formio

I dont understand

109 posts in this topic

Agree with most of what has been stated, however $5-6 is to low. I would go $9.99/month. I do think this would expand & increase the playerbase to make up for the loss in current monthly revenue at $17.99 and this might even gain many more players to top the monthly revenue from where we are currently today.

If the rate is lowered to $9.99 and subscriptions double, its actually more in monthly revenue.

Another thing we need to look at is how to expand and increase our revenue streams. 

There is another thread in forums about people asking for topo maps. We not use the buzzard and go over each and every town, take photos over  each town pointing North South East & West, build a database of those photo maps and then put them on a website where a player can pay $5 and have access to those town maps 24/7. Don't sell the maps, just build a site for access so players do not copy the pdf and pass them along to others. Just charge a one time $5 fee and then that player can log on at anytime

Another stream of revenue worth discussing is advertising. I know most players might not want this however personally I would not mind it at all and I am talking about 2-3 billboards in each town with advertising from Euro companies that were in business in the 1940s. I would not mind seeing an old vintage retro billboard showing a BMW, Mercedes-Benz, San Pellergino, Perrier Water, Barrilla pasta etc ad. We already have some billboards in many of the towns why not open that space up to a potential revenue stream.

These are multi billion dollar world wide companies and trying to get $500/month from San Pellegrino or Barilla might not be that difficult, these companies advertising budgets are massive. Now when they request our monthly log in numbers they might shy away but if we could just get a small monthly fee from these huge companies it would allow us to lower monthly subscription rates to $9.99

That's any extra few thousand dollars per month we could make up for the difference

 

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drop rates, and many current players will sub even more accounts for their friends/family to use.  I have multiple friends/family that will not pay $15/mo to play this game with me.  But they do play when I sub *for* them.  :) 

Edited by forrest
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

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. 

Games need players. Especially this game, it needs loads of them.

Share this post


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

Games need players. Especially this game, it needs loads of them.

Yup, you can't drive off half the playerbase with cockeyed tiers. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

Yup, you can't drive off half the playerbase with cockeyed tiers. 

 

16 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

Yup, you can't drive off half the playerbase with cockeyed tiers. 

Im not really sure what u mean exactly, but I think its a more recent problem.

Messing around with equipment in the name of balance is not going to bring players back anyway so still we have only subscription price as the last option.

Isnt it worth a try???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know CRS is afraid of a "red vs blue" game, but I don't agree at all that it would be like that. Each side has different variations of similar equipment that make them different enough to bridge the gap between identical and inbalanced (with a couple exceptions). For example, the 3H and Stu are both T1 tanks. The stu is fast and agile, the 3h is slower. The brit rifle holds 10 rounds in a clip, but takes longer to reload. The k98 holds 5 rounds, but reloads quicker since it only has to put 1 clip of 5 rounds into the weapon instead of 2 clips of 5 rounds. The mp40 fires slower and accurate, the Thompson fires fast and maybe a little less accurate. You get the point. Red vs blue would be reskinning the same exact tank for both sides. same speed, same gun, same armor, same sap spots, same commander binoculars, etc. Same goes for inf weapons. Every successful world war 2 game that I can think of has game balance and none of the players complain about "red vs blue".

 

I am not a new fan of the "historical" storytelling approach, which is why I unsubbed after all these years. I'm paying the same price to play with less equipment for a forced storyline attempt. And with the tz3 pop imbalance, maps aren't even lasting into the later tiers that often, limiting even more equipment.

 

Also, tier 0 and tier 1, as many above mentioned, drive off some players too. Takes around 2 weeks just to start getting the "fun" toys. That's half of a month. You have to wait around 3 weeks total to get to the even better ones. Once again that's 3/4 of a month! And if the campaign ends before that, the timer resets. Another 3 weeks minimum. I think they should just start in tier 2 or tier 3. If some are afraid of the change, start it as tier 2 and make it a longer tier 2... say like 1.5-2 weeks. 

Edited by dfire
2 people like this

Share this post


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

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.

There is no consensus  on this at all. In fact here a stable strategic map has the priority not player numbers.  Absolute numerical balance has the priority not player numbers. So a map that doesn't move with 30 people on each side is a desireable situation. I'm sure that some wouldn't mind if the total numbers were higher, but again even numbers and map stability come first.

The state of the game is fairly easy to understand if you realize that practically everyone here sees the high command roleplaying as the real WW2online, with the FPS portion just some sort of subordinate side activity. This is the reason for the endless tweaking of spawnlists and brigade rules, including the recent one you referred to while the FPS experience collapses. CRS thought that historical brigade numbers would spice up the game as it does make HC more interesting, but the FPS players don't care about the flags. It's also the reason for CRS's public confusion over the negative reception to the spawnlist changes, as they thought that were improving the game by enhancing the rolepalying aspect (using historical numbers and cost) when all FPS players want is a functional battle.

And I can see how it's reason for the continued insistence on the $18/month subscription, because from their perspective there is more work being done than ever on the roleplaying game; they do not see the massive devaulation that has occurred due to the drop in concurrent players, the intensity of the fighting, and the level of tactical play. The HC game is as hot as ever, and the only problem being that there aren't enough HC officers hence the recent effort to cannibalize the last remaining squads in to HC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, dfire said:

I know CRS is afraid of a "red vs blue" game, but I don't agree at all that it would be like that. Each side has different variations of similar equipment that make them different enough to bridge the gap between identical and inbalanced (with a couple exceptions). For example, the 3H and Stu are both T1 tanks. The stu is fast and agile, the 3h is slower. The brit rifle holds 10 rounds in a clip, but takes longer to reload. The k98 holds 5 rounds, but reloads quicker since it only has to put 1 clip of 5 rounds into the weapon instead of 2 clips of 5 rounds. The mp40 fires slower and accurate, the Thompson fires fast and maybe a little less accurate. You get the point. Red vs blue would be reskinning the same exact tank for both sides. same speed, same gun, same armor, same sap spots, same commander binoculars, etc. Same goes for inf weapons. Every successful world war 2 game that I can think of has game balance and none of the players complain about "red vs blue".

 

I am not a new fan of the "historical" storytelling approach, which is why I unsubbed after all these years. I'm paying the same price to play with less equipment for a forced storyline attempt. And with the tz3 pop imbalance, maps aren't even lasting into the later tiers that often, limiting even more equipment.

 

Also, tier 0 and tier 1, as many above mentioned, drive off some players too. Takes around 2 weeks just to start getting the "fun" toys. That's half of a month. You have to wait around 3 weeks total to get to the even better ones. Once again that's 3/4 of a month! And if the campaign ends before that, the timer resets. Another 3 weeks minimum. I think they should just start in tier 2 or tier 3. If some are afraid of the change, start it as tier 2 and make it a longer tier 2... say like 1.5-2 weeks. 

@DOC did something about this when he was Game Manager.  Tier progression was not fixed based on number of days, it was based on how quickly the map was moving in one direction.  Faster maps meant quicker tiers, which meant more access to late tier toys.  Longer/slower maps would stick to the 10 days per tier or whatever it was back then.  

 

Is there any way you could take a more active part in this @OHM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think this thread has zeroed in on what needs to happen to re-invigorate the game. Great input from all the contributors so far.. save one or two snarky punks. 

Share this post


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

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?

either way, they're slow to recognize problems. they just keep bleeding off subs from critical problems

leaders quitting (leaving greentags clueless and alone), inactive AO's, long downtime's, expense, squads loosing squad nights (squads used to have ample supply to play with and their own FRU's), etc

 

there were 200 people paying 30$/mo and at least 300 premiums. steam alone had this many greentags, but both groups faced above problems and the problems were ignored

 

 

my steam experience could be summed up as: 50 squadless guys getting camped at the only spawn in game, 20 others walking from the FB, another 30 wandering around town

i did what my XO did and PM'd a few and they were PM'ing back, they were bored (even after learning the basics). the same reason the vets were quitting.

Share this post


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

Im not really sure what u mean exactly, but I think its a more recent problem.

Messing around with equipment in the name of balance is not going to bring players back anyway so still we have only subscription price as the last option.

Isnt it worth a try???

the squads are the foundation of the game, they teach and recruit people for ops. these are the guys that are leaving/logging less

the AO/DO reactionary gameplay is utterly basic compared to the squad gameplay. even with free accounts, people aern't playing as much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, david06 said:

There is no consensus  on this at all. In fact here a stable strategic map has the priority not player numbers.  Absolute numerical balance has the priority not player numbers. So a map that doesn't move with 30 people on each side is a desireable situation. I'm sure that some wouldn't mind if the total numbers were higher, but again even numbers and map stability come first.

The state of the game is fairly easy to understand if you realize that practically everyone here sees the high command roleplaying as the real WW2online, with the FPS portion just some sort of subordinate side activity. This is the reason for the endless tweaking of spawnlists and brigade rules, including the recent one you referred to while the FPS experience collapses. CRS thought that historical brigade numbers would spice up the game as it does make HC more interesting, but the FPS players don't care about the flags. It's also the reason for CRS's public confusion over the negative reception to the spawnlist changes, as they thought that were improving the game by enhancing the rolepalying aspect (using historical numbers and cost) when all FPS players want is a functional battle.

And I can see how it's reason for the continued insistence on the $18/month subscription, because from their perspective there is more work being done than ever on the roleplaying game; they do not see the massive devaulation that has occurred due to the drop in concurrent players, the intensity of the fighting, and the level of tactical play. The HC game is as hot as ever, and the only problem being that there aren't enough HC officers hence the recent effort to cannibalize the last remaining squads in to HC.

Are you saying that you are fine with an almost empty server as long as the map is stable?? Or did I miss the point?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you wanna understand where we're coming from, use this site

https://stats.wwiionline.com/sidesummary.php

goto camp 94-105

then look at the last 5 campaigns ToM/sorties/deaths. 2013's [campaign 96] & 2018's [campaign 158] were both 40 days, but 96 had 2x the stats

there's a 11 day campaign that can rival a modern month long campaign

 

thing is, the 2013-14   94-105 activity was fairly regular for a few years, yet it was still 1/2 as much as the ones from 07

the 2016-18 campaigns are just sad

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For people who dont like historical introduced tiers/weapons, there are many who do, so it's not a one-way street. Furthermore it seems the biggest concerns aren't the basic principle of historical introduction dates, but the specific spawn numbers that were chosen.

For every Allied arguing and saying they will unsub over the SMG numbers, there are as many Axis saying the exact same regarding Matty numbers.

FWIW I think that we should have half-tiers and weapons should have historic introduction dates and be balanced by spawn numbers. So that would mean Tiger in Tier 2.5 but balanced where there are 1-2 per AB. Similarly British keep the Matty in Tier 0, as it has always been (and get their 1-tier of gameplay advantage), but the numbers are balanced to where to facilitates equal gameplay for all sides while keeping national flavor/characteristics in play.

Its like modelling the Eastern front and not putting in the T-34 and KV-1, because it is too good of a tank. Craziness IMHO. Balance it by numbers available, not the presence of the weapon.

S!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think banking of subscriptions is a good plan, there's already enough evidence to point to other means of monetization working better. No new game bets on the subscription anymore. You're not going to see substantial growth reducing the price if you're still charging every month just for access. It's not going to work. Trends have moved away from monthly payments, I doubt the market will double back for a game with <1k daily. You'll shoot yourself in the foot again reducing the price, because you will never see returns on a subscription like you do a game with f2p/microtransactions. The gaming landscape has changed, you won't get far polishing up something that is already obsolete, infact it may just cost a whole lot of money and send you further down the hole on your investment. There's way to many people interested in a WWII-themed combined arm for this game to only have 200 recurring and 20 Steam. I dunno just opinions.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


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

I don't think banking of subscriptions is a good plan, there's already enough evidence to point to other means of monetization working better. No new game bets on the subscription anymore. You're not going to see substantial growth reducing the price if you're still charging every month just for access. It's not going to work. Trends have moved away from monthly payments, I doubt the market will double back for a game with <1k daily. You'll shoot yourself in the foot again reducing the price, because you will never see returns on a subscription like you do a game with f2p/microtransactions.

Most games that don't bank on subscriptions also don't bank on staying around for very long. Developers know that you can monetize colored hats and weapons skins for some many years and these games often have a shelf life. Some break out of this mold, like Planetside 2, and have a healthy subscriber base. But many go belly up after a few years when developers run out of bells and whistles to sell to players, the game gets abandoned by the studio, and a new game is designed to repeat the process.

I agree with you that we need alternate revenue streams and to monetize F2P better. But that requires a lot of code work to have it function properly. So realistically, at least in the 12-18 month horizon all we can do is tweak the cost side of things and continue rolling out the map expansions and new content because that is what gets players back in the game and gets them staying.

I had a recent squaddie come back after a long hiatus and the two things he mentioned was how the 88 had nice textures and a modern looking model, and that there was a ton of new equipment modelled.

We need to build on that because better graphics and new content will bring players into the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, aismov said:

Most games that don't bank on subscriptions also don't bank on staying around for very long. Developers know that you can monetize colored hats and weapons skins for some many years and these games often have a shelf life. Some break out of this mold, like Planetside 2, and have a healthy subscriber base. But many go belly up after a few years when developers run out of bells and whistles to sell to players, the game gets abandoned by the studio, and a new game is designed to repeat the process.

I agree with you that we need alternate revenue streams and to monetize F2P better. But that requires a lot of code work to have it function properly. So realistically, at least in the 12-18 month horizon all we can do is tweak the cost side of things and continue rolling out the map expansions and new content because that is what gets players back in the game and gets them staying.

I had a recent squaddie come back after a long hiatus and the two things he mentioned was how the 88 had nice textures and a modern looking model, and that there was a ton of new equipment modelled.

We need to build on that because better graphics and new content will bring players into the game.

MMO's for the most part, I  think, are timeless as a  good MMO always holds water as long as it's the best for it's theme. I mean look at Old School Runescape, it looks like complete dog but it still pulls more numbers than the newest Runescape 3 with the pretty graphics and fancy combat. E.V.E has been around just as long and has stayed well relevant as probably the best sandbox of all time. WWII is the only WWII MMO in existence, so it has it's spot but it needs to be utilized.  So much potential here it's crazy that we're sitting here discussing how we can squeeze through the next year when a game like hero's and generals and world of tanks still sits on a healthy playerbase being complete trash. CRS isn't wrong putting high value on this game, but they're doing it the wrong way. There's more value in the icing than there is the cake. That's what's changed yet we're still very reluctant to accept that F2P does work, and can be monetized, and can co-exist with subscription and NOT be pay2win. I can't even imagine how many people are just waiting for that to happen so this game can pick up the steam like they thought it would. I know a few hundred people who like the premise, but are turned away by the outdated pay model. It's hard to get your friends to join when in the same breath you need to tell them to buy into a subscription service to play for real. Now if that was 1 time buy it would be different, but it's not 1 time buy.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one struggle  to find a reason to login anymore. It's not because the allies are losing..its because there comes a point in the game where the numbers defending or attacking are just so low as to be totally ineffective.  If I see a subbed player every once in a while its a good day. Having a million matties doesn't mean squat if there is only 2 subbed players on the allied side.

Yes, the sub prices are waaay too high. Everyone knows the gameplay can be world beating WHEN THE SERVER POP IS HIGH.

Conversely, at our current pop lvls people are UNSUBBING in droves.  You know it, we know it. Rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic is what playing with lists and fms timers is doing..zero effect on the overall population lvls.

In the short term I would half the sub at least, and possibly lower it further once micro tranactions, and billboard ads are in game. Hell put billboards on Bridges..on major roads etc.

We know there are fixed costs to run the game...we all want the game to succeed, but atm it seems the devs are hellbent on a self destructive push to the holygrail of 1.36 (which will likely bring back some vets but the vast majority of new players couldn't care less about).

Also, remember that other countries of the world have exchange rates that kill off any chance of getting players. $25AU a month for ANY  game is a tough ask in this financial environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jet2019 said:

In the short term I would half the sub at least, and possibly lower it further once micro tranactions, and billboard ads are in game. Hell put billboards on Bridges..on major roads etc.

We know there are fixed costs to run the game...we all want the game to succeed, but atm it seems the devs are hellbent on a self destructive push to the holygrail of 1.36 (which will likely bring back some vets but the vast majority of new players couldn't care less about).

Also, remember that other countries of the world have exchange rates that kill off any chance of getting players. $25AU a month for ANY  game is a tough ask in this financial environment. 

Great point on the exchange rates. 

Regarding fixed costs my understanding is that the evidence has shown that drastically decreasing sub prices is not financially sustainable, without other monetization options in place *and* proven to bring in revenue.

Never saw of the branch you have your safety line attached to. Closing down the only revenue stream you have in the hopes that an alternate model will work is not good business strategy. It's gambling with your financial sustainability.

There are lots of things that could and should be done. Most important is seeing if you can get the premium subscription price down to $9.99 and the starter to $4.99. Next would be F2P monetization, and lastly would be to monetize ingame billboards and the physical game environment.

As a Hero Builder I'm doing what I can to support the project. Hopefully more do the same! S!

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the point i was trying to make with my post spam (sorry...) is; just like steam, having a huge influx of new players won't help if the guys to get them started are less than the influx

and the guys left for solid reasons.

Share this post


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

@DOC did something about this when he was Game Manager.  Tier progression was not fixed based on number of days, it was based on how quickly the map was moving in one direction.  Faster maps meant quicker tiers, which meant more access to late tier toys.  Longer/slower maps would stick to the 10 days per tier or whatever it was back then.  

 

Is there any way you could take a more active part in this @OHM?

This campaign I have already pushed Tier 0 faster ... that was only 7 days and Tier 1 at 5 days and I planned to make it flip on Monday at the 7 day mark. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours 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!

It is the players that determines the outcome of our maps. The only possible way I could think someone could balance any game is to do what a sports team does such as baseball. So who would be willing to pick a side and stay with that side for the whole map?  Regardless which side is winning if some members change sides they control who or what side will win. There is no such thing anymore as a balanced it’s just not a game as such. In real life there is no balance eitheir and in our game there are not many dedicated people like there once was that will stay on one side even during an hour of game play let alone a whole map. Times change as do people young or OLD like I am. I have never played axis since I joined game in 2001 although I have thought about it at times. Spawn delays were implicated to try and fix the issue of side imbalance and it has failed. Most everyone hates spawn delays and are say so quite often.

I don’t quite understand you statement that CRS needs to see this as a game not a classroom to tell a story. Our games subscribers have gone up and down for years just like any other game. When a game is new people want to try it if they like it they stay if they don’t they move on.

What I have written is just my opinion at the time I wrote it and is subject to interpretation of everyone and is subject by myself to change at anytime i chose. 

I Salute you and everyone else,Cheers

Edited by playtime
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about manipulating tier length based on how the map is going. That feels really gamey to me. I would set that out at the start of the campaign, and make each tier last as close to the same amount of time as possible. Of course the last tier can just linger on but that is the exception not the rule! If tier 0 is 5 days, the other tiers leading up to the last should also be 5.

Share this post


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

For people who dont like historical introduced tiers/weapons, there are many who do, so it's not a one-way street. Furthermore it seems the biggest concerns aren't the basic principle of historical introduction dates, but the specific spawn numbers that were chosen.

For every Allied arguing and saying they will unsub over the SMG numbers, there are as many Axis saying the exact same regarding Matty numbers.

FWIW I think that we should have half-tiers and weapons should have historic introduction dates and be balanced by spawn numbers. So that would mean Tiger in Tier 2.5 but balanced where there are 1-2 per AB. Similarly British keep the Matty in Tier 0, as it has always been (and get their 1-tier of gameplay advantage), but the numbers are balanced to where to facilitates equal gameplay for all sides while keeping national flavor/characteristics in play.

Its like modelling the Eastern front and not putting in the T-34 and KV-1, because it is too good of a tank. Craziness IMHO. Balance it by numbers available, not the presence of the weapon.

S!

 

Who likes it? Axis players? Historical introduction of weapons and numbers is a joke. Too many other factors not accounted for, the largest being player side population. It needs to be abandoned, and now!  In theory you could have a side with superior weapons (axis) while the opposing side (allies) had superior numbers (more people playing). In practices, it doesn't work, because the player base all gravitates to the side with the better weapons (be it perceived or not). Net result is one side with superior weapons and population advantage, and then CRS sits bat and scratches its head and wonders what went wrong. 

Edited by nc0gnet0
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I love the historical introduction of gear and more realistic ratios of said gear.

Do we need to edit it some? Maybe.

Do we need to increase overall supply some?  Maybe.

Are the ratios a bit off?  Maybe.

Everyone knows the biggest issue is pop level between the sides - and then leadership; not the gear.

This has easily been proven as allies should have completely slaughtered axis with over 40 matties last map per division.

I'm not sure sure how to solve the pop issue.

Action issue, imo we need to allow things to move quicker (MS set, cap time, AO set etc).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.