XOOM

Veterans unsubscribing and starting Free Accounts

187 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, choad said:

Every time you post in the forums you go on a jag about this. Get some new material man, seriously. During the times that i play i see nothing that matches your description. Might happen at times, but certainly it is not the norm so far as i have seen. You sir, are full of sh!!t. I understand it is probably tough on the 'ol ego and stats to square off against the matty for those 5 to 7 days in tier 0. But don't let those frustrations turn into a smear on an entire side and how they play the game.

You addressing me as sir and then calling me full of [censored], is like smearing lipstick on a pig , just come out and call me what you really want to call me.

Just recently can't remember  the town , Allied capped the Spawn next to AB . Not once, not twice ,a solid 3 times there were multiple at one time Matildas and Stuarts right next to that CP and imagine that the CP was right next an AB .  The ETS were 3 deep at times  , Tiger004 was one of the players , I remember him cause I ended up getting him twice , the last was with a sapper as he was the last Tank left after a real hard battle .

You want new material stop crying about the same [censored] over and over again. You want different results in game but the Allied OP has since I play this game not changed in all these years roll in the heavies lock down or try to lock down the AB . Then come with INF. 80% of the time EWS goes of with ET 1st and then maybe the INF will follow.

You say it's not the norm , it has been the norm since this game launched . And now with CRS upping the Matilda numbers it has been right back to when  this game started.

I can make and will make the same claim about you guys crying about the LMG , I don't see what you see that one LMG runs in and wipes out a whole platoon of INF in a CP .

[censored] was in Ham yesterday as a LMG watching stairs deployed I might add no Rambo [censored] here another player SMG behind me when Stankyus runs in shoots kills me then run upstairs and kills the SMG did I mention he was a Rifle . Fen SHOCKING. Ain't it.

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dre21 said:

Really , maybe just maybe then don't spawn them in droves when a spawn CP is capped and rather play INF, for every player that sits in a Tank is one less that can recap. 

But I don't understand , you keep telling yourself that.

You ever wonder why Axis most of the time push the map west in tier 0 and tier 1 . It's because our Armor sucks and die most of the time after the 1st hit no matter where they get hit. So most go INF and stay INF till a higher tier might roll around .  

Taking the heavy Tanks away from the Allies might do wonders cause one would actually have to change their game play.   Right now it's the same rinse and repeat and one hopes for a different result but wonders why it ain't happening. 

You completely missed my point. I quoted your part about the French and British being intentionally split up.

 

Read the post next time please.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dre21In theory, is there any thread topic immune to your incessant whine about tier 0 Matty's?

Go create a new one or hijack one of the 4 active LMG threads that are all the rage right now.

8 minutes ago, dre21 said:

You addressing me as sir and then calling me full of [censored], is like smearing lipstick on a pig , just come out and call me what you really want to call me.

I am confused, do you want to be called mam? If you want to wear lipstick that is purely your business. I don't judge.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choad u know what's really funny Blakeh just admited you guys would be willing to give up the , well read it for  yourself I don't want to sound like a broken record. But for some odd reason you guys can't cause the magical beast lures you right into it. 

And with that another player can't cap or recap a CP .  

So you come here and tell me Axis side is OP most times and that very well maybe the case , just more reason to play INF with the players you have and not sit in steal beasts that can't do nothing but kill. You claim my EGO gets bruised in tier 0 or 1 , I'm not the one sitting in a Tank most of the time in that tier  , I'm actually running around as a Squishy and cap CPs away .

Once the my 3G makes the game then yes you will find me in a Panzer 90% of the time if available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dre21 said:

Choad u know what's really funny Blakeh just admited you guys would be willing to give up the , well read it for  yourself I don't want to sound like a broken record. But for some odd reason you guys can't cause the magical beast lures you right into it. 

I stopped caring all that much about the dastardly axis lmg to be honest. Keep it as is, really don't care. I just can not resist arguing with the guys who claim it is modeled as it was used ... and post ludacris videos that do nothing to support their argument. That's all. As for Matty's. I really don't care either. I suspect we probably have a few too many ... take a few away ... not the end of the world IMO. Additionally, take away 50% of the matty CS tanks ... as it is now, i dont think anyone will notice for better or worse.

 

And for the rest of the stuff you said ..... blah blah blah :P

Edited by choad

Share this post


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

You completely missed my point. I quoted your part about the French and British being intentionally split up.

 

Read the post next time please.

You know why that came about ? 

Cause one side complaint to much and again threatened with unsubbing cause the Brits only had a few Matildas ( sorry there is that word again ) and a [censored]load load of A13 but the A13 dies to fast so the complaints started cause Axis started to target the northern towns 1st .

You wanna know why cause the Axis tanker could actually play as a Tanker cause one could actually have fun doing so with some success .

But the whine fest started and CRS fixed it and let French and Brit brigades mingle once again .

 

27 minutes ago, dre21 said:

You addressing me as sir and then calling me full of [censored], is like smearing lipstick on a pig , just come out and call me what you really want to call me.

I am confused, do you want to be called mam? If you want to wear lipstick that is purely your business. I don't judge.

Not getting it are ya ? Sir = pig

Lipstick = full of [censored] or whatever you would rather call me .

Just because you addressed me as SIR means [censored] by what followed , in other words the SIR is also the lipstick part , you tried to dress something up but failed. Cause no matter how much lipstick you smear on a pig ,a pig is a pig .

So next time just call me what you want get it over with get your warning from a Rat and Man up.

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dre21 said:

You know why that came about ? 

Cause one side complaint to much and again threatened with unsubbing cause the Brits only had a few Matildas ( sorry there is that word again ) and a [censored]load load of A13 but the A13 dies to fast so the complaints started cause Axis started to target the northern towns 1st .

You wanna know why cause the Axis tanker could actually play as a Tanker cause one could actually have fun doing so with some success .

But the whine fest started and CRS fixed it and let French and Brit brigades mingle once again .

 

Again proving that you simply don’t understand how negatively that affected the Allies. It had nothing to do with Matildas or A13s or any single piece of equipment.

 

The north/south split drove a cultural wedge right in between the Allied player base. The Axis fought the Allies; the Allies not only fought the Axis, but each other. 

 

It it was one of the biggest reasons (if not THE biggest reason) for implementing movable supply. Why do you think CRS was so cautious about this fact moving forward with 1.36?

 

Many mainly Axis players haven’t the slightest clue what it means to have two armies instead of one in a unified structure.  It has the potential to make everything more challenging for the Allies, not easier. 

3 people like this

Share this post


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

Again proving that you simply don’t understand how negatively that affected the Allies. It had nothing to do with Matildas or A13s or any single piece of equipment.

 

The north/south split drove a cultural wedge right in between the Allied player base. The Axis fought the Allies; the Allies not only fought the Axis, but each other. 

 

It it was one of the biggest reasons (if not THE biggest reason) for implementing movable supply. Why do you think CRS was so cautious about this fact moving forward with 1.36?

 

Many mainly Axis players haven’t the slightest clue what it means to have two armies instead of one in a unified structure.  It has the potential to make everything more challenging for the Allies, not easier. 

And that's the Axis player base fault?

Cause you guys could not get along and play as a Team ?

So instead of fixing the problem within the Allied player base the call is to limit this and limit that and  make this behave like that and the other like that on Axis side.

I never once started  a post about cut this, limit that .

I even came up with a way the LMG maybe should be implemented in game instead of going  just NO you touch it I'll unsub, just like I gave options instead of being a resounding NO to the FRU idea.  

If  you reread my post I'm not saying limit your Tanks but say maybe try something different to maybe achieve another result. But even there it's  pulling nails with you guys.

Looking at everybody who could be or what could be at fault. Instead of really fixing what needs to be fixed. 

My opinion , you can take it for whatever you want .

 

 

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, minky said:

Would you rather have people still engaged and wanting the problems fixed or just leave and never look back?  If people are still coming here it means they still at least have enough interest To monitor the situation . You still have a chance at pulling them back in. Eventually they will move on and you’ve missed the chance to recapture that business. You should be thankful they are interested to still show up. 

In the last several posts what I see is if you’re not putting cash down all the time you don’t matter (so much for DLC), it’s selfish if you make your opinions known as F2P, and telling CRS what the problems are isn’t part of the solution. 

So be it. It’s certainly much easier to leave a bad review on Steam and then just be completely apathetic. 

So if people are invested “emotionally “ perhaps they should invest 

financially? Otherwise what’s the point?

Sure, making suggestions is great. 

I can make lots of suggestions but that’s all they will be unless there’s grist for the mill aka cash. 

I don’t doubt crs listens to all ideas. what they can do is another thing. 

I am basically reacting  to what I perceive as a somewhat complaining tone in some of the comments by people  

Which would be more palatable if people were putting their money where there mouth is.  As the old saying goes. 

Just my perception of it. 

Must be my old man’s influence. 

Sh-t or get off the pot, As he was won’t to say too many times. lol

S! 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, piska250 said:

I feel I can understand both points of view and I wish we hadn't reach this point.

- On one hand present CRS team. Do not forget that they are former players and volunteers that dud step ahead when the game was dying. They are placing their best on the game probably with a terrible personal cost so I guess it must be really frustrating to see non constructive criticism here in the forums.

On the other hand we have frustrated players and do not forget that usually this frustration is there because deep inside they care about the game. I've been there in the past too. 

if everyone here loves this game please let's be constructive and supportive. That's the only way that this game will someday become what we all whish it would be.

Those players not willing or unable to maintain a subscription they are not forced to.

I fully believe that their experience and opinion is more than welcome as long as it doesn't become destructive.

So please:

Try to keep rage posting, biasing and non constructive complaining away from general forum and in game chat BOTH.

Guess this is what Xoom is asking for.

 

PS. In my squad 250H, whenever there is a game change, there is always internal debate. Some would agree while others of course would disagree but we have a rule to keep that debate and "rage" for ourselves.

 We will even also adapt to the lmg changes when (not if) they come even if it would affect the core of our present "hit and run" style of gaming.

We adapt, we go on, we have FUN.

See you in game!

 

Yes. This.

S!

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, you'll see now that subscription truly is not  means of entry, it's a means of support. People don't buy subscriptions anymore to play games, they buy them to support the developer.
People withdrawing their support, probably because you've ignored the playercount issue and failed to promise a competitive f2p model to draw new players in.
You don't see many other MMO's ask subscription from every single person. They accept all and they not only gain more players because of it, they earn more money.
You really should've not turned your back on the Steam market. Your percieved greed, lack of ambition and inability of adapt as put you in negative spotlight.
Instead of asking everyone to subscribe, you should be asking everyone to join in and play. Beggers can't be choosers, and in this day and age, the consumer has all the power.
 

 

Share this post


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

You really should've not turned your back on the Steam market. Your percieved greed, lack of ambition and inability of adapt as put you in negative spotlight.

Who's turned their back on the steam community?  Many of the most recent changes have been made in part with that community in mind (and a few specifically for it).  We're not a massive development team with Million$ to blow through, changes take time.  

One could even argue that we're having success within the steam community as the player ratings have increased (while nothing stellar, we are 10-15% above where we were), steam players in game continues to trend up - and again while not WOW or EVE numbers - a month to month increase is good.  With some effort we'll keep that % of growth over the long term.  

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎17‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 8:46 PM, XOOM said:
  1. Constructive, respectful feedback is encouraged.
  2. By unsubscribing your account, you are 100% not helping us resolve problems. 
  3. Free account posting on the forums are a privilege. There is no obligation to maintain that when violating the TOS.
  4. All veteran accounts should already have a free play subscription, this extra step isn't necessary.
  5. The only tried and proven way to keep WWII Online operational for years to come, is to be a paid subscriber.
    1. We are 100% financially dependent on our community members maintaining an active subscription.
  6. CRS recognizes its role to solve game problems and ensure WWII Online's success. This takes time, patience, constructive feedback and a team oriented environment.
  7. We don't intend to infuriate or ignore what you say, it's simply not always possible to deliver on. 
  8. Our team remains committed to doing what ever we can within our resources to improve the game and solve the concerns that matter to you and our subscriber base.
  9. We intend to maintain higher than ever transparency levels and communication.

If we can maintain this understanding we can ensure quality communications and effective results are driven and delivered on. 

I would ask you to please reconsider your support and recognize just how valuable each and every subscription is here in 2019. Solutions are not driven by criticism alone, they require talent and time and we have operational costs necessary to continue World War II Online operations.

Thank you for reading, and I hope this sinks in a bit.

My initial post was posted in haste - not helping the discussion - sorry

 

S! Ian

Edited by ian77

Share this post


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

Who's turned their back on the steam community?  Many of the most recent changes have been made in part with that community in mind.  One could even argue that we're having success within the steam community as the player ratings have increased (while nothing stellar, we are 10-15% above where we were), steam players in game continues to trend up - and again while not WOW or EVE numbers - a month to month increase is good.  With some effort we'll keep tht % of growth over the long term.  

Marketing this game as f2p was a blatant lie, you clearly had no intention of offering more than a trial to people and even that was too much so you pulled out. The average person wouldn't pay 15 a month for this game, you should've accepted that and worked with the f2p market instead of acting like you're better than that putting it under f2p with a "free to try, pay to play" disclaimer. You can't pull one over the consumer, they know what the landscape is and when you can get hundreds of units in games like War Thunder, or play half way through E.V.E before paying and then look at this game and you're still asking for a subscription for basic access, of course they voted with their wallets. If you went with the f2p and not against it you would have more customers, asking the average person the highest premium for basic units has gotten you very little support, and that shouldn't be a surprise because no other developer today does that and expects positive results from fans. You went backwards and lost hundreds of potential customers by ignoring the fact that F2P games are on top, and subscriptions are below that of even microtransactions for companies interested in profit, and it's been like that for years now.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

better stop 'adjusting' things cause you're just digging in deeper Xoom.

your answer lies elsewhere.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Again proving that you simply don’t understand how negatively that affected the Allies. It had nothing to do with Matildas or A13s or any single piece of equipment.

 

The north/south split drove a cultural wedge right in between the Allied player base. The Axis fought the Allies; the Allies not only fought the Axis, but each other. 

 

It it was one of the biggest reasons (if not THE biggest reason) for implementing movable supply. Why do you think CRS was so cautious about this fact moving forward with 1.36?

 

Many mainly Axis players haven’t the slightest clue what it means to have two armies instead of one in a unified structure.  It has the potential to make everything more challenging for the Allies, not easier. 

But thats historical realism.... thought allies wanted historical realism? 

 

Sorry, and seriously, that was a major disadvantage to the allied players historically, and needed to be fixed. I hope 1.36 doesnt bring back similar problems.

 

S! Ian

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bus0 said:

better stop 'adjusting' things cause you're just digging in deeper Xoom.

your answer lies elsewhere.

Stuff is always going to be adjusted 

Share this post


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

Marketing this game as f2p was a blatant lie, you clearly had no intention of offering more than a trial to people and even that was too much so you pulled out. The average person wouldn't pay 15 a month for this game, you should've accepted that and worked with the f2p market instead of acting like you're better than that putting it under f2p with a "free to try, pay to play" disclaimer. You can't pull one over the consumer, they know what the landscape is and when you can get hundreds of units in games like War Thunder, or play half way through E.V.E before paying and then look at this game and you're still asking for a subscription for basic access, of course they voted with their wallets. If you went with the f2p and not against it you would have more customers, asking the average person the highest premium for basic units has gotten you very little support, and that shouldn't be a surprise because no other developer today does that and expects positive results from fans. You went backwards and lost hundreds of potential customers by ignoring the fact that F2P games are on top, and subscriptions are below that of even microtransactions for companies interested in profit.

It would help if you would ease up just a tick on the throttle.  CRS is working to improve efforts in the Steam area, and you incorrect in suggesting that any effort to 'pull one over the customer(s)' has been made.  If you do not wish to pay, but wish to play, you can be a rifleman and (depending on the campaign) use other equipment as well.  If you don't wish to pay a subscription, but do wish to use equipment normally reserved for subscribers, there is DLC available that doesn't require a subscription.  It's not a difficult concept, and saying otherwise is disingenuous at best.

 

The games you normally throw in our faces here as examples of 'great games' have charges associated with playing, do they not?  At last look, post scriptum charges $29.99 for the priviledge of fighting in a non-persistent environment in 40v40 'battles'.  And from the looks of forums, they are not nearly as communicative with the community as CRS is in WWIIOnline.  I haven't seen it, but perhaps you are spewing negativity on their community forums as well?

 

I would agree that CRS has lost the opportunity on hundreds of potential customers, but not by ignoring the F2P community.  Maybe efforts with the F2P community are a work in progress, i.e. are not perfect yet, but for the love of God please stop with the baseless charges in the simple effort to get CRS to go with 'your way' of doing things.  There are more productive ways of helping-----you could volunteer, for example, and thus allow CRS access to your brilliance in the game marketing field.  You could work to help via lobbying without resorting to being so constantly negative.  Speaking as someone who has been in the community for 18+ years, I can tell you that negativity does not garner positive results in this community---ever.  Threats to leave the game, even if empty, have a negative effect on others choosing whether or not to stay as a subscriber.  Constant negativity on side channel in-game chases people away from this game far quicker than CRS could.

 

There are plenty of decisions CRS has made over the years that I have disagreed with.  Some turned out to work better than I would have thought, and some had the crappy results that I figured would happen.  I would invite you to look at the glass as being 1/2 full (or whatever percentage you deem proper), as opposed to being 1/2 empty.  

 

S!

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, augetout said:

It would help if you would ease up just a tick on the throttle.  CRS is working to improve efforts in the Steam area, and you incorrect in suggesting that any effort to 'pull one over the customer(s)' has been made.  If you do not wish to pay, but wish to play, you can be a rifleman and (depending on the campaign) use other equipment as well.  If you don't wish to pay a subscription, but do wish to use equipment normally reserved for subscribers, there is DLC available that doesn't require a subscription.  It's not a difficult concept, and saying otherwise is disingenuous at best.

Nah, I'm being real. WWIIol advertised itself as F2P offering a trial in a rifleman and at the same time E.V.E got rid of it's trial and created Alpha accounts that got 50% access. You guys are behind and/or backwards in the gaming landscape. You can't call yourself F2P and not be f2p and expect people to not take exception. Not saying it was malice slicing the AA/AT gun out of f2p and selling it as DLC, it certainly wasn't bright and backed by market trends. You'll still ignore the fact that F2P based  games are making more money and pulling more players than any subscription based game which is what all your competitors are doing.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


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

.  Constant negativity on side channel in-game chases people away from this game far quicker than CRS could.

S!

Which is why changes to spawn lists and tiers should have been given in advance and not the "hardest campaign ever" BS that failed to inform anyone about what was actually being proposed.

Time and again guys have posted here saying "tell us about changes before they happen" and we may be able to sooth hurt feelings in game on side chat, especially if the anger is just because some numbers were transposed wrongly within the many thousands of lines of code for spawn lists etc. If we expect 6 stus and none appear,  or 2 Mattys and 16 appear guys will react. If we know what the numbers are meant to be then we can tell the Player Base that there is a mistake and that CRS are fixing it, We did get spawn list details at the start of this campaign, and that was a great step forward.

 

S! ian

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has any of the changes over last years led to any positive change in numbers? The answer seems to be NO. It's not working Xoom. Nerfing more weapons and make even more changes to spawnlists is not going to help. It never has and never will.

Nerf the lmgs and u lose those who learned to to handle them. Stop tankers and panzerplayers from having access to their units and u lose those as well. This is what is happening right now, isn't it?

Maybe some high voiced players enjoy all those changes but they will also leave when there are no more enemies to kill.

Maybe getting more players is not the goal here and then i will shut up and go somewhere else to a more populated game. But  then be open about that please. I joined the game once for the promise of a massive online game and that is not what it is now.

Share this post


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

Has any of the changes over last years led to any positive change in numbers? The answer seems to be NO. It's not working Xoom. Nerfing more weapons and make even more changes to spawnlists is not going to help. It never has and never will.

Nerf the lmgs and u lose those who learned to to handle them. Stop tankers and panzerplayers from having access to their units and u lose those as well. This is what is happening right now, isn't it?

Maybe some high voiced players enjoy all those changes but they will also leave when there are no more enemies to kill.

Maybe getting more players is not the goal here and then i will shut up and go somewhere else to a more populated game. But  then be open about that please. I joined the game once for the promise of a massive online game and that is not what it is now.

Yes the changes have led to an increase in both subscriptions and players.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To tack on to @ian77's point, transparency.  Honesty.  Be up front.  It's ok to say "Yeah, we screwed the pooch on that one" and fix it.  I think more players would be ok with that kind of answer than hearing stuff like "That's how it's supposed to be" or something like that.  I think the vast majority of the players just want to know what is going on and the rationale behind what is going on.  It does no good for anyone, CRS or playerbase, to hide details or obfuscate the truth.  Don't tell people what they are seeing happening in game isn't what's happening.  

Remember that this is a game. People are here to have a good time.  No, we don't want Red vs Blue, but we want to have fun.  As just an example (please don't jump on me for this, I'm not saying it's true but I'm just tossing out a scenario), it can't be something like "Oh yes, the bf-109 outperforms all other aircraft at 5km+" and think that will suffice.  Look at the game itself.  The air war is fought below 1km altitude where the tactics of the bf-109 are negated.  (again, just a scenario so please don't take that as gospel truth that I'm arguing).

I've always said, from 2001 on, that one of the best and worst things about this game is how involved CRS is with the community.  You guys care, you really do, it shows.  I've been there.  I saw in the meetings how much you care about this game.  But I also know that having your ear that close to the community can certainly cause the squeakiest wheel to get the grease.  And that isn't always what needs fixed the most.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** WWIIol advertised itself as F2P
Well, if they did, they should remove it immediately.

This game is not F2P, it has a FPA (free player account), that allows you to fully play in game as rifle (and truck now).

It is a subscription game with a free rifle account component (FRA?).

And said account allows you to fully play the game, kill, capture, recon, build PPOs, multi-crew (I think), etc.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Yes the changes have led to an increase in both subscriptions and players.  

Then why is the game so empty???? Then why was this thread created???

I dont believe this at all. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.