Boudreau

Just a reminder

110 posts in this topic

10 hours ago, TMAN said:

Your all missing the point..... Except Boudreau who made the post. 

In a game like this, the worst way you can protest is to withhold your financial support.  We are a 100% player funded game and without your support development dies and so will the game... Really have to look big picture here if this is truly the game you love (to hate) :dd.

S! we need your subs more than ever!

 

its not a protest, simple no fun | unsub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fine having different SMGs;  not fine when other side gets 20% more.

 

Share this post


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

Maybe removing LMG advantage, then giving less number of SMGs is an issue?

A double jeopardy?

Name one area axis has advantage now.... (and if you say 88, you need a whack against the head)

I've posted for weeks about the unfair advantage in spawn lists.   Nada, nothing, zilch.

(ok, not entirely true, seems the 60% brit advantage was lowered to 20% advantage.......)

I guess if total pop and subs up, good move.

 

I also remember asking XOOM to look into increasing the number of SMG's for the Axis, now that the MG-34 had been, ahem, "fixed."  He said he would.  Apparently that meant reduce the number of SMGs in the Axis units.

VR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, csm308 said:

I hear ya.  In addition to my Hero Builder account, I am also a Patreon supporter of WWIIOnline.

VR

Thank you, and I hope more will join you. 

What ever our disagreements, what ever our hopes and intentions, there is only one WWII Online, one WWIIOL community, and one CRS. 

We must stick together.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2019 at 7:20 PM, XOOM said:

Thank you, and I hope more will join you. 

What ever our disagreements, what ever our hopes and intentions, there is only one WWII Online, one WWIIOL community, and one CRS. 

We must stick together.

you guys are falling into the "whale" business model of F2P games... relying on big spenders to stay afloat and ignoring the average customer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, major0noob said:

you guys are falling into the "whale" business model of F2P games... relying on big spenders to stay afloat and ignoring the average customer

We currently do not have an effective way of translating Free to Play into a monetization path. Serious considerations about the future of Free to Play are on my mind and I am considering going back to strictly a 2 week trial and shutting down perpetual free play. If we were able to provide some form of in-game advertisement, that would at least justify it or be the next best move to make. However for our desktop application game and considering what sort of negative impact that may have on the users experience, to date it has been a non-starter.

WWII Online is designed as it was from inception to be a subscription based game, our best exploratory efforts to attempts to appeal to the markets transition has not proved to be fruitful, and it is doubly disheartening to see a large number of those veterans using free play in protest.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$5 a month gets you a starter sub which is great value

4 people like this

Share this post


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

disheartening to see a large number of those veterans using free play in protest.

Then pull the plug on it.....pay to play or go away.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, XOOM said:

We currently do not have an effective way of translating Free to Play into a monetization path. Serious considerations about the future of Free to Play are on my mind and I am considering going back to strictly a 2 week trial and shutting down perpetual free play. If we were able to provide some form of in-game advertisement, that would at least justify it or be the next best move to make. However for our desktop application game and considering what sort of negative impact that may have on the users experience, to date it has been a non-starter.

WWII Online is designed as it was from inception to be a subscription based game, our best exploratory efforts to attempts to appeal to the markets transition has not proved to be fruitful, and it is doubly disheartening to see a large number of those veterans using free play in protest.

That's probably the only way to go right now. 

I've always said, if people can't figure out if they want to sub after 2 free weeks, they aren't going to, and the rest of them are just vets trying to prove some lame point. 

I'm with @bmw here, get rid of it. 

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: If the vets are truly on hard times, we should set up a fund for them. I'd donate 10 bucks a month for 2 starter account subs for vets who can't afford to sub right now. 

6 people like this

Share this post


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

doubly disheartening to see a large number of those veterans using free play in protest.

nobody's protesting... there's simply no point in paying for something that isn't fun.

the market that sees hardcore mil-sim as fun is tiny, and there are more engaging titles at a fraction of the price. there's no prospering in this route.

 

 

awhile ago i said to go all in on either reenactment or gameplay: the results from "the hardest campaign ever" speaks for itself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no one at CRS seems to understand that the value of the game is directly related to the number of concurrent users

hence all the incorrect (to put it gently) game decisions, and their continued surprise that subscriber and/or builder numbers are decreasing despite their attempts to improve "balance", "realism", "combined arms", "F2P conversion" etc. in the game

even now the discussion is not about how to increase the number of concurrent users (i.e. to increase game's value), but to wring some dollars off of literally a few dozen intermittent veteran players

someone should really get the entire team on a slack channel or something and a Google doc and have everyone come to a consensus on basic questions like "Why do/did people play this game?", it'd be easy because the answers are pretty obvious

after that maybe the conversation would shift to productive things within the scope of a small team like getting an air war back and getting ground battles to hit the vis limit on a nightly basis again, things that were possible in the past with the current product...rather than lamenting about players that won't pay money for a sparsely-populated MMO or the inability to overhaul the billing and progression system

Share this post


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

nobody's protesting... there's simply no point in paying for something that isn't fun.

While the latter half of your statement is factually true, that is not what happens around here - It's a case of people taking their ball but not going home. They didn't get what they wanted so they stop paying and play for free.

19 minutes ago, david06 said:

someone should really get the entire team on a slack channel or something and a Google doc and have everyone come to a consensus on basic questions like "Why do/did people play this game?", it'd be easy because the answers are pretty obvious

Gee, why didn't anybody think of that before

Share this post


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

$5 a month gets you a starter sub which is great value

This is what gets me the most. there is a package for $5 a month. The game is a free download, that's at least 6 months of cost before you've bought any of the good new similar titles and they all require map/unit package purchases in addition. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, david06 said:

no one at CRS seems to understand that the value of the game is directly related to the number of concurrent users

hence all the incorrect (to put it gently) game decisions, and their continued surprise that subscriber and/or builder numbers are decreasing despite their attempts to improve "balance", "realism", "combined arms", "F2P conversion" etc. in the game

even now the discussion is not about how to increase the number of concurrent users (i.e. to increase game's value), but to wring some dollars off of literally a few dozen intermittent veteran players

someone should really get the entire team on a slack channel or something and a Google doc and have everyone come to a consensus on basic questions like "Why do/did people play this game?", it'd be easy because the answers are pretty obvious

after that maybe the conversation would shift to productive things within the scope of a small team like getting an air war back and getting ground battles to hit the vis limit on a nightly basis again, things that were possible in the past with the current product...rather than lamenting about players that won't pay money for a sparsely-populated MMO or the inability to overhaul the billing and progression system

I would submit that the quicker folks understand that starting a post by calling the people you want to have listen to you 'ignorant' or 'uncaring' is a bad thing, the quicker positive progress can be made.

I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from, but there is a distinct difference between what you are saying and actual facts in regards to subscriber numbers.  They aren't going UP as fast as any of us would prefer, but they are going up.

As far as a slack channel etc. CRS has run many in-game, in forum, and on Facebook polls and changes made are reflective of the results.  Additionally, a couple of months ago Xoom had an open meeting with any/all who chose to attend for a discussion on gameplay changes, etc.  I don't recall you being there.  Perhaps there was a scheduling conflict.

1.36 has resulted in a significant uptick in actual battles.  The game no longer depends on HCs in order to function.  CRS has fixed some long-standing gameplay errors.  I'm not sure what you mean by 'incorrect game decisions'.  Gameplay is miles ahead of where it was pre 1.36   I think if more people were aware of that instead of what they'll likely see on our community forums, a lot of the in-game population worries would die of their own accord.

Share this post


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

I would submit that the quicker folks understand that starting a post by calling the people you want to have listen to you 'ignorant' or 'uncaring' is a bad thing, the quicker positive progress can be made.

I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from, but there is a distinct difference between what you are saying and actual facts in regards to subscriber numbers.  They aren't going UP as fast as any of us would prefer, but they are going up.

As far as a slack channel etc. CRS has run many in-game, in forum, and on Facebook polls and changes made are reflective of the results.  Additionally, a couple of months ago Xoom had an open meeting with any/all who chose to attend for a discussion on gameplay changes, etc.  I don't recall you being there.  Perhaps there was a scheduling conflict.

1.36 has resulted in a significant uptick in actual battles.  The game no longer depends on HCs in order to function.  CRS has fixed some long-standing gameplay errors.  I'm not sure what you mean by 'incorrect game decisions'.  Gameplay is miles ahead of where it was pre 1.36   I think if more people were aware of that instead of what they'll likely see on our community forums, a lot of the in-game population worries would die of their own accord.

What are the actual facts in regard to subscriber numbers?  Because an MMO should have significantly more people than double digits.

Share this post


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

What are the actual facts in regard to subscriber numbers?  Because an MMO should have significantly more people than double digits.

I would submit that WW2Online is not easily comparable to other MMOs, in that our players can't go off to a cave somewhere by themself and mine for stuff for days, and there is no special sword to be crafted at the end of the mining expedition.  In WW2Online, in-game rank eventually is achieved/maxed out, and the satisfaction is based on whatever the battles or lead up to the battles causes enjoyment for the players.

Back in the early days, my unit had a guy named Itza who almost always preferred to drive a truck.  He brought troops to the battle, towed guns to the battle (and back sometimes), and once TOEs entered the fray, he either drove truckloads of Infantry from backline towns or he drove tanks from backline towns.  It was a rare event that he shot at folks, as he was rarely in-game in anything other than an unarmed truck.  And he had a blast, and was really well-known (actually kind of famous) in-game for his 'itzabus'.  

Last campaign I saw Bloodybill running around on the Allied side, picking off enemy FBs pretty much by himself.  One wouldn't even know he was in-game until he'd post 'x fb is allied' when he was done.  Different strokes for different folks, but far different from other MMOs, imho.

S!

Share this post


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

I would submit that WW2Online is not easily comparable to other MMOs, in that our players can't go off to a cave somewhere by themself and mine for stuff for days, and there is no special sword to be crafted at the end of the mining expedition.  In WW2Online, in-game rank eventually is achieved/maxed out, and the satisfaction is based on whatever the battles or lead up to the battles causes enjoyment for the players.

Back in the early days, my unit had a guy named Itza who almost always preferred to drive a truck.  He brought troops to the battle, towed guns to the battle (and back sometimes), and once TOEs entered the fray, he either drove truckloads of Infantry from backline towns or he drove tanks from backline towns.  It was a rare event that he shot at folks, as he was rarely in-game in anything other than an unarmed truck.  And he had a blast, and was really well-known (actually kind of famous) in-game for his 'itzabus'.  

Last campaign I saw Bloodybill running around on the Allied side, picking off enemy FBs pretty much by himself.  One wouldn't even know he was in-game until he'd post 'x fb is allied' when he was done.  Different strokes for different folks, but far different from other MMOs, imho.

S!

As Karellean used to say "Blessed are the truck drivers"

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gold Builder and Monthly Hero Builder here.

I don't understand anyone why would unsub and then play for free as 'a protest'.  To me it seems that they like the game well enough and just didn't want to pay.  No reason they can't buy starter account IMO.  $5/month is extremely reasonable to grab a rifle in this game.

I support the two week free sub then no free play; perhaps with the clock resetting every 6 months so folks can have a second look.

The only free play I support are vets on hard times.  To that end, I would donate my Monthly Hero account, which I never use, to the Rats to distribute to a vet who needs help as they see fit. @XOOM, let me know if that is possible.

Granit

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there is a consensus about dropping f2p, now that the starter account has become extremely affordable and that the trial period offers a great opportunity for new players to try out the game. 

We can always re-evaluate after a 12 months period. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

PS: If the vets are truly on hard times, we should set up a fund for them. I'd donate 10 bucks a month for 2 starter account subs for vets who can't afford to sub right now. 

If "X" is the ammount of vets unsubbed and playing FTP, what % of X plays FTP because of "hard times"?. It is not a question of money in most of cases Mosizlak, only a few of them are, otherwise we have to assume that for some magical reason many vets from different nations and continents went through hard times at the same time (do they all work for the same Iranian company, or what?). F2P for 2 weeks maximum would be the way to try to "force" those vets (like me) to resub from the game they left for a good reason. Do you think that would work?

S!

 

Share this post


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

Gold Builder and Monthly Hero Builder here.

I don't understand anyone why would unsub and then play for free as 'a protest'.  To me it seems that they like the game well enough and just didn't want to pay.  No reason they can't buy starter account IMO.  $5/month is extremely reasonable to grab a rifle in this game.

I support the two week free sub then no free play; perhaps with the clock resetting every 6 months so folks can have a second look.

The only free play I support are vets on hard times.  To that end, I would donate my Monthly Hero account, which I never use, to the Rats to distribute to a vet who needs help as they see fit. @XOOM, let me know if that is possible.

Granit

Granit's tag didn't work, so I'm tagging you for him, @XOOM.

Share this post


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

Gold Builder and Monthly Hero Builder here.

I don't understand anyone why would unsub and then play for free as 'a protest'.  To me it seems that they like the game well enough and just didn't want to pay.  No reason they can't buy starter account IMO.  $5/month is extremely reasonable to grab a rifle in this game.

I support the two week free sub then no free play; perhaps with the clock resetting every 6 months so folks can have a second look.

The only free play I support are vets on hard times.  To that end, I would donate my Monthly Hero account, which I never use, to the Rats to distribute to a vet who needs help as they see fit. @XOOM, let me know if that is possible.

Granit

For $4.99/mo you actually get quite a bit more than just a Rifle in-game, I actually made some adjustments to further enhance this subscription about a month ago.

I immensely appreciate your willingness to step up, even more than you’ve already demonstrated to further help a veteran out. We at CRS have tried, and tried, within the resources and technical means we can to deliver alternatives that are affordable and reasonable. This is all about the recognition that we are a subscription based game and we have survived 18+ years of continuous operations because of this decision, unparalleled game play, and outstanding community. You @GrAnit are representative of the best of our community, as you’ve already done so much and are willing to do more in an effort to help others.

Don’t you think that more people should help contribute to the total weight of keeping things operational? 

In the near future, Free Play will be phased out, as we will be offering new players signing up only a 30 day upfront trial giving all access to infantry, with no perpetuity plan to support logging in. We have to get back to basics and be honest with who we are and help better manage the expectations of people coming through the door, and who are already here, about what is absolutely going to keep WWIIOL running healthy.

We are willing to work with folks for one-off contributions to reactivate other users accounts, yes we can do that. We are very much willing to provide promotional periods to kick numbers upwards and promote recent works.

Free Play was introduced under my leadership and strategy in September 2012. We tried, I tried, there’s no saying we didn’t. It doesn’t work and it’s time get really honest about that and make decisions that honestly create the right mindset and set of expectations that we can deliver on. Those users who will be transitioning from Free Play over to a subscription, will receive so much more and be much happier with the available content there is to work with.

We now have a step up ladder of subscriptions here organically that is very reasonable.

Step 1: 30 day free trial (all infantry access)

Step 2: Starter Subscription: $4.99/mo

Step 3: All Infantry of All Air Force: $9.99/mo

Step 4: All Ground Forces (Army Persona): $12.99/mo

Step 5: Premium Subscription: $14.99-$17.99/mo

We’ve never had this line up before, and each one of them contribute monthly to our increased potential to succeed.

26 minutes ago, Capco said:

Granit's tag didn't work, so I'm tagging you for him, @XOOM.

Thanks for doing that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** no one at CRS seems to understand that the value of the game is directly related to the number of concurrent users

This is a key point, more players is more fun, not allowing FPA to capture, or imo worse, not allowing FPA to play I think is the wrong way to go.

(giving 30 day access just means 1000s of new accounts as people make new account every 30 days??)

 

Starter is good deal, but it still costs money.

 

But, let's have both!
Lock FPA to under pop side and let them cap.

This allows our FPA population to grow, hook more players, but if you want to play a side, you'll subscribe.

I like it to having our cake and eating it to ?
 

I think removing FPA is a bad way to go, maybe I'm wrong, but think it is bad.

Let free players play with rifle and capture, but only on the under pop side.

 

 

The issue isn't FPA (ok, might be slightly cause is revenue).

The issue is extreme over pop.

Can we please just try limiting pop in game once?

Pick a ratio, 2 to 1;  3 to 2; 55% to 44%.

Once the over pop side reaches this, no more can log in, period, end of story. (well, unless to underpop side)

This still allows over pop (which I think is good to have a bit), but not allow extreme over pop.

 

Edited by delems
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.