ZEBBEEE

What is the game (really) about

Select the key features that really matter for you and would keep WWII Online unique compared to other games   33 members have voted

  1. 1. Authentic Battlefield

    • Combined Air/land/sea battles in the largest zone-less MMO world ever designed
      28
    • Pure PvP FPS with up to 5.000 simultaneous players
      9
    • A military-grade simulator for controls, ballistics & damages
      13
    • Hundreds of WWII vehicles and weapons from multiple nations
      9
  2. 2. Authentic Wargame

    • Western Europe domination campaigns (60-days average) between Axis and Allies
      20
    • Strategic theater planning & special ops
      10
    • Global supply chain management & attrition
      13
    • Historic data and references
      7
  3. 3. Authentic Community

    • Single persistent world
      20
    • 24/7 player-driven game (no scripts)
      18
    • Chain-Of-Command with mature leadership
      7
    • Unforgettable squad fraternity
      13

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

17 posts in this topic

I have been thinking that we should improve our packaging to better attract new generations of players. How is the game introduced, what is it really about. Making this more clear will allow to improve our marketing with more impacting art and targeted ads.

I came up with the following list of items. What do yo think, did I miss anything?

Little bonus: vote for the ones that really matter for you!


Authentic battlefield 
-Combined Air/land/sea battles in the largest zone-less MMO world ever designed
-Pure PvP FPS with up to 5.000 simultaneous players
-A military-grade simulator for controls, ballistics & damages
-More than 200 accurately modeled WWII weapons from pre-1939 to 1945

Authentic wargame
-Western Europe domination campaigns (60-days average) between Allied and Axis nations
-Strategic theater planning & special ops
-Global supply chain management & attrition
-Historic data

Authentic community
-Single persistent server
-24/7 player-driven game (no scripts)
-Chain-Of-Command with mature leadership
-Unforgettable squad fraternity

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the continuing issues is the idea that subbing is P2W.

 

Which generally speaking is not true, you have to still earn rank to spawn the whatever premium stuff.

 

So maybe you highlight Pay 2 Rank or P2R, it's just an opportunity to power up but you still have to earn your way there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the P2W concern should go away with free play being completely shut down next week. So you need to Pay to even play the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the first voters didn’t vote much for  « historic constraints »: I´d ask them if this indeed doesn’t matter or if its definition was unclear?

It is for example the supply balance and numbers, the allied nations balance, the tiers mechanics etc.

On another note, the « combined arms » is almost voted by everyone. On that note, Xoom just added all guns to trial players so they can also take part the tank and air war as well. Please give feedbacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of historical constraints as the new spawnlists and voted accordingly.  Game balance would appear to be a better descriptive for what you seem to be discussing.  If you conflate the two, that the new historical point value lists inherently create balanced lists, I will have to vehemently disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t think of a better wording. Tiers are more a balance between periods, per side. furthermore the reason that motivated the past decisions was « historical accuracy/constraints », and some thought the approach would be welcomed.

That being said, If the conclusion is that the new supply politics doesn’t make a consensus, it should be reworked. I put some ingame polls regarding supply audit, btw

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this poll about what we think the game IS, or what we think the game should be?

It won't let me leave things blank, either.

Share this post


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

Is this poll about what we think the game IS, or what we think the game should be?

It won't let me leave things blank, either.

What it *should* be. There is always place for improvement but all of the points are already there. 

I also note that not a lot of you actually care about having lots of different units. So are we saying the production priority should be put on map expansion rather than adding more units? Would need further surveys but this is the kind of points we can raise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gameplay
  • historical accuracy or simulation or realism (yes any of the 3 over gameplay)

would be a good one. there's serious discord behind the philosophies, in the forums and past few years of development. it's been driving subs down for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, major0noob said:
  • gameplay
  • historical accuracy or simulation or realism (yes any of the 3 over gameplay)

would be a good one. there's serious discord behind the philosophies, in the forums and past few years of development. it's been driving subs down for years.

That is partially why Xoom created my position (business development and data analyst). Just need more rationale feedbacks, immediately convertible to actions with ROI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ability to play 5 different factions - US, UK, French, Italian, German

Most games have only 2-3  (US, UK, German)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the most important thing was the "do what ever you want" possibility of this game.

Be it running a truck to a enemy factory and blow it up, spawn a ship and surprise the enemy, set up a ATG trap out in the middle of no where, where you think the enemy will show up. Sadly, the basics are not fixed, hence the "was" in the sentence above. (Pak 40 failing to kill DAC point blank)

I also voted in the poll.

Share this post


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

I also note that not a lot of you actually care about having lots of different units. So are we saying the production priority should be put on map expansion rather than adding more units? Would need further surveys but this is the kind of points we can raise.

I don't think that's it. People like having a large variety of units. I think a lot of players could always mention a few more that we want to see. But the poll asked what we felt mattered AND made WWII Online seem unique.  When playing a WWII game, most folks expect to see a lot of WWII weapons... so having them doesn't make the game unique in and of itself. Now some of our missions ARE unique...most games don't have Naval units to patrol rivers or provide coastal bombardments; Most WWII games don't have Engineers that can build and repair fortifications and AI; This is the first game that I've played where players can organize Strategic Bombing missions that effect overall supply production.

We love all the units. I don't think many folks would be unhappy with more units. Some would prefer more unique units (expand the Italian units available, for example).  But most of our units aren't really different from other WWII games. And as far as new players are concerned, I'm pretty sure most will view one M1 Garand the same as the other, even if ours IS more  historically accurate than those in other games. Also, the poll said "weapons" and not units. I think most people will see the two terms differently.

That said, map expansion is important, as well. Having such a large WWII ETO map but not having Paris has raised a few eyebrows over the years. But if asked, I think may people would consider map revision just as important as expansion. (New CP buildings. more of the revamped Bunkers... the new city blocks)

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

What it *should* be. There is always place for improvement but all of the points are already there. 

This is not clear at all.

"Select the key features that really matter for you and makes WWII Online unique compared to other games "

Should read:

Select the key features that really matter to you and would make WWII Online unique compared to other games.

 

Of course all the answers in the poll seem to be PR-looking ideas of what the game already has. Most of these polls are very push-poll like, IMO.

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

This is not clear at all.

"Select the key features that really matter for you and makes WWII Online unique compared to other games "

Should read:

Select the key features that really matter to you and would make WWII Online unique compared to other games.

 

Of course all the answers in the poll seem to be PR-looking ideas of what the game already has. Most of these polls are very push-poll like, IMO.

Good point thxs 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think @ZEBBEEEis trying to help but the basic mechanics of the game is what is holding it back. The rest of this is fluff.. you know it,  CRS knows it, the player base knows it.

As of yet I have not seen ANY changes that work to reducing game population swings, and until that is addressed and SHOWN TO BE ADDRESSED, the game will slowly wither.

 

I look forward to when the f2p players are booted at the end of the month - this if nothing will show CRS where they are situated in the gaming community. The simple fact that the game started the next campaign without notifying the player base speaks volumes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.