Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

eagle7

Growth in this game is going to be pilot related. Advertise there.

Recommended Posts

madrebel
2 hours ago, jwilly said:

Yes. Ground players want weather that allows them to have their infantry fights and tank duels, without being subject to air attack

So close, you missed the part about and not having any negative affect to their gameplay. As in, they dont want realism, they want theater. 
infantry players in this game love talking about ‘realism’ yet suggest to them that they shouldn’t be able to sprint through bush lines and watch the moaning about “but tank camps”. 
 

remember when this game was good? When we used to have large tank battles and large air battles and a lot of players. Between then and now a lot of decisions were made. 

where are the players?

where are the large battles?

this game was always a good vehicle simulator, until infantry player whines killed the hangar and motor pool with their so called ‘realism’. 

Share this post


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

So close, you missed the part about and not having any negative affect to their gameplay. As in, they dont want realism, they want theater. 
infantry players in this game love talking about ‘realism’ yet suggest to them that they shouldn’t be able to sprint through bush lines and watch the moaning about “but tank camps”. 
 

remember when this game was good? When we used to have large tank battles and large air battles and a lot of players. Between then and now a lot of decisions were made. 

where are the players?

where are the large battles?

this game was always a good vehicle simulator, until infantry player whines killed the hangar and motor pool with their so called ‘realism’. 

So isn't one element of perhaps correcting some of the deviations that lead the game off the path reducing Air to Ground CAS? This is a game built on a simulation with the unfortunate axiom overhanging everything that air power rules the battlefield. If you accept that truth, you're left with choices - either mitigate the effects of air power through artificially reducing the severity/effects of air power or reducing the likelihood/incidence of air power. The game opted for the former, I wonder if a fully developed non-CAS air war would have led to the latter. If the flying game was mostly focused on the hi alt strategic bombing mini-game, maybe CAS isn't so appealing, from a pure game (XP points rewards) perspective and from a game-interconnection perspective - ie it's not so easy to join in and assist the ground push if your comms and HUD info is aligned to the hi alt air war. Maybe the focus on combined arms is a fundamental error, as the Inf-Armour-Air game can't exist as Rock-Paper-Scissors. Maybe you say the air war is the air war and there's limited scope for interaction with the ground game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, madrebel said:

niche masochists that love fake realism for the sake of fake realism (much of what is left of the community) then you're going to have population problems.

 

This, a million times over.

In real warfare, people die and the constant risk of fatal consequences has big implications on the behaviour, strategy and tactics of all the commanded units in war.
Therefore in a game, units will behave differently even in combat, you get metas etc

Any simulation, or game that prides itself on "secular" simulated entities needs to accept its never going to be 1:1 with real life and go from there.

Physics where-ever possible should be as realistic as possible so that people are getting a fair crack of the whip in terms of the answers to the questions of "how good would I have been".

However interms dead on historical accuracy, realistic logistical practice, R'n'R, extended pre-flight checks and objectives that mandate a longer sortie length and all that stuff  its totally counter intuitive to put someone who wants to partake in their hobby of having fun by willingly implementing systems that ensure they won't. There's roll play sessions in secluded woodlands for this kind of stuff.

A side tangent, but its still related, so bear with me :

I'm very involved in the simracing scene, I'm actually an ambassador for a large e-sports organization for that very branch and let me tell you this.
I had more fun racing in games that were "simulations" but had less features than the sims do now.
The more simulated features you incorporate, the more variables you put upon the players and most actually don't improve game play at all.

Why would a simracer [for example] want simulated mechanical failures when there is already plenty to go wrong as it is [controller disconnect, internet disconnect, PC crash, overheat etc etc] and at least the simracing developers acknowledge this, that its NOT real life, and BECAUSE it isn't real life, there are other obstacles to tackle [or leave well alone].

So why would a family man [most likely] with kids want to spend 1 of his 3 hours a night flying a 1 hour sortie? he could have a CTD during that period and all manner of non-game related variables
And I say family man because they are the most likely to have the patience and/or stamina for it in the first place because you wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting kids to play a single sortie for an hour and I think older people struggle to stomach alot of screentime in an hour without breaks here and there and 75% of the time they will be seeing nothing happen at all anyway.

There are multiple reasons this game has lower numbers than contemporary games but the most telling symptom is that the majority of the players here are over 30years old. The average age might even be closer to 50. 
This game does not attract the youth. And systems like super hi-alt battles where you're not even guaranteed to see anything is not going to attract them. If we only serve to satisfy our own interests then we will die WITH this game lol

Edited by saffroli
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madrebel
9 hours ago, Silky said:

So isn't one element of perhaps correcting some of the deviations that lead the game off the path reducing Air to Ground CAS?

I thought this was a 'hardcore PvP game where players decide'? here you're talking designing out something the barracks doesn't like.

9 hours ago, Silky said:

This is a game built on a simulation with the unfortunate axiom overhanging everything that air power rules the battlefield. If you accept that truth, you're left with choices - either mitigate the effects of air power through artificially reducing the severity/effects of air power or reducing the likelihood/incidence of air power.

in reality, airpower is crushingly effective. it was in ww2, it is still in modern time. couple other things to consider here though.

  • artillery is orders of magnitude worse in the context of the ww2 battlefield. how many infantry are clamoring for proper arty?
  • prior to 'weather' being added, nobody in the barracks or motor pool could make a proper argument backed by actual statistics showing that the air game was in fact a statistically significant influence on the ground. there were two times the air actually was 1) when german 20MM clipped through armor. 2) when bombs used to be overly effective. both of these scenarios were over a decade ago.
  • air destroyed trucks, light equipment, and squishies is fine.
9 hours ago, Silky said:

The game opted for the former, I wonder if a fully developed non-CAS air war would have led to the latter.

Airfields should be vulnerable to bombing. This is realistic, it slows the flow of CAS to the front and focuses air players at each other. It also ties of players as airfields will need a defense.

9 hours ago, Silky said:

If the flying game was mostly focused on the hi alt strategic bombing mini-game, maybe CAS isn't so appealing, from a pure game (XP points rewards) perspective and from a game-interconnection perspective - ie it's not so easy to join in and assist the ground push if your comms and HUD info is aligned to the hi alt air war.

more 'design' to push air players away from the actual game. you want them playing a 'mini' game IE an insignificant version. no you say? so you want this hi alt

strat war to significantly impact the ground game? yeah, thought not. again, you just want these players to go away and do something 'mini'. gotcha.

this is a pipe dream, CAS will always be more attractive.

9 hours ago, Silky said:

Maybe the focus on combined arms is a fundamental error, as the Inf-Armour-Air game can't exist as Rock-Paper-Scissors. Maybe you say the air war is the air war and there's limited scope for interaction with the ground game.

and the meat and potatoes ... i agree. focusing on infantry has destroyed any semblance of combined arms. the air and tank games have systematically been dismantled to appease the barracks ... giving us the mini multiplayer online game we have today ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madrebel
45 minutes ago, saffroli said:

This, a million times over.

In real warfare, people die and the constant risk of fatal consequences has big implications on the behaviour, strategy and tactics of all the commanded units in war.
Therefore in a game, units will behave differently even in combat, you get metas etc

Any simulation, or game that prides itself on "secular" simulated entities needs to accept its never going to be 1:1 with real life and go from there.

Physics where-ever possible should be as realistic as possible so that people are getting a fair crack of the whip in terms of the answers to the questions of "how good would I have been".

However interms dead on historical accuracy, realistic logistical practice, R'n'R, extended pre-flight checks and objectives that mandate a longer sortie length and all that stuff  its totally counter intuitive to put someone who wants to partake in their hobby of having fun by willingly implementing systems that ensure they won't. There's roll play sessions in secluded woodlands for this kind of stuff.

A side tangent, but its still related, so bear with me :

I'm very involved in the simracing scene, I'm actually an ambassador for a large e-sports organization for that very branch and let me tell you this.
I had more fun racing in games that were "simulations" but had less features than the sims do now.
The more simulated features you incorporate, the more variables you put upon the players and most actually don't improve game play at all.

Why would a simracer [for example] want simulated mechanical failures when there is already plenty to go wrong as it is [controller disconnect, internet disconnect, PC crash, overheat etc etc] and at least the simracing developers acknowledge this, that its NOT real life, and BECAUSE it isn't real life, there are other obstacles to tackle [or leave well alone].

So why would a family man [most likely] with kids want to spend 1 of his 3 hours a night flying a 1 hour sortie? he could have a CTD during that period and all manner of non-game related variables
And I say family man because they are the most likely to have the patience and/or stamina for it in the first place because you wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting kids to play a single sortie for an hour and I think older people struggle to stomach alot of screentime in an hour without breaks here and there and 75% of the time they will be seeing nothing happen at all anyway.

There are multiple reasons this game has lower numbers than contemporary games but the most telling symptom is that the majority of the players here are over 30years old. The average age might even be closer to 50. 
This game does not attract the youth. And systems like super hi-alt battles where you're not even guaranteed to see anything is not going to attract them. If we only serve to satisfy our own interests then we will die WITH this game lol

well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gt3076r

We had been saying for god knows how long in the Hangar to stop the intense focus on infantry and branch out to more dev on the air and armor wars. Make it so that victory isn't achieved solely through infantry sitting in buildings. This game's infantry play is worse than browser-based games anymore. I mean it's absolutely terrible. And that's the only thing that matters for moving the map! :confused:

Armored combat and the air game stand out even to this day as unique experiences in this game, but they have no direct influence on winning campaigns (the goal of the game).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drkmouse

n reality, airpower is crushingly effective. it was in ww2, it is still in modern time. couple other things to consider here though.

  • artillery is orders of magnitude worse in the context of the ww2 battlefield. how many infantry are clamoring for proper arty?
  • prior to 'weather' being added, nobody in the barracks or motor pool could make a proper argument backed by actual statistics showing that the air game was in fact a statistically significant influence on the ground. there were two times the air actually was 1) when german 20MM clipped through armor. 2) when bombs used to be overly effective. both of these scenarios were over a decade ago.
  • air destroyed trucks, light equipment, and squishies is fine.

egnoring those who made those arguments of  air camps, is not the saem as  themmaking  strong arguaments to the contrairy, air game is, and has   been  very effetcvitve vs  gorund game.  sometimes to the detriment of the game as a hole.

there is a   cloers ballance now  of air vs ground, then  be fore (  in  my  opninion  as a  constant opekl driver. fb defender etc )

Share this post


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

 

there is a   cloers ballance now  of air vs ground, then  be fore (  in  my  opninion  as a  constant opekl driver. fb defender etc )

+10 this. this thread is getting 'air arcane' like the 'barracks arcane sado-masochists' decried above who debate how many misfires in bullets there should be in smgs designed but not produced yet between August 12th 1940 and September 19th 1941 at a specific factory before it was partially bombed and the trains couldn't deliver the wooden stocks anyways cuz a forest was burnt down somewhere by partizans. 

having played as a useless, non-effective and no opinion ground guy for 20 years I can't even remember the 'old game' but as recently as last campaign - 172 - RDP bombing was massively and easily winning the campaign (ie. moving the map east) for allies for the first two-three weeks to the point that axis ground logging in had basically given up defending or attacking towns because there was no supply or resupply. none. then out of nowhere (I'd like to understand how that happened) tons of axis pilots showed up to counter Allied RDP. Slowly, defenses held, even more slowly, attack supply was there and even more slowly the map moved back west and even eventually, as airfields were flipped, Axis RDP became very effective to help end the map. 

some earlier campaign within the last 10 - maybe it was during a WBS time - an allied RDP squad lead the way in winning a campaign very very quickly. 

dkrmouse is right in that still, now, whatever and whyever stuff has changed - RDP can and does make a difference and CAS matters to ground guys particularly as to tanks/panzers - and defensive CAS can stop almost any attack at fbs by killing ets and etrucks and bombing down fbs in combined arms works with e-engineers. 

so yeah, ground guys love air guys. its makes you win or it makes it hell - but either way its a simulation like no other. 

 

Share this post


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

+10 this. this thread is getting 'air arcane' like the 'barracks arcane sado-masochists' decried above who debate how many misfires in bullets there should be in smgs designed but not produced yet between August 12th 1940 and September 19th 1941 at a specific factory before it was partially bombed and the trains couldn't deliver the wooden stocks anyways cuz a forest was burnt down somewhere by partizans. 

 

 

Don't forget Axis fuel and rare earth materials shortage! 

We need to get Romania and the Caucasus regions for our oil otherwise we lose. 

Realism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
2 hours ago, zippy33 said:

Dude! Did you type that with your toes?

Drk's got medical issues, not nice or cool.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jsilec

If shooting lil grey pixels counts as “realism” then i am keeping it real yo....oh and sky fairies needs to chill i see alot of new air stuff has come in and ju88s and hi level bombing...pfft its gonna be raining bombs soon enough ffs

Share this post


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

Drk's got medical issues, not nice or cool.

thnks bud.   i do whati can  and  i think he was i jsut (  got me to smilel) :)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

We need to get Romania and the Caucasus regions for our oil otherwise we lose.

Or Aruba and the other French-dominated refinery centers of that part of the southern Caribbean, plus those of northern Venezuela.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TEX64
2 hours ago, zippy33 said:

Dude! Did you type that with your toes?

ZIP -

not my story to tell.  He's doing the best that he can.  Once you realize that and see enough of his text, you get to be fluent. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silky
16 hours ago, saffroli said:

So why would a family man [most likely] with kids want to spend 1 of his 3 hours a night flying a 1 hour sortie? he could have a CTD during that period and all manner of non-game related variables
And I say family man because they are the most likely to have the patience and/or stamina for it in the first place because you wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting kids to play a single sortie for an hour and I think older people struggle to stomach alot of screentime in an hour without breaks here and there and 75% of the time they will be seeing nothing happen at all anyway.

There are multiple reasons this game has lower numbers than contemporary games but the most telling symptom is that the majority of the players here are over 30years old. The average age might even be closer to 50. 
This game does not attract the youth. And systems like super hi-alt battles where you're not even guaranteed to see anything is not going to attract them. If we only serve to satisfy our own interests then we will die WITH this game lol

I see the point you're making, but I'd challenge it. Who is the target audience of this game? Who's it aimed at? My take (for what that's worth) is that this game appeals most to older, more knowledgable WW2 enthusiasts, who take gaming and history and authenticity fairly seriously. They largely reject gizmos and gadgets, and most have game time available in larger chunks. I don't think this game is aimed at someone like me - who has young kids and zero time equating to zero patience. Why structure the game around that demographic and not the more patient sim/WW2 enthusiast? (this is all purely based on my perception, I have absolutely no data to back my opinions up with)

I look around and I see people hugely interested in technical detail and in-depth understanding, be it roll rates, armour damage, ballistics, trains, engine power etc and I see many of the moves that have tried to lean the game more towards the instant action market rejected - Inf FMS, EWS etc

Yes, maybe in-depth hi alt bombing missions that take 60 minutes start-to-finish may not align with busy/impatient people's lifestyles, but the question remains - so what? Does that mean the game has to change to incorporate less patient play styles? In bending the design to fit that audience, you surely erode it and reduce its appeal to the more patient, older audience who can manage uninterrupted play sessions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

I don't have a horse in this race...or at least I don't have a strong commitment to one.

I however would hope that CRS's Lead Marketing Officer...some guy named @Xoom, I'd guess...would be very clear on the answers to the questions posed above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drkmouse

this  gaem brings something no other gaem can or will.  true  360deg emetion.  you can go and rpeay much do what you want to help a side move 24/7.   tactics are needed, etc etc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madrebel
9 hours ago, Silky said:

Who is the target audience of this game? Who's it aimed at?

It was originally billed as a massive multiplayer online game. at one point while our numbers never rivaled WoW, the population was comparably massive to what it is now.

9 hours ago, Silky said:

I look around and I see people hugely interested in technical detail and in-depth understanding, be it roll rates, armour damage, ballistics, trains, engine power etc

these people have left in larger numbers than have stayed. lots of folks who could recall from memory deep technical details are gone. who is left that really fits this description?

9 hours ago, Silky said:

I see many of the moves that have tried to lean the game more towards the instant action market rejected - Inf FMS, EWS etc

this is disingenuous. this has everything to do with design flaws and little to do with the idea itself.

example, EWS. nobody wanted what was delivered. All we wanted was a system to prevent skirting. what we got was a system that would inform the opposition of planes lifting deep into friendly territory.

infantry FMS, did anyone want a spawn point that could come from anywhere? isn't it more accurate to suggest what people actually wanted was a system of chained spawn points that couldn't be exploited to teleport forces behind lines?

what was delivered and what was wanted? these two have rarely been aligned.

 

while thinking about how to respond to this i found what i think is a good analogy. ww2ol has been a restaurant clinging to life much like most restaurants are doing right now amidst this stupid pandemic. many of these businesses will fail, but, restaurants will be back.

Why? many reasons for that, for lots of folks it comes down to all the things they don't have to do to eat. For me, its dishes. I love cooking and do a better job than most restaurants however sometimes i just like to be served and F*** dishes. This is why restaurants will rebound. They offer food that you don't have to make and there is no clean up.   

ww2ol is a restaurant that not only offers the dish washing experience, it demands it from its patrons. those who have the nerve to say "i like the food here, but washing dishes is stupid" get shouted down by the few crotchety old geezers who are too frail to ever leave and have more or less grown into their booths. its comfy, their butt grooves are perfectly molded into their favorite booth, and that is a 'good thing'.

if this game is to ever grow, it needs to stop listening to these masochistic sycophants.

Share this post


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

It was originally billed as a massive multiplayer online game. at one point while our numbers never rivaled WoW, the population was comparably massive to what it is now.

these people have left in larger numbers than have stayed. lots of folks who could recall from memory deep technical details are gone. who is left that really fits this description?

this is disingenuous. this has everything to do with design flaws and little to do with the idea itself.

example, EWS. nobody wanted what was delivered. All we wanted was a system to prevent skirting. what we got was a system that would inform the opposition of planes lifting deep into friendly territory.

infantry FMS, did anyone want a spawn point that could come from anywhere? isn't it more accurate to suggest what people actually wanted was a system of chained spawn points that couldn't be exploited to teleport forces behind lines?

what was delivered and what was wanted? these two have rarely been aligned.

 

while thinking about how to respond to this i found what i think is a good analogy. ww2ol has been a restaurant clinging to life much like most restaurants are doing right now amidst this stupid pandemic. many of these businesses will fail, but, restaurants will be back.

Why? many reasons for that, for lots of folks it comes down to all the things they don't have to do to eat. For me, its dishes. I love cooking and do a better job than most restaurants however sometimes i just like to be served and F*** dishes. This is why restaurants will rebound. They offer food that you don't have to make and there is no clean up.   

ww2ol is a restaurant that not only offers the dish washing experience, it demands it from its patrons. those who have the nerve to say "i like the food here, but washing dishes is stupid" get shouted down by the few crotchety old geezers who are too frail to ever leave and have more or less grown into their booths. its comfy, their butt grooves are perfectly molded into their favorite booth, and that is a 'good thing'.

if this game is to ever grow, it needs to stop listening to these masochistic sycophants.

I must eat at different restaurants than you - and don't mind doing dishes. At all. Never thought of myself or other players as masochistic sychophants - or did you mean masquerading psycho-pants?

Guy Washing Dishes GIFs | Tenor   Mc Hammer GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Silky said:

I see the point you're making, but I'd challenge it. Who is the target audience of this game? Who's it aimed at? My take (for what that's worth) is that this game appeals most to older, more knowledgable WW2 enthusiasts, who take gaming and history and authenticity fairly seriously. They largely reject gizmos and gadgets, and most have game time available in larger chunks. I don't think this game is aimed at someone like me - who has young kids and zero time equating to zero patience. Why structure the game around that demographic and not the more patient sim/WW2 enthusiast? (this is all purely based on my perception, I have absolutely no data to back my opinions up with)

 

Oh, I think this point is entirely valid and I think its beyond reasonable doubt that most that play this game ARE WW2 enthusiasts to a knowledgable level but I dont think you can rely on it to continue the game. 

As sad as it is to think about, I know plenty of guys from 15 years ago and unfortunately, alot of them are no longer with us, in the absolute sense, because of their age. So eventually your stock playerbase dwindles and you end up with no more foundations to continually build a playerbase upon. 

I think it's a balance that's needed. Both of young and old. I think to an extent, it would be nice to facilitate someone to BECOME a WW2 enthusiast via this game, rather than the other way around. Much like other titles are able to do, and the biggest factor in achieving this is easy of accessability, intuitive UI and game play and a solid number in playerbase.

Edited by saffroli
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...