ZEBBEEE

Giving more value to the riflman: open brainstorming

140 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, knucks said:

 

Well CRS is ignoring the player flow and only looking at money flow not realizing that the more players in game, the more people will be supporting. F2P games always hover around 30% spending 5-10 bucks a bunch, 70% playing for free maybe never buying anything, and 1% buying every single item. If we broke up our current playerbase into that it wouldn't work, there isn't enough people in game to warrant people paying money. The game is hardly playable some hours of the day there's so few people online. So attention needs to be brough to F2P because F2P is what wins the hearts and mind of people looking at this game to play, news spreads they get their friends in too, and next thing you know you have a decently sized pool of POTENTIAL customers to can offer things too, and a portion of them will ALWAYS buy, and a portion of them won't, but that's not bad like you make it to be, that's the goal is to have a large playerbase first and foremost, those people play into the CONTENT that sells this game, if there aren't enough players to play, then there is nothing to sell.

Hearts and Minds, don't put commercials into your game. Seriously. Name one other game that has that that isn't a phone game? Come on now you have to act like you give a hoot about these people's time, no one wants to be bombarded by advertisement in their video games. You're not going to win over anyone doing that it will probably hurt your profit and your image more than anything.

I don't believe this game sucks, I think this game is STUCK. Stuck as in not moving forward where it should in the model, and that's what's majorly preventing this game from seeing a take-off like it should've, would've gotten from steam if the F2P was enough. Alas it wasn't and 90% of the people who joined from steam have left months after release. I'm playing as F2P right now minus some DLC and let me tell you, it's painful. You can hardly do anything except cap and snipe people, it's like a third of a third of a third of what the game has to offer and it's not enough to keep me entertained throughout so as a greentag after getting sniped, strafed and blown up repeatedly by things I can't hope to kill, I just leave because clearly time is being wasted. In the end you feel like you've been used. You could play all the time, do everything you can and you're still just cannon fodder for people with tanks, planes and fast firing guns with explosive rounds.

If CRS free'd up the light AA/AT, 1 tank and 1 plane tomorrow, in a month we would have double the Steam population. In 3 months the Steam population would likely overtake the home site population of players, and just like that population would be much less of an issue, and you'd have a much more marketable game. That's not speculation, you'll definitely get out of F2P what you put in and what you put in is up to you CRS.

I wouldn't disagree that more attention needs to be paid on pricing and how to best support more players. That's a Xoom think..I think threads like this that point to what player bases are rather than what they were is very useful. Ultimately that's his call and all you can do is keep posting and hope he pops in to give it some thought. 

I can echo sentiments but I'm a single voice with no access to financials etc.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

@scotsman I would say if a new theater is going to be made it should be North Africa. Easier to model due to the size of the Eastern Frobt vs NA and a lot of weapons and assets can be reused from the current campaign versus modeling the entire Red Army.

 

North Africa would be quicker to do for sure... it would be nice if that was tied to a true multitheater supply model, but as many have pointed out, players is what makes the game go. Would that New map be sufficient to bring in new players? I kind of think not...as it would mainly be a new map with reskinned equipment. Russia on the other hand would be entirely new.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Russian front would be cool. That is a GIANT area to model though. If i'm not mistake its about 50% wider than our current day0/tier0 map start ... and by that i mean, if the entirety of the front up north and south were modeled.

What about Africa? There the conflict is naturally restricted to the coasts. Less for CRS to model and the front width being smaller concentrates the population more. Travel distances are on the extreme side for planes but FBs and FMS should mean travel time isn't too crazy for the ground.

the med/africa really blows out the options for naval action too radically increasing the potential there. some advantages, we've already got essentially the entire weapon set modelled - italy's weapon set being an obvious exception. africa without italy kinda isn't africa. however, italy was also involved in the russian front too. russian front technically requires the finns, hungarians, and romanians along with italy.

idk that the african theater is as marketable as russia.

idk i'd love either, seems less work to do africa though.

All true...it would be easier to do a North Africa digital model elevation model, and towns and vegetation are few and far between outside of the coast and the Nile delta. The towns wouldn't be much of an obstacle. The salt marsh and other natural obstacles limit the amount of terrain that needs to be done. 

To the likes of some players in this thread it accentuates the game weak point system though. Distance and the lack of instant action. The drives would be LONG...and taking out a FB would have truly major implications that might last days.

the game can be what we make it.. just be careful what's you ask for. If this was taken on then it would be a killer for the staff and the players if we sunk a ton of time into doing it and it didn't not attract players.  

We can potentially do a new theater technically...no issues other than tine and resources...but you have one crew. Where do the players want the emphasis? We have a major bug fix patch upcoming that hopefully stomps somelong standing issues and coding errors.

after that ? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pittpete said:

This thread is 'ripe' with free play accounts.....:huh:

Ripe for the picking :D:popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, major0noob said:

i should have specified the part of his post: "empty space making a significant portion of the game world". not even worth terrain features like bushes or outcroppings, there just to keep the ground solid. immedently followed by people advocating the empty space as far more practical and popular than it really is

 

the point of my argument was people go out of their way to deny issues/arguments and basically any negative or deficient aspect of the game

it's prevalent in the forums and with the rats. it's anti-constructive to deny issues, yet there's no checking this attitude

I'm at a loss as to how to answer this...just what are you looking for? A couple of us are here and contributing to your thoughts and comments in this thread. Doing so takes away from me preparing to code or doing new models etc. just how is it not constructive to get you to understand the limits of what can be done quickly? I'm all for some of the ideas here but I'm but one voice. The entire team is volunteers and I haveno access to the game financials...

within the limits of what I personally can say and do... I'm fully engaged. 

Its fine to be long on ideas and suggestions... it just has to be tempered with realities. If I had a million dollars I would buy the title myself and do it right...

I'd like to see you amplify on specifics and engage the team members that can answer some of this stuff. I can't - I can only pedal as fast as I can in my own lane.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, major0noob said:

i was all for the FMS, then squad mates unsubbed from boredom...

the community and rats seriously need to face reality, not the FMS, but on everything.

 

 

minky just wrote a very well written analysis on arena sizes in another thread, then guys went out of their way to contend "driving from a town over is normal", in-game it's not; people barley even get trucks out for no FB towns

the same thing can be said for almost every single issue and complaint brought up over the years: a reasonable argument or problem gets bombarded by imaginary threats and extraordinary circumstances

 

 

the rats want problem solving attitudes, but the unchecked denial attitudes completely nullifies it.

I disagree, mainly because I am one of those folks who will drive from 1 town to the next.  Please don't misunderstand, I realize that most folks don't drive ao to ao or town to town.  One of the joys of this game is that most don't have to, while those of us who are willing to (even enjoying it), CAN do it.  Talk of arena size needs to account for those of us who DO drive ao to ao or town to town.  Finding solutions is what we're ALL after.  Keeping an eye on what those solutions might result in, intentionally or unintentionally, is an important piece of solving whatever problem we are seeking to solve.

 

S!

Share this post


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

 

Well CRS is ignoring the player flow and only looking at money flow not realizing that the more players in game, the more people will be supporting. F2P games always hover around 30% spending 5-10 bucks a bunch, 70% playing for free maybe never buying anything, and 1% buying every single item. If we broke up our current playerbase into that it wouldn't work, there isn't enough people in game to warrant people paying money. The game is hardly playable some hours of the day there's so few people online. So attention needs to be brough to F2P because F2P is what wins the hearts and mind of people looking at this game to play, news spreads they get their friends in too, and next thing you know you have a decently sized pool of POTENTIAL customers to can offer things too, and a portion of them will ALWAYS buy, and a portion of them won't, but that's not bad like you make it to be, that's the goal is to have a large playerbase first and foremost, those people play into the CONTENT that sells this game, if there aren't enough players to play, then there is nothing to sell.

Hearts and Minds, don't put commercials into your game. Seriously. Name one other game that has that that isn't a phone game? Come on now you have to act like you give a hoot about these people's time, no one wants to be bombarded by advertisement in their video games. You're not going to win over anyone doing that it will probably hurt your profit and your image more than anything.

I don't believe this game sucks, I think this game is STUCK. Stuck as in not moving forward where it should in the model, and that's what's majorly preventing this game from seeing a take-off like it should've, would've gotten from steam if the F2P was enough. Alas it wasn't and 90% of the people who joined from steam have left months after release. I'm playing as F2P right now minus some DLC and let me tell you, it's painful. You can hardly do anything except cap and snipe people, it's like a third of a third of a third of what the game has to offer and it's not enough to keep me entertained throughout so as a greentag after getting sniped, strafed and blown up repeatedly by things I can't hope to kill, I just leave because clearly time is being wasted. In the end you feel like you've been used. You could play all the time, do everything you can and you're still just cannon fodder for people with tanks, planes and fast firing guns with explosive rounds.

If CRS free'd up the light AA/AT, 1 tank and 1 plane tomorrow, in a month we would have double the Steam population. In 3 months the Steam population would likely overtake the home site population of players, and just like that population would be much less of an issue, and you'd have a much more marketable game. That's not speculation, you'll definitely get out of F2P what you put in and what you put in is up to you CRS.

I understand your point about not putting commercials into the game (at loading screens or in between spawns), but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea.  The market for music, for example, includes those who download a ton of music via Apple, etc., but there also seems to be room for folks like me, who just create a playlist on YouTube, or Spotify, and then decide whether or not to pay to exclude commercials.  If there's a market for that sort of thing in music, I would think there is also a market for that sort of thing in a game.

 

Going backwards (with all apologies) on your post, it is unfair to conclude that CRS is 'ignoring the player flow...'  While they are being remarkably transparent, it is inaccurate to conclude that you (or I) know all of what is going on behind the scenes.

 

I am glad you don't believe this game 'sucks', and I understand your concern regarding it being 'stuck'.  I believe they are not 'stuck', but instead are in the process of figuring out which changes are best, and which can either be ignored or put on the back burner.  Like it or not, preserving that which people have enjoyed for 17 years IS important---no less important than finding ways of attracting new (and with any luck some returning) players.

 

Personally, I wouldnt' be against spreading the F2P options to tier 0 equipment (for example), but I do worry that expecting folks to roll around in R35s (instead of Somuas, again for example), might not result in the 'I gotta sign up so I can play ALL the tanks' deal that CRS is hoping for.  For all we know folks rolling around in R35s would reach inaccurate conclusions about the game based simply on the performance of that particular vehicle.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Pittpete said:

This thread is 'ripe' with free play accounts.....:huh:

Well if the goal is to attract free play accounts to change into paying accounts, I guess it makes sense to hear what they think would be helpful.  I understand the valid concern that a bunch of people who don't support the game being involved in discussions on how to improve a game others support financially is odd, but so long as CRS keeps in mind that preserving that which we have enjoyed and/or supported for 17 years is just as important as finding ways to attract new supporters, we'll be ok.

 

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, augetout said:

I understand your point about not putting commercials into the game (at loading screens or in between spawns), but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea.  The market for music, for example, includes those who download a ton of music via Apple, etc., but there also seems to be room for folks like me, who just create a playlist on YouTube, or Spotify, and then decide whether or not to pay to exclude commercials.  If there's a market for that sort of thing in music, I would think there is also a market for that sort of thing in a game.

Personally, I wouldnt' be against spreading the F2P options to tier 0 equipment (for example), but I do worry that expecting folks to roll around in R35s (instead of Somuas, again for example), might not result in the 'I gotta sign up so I can play ALL the tanks' deal that CRS is hoping for.  For all we know folks rolling around in R35s would reach inaccurate conclusions about the game based simply on the performance of that particular vehicle.

 

S!

Sorry I'm not too familiar with the Allies equipment. If your making a comparison to the panzer with 20mm gun, and one with the 37mm gun, then yes there is a difference there, there is also a difference between the 37mm and the 50mm Panzer. To use those as examples, I would give the 20mm and the 37mm to the f2p player. I would use the 50mm as DLC, a medium, mid gun mid armor tank, probably worth a good 10-15 bucks on it's own. Then above that, subscription. I don't mean that exactly as is, obviously different tanks have different purposes that need to be accounted for. The 75mm short nosed stug isn't going to be on the same level at the long barreled 75's, or even the standard long barreled 50mm.
So tier 0 does kind of fill that sort of basic equipment niche, for the Axis at least. Some hand picking may still be necessary.

There will always be demand for the biggest and the best and that's what the subscription should be offering IMO. 15 bucks a month is no short money, have enough people in game paying that then you really aren't hurting that much, if you pair it well with DLC but it all starts with the F2P experience. If it aint solid new players will fall through the cracks S!
I think you could sell the half track AA's as a DLC, those things are damn cool but I don't see them used much.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can we figure out a way to tie FTP to an amazon affiliate link? if you use an amazon affiliate link to shop then you unlock access to more gear? this way CRS gets some money from the player's amazon purchases and the player gets access to more stuff essentially for free.

 

just a thought.

Share this post


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

All true...it would be easier to do a North Africa digital model elevation model, and towns and vegetation are few and far between outside of the coast and the Nile delta. The towns wouldn't be much of an obstacle. The salt marsh and other natural obstacles limit the amount of terrain that needs to be done. 

To the likes of some players in this thread it accentuates the game weak point system though. Distance and the lack of instant action. The drives would be LONG...and taking out a FB would have truly major implications that might last days.

the game can be what we make it.. just be careful what's you ask for. If this was taken on then it would be a killer for the staff and the players if we sunk a ton of time into doing it and it didn't not attract players.  

We can potentially do a new theater technically...no issues other than tine and resources...but you have one crew. Where do the players want the emphasis? We have a major bug fix patch upcoming that hopefully stomps somelong standing issues and coding errors.

after that ? 

 

I guess this question is one for @XOOM. I am personally a major supporter of WW2OL 2.0 on a new engine to really bring our project into the future. That being said, I’d also support a new a new threatre (on that point I agree with North Africa as the best option). The question is what is going to be the direction going forward, understanding that resources are limited. Not asking for an answer right this moment but I am very curious to know what the roadmap is going to be in regards to this after all the polls we have had lately. 

Keep em flying S! 

Share this post


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

All true...it would be easier to do a North Africa digital model elevation model, and towns and vegetation are few and far between outside of the coast and the Nile delta. The towns wouldn't be much of an obstacle. The salt marsh and other natural obstacles limit the amount of terrain that needs to be done. 

To the likes of some players in this thread it accentuates the game weak point system though. Distance and the lack of instant action. The drives would be LONG...and taking out a FB would have truly major implications that might last days.

the game can be what we make it.. just be careful what's you ask for. If this was taken on then it would be a killer for the staff and the players if we sunk a ton of time into doing it and it didn't not attract players.  

We can potentially do a new theater technically...no issues other than tine and resources...but you have one crew. Where do the players want the emphasis? We have a major bug fix patch upcoming that hopefully stomps somelong standing issues and coding errors.

after that ? 

 

might be a great place to roll out area capture with a progressive mobile spawn feature set? meaning, focusing the fight/forces is mainly around some 'new' PPO that is somewhere between an FB and an FMS that can deploy in an area you own and capture progressively instead of the exiting town/cp only system? keeps the distances down to some extent.

idk just spit ballin.

russia has a lot more upside potential i'm guessing though. the med/africa has been largely ignored by ww2 sims. a few here and there but certainly not as popular as Russia. russia opens up the possibility for a two front war too, however, we'd want significantly more players before we really want to actively work on splitting the pop we have.

maybe run them serially? if france never falls, russia never starts then after the existing map plays out, next campaign is only russia with an assumed french capitulation? what if france falls though, but in tier 3? do we assume molotov-ribbentrop pact holds till tier3? would make for an interesting invasion where as the 'real' invasion time frame has a relatively weak russia back peddling for awhile. on this note, if france never falls what of africa? the DAK likely never gets sent to africa leaving a pretty weak italian force fending for themselves.

either theater has questions that need answers.

 

Share this post


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

Sorry I'm not too familiar with the Allies equipment. If your making a comparison to the panzer with 20mm gun, and one with the 37mm gun, then yes there is a difference there, there is also a difference between the 37mm and the 50mm Panzer. To use those as examples, I would give the 20mm and the 37mm to the f2p player. I would use the 50mm as DLC, a medium, mid gun mid armor tank, probably worth a good 10-15 bucks on it's own. Then above that, subscription. I don't mean that exactly as is, obviously different tanks have different purposes that need to be accounted for. The 75mm short nosed stug isn't going to be on the same level at the long barreled 75's, or even the standard long barreled 50mm.
So tier 0 does kind of fill that sort of basic equipment niche, for the Axis at least. Some hand picking may still be necessary.

There will always be demand for the biggest and the best and that's what the subscription should be offering IMO. 15 bucks a month is no short money, have enough people in game paying that then you really aren't hurting that much, if you pair it well with DLC but it all starts with the F2P experience. If it aint solid new players will fall through the cracks S!
I think you could sell the half track AA's as a DLC, those things are damn cool but I don't see them used much.

I used the R35, because a jogging rifleman can pass an R35 at full throttle, lol, and the low velocity rounds they carry literally arc onto a target, to little effect tank on tank.  Before I get lambasted, I should point out that I understand the R35 is modeled accurately, and fully support that it is not that good of a tank.

 

Follow your logic (please):  If someone pays for (in your example), the 50mm PzIII, (or the halftrack for that matter), and when they arrive in-game the PzIIIH is not available due to spawn limits, how are they going to react?  If the spawn lists are expanded to ensure that sort of thing doesn't happen, how are the folks who see attrition as a way to win a battle going to react?  In my humble opinion, therein lies at least a good share of the challenge, in that we have to concentrate on making things more attractive to a new sect of players, without turning the game into Battlefield 1942 with a big map, (by the way @Merlin51 I am old enough to remember when that video came out, lol), which would chase a significant number of us 'milsim' folks away.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, scotsman said:

I'm at a loss as to how to answer this...just what are you looking for? A couple of us are here and contributing to your thoughts and comments in this thread. Doing so takes away from me preparing to code or doing new models etc. just how is it not constructive to get you to understand the limits of what can be done quickly? I'm all for some of the ideas here but I'm but one voice. The entire team is volunteers and I haveno access to the game financials...

within the limits of what I personally can say and do... I'm fully engaged. 

Its fine to be long on ideas and suggestions... it just has to be tempered with realities. If I had a million dollars I would buy the title myself and do it right...

I'd like to see you amplify on specifics and engage the team members that can answer some of this stuff. I can't - I can only pedal as fast as I can in my own lane.

in the FMS's case, the build time has been reduced to 1min. the issue was no longer up for discussion. any talk about it got deleted.

nothing constructive about that...

 

 

i'm looking for a constructive attitude in the devs, especially in terms of facing reality and being decisive.

not just for the FMS, everything.

 

another example is the RPATS nerf, the unit outclassed everything in tank kills with only 5 supply, ruined ZoC gameplay, unsubbed tankers, and straight up trolled veh spawns. it got the most pathetic nerf i've ever seen.

the RPATS is a undeniable problem, they've ruined soo much of the game being the ultimate rambo unit (while CRS hates this type of gameplay), nothing was done... by the time a fix was introduced it was the least critical fix ever

there was nothing constructive about the fix. nothing constructive about letting the unit run rampant. the devs were not critical with a fix and did not see the scale of the problem.

 

 

the 09's flight model on the other hand, did do something significant and constructive. your own work on the HE as well (it worked eventually)

both were decisive and acknowledged a problem

but there sooo much that is just plain ignored or underestimated...

 

 

i'll take this back to the F2P argument. sorry for going soo off topic

knucks's point about F2P's access to basic units and game pop is another example of this

they had the rank 0 planes and vehicles a few years ago without fuss, subscriber gear tore them apart. but they got to experience the air and armour aspects of the game, in this sense it could be called F2P (in the sense of playing different aspects of the game). now F2P is just rifles but WWII:OL is still called free to play when it is clearly not.

 

they're not facing reality, the game is not in the F2P genre

he does have a good point about F2P using basic stuff and being useful but still fodder for subscribers. although it'll be pay 2 win

 

sorry if i'm rambley, been up for 24h on coffee and energy drinks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it and there is HEAT shaped charge modeling fix as part of the bug patch...its not correct the way it was modeled by the old team...again one guy doing all I can...I finished two new models and two new vpits today...All while doing a meeting and working a revised aircraft damage model...I have but two hands... 

BTW I pointed the HEAT modeling issue back before the RPATS were released - but I was player then just like you...guys that did not know what they were doing made it what they thought it should be with no basis in shaped charge mechanics. 

And no worries....this is civilized discussion as it should be. I wish you could see how much this new bunch is getting done...way more productive than the old crew.. Still we are limited by what we have. Only one current creator guy etc....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH this is probably one of the most constructive communities out there so I don't understand some who posts that nobody listens. It's actually shocking how much developer input there is. I play a lot of the Paradox games and posting on the forums is met with deafening silence followed by a "doing it this way kthxbye." Many titles are the same way.

But that is beside the point in general and this thread in particular.

I think the rifle is good as it now. Giving them a HEAT charge will kill the tank game. And as it stands now except for close urban combat the rifle is king.

 

Share this post


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

Ripe for the picking :D:popcorn:

Put in a support ticket and i can remedy that with a nice subscription.

I'll make it worth your while;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my $.02, having a bayonet that i can use while carrying the rifle and not having to switch weapons would make the rifleman much more of a viable choice. How many times do two riflemen bump into each other and trade shots while dodging and reloading... bayonet to the rescue! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, goreblimey said:

I get it your model isn't FTP. It's gimme gimme gimme someone else pay so I can play.

I'll grant you this game is too expensive for what it offers the casual gamer though. You can buy 6 titles for your yearly subscription to this game. 

I play a lot , I get value for what I play, if I played a lot less I'm not sure I would see value in what is being offered.

That I believe is where the subscription system fails. It almost demands that I play constantly to justify the cost. I can see theyre trying but, retreating from a subscription model without other means of monetisation is probably seen as high risk and one that is almost irreversible if proven a wrong step. Let's not forget CRS is not the organ grinder , just the monkey.

We are working on this and as @XOOMsaid what for something shortly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for allowing the FPA account to access the early aircraft, light AA, light tank, light ATG and FMB.

Not sure it makes sense money wise; but it does make sense game wise.

I can then include all the FPA players on our squad ops, if we go AA, they can use Flak 30, if we go ATG, they can take pak 36, we tank IIC, etc.

Right now hard to include FPA on squad operations.

I think the rifle/truck combo is very worthy, but not sure most new players know that, or how to use it.

Edited by delems
4 people like this

Share this post


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

 without turning the game into Battlefield 1942 with a big map, (by the way @Merlin51 I am old enough to remember when that video came out, lol), which would chase a significant number of us 'milsim' folks away.

 

S!

You guys have been bad mouthing BF1942 and the people who played since it came out!   Meanwhile it’s was a fun game and lead to how many sequels and expansions and who knows how much money for Dice/EA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, rendus said:

You guys have been bad mouthing BF1942 and the people who played since it came out!   Meanwhile it’s was a fun game and lead to how many sequels and expansions and who knows how much money for Dice/EA?

No, i own bf42 and bf swoflw and bfv
The are fine for silly WWII themed shoot em ups
Are they a realistic sim?
Nope

Left4Dead is fun too, do i want zombies here and crowbars?
Probably not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rendus said:

You guys have been bad mouthing BF1942 and the people who played since it came out!   Meanwhile it’s was a fun game and lead to how many sequels and expansions and who knows how much money for Dice/EA?

I have not been badmouthing the game's players, ever.  I'm sure it was fun, as COD is fun, medal of honor was fun, and so on.  None comes as close as wwiionline to delivering on the ulitimate wwii wargame.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only been back playing for a couple weeks now so I don't have a clue if this is even feasible or been tried before. 

Instead of widening what weapins/vehicles a f2p account can use, why not have the option to pick up a weapon from a dead soldier. Not the entire kit, literally just that weapon. 

 

For example. 

Able to pick up a PIAT, dropping your rifle but only having that 1 round in the PIAT to use. Once used, that's it, you either need to pick up the same rifle again to use your remaining kit ammo or rinse and repeat above. 

I believe Insurgency uses a similar mechanic which I think works well. 

 

This gives f2p a glimpse at other classes without making them a rambo free for all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.