Future roadmaps: [1st step] survey draft

[ZEBBEEE 444]

I put together a list of requests that made 99% of forums' topics for the past 6 months.

The objective is to help leadership getting a clear understanding of what is expected (VS what is technically and financially possible). In order to achieve this I need to be able to ask the right questions and propose the right answers. Could I please ask you to make the poll and provide feedback about the survey?

You are free to share your comments about your wishes. You can also write down your top-5.

And please stay constructive regarding opinions you don't agree with.

 

EDIT : step 2 poll here:

 

 

[madrebel 615]

I voted other.

 

My other:

Higher resolution terrain.

Longer visual ranges for aircraft IDn other aircraft and at least double the range for AFVs (take infantry completely off the vis list for planes for all i care)

 

IMO a laundry list of 'gamey' aspects would self correct with proper terrain. Visual range improvements open up more realistic ID ranges for planes too - enabling RDP to function more cleanly (i hope).

[jwilly 2,250]

Can I suggest a possibly more meaningful format for the survey?

Each of the focus-areas requires resources from some of the key four developer groups, i.e. character artwork/animations, vehicle artwork/animations/damage model, code, producer realism/gameplay development/audit, possibly others I'm forgetting. I don't include marketing because I don't see that as a development task, though of course it's a key business activity.

Turn the provided list into a table indicating which developer resources are needed for each focus-area, then indicate the preferred prioritization for each resource.

CRS has some, but not infinite, resources of every type. It makes no sense to call for focusing efforts in directions that over-utilize some resources, and under-utilize others. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by jwilly

[ZEBBEEE 444]

13 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Can I suggest a possibly more meaningful format for the survey?

Each of the focus-areas requires resources from the key four developer groups, i.e. character artwork/animations, vehicle artwork/animations/damage model, code, producer realism/gameplay development/audit, possibly others I'm forgetting. I don't include marketing because I don't see that as a development task, though of course it's a key business activity.

Turn the provided list into a table indicating which developer resources are needed for each focus-area, then indicate the preferred prioritization for each resource.

CRS has some, but not infinite, resources of every type. It makes no sense to call for focusing efforts in directions that over-utilize some resources, and under-utilize others. 

That would be very interesting for sure.  I think only Xoom could write that down at a later stage though.

At this stage the idea is just to start from community requests, trying to keep it as general as possible, and guess what part of the game would benefit from more detailed discussions or analysis before roadmap gets written in stone.

[raptor34 176]

WW2OL 2.0 first and formost. 

[aismov 600]

At this point in time I think we need to make a big push towards WWIIOL 2.0; the amount of marketing that a WWIIOL 2.0 would auto-generate on its own would far exceed whatever we could do with trying to hype up the current version of WWIIOL. Since a brand-new game would take several years to develop next year would be a good year to explore the possibilities that exist out there (including making a new custom engine if necessary). With the gameplay changes coming with 1.36 and the units/artwork that is being done there is already a lot around the corner that will keep the current game fresh and interesting.

[gt3076r 0]

Need to enter the 21st century whether it's somehow done on this game or a 2.0 title. 

[raptor34 176]

1 hour ago, aismov said:

At this point in time I think we need to make a big push towards WWIIOL 2.0; the amount of marketing that a WWIIOL 2.0 would auto-generate on its own would far exceed whatever we could do with trying to hype up the current version of WWIIOL. Since a brand-new game would take several years to develop next year would be a good year to explore the possibilities that exist out there (including making a new custom engine if necessary). With the gameplay changes coming with 1.36 and the units/artwork that is being done there is already a lot around the corner that will keep the current game fresh and interesting.

Agree fully.

[xanthus 232]

Gameplay, gameplay, gameplay.

 

End the horrendous spawn-camping that is at the core of gameplay (which has long been abandoned in virtually all online PvP games). Consider removing depot spawning for attackers all together, or have proximity-based control of spawning (i.e. above a critical number of enemies within a certain range, spawning no longer allowed; this is very well implemented in Post Scriptum).

End the completely useless mission-based spawning and instead allow universal spawn at UI (with comms and spawned-in UI linked to geography/brigade, not "mission"). Replace "mission" with "squad" or "section" and limited available roles (via Post Scriptum) to enhance teamwork and cohesion. Allow something like spawn-at-section-leader (maybe a temporary spawn point that looks like the FRU but has a timer).

Edited December 11, 2018 by xanthus

[halsey 118]

I would like to see a push to a 2.0 version of the game.

[ZEBBEEE 444]

I really wished we had more poll options like a top-3 or so. Even survey monkey hasn’t that option. 

[Kilemall 3,477]

9 hours ago, raptor34 said:

WW2OL 2.0 first and formost. 

You willing to give up the big continuous map?

[heilmittel 7]

i want ai bot, armed train and flare

[bersi 64]

gameplay and 2.0

[BMBM 492]

Whatever you vote I’m going to continue pushing out new vehicles at the highest possible frequence - air, ground and naval - whether you like it or not 

[sorella 2,647]

14 hours ago, aismov said:

At this point in time I think we need to make a big push towards WWIIOL 2.0; the amount of marketing that a WWIIOL 2.0 would auto-generate on its own would far exceed whatever we could do with trying to hype up the current version of WWIIOL. Since a brand-new game would take several years to develop next year would be a good year to explore the possibilities that exist out there (including making a new custom engine if necessary). With the gameplay changes coming with 1.36 and the units/artwork that is being done there is already a lot around the corner that will keep the current game fresh and interesting.

agree fully.  especially on the hype/marketing/join or support the alpha/beta testing of wwii 2.0 online bit. (a la shroud of the avatar for example)

 the only split energy option (as per JWilly's post) if CRS has the resources, might be to position 2.0 as a 'new 2.0 theatre expansion' of the current version with the aim of backfilling/upgrading/recreating the current map/theatre once the 'new theatre' is launched. the only reason to consider this method of 2.0ing is that / is if a smaller/easier new theatre (africa? western russia? normandy?) could get to market sooner, faster easier cheaper than a fuller western europe 2.0 replication. 

[piska250 139]

Ideally, the V2.0 of the game would be The dream (as long as it comes with Full Map) but probably it takes years to develope such a game.

Until then. WE NEED NUMBERS.

With enough numbers, the game rocks even with what it has nowadays.

So anything that would bring new players to the game and make them stay and bring veterans back. I have no clue what may help but I'd say that "GamePlay Overhaul"

Edited December 11, 2018 by piska250

[raptor34 176]

10 hours ago, Kilemall said:

You willing to give up the big continuous map?

If nessasary yes; a smaller, more detailed map of whatever operational theatre is depicted would be, in my opinion, better than an a vast but under detailed empty map. This also comes from an air player.   

[xanthus 232]

I fundamentally disagree on the 2.0 comments here.

The market has unequivocally demonstrated that games can succeed and be popular *despite* (and in some cases even *because of*) primitive graphics. Regardless of the hype and media coverage generated by titles that push the graphics envelope, at the end of the day, the most popular games are those that have the best, most engaging gameplay; this is especially true in the MMORPG market (where such gamers typically couldn't care less about fancy graphics).

The notion that "WWIIOL needs new graphics engine" is a miscalculation; it pigeon-holes future development into a field where WWIIOL cannot and will NEVER be able to compete successfully. WWIIOL will NEVER be able to compete in that area; WWIIOL will NEVER be able to compete on graphics, EVER. So why play that game? This represents a foolish gamble of dev resources into a space where WWIIOL will *always* look worse by comparison (no matter how much graphics are improved).

Instead, focus the existing engine on gameplay; and continued bug fixes, improvements, etc. Focus on the ONE thing that you can *differently*, the one thing you can offer that's unique to your game; ideally that would be gameplay on a huge, dynamic, realistic battlefield.

Focus on UNIQUE, compelling gameplay, *not* on creating something that looks like what the other guys are doing (they have a fundamental advantage over you to begin with; don't play their game. Win by not competing with them in the first place).

If anything, the best evidence for this is the sheer number of players who were willing to try WWIIOL when it released on Steam. They could see very well what the game looked like before they installed it. Again, they care about gameplay above all, period. If the game looked marginally better, it would have had zero impact on retention (or the number of downloads).

I'm not saying that all efforts to improve graphics should stop; by all means, continue to make the game look and feel better. But this should be (very) low on the priority list.

Edited December 11, 2018 by xanthus

[madrebel 615]

8 minutes ago, xanthus said:

I fundamentally disagree on the 2.0 comments here.

The market has unequivocally demonstrated that games can succeed and be popular *despite* (and in some cases even *because of*) primitive graphics. Regardless of the hype and media coverage generated by titles that push the graphics envelope, at the end of the day, the most popular games are those that have the best, most engaging gameplay; this is especially true in the MMORPG market (where such gamers typically couldn't care less about fancy graphics).

The "WWIIOL needs new graphics engine" is a miscalculation; it pigeon-holes future development into a field where WWIIOL cannot and will NEVER be able to compete successfully. WWIIOL will NEVER be able to compete in that area; WWIIOL will NEVER be able to compete on graphics, EVER. So why play that game? This represents a foolish gamble of dev resources into a space where WWIIOL will *always* look worse by comparison (no matter how much graphics are improved).

Instead, focus the existing engine on gameplay; and continued bug fixes, improvements, etc. Focus on the ONE thing that you can *differently*, the one thing you can offer that's unique to your game; ideally that would be gameplay on a huge, dynamic, realistic battlefield.

Focus on UNIQUE, compelling gameplay, *not* on creating something that looks like what the other guys are doing (they have a fundamental advantage over you to begin with; don't play their game. Win by not competing with them in the first place).

Agreed, a pretty broken game is still broken.

That said, certain things like terrain detail, view distances, etc these things not only look better but improve how the gameplay functions within the world.

[xanthus 232]

9 minutes ago, madrebel said:

Agreed, a pretty broken game is still broken.

That said, certain things like terrain detail, view distances, etc these things not only look better but improve how the gameplay functions within the world.

 

Agree 100%.

Only saying that I've seen this story before. Post Scriptum's botched release is informative.

PS looked gorgeous, and the visual + sound effects are amazing, arguably the most immersive I've ever experienced in a WWII game. But players left the game in droves during the initial weeks and months following release due to gameplay and performance issues; new players largely stopped giving the game a chance (despite how good it looks).

The devs listened to player feedback, and (unusually for a dev team) decided to simply do essentially everything the playerbase wanted them to do. Virtually all the many patches and gameplay tweaks originated solely in player feedback. If they released a gameplay tweak that got overwhelming negative feedback, it was gone within days (yes, DAYS). If the players wanted something, the devs simply did it (sometimes grudgingly, but they did it all the same). A great example is rally points (these are temporary spawn points put down a section leader). The devs initially seemed against this, but eventually gave in to the players. These are now an essential part of gameplay, and a big reason for the return of so many players. Slowly but surely, server populations started to rise again, and now the game is clearly getting its second wind in terms of popularity.

Bottom line: Not only were graphics not a decisive factor in the fortunes of Post Scriptum, they arguably played no role whatsoever. None. Zip. I know this seems counter-intuitive, but it's the way things are.

Edited December 11, 2018 by xanthus

[major0noob 247]

literally anything to get 128 v 128 inf/armour/air in a single battle for up to 3 hours. those fights are more glorious than any single aspect of the game.

 

i was at the steam release... there were 50 people spawning on a camped spawn, it was the only one. on the defenders side were another 20 wandering around aimlessly.

[pbveteran 2]

For me would be to reduce operation costs with licenses and third party proprietary software.

By this I mean rebuild the entire vehicle pipeline and create a CRS only Damage and Ballistic model and a new flight model. 

That would allow to easily work with freelancers who use standard tools like 3ds Max, Maya, Blender, Unreal, Unity etc and of course this systems would be made to be self-contained, so they could be easily ported to unreal and WW2ol 2.0.

 

Focusing on WW2ol 2.0 I think would be shooting yourself in the foot, it's far from seeing the light of day, you need more funds and no way does the current dev Team and leadership possess the pedigree and recognition to raise millions which is what is required.

And why forget and stop investing in a product that brings money and has a user based? Make no sense economically with such a giant leap to make.

So that for me leaves us just to focus on increasing productivity and costs, that proprietary software is a drain on CRS limited resources, addressing that would most likely allow to have another good programmer with would increase productivity and in turn more revenue with more features implemented.

Honestly this for me is the only solution in the mid term..

in the short term:

More vehicles more paying options for access to the game to fit each potential user needs.

Edited December 11, 2018 by pbveteran
test

[jwilly 2,250]

7 hours ago, Bmbm said:

Whatever you vote I’m going to continue pushing out new vehicles at the highest possible frequence - air, ground and naval - whether you like it or not 

OK, we want one triad a week. Your choice whether it's air, naval or ground.  

[dog3 19]

IMO, if the game engine is sound everything else can be fixed. The game engine is the foundation on which all gameplay is built. Are the human resources available to construct a new rendering engine coupled to the current physics engine?  It has been my understanding that the current physics and and the current rendering engines are not distinct and orthogonal.

Is separating the rendering functions from the physics engine a reasonable possibility? It would be a shame to lose the features provided by a continuous and immense gameworld by shoehorning the game into a set of discontinuous boxes required by something like the Unreal engine. 

Pretty graphics and a realistic audio environment come with a computing cost. An accurate physics engine also has a computational cost. Personally, I would favor a more accurate physics engine for both ballistics and environmental behavior than pretty graphics. I am willing play with wire figures if the physics engine provides accurate motion and damage models.