• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
sydspain

WWII Online: Current state and future

248 posts in this topic

I would like to share my opinion about WWII Online current state. I think you all know me because I've been an active player for the last five years and that's why I've experienced firsthand the transition from a live game where we had four-hour battles with massive numbers of infantry, tanks and planes to a half-dead game that doesn't look like a massive combined arms multiplayer at all.

There are two serious problems, first the null retention/integration of new players and second the loss of veteran players. Both problems combined turn this great game into a chaos where nobody defends, nobody attacks and nobody helps. A few years ago it was rare to see an undefended cp, today the rare thing is to see a defended cp.

Regarding the problem of new players retention I have to say that I have been recruiter in two squads, 250 Hispana and Whips. Recruiting process on both squads is similar, we teach new guys the basics of the game and try them to join our discord so we play together. Newbies love the game but after a while they end up quitting. Both squads have, since steam release, a new player’s retention rate of 3%. 

In my opinion the main reason why we have so few new players is that the price is totally above the market. You can't set a price of $180 a year when in the current state this game probably isn't worth $60 a year. The price of $17.99 a month of Steam release did not help to attract new players either. There is no point in saying that the price is similar to watch a movie and buy popcorn, as I have read many times in this forum, this is a game and has to be compared with other games of similar style and theme, and currently there are several games similar to this that are selling for $ 30 and despite not being better video games that WWII Online they have 10 times more players and are financially sustainable.

Regarding the second point, it is the most worrying issue, in the last two years there has been a very significant drop in veteran numbers and that ends up affecting the gameplay. On this matter I am not sure what could be the reason, probably is due to several factors, some may leave because of the lag, others because of the lmg nerfing, because they do not like garrison supply, tz3 imbalances (now unfortunately also in tz1), TOEs changes, HC FRU or simply because low numbers do not encourage to log in. But in the end, the less veterans we have online the worse the gameplay becomes and more boring the game is.

Like I said, I don’t know other players reasons to stop playing, but I could give you my reasons why I feel less and less excited about WWII Online everyday. First, because friends I’ve made in this game and I enjoyed playing with like Voro or Bierbaer don’t log in anymore. Second because 70% of 250 Hispana guys don’t play anymore, so there is no more squad-organized gameplay (I remember 11-14 250H players online on teamspeak 3 everyday when I was a greentag, nowadays we have 0, 1 or if we are lucky 2 guys connected on 250H discord channel). Third because I don’t like garrison supply, we still having massive rolls but the game now lacks of strategically component, in my opinion this was one of the strong points this game had and make it different from some other first person shooter.

 

c5CHJa1.png

 

This graph shows the average daily sorties from campaign 106 (2014) to 168 (2019). You can see how the Steam release had a great initial impact but in six months we returned to the same numbers we always had and since then we have only gone worse until reaching historical minimums in which we are currently. According to my experience when the daily sorties are lower than 12000 (red line) the gameplay is terrible (lack of frus, unbalanced sides, empty discord, no teamplaye, etc) and right now we are way below that level of population necessary for the game to work and be fun. In my opinion, we would need at least twice as many players we have now if we want to keep the game alive.

We also need to add two worrying circumstances, one is the low effectiveness of the WBS. Years ago when there was a WBS there was a substantial increase in players, you saw old veteran players that you had not seen for years, in addition to a good amount of greentags but this last WBS has had hardly any impact, it seems that more and more old players are reluctant to return, even during the WBS. And second is the elimination of the free to play system that will contribute to reduce even more the number of players online.

 

lHz088S.png

 

Maybe I’m being too pessimistic? What do you think? There is still hope for WWII Online? In any case, I think urgent changes in business model are needed if we want WWII Online to survive, we cannot afford another -30% population drop in 2020 or it will be the end.

I will tag some players I have not seen in game for a while in the hope they can read this post and explain their reasons about why they don’t play anymore.  Also if you, like me, are playing less and less everyday it would be great to known your insights as well.

 

@Aceharts @Adam1k @Adler13 @Aestas @Agentwade @Aike @Akkran250h @Aldo365 @Alejnom250 @Alexbelt @Alicante @Alspecto @Alvarez @Amorales @Ampos250 @Andrew93 @Anlashok @Antonof @Anusiya @Arens250 @Argel @Argentino @Arnett @Astro676 @Atlantic @Baifo250 @Bajalucas @Ballock @Bar @Barkmann @Barrabas @Base21 @Bdl1727 @Bebop57 @Bedford @Beikeer250 @Bellaco @Bellaco250 @Bellhead @Beltza @Bezos @Biamata @Bierbaer @Big10 @Bigal @Biggred @Biglezh @Bigtel @Black5 @Blackeagle @Blast3r250 @Blergen @Blitz100 @Bluebottle @Bongohed @Booface @Boomstuk @Boss17 @Boycey @Brad332 @Brain250 @Branddu @Braum @Bu11 @Budget @Buffa @Bujin @Bulletst @Bullvyne @Butchjones @Cabby @Cachondo @Cad1sc @Caf403 @Capco @Carnagehrt @Carvo @Caydel @Ch3wy70 @Ch4 @Ch53guni @Chapaev @Chisle @Chokk @Chrispy @Chrispy2 @Cid250 @Cloud2k16 @Conquest @Corey47g @Corvo250 @Cosian @Coug43rd @Covdad @Cptflack @Crismoreno @Crowe61 @Crusher @Cuervo @Curt101 @Cyy @D1esel @Dan89 @Darkmank @Darkw0lf @Darthmarty @Dasquack @Dddd55888 @Deathberry @Deet @Deride @Devil175 @Dhamont @Diego250h @Dim1 @Distorm @Doe22288 @Dogg928 @Domcap @Dori @Dotsie @Dr0g0c0p @Dream250h @Drfunken @Drgadget @Dronestrk @Dude22 @Duglas @Eagle01 @Eagletree @Easy @Ebert100 @Eccles @Ed1an @Edowie @Edwin75 @Eko13wf @Elflord @Emskiller @Erasmo @Ermanito @Eroberts7 @Ertl @Eusk250 @Evlmille @Ezeight65 @Fabian250h @Fescar250 @Fiambre @Fidd @Fknlilbill @Fliegens @Flyboy87 @Fossil49 @Foxwigg @Frackman @Fracku2 @Frank15 @Frank17 @Frej @Fremi @Freon250 @Fulanode @Furia250 @Furian @G3a3 @Garuda01 @Gaspipe @Gassault @Gedaliah @Genodin @Genxs @Giggyboo @Gloin1 @Goab @Godblesseu @Gossas @Gpmelville @Gracey @Gretnine @Grimripper @Guevara @Guikx @Gunner87 @Gwin403 @Hanky1sc @Hannibaal @Hansrud1 @Harry50 @Hatedeath @Hawki7295 @Hazziewaz @Heddrick @Heinrich09 @Helmhead @Herni250h @Hierbart @Holzmann @Horatio01 @Hughie @Huka1 @I12cef @Iain77 @Ian77 @Ibe37 @Ibshot @Igor @Ihm @Iksi @Inertia8 @Ironfist42 @Ismi250 @Jacaranda @Jameszgz @Janul250 @Janus @Jav1sc @Jay2 @Jcd85 @Jcoleny @Jdhart00 @Jdog @Jerron @Jetmo @Jjlopez250 @Joejean @Joekingyo @Joewad @Join111 @Join1lb @Joker7 @Jonhare @Jorvik @Josefpm @Joseph @Josh132 @Jougal @Juanmi0 @Judgexg @Kain69 @Kandar @Kappo250 @Karakala @Karmele @Kase250 @Kauter @Kempi @Kenq @Kenq2 @Keysie @Kilgar @Kill11 @Kimman @Kip1213 @Klaus75 @Klunk @Kpi @Kritter83 @Krol30 @Kyfox @Laelcz @Lander250 @Lastcall @Latas1 @Leanderj @Lee2804 @Legate @Lego250 @Leopold @Limp250 @Linnon @Lister12 @Lob12 @Lobo250 @Localghost @Locket5 @Logear1 @Lojack52 @Loki20 @Lonshark @Loron250 @Louloup @Lowflyr @Ltsolina @Luansharen @Ludwig @Luisito @Lukevan @Lutenint @Luz9cia @M2 @M3 @Mabarker @Maca @Maddog240 @Madmachs @Makoky @Malarqui @Malvolent @Manchego @Manco @Mangl @Maravich @Markh @Marneus @Maromin @Maromo1 @Mase86 @Matt75s @Maxios @Mbansol @Meanpete @Memnoch @Mercks @Messi250 @Messtin @Mextamal @Mikl57 @Mitchjet @Mitchlin @Mocowbel @Mogas @Moist250 @Monsjoex @Mrgarand @Mrju250 @Msnyds1 @Muskokan @Mussol @Mutan250 @Newman24 @Nh3rd @Niko250 @Njd1 @Njord88 @Nockel @Noobface99 @Noonie @Nopey @Notvalid0 @Nowi250 @Nozzred @Nugbe @Nwstar2 @Ny75 @Offie @Ogun @Oldslice @Olefin @Ombre250 @Onyxander @Osheim @Oso250 @Oxford09 @Parallama @Patienzo @Patriot @Pedrohsi @Pepexxx @Perico250 @Perseo10 @Pete21 @Pfmosquito @Piercer @Pirata07 @Piska250 @Pj @Platoon @Polux65 @Potts @Ppavez250 @Psalm27 @Psycodad @Pulasky250 @Puljo @Pv @Pwnography @R4ndy @Radical @Rafa250 @Rafbader @Rambocj @Raven129 @Raven52 @Raydr @Reaprwf @Redmanti @Redrider @Rexxor @Richard03 @Ricko @Rino250 @Riojano250 @Robjb40 @Robyd @Rockeye0 @Rodekill @Rolfi250 @Romel250 @Ronshirt @Rook @Rover @Rpw1 @Rubbish @Rupert33 @Ryback2 @Saerdna @Saffron @Sascha @Schollen @Scoundrel @Sd153 @Seabeee @Seekkill @Serrallong @Seryal @Sesam @Sgttootall @Sh0ckhorse @Sharpfort @Shi50 @Shipwreck @Sigurjon98 @Silky @Silverman @Simpson @Sinewave @Sirkitoh @Sirnelson1 @Sko43 @Skorzeni @Slakbladdr @Slam34 @Slayer @Slipk250 @Smythes @Snappled @Sniper440 @Snorky62 @Snow @Solidcore @Sorge @Speirs1944 @Squawl @Ssgjeff @Stahlsturm @Stampgd @Stfuaxis @Stonyy @Striker4 @Summit123 @Swapper @Swiftsure @Taels @Tanky @Tapper888 @Tattriej @Tazwp @Tbomber @Terio @Tex64 @Thebacon @Thewench @Thugnasty1 @Tiger004 @Tigerclw @Tjappie @Tomellis @Tommy55 @Topd @Trashbag @Trevil @Triton54 @Twinsea @Uber @Untersturm @Vallekanoo @Vanapo @Vanhefty @Vaughn63 @Verdejo250 @Vicmorrow @Vig87 @Vilsh250 @Vodnik @Vonunke @Voro @Waffen84 @Walrus78 @Waltermel @Wampire @Wanbli250 @Warlain @Weedguru @Weejocky @Wegue @Westy91 @Wetspot @Wetwater @Wfsabre6 @Whips @Whitelab @Wildcat382 @Willylsn @Wolfair @Wolfwrz @Xfugazix @Xirub @Xv250 @Yello1 @Yeloc2 @Zac74 @Zalla250 @Zep33 @Zerva @Zeus @Zigi @Zignzag @Zipayo250 @Zipeh @Zivac @Zoltan1 

Share this post


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

5 years?

 

Adorable

5 years and his posts are still more worthy than yours. Adorable. 

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Syd. Your post is pretty spot on. The graphs are the interesting part that really show some light to the issues you pointed out.

As for myself, I come and go in-game. IRL commitments, other games that interest me way more than WW2OL or the sole fact that the game gets super stale after a campaign or two. I tend to play couple to few campaigns every stint i come back, but end up losing interest because of the issues we've had for years. It isn't gun imbalances or server lag, it's the fact that the timezones i would be playing end up being a chore -- instead of fun. Few years back, i used to play a lot during TZ3. When you grind that shift with 3 other players against a horde of enemies, trying to prolong the campaign and hold on till the Euro evening, it gets to you. I got burnt out so bad that I haven't touched TZ3 since. And i'm sure its the same way for Axis during US prime time. 

Campaigns have become too quick. We get couple to few decently long campaigns a year, but most of them seem to be extremely one sided. While i do love to just kill bunch of people and not care about much else, what we used to have years ago is what I wish we had today. I mean, how many times we've had higher tier campaigns this year? 

In short, what this game needs are more players for each timezone. How we can achieve that, who knows. But the pricing issue you pointed out is an issue for sure. I for one wouldn't be a sub if i had to pay $17-18 a month, especially how the state of the game is right now. 

 

Also get the forums off the subscription. No wonder we don't see old faces, when they can't even browse the forums that are most active. They sure as hell aren't going to subscribe to access the forums. 

Edited by gretnine
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish we had known how we were being gouged, back in 2003-2004, when my wife and I were paying $14.99(US)/month each for two subscriptions to the game Horizons:  Empire of Istaria.  Frankly, the game was laggy and had some serious bugs which needed to be fixed.  We played it anyway.  I wish I would have known how I was being taken advantage of, in 2004 and for the next eight years, when I was paying $14.99(US)/month for a subscription to City of Heroes.  /sarcasm off

 

$14.99 in 2004 would be over $20.00 today.  No matter what people may THINK of it, players of this game are NOT being overcharged at a monthly cost of $14.99 or even $17.99.  However, people have been so spoiled by free to play games and microtransactions, they don't realize people have been quite happy to pay this much or more, ever since the beginning of MMOs.  In 1999, it cost $9.89(US)/month to play Everquest, the first true MMO.  Adjusted for inflation, that is just over $15 today, right in line with the yearly-pay rate of $14.99 for WWIIOL.

 

Frankly, I'm ashamed of my fellow gamers for not recognizing the value of the amount of entertainment a game provides.  If you only play one hour per day/15 hours per month, that's 50¢ per hour.  And yes, I will bring up movies and such.  Try to go to a two hour movie for a dollar, anywhere.  You can't even rent one for that price from RedBox.  That kind of gamer is basically saying people running games should do so for free, JUST so they (the entitled little butterflies) can play.

 

My family is getting by on disability income, so we don't exactly have what you would call disposable income.  Still, I keep two accounts active even though I only rarely have time to get ingame and can't get either of my sons interested to get ingame with me (yet).  This game is unique in the world.  I guess, in a perfect world, some rich investor would come in and throw money at the Rats to build it up then to release v2 with all the bells, whistles, and eye candy.  Since this world isn't perfect, it's kind of up to us.  If we want to play this game, we each have to do whatever we can to keep it alive.

 

Just my 2¢.

 

 

-Irish

 

Edited by odonovan1
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with syd.  I dont think its so much of a price issue as much as a simple fact that people grow up, peoples lives and situations change and just move on.  Nothing lasts forever. 

There is a lot of out with the old blood but no in with the new blood.  Its just a fact.  There are more ww2 games out there that dont require subs, extensive time commitment and what have you. You can still login for a few hrs have fun and go do RL stuff.........albeit this game has a more combined aspect to it it may be just to much for 2020.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of the combined arms aspect of the game has dropped off because the numbers are not there for the current model which requires boots defending or attacking a cp and everything else ingame is all in support of that aspect....not really sure what the fix is for that but as far as numbers i think ftp might need a return and more frequent WBS promotions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jsilec said:

Alot of the combined arms aspect of the game has dropped off because the numbers are not there for the current model which requires boots defending or attacking a cp and everything else ingame is all in support of that aspect....not really sure what the fix is for that but as far as numbers i think ftp might need a return and more frequent WBS promotions 

brilliant and forthright post syd with great info and insights. ty. 

agree with JS that more WBS and extensive FTP might, maybe get more players and with more players the game has a better chance to shine like it use to with combined arms, bigger squads, etc. 

but - perhaps the game had its shot with the Steam release - there were tons of new players, over 600,000 downloads of the game and it didn't stick - either because of the (eventual) subscription price, making it pay-to-win in the young Steam gamers' minds;  or the old graphics, lack of visual jazz (crosshairs/jumping, blah) and certainly the actual difficulty and unforgiving nature of WWIIOL PVP play. 

maybe there are other issues and maybe there are other solutions - but for me, after 15+ years, I believe CRS best shot is to go for WWIIOL 2.0 - and see if the support/investment is there to actually upgrade the game not only to today's graphics and so on; but to adapt it to the new gaming world where basically subscriptions are way 90s and out of date and unpalatable to almost all players and the real money flows from micro-transactions and regular DLCs like new units, new map expansions, new loadouts, etc. 

the games kids play these days with DLC and microtransactions usually end up costing way more than $180/yr but its viewed more as a series of rewards, updates, developer vitality, new expectations and ongoing-ness of a game rather than a 'I gotta pay the man' monthly sub perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it has anythign to do with free games with microtransactions (literally a type of gaming I have never played at all). I think you can certainly compare the cost to other forms of entertainment, but for games it doesn't seem to map well to how people actually think of them (for whatever reason).

I bought Kerbal Space Program for some ridiculously low price like $20, years ago. I have played it so much that it's likely less than a penny per hour---and it has been continuously updated. Amazing. (I have made a point of buying all the add ons to support them---but even so, that's literally just a few months of ww2ol). IL-2? Played and modded that quite a bit, bought add ons, probably spent the equivalent of several months of ww2ol. SH4? Same, little money, huge amount of play (not even counting all the time I spent working on my mods).

I'd have to say that's what I end up comparing it to. In the case of ww2ol, I know what I was hoping for before I was a tester (before release), then what I saw it was actually looking like, then how it was updated over time. Many of the changes were not in the direction I was hoping, but I supported it because I supported the general idea. At some point I stopped because literally every change was what I considered the wrong direction. I came back for WBS, and decided to stick around a while, but it's pretty contingent on seeing what if anything heads what I consider the right direction. What I consider the right direction likely doesn't mesh with many people here, so I am likely not going to stick around all that long, but while I am, I'll pay, play, and advocate for what I want to see.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

the games kids play these days with DLC and microtransactions usually end up costing way more than $180/yr but its viewed more as a series of rewards, updates, developer vitality, new expectations and ongoing-ness of a game rather than a 'I gotta pay the man' monthly sub perspective. 

Yeah, maybe I was wrong above, and you are right---but I'd not play such a game, ever. Microtransactions means I'd never even DL it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ended up deciding to not renew my sub this time, as many others have decided as well it seems. 

For example, i usually log on after work and more often than not there may be one or two light ews towns on the map. Sometimes try to drive a fms to try to get action started, and next to nobody spawns. Very little action. I logged in yesterday after work and there was no ews anywhere for 10 minutes while I was checking the fontlines, fbs, etc. so I ended up just logging off and playing a different game.

I just cant justify spending 18 a month on this anymore when the game is virtually dead half (or sometimes more) of the time I'm on it. And thats not even factoring in all the bugs/issues. It's not the price point, its the value. If the game were how it was back in the early to late 2000s, I would have no problem paying the 18. 

Other subscription based games have many more players, modern graphics, modern coding, less bugs, etc. That is what, based on steam reviews, hearsay, and brief conversations with green tags who never came back, prevents rentention the most- the value. I tired showing the game to a few of my friends in the past and they had no interest whatsoever (some thought the air combat was pretty cool, but would never pay 18 a month for it), again primarily for the reasons above. In my personal opinion, the current business model will ultimately be the death of the game one way or another.

Edited by dfire
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it seems like a complex calculus. There is some cost associated with maintaining the game that must be generated, obviously. Lower price might increase the number willing to pay, but if the population including the increase isn't enough to cover costs, it doesn't work. High or raised costs can make people leave over lack of perceived value. I think the Soviet style "no step backwards!" subscription model (not allowing vets to downgrade) is honestly counterproductive--- @dfire, would you pay $5/mo to ride it out a while, for example? Heck, even $12/year would be better than 0, maybe a way to give just rifles for $12/yr to hold a name/stats/whatever.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Yeah, it seems like a complex calculus. There is some cost associated with maintaining the game that must be generated, obviously. Lower price might increase the number willing to pay, but if the population including the increase isn't enough to cover costs, it doesn't work. High or raised costs can make people leave over lack of perceived value. I think the Soviet style "no step backwards!" subscription model (not allowing vets to downgrade) is honestly counterproductive--- @dfire, would you pay $5/mo to ride it out a while, for example? Heck, even $12/year would be better than 0, maybe a way to give just rifles for $12/yr to hold a name/stats/whatever.

I don't like the never step down model  either, whether this is 'right thinking' or not it feels like it is effectively holding our gamename, stats and rank hostage.

Eve sort of does that but has the 'you win skill points by subbing even if you don't play' mechanic that keeps people that want super 'characters' subbed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sydspain Hello Syd.  Good post.  You highlight some excellent points.  

 

I don't think you're being too pessimistic.  I am still holding out hope for WWIIOL but I am starting to have doubts.    I also think urgent changes in the business model are needed.

 

I think dfire's point about "value" vs "price" is accurate.  The gameplay was worth the subscription years ago.  It's not worth it today.  I pay out of a sense of loyalty and hope at this point.  

 

I think there have been several mistakes by CRS 2.0.  I don't like the garrison supply as implemented.  The garrisons are too big and the brigades are too meaningless now.  Removing F2P accounts was a major mistake since action requires bodies.  Variable cap timers are good, but I think the base capture time is so high that it too is stifling action.  

 

But imo the move to truck-based FMS's and the loss of the infantry FRU has killed the action more than anything else, and without action people don't log in and we go deeper into that vicious cycle.  The FMS, designed to help sustain attacks, has actually done the opposite and helped the defender.  This is because an FMS-based attack requires a great degree of manpower to be successful against an active defense.  If you don't have an escort, you are vulnerable to a strong breeze let alone an enemy with a firearm.  If you don't have air defense of some form and the enemy has an aircraft patrolling the skies, good luck getting your trucks out of the FB.  The problem is magnified tenfold if the AO isn't completely fresh.  

 

The end result is that a lot of ground is being taken without a proper "battle" occurring, despite the addition of (substantial) supply in every single town.  The FMS could have worked very well about 7 years ago when the combined arms battle was a daily phenomenon.  Right now the defender has too many advantages for the current level of population since the critical mass required of the attacker per active defender is higher than ever before.  It used to be possible to win a battle and take a town with even population.  Today, 20 defenders will beat 20 attackers every single time if supply is equal.  

 

I know the inf FRU is very unpopular with people who like to play defense, but at the end of the day it was a "cheap" way for the attacker to establish a spawn point, and therefore a battle.  That's the major issue here folks.  If the attackers don't bring you a battle, there is no battle period.  At least it made action easy to generate.  No town was ever lost because the defender couldn't find an infantry FRU.  A battle with a ZOC that is eventually spoiled by a flanking inf FRU was still at least a battle for a little while.  

 

The alternative we have now with the FMS is incredibly stale and boring.  

4 people like this

Share this post


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

I know the inf FRU is very unpopular with people who like to play defense, but at the end of the day it was a "cheap" way for the attacker to establish a spawn point, and therefore a battle.  That's the major issue here folks.  If the attackers don't bring you a battle, there is no battle period.  At least it made action easy to generate.  No town was ever lost because the defender couldn't find an infantry FRU.  A battle with a ZOC that is eventually spoiled by a flanking inf FRU was still at least a battle for a little while. 

I was against the FRU as implemented only because I think that ALL MSPs should have some "on sides" rules. Given the number of towns that are attacked by 2-3 linked towns, on-sides rules would not change all that much, but would certainly make things "feel" right in terms of where to expect the enemy to come from on defense (or for the offensive side defending the FB).

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I was against the FRU as implemented only because I think that ALL MSPs should have some "on sides" rules. Given the number of towns that are attacked by 2-3 linked towns, on-sides rules would not change all that much, but would certainly make things "feel" right in terms of where to expect the enemy to come from on defense (or for the offensive side defending the FB).

That's indeed one of the critical flaws of the FRU.  I would have preferred development of an offsides ruleset over the FMS.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Yeah, it seems like a complex calculus. There is some cost associated with maintaining the game that must be generated, obviously. Lower price might increase the number willing to pay, but if the population including the increase isn't enough to cover costs, it doesn't work. High or raised costs can make people leave over lack of perceived value. I think the Soviet style "no step backwards!" subscription model (not allowing vets to downgrade) is honestly counterproductive--- @dfire, would you pay $5/mo to ride it out a while, for example? Heck, even $12/year would be better than 0, maybe a way to give just rifles for $12/yr to hold a name/stats/whatever.

Yeah i would certainly pay 5 a month. I understand the game cant be free, but it also shouldnt be priced above its value because it can, has, and will drive people away. Its just basic fundamental economics lol. If the game/product cant make profit or at least stay afloat without upcharing it way beyond it's value, that's a huge problem. 

And yes the inability to go to the other subscription models they offer really upset a lot of people like u guys are saying. I would've went to the all ground forces one, though still overpriced, just to have a glimour of hope, but since it's an all-or-nothing type deal, i choose nothing.

Edited by dfire
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, dfire said:

Yeah i would certainly pay 5 a month.

That is imho the million dollar question; would lowering the price to $4.99 gain us 3 times the population to get us back to the same current monthly income crs sees now. We lower the price by 1/3 but gain 3x the players is a push to current monthly income but could also gain more than 3x the players.

I know for sure if I was leading the group it's what I would be doing because at this stage nothing has been working. We need more players. Its what many people in the thread have stated, less players equals stale game equals less value for the current pricing model

CRS should out an email to all players past, current etc etc. stating we will lower price to $4.99 for a 3-4 month period to try and gain the extra population and playerbase, if it does not work after 3-4 CRS will have no choice but to go back to old pricing model. This accomplishes a couple things, shows the playerbase you are being honest and upfront and trying your best to grow the game for their enjoyment and also shows past players we want them back and with the lowered monthly rate we want them to stay.

Try it for several months, if it does not work go back to the old price model, nothing really to lose but there is much more to gain. 

 

 

4 people like this

Share this post


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

@sydspain Hello Syd.  Good post.  You highlight some excellent points.  

 

I don't think you're being too pessimistic.  I am still holding out hope for WWIIOL but I am starting to have doubts.    I also think urgent changes in the business model are needed.

 

I think dfire's point about "value" vs "price" is accurate.  The gameplay was worth the subscription years ago.  It's not worth it today.  I pay out of a sense of loyalty and hope at this point.  

 

I think there have been several mistakes by CRS 2.0.  I don't like the garrison supply as implemented.  The garrisons are too big and the brigades are too meaningless now.  Removing F2P accounts was a major mistake since action requires bodies.  Variable cap timers are good, but I think the base capture time is so high that it too is stifling action.  

 

But imo the move to truck-based FMS's and the loss of the infantry FRU has killed the action more than anything else, and without action people don't log in and we go deeper into that vicious cycle.  The FMS, designed to help sustain attacks, has actually done the opposite and helped the defender.  This is because an FMS-based attack requires a great degree of manpower to be successful against an active defense.  If you don't have an escort, you are vulnerable to a strong breeze let alone an enemy with a firearm.  If you don't have air defense of some form and the enemy has an aircraft patrolling the skies, good luck getting your trucks out of the FB.  The problem is magnified tenfold if the AO isn't completely fresh.  

 

The end result is that a lot of ground is being taken without a proper "battle" occurring, despite the addition of (substantial) supply in every single town.  The FMS could have worked very well about 7 years ago when the combined arms battle was a daily phenomenon.  Right now the defender has too many advantages for the current level of population since the critical mass required of the attacker per active defender is higher than ever before.  It used to be possible to win a battle and take a town with even population.  Today, 20 defenders will beat 20 attackers every single time if supply is equal.  

 

I know the inf FRU is very unpopular with people who like to play defense, but at the end of the day it was a "cheap" way for the attacker to establish a spawn point, and therefore a battle.  That's the major issue here folks.  If the attackers don't bring you a battle, there is no battle period.  At least it made action easy to generate.  No town was ever lost because the defender couldn't find an infantry FRU.  A battle with a ZOC that is eventually spoiled by a flanking inf FRU was still at least a battle for a little while.  

 

The alternative we have now with the FMS is incredibly stale and boring.  

Spot on Cap. To add, with infantry FRUs, the lower pop (usually defending) side would still have a chance to get something going. People used to sneak out FRUs to get few people at the very to least harass the towns and get attackers from the DO. Sure you can do that now, but if the defenders in town are awake, they'll hear the truck coming hundreds of meters away. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

That is imho the million dollar question; would lowering the price to $4.99 gain us 3 times the population to get us back to the same current monthly income crs sees now. We lower the price by 1/3 but gain 3x the players is a push to current monthly income but could also gain more than 3x the players.

I know for sure if I was leading the group it's what I would be doing because at this stage nothing has been working. We need more players. Its what many people in the thread have stated, less players equals stale game equals less value for the current pricing model

CRS should out an email to all players past, current etc etc. stating we will lower price to $4.99 for a 3-4 month period to try and gain the extra population and playerbase, if it does not work after 3-4 CRS will have no choice but to go back to old pricing model. This accomplishes a couple things, shows the playerbase you are being honest and upfront and trying your best to grow the game for their enjoyment and also shows past players we want them back and with the lowered monthly rate we want them to stay.

Try it for several months, if it does not work go back to the old price model, nothing really to lose but there is much more to gain.

Yeah, with the explicit statement to people already subbed that if they stick out the trial period of 3-4 months where new people will get "premium" subs for 3X less than they are paying, the price will drop for everyone if the new numbers will support that. Then be transparent, and keep everyone up to date on how it is working out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think that CRS has nearly enough clout with their subscribers to ask the current subbed players to pay full price and at the same time give new subs a reduced price. I for one have finally given in and unsubbed my account - due to all the above reasons in the thread.

I cannot see value at all in a combined  arms pvp when there is not enough numbers to even guard a spawnable. CRS at the moment are not giving the playerbase what they have advertised. This, combined with the god awful infantry lag, the bugs that have been in game for the last 20 years, and flippant remarks by some CRS reps just nailed the coffin shut for me.

I would probably pay $5 a month for the current gameplay, but remember aussie primetime is tz3. If I'm not axis I am cannon fodder 90% of the time. the only time I can get what even approaches a combined arms attack is my Friday morning that I have off work. For a few hours a WEEK I get value for my money.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, everyone, for providing your feedback. For the duration of this forum thread, I have been watching carefully and trying to maintain an observation-only position to allow for genuine, unfiltered feedback to come forth.  I am certainly listening and thinking about each of your points.

The only line I will draw is the Terms of Service and/or stepping into the doom and gloom "the end is near" rhetoric.

Please feel free to continue as long as the discussion stays within reason. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just one thing here.  I've been here since 2001, and peeps have NEVER guarded spawnables.  In fact, one of the things that the Pathfinders have prided themselves for is that they've been willing to do that thankless chore, when others haven't.  I just don't see unguarded spawns as a fair barometer of things.

That said, it is undeniable that a game like this needs numbers in order for it to be maximally entertaining.  I have proposed some ideas that I think would do this in the long run (daisy chained front lines), on the view that we have got to win over the twitch players without selling out our soul.  However, there are moments in this game which are indescribably amazing.  No other game can compare because no other game allows for the potential confluence of so many simultaneous players bringing different units, tactics, etc, to the table.  I will continue playing, and paying, until the game goes under, or Jesus comes back.  Not that I'm not disappointed that the frequency of these amazing moments is on the decline, but the brutal truth is that if I walk away... if we all walk away... we will NEVER see the promise fulfilled.  Maybe we disagree with certain decisions that have been made, but as long as they've been made in 'good faith' (and I think for the most part they have), it is, in my opinion, worthy of my attention and 2 Netflix subscriptions.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, dropbear said:

I really don't think that CRS has nearly enough clout with their subscribers to ask the current subbed players to pay full price and at the same time give new subs a reduced price.

No, I am saying reduce monthly price to $4.99 for everyone, everyone that has a sub for those 3-4 months during the price reduction trail to try and gain and grow the playerbase

If we dont see the growth and CRS needs to go back to old pricing model then fine, but at least try it for 3-4 months and see what happens.

Also note, I don't know whats on their books and know monthly income vs expenses so its easy for me to suggest it, however at this stage why not try it for several months if its possible

edit: I am going to bow out of this topic now because I know its a touchy subject and I dont want to say the wrong thing, however all the answers are here in this topic...what people want, what they are willing to pay and what they see is worth it and not worth it. more players makes things less stale and people are willing to pay for action with a larger playerbase

Edited by kazee
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.