• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Hells Gate   03/24/2019

      Break through the lines, and enter Hells Gate!!! This will be the next CRS organized event.  Lead by the High command from each side.
      Free Premium Access for the event
      Date: 3/30/19 Time: 11:00 AM Server time/ 12:00pm EST/ 1600 GMT
formio

I dont understand

109 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, delems said:

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).

Much a do about nothing. Number of matties is irrelevant if you don't have anyone spawning in. Maps are won and lost based on inf population, tanks are almost a side note. This takes us to the capture model and how it is done in game, which is not realistic at all. WW2 was not fought by running into depots and army bases and "capping" them. That's absurd. This is why the auto weapon disparity and the Axis uber LMG is such an issue, because of how it effects the success ratio of capping a town, which is something that is unique to this game, and far from being historically accurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally agree with original poster.  Only lowering subscription price will bring more numbers.

The only other thing that would bring in more large numbers is WW2 Online 2.0 (a new game engine).

Both thing above are not easy to do.

No other tweaks, new equipment, town based supply sysrem, etc... is going to bring in large numbers of new players and keep them.

Lowering subscription price may be the solution, but there is risk for CRS because they rely on their long term premium subscribers to stay afloat.

SO... I HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR A POSSIBLE SOLUTION:

Maybe CRS could ask their long term premium subscribers to prepay for one full year  who will continue playing anyways (and keep CRS going for one full year).

And during this time CRS can lower subscriptions for everybody else.  If after one year the number of new subscriptions justfy the lower sunscriptions, then CRS can lower the price for the old timers too who prepaid a full year in advance to try this out.  Its a win-win for everyone long term if it works.

I think this might work if the plan is communicated well too the player community and people understand why they should prepay a year in advance.

What  do you guys think?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, spawn timers are the wrong way to try to adjust for side imbalance, as it makes the gaming experience less fun. IMHO it would be a much better practice to account for side imbalance on the weapon supply side. For instance, when a side was overpop by a 2-1 ratio, when the over pop side spawns in say an mp40, deduct 2 mp40's from the available weapons list. Now, I am not sure exactly how the ratios would work, (maybe only cost the overpop side 1.5 mp40's), but it is something to try.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I generally agree with original poster.  Only lowering subscription price will bring more numbers.

The only other thing that would bring in more large numbers is WW2 Online 2.0 (a new game engine).

Both thing above are not easy to do.

No other tweaks, new equipment, town based supply sysrem, etc... is going to bring in large numbers of new players and keep them.

Lowering subscription price may be the solution, but there is risk for CRS because they rely on their long term premium subscribers to stay afloat.

SO... I HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR A POSSIBLE SOLUTION:

Maybe CRS could ask their long term premium subscribers to prepay for one full year  who will continue playing anyways (and keep CRS going for one full year).

And during this time CRS can lower subscriptions for everybody else.  If after one year the number of new subscriptions justfy the lower sunscriptions, then CRS can lower the price for the old timers too who prepaid a full year in advance to try this out.  Its a win-win for everyone long term if it works.

I think this might work if the plan is communicated well too the player community and people understand why they should prepay a year in advance.

What  do you guys think?

And what if CRS goes belly up 5 months in, leaving subscribers who payed for a year basically screwed? Better off introducing a model in which "premium" subscribers that pay a fee have a seat at the table in the decision making process. 

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

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. 

Are you ready to give up the Matty or Char in Tier0?

Because if you follow your logic that is exactly what needs to be done. And when the Eastern Front is modelled the same logic has to be applied to the T-34 and KV1. And when Tier5 comes we won't be able to model the King Tiger because the Western Allies have no effective counter.

Just saying that if you go down the road of "balanced triads" you dig yourself into a hole you can't explain yourself to the playerbase out of.

Nobody is saying we shouldn't have balanced numbers. Quite the contrary essentially everyone wants exactly that. Nobody is advocated superior weapons Ono e side compensated by overpop on the other. 

This is a game after all, not a hardcore simulation of the Eastern Front circa March, 1945.

 

 

Edited by aismov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

And what if CRS goes belly up 5 months in, leaving subscribers who payed for a year basically screwed? Better off introducing a model in which "premium" subscribers that pay a fee have a seat at the table in the decision making process. 

This game has been around for almost 20 years and run by guys who love the game. I don’t think they would take the money and run.

And if we prepay one year then of course there would be funds to cover the overhead while they tried a lower premium fee experiment.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

Are you ready to give up the Matty or Char in Tier0?

Because if you follow your logic that is exactly what needs to be done. And when the Eastern Front is modelled the same logic has to be applied to the T-34 and KV1. And when Tier5 comes we won't be able to model the King Tiger because the Western Allies have no effective counter.

Just saying that if you go down the road of "balanced triads" you dig yourself into a hole you can't explain yourself to the playerbase out of.

Nobody is saying we shouldn't have balanced numbers. Quite the contrary essentially everyone wants exactly that. Nobody is advocated superior weapons Ono e side compensated by overpop on the other. 

This is a game after all, not a hardcore simulation of the Eastern Front circa March, 1945.

Are you ready to give up the Matty or Char in Tier0?

Because if you follow your logic that is exactly what needs to be done. And when the Eastern Front is modelled the same logic has to be applied to the T-34 and KV1. And when Tier5 comes we won't be able to model the King Tiger because the Western Allies have no effective counter.

Just saying that if you go down the road of "balanced triads" you dig yourself into a hole you can't explain yourself to the playerbase out of.

Nobody is saying we shouldn't have balanced numbers. Quite the contrary essentially everyone wants exactly that. Nobody is advocated superior weapons Ono e side compensated by overpop on the other. 

This is a game after all, not a hardcore simulation of the Eastern Front circa March, 1945.

Are you ready to give up the Matty or Char in Tier0?

Because if you follow your logic that is exactly what needs to be done. And when the Eastern Front is modelled the same logic has to be applied to the T-34 and KV1. And when Tier5 comes we won't be able to model the King Tiger because the Western Allies have no effective counter.

Just saying that if you go down the road of "balanced triads" you dig yourself into a hole you can't explain yourself to the playerbase out of.

Nobody is saying we shouldn't have balanced numbers. Quite the contrary essentially everyone wants exactly that. Nobody is advocated superior weapons Ono e side compensated by overpop on the other. 

This is a game after all, not a hardcore simulation of the Eastern Front circa March, 1945.

Are you ready to give up the Matty or Char in Tier0?

Because if you follow your logic that is exactly what needs to be done. And when the Eastern Front is modelled the same logic has to be applied to the T-34 and KV1. And when Tier5 comes we won't be able to model the King Tiger because the Western Allies have no effective counter.

Just saying that if you go down the road of "balanced triads" you dig yourself into a hole you can't explain yourself to the playerbase out of.

Nobody is saying we shouldn't have balanced numbers. Quite the contrary essentially everyone wants exactly that. Nobody is advocated superior weapons Ono e side compensated by overpop on the other. 

This is a game after all, not a hardcore simulation of the Eastern Front circa March, 1945.

Are you ready to give up the Matty or Char in Tier0?

Because if you follow your logic that is exactly what needs to be done. And when the Eastern Front is modelled the same logic has to be applied to the T-34 and KV1. And when Tier5 comes we won't be able to model the King Tiger because the Western Allies have no effective counter.

Just saying that if you go down the road of "balanced triads" you dig yourself into a hole you can't explain yourself to the playerbase out of.

Nobody is saying we shouldn't have balanced numbers. Quite the contrary essentially everyone wants exactly that. Nobody is advocated superior weapons Ono e side compensated by overpop on the other. 

This is a game after all, not a hardcore simulation of the Eastern Front circa March, 1945.

Are you ready to give up the Matty or Char in Tier0?

Because if you follow your logic that is exactly what needs to be done. And when the Eastern Front is modelled the same logic has to be applied to the T-34 and KV1. And when Tier5 comes we won't be able to model the King Tiger because the Western Allies have no effective counter.

Just saying that if you go down the road of "balanced triads" you dig yourself into a hole you can't explain yourself to the playerbase out of.

Nobody is saying we shouldn't have balanced numbers. Quite the contrary essentially everyone wants exactly that. Nobody is advocated superior weapons Ono e side compensated by overpop on the other. 

This is a game after all, not a hardcore simulation of the Eastern Front circa March, 1945.

echo echo echo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, krazydog said:

I generally agree with original poster.  Only lowering subscription price will bring more numbers.

The only other thing that would bring in more large numbers is WW2 Online 2.0 (a new game engine).

Both thing above are not easy to do.

No other tweaks, new equipment, town based supply sysrem, etc... is going to bring in large numbers of new players and keep them.

Lowering subscription price may be the solution, but there is risk for CRS because they rely on their long term premium subscribers to stay afloat.

SO... I HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR A POSSIBLE SOLUTION:

Maybe CRS could ask their long term premium subscribers to prepay for one full year  who will continue playing anyways (and keep CRS going for one full year).

And during this time CRS can lower subscriptions for everybody else.  If after one year the number of new subscriptions justfy the lower sunscriptions, then CRS can lower the price for the old timers too who prepaid a full year in advance to try this out.  Its a win-win for everyone long term if it works.

I think this might work if the plan is communicated well too the player community and people understand why they should prepay a year in advance.

What  do you guys think?

Curious what xoom thinks.

@XOOM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Are you ready to give up the Matty or Char in Tier0?

Because if you follow your logic that is exactly what needs to be done. And when the Eastern Front is modelled the same logic has to be applied to the T-34 and KV1. And when Tier5 comes we won't be able to model the King Tiger because the Western Allies have no effective counter.

Just saying that if you go down the road of "balanced triads" you dig yourself into a hole you can't explain yourself to the playerbase out of.

Nobody is saying we shouldn't have balanced numbers. Quite the contrary essentially everyone wants exactly that. Nobody is advocated superior weapons Ono e side compensated by overpop on the other. 

This is a game after all, not a hardcore simulation of the Eastern Front circa March, 1945.

 

Absolutely, as long as giving those up was a means to bringing parity (ie the axis would have to give things up as well)

The eastern front will never be modeled, were all kidding ourselves if we think that will happen, but it does bring up an interesting sub-point. The only reason the German tanks are what they are was they were designed to engage the KV-1 and T-34. With the omission of the eastern front (which is a complete joke in a ww2 sim) why does the Tiger and P4 even exist in game? For almost 20 years running now, we have a ww2 game that chooses to ignore the battlefield in which 70% of the war was fought. 

Not sure why your saying "go down the road of "balanced triads" you dig yourself into a hole you can't explain"....... My friend this ground was already breeched when the game was introduced with no eastern front. I have been saying all along, you can't half a$$ history. If you want to take a historical approach to the game (which I highly advise against), many many more factors have to be introduced other than just weapons and weapon models. War economics is a real thing. Over extending ones forces is a real thing. Each capture of an enemy territory comes at a cost, not just in lives and equipment lost, but costs of occupying the newly acquired territory. Furthermore, since in game the French don't have the Maginot line (in game), isn't it safe to assume that that money spent would have been spent on tanks an mobile ATG's as well? And before you reply how ineffective the line was (Germans drove around it) it at least gave a commander that had a clue (the French did not) on where the attack was most likely to come from). 

Which leads to another point-Strategic objectives and the cost if they are not met. The german war machine needed to secure oil, be if in Grozni or in North Africa, they did not. As such any historian will tell you that the war was really over by fall of 1941.  so if you want to explore this historical approach in game, this is a war of attrition, and all the allies really need to do is hold on until tier 1-1.5, and if they are not conquered, they have won the war. 

In essence, what I am saying is historical accuracy is not a road you want to go down, period. Because if you do, and you model it correctly, the Allies (not the axis) win every time. 

Dfire's approach to a red vs blue in a ww2 wrapper is about the best you can hope for. 

Edited by nc0gnet0
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nc0gnet0 said:

In essence, what I am saying is historical accuracy is not a road you want to go down, period. Because if you do, and you model it correctly, the Allies (not the axis) win every time. 

Dfire's approach to a red vs blue in a ww2 wrapper is about the best you can hope for. 

I couldn't disagree more. Turning this into red vs blue would drive away many players since the reason many of us play this game is to realistically recreate the weapons of the war with their national characteristics, in a balanced manner, but not foreshadow any inevitable result.

If you follow your proposal to its logical conclusion that means we have to eliminate the Char and Matty from Tier 0. You then need to eliminate the 88 as well since the allies don't have anything equivalent. The Allies can't have the Lancaster or B-17 since the Axis didn't have a heavy 4-prop bomber. You can't model the Me262 because the Allies didn't have jets. We have to give up on the Navy since the Axis never fielded aircraft carriers. Also eliminate submarines since the Allies never fielded an equivalently advanced submarine.

Essentially we end up with a game where all we have is Pz38t fighting A13s and H39s, with some Pak36 ATG against 2 pounders.

Essentially what I'm getting at is if you go down the red vs blue rabbit hole you quickly eliminate WWII out of WWIIOL.

Much better, IMHO, is to model national flavored as they historically came out but balance the spawn numbers so the weapon isn't too overpowering. So you don't give the Axis 24 88s or 14 Tigers, and similarly don't give the Allies 30 Chars. But keep the vehicles ingame, in reasonable numbers, to make it feel like the war, without necessarily requiring the same strategic outcomes as they happened during every year of the war.

S!

 

Share this post


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

I couldn't disagree more. Turning this into red vs blue would drive away many players since the reason many of us play this game is to realistically recreate the weapons of the war with their national characteristics, in a balanced manner, but not foreshadow any inevitable result.

If you follow your proposal to its logical conclusion that means we have to eliminate the Char and Matty from Tier 0. You then need to eliminate the 88 as well since the allies don't have anything equivalent. The Allies can't have the Lancaster or B-17 since the Axis didn't have a heavy 4-prop bomber. You can't model the Me262 because the Allies didn't have jets. We have to give up on the Navy since the Axis never fielded aircraft carriers. Also eliminate submarines since the Allies never fielded an equivalently advanced submarine.

Essentially we end up with a game where all we have is Pz38t fighting A13s and H39s, with some Pak36 ATG against 2 pounders.

Essentially what I'm getting at is if you go down the red vs blue rabbit hole you quickly eliminate WWII out of WWIIOL.

Much better, IMHO, is to model national flavored as they historically came out but balance the spawn numbers so the weapon isn't too overpowering. So you don't give the Axis 24 88s or 14 Tigers, and similarly don't give the Allies 30 Chars. But keep the vehicles ingame, in reasonable numbers, to make it feel like the war, without necessarily requiring the same strategic outcomes as they happened during every year of the war.

S!

 

says who? Try it out for a campaign. 

 

Quote

"Essentially what I'm getting at is if you go down the red vs blue rabbit hole you quickly eliminate WWII out of WWIIOL."

I have listed numerous reasons what that has already been done. 

 

Quote

Much better, IMHO, is to model national flavored as they historically came out but balance the spawn numbers so the weapon isn't too overpowering. So you don't give the Axis 24 88s or 14 Tigers, and similarly don't give the Allies 30 Chars. But keep the vehicles ingame, in reasonable numbers, to make it feel like the war, without necessarily requiring the same strategic outcomes as they happened during every year of the war.

Again, doing so ignores the fact of why the weapons existed in the first place, to counter the Kv-1 and t-34's, which the allies do not have. Ultimately your argument always go's back to history, which in game is a best a bad charature. You keep coming back to the matty/Char argument, and it suggests your primary weapon of choice is axis tanks. IMO, the biggest glaring problem that exists in game is more infantry based, because a tank can't cap sh**. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really like to see Xoom comment on krazydogs post.

 

Again, we can drop the discussion on axis lmgs, allied mattys, balance (whatever that is), graphics, timers, flags, town supply, snow and all such things. They have no impact at all on the number of new and returning players.

Xoom, what do u think?

Share this post


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

I would really like to see Xoom comment on krazydogs post.

 

Again, we can drop the discussion on axis lmgs, allied mattys, balance (whatever that is), graphics, timers, flags, town supply, snow and all such things. They have no impact at all on the number of new and returning players.

Xoom, what do u think?

So in game enjoyment has nothing to do with new and returning players? Are you crazy? I find the cost just fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

So in game enjoyment has nothing to do with new and returning players? Are you crazy? I find the cost just fine. 

What do you mean "game enjoyment"?

Playing 10 vs 5 on a map designed for many hundreds online at the same time? Maybe thousands?

Or is game enjoyment for you playing with exactly the same weapons as the enemy? Then its a completely different game, and it wont bring people back anyway.

Or maybe you are one of those who think the game would be perfect if only axis lost this weapon or allies lost that weapon? You maybe dont care at all if even more players left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 vs 15 right now...      and people still play axis and take towns,...   there is no hope ..

Share this post


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

3 vs 15 right now...      and people still play axis and take towns,...   there is no hope ..

Says allies are over pop right now.

Share this post


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

I would really like to see Xoom comment on krazydogs post.

 

Again, we can drop the discussion on axis lmgs, allied mattys, balance (whatever that is), graphics, timers, flags, town supply, snow and all such things. They have no impact at all on the number of new and returning players.

Xoom, what do u think?

Open discussion of CRS business/subscription decisions isn't really a good idea. For CRS or us.  Graphics, town supply, lmgs and mattys (and AOs and TOEs etc) ALL had impact both on new players joining (then) and old players (leaving) and new new players not staying.  Judging (or guessing) the ratios and reasons of why players come and stay or come and go is a bit like mind reading without a mind. 

CRS 2.0 has worked hard at a giving a public roadmap to 1.36 and seems to be sticking to it.  Give them a bit of credit, a bit of brains and a bit of time. Understand  your frustration of course - the game shines in whole new ways with hundreds and hundreds of players. And with lots of pop, some of the minor irritants (and fixes) discussed here endlessly just disappear into the fun.  We don't have that now. So those who want to stay and play, pay. 

Longer-term, you're probably right - a WWIIOL 2.0 is probably what is needed to satisfy the vets and more importantly to get and retain new numbers and  young players. That's a bigger decision, requiring way bigger money and a long term time commitment - likely 3 or 4  years of planning, alpha, beta, and so on. Might have to take that leap sometime soon- if not with investment money, then with a bigger vision and a bigger kickstarter  or Shrouds of the Avatar type dev funding model. 

While that's happening and I hope it does, many will still be here discussing lmgs, mattys, balance, flags and snow. And Moz will be still complaining about the rain. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, OHM said:

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. 

Oh excellent.  Good to know.  Thanks!

 

S!

Share this post


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

Open discussion of CRS business/subscription decisions isn't really a good idea. For CRS or us.  Graphics, town supply, lmgs and mattys (and AOs and TOEs etc) ALL had impact both on new players joining (then) and old players (leaving) and new new players not staying.  Judging (or guessing) the ratios and reasons of why players come and stay or come and go is a bit like mind reading without a mind. 

CRS 2.0 has worked hard at a giving a public roadmap to 1.36 and seems to be sticking to it.  Give them a bit of credit, a bit of brains and a bit of time. Understand  your frustration of course - the game shines in whole new ways with hundreds and hundreds of players. And with lots of pop, some of the minor irritants (and fixes) discussed here endlessly just disappear into the fun.  We don't have that now. So those who want to stay and play, pay. 

Longer-term, you're probably right - a WWIIOL 2.0 is probably what is needed to satisfy the vets and more importantly to get and retain new numbers and  young players. That's a bigger decision, requiring way bigger money and a long term time commitment - likely 3 or 4  years of planning, alpha, beta, and so on. Might have to take that leap sometime soon- if not with investment money, then with a bigger vision and a bigger kickstarter  or Shrouds of the Avatar type dev funding model. 

While that's happening and I hope it does, many will still be here discussing lmgs, mattys, balance, flags and snow. And Moz will be still complaining about the rain. 

 

 

I get the point. And I give CRS credit for being more transparent nowdays. Its a good thing.

But we had so many "soon" or "just wait until this and that" while months and years fly by and nothing really changes when it comes to numbers.

So why not try this one thing that maybe could change numbers positively right now? Are you really against that?

One thing I agree on is that a high number of players will generate more fun and that in turn will make the constant complaining disappear into the fun. Thats exactly what i was trying to say from the behinning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Psych0 said:

Says allies are over pop right now.

When players despawn after taking a town, the Persona screen will occasionally say that the overpop side is underpop and vice versa.  

Edited by Capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2019 at 11:40 AM, B2K said:

 

the question:
how many players want or can afford $ 17.99 and
How many want or can they afford $ 5?

Edited by karecafree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a minimum, sub prices need to be lowered in markets where the current in-game population is terribly low. So ..... if we need more people in the Australia/NZ and Asia/Pacific areas .... lower their rates to try to prop up their numbers. This would have a positive effect on all players because seeing an uncontested slaughter go on every day is disheartening and just ruins the game entirely IMO. 

No guarantee that they play during their tz's prime time, i know .... 

Now i know there is no guarantee that lowering sub prices equals balance. However 20 vs. 5 is a lot worse than 60 vs 30.

Edited by choad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.