• Announcements

    • PITTPETE

      NEW Career Subscriptions now available   06/08/2019

      The all new highly anticipated / requested "Career Based Subscriptions" are available through www.WWIIONLINE.com/account only, starting at $9.99! There are three new subscriptions being added; 1) All Infantry at $9.99/mo, 2) All Air Forces at $9.99/mo, 3) All Ground Forces (Army Persona) at $12.99/mo. Continue reading to learn more and get back into the fight now! View the full article on battlegroundeurope.com
    • CHIMM

      18th Anniversary Event Awards!   06/23/2019

      This year we are giving out trophies and awards for the top players during the "Kill a RAT" event! We need the following players to contact @CHIMM at chimm@corneredrats.com with your physical address to mail these out.   @mook2  @dasei88  @c00per  @kardehk  @chau90  @kdped02  @Simcha  @pulfer  @bus0    
ZEBBEEE

Giving more value to the riflman: open brainstorming

140 posts in this topic

This is more about f2p v pay2win than it is about the rifleman class being useful. Rifleman can't be made to do it all, only specific equipment does that.

Share this post


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

This is more about f2p v pay2win than it is about the rifleman class being useful. Rifleman can't be made to do it all, only specific equipment does that.

If they have the opportunity to face any unit, not necessarily with lethal impact, it’s no longer a pay2win f2p. 

I really like the variety of ideas dropped here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

riflemen should have zero access to anti armour weapons. Dont care about the feelings of FTP players who [censored] about P2Win.  Look at some of the top players stats with rifles - off the top of my head Mobius57 Kool sydspain, they achieved top killers/cappers in game on FTP accounts.

 The whole rank/grind is not based around FTP - . Heres how ur other games  go -- PAY and your experience is quadrupled , with a much longer grind for equipment. we dont have enough levels of equipment for this imo.

Share this post


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

If they have the opportunity to face any unit, not necessarily with lethal impact, it’s no longer a pay2win f2p. 

I really like the variety of ideas dropped here. 

No mate you're definitely getting this mixed up and let me tell you how. The reason it is pay2win IS BECAUSE they face any unit, without lethal impact.
It's the ultimate sending the sheep to the wolves scenario if you compare the two..I liked the bayonet, that's as exclusively for rifle as you get.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


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

Anything else we can do to move the game toward the mass market fantasy shooters? How about bunny hopping...you didn't mention that. And maybe jet packs. Oh, yeah, and health pills. Gotta have health pills.

Not all infantrymen just the new class of one.........smarta$$

Edited by bmw

Share this post


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

No mate you're definitely getting this mixed up and let me tell you how. The reason it is pay2win IS BECAUSE they face any unit, without lethal impact.
It's the ultimate sending the sheep to the wolves scenario if you compare the two..I liked the bayonet, that's as exclusively for rifle as you get.

F2p rifleman are exactly the same as premium rifleman.  You have  the same chance as any premium player utilizing  a rifleman. 

Alot of our premium players prefer the rifle over the smg because of it's versatility. 

I understand that you have to purchase either a dlc or subscription to play other equipment within the game. This is how we pay for the overhead there is no changing that as an mmo we have one constant game world. Not instances, or 50 by 50 clusters that are housed by peer to peer.

Share this post


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

No mate you're definitely getting this mixed up and let me tell you how. The reason it is pay2win IS BECAUSE they face any unit, without lethal impact.
It's the ultimate sending the sheep to the wolves scenario if you compare the two..I liked the bayonet, that's as exclusively for rifle as you get.

I'd say that absolutely it's not pay to win, it's more opportunity to win.

If I have a sub on a new account, I start out rifle same as anyone else, but I have to EARN rank by achieving points, most notably captures or enemy unit destruction.

If I don't rank up, I don't get a Sherman or Tiger by paying in more money, I have to be successful at some level to earn that opportunity.

And given the lethality of the PvP, those units will just get me scissors but rock will still break me.

 

Heh, put another way, F2P rifle is being given paper for free in a game of rock scissors paper.

If you want to play the whole game, you have to sub and then you get the option of rock or scissors- but choose rock and all that F2P paper can still beat you.

You're asking for free rock, and the answer IMO is no.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BLKHWK8 said:

F2p rifleman are exactly the same as premium rifleman.  You have  the same chance as any premium player utilizing  a rifleman. 

Alot of our premium players prefer the rifle over the smg because of it's versatility. 

No, you just said f2p doesn't have the means of AT to make it not Pay2Win. You can't compare a rifleman to AT, it's a combined arms game.

25 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

I'd say that absolutely it's not pay to win, it's more opportunity to win.

You're asking for free rock, and the answer IMO is no.

Come on now, what does this even mean? Selling the rock in rock paper scissors and saying you still have the opportunity to win IF the enemy doesn't throw scissors against your paper? Please, don't make me laugh. :D

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't get what you all are talking about.

I'm premium, have played since 2001 (with some breaks here and there), and I play plain, unscoped rifle 99.9% of the time. It is the overall single best, most versatile inf-vs-inf weapon in the game, by far. Since we have no suppression effects, picking any other weapon vs inf is *usually* completely pointless (though at times, LMG can be useful if you have trouble leading especially warpy inf).

 

So I just fundamentally disagree with the premise of the thread; it is the *other* classes that are more limited than rifleman, not the other way around. Of course, I'm aware that the perception (especially among n00b free-players) is the opposite of what I'm saying, but after nearly 20 years of experience, I'm 100% convinced that that's an issue of perception, not battlefield reality.

If we had suppression effects (like in Post Scriptum), this would all be a VERY, VERY different story. Or if we had a weapon like the StG 44. Automatic weapons would be useful in new ways, and the bolt-action rifle's historical inadequacies would finally be revealed. But that's simply not the game world we're playing in at the moment.

 

BTW I'm not some delusional teenage gen Y-er who thinks that video games are reality, so that in the real world, bolt action rifles must be just as effective as modern assault rifles. As much as I love bolt action rifles, and as effective as I am in this game with them, InRangeTV had a great video showing plainly that they are utterly and hopelessly obsolete as anything other than a specialized sniper's weapon:

 

But my whole point is that our game is not reality. Without suppression effects, our game is more like a giant airsoft match.

Edited by xanthus
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I just don't get what you all are talking about.

I'm premium, have played since 2001 (with some breaks here and there), and I play plain, unscoped rifle 99.9% of the time. It is the overall single best, most versatile inf-vs-inf weapon in the game, by far. Since we have no suppression effects, picking any other weapon vs inf is *usually* completely pointless (though at times, LMG can be useful if you have trouble leading especially warpy inf).

 

So I just fundamentally disagree with the premise of the thread; it is the *other* classes that are more limited than rifleman, not the other way around. Of course, I'm aware that the perception (especially among n00b free-players) is the opposite of what I'm saying, but after nearly 20 years of experience, I'm 100% convinced that that's an issue of perception, not battlefield reality.

You've been on the battle too long mate, a standard rifleman has no chance against an armored vehicle. That's a fact.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


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

You've been on the battle too long mate, a rifleman has no chance against a armored vehicle. That's a fact.

Yes, but I said "vs inf." I don't bother with AFVs, I just ignore them or use my one HE satchel to track and immobilize them, which is perfectly easy to do unless your spawn is camped, in which case I don't think you should spawn anyway; in fact, I've argued for years that CRS should disable spawning from overrun, camped spawn points (Post Scriptum does this nicely; if a certain threshold of enemy units is within proximity of your spawn, it's compromised, spawning is temporarily disabled, and you MUST spawn elsewhere to dislodge the enemy and restore spawning from that point again).

Infantry *shouldn't* generally have any chance against armored vehicles.

The fact that the plain, vanilla rifleman can successfully immobilize almost every AFV in the game with his HE satchel is already too overpowered, ahistorical, and ridiculous as it is. Maybe it's necessary for balance (this is a video game, after all); fine, then. But riflemen aren't as helpless against AFVs as they historically in fact were.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Infantry *shouldn't* generally have any chance against armored vehicles.

Then stop saying non AT-AA equipped characters aren't facing insurmountable odds against armor. HE satchel wasn't meant to destroy armor so it is like what whoever said, a rock paper scissors of combined arms where you're selling the rock and the scissors and leaving people with only paper and saying "Well if they also throw paper you're good, but if they throw scissors or rock then you're unequivocally screwed.
That the definition pay2win and if you aren't seeing that then you're not thinking clearly enough! :cool:

Edited by knucks

Share this post


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

Then stop saying non AT-AA equipped characters aren't facing insurmountable odds against armor. HE satchel wasn't meant to destroy armor so it is like what whoever said, a rock paper scissors of combined arms where you're selling the rock and the scissors and leaving people with only paper and saying "Well if they also throw paper you're good, but if they throw scissors or rock then you're unequivocally screwed.
That the definition pay2win and if you aren't seeing that then you're not thinking clearly enough.

I just don't agree. Playing armor is much, much, much more difficult than infantry. I'm willing to bet anything that n00bs who play armor have much worse K/Ds with AFVs than they do as infantry.

Armor is more challenging than inf, and air-vs-air is the most challenging of all. But anyway...

Your odds of getting kills, surviving, etc are much better as a rifleman than as a tank.

A rifleman's problem isn't tanks; like I said, these are easily avoided or immobilized, and if your spawn is camped, I don't think you should be spawning anyway. 

Edited by xanthus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, knucks said:

You've been on the battle too long mate, a standard rifleman has no chance against an armored vehicle. That's a fact.

Of COURSE not, they shouldn't. 

 

But you can win against tanks in the sense of taking or holding the town, tanks don't cap.

 

You're wanting free rock, not happening.  Taunt all you like about pay to win, the bills must be paidand your proposal not only would get plenty of existing subs to likely switch to free, but would also drive off tankers from a now much more lethal enviornment.

 

Want to play free?  Learn to avoid tanks like 95% of most infantry did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just put it this way; yes it sucks that you can't try out all the vehicles and other equipment with just a free account. CRS has to pay the bills somehow. But all I'm saying is that that's not the same as pay-to-win; it can't be since many of the best vets in this game are inf players, and tanks can't even cap anyway.

Share this post


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

Of COURSE not, they shouldn't. 

 

But you can win against tanks in the sense of taking or holding the town, tanks don't cap.

 

You're wanting free rock, not happening.  Taunt all you like about pay to win, the bills must be paidand your proposal not only would get plenty of existing subs to likely switch to free, but would also drive off tankers from a now much more lethal enviornment.

 

Want to play free?  Learn to avoid tanks like 95% of most infantry did.

LOL, just take it and roll with it I guess? Yes, rock paper scissors, you were never suppose to just have all 3 options, you were suppose to buy the other two, and hope the other person isn't 2/3rds lucky. Yes of course. That's definitely a good idea that's getting all these greentags excited on the Allies side! I'm sure they LOVE that you're rock is so valuable to you that you'd rather not play Rock-Paper-Scissors then give anyone else a piece of the rock and a small pair of scissors to have a full fledged war game with. No you simply win by not giving your enemy the all the pieces of the puzzle! /s

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbf, I always did like the original F2P setup where they got the rifleman, a basic ATG, a basic tank, and a basic fighter plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, knucks said:

LOL, just take it and roll with it I guess? Yes, rock paper scissors, you were never suppose to just have all 3 options, you were suppose to buy the other two, and hope the other person isn't 2/3rds lucky. Yes of course. That's definitely a good idea that's getting all these greentags excited on the Allies side! I'm sure they LOVE that you're rock is so valuable to you that you'd rather not play Rock-Paper-Scissors then give anyone else a piece of the rock and a small pair of scissors to have a full fledged war game with. No you simply win by not giving your enemy the all the pieces of the puzzle! /s

It's either that or no game.

 

Live with it, or not play.  Your choice.

Share this post


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

It's either that or no game.

Oh you sweet summer child.

Share this post


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

Tbf, I always did like the original F2P setup where they got the rifleman, a basic ATG, a basic tank, and a basic fighter plane.

And while I don't know this for a fact, my guess is they were demonstrably losing subs on it.

Although I don't see what harm a f2p vick/iic/r35 and lowest fighter plane is going to do.

2lber power over the French and German ATGs is another matter.

1 minute ago, knucks said:

Oh you sweet summer child.

You got a business plan that pays the bills better, let's hear it.  If it works I'm sure the Rats would do it.

Share this post


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

You got a business plan that pays the bills better, let's hear it.  If it works I'm sure the Rats would do it.

IF it works depends on IF you do it. For example if we kept the classic F2P of a basic unit from each tree, we may not have the same problems we have now. An IF is an IF though and it's not my business. :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, aismov said:

Exactly right. Everyone is thinking about this upside down. Its not that tanks are too lethal for infantry. They should be. That is why tanks were designed in the first place.

The issue is that we need better concealment for infantry. Right now we have the unfortunate situation where the vegetation in WWIIOL is exactly opposite of what it should be. Hedges are too tall (tanks can't see across them to engage other tanks at range), and grass is either too short or non-existant meaning infantry have nowhere to hide. The new cornfields and grass are a step in the right direction but overall I think we need an overhaul of the WWIIOL terrain to really solve this issue.

The rifle right now is an excellent unit and one of my favorite to fight with. It is the most versatile and if I hit anyone I know they are going down. The way to make the rifle more relevant is to give infantry the advantages they had in real life... cover and concealment. When have already done much with PPOs and improvement in cover. For example those small low white walls in the country and ingenious and one of the best additions to the infantry game.

We need more of those types of objects that infantry can pop behind. At the same time decrease the height of the bushes so tanks and ATGs have a chance to engage each other at range. Towns right now are surrounded by a jungle so enemy tanks can pretty much spawn with impunity to suppress infantry with little worry of being engaged by armor outside of town.

 

Example of what I mean: tallish grass to allow infantry to hide, but not tall enough where other tanks and ATGs can't attack/see the enemy tanks. Right now we have it backwards, 2m tall bushes tanks and ATGs can't see over and minimal ground cover for infantry to hide in.

driving-in-france.ashx?h=400&la=en&w=640

489ca219174f91b48313c188f4c998a5413fcaf1

Les+canards+(2).JPG

On point aismov; there should be a lot more tall grass in the game world, along with bushlines that infantry/vehicles can't just push through with no effect on movement speed. In short, terrain improvements along realistic/historical lines are needed whenever that can be done. Could we have more tall grass in the short term? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anything extra thing the rifleman gets ( ftp ) he should earn by capping flags. So many flags capped and he gets whatever .  Then they have a reason to cap .

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BLKHWK8 said:

F2p rifleman are exactly the same as premium rifleman.  You have  the same chance as any premium player utilizing  a rifleman. 

Alot of our premium players prefer the rifle over the smg because of it's versatility. 

I understand that you have to purchase either a dlc or subscription to play other equipment within the game. This is how we pay for the overhead there is no changing that as an mmo we have one constant game world. Not instances, or 50 by 50 clusters that are housed by peer to peer.

I agree with your sentiment but I also agree with Knucks here. We can't deny the reality of the current marketplace, and if you look at the steam reviews we are getting killed over this very thing on the Steam reviews.

Irrespective of how many of us feel many players consider that P2W. I had a discussion last night with a F2P saying exactly that how he "isn't useful" with only a rifle. So I spawned a rifle, tracked down an eFMS, marked it, killed an EI in the process to prove the point.

But the bigger point is we can't rely on players doing the above with every F2P that tries the game. A lot of this would improve with branding and marketing on the Steam page with clear explanations of what the rifle account is. There is overal a lot of confusion with the Byzantine payment options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, aismov said:

A lot of this would improve with branding and marketing on the Steam page with clear explanations of what the rifle account is. There is overal a lot of confusion with the Byzantine payment options.

Definitely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.