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.

ZEBBEEE

(Poll) F2P vs Premium

Premium vs F2P  

31 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

ZEBBEEE

There has been multiple topics the past years about how f2p should look like compared to our premium offer.

I would like to audit it with the current expectations, constraints and opportunities.

Please take the poll and let's discuss it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21

NVM miss read the topic. 

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

Give premium players an ability to call in virtual artillery. Limits to be determined.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

I think whilst perks for premium players are superficially attractive, I think in the long-run, it's counter-productive to have f2p players in the second-order units. Their game experience will tend to be one of losing engagements, and that's no-ones idea of fun. Self-evidently, there's a learning-curve to be mastered, and losses of engagements to be expected from that. I think the way to go might be to expand the f2p lists, so they can have some positive play experience, but term-limit f2p, so they have to take a decision to sub to continue play.

That said, I'm not privy the "numbers", but my instinct is that un-limited (time) F2p accounts with limited (unit type) may only serve to reinforce frustration with the game. Perhaps not what we want to encourage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

"Rank" is meaningless in this game.

We need a real rank or point system that incentivizes play that needs to be incentivized, and punishes play that we want to be disincentivized.

The basic idea is that you start with some points, and different units cost points. Standard issue rifles are the baseline unit, everything is scaled to those, and rifles are always available to anyone as long as there is supply in the town in question.

Points are earned for guarding, captures, kills. Points are lost for not RTBing.

The points lost for death are significant enough that running streaks is encouraged as they would be generally equal to the cost of the unit. Unit costs are tweaked to try and maintain a decent balance of units spawned in at any given time.

What does this have to do with F2P? Every player can start a campaign with a small bank of points. Premium players have enough that they can spawn anything to start with. F2P start with far fewer points. If they play carefully, they can earn points to try better stuff—but if it's set so they have to work a while capping and guarding as a rifle to build up points for a cool tank, then if they lose the tank, they are back to 0 points and they have to start over.

Other uses of this would be side balance. If the sides are too unbalanced, the price for better gear can increase. Sure, your side is 20 attacking 2 defenders—but everyone has just rifles, other stuff was too expensive because of OP tax.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

One of the difficulties with such a system, is how players mounting "hopeless defences" - basically slowing down the OP side rather than successfully defending the town, would be treated under such a regime. What I'm driving at it that it's really hard to quantify to correctly sanction people with "points loss" without driving player-behaviours that are in their personal interests, but not in the interests of the game itself. I applaud the intent, but I fear the chance of "un-expected consequences" is rather high here.

For example, if players defending a town, have few points, then there's a disconnect between the nominal TOE, and the ability of players to spawn that TOE. So you might start to see towns lost despite stuff being in the TOE, but not actually spawnable by the players then present. Can you imagine  the grief this would cause? Now start to imagine the gamesmanship involved in precipitating loss of points in enemy players.... 

I agree with your views on incentivized behaviour, but with the best will in the world, I'm not sure this is the right mechanism.

Share this post


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

"Rank" is meaningless in this game.

We need a real rank or point system that incentivizes play that needs to be incentivized, and punishes play that we want to be disincentivized.

The basic idea is that you start with some points, and different units cost points. Standard issue rifles are the baseline unit, everything is scaled to those, and rifles are always available to anyone as long as there is supply in the town in question.

Points are earned for guarding, captures, kills. Points are lost for not RTBing.

The points lost for death are significant enough that running streaks is encouraged as they would be generally equal to the cost of the unit. Unit costs are tweaked to try and maintain a decent balance of units spawned in at any given time.

What does this have to do with F2P? Every player can start a campaign with a small bank of points. Premium players have enough that they can spawn anything to start with. F2P start with far fewer points. If they play carefully, they can earn points to try better stuff—but if it's set so they have to work a while capping and guarding as a rifle to build up points for a cool tank, then if they lose the tank, they are back to 0 points and they have to start over.

Other uses of this would be side balance. If the sides are too unbalanced, the price for better gear can increase. Sure, your side is 20 attacking 2 defenders—but everyone has just rifles, other stuff was too expensive because of OP tax.

This kind of system punishes non elite players. It completely disregards "trying". It disregards support play. There is a heck of a lot more to the game than Kills, Caps, and Guarding. Players who want to focus on support play would soon find themselves unable to spawn anything but riflemen. Is a player trying to run FMSs to an AO, so they can then make someone else Mission leader and run more FMSs? Let them get killed a few times in trucks and lose all of their "points", and see if they actually try to support their team. Building defenses, driving trucks out to rearm AAA, ATGs and Tanks, repairing AI, blowing FBs... and much more would all become actions that get effectively penalized. Sure, some folks are great at run and gun combat. Some of us aren't much good at that and play differently.

S!S!S!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
8 hours ago, tater said:

"Rank" is meaningless in this game.

We need a real rank or point system that incentivizes play that needs to be incentivized, and punishes play that we want to be disincentivized.

The basic idea is that you start with some points, and different units cost points. Standard issue rifles are the baseline unit, everything is scaled to those, and rifles are always available to anyone as long as there is supply in the town in question.

Points are earned for guarding, captures, kills. Points are lost for not RTBing.

The points lost for death are significant enough that running streaks is encouraged as they would be generally equal to the cost of the unit. Unit costs are tweaked to try and maintain a decent balance of units spawned in at any given time.

What does this have to do with F2P? Every player can start a campaign with a small bank of points. Premium players have enough that they can spawn anything to start with. F2P start with far fewer points. If they play carefully, they can earn points to try better stuff—but if it's set so they have to work a while capping and guarding as a rifle to build up points for a cool tank, then if they lose the tank, they are back to 0 points and they have to start over.

Other uses of this would be side balance. If the sides are too unbalanced, the price for better gear can increase. Sure, your side is 20 attacking 2 defenders—but everyone has just rifles, other stuff was too expensive because of OP tax.

Bad idea for Axis in Tier0 vs Matilda, Bad idea for Allies vs Tiger in tier 1 or 2 whatever tier it comes in .

 

Share this post


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

One of the difficulties with such a system, is how players mounting "hopeless defences" - basically slowing down the OP side rather than successfully defending the town, would be treated under such a regime. What I'm driving at it that it's really hard to quantify to correctly sanction people with "points loss" without driving player-behaviours that are in their personal interests, but not in the interests of the game itself. I applaud the intent, but I fear the chance of "un-expected consequences" is rather high here.

For example, if players defending a town, have few points, then there's a disconnect between the nominal TOE, and the ability of players to spawn that TOE. So you might start to see towns lost despite stuff being in the TOE, but not actually spawnable by the players then present. Can you imagine  the grief this would cause? Now start to imagine the gamesmanship involved in precipitating loss of points in enemy players.... 

I agree with your views on incentivized behaviour, but with the best will in the world, I'm not sure this is the right mechanism.

The typical "hopeless defense" in the current game is of course that by the time the defenders arrive, the situation is already nearly hopeless (they are in effect the attackers, but at worse odds than any ww2 attack would have been launched). Under a point system, if the global population is unbalanced, the points get reduced to account for this. Regardless, if a rifle is 1 point (and players only have their points subtracted to 1 via death), maybe a SMG is also 1 point. Or rifles are free (0 points) and SMGs are 1. If the defense is hopeless, spawning the best tank so it can be sapped in the veh is hardly useful.

Like any arbitrary system, we can also make arbitrary rules. For example as supply goes lower, points drop per item. You also haven't addressed the point gains. Making a kill inside the bunker or CP, or resetting the bunker or a CP might be worth rather a lot of points. Clear a CP with a rifle (0-1 point cost) and get killed, and have enough points to buy whatever inf you want. Missions might give you points. Take a mission with an FB as a target and maybe the mission spots people points to get an engie. There're many ways to tweak such a system, that's what it's for.

If we want to encourage hopeless defensive spawning (like draining supply in the town that is down to just the camped AB), the point system could be as a function of friendly facilities, and purchase costs could be the fraction of the the remaining facilities (say there are 5 CPs and an AB, then when down to just the AB all spawns are at 1/6 cost, rounded down). Or when just the AB, spawning is free. Not sure that's good gameplay, though. But again, everything can be adjusted—the goal is to adjust it til gameplay is better.

 

5 hours ago, Quincannon said:

This kind of system punishes non elite players. It completely disregards "trying". It disregards support play. There is a heck of a lot more to the game than Kills, Caps, and Guarding. Players who want to focus on support play would soon find themselves unable to spawn anything but riflemen. Is a player trying to run FMSs to an AO, so they can then make someone else Mission leader and run more FMSs? Let them get killed a few times in trucks and lose all of their "points", and see if they actually try to support their team. Building defenses, driving trucks out to rearm AAA, ATGs and Tanks, repairing AI, blowing FBs... and much more would all become actions that get effectively penalized. Sure, some folks are great at run and gun combat. Some of us aren't much good at that and play differently.

Just because I didn't mention happen to mention something useful that could earn points doesn't mean it doesn't earn points, that was a back of the envelope description.

Setting an MSP might be worth rather a lot of points—every attack starts with HC trying to get people to drive trucks. Setting an MSP might get you large number of points. To discourage using Keystone Kops trucks to drive around town on all sides to draw fire, losing the truck after setting might be a decent point hit—set the FMS, then despawn (ideally we have on-sides MSP rules). So anyone driving a truck is rewarded since it is play that we want to encourage. Maybe F2P people might use that as a way to be able to try other things.

The goal is to use stuff, and have the risk/reward curve such that risk is encouraged, but stupid risk is not. Setting MSPs is not super risky on-sides now, if you try and race a truck through town and over a bridge to teleport troops tot he other side, IMO that's a stupid risk (of course I think the FMS across a river is a TARDIS, hence the "stupid" part, river always should have stopped MSPs somehow).

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
15 minutes ago, dre21 said:

Bad idea for Axis in Tier0 vs Matilda, Bad idea for Allies vs Tiger in tier 1 or 2 whatever tier it comes in .

Why?

Say there are limited units that can take out a concerning threat. Would you rather have all those units burned by people who will push the 1 ATG  out that can side shot the target at 400m, except they will set up in the street by the Depot and front shot the threat at 1500m and simply get killed, wasting all of them?

The light ATGs can be spawned by anyone, the heavy ones require some points—this encourages their use by people who are perhaps less reckless, and more capable of successfully using them.

There was another thread about suicidal sappers. Maybe sappers are expensive, and costly in points to lose, but the reward for sapping a tank—and living—is huge. Ie: sapper costs some number of points (not idea, making a number up just for this example), say 50 (which might be like a good tank (again, made up numbers). Losing the sapper would lose the guy 50 points in addition to the 50 he bought the sapper with. Killing a tank might be worth 100, so if he suicides the sapper, but takes a tank, he breaks even. If he kills a tank, and RTBs, he's up 50 points. I didn't say it above, but respawning the same unit has to either have zero cost, or substantially reduced cost, so the guy can RTB to rearm himself, and be back out as a sapper for free (ditto any other unit, RTB that tiger, and you can simply respawn it).

Bottom line is all point costs and rewards can be tweaked to produce the desired result. It's a way to give the server control knobs to adjust play.

F2P people can earn points to learn how to actually play. Guarding or capping points are not just a "GJ!" in chat, they get to try a new thing. If they lose it, and are back to no points, they can level up quickly to try something else by capping or guarding, or driving a truck (whatever is to be encouraged). The reward is immediate. In the spawn list it can show a little progress bar for things you can't spawn, and a green dot for anything you can spawn. Maybe if you mouse over (they were talking about a new UI at some point), it says what you could do to have enough points ("guard a CP for 10 minutes, or set an FMS").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh

Making FTP more attractive is not going to help the game financially.   We need more paying players, not just more players.   FTP should be to just get a taste of the game to encourage them to become members.  

The lowest level membership are extremely cheap. If can't afford that then you really should be spending your time working or improving your job skills, not wasting time playing a game you can't afford.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Making FTP more attractive is not going to help the game financially.   We need more paying players, not just more players.   FTP should be to just get a taste of the game to encourage them to become members.  

The lowest level membership are extremely cheap. If can't afford that then you really should be spending your time working or improving your job skills, not wasting time playing a game you can't afford.

Good point. I suppose one other mechanism would be to have variable memberships—better to get any >$0/month out of someone than $0.

Say there was a point system that was designed to improve gameplay, and improve the relative balance of units. You'd tweak values until you saw the desired result that in good pop battles most inf are rifles, followed by SMGs, followed by LMG, etc. Most armor is the type that was most common at the time, followed by the next most common, and so forth. Roughly—because right now, it's all the good stuff until that is gone, then the less good stuff. Beginning of a battle looks less "real" than the end when supply is down. Anyway, memberships would in effect buy the points you start the campaign with.  Premium players might have a reservoir of points that would allow them to spawn in pretty much as they do now, but if they are bad about MIA/KIA ends to spawns, they might find themselves in trouble after a while. This would result in those of us with those subs maybe playing a little more carefully. Gonna check that empty bunker? Use a rifle. First spawn at an FMS? Rifle, just in case (I already do this).

Lower subs literally give lower points to start.

Points would probably be by branch, not global. So you'd get ground points, air points, and naval points. Larger naval units would then be moderated by making them really expensive, and you'd not want to beach them as fight to the death pillboxes.

Share this post


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

The typical "hopeless defense" in the current game is of course that by the time the defenders arrive, the situation is already nearly hopeless (they are in effect the attackers,

I agree here , so maybe the whole AO /DO system has to be revamped instead of trying to figure out how to get the F2P vs premium figured out.

Maybe FBs also need a AO so the other side has a chance to spawn in for Defence.

In other words Spawning becomes available once a AO is set.

So let's say Allies want to attack Wavre  , FBs are locked, AO is set , other side gets message Wavre FBs unlocked AO imminent,  now it's up to the other side to spawn in , The defender has a chance to set up a Defence and the Attacker has a chance to assemble .  Defender ignores and they get overrun then so be it . Maybe the trucking in troops instead of setting up FMS will become a thing again  , maybe both will happen . 

So many options , but exactly why I said what I said about Matilda and Tiger is exactly the defender defecit.

Imagine spawning in with good points just to be taking apart by exactly that equipment to drop points , it doesn't matter how careful one is , the spawn is camped the spawn is camped it makes no point how high you number count is , all it will do then is people not spawn in that town anymore cause nobody is willing to risk their points.

Share this post


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

The typical "hopeless defense" in the current game is of course that by the time the defenders arrive, the situation is already nearly hopeless (they are in effect the attackers, but at worse odds than any ww2 attack would have been launched). Under a point system, if the global population is unbalanced, the points get reduced to account for this. Regardless, if a rifle is 1 point (and players only have their points subtracted to 1 via death), maybe a SMG is also 1 point. Or rifles are free (0 points) and SMGs are 1. If the defense is hopeless, spawning the best tank so it can be sapped in the veh is hardly useful.

Like any arbitrary system, we can also make arbitrary rules. For example as supply goes lower, points drop per item. You also haven't addressed the point gains. Making a kill inside the bunker or CP, or resetting the bunker or a CP might be worth rather a lot of points. Clear a CP with a rifle (0-1 point cost) and get killed, and have enough points to buy whatever inf you want. Missions might give you points. Take a mission with an FB as a target and maybe the mission spots people points to get an engie. There're many ways to tweak such a system, that's what it's for.

If we want to encourage hopeless defensive spawning (like draining supply in the town that is down to just the camped AB), the point system could be as a function of friendly facilities, and purchase costs could be the fraction of the the remaining facilities (say there are 5 CPs and an AB, then when down to just the AB all spawns are at 1/6 cost, rounded down). Or when just the AB, spawning is free. Not sure that's good gameplay, though. But again, everything can be adjusted—the goal is to adjust it til gameplay is better.

 

Just because I didn't mention happen to mention something useful that could earn points doesn't mean it doesn't earn points, that was a back of the envelope description.

Setting an MSP might be worth rather a lot of points—every attack starts with HC trying to get people to drive trucks. Setting an MSP might get you large number of points. To discourage using Keystone Kops trucks to drive around town on all sides to draw fire, losing the truck after setting might be a decent point hit—set the FMS, then despawn (ideally we have on-sides MSP rules). So anyone driving a truck is rewarded since it is play that we want to encourage. Maybe F2P people might use that as a way to be able to try other things.

The goal is to use stuff, and have the risk/reward curve such that risk is encouraged, but stupid risk is not. Setting MSPs is not super risky on-sides now, if you try and race a truck through town and over a bridge to teleport troops tot he other side, IMO that's a stupid risk (of course I think the FMS across a river is a TARDIS, hence the "stupid" part, river always should have stopped MSPs somehow).

The simplest argument. If players are not very good. No matter subscribed or not... if they die a lot they will wind up stuck in Rifleman hell.
Also...WHO exactly gets to decide how other paying customers are supposed to play?

I hate to tell you this, but your opinion of what is 'stupid' might not agree with mine. Who are you to decide how someone else plays the game?

If I play... I want to play my way... If I am F2P, and am told I can't... why would I sub? And if I sub and am not a great player, and am basically put in a "get good or you're going to be stuck a a Rifleman most of the time once your points run out"... why should I stay subbed?

A point system such as you describe unfairly reward the guys who are better at twitch run and gun combat. It would make the game even harder on non elite players. Making supply access dependent on people's playing skills... complete with death penalties, is not the way to keep customers.... especially paying ones.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

I think the levels aren't so bad as is.  FPA, starter and premium.

 

Before changing that, I'd revamp the points given for things (50 points for capture is ludicrous as is 20 for giving ammo).

And I'd rework rank required to access gear (silly I can spawn 4 Tigers at rank 5, but can't spawn 15 snipers till rank 7).

Also, every map with no sortie means a drop in rank for every persona.

imo, the points given and rank for gear needs an overhaul far more.

Share this post


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

The typical "hopeless defense" in the current game is of course that by the time the defenders arrive, the situation is already nearly hopeless (they are in effect the attackers, but at worse odds than any ww2 attack would have been launched). Under a point system, if the global population is unbalanced, the points get reduced to account for this. Regardless, if a rifle is 1 point (and players only have their points subtracted to 1 via death), maybe a SMG is also 1 point. Or rifles are free (0 points) and SMGs are 1. If the defense is hopeless, spawning the best tank so it can be sapped in the veh is hardly useful.

Like any arbitrary system, we can also make arbitrary rules. For example as supply goes lower, points drop per item. You also haven't addressed the point gains. Making a kill inside the bunker or CP, or resetting the bunker or a CP might be worth rather a lot of points. Clear a CP with a rifle (0-1 point cost) and get killed, and have enough points to buy whatever inf you want. Missions might give you points. Take a mission with an FB as a target and maybe the mission spots people points to get an engie. There're many ways to tweak such a system, that's what it's for.

If we want to encourage hopeless defensive spawning (like draining supply in the town that is down to just the camped AB), the point system could be as a function of friendly facilities, and purchase costs could be the fraction of the the remaining facilities (say there are 5 CPs and an AB, then when down to just the AB all spawns are at 1/6 cost, rounded down). Or when just the AB, spawning is free. Not sure that's good gameplay, though. But again, everything can be adjusted—the goal is to adjust it til gameplay is better.

Tater, I was just trying to get you to consider that this isn't just a case of coming up with a finely thought out set of rules to apply to incentivize good gameplay, it has to do across varying server populations, periodic inbalances, different tiers, and during periods when a campaign is being won - or lost. That's a HUGE set of variables, and if any of them are "wrong", and you start to see towns lost because no-one can spawn the needed high value item, and that despite it being in spawnlist, then the out-cry would be simply epic. That's a very very tall order to get right, and very quickly. (just consider how quickly CRS1 caved in over RDP). I just don't see this particular idea as practical, sorry. (Although I like the thought-process that got you there)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

Old-CRS (specifically, Gophur) was interested in a points-paid-for-actions, points-spent-for-weapons/objects system toward their wind-down.

It was acknowledged that paying points for only some of the actions the game needs to function well would be a shortcoming. In addition to tacking that with a more extensive list of paid actions and conditions, there was further discussion of creating explicit paid recognition of other actions that in the present game only get rewarded with social approval. 

Another technique that was discussed was rewarding the value of teamwork, and measuring that teamwork by input from other players and from mission leaders. Obviously that would involve some of the same social pathways as squad membership, with both benefits and complications, but on balance it was deemed important to pursue.

Share this post


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

The simplest argument. If players are not very good. No matter subscribed or not... if they die a lot they will wind up stuck in Rifleman hell.
Also...WHO exactly gets to decide how other paying customers are supposed to play?

I hate to tell you this, but your opinion of what is 'stupid' might not agree with mine. Who are you to decide how someone else plays the game?

If I play... I want to play my way... If I am F2P, and am told I can't... why would I sub? And if I sub and am not a great player, and am basically put in a "get good or you're going to be stuck a a Rifleman most of the time once your points run out"... why should I stay subbed?

A point system such as you describe unfairly reward the guys who are better at twitch run and gun combat. It would make the game even harder on non elite players. Making supply access dependent on people's playing skills... complete with death penalties, is not the way to keep customers.... especially paying ones.

Things that have no bearing on play don't earn points, they are not incentivized, or disincentivized. If your idea of play is building trenches, which takes a long time in my limited experience with the engie doing it, then it's necessarily not in combat, and the chance of losing that engie is small, since you start with an MSP, or in RTB range, you never lose points anyway (and are F2P give engies now, anyway?). Points for guarding and capping don't really require skill.

All these complaints, and I have not said what the points would even be—what if you got 100 points for guarding, and lost 4 points for losing an engie? All the bad player has to do is actually help guard or cap once in a while assuming his usual play sometimes gets him killed, hardly a draconian requirement.

 

1 hour ago, fidd said:

Tater, I was just trying to get you to consider that this isn't just a case of coming up with a finely thought out set of rules to apply to incentivize good gameplay, it has to do across varying server populations, periodic inbalances, different tiers, and during periods when a campaign is being won - or lost. That's a HUGE set of variables, and if any of them are "wrong", and you start to see towns lost because no-one can spawn the needed high value item, and that despite it being in spawnlist, then the out-cry would be simply epic. That's a very very tall order to get right, and very quickly. (just consider how quickly CRS1 caved in over RDP). I just don't see this particular idea as practical, sorry. (Although I like the thought-process that got you there)

I agree, it's complex—but again, any arbitrary game mechanic is a control knob that can be used to balance the game. It's not like we want the low pop side to have ATGs with more muzzle energy, the physics is NOT arbitrary. Points? Those can vary. On login: "Allies are low pop right now, 3X rank point bonus to join!" (you get 3X points for capping, guarding, setting MSPs, kills, etc) Alternately, 'Germans are under pop! Play German and get 100 free points for gear!"

A few counter arguments are assuming that the penalty is so draconian that if you get killed a couple times in a row, you're stuck with a rifle. I never said that, and never posted an actual point structure.

The point is to incentivize using a rifle or more common unit, and to incentivize whatever gameplay is wanted (or balance). People even thinking a little might consider using a more common item in a very risky situation because, "Why waste points?" They are not required to do so most of the time. If the AB was camped such that you burned 10 SMGs in a row trying to get to the bunker, the town is finished anyway. Might as well run to the bunker with a (free of point penalty) rifle, or use up rifles to smoke the place, THEN spawn an SMG.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

The plan discussed by/with Gophur was for regular and special subscriptions to be re-defined to focus on provision of periodic point-packs. Separately, freestanding point packs were to be available for purchase by f2p players. That would become the mechanism for monetizing f2p participation, in place of explicit microtransactions for each item that the points could obtain. But, it'd still be possible to play completely free, if you were sufficiently effective and cautious in regard to your play choices and accomplishments.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Old-CRS (specifically, Gophur) was interested in a points-paid-for-actions, points-spent-for-weapons/objects system toward their wind-down.

It was acknowledged that paying points for only some of the actions the game needs to function well would be a shortcoming. In addition to tacking that with a more extensive list of paid actions and conditions, there was further discussion of creating explicit paid recognition of other actions that in the present game only get rewarded with social approval. 

Another technique that was discussed was rewarding the value of teamwork, and measuring that teamwork by input from other players and from mission leaders. Obviously that would involve some of the same social pathways as squad membership, with both benefits and complications, but on balance it was deemed important to pursue.

Interesting as well. For green tags they could be explicitly told they earn points for being within some close range of their ML, but warned to listen to them on chat—the ML could be allowed to kick people, so a noob shooting off smoke near the ML gets warned, then booted by the ML, and doesn't get the extra points.

That idea seems like a good one, since it monetizes F2P even at a mini level, and aa real sub effectively gives you more points to play with. {Players might be allowed to transfer points, too. See a noob who does a great job (like my F2P son clearing a bunker the other night in the last campaign), and toss him a few points to grab a cool thing (his reaction time is so good he hardly ever spawns a rifle that he doesn't get a few kills, lol, makes me feel decrepit).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE
16 hours ago, fidd said:

I think whilst perks for premium players are superficially attractive, I think in the long-run, it's counter-productive to have f2p players in the second-order units. Their game experience will tend to be one of losing engagements, and that's no-ones idea of fun. Self-evidently, there's a learning-curve to be mastered, and losses of engagements to be expected from that. I think the way to go might be to expand the f2p lists, so they can have some positive play experience, but term-limit f2p, so they have to take a decision to sub to continue play.

That said, I'm not privy the "numbers", but my instinct is that un-limited (time) F2p accounts with limited (unit type) may only serve to reinforce frustration with the game. Perhaps not what we want to encourage?

We are currently giving 30 days premium but its effect on conversion is limited. Which could be explained by a frustration regarding an initial experience, and a difficulty to find action with lots of coordinating players. 

Those playing for free on a regular basis love the concept and know how to play, but just cannot afford any expense. I agree with what blakey said but on a yearly basis it is a big budget indeed.

We tried to remove free play but the resulting population drop also dropped the premium population. 

People attract people. Until graphics and gameplay can be improved, we can still think about the pricing model to boost population. 

From the first feedbacks, which I all thank you for, I am surprised that little agree with the current model focused on unit strength and load-out. Would an approach focused on teamplay or on other gameplay constraints result in a significant conversion rate? Good question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2
1 minute ago, ZEBBEEE said:

We are currently giving 30 days premium but its effect on conversion is limited. Which could be explained by a frustration regarding an initial experience, and a difficulty to find action with lots of coordinating players. 

Those playing for free on a regular basis love the concept and know how to play, but just cannot afford any expense. I agree with what blakey said but on a yearly basis it is a big budget indeed.

We tried to remove free play but the resulting population drop also dropped the premium population. 

People attract people. Until graphics and gameplay can be improved, we can still think about the pricing model to boost population. 

From the first feedbacks, which I all thank you for, I am surprised that little agree with the current model focused on unit strength and load-out. Would an approach focused on teamplay or on other gameplay constraints result in a significant conversion rate? Good question. 

to take this on a slight tangent Zeebee. yes people attract people etc but what does CRS do attract more people? being on steam helps but that is quite passive, surely there must be some more proactive ways to reach people that don't actually cost anything? I would suggest use the YouTube channel more. it can't all just be streams of gameplay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

I like the points transfer idea...it would have a useful social dimension, not just for personal relationships but also in a squad context.

Quote

For green tags they could be explicitly told they earn points for being within some close range of their ML

I like the idea, but old CRS discussed a different approach. Tactical group proximity was to be part of quantified morale. Morale would be impacted by close enemy fire (thus a suppression effect), fear, proximity to casualties, and mission defeats or failures. Morale would be boosted by proximity to leaders and other soldiers with high morale; mission success; and proximity to a wounded tactical-team member being rescued and saved/stabilized. And, leader ability to positively influence morale would depend on history of mission success and history of unit losses.

Share this post


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

I like the idea, but old CRS discussed a different approach. Tactical group proximity was to be part of quantified morale. Morale would be impacted by close enemy fire (thus a suppression effect), fear, proximity to casualties, and mission defeats or failures. Morale would be boosted by proximity to leaders and other soldiers with high morale; mission success; and proximity to a wounded tactical-team member being rescued and saved/stabilized. And, leader ability to positively influence morale would depend on history of mission success and history of unit losses.

Interesting idea as well. I'm fine with "roleplaying," but then again would those sorts of rules also apply to tanks, air, etc?

A slightly different version might be to stack the proximity benefits with desirable activities like capping, guarding. If a mission member is within X range, AND at least 1 of you caps or guard, then points (1 might be cutting, for example).

The bottom line is that a point system for "purchasing" equipment can be designed in a way that is beneficial, and is not frustrating. If this same system is used to adjust balance, maybe things like SD could go away (universally hated).

Would people rather wait 30 seconds to respawn, or respawn immediately as a rifle? Or a combo—SD button lights up, but it says "respawn immediately as a rifle."

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
41 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

We are currently giving 30 days premium but its effect on conversion is limited. Which could be explained by a frustration regarding an initial experience, and a difficulty to find action with lots of coordinating players. 

Those playing for free on a regular basis love the concept and know how to play, but just cannot afford any expense. I agree with what blakey said but on a yearly basis it is a big budget indeed.

We tried to remove free play but the resulting population drop also dropped the premium population. 

People attract people. Until graphics and gameplay can be improved, we can still think about the pricing model to boost population. 

From the first feedbacks, which I all thank you for, I am surprised that little agree with the current model focused on unit strength and load-out. Would an approach focused on teamplay or on other gameplay constraints result in a significant conversion rate? Good question. 

Well now I can post what I wanted to post in the 1st place.

Before CRS really thinks about F2p vs Premium, CRS needs to think about how to get the F2P into staying players and then into paying players.

After the so-called Steam launch which I would call a boost but yet a car -wreck  , it clearly showed how many players were lost cause there is no system in place to get in contact with them. 

We had so many ideas from ,not  give them the ability to toggle away the chat bar and interface on the screen , to make a PM stand out along with how to respond to a PM and so on and on.

Tons of ideas came in but to this day not one has been implemented.  But the story is from CRS , players try to retain new players , get F2P into the fold see if we can get them to be a subscriber and with that move the game along. 

How are we supposed to do that. Sometimes it's the language barrier ( it was suggested that tags get icons with what language they speak , heck even a click onto the player like wanting to send a pm and getting to know that , would go along way)

So in my eyes it should not be asked how can we incentives premium over F2p but how can we get F2P into premium, so we don't have to come up with a point system .

Maybe give the F2P a point system the better they do and the more points they score they can achieve different equipment,  maybe not the cream of the crop stuff that premium players get but enough that it's hunny around the mouth to maybe have them take that extra step .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...