would anticipate more veterans taking advantage of this than not. That's all.

@XOOM  The point however, still stands.  You took away a valuable tool that your veteran players used to create game content.  In order to do the same thing currently would cost those same players additional money.  Would it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd actually written a response and then deleted it without posting shortly after our original posters comments, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to throw my thoughts out there either.. I'm going to take some time and talk a while here now..

I think its pretty obvious that the games biggest issue right now is a lack of population in the game. The game is just simply not a fun as it was 10/12/14 years ago when the battle raged 24/7, rarely lacked for intensity and always had lots of participants on both sides. The five bomber siren used to be active 24/7 inside of an axis town under allied attack and now I'd bet there is a list of players going "there's a bomb siren in game?!" 

Combine this with how prevalent Free to Play has become in the online gaming industry (esp MMORPG) and one of the criticisms I see of WWIIOL is that it is pay to win. Sorry but they have a point. I'm sorry but the only real solution I see to this is Free to Play becomes Tier 0. Everything Tier0 is there for free to play to play with. But after that first Tier if you really want to be an effective member on the battlefield you gotta pony up. There a lot of things you could do within this basic construct to make it work to. ie Automatic infantry weapon supply could be limited for FTP and follow that thinking down the line for equipment if you want. As Tiers progress you can make available for a day or even hours within a day a piece of equipment for FTP. Enter game, window pops up; "for this amount of time you may enjoy the use of this weapon and remember if you signed up today and paid you could always play with it."  

Now I know that previously light tanks and AC's, light atgs and an airplane were available for Free to Play and I understand there were reasons that led to that being removed but at the end of the day youre just hurting yourself but making it only rifles and youre not allowing people to really experience what WWIIOL is about, which really is what Free to Play should be all about. It should be just immersive enough that you come back to it, want to be in it, playing it, but still leaves you wanting just a little bit more, wanting what you can get when you buy in and pay for it. 

 As of now they cant even drive a truck and I think thats a real shame-- guys if youve never driven a truck full of people up to a defended cp then youre missing out--which brings me to a sidebar, more troop carriers for both sides!? especially some with Machine guns for the allies, heck there are enough large towns where driving people in a simple truck makes sense, give em a gun on the truck and lets get mobile?! 

Let me also be straight here; I am not looking to tell you how to do your  jobs and I'm not saying what I suggested above is the exact way to go, but you still need to find a way to address this: allowing people to really experience what WWIIOL is about and being just immersive enough that you come back to it, want to be in it, playing it, but desiring to do so as a paying customer. and yes I understand you need to find a way to do this while maintaining financial stability. 

But the thing is, pay to win is genuine criticism and in game population is a problem, Free Tier0 is I believe enough to negate both of those concerns while still maintaining value for your premium paying customers and providing a clear need to be a premium or above member to get the true WWIIOL experience. 

Now There is a lot more that could be written and discussed surrounding Free to Play and I fully encourage it, Roundhouse discussion is one of the best approaches we can take to all our 'problems.' Group talk leads to the best solutions and what sounds like a dumb idea coming out often sparks the great idea in the head of the person next to ya. 

 But I kinda want to get into and elaborate a bit on what our astute 15 year old friend said.

"Most teens however CAN enjoy a game like this despite the graphics. One thing that hampers this game's popularity amongst teens is the time to contact the enemy.  I guarantee you, amongst teens this game'd be reasonably popular IF the time to contact was shortened down."

Now I cannot speak to all branches of gameplay (army navy airforce) but I can say for one I think there is a change you could make immediately that would have a lasting positive impact. Front line airfields. "WAIT! Do you WANT to go back to the days of CAMPED AFS?!"... YES!!!!!! Yes I do. Hear me out. How often does somebody drive a really long time to go camp an airfield now with an AC, SPAA or good ol' lmg?! Pretty often. Cause they want to, cause they find it fun. 

Now I understand you don't want a side to take an airfield and have an instant swarm of ground pounding aircraft.  I get that. Fortunately for us its pretty simple to compensate for that with a simple timer. Or if we want to keep it in the players control, the FBs could be used. Now after taking a front line airfield before one can move air in to use from that Airfield the team that took it needs to establish a zone of control around the airfield by securing the fbs. Similar rules can apply if air gets bumbed from said airfield.  Yeah there is an increased chance I get killed upon spawning in at a front line airfield, that's the risk I take in that situation. 

But lets face it, some of the airfields are spread out a bit and there are times where four or five of the airfields on the map are front line and no one has air operating out of them and sure you can fly from the back forty and re-spawn at those airfields if you live, if they're not camped, but you're missing the point where sometimes people log in to fly and they cant because they don't have the time. by the time they fly to the combat area Life demands they leave the game. I'll point out that this actually more pronounced on the German side if you want to fly a bomber, both the He111 and Stuka are very slow and therefore very vulnerable in the air always. (let alone length of flight time).   

[And now that I just mentioned one side over the other I'll say this: I actually think the game is more balanced than it is often given credit for, I think there are smaller imbalances that likely largely originated because of a lack of modelling so some models were tweaked to be stronger/weaker to balance and I am a big believer in making the equipment how it was and letting the players deal with it, even down to supply numbers for some equipment.] --my opinion and in [] cause its not meant to be a focused talking point. 

It is also my opinion that a lot of the missing population is actually probably former pilots. You know this game has something no other has. Air to ground player to player interaction. Most flight sims the other plane is a player but any ground targets are cpu (IL2). That is a really cool thing for a lot of us and CRS has done a lot of work to limit that. You're bomb timers need to be retired and never spoken of again. First off when it comes to fast quick planes such as the bell or the Jabbo then uh you're bomb timer is kicking in cause of speed and actively negating a players skill set. No one is going to pretend stuff on the ground renders from the air like it should-- you try finding and strafing infantry from the air?! Second situation is there are no targets and no EA so you start buzzing and hunting and next thing youre low and slow and ooh look an aaa gun has come out to play but look you're too low to bomb better grab some alt... you know while the AAA gun is shooting at you! nice feature you got there. Really makes me want to PAY... NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT ( i could literally cut and paste NOT into here 150 more times but what does that do for anyone?) And while were on this point the AAA AI pits need to be harder to put back up. Too often Players simply resort to grabbing an engie and waiting for your plane to be low and slow over the town, usually cockpit facing ground scanning for targets, to pop the AAA AI back up on you and now your pilot as a third fourth and fifth eyeball with which to scan for targets with. Its a great feature that literally limits the player to player combat and actually encourages kill by ai. THIS, if nothing else gets listened to from this long [censored] post, THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED YESTERDAY. 

Okay Now I know I addressed flyers and a few of their concerns--I am one voice and one viewpoint please feel free to provide support or alternative viewpoints. But another area where you lost a lot of people still remains. The Navy. There are some obvious and already well discussed points to make on the navy and I'm not here to elaborate too long unnecessarily but a couple of things that could help a wee bit is, I think the process of loading a freighter is pretty cool but maybe allow for the freighter to pick a load and go and have people be able to spawn into that equipment which is loaded, I know 1.36 will hopefully make the zees and navy releveant again but this could go a surprisingly long way too. It falls under that length of time to combat, opens up the opportunity for someone to load up the game and join in on an amphibious landing just before it happens too!. and lastly an Aircraft carrier, maybe show off your torpedo bombers on them?! I mean it cant hurt and a flat top ship has to be relatively easy to model, no?!

 

PS. It turns out my JoyStick was the problem with FW190 that I ranted so epic-ally  about once upon a time... similar problem in the p38 with it, generally not good for flight abilities to have your JS going updown left left up right down down down down down down up up up up up up up... when you're not touching it lol. 

Edited by redst0rm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if CRS came up with a way to market wwii online as a persistent hardcore wwii simulator,  instead of a "game" nothing more or less, then they would draw the right crowd. Face it, this game as it is, will never be more than a niche audience favorite. Let me explain why.  Trying to make this game more "arcade-like" and fast paced might draw some new players in, for the wrong reasons, and their stay will be short term. The type of younger gamer of today has a short attention span and hardly plays the same game for months, let alone years. They move on as soon as the next AAA title is released, never to return. So seeking out that type of player, the fortnite, PUBG, COD style players.. is a waste of CRS's time. Especially when there is already a more arcade version of wwiionline already out called H & G and they do a good job just for what it is, except smaller maps for battles, and the persistent map is only for high command. But basically, it's similar but faster paced game with updated graphics, smooth arcade like gameplay, and guys able to be shot 3 or 4 times before they die. 

So you see, it wouldn't do them any good to try and  make their game more like a game that already exists and does it better than this game could do it.

The charm of this game is the realism, and they should stick too it, slower paced and all. The core ppl who play this game have played on and off for 15+ years. That being said, changes like the FMS are a GOOD thing and I am happy to see it. Finding the balance between realism and fun is a tedious tight rope walk, but I think CRS might pull it off.  

I honestly also wish they would go back to letting free accounts have at least one armor and one plane too, instead of just rifle, for the sake of population. Especially in the later AM hours.

Edited by degolocc
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere has it been argued that the game should move towards arcade. In fact within these forums a constant theme is the need for a simulation with equipment based upon historical values. 

If your argument is that front line airfields is arcade style well it is not. Airfields were used as long as they could be as quickly as they could be and many heated battles were fought for them. In fact the US choose to invade some South Pacific islands rather than bypass them into irrelevance because they had an airfield. 

Suggested changes are not geared towards ascertaining new players as they are towards drawing old players back, which will help acquire and keep new players as well. Don't forget that the success of bad graphic indie games points that graphics are not the problem, therefore the gameplay mechanics need to be assessed and moves that have resulted in drops of subscribed players should be at the very least entertain the idea of being reversed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.