potthead

Numbers / Overpop / Time on Mission / Player engagement : A Potthead Theory

90 posts in this topic

Salute All.

WARNING ::::: Just some random thoughts of a stoner.. definitely TLDR for many :) Grab a joint if u have one ! leave me with your thoughts as I will come back to read when I am stoned again! .. with Love.. Potthead.

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

 

I have a theory I like to get some thoughts / possible Data mining on. 

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

Theory:   (it maybe VERY FALSE PERCEPTION, JUST a Hypothesis that I am trying to prove wrong or validate with data / other players perception/ input) :

I am going to make a suggestion :

Absolute Numbers Available to a side are about the same almost every map, it is the amount of TIME each of the player puts into the game (TOM) that is different and causes overpop/underpop over the course of the map based on a few factors ultimately boiling to engagement in the campaign

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

FACT: Most maps will show the winning side having higher Time On Mission. 

I don't believe this equals to "the side with more players (numbers) have won." 

I believe this is a product of the momentum that leads to win itself, not a predecessor to it. 

As a side starts losing momentum (for whatever reason), the players will either log in shorter periods of time, or less frequently. This is VERY evident in HC numbers (when winning on either side, there is MORE HC). I believe (have no data to prove) that this is case for player-base.

On the other hand, when a side is winning (for whatever reason), the players stay longer hours and log in more frequently and stay to help after the log in.

I observe this also in the Discord by noticing what other games players of the losing side. I saw this end of 2 maps ago on Axis side..  (the regulars of our side were playing other games instead of wwiionline... heroes and generals, overwatch, red dead redemption, battlefield, world of tanks etc). . The discord on the winning side on other hand has more players logged in and on wwiionline than other games.

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

Data needed: (wire tap gurus...?)

I wonder if there is a possibility to get data on how many unique players actually log in to a side during a campaign.

And then calculate  

(To understand whether numbers create win/momentum or win create numbers/momentum and snowballs to more.)

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

What makes me think of this theory:

I have always thought this way .... underpop, I defend as much as possible with TEASE mole AOs to draw some enemy away from their AO.

If I can manage to with whatever way possible, get 3-5 on discord with me, really increases my odds of holding the DO and then after DO saved (a desperate situation turned around), I notice a surge in moral, energy and momentum and a SMALL window of Overpop usually follows.

It is in that window of Small overpop that counts and if leadership helps to get them onto offense and keep them entertained and logged on.

Somehow no matter how underpop, majority of times after 2-3 hours of perseverance, a short window of overpop can be created by [censored]-blocking the enemy, taking their FB to their P1 or ninja capping a AB while they are all focused on main prize.

Usually the MISTAKES from overpop side (not guarding the spawnble they capped, not guarding FB.. not covering spawn or AB in DO while overpop) .. the task for underpop is 2 things :

A. Force the enemy to make mistake... make them fight each-other and blame each-other for the mistake and demoralize them...  (sounds ugly right? but i think this is why some of us love the game.. the BRUTALITY of it.. makes victory so sweet and defeat SO Bitter) 

B. Exploit the small window of disarray that follows to create own pop advantage .. first by making enemy log off some numbers (feeling victory so close and lost it) ... second build small momentum with a fun as little possible  attack as one can muster. Celebrate the defensive success.  

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

Time Zone 3: Who are the players?

I am one of the VERY few players left actually based in TZ3. I play both sides (more Axis.. about 2 years each time, and then 6-8 months Allied) have played Allied overall about 3 years or so over 4 tenures and Axis about 9 years.  What i am describing below is my experience on BOTH sides (especially in the last 2 years ).

Time Zone 3 Population DOES NOT Exist (i.e players from Australia, NZ, parts of Asia) there maybe less than 10 regulars -

Since this game is 24 hours/ 7 days a week however, I think it makes players who desire to win momentum to generally play longer hours, miss work and impact their RL at times even but that is the cost the pay to win.

It is the TZ1 players who log in a bit earlier than their USUAL hour and stay logged in if they see FUN on their side.......... OR ..... TZ2 Players who will stay LONGER as they are having  FUN with things to do and desire to win.... they will have coffee ... have another beer... and do all nighters even sometimes when operations are still going ... or they have gained so much during their afternoon/evening... they dont want to see it lost before they wake up that they sacrifice their sleep to stay and play more...

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

24 Hour Game / Less Sleep / personal sacrifices WINS THE WAR

With above said... I think this phenomenon of the 24 hour game that causes imbalanced in TZ3 to show more... it is the TIME when the HARD CORE WAR players who REALLY want to WIN come and play.... to the frustration of the casual players.... I saw this when I was on Allied side as well as Axis side. When guys like Goreblimey, Sw1 keep momentum going or when Martigan comes a bit earlier than his usual time, guys like mobius, rebel and so on will be on longer hours than their usual... On Axis side.. when I am online and do best to keep momentum going... or when players like Majes99 , some 250H folks (tz1) log in earlier and there is action going they stay longer or when HC like shagher log in a bit earlier than usual ... or guys like Kacman/Hondo who are Tz2 and wake up early and check map and if there is fun they stay a bit longer... 

 

What do you think? 

Do numbers come first.. then momentum follows? ... or does momentum begin with a few and then turns into numbers?

if you think the numbers come first... what leads to maps turning sometimes?

Thanks for reading!!! [censored] that was a book!

S! . Potthead /Bongohed

 

Share this post


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

Salute All.

WARNING ::::: Just some random thoughts of a stoner.. definitely TLDR for many :) Grab a joint if u have one ! leave me with your thoughts as I will come back to read when I am stoned again! .. with Love.. Potthead.

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

 

I have a theory I like to get some thoughts / possible Data mining on. 

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

Theory:   (it maybe VERY FALSE PERCEPTION, JUST a Hypothesis that I am trying to prove wrong or validate with data / other players perception/ input) :

I am going to make a suggestion :

Absolute Numbers Available to a side are about the same almost every map, it is the amount of TIME each of the player puts into the game (TOM) that is different and causes overpop/underpop over the course of the map based on a few factors ultimately boiling to engagement in the campaign

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

FACT: Most maps will show the winning side having higher Time On Mission. 

I don't believe this equals to "the side with more players (numbers) have won." 

I believe this is a product of the momentum that leads to win itself, not a predecessor to it. 

As a side starts losing momentum (for whatever reason), the players will either log in shorter periods of time, or less frequently. This is VERY evident in HC numbers (when winning on either side, there is MORE HC). I believe (have no data to prove) that this is case for player-base.

On the other hand, when a side is winning (for whatever reason), the players stay longer hours and log in more frequently and stay to help after the log in.

I observe this also in the Discord by noticing what other games players of the losing side. I saw this end of 2 maps ago on Axis side..  (the regulars of our side were playing other games instead of wwiionline... heroes and generals, overwatch, red dead redemption, battlefield, world of tanks etc). . The discord on the winning side on other hand has more players logged in and on wwiionline than other games.

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

Data needed: (wire tap gurus...?)

I wonder if there is a possibility to get data on how many unique players actually log in to a side during a campaign.

And then calculate  

(To understand whether numbers create win/momentum or win create numbers/momentum and snowballs to more.)

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

What makes me think of this theory:

I have always thought this way .... underpop, I defend as much as possible with TEASE mole AOs to draw some enemy away from their AO.

If I can manage to with whatever way possible, get 3-5 on discord with me, really increases my odds of holding the DO and then after DO saved (a desperate situation turned around), I notice a surge in moral, energy and momentum and a SMALL window of Overpop usually follows.

It is in that window of Small overpop that counts and if leadership helps to get them onto offense and keep them entertained and logged on.

Somehow no matter how underpop, majority of times after 2-3 hours of perseverance, a short window of overpop can be created by [censored]-blocking the enemy, taking their FB to their P1 or ninja capping a AB while they are all focused on main prize.

Usually the MISTAKES from overpop side (not guarding the spawnble they capped, not guarding FB.. not covering spawn or AB in DO while overpop) .. the task for underpop is 2 things :

A. Force the enemy to make mistake... make them fight each-other and blame each-other for the mistake and demoralize them...  (sounds ugly right? but i think this is why some of us love the game.. the BRUTALITY of it.. makes victory so sweet and defeat SO Bitter) 

B. Exploit the small window of disarray that follows to create own pop advantage .. first by making enemy log off some numbers (feeling victory so close and lost it) ... second build small momentum with a fun as little possible  attack as one can muster. Celebrate the defensive success.  

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

Time Zone 3: Who are the players?

I am one of the VERY few players left actually based in TZ3. I play both sides (more Axis.. about 2 years each time, and then 6-8 months Allied) have played Allied overall about 3 years or so over 4 tenures and Axis about 9 years.  What i am describing below is my experience on BOTH sides (especially in the last 2 years ).

Time Zone 3 Population DOES NOT Exist (i.e players from Australia, NZ, parts of Asia) there maybe less than 10 regulars -

Since this game is 24 hours/ 7 days a week however, I think it makes players who desire to win momentum to generally play longer hours, miss work and impact their RL at times even but that is the cost the pay to win.

It is the TZ1 players who log in a bit earlier than their USUAL hour and stay logged in if they see FUN on their side.......... OR ..... TZ2 Players who will stay LONGER as they are having  FUN with things to do and desire to win.... they will have coffee ... have another beer... and do all nighters even sometimes when operations are still going ... or they have gained so much during their afternoon/evening... they dont want to see it lost before they wake up that they sacrifice their sleep to stay and play more...

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

24 Hour Game / Less Sleep / personal sacrifices WINS THE WAR

With above said... I think this phenomenon of the 24 hour game that causes imbalanced in TZ3 to show more... it is the TIME when the HARD CORE WAR players who REALLY want to WIN come and play.... to the frustration of the casual players.... I saw this when I was on Allied side as well as Axis side. When guys like Goreblimey, Sw1 keep momentum going or when Martigan comes a bit earlier than his usual time, guys like mobius, rebel and so on will be on longer hours than their usual... On Axis side.. when I am online and do best to keep momentum going... or when players like Majes99 , some 250H folks (tz1) log in earlier and there is action going they stay longer or when HC like shagher log in a bit earlier than usual ... or guys like Kacman/Hondo who are Tz2 and wake up early and check map and if there is fun they stay a bit longer... 

 

What do you think? 

Do numbers come first.. then momentum follows? ... or does momentum begin with a few and then turns into numbers?

if you think the numbers come first... what leads to maps turning sometimes?

Thanks for reading!!! [censored] that was a book!

S! . Potthead /Bongohed

 

I think you should bring back Dinker and ask his opinion.

Share this post


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

I think you should bring back Dinker and ask his opinion.

Already have ... 3PZG will be doing a re-union for 1.36

And honestly most of my background/ ideas/ training on how to manage players comes from Dinker ....  he is my sensei afterall.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think its pretty spot on. A lot of it is morale and momentum. I have found at times I've look at the clock and been a bit... surprised. I think a lot of it is also what happens on the side chat. If there is a lot of social support and coordination players stay logged even if losing. But interestingly when the chat goes silent the wheels very quickly fall off and spawns start being capped and it quickly becomes a death spiral. My own personal view is that it comes down to communication and positive reinforcement. Sometimes you simply get out trooped or out played. But many of the losing towns I've been in have fallen exactly when the communication stopped and players stopped verbally supporting each other. You can almost feel the energy evaporate.

With the number of over/under pop switches during the course of a day I think the gross numbers are pretty equal but the time players stay engaged becomes vastly different.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, potthead said:

What do you think? 

Do numbers come first.. then momentum follows? ... or does momentum begin with a few and then turns into numbers?

momentum comes first, then numbers

doesn't even take much in the way of "leadership", just a guy arranging an easy way to spawn and feeding the players action

anyone can observe this easily by just posting a mission on side chat and telling people to .j that mission when the current task is done; what starts as a small group of stragglers snowballs

I've had a dozen players show up to a softcap and we spend 20 minutes capturing an undefended town, but everyone is content and the group stays together until a real attack can be set up

meanwhile clueless idiots moan about why there are so many guys soft capping a town instead of running in to the designated meat grinder or staring at some depot wall

I am amazed by how many longtime players don't make an effort to keep the same group of players together

as if letting everyone fragment and giving them several minutes to get coffee or go play another game is normal

Edited by david06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dear pott&bongo dude: you have definitely walked through the doors of perception and discovered the hidden truth.  further, the 'potthead effect' of:  comms + mistakes vs smart play = momentum > morale > tom > numbers >  is heightened by the smaller overall numbers in tz3 /2.5 and deadened in the bigger numbers overall of tz1.  what azimov said too. 

  Related image

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, potthead said:

Already have ... 3PZG will be doing a re-union for 1.36

And honestly most of my background/ ideas/ training on how to manage players comes from Dinker ....  he is my sensei afterall.. 

I would come back for the reunion but as you know my primary account is perma banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree Potthead...its momentum -the snowball effect of good comms, players willing to do the difficult things (like guarding, getting fms up, covering armor, using atgs ), and most importantly REAL leadership.

Real leadership doesn't always have to come from HC..anyone can see a need for something and just DO  it. The numbers come when the playerbase feels a part of something bigger than themselves - an army rather than rambo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potthead! I have smoked my last joint and I have analyzed your theory and I have some thoughts to share.  

2 hours ago, dropbear said:

Totally agree Potthead...its momentum -the snowball effect of good comms, players willing to do the difficult things (like guarding, getting fms up, covering armor, using atgs ), and most importantly REAL leadership.

Real leadership doesn't always have to come from HC..anyone can see a need for something and just DO  it. The numbers come when the playerbase feels a part of something bigger than themselves - an army rather than rambo.

dropbear couldn't have said it better actually.  Good comms and engaging leadership whether it be HC like yourself pott or a good ML;  These are things that easily persuade people to "stay on a bit longer", or like myself stay up till 2am when i have to work at 8am.  I am having fun and therefore willing to sacrifice my time.  Opposition starts to get frustrated "ahh [censored] it ill call it a night" next thing you know we are overpop and on a roll.  momentum begins with a few then numbers start to grow and opposition numbers begin to wither.

This is why I love squad nights and not only attend the squad I am in (BK) but other squad ops as well, such as JG51 for example.  handful of guys come up with an ao and stay persistent next thing you know you got half of axis kickin [censored] and take like 3 towns in one night.  Awesome! 

And also potthead, referring to another post you made recently,  I think that roleplay aspect you mentioned is a really good tool to achieve this, even when we are near the end of the campaign and LOSING!  Those panzer columns from the end of 158 were dope!  Didn't matter that we were about to lose campaign,  we managed to make some fun and got our numbers up.  So yes I really admire your leadership style, and I dont intend to kiss your [censored], just being honest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a tz3 guy, the thing that keep me online is the action on map
everytime if i login and found there are no action on map (both AO & DO light ews, just 1 or 2 mission, no hc online)
i usually don't brother spawn in.
If there are action on map like HC leading attack, heavy ews on AO/DO, CP captured / spawn down, i will give it a try

I tend to stay online longer when my side is losing momentum, meanwhile still have the ability to capture town (Hard AO) - Hey axis need me, we can do this!
I will start log in shorter periods of time and less frequently when:
My side is winning (capped both antwerp and brussels) - OK fine we are winning, axis don't need my help
We are down to facilities town - It is over i will wait for next campaign
Extreme unbalance game pop(e.g. 3 axis online, double double ews in DO) - i am not joining the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When i have time i will throw together a chart showing what you are asking for at:

http://www.campaigncharts.com

Right now i have a population estimate chart on there but it tracks things a tad bit different and doesnt look at unique players per day or anything like that. It is more ..... show me unique players per 15 minute block of time.

Share this post


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

As a tz3 guy, the thing that keep me online is the action on map
everytime if i login and found there are no action on map (both AO & DO light ews, just 1 or 2 mission, no hc online)
i usually don't brother spawn in.
If there are action on map like HC leading attack, heavy ews on AO/DO, CP captured / spawn down, i will give it a try

DING DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner!

Share this post


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

Absolute Numbers Available to a side are about the same almost every map

As much as I want this first part to be true, that's actually not true at all.  There is a massive disparity between the available numbers for both sides.  

 

Edited by Capco
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think moral is the biggest factor getting people to log in. aka fun

 

there's too much disagreement on what fun is and isn't : /

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, major0noob said:

i think moral is the biggest factor getting people to log in. aka fun

 

there's too much disagreement on what fun is and isn't : /

I think it is impossible to agree on what is fun in a combined arms multifaceted game. I like flying bombers, fighting with the rifle, and setting up with an 88. When the stug3g comes out I spawn that too since I like that tank. But that's about it. I dabble in other things like navy/LMG/tanks/AA but is not my primary fun. Other people will have different things they enjoy.

My own view is that people primarily log for action and cameraderie. I personally will log if the chat is quite and you have no real sense of connection to other players around you.

Much of this game, like any MMO, is social and psychological. Some of the most successeful games have an intense social/RPG aspects.

Shooting at infantry and tanks without the cameraderie get old quick, even if you are on the side that is moving towards the enemy factories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thing is, guys disregard when people aren't having fun.

 

the worst is accepting dead battles, whether it's no HC, no spawns, no supply, no AO's, bad gameplay... it doesn't take a Phd to understand a dead battle drives morale down. refusing to see dead battles as a problem is way too common. hell with the 3min FMS weekend prime times were constantly light EWS, when they used to be 3 AO's with 2 solid EWS just 2 months before. same with the glass FB's only reverse, they were buffed and the overall morale increased. 1.36 & auto-AO is a direct result of rats having to do HC for a month, the game was plain dead for a month. dead battles are not fun.

 

honestly, i think axis are simply less demoralized than allies. it's difficult to see it positively when they're winning with 1-AO pop. last camp, playing axis; we softcapped towns with divisions cause allies just didn't log... in prime-time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, choad said:

When i have time i will throw together a chart showing what you are asking for at:

http://www.campaigncharts.com

Right now i have a population estimate chart on there but it tracks things a tad bit different and doesnt look at unique players per day or anything like that. It is more ..... show me unique players per 15 minute block of time.

Thank @choad ... S! (sorry for long winded reply please read if you have time as I hope I can articulate)  -- again  as stated in my original post it is ONLY A theory... one cooked up while I was very high... so chances are it is VERY super FALSE! or could have some merit to it. 

 

What I am looking for is in total over course of a campaign, how many players logged in to either side not how much each player spent in the game on different intervals. 

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

For example, I will provide an analogy of two shops:

How many customers (unique player/numbers) is attracted to visit a shop and how much has been converted to Revenue (time). 

How many customers came to your shop  (numbers), how much Money did each spent (time) over course of a month or year..... Both shops could get 1000 customers per year come in visit their shop, one shop could make $1,000,000 worth of sales, other shop $500,000 ..... Both shops had access to the same number of unique customers (wallet) over the course of the year. However if we go by Revenue generated (ToM) then one shop would look like it has a lot more customers.

Casinos and some bars do this generally very well.... get people in .. make them STAY longer, give them another carrot to stay a bit longer (tz2 players staying longer for tz3?) ....  some bars do this very poorly... a ton of people go in, buy 1-2 drinks and leave as music/ environment or the quality of good looking people there or whatever (end of Tz2 when poor comms / leadership whatever causes staleness in game).... 

 -----------------------------------

 

The issue I see with using Time as a measure of overpop/ underpop is, a person like Rebel357 for example can make the side he plays for seem overpopulated (the guy plays a lot when he does), while in fact it is not more players, it is just him being motivated to playing MORE and bomb and F&&ck people up! That is what he does  ( or for whatever other reason that ppl play longer hours).  It could be sgthenning want to build the next great wall!

In the 15 min blocks of time, Rebel357 would be causing a lot of impression of the side having additional of numbers over the course of campagne to his side for example.

Which is correct by Rebel357 playing more, His side has more resources however it is not actually more players over the course of a map it is just more time out of that person. 

And someone who plays a few minutes, find less motivation fun and then logs off is still a PLAYER (number) who was NOT retained and entertained (for whatever reason, maybe they are like me and cant bomb stuff to save their life). 

I think above is what leads to almost all maps for the winning side to end of with more ToM not actually the winning side having access to more numbers over course of the map and it is momentum that has lead the winning side (For the most part not every time ofcourse) to create ToM advantage by making their players play longer and more often (putting more Time in to WIN) 

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

 

In marketing terms, In some ways I am trying to establish if there is a correlation between the REACH (ability to get players to click on their side)  of it side to the Frequency(Time on mission) and map momentum/ win or loss.

After-all I see the HC as sales/marketing/cheerleading/comms people (90%) and strategist of map move (10%) 

 

 

Share this post


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

Thank @choad ... S! (sorry for long winded reply please read if you have time as I hope I can articulate)  -- again  as stated in my original post it is ONLY A theory... one cooked up while I was very high... so chances are it is VERY super FALSE! or could have some merit to it. 

 

What I am looking for is in total over course of a campaign, how many players logged in to either side not how much each player spent in the game on different intervals. 

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

For example, I will provide an analogy of two shops:

How many customers (unique player/numbers) is attracted to visit a shop and how much has been converted to Revenue (time). 

How many customers came to your shop  (numbers), how much Money did each spent (time) over course of a month or year..... Both shops could get 1000 customers per year come in visit their shop, one shop could make $1,000,000 worth of sales, other shop $500,000 ..... Both shops had access to the same number of unique customers (wallet) over the course of the year. However if we go by Revenue generated (ToM) then one shop would look like it has a lot more customers.

Casinos and some bars do this generally very well.... get people in .. make them STAY longer, give them another carrot to stay a bit longer (tz2 players staying longer for tz3?) ....  some bars do this very poorly... a ton of people go in, buy 1-2 drinks and leave as music/ environment or the quality of good looking people there or whatever (end of Tz2 when poor comms / leadership whatever causes staleness in game).... 

 -----------------------------------

 

The issue I see with using Time as a measure of overpop/ underpop is, a person like Rebel357 for example can make the side he plays for seem overpopulated (the guy plays a lot when he does), while in fact it is not more players, it is just him being motivated to playing MORE and bomb and F&&ck people up! That is what he does  ( or for whatever other reason that ppl play longer hours).  It could be sgthenning want to build the next great wall!

In the 15 min blocks of time, Rebel357 would be causing a lot of impression of the side having additional of numbers over the course of campagne to his side for example.

Which is correct by Rebel357 playing more, His side has more resources however it is not actually more players over the course of a map it is just more time out of that person. 

And someone who plays a few minutes, find less motivation fun and then logs off is still a PLAYER (number) who was NOT retained and entertained (for whatever reason, maybe they are like me and cant bomb stuff to save their life). 

I think above is what leads to almost all maps for the winning side to end of with more ToM not actually the winning side having access to more numbers over course of the map and it is momentum that has lead the winning side (For the most part not every time ofcourse) to create ToM advantage by making their players play longer and more often (putting more Time in to WIN) 

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

 

In marketing terms, In some ways I am trying to establish if there is a correlation between the REACH (ability to get players to click on their side)  of it side to the Frequency(Time on mission) and map momentum/ win or loss.

After-all I see the HC as sales/marketing/cheerleading/comms people (90%) and strategist of map move (10%) 

 

 

I’m still plotting a chart of the average number of bong hits it takes you per town that you take. The math is mesmerizing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, potthead said:

For example, I will provide an analogy of two shops:

How many customers (unique player/numbers) is attracted to visit a shop and how much has been converted to Revenue (time). 

How many customers came to your shop  (numbers), how much Money did each spent (time) over course of a month or year..... Both shops could get 1000 customers per year come in visit their shop, one shop could make $1,000,000 worth of sales, other shop $500,000 ..... Both shops had access to the same number of unique customers (wallet) over the course of the year. However if we go by Revenue generated (ToM) then one shop would look like it has a lot more customers.

Casinos and some bars do this generally very well.... get people in .. make them STAY longer, give them another carrot to stay a bit longer (tz2 players staying longer for tz3?) ....  some bars do this very poorly... a ton of people go in, buy 1-2 drinks and leave as music/ environment or the quality of good looking people there or whatever (end of Tz2 when poor comms / leadership whatever causes staleness in game).... 

from fellow philosophical stoner

 

you just explained the subscription model, exactly... the longer we keep our subscriptions up  ( spend time in game... as in months of payments ) the more sweet, cold hard $$$ CRS gets. ( which means more development goodness )

why'd you get all roundabout with it? or did i read too much...

 

 

back to your theory

i think allies rely on more people logging in for short periods of time (the 30min - 1h guys)

and axis have more people logging in for longer periods of time ( 60min+ )

 

both sides are a mix of each, the sides have different percentages like axis are 50% (30min to 1h) and allies are 70% (30min-1h)

cause there are periods when allies are overpop, but the gameplay allies bring is different. the 30min-1h guys have a different play style than the 1h+ guys (hence allies famous lack of marking)

 

i think... the game lost a group of players. the 30min-1h crowd, but allies relied on them more than axis.

well, thats my theory

Share this post


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

 

from fellow philosophical stoner

 

you just explained the subscription model, exactly... the longer we keep our subscriptions up  ( spend time in game... as in months of payments ) the more sweet, cold hard $$$ CRS gets. ( which means more development goodness )

why'd you get all roundabout with it? or did i read too much...

 

 

back to your theory

i think allies rely on more people logging in for short periods of time (the 30min - 1h guys)

and axis have more people logging in for longer periods of time ( 60min+ )

 

both sides are a mix of each, the sides have different percentages like axis are 50% (30min to 1h) and allies are 70% (30min-1h)

cause there are periods when allies are overpop, but the gameplay allies bring is different. the 30min-1h guys have a different play style than the 1h+ guys (hence allies famous lack of marking)

 

i think... the game lost a group of players. the 30min-1h crowd, but allies relied on them more than axis.

well, thats my theory

"from fellow philosophical stoner"

Hehe love this!

What I was trying to say was not about the revenue CRS generates was more about time (as commodity players have that can invest towards their side) each sides (f2P or paid accounts).. the shops are the SIDE ... the customers are the players, the TIME they spend in game for their side is their Money .. in the analogy ..  

Sorry I have not had a hit for a bit.. so I may have stopped making sense :) .. time for a vape now! S! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah... i read too much

18 minutes ago, potthead said:

Sorry I have not had a hit for a bit.. so I may have stopped making sense :) .. time for a vape now! S! 

no, i just gave my theory in a way that didn't make sense. if you read it after a hit it may make less sense...

or not?...

 

eh, here it is in different words. i've based it on the steady lowering of AO's from; 3 to 1 (indicating less pop on both sides), and capco's quote:

8 hours ago, Capco said:

”When the game finally dies, there’s going to be 3 Axis and 2 Allied players online, all sitting on defense, with the Allies moaning about the Axis being over pop.”

 

axis are loosing people too, but at a slower rate than allies.

3 AO's to 3 on both sides then:

3 to 2

2 to 2

2 to 1

1 to 1 (but axis are closer to 2 AO pop)

allies are reaching 1 AO (loosing players) faster

i'd write it off as burnout, but burnout usually recovers after a break from the game. however, the low AO times (low pop) have stuck longer than a typical break.

Share this post


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

@pottheadNo comment on my post showing the near 60-40 population split?

I dont see your comment.. this is what shows:

What side do you play?

Posted by World War II Online on Sunday, January 27, 2019

 

Is it meant to be a photo? I click on the link goes nowhere.. just turns into an X (sorry not an X, it is Paper with sadface on it and corner of it folded on right corner).. it is a poll result or something?

 

And if it is 60-40, then it is :)

 

As I have said if u read my post .. It is a thought/hypothesis ....  I may very well be wrong.. Just a thought sprung to mind other day when server was down .. that is usually when I get active reading forums / making long posts.. 

 

I still think access to the number of players are about same, but amount of time they log in affects ToM.. 

Just to get number of unique players that have logged into a side at least once during the course of the map. 

Not sure what u are trying to achieve with @ me for a comment though.... Is it a Allied vs. Axis thing? Cuz I actually am Bi-Sidual -- I feel the same about my theory when I play as Bongohed as Allied HC and it works the same as on Axis side... sometimes pop gets created sometimes does not.. 

 

Just earlier we had so much fun even underpop just before TZ3 and During TZ3 (for a few moment was extreme underpop but yet still fun) And TZ2 was AMAZING today.. HUGE battles, counters, ZoCs, Tank groups even saw interdicion to stop eFMSs coming as they were!

And late TZ1 as well  was fun!

I have been online for about 18 hours now .. I have 2 days off work left .. will be on to have fun again! so many new players... so much fun! Big battles, small battles, FB busts, Para drops.. cut offs, defenses... attacks.. severe underpop, sever overpop ... all occurred in last 18 hours:)  

Trust me when I tell you from bottom of my heart, you will not find many that care more or love this game more than me... passion beyond anything i have experienced! (both sides of the game and the players I play with, even you)  

Time for some sleep!

S!

 

Edited by potthead
the picture turns to a sadface paper with folded corner not X when i click
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn it, I thought that link might not work for some people.  Here you go:

 

330zibk.jpg

 

10 minutes ago, potthead said:

And if it is 60-40, then it is :)

 

While that split may be acceptable to you, it is entirely unacceptable for any FPS game in gaming history.  

 

It's impossible to have a balanced game with one side having 50% more players that call that side home.  Impossible.  No amount of leadership on the Allied side will get players from the Axis side if they are already playing Axis.  

Share this post


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

Damn it, I thought that link might not work for some people.  Here you go:

 

330zibk.jpg

 

 

While that split may be acceptable to you, it is entirely unacceptable for any FPS game in gaming history.  

 

It's impossible to have a balanced game with one side having 50% more players that call that side home.  Impossible.  No amount of leadership on the Allied side will get players from the Axis side if they are already playing Axis.  

I honestly didn't know of the poll.. and I am not looking for polls tbh.. (subject for another major forum post for next server down: I think it is POSSIBLE to make People call the side their home perhaps through immersion.)

I was/ and am not asking in this thread how many people consider themselves Allied or Axis... I was referring to see if there is any data to show how many unique players log in to a side during a map ... my theory (i am high again, and awake somehow.. had to defend a bunker JUST as was logging off (this game is more addictive than crack cocaine sometimes) is that both sides get about the same usually but for various reasons the winning side ends up with more ToM most of the time if not nearly all the time...   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.