sydspain

WWII Online: Current state and future

248 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, major0noob said:

my point is: it's not important.

go in-game and the guys will want battles, regardless of on-sides/population/flag-firepower/timezone/etc. even at the expense of any of those.

battles > realism / historic accuracy / simulation

 

whatever the game stands for, the inf-spawn did create and sustain battles more effectively than the truck-spawns. at this point, something drastic needs to be done to help battles start, and keep going.

 

sacrificing realism, historic accuracy, and simulation flavors for the sake of gameplay is acceptable.

sacrificing gameplay for the sake of realism, historic accuracy, and simulation' well there's 2 guys left in favor and a dozen that no longer play. those 2 aren't paying 120$/month

yes 100%

Share this post


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

 notice how the actual guys doing the damage in lowpop get so defensive its like they KNOW they are the problem and dont want to admit it....ok carry on great game we have here

just cant help stirring the pot .... can yah jsloppydic?

Share this post


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

 

It isn't graphics, it isn't toys, it isn't price.... it's game play- how fun it is it... as kgar said.

 

Its seems, collectively, we are giving ourselves and CRS confusing, or at least circular opinions. 

1. We all agree the game needs more/new players yes? BUT are the new players in the last 18 months, say from Steam on, not sticking to the game because of: 

2.  subscription / costs too much / seems pay to win OR
3.  lack of action  (and all the tactical permutations thereof : FMS, SD, TZ3, ZOCs etc etc)  OR
4.  no access to all the toys unless a new player subs

From the posts here, from reading/scanning all the old steam posts, from chatting to new players in game and from Jwrona's post above it would seem that its in the first instance mostly a combination of #2 and #4 plus maybe the magic of hooking up in game via voice or the right vet mentor or the right squad to teach

ie.  get more players via some combination of ftp/lower price/all unit access, then get more action, then solve all the small stuff once we see what that small stuff actually does/is when there are, well, more players. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

or how about instead of more FMS/ZOC/TZ3/SD aggravating threads or another fundraiser we all just STFU and pony up $50 bucks each right now - thats 10x one month subs at $5 - and tell CRS to give-away, or reward, or establish a $5 sub lottery  or give-away game codes for legitimate brand new players via marketing/steam/etc  to WIN a FREE one month all-unit access sub, like right now, like tomorrow or next campaign start.

if 100 of us did that would be like 1000 FREE ONE MONTH SUBS handed out - or giveaway 333  3-month free subs if we believe it might take longer to 'hook' a new continuing player.

I'm in. Who else will send CRS 50 bucks to give away $5 subs to new players? Let's try it and then talk to those new FREE subs and listen to what they actually think of the game when its reasonably populated. 

Image result for subway 5 for 5

 

 

Edited by sorella

Share this post


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

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

I agree.

 

This is why the focus for development past two years needed to be all about the initial player experience, ingame integral voice comms out of the box, and/or a lot more thought out mediated experience getting into the game.

 

Cause all the HC and balance issues and all that self-correct with more players in the game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

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.

Poor Xoom.  Rational post, then they went whack.

Share this post


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

or how about instead of more FMS/ZOC/TZ3/SD aggravating threads or another fundraiser we all just STFU and pony up $50 bucks each right now - thats 10x one month subs at $5 - and tell CRS to give-away, or reward, or establish a $5 sub lottery  or give-away game codes for legitimate brand new players via marketing/steam/etc  to WIN a FREE one month all-unit access sub, like right now, like tomorrow or next campaign start.

if 100 of us did that would be like 1000 FREE ONE MONTH SUBS handed out - or giveaway 333  3-month free subs if we believe it might take longer to 'hook' a new continuing player.

I'm in. Who else will send CRS 50 bucks to give away $5 subs to new players? Let's try it and then talk to those new FREE subs and listen to what they actually think of the game when its reasonably populated. 

Image result for subway 5 for 5

 

 

Although your photo is making my mouth water and stomach grumble... I'll say I disagree. Giving away free 3-month subs to greentags just to get them to try it is... terrible. Imagine if the poor guy shows up at 11am CEST, enters a town with 3 allies and 6 axis, keeps getting shot every time he tries to cross the road (because you know the damn axis are cutting something ;)) and quits because he can't see what kills him. Money down the drain. 

Share this post


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

This is why the focus for development past two years needed to be all about the initial player experience, ingame integral voice comms out of the box, and/or a lot more thought out mediated experience getting into the game.

In-game voice comms would be great, even as complicated as it is. I'll sometimes just sit-in on channel just to hear what people are saying, to give me a better heads up on what's going on, what to do, where got camped, where my guys are, etc. If that audio is coming out of the game, rather than an external service, it is DEFINITELY going to be used more by us new guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop tweaking, put in the toys and let us fight it out...

OI! fix the payment method pronto senor. That one hurts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me personally

Not enough people playing to justify the sub cost.

Its a chore to learn for new players partly because it’s a chore to teach new players as it currently stands. 
 

I like the rest of the game.

In voice comms are the only thing that absolutely have to be added. Discord is a good tool but it’s a chat room. I feel awkward using it. In game comms I wouldn’t feel funny staying quiet and speaking when necessary.

I think I’d keep my sub running for 5 pound a month and wouldn’t feel too bad about keeping it live when I’m not actively playing at that cost if other life things got in the way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2019 at 5:35 PM, sydspain said:

Maybe I’m being too pessimistic? What do you think?

you put in a good bit of work analyzing things so good job, someone should be paying attention

anyway the decline is the natural result of server activity being seen as a problem, and the many measures implemented over the years to curtail server activity

"map rolls", "overpop", "TZ3"...the problem doesn't matter the solution has always been to do something to decrease activity on the server, as fewer players online was worth it to solve the problem

On 10/14/2019 at 5:35 PM, sydspain said:

Also if you, like me, are playing less and less everyday it would be great to known your insights as well.

I logged on during the WBS and hopped in to a small fight

the small fights are now consistently terrible, not just "clunky" or dated due to the engine, but actually terrible and because of rules and town layouts

there are no large fights, not much of a community, nothing else to do and I am experienced enough to tell that there won't be large fights for 12 hours or more so I logged

that was during the WBS, other times when I've played I've had a few okay sorties, start to get back in the mood but then I'll just have an extremely negative experience with something

whatever it is specifically it varies, but generally afterwards I lose all desire to play and go do something else

this was one from awhile ago, I'm sure it's the same with other people they just go "BS" and log even if they want to like the game:

 

Share this post


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

+10/  Mates. This is going off-topic. Go to OT for that. Stop with the endless tactical problems/solutions - AOs, Sidelocks, Frus, bleh. 

Syd started with an insightful post on the game and its future.
Xoom asked that we continue about bringing more/new players to the game.
Jwrona (not a vet) wrote a great post above about 'getting hooked' on the game. 

Go back and read them - we must stop viewing the game, as much as we like it, through our own small, bitter lenses of small-minded issues - we know they exist, we've all discussed and debated them endlessly - its also pretty clear that number of AOs, SD, FMS style, no jumping, my favourite weapon isn't perfect stuff is NOT what keeps new players from staying and subscribing in the first instance.

 Nothing -  nothing, will make this game better, greater, more fun, and more worth paying for than more new players. Time to think about how to get more of them, than always thinking about us. We've been around too long. 

Says who? 

Game play is everything. 

People are making comments and suggestions on how to improve game play. Not sure how that is "off topic". all the recruitment and lower sub prices in the world won't help until game play issues are resolved. 

You don't think that the player base in tz1 or tz2 that has just spent 6 hours fighting for one town takes notice that it was all for nothing as when tz3 rolled around they lost it back, and then some?

Seriously?

If that is honestly how you feel about it, why not just reset the map every day? After-all the game objective (win the map) is thrown totally out the window. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Although your photo is making my mouth water and stomach grumble... I'll say I disagree. Giving away free 3-month subs to greentags just to get them to try it is... terrible. Imagine if the poor guy shows up at 11am CEST, enters a town with 3 allies and 6 axis, keeps getting shot every time he tries to cross the road (because you know the damn axis are cutting something ;)) and quits because he can't see what kills him. Money down the drain. 

Hey JW, by the way thanks for your post and comments here. Very insightful. 

My point would be only that getting some free subs (or ftp) in game somehow could make it much more than 3 v 6 hence more chance to cross the road and kill the cutter especially if a vet or two showed the newbs how to smoke the road. 

But if it sucks as an idea, then how about just giving away actual free sub sandwich coupons with each new $5 subscription? Bet Subway would be up for a cross-promotion with CRS involving hungry latenight gamers. 

Image result for free submarine sandwich subway

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that everybody is in agreement that in game voice comms would be a huge aid. 

Maybe CRS should make this priority number 1 in their funding drive. 

Share this post


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

Says who? 

Game play is everything. 

You don't think that the player base in tz1 or tz2 that has just spent 6 hours fighting for one town takes notice that it was all for nothing as when tz3 rolled around they lost it back, and then some?

 

You are right of course. The only point being that with more players, there might be a fuller tz3 and less chance of rolls. Not sure this would always be true as 'breakfast club' issue has been around a long time.

But remember that during the Steam Launch campaign, with tons of new players trying the game, there were no tz3 rolls - in fact there were no rolls in any tz - there was about 6 weeks of  stasis with large long battles and few town caps at all - players even had time to build huge walls around Ciney and Dinant. 

Share this post


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

You are right of course. The only point being that with more players, there might be a fuller tz3 and less chance of rolls. Not sure this would always be true as 'breakfast club' issue has been around a long time.

But remember that during the Steam Launch campaign, with tons of new players trying the game, there were no tz3 rolls - in fact there were no rolls in any tz - there was about 6 weeks of  stasis with large long battles and few town caps at all - players even had time to build huge walls around Ciney and Dinant. 

But it is a what to do first question, ala chicken or the egg. I am in the camp of you fix the game issues first, then as a result more players will come, and better yet, be retained.

You seem to be in the camp of get the players first, fix the other stuff later (or the addition of the new players fix's all the issues). 

The Steam release proves your side to be, well, wrong. It didn't work. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My fear is that we might throw the baby out with the bath water. 

One of the most unique qualities of this game over a FPS is there is a long term goal------WIN THE MAP

to obtain that goal the playing field has to be as balanced as possible. 20 players in TZ3 should not have the ability over 200 players in TZ1 and TZ2 to have the impact they do have. 

spare me the "I wanna play with my mates" argument. You/we (TZ3 players) only represent  small fraction of the player base. Are we ok with pissing of 90% of the player base to keep 10% happy? 

Not a recipe for success. So yes, something has to be done on this matter. And It doesn't matter how long it has been an issue, the fact is, it IS AN ISSUE. 

 

Now, Delems has offered some ideas on improving the quality of the battles. I like his goal on doing such, but I think ,personally, it does so at the expense of the long term goal of winning the map. I think this has to be avoided at all cost. Solutions should start at how to win the map an insuring it is as fair as possible and work backwards,  not starting with individual battles and moving forwards. 

Share this post


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

Now, Delems has offered some ideas on improving the quality of the battles. I like his goal on doing such, but I think ,personally, it does so at the expense of the long term goal of winning the map. I think this has to be avoided at all cost. Solutions should start at how to win the map an insuring it is as fair as possible and work backwards,  not starting with individual battles and moving forwards. 

I agree with @delems that it starts with the battles in many ways. The Map making sense relates to the battles, because for the progress of the map to make any sense at all, the larger scale units on the map need to reasonably impact the battles.

I keep pointing part of this out, and it gets little commentary. If a large mass of actual players spawned in attacks a town that is defended by a small number of players, the relative strength of the attacking vs defending forces on "The Map" doesn't matter even a little. This fundamentally breaks any sense that "The Map" is a place to start. Take a bizarre edge case that likely can't happen do to population, but ask about the outcome.

A town with nothing but a Garrison is attacked to the point the garrison is severely atritted. Some short time later, 50 people spawn from that depleted Garrison, and attack a 2 AB town that also has 2 BDEs there, 100% supply. Full strength, the depleted Garrison attacking should be at more than a 1:4 disadvantage, with the depleted Garrison, we'll call it a 1:8 disadvantage. They should obviously fail in the attack. If they fail or not has exactly nothing to do with the relative strength on the map at all, it is 100% dependent on how many defenders there are. 50 defenders and it fails. Heck, 25 defenders and it fails. The attack succeeds or fails based on the relative population of actual players, nothing more. The movement of the map is not driven by "supply" or the meta units on the map except during times when sides are roughly equal, and both sides burn through all the supply---then the side with more supply wins.

So the solution to rational map movement within the current system either needs to be a way to tie attacker vs defender population to the relative supply, or every single battle needs to be fought to near complete destruction of the supply.

I think the former is superior to the latter, as it offers more tactical variability (which is more interesting/fun).

I have posted ideas about the former concept, but another way would be to look at the relative population on the server, then tie the ability to set AOs to relative supply. If a side has a 2:1 advantage on the server, then any attacks can only be to towns linked to attacking towns such that the attack is at least a 2:1 supply situation. If a side is at 12:1 (an example posted here the other day that actually happened), then the only thing the attackers could do to set an AO would be to stack units such that they could legitimately attack at 12:1 odds.

Moving BDEs should then also take realistic times, so that moving stuff for such an attack has a downside, weakening your position elsewhere. (and all the Garrison supply needs to drop. A lot.)

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me.....it all comes down to population.  Something needs to be done to increase it.  As it stands now........its not good.  I would normally play USA EST time and sometimes its just dead.  I cant justify my time or money when this occurs.   Onlyway would be to reduce sub prices for all NEW accounts.  Nothing else will attaract more people other than the pricing.  To many other games out there you pay one price and thats it.  Hell Let Loose comes to mind. 50 vs 50.  Sometimes thats all we have here.

Share this post


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

I agree with @delems that it starts with the battles in many ways. The Map making sense relates to the battles, because for the progress of the map to make any sense at all, the larger scale units on the map need to reasonably impact the battles.

I keep pointing part of this out, and it gets little commentary. If a large mass of actual players spawned in attacks a town that is defended by a small number of players, the relative strength of the attacking vs defending forces on "The Map" doesn't matter even a little. This fundamentally breaks any sense that "The Map" is a place to start. Take a bizarre edge case that likely can't happen do to population, but ask about the outcome.

A town with nothing but a Garrison is attacked to the point the garrison is severely atritted. Some short time later, 50 people spawn from that depleted Garrison, and attack a 2 AB town that also has 2 BDEs there, 100% supply. Full strength, the depleted Garrison attacking should be at more than a 1:4 disadvantage, with the depleted Garrison, we'll call it a 1:8 disadvantage. They should obviously fail in the attack. If they fail or not has exactly nothing to do with the relative strength on the map at all, it is 100% dependent on how many defenders there are. 50 defenders and it fails. Heck, 25 defenders and it fails. The movement of the map is not driven by "supply" or the meta units on the map except during times when sides are roughly equal, and both sides burn through all the supply---then the side with more supply wins.

So the solution to rational map movement within the current system either needs to be a way to tie attacker vs defender population to the relative supply, or every single battle needs to be fought to near complete destruction of the supply.

I think the former is superior to the latter, as it offers more tactical variability (which is more interesting/fun).

 

I agree to an extent, with a few caveats. 

Victory should not always be tied to supply only, but there has to be an element of skill and tactical decisions made that would allow for the side with the supply disadvantage to prevail.

Ideas such as onside rules and making the FMS indestructible make this impossible, and why I strongly object to it. 

Otherwise, why even fight the battles?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game cannot compete in the FPS arena, period. Not enough eye candy. To high a learning curve. No amount of lower sub prices is going to change that. 

Stop focusing on just the "battles", it's a dead end if it is done at the expense of Map play. 

The focus has to be on camaraderie and achieving the end objective. Winning the map. 

As such, obtaining that objective has to be fair for both sides. It should not be decided by a minority of the players.  

Any adjustments or changes that can be done to enhance battles are more than welcome as long as they don't come at the expense of map play. 

Edited by nc0gnet0
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

For me.....it all comes down to population.  Something needs to be done to increase it.  As it stands now........its not good.  I would normally play USA EST time and sometimes its just dead.  I cant justify my time or money when this occurs.   Onlyway would be to reduce sub prices for all NEW accounts.  Nothing else will attaract more people other than the pricing.  To many other games out there you pay one price and thats it.  Hell Let Loose comes to mind. 50 vs 50.  Sometimes thats all we have here.

Exactly.

I'd wager all day long that lower sub prices and existing gameplay mechanics would bring in and retain more new players than same sub prices and new mechanics.

Even Just looking at the new guys and inactive guys who commented on this thread, a $5 sub would win back their subscription. It would win back mine too. I didnt see any of them say or allude to that same sub prices and different game mechanics would get them to resub.

/myopinion

Edited by dfire

Share this post


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

I agree to an extent, with a few caveats. 

Victory should not always be tied to supply only, but there has to be an element of skill and tactical decisions made that would allow for the side with the supply disadvantage to prevail.

Tied to != determined entirely by. It merely means they are connected.

10,000 troops attack 100 troops in a WW2 setting. The 10,000 win. True or false?

If true, success is tied to supply.

5001 troops attack 4000 troops. Who wins? In RL, probably the 4000, actually, but since "defense" is not a thing in WW2OL, it might be better to say, there's a meeting engagement where 5000 run into 4000, who wins? I'd say tactics decide, but that the increased numbers on one side have an impact (supply is tied to outcome, still).

 

6 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Ideas such as onside rules and making the FMS indestructible make this impossible, and why I strongly object to it. 

Onsides rules should always have been the case with FMSes. Otherwise they are teleporters, and the game should get some Sci Fi elements, and be set in some alternate retrofuture setting. Change the model to a TARDIS.

MSPs are the massing of forces, abstracted.

Spawning armies in rear areas is fine, as long as what is required to do that is interdictable, and related to the number of troops (small, fixed spawn lists per truck drive around).

6 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Otherwise, why even fight the battles?  

My point was that if the meta units (BDEs) don't matter, then the whole "map" concept is not actually a thing.

Share this post


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

Exactly.

I'd wager all day long that lower sub prices and existing gameplay mechanics would bring in and retain more new players than same sub prices and new mechanics.

Even Just looking at the new guys and inactive guys who commented on this thread, a $5 sub would win back their subscription. It would win back mine too. I didnt see any of them say or allude to that same sub prices and different game mechanics would get them to resub.

/myopinion

IYO, why did the steam release fail to retain new players? 

do you think cost was the biggest factor? 

While I will concede that it was indeed a factor, I don't think it was the biggest one. 

Share this post


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

As such, obtaining that objective has to be fair for both sides. It should not be decided by a minority of the players.  

Any adjustments or changes that can be done to enhance battles are more than welcome as long as they don't come at the expense of map play. 

Then the game is already dead, "map play" is all about player numbers in battles, nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tater said:

Then the game is already dead, "map play" is all about player numbers in battles, nothing else.

Only because in it's current form, it is being allowed to continue unabated. I agree with what your saying, I refuse to agree there is nothing that can be done about it to at least curtail it. 

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.