• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Crs Wants You!   01/18/2019

      CRS is looking for some volunteer live support chat staff.  Are you up for the assignment?  If so,  please send an email with your interest to,  Jobs@corneredrats.com
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
potthead

New ToEs/ New Toys /Long Intermission / Beta Testing / 1.36?

15 posts in this topic

Hi folks S!, (for many it is TLDR ... for rest thanks for reading... smoke your joint before hand please)

------------------------

Summary:

Many are not happy with the campagne feeling like a TEST for new ToEs for town garrison supply 1.36 in 1.35 environment and are playing less (hopefully still keeping subs for a while)

If we somehow fund CRS until 1.36 .. can the game be free for all so players that DONT want to volunteerly pay ... can do the BETA testing for free..

------------------------

 

I have been reading through some of the threads.. especially about ToE changes and also 1.36 arrival.

This is what I understand thus far...

A. 1.36 Town Based Hybrid Supply is coming in next month or two? (Q1 2019) - with initially most emphasis on Town supply with a small supplement for HC to play with as well.

B. CRS is testing out the Tables of Equipment (ToE) currently in each brigade by adjusting what sort and count of equipment is available in infantry vs Armour and HQ brigades to see what is best to have in towns for the Garrison supply which will then be supplemented by support flags that are movable 

C. CRS is at the same time testing out changing the ToEs to be more on historical basis with aim to give advantage to those who use the historical doctrine of their side along with teamwork and get an edge over the other-side

D. CRS is spending some resources to keep the maps going in the test mode but as much as possible with feel of normal campagns while the rest of team is working on 1.36 release

 

 

So above is what I have gathered by reading various threads / announcements etc.. I may be wrong in some so please correct me if you can.

 

However based on above I also observe below points which are opinions/perceptive only:

A. Many Allied predominantly infantry players are upset by the fact of disadvantage of SMGs/ LMGs (Huyge problem in my personal opinion for game play - u can not compensate INF with anything else until area capture comes) 

B. Many Axis players are unhappy with amount of Matilda tanks that British infantry brigades have while Axis infantry get few STUG-B and 232s (Hyuge and easy to whine about matter, after all it is MATTIES, they are Tigers are of T0 - but do not have as much impact on the map as lack of Auto weapons in CPs in actual game play)

C.Many predominantly TANK players on both sides are altogether upset as the battles don't have access to Armour as readily as they used to until this map (i.e not the game they purchased from their view)

D. Some players are happy that CRS is testing new ways to change the dynamics of the game play and get more infantry battles and attrition battles

E. Some players are not interested in "too much" testing and change at the same time and feel like they are paying to Beta test for 1.36 in 1.35 environment

F. Actual battles can BE VERY fun when both sides are semi-low on supply .. few tanks around and intense fight goes on but this is quite rare as many stars need to align (Allied need to have a bit more inf brigades around, they need to be french, then British inf need to be no where nearby but a French Armour flag in play... Axis need to have a Armour unit and INF need to be depleted of a fair amount of LMGs/SMGs and need a decent number of players on .. (when this happens it is SO MUCH fun in this map... have seen it a few times only though)

G. Brigade rotation/seemingly endless supply in towns in a limited time zone is still problematic when two good M.OICs go head to head (although rare these days again)

 

Conclusion / Question::: If we go on a LONGER intermission . Say 1 week or 2 weeks or 3 weeks .. Dedicate more resources to 1.36.. can it come any sooner?

 

I hate to see us lose players by being in this extended test mode campaign(s)...... Many on Axis (who are winning) and Allies who are losing are NOT HAPPY CUSTOMERS at this moment (only my perception, I personally love this game too much to be unhappy)

 

What about making the game completely free until 1.36 through a crowd funding effort to pay for the loss of revenues during this period while the BETA tests of 1.36 happen (in 1.35 environment with supply number changes etc as we are doing now, lets face it .. this is at BEST a BETA test MAP of the new ToEs)  - I am willing to put down the first $136 USD for 1.36 - just tell us the number and we will give you the cash to make game FREE for ALL until 1.36.. 

 

Until then we can play with the new toys in higher tiers which until 1.36 maps probably wont last to those tiers... 

 

Thanks for reading and S! ,

Potthead

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My perception: [Winning side always happy] + [Losing side always unhappy] = Normal Situation (since 2001)

                           [Losing side gripes about this or that] + [winning side counter arguments] = Normal Situation (since 2001)

Most, if not all, campaigns are mainly won by the side with consistent player numbers in its favor and thus better overall player morale. I will not go into all the factors that affect those numbers as they have been discussed ad nauseum. The one I will mention is this: losing side usually fields a high number of players at start of a new campaign. Winning side seems to field a lower number as many are taking a break after a hard fought win.

Re "Test" environment: The game is always evolving, albeit at a slow pace, so to argue CRS owes us players a "free" experience for the duration until 1.36 arrives does not make good business sense.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my biggest concerns is that this is turning primarily into inf vs inf battles.  Not a bad thing, it's what I love most, but the inf model in this game is severely lacking.  It will not bring in new people.  Until this part of the game is made better, the game as a whole won't get better, if in fact this is what the game's future entails.  Bad controls, bad graphics, bad animations, etc......

5 people like this

Share this post


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

Conclusion / Question::: If we go on a LONGER intermission . Say 1 week or 2 weeks or 3 weeks .. Dedicate more resources to 1.36.. can it come any sooner?

People have a hissy fit if its longer than 3 days and you want 3 wks?? Never gonna happen.

1.36 will be an open beta campgain as I understand it.  It will come hopefully soon in Q1 than the end of Q1

Longer intermission does not mean they can work on 1.36 any faster.

Edited by bmw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in another thread as well:

One of my biggest concerns is that this is turning primarily into inf vs inf battles.  Not a bad thing, it's what I love most, but the inf model in this game is severely lacking.  It will not bring in new people.  Until this part of the game is made better, the game as a whole won't get better, if in fact this is what the game's future entails.  Bad controls, bad graphics, bad animations, etc......

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raise good points and I think you summarized it well except for the testing part. There really isn't any testing being done, rather a paradigm shift to a more historical basis for weapon introduction and production costs. As has been said non of these numbers are set in stone and changes will be made as appropriate. Many/most MMO games make changes and adjust based in player feedback. I doubt this time will be different.

As far as making gameplay free until 1.36 that would be Xoom's call but that would be pretty unprecedented for a game company to do something like that. Personally I would reserve any sort of funding drives for concrete things to improve the game.

S!

 

Edited by aismov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think if we go “free” the servers could no longer be paid for, the development tools can no longer be paid for and then no one, including the “free” players, will be able to play at all. Simple economics.

5 people like this

Share this post


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

I would think if we go “free” the servers could no longer be paid for, the development tools can no longer be paid for and then no one, including the “free” players, will be able to play at all. Simple economics.

@SCKING I didn't say go Free as in have no cash flow .. I'm not that stoned! ;)

 

16 hours ago, potthead said:

What about making the game completely free until 1.36 through a crowd funding effort to pay for the loss of revenues during this period while the BETA tests of 1.36 happen (in 1.35 environment with supply number changes etc as we are doing now, lets face it .. this is at BEST a BETA test MAP of the new ToEs)  - I am willing to put down the first $136 USD for 1.36 - just tell us the number and we will give you the cash to make game FREE for ALL until 1.36.. 

 

I suggested for the time until 1.36.... Free For All.... Via the funds being paid by volunteers who are so passionate about 1.36 through a community crowd fund and subsidize others. ( I will pay the first $136, hekc i was first thinking $1,360 but wife would probably kick my [censored].. but still even then if shortfall comes to about $1000, i will cover.. ) not sure who much cash flow comes from the time from now till 1.36 is out that is made from SUBs... just temporarily not charging those and use the fund from the people who don't mind paying for the test period before 1.36 comes out...and maybe that way the STRESS test can be done in more meaningful way as well. 

hope that makes more sense.. 

Thanks,

S! Potthead

Edited by potthead

Share this post


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

Raise good points and I think you summarized it well except for the testing part. There really isn't any testing being done, rather a paradigm shift to a more historical basis for weapon introduction and production costs. As has been said non of these numbers are set in stone and changes will be made as appropriate. Many/most MMO games make changes and adjust based in player feedback. I doubt this time will be different.

As far as making gameplay free until 1.36 that would be Xoom's call but that would be pretty unprecedented for a game company to do something like that. Personally I would reserve any sort of funding drives for concrete things to improve the game.

S!

 

I just got the impression from reading the post and forums... I read a lot about tweaks and tests of new lists and lack of some equipment etc etc...and people to be patient and keep paying until the test results are more tangible for 1.36 .... (again i may have got wrong impressions)

while we always have been testing stuff change of timers for flag moves.. spawn delay tweaks, cap timer tweaks... fms range etc.... they usually were relatively subtle..

One time the test was so extreme went to 60 sec cap timers and it was stopped in a few short days and map was called a truce because it was TOO MUCH test for the average player.

I am starting to feel the changes/ tests being done at the same time are a bit too much for the average player and maybe making them log in less (CRS would know that via numbers) TOM shows this as well compared to other maps.

CRS on occasions has done WBS (Although that is not FREE for ALL as the current sub payers still had to pay).. I am saying a sort of a community sponsored (by the more passionate people who want to see 1.36 come out as success) free period for all that way. 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tac2i said:

My perception: [Winning side always happy] + [Losing side always unhappy] = Normal Situation (since 2001)

                           [Losing side gripes about this or that] + [winning side counter arguments] = Normal Situation (since 2001)

Agree however the situation now is a bit different.. Axis are winning severly but I have never seen the side chat being more unhappy and feel of "bias" which is what has prompted me to rethink.

If the winning side is unhappy and the losing side is unhappy... then above trend is being changed for once in a very long time from my perception.

 

subtle changes are one thing... extremes that make it FEEL like a "test" are another.... 

Not to have same amount of inf after having same amount of inf on both sides for example after many many years... BIG change

Having from 2-3 to 10+ Matties in a brigade is a BIG change

Having 0 panzers in inf brigade that have a MG on them.. BIG change

Not small tweaks... whilst i personally will be more than happy to PAY to test... doesnt look like many more in community are... (just again my perception)

I am putting my wallet on the line... offered the first $136 towards it... but willing to make that much more if others think it is worthwhile..

Cheers,S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just there are big changes. Having been here since 2001 (not as if you haven't been around either) you get this type of attitude from time to time. The most vocal take to chat to give their opinion, which is fine, but often it is of the "there is a conspiracy against us by CRS" variety. I think we've been having a good discussion on the current system, and irrespective of which way the map is moving you simply can't decide based on a couple weeks of spawning in (especially if one side is underpop).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't that the POINT?

The tests are invalid if one side doesn't turn up and play.

Share this post


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

But isn't that the POINT?

The tests are invalid if one side doesn't turn up and play.

I'll take a longer stab at this since as part of my job I work with data and statistics professionally. Any system you have, outside of the hard sciences such as physics, you are going to find impossible to create a controlled testing environment. The amount of noise and confounding variables are simply too high. That is why a correlation in the social sciences of 0.7 is considered amazing. If you should a physicist a correlation like that they would laugh you out of the lab. All data we have is going to have to be subject to some assumptions, but the most important tenet I have always followed is that if you forever wait for the "perfect" data set to make the most precise decisions from, you are doing to be waiting for eternity.

Unfortunately we have to make do with the data we have. Control for variability the best way we can, and when we can't, fill in the holes with proven statistical or analytic methodologies or make educated assumptions (i.e. guess) regarding what is the best thing to do. It is a very tough act to do, but at some point we have to make a decision.

I'll quote Gen. Patton in this regard: "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite time in the future." Absolutely right. Yes mistakes will be made. Soldiers will die. Ground will be lost. But that is infinitely better than fighting a war like Gen. McClellan... agonizing over every detail but never getting your army out on the battlefield because you were waiting on the 16th shipment of reserve shoe polish to come just in case President Lincoln make a snap inspection of the troops at the front.

Our tests will always be invalid if we really get into the nitty and gritty. The art of it all is making informed decisions despite imperfect information and doing it in a timely fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎23‎/‎01‎/‎2019 at 4:23 AM, aismov said:

I'll take a longer stab at this since as part of my job I work with data and statistics professionally. Any system you have, outside of the hard sciences such as physics, you are going to find impossible to create a controlled testing environment. The amount of noise and confounding variables are simply too high. That is why a correlation in the social sciences of 0.7 is considered amazing. If you should a physicist a correlation like that they would laugh you out of the lab. All data we have is going to have to be subject to some assumptions, but the most important tenet I have always followed is that if you forever wait for the "perfect" data set to make the most precise decisions from, you are doing to be waiting for eternity.

Unfortunately we have to make do with the data we have. Control for variability the best way we can, and when we can't, fill in the holes with proven statistical or analytic methodologies or make educated assumptions (i.e. guess) regarding what is the best thing to do. It is a very tough act to do, but at some point we have to make a decision.

I'll quote Gen. Patton in this regard: "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite time in the future." Absolutely right. Yes mistakes will be made. Soldiers will die. Ground will be lost. But that is infinitely better than fighting a war like Gen. McClellan... agonizing over every detail but never getting your army out on the battlefield because you were waiting on the 16th shipment of reserve shoe polish to come just in case President Lincoln make a snap inspection of the troops at the front.

Our tests will always be invalid if we really get into the nitty and gritty. The art of it all is making informed decisions despite imperfect information and doing it in a timely fashion.

Every day that passes that a customer does not log in and play makes it more likely that he will not play the following day. CRS can see how many people are playing and for how long, my personal experience is less total players playing, and players in game for less time, but that is my perception and not the CRS hard data. My perception is that another 20%+ of the already diminished playerbase has pretty much given up logging in (2 AOs are becoming a rare weekend only sight) and guys are doing/playing something else instead (very few will be on these forums, they are off having fun!).

To go back to the OP, I understand what Potthead is saying, but personally I did not want to be their beta tester, even if the game is free. I want to play a game and have fun. If I am playing this game that means I want to spawn a panzer some of the time and I want to have someone to shoot at. Even if I could spawn a panzer there would be little to do - I cant really take on the horde of Matties, and the 15+ attacking axis inf smgs and lmgs are mowing down the 4 or 5 allied rifles attempting to hold the last few CPs.

Potthead is right, neither side is happy, just the few fanboys on the forums who will eventually be the only guys left with premium subscriptions but who for the most part do not seem to actually play very much. Give the testing a few weeks? Everyday that passes makes it less likely that players will come back. Successful subscription game companies do not completely change the dynamics of their game without first making sure that they are taking their customers with them, you needed the allies to buy into the idea of half the supply of auto weapons and the axis players to be willing to forgo using panzers for the majority of DOs.

CRS could save themselves some forum and in game chat "pain" by telling the playerbase on these forums in a clear easy to find post "This is the spawn lists for T0 Map XYZ" before a map starts and just as each new Tier is implemented. Then when we start off with 41 tanks in a brit inf flag we know it is cocked up and it will be fixed - posts are than "Hi CRS you need to fix the numbers here, here, and here" and not "OMG 41 brit tanks v 3 Stugs and four 232s!". If we know what the numbers are supposed to be then we can spot mistakes. If all we have been fed is "Hardest Campaign Ever" bull then all we see are ridiculous imbalance in numbers because we presume the spawn lists are correct (hell even the first correction was still cocked up!)

We keep being told that these experimental TOEs are here to stay and are needed for 1.36 town based supply - to me that does not bode well for 1.36 spawnlists.

Personally, I fear that there is so much expectation being ramped up on 1.36 that even if it is a good improvement it might not be rated as a success simply because so many are expecting far too much. I am sure many unsubbed vets will check it out, I certainly will come back to see how it is working out, but having moved on from WWIIOL will it be enough to make them want to resub?  We shall just have to wait and see........

 

S! Ian

Edited by ian77
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 7:19 AM, tac2i said:

My perception: [Winning side always happy] + [Losing side always unhappy] = Normal Situation (since 2001)

                           [Losing side gripes about this or that] + [winning side counter arguments] = Normal Situation (since 2001)

Most, if not all, campaigns are mainly won by the side with consistent player numbers in its favor and thus better overall player morale. I will not go into all the factors that affect those numbers as they have been discussed ad nauseum. The one I will mention is this: losing side usually fields a high number of players at start of a new campaign. Winning side seems to field a lower number as many are taking a break after a hard fought win.

Re "Test" environment: The game is always evolving, albeit at a slow pace, so to argue CRS owes us players a "free" experience for the duration until 1.36 arrives does not make good business sense.

 

True and Not too far from real life. So HC's should take this into account when conceiving a battle plan. Don't demoralize your player base with grand strategies. Stick with small winnable goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.