• 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

1 hour ago, XOOM said:

In an effort to help encourage the discussion in a direction that helps provide some more supplemental insights for my active thought processes and ideas... I'd like to request your feedback on this:

The game needs more players. We are a massively multiplayer online game. We have the capability of holding up to 5,000 concurrent users.

What can we do to get more players to join WWII Online, and then stay / keep on playing?

How can we achieve that and balance the expectation(s) of avoiding perpetual free play with no monetary contribution, but still making it reasonable enough for people to opt-in to a plan should they choose?

 

I'm actually extremely intrigued to know how many actually came back during the October WBS. Reading the forums, it clearly wasn't enough. So was the timing off or was it something else, that WBS cannot change?

Fact is, as you said in your post, this game needs players. Without players, those who are actively paying are going to end up losing interest and the game isn't going to survive. If we can't get people back during a WBS that would offer a premium kit experience for those who haven't tried the game or played in a long time during holidays, i don't see this game lasting without literally going WWIIOL 2.0. 

Approach:

- Organize a well advertised WBS for new players and inactive players for the holiday season.

- Let these players access the full premium kit for free.

- WBS period should last at least 3 weeks. You have to give people the time of their choosing to try the game or come back to it. We haven't been getting them back now, might as well try something 'extreme' this time around. 

- Offer a subscription discount/price rework after the WBS. This could be the way to retain those, who participated in the WBS. 

 

Other than that, I really don't know how we would be able to get more players to the server. As others have mentioned, the perfect timing for that is long gone. 

Edited by gretnine
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battles need to be sustainable... Sounds like prime time is at the euro prime of last year. Slowly heading to tz3

 

The fms, HC , fb (guarding and flipping), and cp guarding: all have too much"work" tied to them. It's assumed and expected the work is happily done, its not. Players want to have fun.

 

Gameplay fun in the fourms unfortunately involves more and more work, or work exclusively.

Share this post


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

I'm actually extremely intrigued to know how many actually came back during the October WBS. Reading the forums, it clearly wasn't enough. So was the timing off or was it something else, that WBS cannot change?

Fact is, as you said in your post, this game needs players. Without players, those who are actively paying are going to end up losing interest and the game isn't going to survive. If we can't get people back during a WBS that would offer a premium kit experience for those who haven't tried the game or played in a long time during holidays, i don't see this game lasting without literally going WWIIOL 2.0. 

Approach:

- Organize a WBS for new players and inactive players for the holiday season.

- Let these players access the full premium kit for free.

- WBS period should last at least 3 weeks. You have to give people the time of their choosing to try the game or come back to it. We haven't been getting them back now, might as well try something 'extreme' this time around. 

- Offer a subscription discount/price rework after the WBS. This could be the way to retain those, who participated in the WBS. 

 

Other than that, I really don't know how we would be able to get more players to the server. As others have mentioned, the perfect timing for that is long gone. 

It also can't occur during tier0/1/2 again. 

You have to show them the new stuff that's been added, not give them 2 free weeks to use the same stuff from 15 years ago. 

The new BEF armor. The US army. Etc.  They saw none of that.  One rat said "well, thats the tier we were in and it happened to be during tier0". CHANGE IT TO A HIGHER TIER. A small handful of morons will whine, but you'll be showing the players that are coming back to look the new stuff, not decades old stuff lol. Boggles the mind. 

6 people like this

Share this post


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

It also can't occur during tier0/1/2 again. 

You have to show them the new stuff that's been added, not give them 2 free weeks to use the same stuff from 15 years ago. 

The new BEF armor. The US army. Etc.  They saw none of that.  One rat said "well, thats the tier we were in and it happened to be during tier0". CHANGE IT TO A HIGHER TIER. A small handful of morons will whine, but you'll be showing the players that are coming back to look the new stuff, not decades old stuff lol. Boggles the mind. 

Yup, 100% agree with you Mo. I was going to add this to my original post, but i'm glad you posted first. CRS has to take into account all the complaints about current campaign settings, whether its tiers, supply or whatever. Having those new equipment accessible for the duration of the the WBS is CRITICAL.

Edited by gretnine
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't search elsewhere and too far, losing Antwerp area with less than 8 deaths and 20 deaths for both aren't helping to get numbers on.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well first get your billing house in order and assess where you are financially.

Next we need to know what you can do programmatically with said resources at your disposal vs. what is doable at X kickstarter funding.  We throw a lot of stuff at the wall that we never know whether it will stick or not.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Well I have some skin in the game, I have been paying for a long time (off and on since 2001) and want the game to be successful and grow."

Throwing a very random thought out there, but maybe there is a way that the players could be invited to be investors.  Not donors, but investors. 

And an absolutely insane, crazy stupid idea, maybe a cash incentive for recruiting.  How about finding a way to make into a MLM!  That's the dumbest thing I've ever said, but I offer it seriously, in the spirit of generating some ideas.

But not so dumb... I played from 2001 to 2005 and then took a few year break.  When I came back, after awhile I did a post just like this.  I strongly recommended free to play.  I still do.  I know its hard on the pocket book (at present), as experience has probably shown CRS, but the bottom line is that this game NEEDS PLAYERS.  That, I think, is a baseline requirement for future success.  In other words, if it were possible to lose money for a time but build up to a steady 500-750 people playing all the time, I think it would have to be the choice that was made. 

Look, the game can appeal to us die hards and survive a while longer thanks to us, but eventually we're gonna die, even if just from old age.  :)   We need the boots.

Now, retaining them is a problem, and finding a way to generate revenue from them is an additional problem.  But my point is that they're not going to stick around or fork over some dough for 30 folks online at a given time. 

I stand by my daisy chained front line idea  as the number one way to bring the thrill into the game (on a consistent, reliable basis) for the twitch players--without whom, we won't have a game.  (And we all have a little 'twitch' in us.)   That said, I will do some more thinking and brainstorming in my mind to see if I can come up with something.  Hopefully it'll be better than World War Two Online, the Advocare Edition.  :)

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

In an effort to help encourage the discussion in a direction that helps provide some more supplemental insights for my active thought processes and ideas... I'd like to request your feedback on this:

The game needs more players. We are a massively multiplayer online game. We have the capability of holding up to 5,000 concurrent users.

What can we do to get more players to join WWII Online, and then stay / keep on playing?

How can we achieve that and balance the expectation(s) of avoiding perpetual free play with no monetary contribution, but still making it reasonable enough for people to opt-in to a plan should they choose?

Price does matter, but it's not the only singular thing, and there's no way without serious volume we could seriously consider going to $4.99/mo. It's far too risky. But again I do understand the "paywall" being a non-starter for players who are not yet interested (that also includes things like graphics, some performance expectations not being met, etc).

Everything else aside in terms of development and production (though both are very valuable - and we will continue, of course), if the only thing that occurred was more players joining, playing and staying, the entire state and health of the game would improve. And it doesn't take another Steam release necessarily to achieve that.

This game isn't going to grow if subscription prices stay where they are right now in my opinion. Like I said a few days ago, the value is just not worth it, and it's strongly backed by statistics. Gotta put the sentimental value of the game aside and look where the game stands in the market and vs competition. Prospective players don't know about how good the game once was, the online friends we all made, the epic battles, how far the game has come since, etc. They will pay for what they are currently getting.

In the end, its risky to keep sub prices the same and its risky to lower them. However, low sub prices could be the thing that jump starts a large pop increase. Even a moderate pop increase would be noticable with where the game currently stands. A pop increase would result in better battles, more stability, more squad play, more tactical/ops opportunities, and these in turn will have a snowball effect and bring in even more pop. But you never really know until you try. It's ultimately a business decision that will have to made sooner or later because the options seem to be running out

Edited by dfire
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

 

Throwing a very random thought out there, but maybe there is a way that the players could be invited to be investors.  Not donors, but investors. 

And an absolutely insane, crazy stupid idea, maybe a cash incentive for recruiting.  How about finding a way to make into a MLM!  That's the dumbest thing I've ever said, but I offer it seriously, in the spirit of generating some ideas.

 

also XOOM SAID: Price does matter, but it's not the only singular thing, and there's no way without serious volume we could seriously consider going to $4.99/mo. It's far too risky. But again I do understand the "paywall" being a non-starter for players who are not yet interested

 

I'll follow-up on PFM's maybe not so insane idea: for this idea assume that regular/premium/builders/vets/forum posters (ie. 'us') are paying say $20/mo average. Assume the new player price barrier is $5/mo (someone smarter than me could adjust these current/new $ numbers into a shifting algorithm later): SO

  • one year test
  • current max price subscribers commit to a one year plan at their current sub
  • 'new' subs are posted/marketed/steamed as $5/mo all in/all units full subscription for a year  (hell it could be $1/mo depending on algorithm/number of current subscribers who buy into this)
  • in essence the current subs become supporters/investors/subsidizers of the new players during this  year 
  • also to entice 'new' $5 subs; a one month or even 3 month full access FTP 'trial' window is marketed (try it then buy it) 
     
  • the current subs (ie. 'investors') are given potential rewards or payback options for their subsidization/support like: 
  • actual shares or debentures in CRS that click in only when/if a certain number of new subs  is achieved and the game/business becomes (more) sustainable; AND/OR
  • a ratio price reduction for the $20/mo 'investors' down in $5 increments (20-15-10-5) IF/AS over the term of the one year test enough new/sustainable players @$5/mo sign up; AND/OR 
  • additional, individual price reductions or shares for 'investor' subscribers if/when/for each new $5 sub they bring into the game via some kind of trackable 'ambassador' program (like MLM)
  • current investor/subs could also up their ante by offering to further subsidize/gift $5 subs to friends, squaddies, even anonymous new players (but they would get an increase in shares/debentures/rewards that align with # of new subs attributable to them) 
  • should also structure a 'squad' investor program with reward options as above for squads bringing in new subs and/or a squad becomes a 'group investor'
     
  • Using the $20/mo // $5/mo as placeholders: could one assume that if 4 times as many new $5 subs came in as the number of current premium $20 subscribers over a year CRS could lower all subs to $5/mo and still be ahead? retention being the key of course.
     

The reason to consider something like this is that essentially, say, over the last, what 3? 5? 9? years, the premium/builders/hero/etc subscribers have essentially subsidized the game anyways through their continued subscriptions, multiple accounts at max price and support of the various different CRS fundraisers (from Rapid Assault on up to the current Kickstarter thing)

Not sure on the business aspects of actual shares in CRS, or convertible debentures via continued subscription or ambassador rewards for bringing in new players/subscribers but hell, surely there is enough smarts at CRS and amongst subscribers to sort out do-able versions/options for this. 

And maybe the guy/squad who brings in the most new $5/mo subscribers at the end of the year gets a brand new refurbished Sherman as a reward.

  Image result for fixed sherman tank gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The success of any video game comes down to dopamine.  Simply put.... the game needs to be addictive.  Kills and alot of them are what get the dopamine drip going..... Capping the spawnable will increase your ability to take ground...... guarding the CP as well..... same as setting up an MS.  But most players are more kill oriented.... than they are WIN oriented.   I would rather WIN than get alot of kills..... but I am surely in the minority.   Finding ways to incentives what produces the most dopamine should be the objective when it comes to growing the PB

A few thoughts on how to achieve this

1) First things first.... some game mechanics need to change in order to reduce the need for players to do boring jobs. 

a) If you place an AO on a town..... That fb is not bustable.  Either for a period of time.  Or forever.  This eliminates the need for players to guard fb's..... That [censored] is boring and should be cut out of the game.

b ) Time limits 

     1) once a cp is captured it shouldn't be recapable for some period of time.... like 20 or 30 mins.  Long enough that 2 armor shorties have a chance to get to town from the fb IMO.

     2) Only 1 cp should be capturable at a time.  So u capture the spawnable first (depo x).  Depo X should not be recaptureable for 30 mins.  Once Depo X is captured there should be a 10 or 15 mins window before system randomly opens the next cp for capture (depo Y).  If Depo Y is captured..... than depo X should not be recapturable by defenders any longer.  There should again be a lul between captures.  Where apone Depo Y is capped..... it will be 15 mins before depo Z is available for capture by the attackers but 30 mins before the defenders can attempt to retake depo Y.   If the defenders retake Depo Y..... then 15 mins until system opens depo X for recapture by the defenders.

Game mechanics such as these will serve to produces a few things I think most long for

      * A fight will more than likely end with total attrition rather than capture...... A PB that is focused on kills, is a PB getting more dopamine.  A PB that is getting more dopamine = a more immersed player = more players = more time spent, in-game per player.

      * fighting will be condensed around active CP's..... sort of like how AO's draw the PB to specific towns.  CP system lock will draw PB to specific objective CP's 

      * less mundane boring jobs that need doing = better for everyone

      * town captures will be rare ......... maps will take months......... no more steamrolls.  Given that these are the biggest factors in the zero-sum nature of "fun" experienced at both ends of the spectrum .... I believe this will lead to a much more balanced population and TOM.

2) Payment needs.  In order to get people to pay you to need to hook them first.  I think the best way to balance the need to hook new players with the monetary realities is with an On/Off business policy.  Meaning there should be regular periods where the game is free for all to try......... followed by periods of payment only.  People will always cry and complain.  For every person that thinks things should be done one way..... there are 10 that think it should be done a different way.  The only way to trump that is with dopamine.  Those that are hooked...... will pay......... even if they are crying the whole time. 

 

Edited by kgarner
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it sounds like XOOM wasn't asking for dev ideas, but as was said above, you want the WBS players to be able to try the new kit, and so the latest WBS should have started in tier3. In the same vain I'll offer that I think dev resources aren't being maximized to appeal to new and returning players. What I would do is, you see the hundred CPs being laid at the bottom of the map, forget about them, they're not going to be used much anyway, and they'll be more of the same, so redirect the map dev work to a new map. Make the bocage for instance. Get a few proper plants from speedtree. Make the lay of the land as realistic as possible. Take the art staff and make a bunch of dug-in positions, kind of things you expect in a wargame. No dam FBs. Open capture points, city and country. Separate depots from their flags. secondary road system. Utilize all the good ideas of the playerbase regarding gameplay that aren't too heavy on resources, and make a new, if small, map (the original was only a dozen towns or so). Then do a WBS, start in tier 3 as suggested, and use the new map. That's how I'd capture a few anyways. Way I see it there are four essential areas of game appeal - graphics, units, gameplay (spawn and capture sort of stuff), and environments (maps). Take your map, and some of your art, resources and make a new, better, improved gameplay playground. And maybe open a discussion on the specifics with the community. Offered fwiw.

 

 

 

Edited by blggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) If you place an AO on a town..... That fb is not bustable.  Either for a period of time.  Or forever.  This eliminates the need for players to guard fb's..... That [censored] is boring and should be cut out of the game.

 

no no and no

grab a fb to  key town  ao other town and leave they canot  hit your town now as long as you keep up  your ao.   way too easy to abuse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

a) If you place an AO on a town..... That fb is not bustable.  Either for a period of time.  Or forever.  This eliminates the need for players to guard fb's..... That [censored] is boring and should be cut out of the game.

 

no no and no

grab a fb to  key town  ao other town and leave they canot  hit your town now as long as you keep up  your ao.   way too easy to abuse

just sounds like a good strategy to me (under rare circumstances).  most important towns aren't going to be taken with 1 link anyway so who cares.  And 90% of the time an AO is placed because that is the only way to attack........ using your AO for specifically defensive purposes is now, and would mostly be, a rare occurrence.

Edited by kgarner

Share this post


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

In an effort to help encourage the discussion in a direction that helps provide some more supplemental insights for my active thought processes and ideas... I'd like to request your feedback on this:

The game needs more players. We are a massively multiplayer online game. We have the capability of holding up to 5,000 concurrent users.

What can we do to get more players to join WWII Online, and then stay / keep on playing?

How can we achieve that and balance the expectation(s) of avoiding perpetual free play with no monetary contribution, but still making it reasonable enough for people to opt-in to a plan should they choose?

Price does matter, but it's not the only singular thing, and there's no way without serious volume we could seriously consider going to $4.99/mo. It's far too risky. But again I do understand the "paywall" being a non-starter for players who are not yet interested (that also includes things like graphics, some performance expectations not being met, etc).

Everything else aside in terms of development and production (though both are very valuable - and we will continue, of course), if the only thing that occurred was more players joining, playing and staying, the entire state and health of the game would improve. And it doesn't take another Steam release necessarily to achieve that.

I see only 2 realistic options to seriously create a massive multiplayer game again, and achieve large sustainable player population levels again:

1).  Lower the monthly subscription prices significantly more (which is risky I understand)., or alternatively...

2).  Develope WW2 Online 2.0 game engine - with a completely new game engine and graphics. (Also risky).

But without one of these two above-mentioned big steps forward, I really think this 20 year old game will continue to die a slow death. ..

What else do you expect?  Its actually amazing this game has survived as long as it has with the current subscripion prices, and with nothing more than just tweaking the old game engine around, and the constant tweaking the old gamepkay rules, or just tweaking the strategic map layout a bit, and (or) just modifing the old buildings and old equipment models.

You guys need to address one of these two big steps forward in the near foreseeable future - and you need to do it before a new competitor emerges on the market, and beats you guys out to doing this first.  Its really the only way forward - (long term at least)

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

I think its time to stop devoting so much time and resources into repairing an old boat which is slowly sinking.  And time to start putting some new resources into building a brand new boat!

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

Just my two cents,.... but this is my honest opinion.

Cheers!

Edited by krazydog
4 people like this

Share this post


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

You have to show them the new stuff that's been added, not give them 2 free weeks to use the same stuff from 15 years ago. 

The new BEF armor. The US army. Etc.  They saw none of that.  One rat said "well, thats the tier we were in and it happened to be during tier0". CHANGE IT TO A HIGHER TIER. A small handful of morons will whine, but you'll be showing the players that are coming back to look the new stuff, not decades old stuff lol. Boggles the mind. 

Mo is a genius I say...

FTP - let em cap, creates objectives for them, no HCFMS spawning for them though just the normal FMS.

WBS - show em the damn new toys, that one's pretty obvious Capt.

Lower cost I'm not so sure, but I'm willing to 'test it out', if it works, well then implement. For the good of the game.

Tier Supply sucks, get rid of it.

PUT IN THE NEW TOYS...

PUT IN THE NEW TOYS...

PUT IN THE NEW TOYS...

PUT IN THE NEW TOYS...

Oh and last but not least you should ban 'Rans' keeps killing his own teammates while they capping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** The success of any video comes down to dopamine.  Simply put.... the game needs to be addictive.

Agree, needs to be more consistent battles.

Until we remove FBs and implement placeable ones, I also think FBs to the AO should prolly not be destroyable.

 

Where I differ is in the implementation.. instead of time limits and limiting CPs, do that naturally with a 'frontline' mechanism.

As tat has been saying, MSs can be placed anywhere behind towns, that is not good, allows enemy to come in from any direction, spreading population.

Drawing lines between frontline towns (or some other method) and creating areas where MSs can't be placed does what you're suggesting with limiting CPS to be captured.

 

This means, generally speaking, a 1 link town attack will have a narrow area where MSs can be placed, focusing the battle much more and making it obvious which CP needs to be captured first.

Capturing a CP further into town first, will generally not be able to be supported via MS- battles will have to progress in.

Attacks with more links will have a greater area to place MSs, but still be unable to place them behind town.

---- A frontline system would have a substantial effect on focusing battles imo ----

 

I'm still for everything in supply with an engine needs to be cut in half supply wise, far too many planes, tanks, boats, trucks, etc.

Also, to encourage these focused front battles; PPOs need to survive better against air bombs  - far to easy to destroy 20 min of work with 1 bomb.

The SP will have to go from 3 stories to 1 story imo too - far too easy to scout and snipe from them.

Finally, all spawning from backline towns would have to be disabled - or far to easy for defender to have unlimited supply.

 

 

PS just now in Aalst, axis placed MSs N of town and captured N CPs and supported with MS.  Should not have happened only owning Nin.

A frontline of Zott, Aalst, BruxSW would mean axis only has about a 140 degree angle, to the S, eligible to place MS in; focusing the battle to S CP, and possibly they could get warps near E or W CPs.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, @sorella, for following up in a way to salvage my dignity after my brief descent into abject silliness.

You had some ideas I hadn't considered, which makes me glad I wrote what I wrote.  The idea is to create an ownership mentality.  Owners behave differently than users.

Example:  when I was kid, I was made to do yard work and various chores.  This was work I detested, and I did a [censored] poor job of whatever it was I did.  But now I am an owner.  The yard work is a joy.  I wish I was doing yard work right now instead of writing this post!  My kids, on the other hand, detest the work I give them to do, and do a [censored] poor (but improving year by year) job of whatever it is they do.  Ownership brings to the table an entirely different outlook.

Investors also have different mindsets.  An investor says, "If I put $5 into this game, I might get $20 out of it up front, and $1 a month til I die.  Aw, heck.  Let's give that a shot!" And to get that sweet deal, you need to get 4 peeps to sub for $5/mo for 6 months; you get their sub money on their sixth month, and henceforth you get .25 cents from each sub for however long they are subbed.  An investor then realizes, "Hey, I've been incentivized to follow up with my recruits and help them along in the game."

Providing you have a working system here, now you have an investor say to himself, "Self, I've sent $1,000 to CRS in donations in the last 24 months.  Glad to have done it.  But I bet with $1,000 to spend on advertising, etc, of my own design, I might get me 100 new subscribers because of my access to [insert here], etc.  I potentially could get my money back and then some.  Heck, I bet I could score 250 new subscribers with an outlay of $2,000 and get three times my money back in a year..."

Now, merging these mentalities, what you have here is a situation where that owner mentality is combined with the belief that one might get a return on their investment beyond enjoyment.  But remember this:  investors put their own money at risk.  So, all you have to do is build the affiliate system, and let them do the rest.

People might be willing to pony over more dollars for the cause if they feel they can direct it how they please, and have a belief they might get their money back over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"*** The success of any video comes down to dopamine.  Simply put.... the game needs to be addictive.

Agree, needs to be more consistent battles."

Daisy chained front lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kgarner said:

A few thoughts on how to achieve this

1) First things first.... some game mechanics need to change in order to reduce the need for players to do boring jobs. 

(I'm about to go on a tear... agreeing or partially agreeing with kgarner (WT literal F?))

First, this. ^^^^ mechanics are also probably the easiest thing to fix globally. New or moved buildings apparently require hand work for every one, these are global changes---work to accomplish, but instantly change everything. I like the @pfmosquito idea, but I think that is far, far harder to implement.

Quote

a) If you place an AO on a town..... That fb is not bustable.  Either for a period of time.  Or forever.  This eliminates the need for players to guard fb's..... That [censored] is boring and should be cut out of the game.

This is a good beginning of an  idea (seen it posted before). We lack lines, everything in the game is too sneaky. "Lines" doesn't mean WW1, it means zones of control. The ground forces that attack rear areas are paratroops (maybe they can be given the superpower of being able to damage/bust FBs contrary to these rules?)

An alternate formulation of this idea would be that once the spawnable is captured, then the FB cannot be busted. So You can't set an AO, and protect the FB, you have to actually cap the spawnable. Or a combo. Set AO, FB takes no damage for X minutes, then as long as spawnable held, FB cannot be damaged.

 

Quote

b ) Time limits 

     1) once a cp is captured it shouldn't be recapable for some period of time.... like 20 or 30 mins.  Long enough that 2 armor shorties have a chance to get to town from the fb IMO.

This is an interesting idea I had not considered. I'm not sure what I think about it, or what the time should be, but it's worth considering. There is a balance here where on the one hand guarding is awful, but on the other hand the CPs provide literally the only goal in game. I like not having to guard, but I would not want all those enemies free to wander around the porous towns with no sense of focus (battles are too much like that already). Part of me thinks that whatever that timer is where the CPs are safe---should also be the timer from AO set to tables going hot. You should not be able to set the AO as the troops are swarming into town, then cap the spawnable and get to keep it 20+ minutes, when few defenders have even arrived yet. The goal from a fighting standpoint should be that you need to fight to take things that are defended (any town with a BDE in it is defended by definition).

Perhaps capping timers should be MUCH longer, though, with a large multiplier for multiple cappers. (or single cappers on offense are not even possible (kill moling with fire)).

 

Quote

     2) Only 1 cp should be capturable at a time.  So u capture the spawnable first (depo x).  Depo X should not be recaptureable for 30 mins.  Once Depo X is captured there should be a 10 or 15 mins window before system randomly opens the next cp for capture (depo Y).  If Depo Y is captured..... than depo X should not be recapturable by defenders any longer.  There should again be a lul between captures.  Where apone Depo Y is capped..... it will be 15 mins before depo Z is available for capture by the attackers but 30 mins before the defenders can attempt to retake depo Y.   If the defenders retake Depo Y..... then 15 mins until system opens depo X for recapture by the defenders.

This is also interesting, though I think that unlike global timers, this is much harder to code. In addition, I don;t think it should be random, making it harder. It should probably be the next CP (range) from the one capped. It should also presumably have to warn the defenders which CP is next, since it's not fair for the attacker to all zerg 1 CP, while the defenders are forced to guard all of them. Perhaps the new UI (supposedly being worked on anyway, right?) could make the mission target MATTER. Ie: if you set a mission from the FB with the FB-linked CP as the target, THAT is the CP you can capture. If you make a new mission at the spawnable, you set "Powerplant" as the target CP, it unlocks that CP to be captured. Any missions made after that target is set can't set any facility as target except the current target).

 

Additional element that all gameplay changes require, IMHO:

On-sides rules for MSPs. FMS, FRU, truck MSPs, "walking" MSPs, heavy MSPs for all AAA/ATG types? All fine by me as long as they obey on sides rules of some sort.

 

Quote

Game mechanics such as these will serve to produces a few things I think most long for

      * A fight will more than likely end with total attrition rather than capture...... A PB that is focused on kills, is a PB getting more dopamine.  A PB that is getting more dopamine = a more immersed player = more players = more time spent, in-game per player.

In broad terms I agree, but for a different reason, the operational game (larger units on the Map) needs to matter. The time limits, and 1 CP at a time means at least that huge cities take a decent time to cap. What happens if during a low pop time frame a large chunk of a city falls (basically undefended, with players slowly capping the whole place waiting out the timers). Population increases, and the defenders have to take it back with the same timers? If the AO gets pulled, presumably all the CPs revert to the town owner, maybe? (moling would be nasty with a few whack a mole defenders having to wait 20-30 min to recap).

 

Quote

      * fighting will be condensed around active CP's..... sort of like how AO's draw the PB to specific towns.  CP system lock will draw PB to specific objective CP's 

This is good, and it concentrates defenders (who should know what the active CP is, though, before it is capped). Still focuses on the very worst of WW2OL gameplay, in and around CPs, though, but that is not changing regardless.

 

Quote

      * less mundane boring jobs that need doing = better for everyone

This.

 

Quote

      * town captures will be rare ......... maps will take months......... no more steamrolls.  Given that these are the biggest factors in the zero-sum nature of "fun" experienced at both ends of the spectrum .... I believe this will lead to a much more balanced population and TOM.

This would help, for sure. I think in addition, the Garrison forces should be reduced to make BDEs matter more, and I think that there needs to be some sort of system to solve the low pop issue (this makes caps take a min amount of time that is longer, which is a start). Since I want BDE placement to matter for the "map" aspect of the game I'd be included to buff the AI as a function of server pop (inverse to the number of players---fewer players, stronger AI). It would also depend on the number of BDEs in the town. If there are 2 people playing on your side, for example, the AI should have the range buffed (a random multiple, so if R is 200m now, it's R*X where X=(1+number of BDEs) ), and the field of fire as well (current arc plus 15*BDEs degrees on either side of current arc). This way HC can fortify towns that really matter to them against loss during low pop periods (and low pop players can then still fight, but will likely do so in smaller towns).

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion on this,

The $ rate for a premium subscription is not value for money for me.

I am fortunate that the $18-19 a month does not mean a lot to me financially.

However, I still want value for my money, so Im not subbed atm.

The value for me is like 50-50 cost and my time. I dont pay to do chores, or log in to and empty "battle".

If the subscription was reduced (I fully understand why not) to $5-$6 range, I would keep my account subbed and play when I felt the urge.

.

Share this post


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

also presumably have to warn the defenders which CP is next

I imagined system warnings for both sides counting down the time frames as well as what cps are hot/wil be hot and when, continually for both sides.  This will serve to focus everyone on the task at hand...... but more importantly new players.

I dont think the progression for CP's should be totally random.  They should be the spawns first...... and the depo's that are next to the last one capped.  With the bunker being last.

Town captures would be less dependant on population under a time frame single CP capture paradigm.  I honestly think the strategy would shift from cap-n-hold to total-attrition as the most effective means of taking any town.  Though backline MS's would have to be done away with.

The minimum capture time for a 6 cp town would be 3 hours, under this suggestion....... plenty of time for no pop to rebound into some pop.  Will also incentives TOM.  generally, people don't like logging before the task is complete.  Longer tasks mean longer TOM.  

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Tier Supply sucks, get rid of it.

 

Can you please expand on this, maybe with some data and some recommendations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say reduce the sub cost. Here is why.

I look at it this way if I go to a football game I rather go thirsty for 3 hrs then buy a over priced 12 dollar beer. Now if it be 4 or 5 bucks I would drink one or maybe 2 . At least they made 5 bucks then no money and they still made profit.

The Value and return in my eyes are worth it , but not at 12 bucks a beer.

What harm can it be have 3 more player in the game world and CRS makes 15 a month then no player and make 0.

I do like the idea of CP cap and then one side has a certain amount of time to recap if not achieved a new CP opens up to be capped and the other is locked for recap.

Also the none destroyable FB . I think it should be still destroyable but not by Sappers anymore , but by Bombers only and it would need an insane amount of Bombs , or if one still wants the Sappers , it would need an even higher amount then what we have now. Like KG said I don't think to many people want to just stand around at an FB with the hopes that a truck will come in.

Why Bombers well now we need a combined effort by Fighters and Bombers to achieve it cause the other side will have fighters or heavy AAA around. 

 

Now who of the guys that already pay premium would stay premium if the sub cost would be reduced ? And not flock to the lower cost that is the question.  There should be an incentive for the players that stay premium .  And I'm not talking access to better weapons (cause that would lead to pay to win) but maybe skins for Armor , Uniforms , Nose art,minor stuff but that would kind of make the premium player stand out to the regular grunt .

Stuff that might entice the regular paying customer , to go hey I would really like have this color scheme on my Panzer or Tank  , or that nose art, or you know this Camo on that INF is really cool looking  i'll pony up more so I can blend in better too and not die so much.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Where I differ is in the implementation.. instead of time limits and limiting CPs, do that naturally with a 'frontline' mechanism.

As tat has been saying, MSs can be placed anywhere behind towns, that is not good, allows enemy to come in from any direction, spreading population.

Drawing lines between frontline towns (or some other method) and creating areas where MSs can't be placed does what you're suggesting with limiting CPS to be captured.

This would do nothing except give the defenders an even bigger advantage than they already have....... and make attacking/ getting up an MS next to impossible.

 

The whole point of time limits on CP's is to open up the game mechanics ...... right now it is all about taking ground.  With time limits on the CP's much of the lul time can be spent on attrition and ZOC set up and control...... more simply put....... players can focus on killing each other more....... without risking the strategic points that are necessary for the battle to continue or even start.

Right now it is to difficult to 1) start a battle and 2)keep the battle going........... there are too many specific points that need to be guarded continuously......... which all but guarantees either the battle will end shortly/won't start at all or the same 75% of the PB will have to do boring stuff (ie not running around killing).  Time limits solve all of that........ by the game mechanics setting aside large chunks of time where people can simply focus on getting as much dopamine as they can without having to worry about the battle coming to an abrupt end...... and everyone logging off because [censored] just went from interesting to stale in .35 seconds.

Edited by kgarner
3 people like this

Share this post


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

This would do nothing except give the defenders an even bigger advantage than they already have....... and make attacking/ getting up an MS next to impossible.

MSPs are an abstraction that represents a broad zone of control/front.

FBs are a version of this in a way. On-side MSP deployments limit MSPs roughly to an arc from the linked towns. If it is simple, like a radius from the FB with a no-go  around enemy facilities, a town linked to 2-3 towns would only have no EFMS in the direction of the linked friendly town. Seems utterly reasonable. If there were on-sides rules, FRUs are no problem. With on-sides rules, I see no reason not to make them tougher, too (5 charges so 1 engie alone can't do it).

In addition, most attacks are in progress before any defenders ever show up.

I think the new UI could maybe show MSPs on the map once you select a mission/BDE, and maybe it could show skulls within X meters of the MSP as well (so you see one camped, and pick one off to the side. Some of the most fun I have had has been fighting over an EFMS that is actually active.

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.