jwilly

Addressing Side-Focused Negative Energy Arising From Game Changes

17 posts in this topic

In the current "LMG Solution Planned" thread, a realism-oriented game change is perceived by some number of CRS customers as negatively affecting the side they play.

In that discussion, Silky said of the negative energy arising from that LMG change:

Quote

I welcome this but I also recognise that this change really needs to be accompanied by a fix of a long-standing Axis complaint - that’s the realpolitik of the issue.

I agree with this pro-marketing thought. 

Xoom mentioned in the "LMG Solution Planned" thread that a change primarily wanted by Axis-focused players is coming soon. There's no announcement yet, though, of what that change will be, and when.

In future instances where a realism based change may be perceived by partisans on one side as negatively affecting their side, it would be desirable to have a psychologically offsetting change or addition ready to announce (or even pre-announce) at the same time as the potentially negative-energy-causing change.

We all want a larger game population. One of the ways to encourage that is to continue to support partisan player commitment to one side or the other, even while continuing to make clear that CRS is non-partisan. Supporting partisan player commitment should include offsetting their negative energy with something that they see as positive.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the most frustrating thing is the inability for some folks to realize that if something improves for the other side, its inversely good for them.

we all win with more people in game. we all win if potential customers see us as more authentic. etc etc etc.

if something is legit broken, provide the evidence. suggest alternative. stomping your feet over a perceived advantage that may not be realistic, authentic, or grounded in reality at all isn't something you should actively defend.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I applaud the idea behind this post BUT..why do we feel a need to smooth ruffled feathers over a game wide change (all lmgs are going to have the same fix applied)?

Are we petulant children throwing our toys out of the cot, or grown adults wanting the game to grow and stick around for years to come?

I played an axis campaign  in 158, and frankly was shocked at the numbers the axis had to throw at the allies. The axis lmg IS  way better in game when allowed to be a close quarters "kill em all" weapon. Combined with its rof, lag, our dated inf code, and the "spin to win" axis lmg SOP, there is little to no chance of anyone surviving when they come. The fact that some players will not acknowledge this is just showing that they care more about their stats than the game itself. 

GAME FIRST! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, any WW2  game that depends so heavily on a single, hand-held weapon to secure victory is terribly broken. I applaud XOOM and CRS for making the global LMG class change that they did. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguing that strongly partisan customers are somehow wrong, may itself be harmful to CRS.

It's good to retain all customers, including those that are strongly partisan. 

Partisan customers are unlikely to change their views...by definition they feel strongly about them.

Silky correctly used the term "realpolitik" to describe that those customers' views are factual and unchangeable.

Given that, our choices are to accept those customers' validity and work with them, or push them out.

I think the latter approach...the effective goal of any effort to get them to change...is a bad idea. Certainly it would be bad marketing. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give up Jwilly... you make a thoughtful balanced, carefully worded request and the second response calls the axis playerbase "petulant children".

And so the petulant toxic partisan posting just continues.

Seriously, what possible good for the "whole game" does the post from jet2019 accomplish, other than being a pompous superior put down, designed only to further inflame the situation?

LOL he states the fix is for all LMGs, but then goes on at length about only one sides playing style.

The overpop the axis enjoy is not just because they have the MG34. Driving people away from the game because they perceive CRS to be out to get them and giving in to allied threats to quit (which is BS but is nonetheless what some believe - on both sides) is not going to help overall player numbers, and doesn't put the "game first".

The OP makes a perfectly valid point, and Xoom hinted at a sweetener in his post as well, it would have been better man management (or toddler handling as jet2019 might perceive it) to have confirmed another fix that might be seen as impacting one side (in this case the allies) more then the other to help sooth the pain. Some will quit regardless, because they have played with the lmg in that way for 15 years etc etc.

Ironically, I doubt that the guys regularly topping the stats for LMGs will be the guys quitting - they tend not to be running round the centre of town capping cps. They will still be suppressing allied FRUS, and depots, and cutting the bunkers, only now their supply will last much longer because the rambos will be using SMGs.

Nice try Jwilly S!  but some of the petulant posters on this forum just are not ready to give up their side focused negativity.

 

S! Ian

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Arguing that strongly partisan customers are somehow wrong, may itself be harmful to CRS.

It's good to retain all customers, including those that are strongly partisan. 

Partisan customers are unlikely to change their views...by definition they feel strongly about them.

Silky correctly used the term "realpolitik" to describe that those customers' views are factual and unchangeable.

Given that, our choices are to accept those customers' validity and work with them, or push them out.

I think the latter approach...the effective goal of any effort to get them to change...is a bad idea. Certainly it would be bad marketing. 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ian77 said:

Arguing that strongly partisan customers are somehow wrong, may itself be harmful to CRS.

It's good to retain all customers, including those that are strongly partisan. 

Partisan customers are unlikely to change their views...by definition they feel strongly about them.

Silky correctly used the term "realpolitik" to describe that those customers' views are factual and unchangeable.

Given that, our choices are to accept those customers' validity and work with them, or push them out.

I think the latter approach...the effective goal of any effort to get them to change...is a bad idea. Certainly it would be bad marketing. 

Surely this is merely saying that if the only reason customers are playing is that thay have the advantage of a broken model , they should be pandered to?

Perhaps if the model is fixed those customers and their threats to unsubscribe will be meaningless as other customers who prefer a non broken model will arrive in greater numbers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Arguing that strongly partisan customers are somehow wrong, may itself be harmful to CRS.

It's good to retain all customers, including those that are strongly partisan. 

Partisan customers are unlikely to change their views...by definition they feel strongly about them.

Silky correctly used the term "realpolitik" to describe that those customers' views are factual and unchangeable.

Given that, our choices are to accept those customers' validity and work with them, or push them out.

I think the latter approach...the effective goal of any effort to get them to change...is a bad idea. Certainly it would be bad marketing. 

So charging Axis-only subscribers $17/mo but Allied-only subscribers $5/mo is probably a bad idea then?

Image result for kellys heroes negative waves gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ian77 said:

Give up Jwilly... you make a thoughtful balanced, carefully worded request and the second response calls the axis playerbase "petulant children".

And so the petulant toxic partisan posting just continues.

Seriously, what possible good for the "whole game" does the post from jet2019 accomplish, other than being a pompous superior put down, designed only to further inflame the situation?

LOL he states the fix is for all LMGs, but then goes on at length about only one sides playing style.

The overpop the axis enjoy is not just because they have the MG34. Driving people away from the game because they perceive CRS to be out to get them and giving in to allied threats to quit (which is BS but is nonetheless what some believe - on both sides) is not going to help overall player numbers, and doesn't put the "game first".

The OP makes a perfectly valid point, and Xoom hinted at a sweetener in his post as well, it would have been better man management (or toddler handling as jet2019 might perceive it) to have confirmed another fix that might be seen as impacting one side (in this case the allies) more then the other to help sooth the pain. Some will quit regardless, because they have played with the lmg in that way for 15 years etc etc.

Ironically, I doubt that the guys regularly topping the stats for LMGs will be the guys quitting - they tend not to be running round the centre of town capping cps. They will still be suppressing allied FRUS, and depots, and cutting the bunkers, only now their supply will last much longer because the rambos will be using SMGs.

Nice try Jwilly S!  but some of the petulant posters on this forum just are not ready to give up their side focused negativity.

 

S! Ian

 

Very well said. Agree minus the jwilly giving up part :)

I think he had a great point that if there are potentially large gameplay changes coming, and we know how partisan-player psychology works, that things should be offset. Especially when something that has been ingame for a longtime is going to be changed in a rather rapid and drastic fashion. As we saw in the other thread, there will be partisans on both side with one seeing the sky falling and massive protest-unsubbing while the others post faux-neutral "GJ CRS!!!" posts that are really backhanded comments in disguise meant to rub in the salt a little bit more.

It doesn't help anyone, and like I said in the previous thread, it just breeds toxicity and a never-ending cycle of recrimination where one side is forever trying to get even for a gameplay change that was made however many years or campaigns ago.

But something has to be done, and I think this is a good way to lesson the blow and not ignite and inferno in the forums and on ingame sidechat which as I type is still burning red hot.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

if something is legit broken, provide the evidence. suggest alternative. stomping your feet over a perceived advantage that may not be realistic, authentic, or grounded in reality at all isn't something you should actively defend.

i'm not allowed to. i have in the past (small arms, RAF cannon v FMS, off center guns) , now all i can do is upset guys like aismov.

regardless of how subjective either side of a argument is, data and evidence should be gathered to analyze a issue, and provide a talking point based in reality.

 

 

the axis do have long standing issues with things like the spit and DB-7, and allies have issues with the MG34. there's a lack of data and evidence to support these arguments though (not saying there's nothing).

the one that turned against the MG34 was its 1.77 k/d vs allied LMGs 1.0'ish

 

then there's in game suck. getting sprayed by a guy that only had you on his screen; is just as lame as hitting a spit w/ 40mm or 10+ aircraft cannons with no effect.

trying to get axis to understand that lame gameplay is difficult without data and evidence.

Share this post


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

the axis do have long standing issues with things like the spit and DB-7

Those things are being addressed, but as you will agree, they are a lot more complex to fix, and so will take more time.
You have multiple issues going on there, which do pertain to all planes really.

It's coming, but it is a lot more complex to address, so takes more time.
No quick fix for it, have to address it down at the fundamental core level

Share this post


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

Surely this is merely saying that if the only reason customers are playing is that thay have the advantage of a broken model , they should be pandered to?

Perhaps if the model is fixed those customers and their threats to unsubscribe will be meaningless as other customers who prefer a non broken model will arrive in greater numbers.

 

No we don't "pander" to them (another condescending term slipped in) and we do not tell them what they should be feeling, or that they are wrong to feel the way they do.

We acknowledge their "pain" and then explain why it is happening (Yes I know tell them "yet again" ), explain that it is more realistic, it is for the good of the game, and that other perceived/acknowledged faults are also in line to be remedied. Simply gloating, or saying "you are wrong and we are right" does not help the situation, presuming we want to keep as many existing players as possible AND get new and old players resubbed?

Whether or not one thinks that the axis players who are complaining are just wrong, or petulant children as another happy allied player called them, will not stop people feeling the way they feel. Churlish comments (and I am not saying goreblimey's comment is churlish for one moment) just adds to the pain/anger and makes it more likely that that individual will be lost to the game.

We need to retain all existing players and grow the active playerbase, we also need to implement appropriate change. CRS have a devilishly tricky path to tread and as has been said many many times, they will never be able to please everyone all the time.

S! Ian  

Edited by ian77

Share this post


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

the axis do have long standing issues with things like the spit and DB-7

Mmhmm - myself and others have been fighting these issues about as long as the LMG issues. Many gun cams provided, many RL reference sources also provided. Much like the LMG issue, the ultimate fix will be a game wide holistic fix that applies to all planes. 

As mentioned in another post, some of this fix will greatly benefit the Germans, specifically HE’s affect on planes but also critical structural limits as 109s easily outdive spits. They’re also one of the smallest ww2 fighters and will come apart under heavy weight of fire more readily than their contemporaries. 

The take away for everyone should be - this crs 2.0 team is actively working to resolve LONG standing issues and doing so at the proper game wide level.

Share this post


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

but also critical structural limits as 109s easily outdive spits.

SCORE!
Merlin may actually live with wings intact.
Doubtful though

Share this post


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

i'm not allowed to. i have in the past (small arms, RAF cannon v FMS, off center guns) , now all i can do is upset guys like aismov.

you are free to make any thread on any (appropriate) topic you choose.  So long as it's consistent with the Terms Of Service. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think think this is a game changer and most players could probably live with it in a different situation but its getting way out of proportions (some allies just wont stop whining) and the timing is awful. 

It will not do anything to improve numbers, and numbers are critically low as they are already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.