xanthus

What is being done to address the numbers imbalance?

105 posts in this topic

11 hours ago, major0noob said:

*the majority that's left*

 

I started the campaign on Axis, and by the end of day two it was obvious that the numbers were absurdly out of whack; it was like beating up a toddler. Not fun in the least. Switched to Allied and realized just how bad the imbalance really is this campaign.

I'm sorry, but the biased Axis players pretending that nothing's wrong are absolutely insane.

4 people like this

Share this post


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

*the majority that's left*

It left with TOEs yearzzz ago.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

...locking F2P is a horrible idea

Agreed, whether a paid subscription or F2P, a player should never, ever be forced to play a particular side. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not seeing a pop imbalance as much as I am seeing an imbalance in the number of veteran players, with the Allies (currently) coming up on the short end of that stick.

 

In other words, during the late-night portion of my gaming the past couple of weeks, I have seen the Allies go overpop a ton of times, without it having the positive effect everyone assumes it should have.  In fact, I think being overpop on the basis of having more new players ingame actually (short term only) hurts the Allied side, as it shortens the cap timers for the aggressive axis vets who are ingame during those time periods.

 

The solution for that, is to get as many of the new players as possible 'trained' up as quickly as possible.  Yes I understand most of the steam players are (currently) going to dip in and out of the game thus making attempts to teach the game somewhat frustrating.  In the end, we were all new once, and we all had to learn the game somehow---and for the Allies, the quicker we can get the new players squared away the better off the Allies will be, and the better off gameplay in general will be.  We (everyone, not just Allied players) need to redouble our efforts at reaching out to the new players, putting our frustration on the time wasted on some of the other folks aside.  Keeping new players engaged will add to the ingame population on a more consistent basis, and will fix much of the pop imbalance that folks are feeling, all while improving gameplay and thus fun.

 

S!

Edited by augetout
5 people like this

Share this post


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

The solution for that, is to get as many of the new players as possible 'trained' up as quickly as possible.  Yes I understand most of the steam players are (currently) going to dip in and out of the game thus making attempts to teach the game somewhat frustrating.  In the end, we were all new once, and we all had to learn the game somehow---and for the Allies, the quicker we can get the new players squared away the better off the Allies will be, and the better off gameplay in general will be.  We (everyone, not just Allied players) need to redouble our efforts at reaching out to the new players, putting our frustration on the time wasted on some of the other folks aside.  Keeping new players engaged will add to the ingame population on a more consistent basis, and will fix much of the pop imbalance that folks are feeling, all while improving gameplay and thus fun.

They dip in and out to see if there's anymore things to do except rifleman. You honestly think in your minds people want to pay $120 dollars a year for a 20 year old game, they don't even do that for NEW games anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair I am not in favour of sidelocks in general. I brought it up because its the only forced lock I could think of that might be acceptable to the community. But as Augetout pointed out, we were all new once, and those new players likely want to be able to choose who they play as. Sidelocks are out, that has been made clear once again.  Need to find more ways to bring in new players and keep them in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So buy a DLC?
One time, done.
Want more stuff? Want a tiger? You can sub.
Cant sub continuously? No problem, you keep the DLC regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like there is a 60-40 pop in the game. Axis being the favored side.

Hopefully 1.36 will come out quickly and maybe it will pull some oldtimers back.

But if falls under the umbrella of the dreaded 'SOON'. 

Share this post


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

They dip in and out to see if there's anymore things to do except rifleman. You honestly think in your minds people want to pay $120 dollars a year for a 20 year old game, they don't even do that for NEW games anymore.

I believe a certain percentage of people are going to subscribe to the whole game, yes.

I believe a certain percentage of new players are going to spawn in, see that the graphics aren't brand new, without realizing the depth this game has, and bolt for greener (no pun intended) pastures.

I also believe a certain percentage of new players spawn in, run smack dab into a learning curve that is far different than most FPS games they may have played, and thus leave the game-----unless they get some help during their early learning phase of gameplay.  The people who you are championing, (those who spawn in and don't see much to do as a rifleman), have a certain percentage within that group who are really a group within the group of players who are running into that learning curve.  Yes I understand that some are spawning in expecting the whole game to be available to them.  Efforts are being expended to market more effectively to those folks, but they can't be the only efforts expended.

 

Right now, the folks who want to stick around for the learning curve but not pay can do so, and they have DLC options available to them that don't require full subscriptions, and no doubt CRS is working on things in the background to more effectively market to that particular group of potential players.

 

By the same token, efforts are being made at improving the graphics to keep a higher percentage of new players who are going to base their decisions on the quality of graphics.

 

All that and you missed/ignored the point I was making, which was that my recent observations, especially in late-night US time, are that the Allies are NOT underpop, but are still outmanned because of a lower percentage of veteran players being ingame at that time for the Allies, and that until marketing efforts (which are already showing marked improvements in new players, etc), end up bearing long-term fruit (more players who have been in-game for enough time to know what is going on), that a short term help would be for Allied veteran players to redouble our efforts at making sure new players are helped as much as possible, as that will indeed result in more players sticking around through the learning curve, and with a little 'the Allies were the guys who helped me' loyalty thrown into the equation, will at least help with the in-game imbalance in solid players.

 

S!

Edited by augetout

Share this post


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

I believe a certain percentage of people are going to subscribe to the whole game, yes.

I believe a certain percentage of new players are going to spawn in, see that the graphics aren't brand new, without realizing the depth this game has, and bolt for greener (no pun intended) pastures.

I also believe a certain percentage of new players spawn in, run smack dab into a learning curve that is far different than most FPS games they may have played, and thus leave the game-----unless they get some help during their early learning phase of gameplay.  The people who you are championing, (those who spawn in and don't see much to do as a rifleman), have a certain percentage within that group who are really a group within the group of players who are running into that learning curve.  Yes I understand that some are spawning in expecting the whole game to be available to them.  Efforts are being expended to market more effectively to those folks, but they can't be the only efforts expended.

 

Right now, the folks who want to stick around for the learning curve but not pay can do so, and they have DLC options available to them that don't require full subscriptions, and no doubt CRS is working on things in the background to more effectively market to that particular group of potential players.

 

By the same token, efforts are being made at improving the graphics to keep a higher percentage of new players who are going to base their decisions on the quality of graphics.

 

All that and you missed/ignored the point I was making, which was that my recent observations, especially in late-night US time, are that the Allies are NOT underpop, but are still outmanned because of a lower percentage of veteran players being ingame at that time for the Allies, and that until marketing efforts (which are already showing marked improvements in new players, etc), end up bearing long-term fruit (more players who have been in-game for enough time to know what is going on), that a short term help would be for Allied veteran players to redouble our efforts at making sure new players are helped as much as possible, as that will indeed result in more players sticking around through the learning curve, and with a little 'the Allies were the guys who helped me' loyalty thrown into the equation, will at least help with the in-game imbalance in solid players.

 

S!

I 100% agree. (putting Allied/ Axis hat aside for a moment, just to see numbers grow in game in general (i.e. retention of the new players)

I see a lot new players come to game and notice this recently as I changed to my old squad (3PZG) and took on the CO role to revive our squad. Opened Auto Recruitment and OH MY GOD! the TRAFFIC IS insane!!! But Quality of responsiveness to chat is also surprisingly low!

Since a couple of weeks ago, over 70 new players have joined the squad (I have contacted each one of them as they join) to try to teach basics, get them on Discord.

I have made 1 rules : in the first 7 days they must TALK to me (preferably on discord)  to be promoted to full time members. So far out of the 70 or more players in 2 weeks have :

- Out of 70+ players who join less than 5 have replied back to my S !, HELLO, PM. (in game chat) .. even PMs . with clear instruction to type .r to talk back... less than 5 out of 70..

- Have gained 1 new member who has come on discord (no mic but at least replies back and works with us) 

- Have had 5 or so that have backfired - i.e. spawned in our mission, not listening to anything, shooting rifle, testing grenades etc,, then exiting game never to be seen again

- Have had to kick 5 or so as they have gone to other side (assuming to try out the other toys)

- Considering turning the Auto-recruit OFF again and focus on growing like old days, returning vets and head-hunting

- Really want to support the new players somehow and get them addicted to the game but the 2-3 weeks experiential so far has not been very good !

 

I play TZ2 and TZ3 in weekends and TZ3 on weekdays, rarely get a coffee late at night and get screwed at work the next day to stay for parts of TZ1 :)

S!

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, you aren't going to convince anyone otherwise. People simply do not go out of their way to invest into a game like this, you have to have some kind of draw factor, and the more you ask the less likely they are to stick around which is why the sub being the main is a fail, you'll never convince people it's worth it because compared to other games where you buy it once, or play for free and pay optionally, it's not. A lose lose for business and community.
70 new players in a week and still tanked player numbers, that's crazy low retention.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


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

Like I said, you aren't going to convince anyone otherwise. People simply do not go out of their way to invest into a game like this, you have to have some kind of draw factor, and the more you ask the less likely they are to stick around which is why the sub being the main is a fail, you'll never convince people it's worth it because compared to other games where you buy it once, or play for free and pay optionally, it's not. A lose lose for business and community.
70 new players in a week and still tanked player numbers, that's crazy low retention.

To be honest, if you read my post, the issue is they dont TALK ...

I am actually willing to pay their first year sub if they LISTEN And TALK and actually LIKE the game and want to play it and price tag is an issue..  but most of the 70 will not even SAY hello back ,, and that is AFTER They have joined MY squad! .... I am starting to think maybe i am not sure if they are the type of players we should be DRAWING to the game as such. 

 

my 2 cents anyways..

3 people like this

Share this post


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

It looks like there is a 60-40 pop in the game. Axis being the favored side.

Hopefully 1.36 will come out quickly and maybe it will pull some oldtimers back.

But if falls under the umbrella of the dreaded 'SOON'. 

You’re assuming the influx of players will be 50:50 distributed across the sides. Also, there’ll be 2 AOs minimum and I feel that town supply will deliver a game that can be won by rinse repeat rolling of overpop, without the nuances of TOES to limit or complicate advances. 

 

If we’re sat here thinking 1.36 will improve gameplay, it’s very possible we’re going to be mistaken. You don’t fix a game by changing the supply mechanism. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

...I feel that town supply will deliver a game that can be won by rinse repeat rolling of overpop, without the nuances of TOES to limit or complicate advances. 

If we’re sat here thinking 1.36 will improve gameplay, it’s very possible we’re going to be mistaken. You don’t fix a game by changing the supply mechanism. 

We can't predict the future but as it stands right now overpop still rolls towns. Add in brigades and more often than not thee tire current system is an albatross around the neck of the underpop side since you get rolled and your divisions cut off and sent to training because no HC was on.

That decreases side moral and perpetuates he above cycle.

Share this post


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

To be honest, if you read my post, the issue is they dont TALK ...

I am actually willing to pay their first year sub if they LISTEN And TALK and actually LIKE the game and want to play it and price tag is an issue..  but most of the 70 will not even SAY hello back ,, and that is AFTER They have joined MY squad! .... I am starting to think maybe i am not sure if they are the type of players we should be DRAWING to the game as such. 

 

my 2 cents anyways..

Your experience is right on from my own observations from when I used to recruit for Blitzkader. My only thought is that you have to think about the value of that 5 out of 70 long term. And the next 5 and the next 5 and so on. It’s exhausting but in the end a squad of 20 online would curb stomp the entire other side at this point. 

Share this post


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

I am not seeing a pop imbalance...

 

Not true. We have actual data, and yep, there *is* most definitely a significant pop imbalance. Did you see choad's graphs on CP captures?

And anyway, I'd say Axis has more n00bs/FPAs than Allied side does.

Share this post


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

Not true. We have actual data, and yep, there *is* most definitely a significant pop imbalance. Did you see choad's graphs on CP captures?

And anyway, I'd say Axis has more n00bs/FPAs than Allied side does.

What do you want done? Almost all the regular axis air pilots left. All the serious axis tankers left. All the big axis squads are long gone. It's just a bunch of five and 10-person squads playing infantry and collaborating at this point and axis is still winning. 

 

CRS just shoveled matildas in to allied infantry brigades while removing everything but a few stugs and 232s in axis infantry brigades, and the allies still aren't logging in.

Share this post


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

 

- Out of 70+ players who join less than 5 have replied back to my S !, HELLO, PM. (in game chat) .. even PMs . with clear instruction to type .r to talk back... less than 5 out of 70..

 

 

This is by far is our issue !! I remember when i started playing. There was so much going on and trying to get the hang on how to play that it was 4 days before i realized that  the squad leader was trying to chat with me.  It wasn't until the squad leader filled my chat box with PM's with my name that i realized he was trying to get my attention.   

 

That is what hurts us the most 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

We can't predict the future but as it stands right now overpop still rolls towns. Add in brigades and more often than not thee tire current system is an albatross around the neck of the underpop side since you get rolled and your divisions cut off and sent to training because no HC was on.

That decreases side moral and perpetuates he above cycle.

Let’s see. I’m thinking you’re going to have 2 AOs, seal clubbing or bounce around, with the overpop prepping the next AO once the spawn is capped. 

Yes, the removal of TOES mitigates the map catastrophe element from the equation but I’m still very concerned 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2019 at 1:49 PM, tac2i said:

Agreed, whether a paid subscription or F2P, a player should never, ever be forced to play a particular side. 

Agreed, but giving F2P an incentive to play the underpop side is something which should be discussed

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

To be honest, if you read my post, the issue is they dont TALK ...

I am actually willing to pay their first year sub if they LISTEN And TALK and actually LIKE the game and want to play it and price tag is an issue..  but most of the 70 will not even SAY hello back ,, and that is AFTER They have joined MY squad! .... I am starting to think maybe i am not sure if they are the type of players we should be DRAWING to the game as such. 

Because they don't know you or even the game yet, and buying the sub for anyone isn't going to do favors. I'm sorry you feel the need to do that just to keep people in the game, but these people need to come around on their own accord, that's really what the F2P is for. It's kind of funny that you would do that though, but I'm not surprised I have been with you in TS years ago when I was in I forget what axis clan and you enjoy this game a lot so I don't blame ya for tryin.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, david06 said:

It's just a bunch of five and 10-person squads playing infantry and collaborating at this point and axis is still winning.

 

Right, because they have the numbers.

The side with the higher numbers wins, it's that simple. I've been here since the beginning, was a closed beta tester for a few years, have spawned in almost every single campaign. Years ago, I wrote gameplay and settings guides. I've edited and uploaded WWIIOL videos since the early 2000s (I even have a Youtube channel which I resurrected called "WWII Online Videos"). I've been a member of Allied and Axis squads, but maybe 95+% of my career is as Axis. When numbers are this lopsided, numbers win, period; anything else is delusional.

I don't care who wins, I just care about the health of this game. If you think it's okay that Allied side only has a fighting chance when, e.g., WHIPS goes Allied...I'm sorry, but that's unacceptable.

Not seeing any discussion about the title of thread, which is: *What is CRS planning to do to address numbers imbalance?* It's a simple question, but I'm seeing a lot of BS that has nothing to do with the actual issue that needs to be addressed.

Yes, giving F2P an incentive to play underpop side might be a good idea.

As someone who's pumped money and time into this game for almost 20 years, I just want to know what CRS is planning to do about numbers imbalance. Pretty simple.

Edited by xanthus
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Right, because they have the numbers.

The side with the higher numbers wins, it's that simple. I've been here since the beginning, was a closed beta tester for a few years, have spawned in almost every single campaign. Years ago, I wrote gameplay and settings guides. I've edited and uploaded WWIIOL videos since the early 2000s (I even have a Youtube channel which I resurrected called "WWII Online Videos"). I've been a member of Allied and Axis squads, but maybe 95+% of my career is as Axis. When numbers are this lopsided, numbers win, period; anything else is delusional.

I don't care who wins, I just care about the health of this game. If you think it's okay that Allied side only has a fighting chance when, e.g., WHIPS goes Allied...I'm sorry, but that's unacceptable.

Not seeing any discussion about the title of thread, which is: *What is CRS planning to do to address numbers imbalance?* It's a simple question, but I'm seeing a lot of BS that has nothing to do with the actual issue that needs to be addressed.

Yes, giving F2P an incentive to play underpop side might be a good idea.

As someone who's pumped money and time into this game for almost 20 years, I just want to know what CRS is planning to do about numbers imbalance. Pretty simple.

Having been the CinC during one of the handful of campaigns where the underpop side won, it is possible to overcome a numbers imbalance with a skill and leadership imbalance.  But not only is it rare, it's completely unsustainable, and it's never been done with one side holding a 20%+ TOM advantage.  

 

The Allies need to find a way to sustain campaign victories on their own again.  I just finished a very good conversation with @gretnine where he illustrated how the lack of tanks in the Axis Infantry brigades has actually made them better not worse, because by default they are going to be fielding more infantry than the Allies even if the population was much closer to balanced.  

 

I think he even said that the number of Matilda sorties (normal and CS) on the Allies alone are greater than the total amount of all Axis armor sorties combined.  This access to tanks might be actually be hurting the Allies in that sense, but then again look at the French Infantry brigades who only field R35s and Panhards at this time.  They are performing even worse than their British counterparts.  

Edited by Capco
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

 

Right, because they have the numbers.

The side with the higher numbers wins, it's that simple. I've been here since the beginning, was a closed beta tester for a few years, have spawned in almost every single campaign. Years ago, I wrote gameplay and settings guides. I've edited and uploaded WWIIOL videos since the early 2000s (I even have a Youtube channel which I resurrected called "WWII Online Videos"). I've been a member of Allied and Axis squads, but maybe 95+% of my career is as Axis. When numbers are this lopsided, numbers win, period; anything else is delusional.

I don't care who wins, I just care about the health of this game. If you think it's okay that Allied side only has a fighting chance when, e.g., WHIPS goes Allied...I'm sorry, but that's unacceptable.

Not seeing any discussion about the title of thread, which is: *What is CRS planning to do to address numbers imbalance?* It's a simple question, but I'm seeing a lot of BS that has nothing to do with the actual issue that needs to be addressed.

Yes, giving F2P an incentive to play underpop side might be a good idea.

As someone who's pumped money and time into this game for almost 20 years, I just want to know what CRS is planning to do about numbers imbalance. Pretty simple.

There isn’t much we can do ... we cannot force anyone to play on a side they do not what to. 

Timers to try and get players to go on the under populated side really doesn’t do anything but make them unhappy that they need to wait. 

 

The only thing that that makes players go to any one side is other players , friends, squad mates and leaders .... when a side has these things that’s where they will go. 

Also a friendly atmosphere helps .... negative chat doesn’t help at all. Accusing new players of being cheaters when they are trying the weapons out right where they spawn is what drives players away. 

 

The side that has good visible leadership will have players flock to that side.  Each side needs strong leadership and we need to have that and that starts with players stepping up to lead !!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Right, because they have the numbers.

The side with the higher numbers wins, it's that simple.

Well then if numbers determine everything maybe someone should tell the HC that keeping players entertained and engaged is their #1 priority. Because I'm seeing a lot of talk about flags and spawnlists and new mechanics, and not much about fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.