sydspain

WWII Online: Current state and future

248 posts in this topic

....... or more likely

give a single defending tank the ability to shut down every attack before it starts...

not to mention air.... ugh

Edited by kgarner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sorella said:

 

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

 

Since this game thrives on numbers, I think that if we had 4 times the players, the amount of fun and action it would create would quickly snowball to 5x, 6x, etc. the amount of players. There were even a few inactive players on this very thread who said they would resub for 5 a month.

If I owned the game, it would drive me crazy knowing the game died without at least trying that idea since that could've been the solution. 

And yes I understand it's easy for me to be an armchair quarterback since I dont actually own the game, but xoom is looking for honest opinions so that's what im providing

Edited by dfire
2 people like this

Share this post


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

....... or more likely

give a single defending tank the ability to shut down every attack before it starts...

not to mention air.... ugh

How? By sitting around a town with no AO in the hopes someone decides to set one?

Couldn't that same tank camp and empty FB in the hope people start spawning? Seems like that requires player numbers we don't have for there to be enough people that the tiny % willing to be that bored would exist for it to be a problem. If a single defender (tank) is out a ways from town, and your only solution is to drive to the rear to have an army come from a TARDIS... the game is broken (on-sides = massing forces, off side = TARDIS). I'd add that if that is the case, you drive a new truck, and stop before you get to the tank, set FMS, then kill the tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that the game is so old now, I am not even sure lowering price to $5 per month would bring in 4x the number of players.  

Hell, even when they tried to give FTP access to all the equipment for a couple weeks the server’s population does not quadruple.

I really think CRS needs to think about starting work on WW2 Online 2.0 game engine while keeping this old game going for as long as they can still.

 The current version might stay afloat a couple years still - which is probably the minimum time you need to develop a new game engine for this game.  But if they don’t start putting resources into the next big version of this game, then I doubt we will really ever reach those large numbers online again.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dre21 said:

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.

Plus you get a little buzz going on that $5 beer and before ya know it, your upgrading to whiskey.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

The problem is that the game is so old now, I am not even sure lowering price to $5 per month would bring in 4x the number of players.  

Hell, even when they tried to give FTP access to all the equipment for a couple weeks the server’s population does not quadruple.

I really think CRS needs to think about starting work on WW2 Online 2.0 game engine while keeping this old game going for as long as they can still.

 The current version might stay afloat a couple years still - which is probably the minimum time you need to develop a new game engine for this game.  But if they don’t start putting resources into the next big version of this game, then I doubt we will really ever reach those large numbers online again.

 

You understand that's millions for engine, right?  Especially if they went for the same criteria of big big world.

 

More likely to use same engine ramped up with graphics and a different vehicle modeling system.  The tough thing is to take a HARD HARD look at player experience and change up the game to avoid ruts/spawn castles, use all that terrain we invested in, be revolutionary in generating team cohesion, and get across implicit in the design and PR videos what we KNOW what the game is when done right.

 

3/4 of the problem with this game has been a really crappy lay the egg of the noob spawning in, defenseless and no idea what they are facing, only to find total isolation on an abandoned mission or an absolute campfest they have no skills to survive in.  The retention rate should not surprise anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a new guy from June of this year... the 2 weeks premium was a hook. For sure. I came on during an intermission when we could play all equipment, had a squad recruit me, put me on voice comms, teach me the game... and barring a July where I couldn't play, I found it easy for fork over $5 a month for (what I consider to be) pretty decent access to units. Enough options with SMG, LMG, Engineer, Rifle, a few tanks, a truck, etc.... that it's pleasant to be able to do more than just be boots and tank-fodder. The community has definitely been a reason I stay. If I find a good active channel on discord, I'm on for a few hours. If it's all quiet, I'm on for 45mins max. 

The gameplay is VERY unique. It's not too fast-paced, but can get juicy when it needs to. You're not going to take the guys away from FPS that have 40 kills in 5 minutes, they will fall asleep driving a truck to town, at least not with this style of play. But when we've had 20 boots in town, especially a smaller town, it tends to be a good kick for a few hours.

That being said, my two cents... If I was stuck with a rifle and reserve SMG for those first 2 weeks, I'd be gone. If Colsmith hadn't yelled at me to be on discord, I'd be gone. And (the kicker), if I have to pay $20 a month, I'll be gone for a bit, it just doesn't fit in my budget currently. 

Bring back that 2-week FTP "premium". Or even give it a "half-premium" like the $5 account has. The experience was good enough to get me to stay and start handing over money. 

I'm new here, and enjoying it, I don't want to see it die YET!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours 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

Agreed. Making a FB immune to attack because it is the basis of an AO is the most ridiculous thing I have heard to date. It's would just make playing whack-a-mole an endless annoyance (which is much less fun that guarding a fb). It has no basis an anything remotely associated with warfare either, a FB represents the supply line and the basis of operation. Why would it not be vulnerable to attack?

Good Lord...............

Share this post


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

You understand that's millions for engine, right?  Especially if they went for the same criteria of big big world.

 

More likely to use same engine ramped up with graphics and a different vehicle modeling system.  The tough thing is to take a HARD HARD look at player experience and change up the game to avoid ruts/spawn castles, use all that terrain we invested in, be revolutionary in generating team cohesion, and get across implicit in the design and PR videos what we KNOW what the game is when done right.

 

3/4 of the problem with this game has been a really crappy lay the egg of the noob spawning in, defenseless and no idea what they are facing, only to find total isolation on an abandoned mission or an absolute campfest they have no skills to survive in.  The retention rate should not surprise anyone.

Of course I know its a lot of money and a couple years of development. time too at least.    But it needs to be done if this game is going to last into the future, no?

I am just not sure if the current game engine “juiced up more” with new models etc.. will attract todays gamers and be competitive with other new games on the market - especially in the long term.

CRS has 20 years of experience with running this type of game, they have all the financial data etc... needed to put together a business plan and attract investors.  Of course they need to keep at least  51 percent control of the new venture so they can still control the development process.

Alternatively they could crowd fund but that has its pros and cons too.  Crowdfunding puts a lot of public pressure on the developers to answer a lot of questions to the public every week.  

Banks are another option for loans etc... but they would want collateral.   Alternatively, they could use a part of current subscription fees to finance new development.  (Maybe they have already secretly been doing this and we don’t even know about it - now that would be a cool surprise).  

Maybe they need to do a mix of all the above to raise capital  - but raising capital  is not impossible.  This is what all companies do all the time to survive and grow their businesses.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

*** 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.

 

That won't work, your just setting up for a continual stalemate. Not too mention the landscape doesn't always allow for significant cover for such an attack to take place. surrounding a town was a common tactic in WW2, don't think we should make the game 2d. Better ways to accomplish your objectives without taking it to this level. 

 

1) bring the depots in closer together

2) If a depot is being capped, have a warning system in place, perhaps the flag goes white or yellow when not 100% allied or axis. This helps somewhat the constant need for the depot guard. 

3) Have an EWS alert when a depot is under attack, much better that making it invulnerable to attack. That is stupid, IMO. It would make TZ3 extremely underpop even worse. Many times that is the only way to hopefully save a town when faced with 3-1 odds. 

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


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

As a new guy from June of this year... the 2 weeks premium was a hook. For sure. I came on during an intermission when we could play all equipment, had a squad recruit me, put me on voice comms, teach me the game... and barring a July where I couldn't play, I found it easy for fork over $5 a month for (what I consider to be) pretty decent access to units. Enough options with SMG, LMG, Engineer, Rifle, a few tanks, a truck, etc.... that it's pleasant to be able to do more than just be boots and tank-fodder. The community has definitely been a reason I stay. If I find a good active channel on discord, I'm on for a few hours. If it's all quiet, I'm on for 45mins max. 

The gameplay is VERY unique. It's not too fast-paced, but can get juicy when it needs to. You're not going to take the guys away from FPS that have 40 kills in 5 minutes, they will fall asleep driving a truck to town, at least not with this style of play. But when we've had 20 boots in town, especially a smaller town, it tends to be a good kick for a few hours.

That being said, my two cents... If I was stuck with a rifle and reserve SMG for those first 2 weeks, I'd be gone. If Colsmith hadn't yelled at me to be on discord, I'd be gone. And (the kicker), if I have to pay $20 a month, I'll be gone for a bit, it just doesn't fit in my budget currently. 

Bring back that 2-week FTP "premium". Or even give it a "half-premium" like the $5 account has. The experience was good enough to get me to stay and start handing over money. 

I'm new here, and enjoying it, I don't want to see it die YET!

Out of all the posts by vets in here that add up to years and years and countless hours of experience and game play knowledge...

This right here is the most important post within this thread....read it 2-3 times and let it sink in

Welcome aboard and welcome to the game, glad you are here and glad we were able to "hook" you

Find the hook, it's still there and it has snagged many of players 

Lets also remember when the game was released June 2001 it was not a monthly sub model...they hooked us then and we were so into the game we gladly handed over the monthly sub to continue our dopamine fix  

Personally if I was CRS i would want a sit down chat with this guy and listen to him, of course the vets matter but guys like this represent the future...what can we do to grab more guys like him

edit: spelling

Edited by kazee
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chat should be incorporated into the game itself, not some secondary running app in the background. Be nice if you could use a mic, and not have to have on a headset. This would be huge asset to assisting new players. 

The thing on defending Fb's is, it wouldn't be so bad if the mission setup on this dam game wasn't so dam clunky. There is no reason why it should take soooo long to exit a battle, set a new mission (to a FB under attack) and spawn in to defend.

But with the terrible, terrible, terrible (did I say terrible?) system in place now, setting a mission up is a time consuming and not user friendly experience at all. 

Last night for instance, I seen a Fb to Ath was under attack. So I despawn. First, even though I didn't die, I have to go through a 10 sec spawn down timer, Then I have to go through the spin around death cam (again I didn't die, so why?)

then back out of the mission, back out of ao, to brigade roster, then bridgade Hc, Join a new brigade, set a mission (and all the time the dam map is moving all over the place on my monitor). 

Finally get mission set and now I have a 30 sec spawn delay. Wait for that to expire, then get a dam grey enter button and have to wait again. Finally get a green enter button, then I get stuck watching a silly "did you know" screen that I have seen a million times. FINALLY get in game, Fb is almost gone by now, Kill one axis engineer, then get shot. Now I have to wait another 10 seconds to despawn, death cam, 30 sec spawn delay EVEN THOUGH I AM THE ONLY ALLIED PLAYER At THAT THE FB!!!!!!!  And I am trying to defend against 6-8......Then another grey enter button, etc etc.

 

Want to know why the game is dying?  Really?

 

1) Spawn delay should be site specific, PERIOD! if you can't make it so then do away with it.

2) Spawn delay is directly related to the grey enter button bug. If you can't fix it, get rid of SD

3) Creating or setting missions is a major PITA....why?

4) you should have the ability in game to change a missions objectives on the fly, without having to go through all this hassle. 

 

Edited by nc0gnet0
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Agreed. Making a FB immune to attack because it is the basis of an AO is the most ridiculous thing I have heard to date. It's would just make playing whack-a-mole an endless annoyance (which is much less fun that guarding a fb). It has no basis an anything remotely associated with warfare either, a FB represents the supply line and the basis of operation. Why would it not be vulnerable to attack?

Good Lord...............

The FB represents the massing of forces away from or town-centric spawn model towards where the enemy is (the next town in our game, or just outside town, if they own the FB).

Attacking the FB once the attack is in your own town is like attacking rear areas during an offensive. In RL, to do this you likely have to move through rather a lot of enemy. In ww2ol? You need to sneak around very few enemy with 1 unit, then teleport forces as needed to destroy it.

I think that merely setting the AO should not do this, but I think if you cap a spawnable, locking damage on the FB linked to it makes perfect sense. The front WAS at the FB, it is NOW at the spawnable. Take spawnable back, then take FB.

Every guard at an FB is a player who could instead be actually playing.

Arbitrary rules like capture mechanics, FB damage, etc, also have the benefit of being available for use as balancing aspects for severe population issues. OP by X amount? Your FBs are always vulnerable. OP by even more than that? Your FBs take less damage to take out, or if imbalance bad enough can be taken out entirely by air---better have some of the 25 people attacking 5 despawn and start guarding, or grab planes and fly CAP over the FB, etc.

On sides rules for MSPs would help here as well.

 

Share this post


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

The FB represents the massing of forces away from or town-centric spawn model towards where the enemy is (the next town in our game, or just outside town, if they own the FB).

Attacking the FB once the attack is in your own town is like attacking rear areas during an offensive. In RL, to do this you likely have to move through rather a lot of enemy. In ww2ol? You need to sneak around very few enemy with 1 unit, then teleport forces as needed to destroy it.

I think that merely setting the AO should not do this, but I think if you cap a spawnable, locking damage on the FB linked to it makes perfect sense. The front WAS at the FB, it is NOW at the spawnable. Take spawnable back, then take FB.

Every guard at an FB is a player who could instead be actually playing.

Arbitrary rules like capture mechanics, FB damage, etc, also have the benefit of being available for use as balancing aspects for severe population issues. OP by X amount? Your FBs are always vulnerable. OP by even more than that? Your FBs take less damage to take out, or if imbalance bad enough can be taken out entirely by air---better have some of the 25 people attacking 5 despawn and start guarding, or grab planes and fly CAP over the FB, etc.

On sides rules for MSPs would help here as well.

 

BS

This is assuming that an attack on the FB would only be coming from the town under attack itself, and not a town to the rear. A backline town  would do exactly that, attack the supply while moving in to assist. 

 

You guys aren't thinking this through. You are going to make map rolls even more prevalent in TZ3 if you move ahead with this. You will turn this game into nothing but map rolls and whack-a-mole. So instead of having a Fb defender, your going to need 3 defenders chasing a mole all over Twerp (or other big town) because you can't stop it now that the Fb is invincible. 

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** That won't work, your just setting up for a continual stalemate.

Sort of, but the whole idea is to have combat for the town - not ninja around some angle of town where there is no defenders.

With limited angles of attack, defender does have a bit easier time imo, but it allows far more player density, hence battles. (so maybe lower capture timer or SD a bit?)

The stalemate (meaning continuous battle for town - ala action.....), will continue till the attacker runs low of supply, or the defender does.

 

I have to totally agree with tat, very disgusting to have ei coming at you from all angles when they only have 1 link to town.

Look at Aalst attack from Nin, like axis did this AM;  any reason they should be allowed to place MS N of Aalst ???  No.

Having a front line means you know an area is kinda secure (woah, concept, a flank....) and that enemy comes from a main direction or some flank.

 

Removing HCMS and creating a frontline for MSs would allow for far more player density - statistically density would double immediately.

And density is the missing component, more players in one area having a battle, so it feels more like war- not some ninja MS walked in and flooded from some obscure direction.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, delems said:

*** That won't work, your just setting up for a continual stalemate.

Sort of, but the whole idea is to have combat for the town - not ninja around some angle of town where there is no defenders.

With limited angles of attack, defender does have a bit easier time imo, but it allows far more player density, hence battles. (so maybe lower capture timer or SD a bit?)

The stalemate (meaning continuous battle for town), will continue till the attacker runs low of supply, or the defender does.

 

I have to totally agree with tat, very disgusting to have ei coming at you from all angles when they only have 1 link to town.

Look at Aalst attack from Nin, like axis did this AM;  any reason they should be allowed to place MS N of Aalst ???  No.

Having a front line means you know an area is kinda secure (woah, concept, a flank....) and that enemy comes from a main direction or some flank.

 

Removing HCMS and creating a frontline for MSs would allow for far more player density - statistically density would double immediately.

And density is the missing component, more players in one area having a battle, so it feels more like war- not some ninja MS walked in and flooded from some obscure direction.

 

nah..... it would create no density.

 The only factor that matters here is that defenders can drive tanks to MS's in 30 secs.  Attackers need 7 or 8 mins....... or a 4 to 1 pop advantage to overcome this discrepancy.  Attacking needs to be easier.... not more difficult.  The defender already has pretty much every advantage atm.

Edited by kgarner
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** The only factor that matters here is that defenders can drive to MS's in 30 secs. 

Because you are thinking of unassisted ninja MS being setup.

I'm thinking drive MS in with a tank and ATG, setup ZOC area - and attack.

 

I'm thinking the battle mindset has to change some - from ninja hidden MS and sneaking to obscure location of town to capture and warp.

To, setup ZOC MS, ATGs, armor and assault in - supported by air if can.

 

Yes, may have to make some component of attacking easier, but it can't detract from having to battle your way in.

example, changing SPs to 1 story and not 3 story- this helps the attacker.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One way to split the difference between frontline and no frontline, would be to allow a squad or two to spawn from trucks and APCs on whichever side of a town they might park.

Share this post


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

*** The only factor that matters here is that defenders can drive to MS's in 30 secs. 

Because you are thinking of unassisted ninja MS being setup.

I'm thinking drive MS in with a tank and ATG, setup ZOC area - and attack.

 

I'm thinking the battle mindset has to change some - from ninja hidden MS and sneaking to obscure location of town to capture and warp.

To, setup ZOC MS, ATGs, armor and assault in - supported by air if can.

 

Yes, may have to make some component of attacking easier, but it can't detract from having to battle your way in.

example, changing SPs to 1 story and not 3 story- this helps the attacker.

 

Sure I agree......... but you are missing the point delems

There isn't enough players to set up ZOC 99.9% of the time

everyone is either 1)doing the boring stuff that is necessary to just keep the battle going..... or 2) running around killing stuff and praying someone else will do all the stuff that is necessary to keep the battle going

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you remember the big FMS that was CRS' first model? One way to help the attacker, and the establishment of a ZOC, would be to incorporate that as a 1000m or 1250m or some such FMS that could spawn heavy atgs, aaa, trucks and apcs (in limited quantities). Can't set closer than a click or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone wants to run around and kill stuff.......... or be in a position to get together with their mates to set up a zoc, or put up a cut, or grab a couple tanks and move to town in a group.  None of that is possible though until the necessities are covered.

Right now ...... 80% of the time it takes more than 65% of the PB just to set up and maintain a battle.  

Game mechanics need to change in order to free people up to do stuff that is fun......... instead of stuff that is necessary ....... or the PB will never grow........ battles will become smaller, shorter, and fewer....... until the game dies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** There isn't enough players to set up ZOC 99.9% of the time

And I guess this is the great question.

We losing players to no action.  I think that is because of 100% directional ninja MS - hence - never a battle as ei appear anywhere and attack.

If players are more grouped in a direction to attack, and defenders are more grouped to face the defenders attacking angle - there will be more players.

With the more players, more action, then more players will stay or play longer or sub.

 

That is the question - how to get action going, and sustain it - so it don't seem so alone.

 

When MSK use to setup ZOC at a town, we rarely took the town (axis side that is), but we would make the fight last at least 30 min or so - as allies tried to get to us.

Our ZOC provided constant battle, sure, we weren't to close to town, but close enough allies would come try for us.

 

 

The one area you might be right though, is if no one is willing to do the 'setup' work;  set a ZOC MS, have infantry patrol it, get ATGs near or armor.

If no one wants to 'battle', but rather just run and gun.

If that is the case, then yes, not sure anything can be done. (note, SQUADS usually do this... bunch of loners won't generally)

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol if you honestly think the lack of players is due to lack of ms restrictions...... Im not really sure what to say

 

MS's, in general, are probably the single greatest addition to increase the intensity and frequency of dopamine rich battles

adding restrictions to one of the only things that actually works well atm...... is a step in the total opposite direction of progress

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***  lack of ms restrictions

It's not the restrictions that matter.

What matters is the sense of a frontline, of having flanks, of having ZOC.  Currently the map is to porous as one said.

(and I agree, I think it is terrible ei can come from ANY direction when their only link is say S of town)

When you defend a town - ei can come from ANY direction, even if they have only 1 link.

That is not right imo.

There is no way ei should have MS N of Aalst if attacking from 1 link from Nin imo.

 

What this leads to is attackers spread all about the town in a 360 arc, and defenders having to defend every direction.

When in reality, the attacker would only be coming from the S, maybe SW and SE.

This by default spreads the attacker in a 360 around the town - and the defender to have to be everywhere.  Hence, thinning population.

Verses having attacker having to come from S (maybe SW SE) and defender facing them - thus providing flanks and higher player density.

 

Edited by delems
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Monday, I'll be closing this thread. Please use the time wisely, add in your feedback that you most want CRS and I to see. From there, we'll work on solutions internally and return to the forums to regular business.

Thanks everyone.

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.