formio

I dont understand

109 posts in this topic

Can we agree on one thing, that what this game needs more than anything is loads of players? Not 20 players fighting 10 players on the other side.

Making changes to equipment, for example remove equipment or flip around equpment is not going to get new players into the game. It will only alienate remaining players when favourite units gets removed or moved around. It should always be 1 axis unit equals 1 allied and the performance must not be exactly the same.

A rifle is a rifle and a light tank is a light tank, period. 1 of this equals 1 on the other side.

What this game needs instead is a massive call to arms. Lowering subscription costs is the only way to start doing this. The fees are way too high. I want more friends and more enemies and I'm sure most feel the same way.

Everything else CRS has tried has not worked out. Even STEAM release didnt solve the problem.

For example, removing axis lmgs, dropping the numbers of mattys or adding new skins will not do anything to improve this game. Its a waste of time. I dont understand why even bother with balancing equipment.

Pls CRS, instead consider a DRAMATIC change in game fees. At least try for limited period of time. 1 player paying 18 dollars must be at least as good as 3 paying 6 dollars.

Also consider to make players buy visual stuff ingame. Not weapons though. No pay to win.

 

English is not my language so sorry for any errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the plan is that 1.36 and town supply will attract numbers. The challenge CRS faces is how to address some of the gameplay factors that negatively impact player retention, one of which is Rambo LMGs

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I think the plan is that 1.36 and town supply will attract numbers. The challenge CRS faces is how to address some of the gameplay factors that negatively impact player retention, one of which is Rambo LMGs

Its a bad move to alianate lmg players also. Town supply will have no effect other than for the few remaining players.

Sorry, I dont believe making changes to equipment will have any effect at all.

 

This wait-for-better-times strategy is fatal.

Fees can be reduced right now.

Share this post


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

Its a bad move to alianate lmg players also. Town supply will have no effect other than for the few remaining players.

Sorry, I dont believe making changes to equipment will have any effect at all.

 

This wait-for-better-times strategy is fatal.

Fees can be reduced right now.

You are correct in that the game needs players and more players make the game immeasurably better.  Right now it seems to be slow steps to evolve the game with what's do-able. It's been discussed to lower subscription fees for new players and somewhat done - for the lower priced packages. In game micro-transactions are an obviously good idea - think the time/coding/costs of it are why its not an immediate priority. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

damn everything else has been tried, why not try formio's idea...

and I agree 100% on this supply issue, make the tiers quicker, PUT THE DAMN TOYS IN GAME, enough already with the manly measuring stick...

change anything with the LMG and 90% of the 250 will quit the next day, leave them with there magical LMG, some other toys have magical attributes to them also, we've discussed all these ad-infinitum, time to stop and change direction...

and no town supply will not be the answer.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not a monthly premium sub at around 4-6 dollars, that must attract both new players and game veterans. Make yearly subs even more worth it.

Im not familiar with other war game fees but we need fees lower than theirs.

And NEVER EVER delete or mess around with equipment. Bring back the real british grenadier and add more lmgs instead of reducing and deleting. Just as long corresponding unit on the other side is at equal number. Axis grenadier should not be same as british grenadier, but they should be equal in number.

We need diverse weapons, otherwise they just look different but performance is the same. Thats silly.

NO MORE EMPTY GAME WORLD!!

Share this post


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

Making changes to equipment, for example remove equipment or flip around equpment is not going to get new players into the game. It will only alienate remaining players when favourite units gets removed or moved around. It should always be 1 axis unit equals 1 allied and the performance must not be exactly the same.

A rifle is a rifle and a light tank is a light tank, period. 1 of this equals 1 on the other side.Also consider to make players buy visual stuff ingame. Not weapons though. No pay to win.

Generally speaking changes are only made to equipment when bugs are identified (109 fixes and future unit audits), or newer data becomes available for use (recent ammo audits).

It's impossible to have both 1 unit = 1 unit   AND to have those units have difference performance characteristics while still maintaining a balanced game.   The only way to achieve 1 to 1 parity is to have the underlying data be exactly the same, otherwise side 1's rifle is better than side 2's so everyone goes to side 1.   

 

Also consider to make players buy visual stuff ingame. Not weapons though. No pay to win.

Neither our game engine, account system, nor the equipment models support changing things on them on a player by player basis (Ie visual stuff) at this time.  It is something we are exploring, but it's not on the high priority list.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, B2K said:

Generally speaking changes are only made to equipment when bugs are identified (109 fixes and future unit audits), or newer data becomes available for use (recent ammo audits).

It's impossible to have both 1 unit = 1 unit   AND to have those units have difference performance characteristics while still maintaining a balanced game.   The only way to achieve 1 to 1 parity is to have the underlying data be exactly the same, otherwise side 1's rifle is better than side 2's so everyone goes to side 1.   

 

 

 

Neither our game engine, account system, nor the equipment models support changing things on them on a player by player basis (Ie visual stuff) at this time.  It is something we are exploring, but it's not on the high priority list.    

Have you thought about lowering the subscription price to bring in more players? 

 

Pretty sure that is the OPs main point.

Edited by Capco
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, B2K said:

Generally speaking changes are only made to equipment when bugs are identified (109 fixes and future unit audits), or newer data becomes available for use (recent ammo audits).

It's impossible to have both 1 unit = 1 unit   AND to have those units have difference performance characteristics while still maintaining a balanced game.   The only way to achieve 1 to 1 parity is to have the underlying data be exactly the same, otherwise side 1's rifle is better than side 2's so everyone goes to side 1.   

 

 

 

Neither our game engine, account system, nor the equipment models support changing things on them on a player by player basis (Ie visual stuff) at this time.  It is something we are exploring, but it's not on the high priority list.    

My point is this:

All efforts to maintain this thing called balance has not brought in any new players at all. You can of course go on and delete toys for the players who have become good at a certain unit, but then they will probably leave.

Do you have anything to say about the fees of this game? And I mean premium fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, B2K said:

 

Neither our game engine, account system, nor the equipment models support changing things on them on a player by player basis (Ie visual stuff) at this time.  It is something we are exploring, but it's not on the high priority list.    

visual stuff: yes it can be complex but how a bout testing the market with a lowcost onetime DLC of stuff like the existing or adapted in game decals? there are at least 5/6/7 of them already in play already, tagged or customized to squads and/or years in game and/or player donations and/or other stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 0 input on the account pricing.   Though I'd imagine the question would be - would there be enough new accounts to offset the lost revenue from the existing price model if changes are made?

 

*** EXAMPLE ONLY ***

If we went to $5  (from the current $15)

We would need 3x the current subscribed base to cover the same costs.   If only 2.8x more subscribe that may not be enough to cover operational costs.    

 

*** DISCLAIMER *** I have 0 idea of the operating costs - the above is provided only as an example.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, B2K said:

I have 0 input on the account pricing.   Though I'd imagine the question would be - would there be enough new accounts to offset the lost revenue from the existing price model if changes are made.  

CRS has to be willing to think beyond that phase.  

 

The way I see it, if you lower the price too little then it won't really have an impact on player growth.  For example, just as many people won't pay $17/mo as won't pay $18/mo.  You'll probably lose revenue with a tiny cut like that.  

 

BUT if you lower the price to a point where we get a nice influx of players, that will make the gameplay better.   Better gameplay also equals more subscriptions and more players.  It's a 2-for-1.  

 

I had a hard time getting a few friends of mine to pay 8 bucks for a 1-time purchase game.  I can't even bring WWIIOL up to them because of the sticker shock.  The only reason I'm paying a sub is because of my love of the game, not because I think it's worth the price.  

 

If you surprise announced a subscription price cut alongside the release of 1.36, I think that would be your best chance.  Not just a WBS, but an actual drop in rates across the board.  WBS just alienates new players from vets, and the game needs new players if we want it to survive long-term.

Edited by Capco
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, B2K said:

I have 0 input on the account pricing.   Though I'd imagine the question would be - would there be enough new accounts to offset the lost revenue from the existing price model if changes are made?

 

*** EXAMPLE ONLY ***

If we went to $5  (from the current $15)

We would need 3x the current subscribed base to cover the same costs.   If only 2.8x more subscribe that may not be enough to cover operational costs.    

 

*** DISCLAIMER *** I have 0 idea of the operating costs - the above is provided only as an example.  

Counter-questions

How much work is being done when it comes to changing equipment, reducing stuff, adding new towns, adding and deleting other stuff that really make no positive difference?

Deleting a Tiger or change spit damage model will not bring more players to this game.

What would happen if a dramatic change in sub fees was tested? Would the game die? Will something explode? Or will it have the only positive impact on this game so far? (When it comes to numbers).

Share this post


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

Counter-questions

How much work is being done when it comes to changing equipment, reducing stuff, adding new towns, adding and deleting other stuff that really make no positive difference?

Deleting a Tiger or change spit damage model will not bring more players to this game.

What would happen if a dramatic change in sub fees was tested? Would the game die? Will something explode? Or will it have the only positive impact on this game so far? (When it comes to numbers).

Everything potentially has a positive difference.  Fixing the 109 made the german pilots happy, more of them now sortie and play.  Changing the aircraft damage models to something that closer reflects reality will not only make pilots happy, but also ground players.   That leads to more players.  

Unless of course you're advocating that once something is in game - even if badly bugged (109 rudder issue, ammunition performance, aircraft stress and damage models), it should remain in game and never get fixed.  

 

 If we change subscriptions - and it does not result is generating the needed revenue to cover costs then the server closes.  It's that simple.  

If we lower subscription rates, then have to immediately increase them again to cover costs that'll drive off more people than gained by the lower rate.  Ask yourself - if you subbed at $5, but then 1-2 months later the sub price went up to $15 - would you stay subbed?    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, B2K said:

Everything potentially has a positive difference.  Fixing the 109 made the german pilots happy, more of them now sortie and play.  Changing the aircraft damage models to something that closer reflects reality will not only make pilots happy, but also ground players.   That leads to more players.  

Unless of course you're advocating that once something is in game - even if badly bugged (109 rudder issue, ammunition performance, aircraft stress and damage models), it should remain in game and never get fixed.  

 

 If we change subscriptions - and it does not result is generating the needed revenue to cover costs then the server closes.  It's that simple.  

If we lower subscription rates, then have to immediately increase them again to cover costs that'll drive off more people than gained by the lower rate.  Ask yourself - if you subbed at $5, but then 1-2 months later the sub price went up to $15 - would you stay subbed?    

 

I'm saying

Fewer and fewer players will keep paying for an almost empty server. 

This will depend on how transparent CRS is willing to be. If loads of people join or re-join as paying customers there will be no need to have higher prices again.

Share this post


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

I'm saying

Fewer and fewer players will keep paying for an almost empty server. 

This will depend on how transparent CRS is willing to be. If loads of people join or re-join as paying customers there will be no need to have higher prices again.

I have a simple hint for you : you can play for free.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I have a simple hint for you : you can play for free.

So what are you trying to say??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all the new changes are helping, terrain, gear etc.

But, also agree the game just plays so much better with more players.

Players need action - it is very hard to start action in this game.

So, I'd suggest cutting FMS time to 30 sec, Capture times to 2 min base (if not 1 min), cut AO clear and set time to 30 seconds, cut bridge AO/DO clear and set time to 30 seconds; change truck EWS back out to 1000m.

And agree with mata, while new players don't realize it, the rifle and truck combo is very powerful.. just new players don't know how to use them well.

For two sbux drinks, you can play this game all month... (on a yearly sub), or the cost of 1 movie ticket I think.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I think all the new changes are helping, terrain, gear etc.

But, also agree the game just plays so much better with more players.

Players need action - it is very hard to start action in this game.

So, I'd suggest cutting FMS time to 30 sec, Capture times to 2 min base (if not 1 min), cut AO clear and set time to 30 seconds, cut bridge AO/DO clear and set time to 30 seconds; change truck EWS back out to 1000m.

And agree with mata, while new players don't realize it, the rifle and truck combo is very powerful.. just new players don't know how to use them well.

For two sbux drinks, you can play this game all month... (on a yearly sub), or the cost of 1 movie ticket I think.

Sorry delems. Without loads of players there will be no action anyway. Doesnt matter how timers are set.

We already have the option to play for free and still we dont get enough players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conceptually, this doesn't seem that difficult to handle on a phase-in basis. 

If it is true that we have the dedicated, game loving, die-hard members that are indicated throughout all these forums, put it  to them in a Poll: Are you willing - for 3 to 6 months - to keep paying your current subscription rate - while we on-board new players at $5-$6 per month for premium access?

After 3 to 6  months, review the growth of new players and the improvement in game-play.  At that point it should be easy to determine if the low numbers are subscription based or not.  From there I know CRS is smart enough to figure out the next steps. 

I would gladly allow my sub to be locked for a year at the current rate if it meant that after that year that I would have a vastly improved game offered at an even lower cost.  I would hope that the core player base would feel the same - and respond in kind with deeds, not words. 

 

I think that this would need to be managed very carefully at the on-set to assure the numbers are there to assure server cost and overhead are covered. Hopefully an honest response to a poll would provide that. 

 

What I think all my colleagues  are in consensus with is that the current game, with the  low numbers, and the lop-sided distribution of players is dying a slow death. It pains me to say that, but I am losing enthusiasm to mount up on another campaign only to have our asses handed to us in one week and then stand by as the Axis steam rolls the map over and over and over again. It is equally humiliating to realize that my side of choice can only win if the gods on Axis mount Olympus defer to show us mercy and boost our numbers for a campaign. I really hate to say it but I can't see how this is sustainable. We are a little more than a week into 160 and already locked into - YET ANOTHER - loss of the map. And to the Axis players, the boredom of an assured win can't be that fun, other than to those poor slobs who are bullied in real life and vicariously compensate here. 

 

I know many of you will call me defeatist, un-dedicated, blah, blah, blah. I also know that many of you know that when I am on - and not RDP bombing - that you  can count on me to get on the ground, take the initiative, or follow orders without lip. I cannot express my heart-felt desire to see this game continue, grow, thrive, prosper, and remain a very big part of my life. But as somebody said on an earlier forum "Why devote time to something that winds up making you feel like a loser, over and over and over and over again?"

Me and many of my online brothers ( and sisters) know it's not an flag thing, brigade vs. garrison thing, equipment thing, a rendering thing, a historical thing, that determines the outcome at this point. It is the baked-in lopsided numbers exacerbated by a lowness in overall numbers. 

Ok folks, light up your flame throwers (i.e. Flammenwerfer 35's ), and let me have it. I can take it. I mean I'm an Allied-only player, so I'm used to being man-handled and abused. 

8 people like this

Share this post


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

Conceptually, this doesn't seem that difficult to handle on a phase-in basis. 

If it is true that we have the dedicated, game loving, die-hard members that are indicated throughout all these forums, put it  to them in a Poll: Are you willing - for 3 to 6 months - to keep paying your current subscription rate - while we on-board new players at $5-$6 per month for premium access?

After 3 to 6  months, review the growth of new players and the improvement in game-play.  At that point it should be easy to determine if the low numbers are subscription based or not.  From there I know CRS is smart enough to figure out the next steps. 

I would gladly allow my sub to be locked for a year at the current rate if it meant that after that year that I would have a vastly improved game offered at an even lower cost.  I would hope that the core player base would feel the same - and respond in kind with deeds, not words. 

 

I think that this would need to be managed very carefully at the on-set to assure the numbers are there to assure server cost and overhead are covered. Hopefully an honest response to a poll would provide that. 

 

What I think all my colleagues  are in consensus with is that the current game, with the  low numbers, and the lop-sided distribution of players is dying a slow death. It pains me to say that, but I am losing enthusiasm to mount up on another campaign only to have our asses handed to us in one week and then stand by as the Axis steam rolls the map over and over and over again. It is equally humiliating to realize that my side of choice can only win if the gods on Axis mount Olympus defer to show us mercy and boost our numbers for a campaign. I really hate to say it but I can't see how this is sustainable. We are a little more than a week into 160 and already locked into - YET ANOTHER - loss of the map. And to the Axis players, the boredom of an assured win can't be that fun, other than to those poor slobs who are bullied in real life and vicariously compensate here. 

 

I know many of you will call me defeatist, un-dedicated, blah, blah, blah. I also know that many of you know that when I am on - and not RDP bombing - that you  can count on me to get on the ground, take the initiative, or follow orders without lip. I cannot express my heart-felt desire to see this game continue, grow, thrive, prosper, and remain a very big part of my life. But as somebody said on an earlier forum "Why devote time to something that winds up making you feel like a loser, over and over and over and over again?"

Me and many of my online brothers ( and sisters) know it's not an flag thing, brigade vs. garrison thing, equipment thing, a rendering thing, a historical thing, that determines the outcome at this point. It is the baked-in lopsided numbers exacerbated by a lowness in overall numbers. 

Ok folks, light up your flame throwers (i.e. Flammenwerfer 35's ), and let me have it. I can take it. I mean I'm an Allied-only player, so I'm used to being man-handled and abused. 

Dustyhc, you are so right.

If this was tested for a year, I would be happy to pay full premium monthly fee and let new players and returning vets pay 5 bucks or something like that. Maybe 4.99 is even better.

Then we would really know.

Fru timers, cap timers, fru distance, damage models, Italians, reducing certain units, new ships, snow, rain... nothing of this will have any impact on numbers. Its a waste of time and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most of the efforts have been to reduce the bleeding off of subs

 

while they've done good work, they still have trouble identifying cuts... it's difficult to attract new players with game issues that have driven older players away.

 

Share this post


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

most of the efforts have been to reduce the bleeding off of subs

 

while they've done good work, they still have trouble identifying cuts... it's difficult to attract new players with game issues that have driven older players away.

 

I think you are wrong about why changes has been done.

And if you are right then all things done so far has been nothing but a failure. So why not try the only thing remaining?

It's like the elephant in the room. Subscriptions are way too expensive compared to other games and instead of dealing with this we get snow and reduced numbers of certain units.

I like what dusthc said. Cant we figure out how many players are willing to keep pay full price while new premium subbers pay 4.99 or so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple:

crs have to see that this is a game,
and not a classroom to tell story!!

and a game has to have balance!

S!

Share this post


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

It's simple:

crs have to see that this is a game,
and not a classroom to tell story!!

and a game has to have balance!

S!

Amen. 

Historical accuracy when it doesn't interfere with game balance. Balance is hard enough to achieve, but when you try and force historical timelines into the formula, it's almost impossible. 

It's a game. Games need to be balanced and fun. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.