Silk, CRS should've did more to balance the game than just a horrible spawn delay,instead of farting around with RA.
So now we/they sit with a severely reduced population and the community is asked to support the game.
We're at 150 heroes now and still nothing is getting done as far as we know.
Xoom made a statement that even if we reach 300 heroes, it doesn't guarantee anything coding wise.
The only thing happening right now is the server is up and running,that's it. And that's all that will be happening. The sooner people start grasping, accepting that logic, the sooner the back and forth with false cheerleading will stop.
Back to blaming the community for the failings of the game.
Its not the communities fault the failings of the game. You just made the choice to read that into my statement. It is very much on the shoulders of CRS.
Originally posted by Silky303 Anfiach - you're suggesting the players bear no responsibility as regards balancing the sides? Yet you're also suggesting the dev team also should not intervene to promote balance 'under the bonnet'?
My suggestion is that the game is not balanced. This is a design flaw. You're blaming the players for it. You don't entice people to play with unique equipment and then tell them they shouldn't be doing the very thing that brought them to subscribe. " I know this is the reason you play the game, but you really shouldn't be doing that because not enough people like the other stuff". The answer is to unsub, not play for the other side. It isn't like Battlefield 3 where it doesn't matter to people which side they play on.
It isn't only equipment either. Each side has its own culture that appeals to different people. You're asking people to endure behavior that they simply find unacceptable. If I was forced to read Axis side chat day after day I'd go mad. Others cannot tolerate Allied. It won't happen, the answer is to unsub.
Your solution is for people to endure a game experience other than what they are paying for and in the end, the only happy people are going to be CRS as they collect the profits, well, we tried that already and now the game is what it is and not even CRS is happy. I always find that HC members promote the self balancing approach the most. Coincidentally they are largely immune to such suggestions as they are not allowed to switch sides. Always someone else that must sacrifice their enjoyment for the "good of the game".
I wouldn't say that players have zero responsibility here but people aren't going to pay to do things they do not enjoy. That's the whole of it. In the end, it is the responsibility of the developer to create an environment where players can enjoy the game, not the other way around. CRS has failed at this. Far more players have left because of the solutions than because of the problems. TZ3 the game failed to attract enough Allied players. The solution? Tell Axis players that they are bad people and to punish them. The result? Axis players unsub and the game is still not balanced. Red vs Blue, it wouldn't even be an issue.
Feel like you need to manipulate the game? Fine, but don't lie and say the game is player driven when in the end the devs decide if you are allowed to win or not.
With 150 player peak server numbers the game is as good as dead. You cant possibly be this bad at developement planning for years, to the point you cant even keep stats up much yet release new content, and expect this game and this dev crew to progress at this point. Enjoy the complete pos the current product is while it last
Hopefully someday another game creator takes all the good aspects the game had and does it right. Thats the only real future this game has in store for it.
Don't forget that players were encouraged to join squads, and squads are Axis or Allies. So either a squad has to switch, or you're asking someone to leave their squad for a while. That way squads didn't help with balancing.
Best thing you can do is try and entice the folks who will switch, to switch, when it's unbalanced. Maybe some mild spawn delays, points if there was some game buy system (for access to better weapons other than rank) etc. Get some lone wolves to swap at least. Bit of carrot and stick.
And keeping the gameplay good even if you're losing helps, stops the numbers getting even worse. Making you spawn into the one AO battle where you're outnumbered 3-1, not so much.
Even though I stated in here: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/34/view/forums/post/5599329#5599329 that I would support all of the things you guys want, I am not saying it because I think 'OMG CRS GOT IT WRONG THEY ARE CRAP AT DEVELOPING' as some people do at every opportunity. It just entrenches the position on both sides that the decision taken was the only reason the game has fallen so far, and makes CRS reluctant to go back.
What needs to happen is all of these embittered guys need to first of all realise that CRS has held it's path precisely because people like OtotheJ etc have this view that it is a black & white right & wrong style of decision that needs to be made. Clearly that is not the case and while some of the decisions haven't played out well, it's important to remember that to be fair to CRS they created a still-playable game that has a lot of very positive aspects.
What CRS need to focus on is getting that old hardcore squad mentality back. That may be difficult but it isn't impossible and the more people play, the more likely others are to come back. The first step is saying 'we made that decision in good faith, believing it was right, but it hasn't turned out how we wanted and so for that reason we need to get back to basics and give the balance of power back to squads by eliminating AO's and mitigating the effects of TOE's at the earliest available opportunity' - even if that doesn't come about for 6 months to a year, I think people would come back.
If they do that though, CRS shouldn't be vilified for the 'wrong' choice. Remember they didn't want to make the game worse or fail, they wanted to make it better and help it grow. You idiots sitting there with the 'I told you so' mentality just solidified CRS's position that to go back would be an admission that players are ALWAYS right and would open them up to criticism for every decision.
That's what the root of this is. Control. CRS have too much and didn't listen to key people, but that doesn't mean that either those people are always right or that CRS are always wrong. There's a middle ground based on community relations that was never fully explored, but when you read the pompous, self-aggrandizing posts of some people like Hodo, OtotheJ etc you can understand why they'd want to avoid giving them too much influence.
With 150 player peak server numbers the game is as good as dead. You cant possibly be this bad at developement planning for years, to the point you cant even keep stats up much yet release new content, and expect this game and this dev crew to progress at this point. Enjoy the complete pos the current product is while it last
Hopefully someday another game creator takes all the good aspects the game had and does it right. Thats the only real future this game has in store for it.
Oddly enough despite having fewer players, Face of Mankind is still being developed, even to the point of having its core code rewritten.
Originally posted by Silky303 Anfiach - you're suggesting the players bear no responsibility as regards balancing the sides? Yet you're also suggesting the dev team also should not intervene to promote balance 'under the bonnet'?
My suggestion is that the game is not balanced. This is a design flaw. You're blaming the players for it. You don't entice people to play with unique equipment and then tell them they shouldn't be doing the very thing that brought them to subscribe. " I know this is the reason you play the game, but you really shouldn't be doing that because not enough people like the other stuff". The answer is to unsub, not play for the other side. It isn't like Battlefield 3 where it doesn't matter to people which side they play on.
It isn't only equipment either. Each side has its own culture that appeals to different people. You're asking people to endure behavior that they simply find unacceptable. If I was forced to read Axis side chat day after day I'd go mad. Others cannot tolerate Allied. It won't happen, the answer is to unsub.
Your solution is for people to endure a game experience other than what they are paying for and in the end, the only happy people are going to be CRS as they collect the profits, well, we tried that already and now the game is what it is and not even CRS is happy. I always find that HC members promote the self balancing approach the most. Coincidentally they are largely immune to such suggestions as they are not allowed to switch sides. Always someone else that must sacrifice their enjoyment for the "good of the game".
I wouldn't say that players have zero responsibility here but people aren't going to pay to do things they do not enjoy. That's the whole of it. In the end, it is the responsibility of the developer to create an environment where players can enjoy the game, not the other way around. CRS has failed at this. Far more players have left because of the solutions than because of the problems. TZ3 the game failed to attract enough Allied players. The solution? Tell Axis players that they are bad people and to punish them. The result? Axis players unsub and the game is still not balanced. Red vs Blue, it wouldn't even be an issue.
Feel like you need to manipulate the game? Fine, but don't lie and say the game is player driven when in the end the devs decide if you are allowed to win or not.
Originally posted by argel The bitterness of some people is unreal. Even though I stated in here: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/34/view/forums/post/5599329#5599329 that I would support all of the things you guys want, I am not saying it because I think 'OMG CRS GOT IT WRONG THEY ARE CRAP AT DEVELOPING' as some people do at every opportunity. It just entrenches the position on both sides that the decision taken was the only reason the game has fallen so far, and makes CRS reluctant to go back.<snip>
What you said is very similar to this article by Gophur last May. People were excited. Even a lot of the critics were optimistic. Right after that there was no update, only this "life or death of the company" campaign push to get people to donate to Rapid Assault.
The overwhelming majority of the critics are unsubscribed and are no longer following the game's progress(or lack thereof). I do not think that they have prevented CRS from going back on their development decisions. Much more likely are the players who have spent months or years under the current system and don't want it to be changed, and the echo chamber they create on the forums. Just look at who comes out and defends HC/TO&E every time after the latest failure. So in addition to not understanding basic game design CRS has been very selective about which opinions they consider. Their fault.
I don't need to start another recruiting drive, and the game doesn't have any new features to sell even If I felt like it. I can go play ArmA2(or the 3 alpha) right now with a great group of people. We can do what we want and won't encounter crazy game-breaking bugs. Or I can go play ww2online, have some small boring bug-ridden skirmish, sit around and hope the guys I used play with come back to the game.
So there's no persistent server? Big deal. There isn't one in ww2online. There are no player statistics and campaigns are ultimately decided by CRS. The game might as well be a series of instanced battles now.
Sounds like you need to join a new squad David. Again blaming CRS for the wrong decisions. Why are they wrong? What where the reasons they actually made the decisions?
Originally posted by Stug Sounds like you need to join a new squad David. Again blaming CRS for the wrong decisions. Why are they wrong? What where the reasons they actually made the decisions?
Your still saying what Argel said....
Read the last few pages of the good game mechanics discussion in 'why WWIIOL is dead' for your answers. What they attempted to do, what happened, and why from the people who left.
Even though I stated in here: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/34/view/forums/post/5599329#5599329 that I would support all of the things you guys want, I am not saying it because I think 'OMG CRS GOT IT WRONG THEY ARE CRAP AT DEVELOPING' as some people do at every opportunity. It just entrenches the position on both sides that the decision taken was the only reason the game has fallen so far, and makes CRS reluctant to go back.
What needs to happen is all of these embittered guys need to first of all realise that CRS has held it's path precisely because people like OtotheJ etc have this view that it is a black & white right & wrong style of decision that needs to be made. Clearly that is not the case and while some of the decisions haven't played out well, it's important to remember that to be fair to CRS they created a still-playable game that has a lot of very positive aspects.
What CRS need to focus on is getting that old hardcore squad mentality back. That may be difficult but it isn't impossible and the more people play, the more likely others are to come back. The first step is saying 'we made that decision in good faith, believing it was right, but it hasn't turned out how we wanted and so for that reason we need to get back to basics and give the balance of power back to squads by eliminating AO's and mitigating the effects of TOE's at the earliest available opportunity' - even if that doesn't come about for 6 months to a year, I think people would come back.
If they do that though, CRS shouldn't be vilified for the 'wrong' choice. Remember they didn't want to make the game worse or fail, they wanted to make it better and help it grow. You idiots sitting there with the 'I told you so' mentality just solidified CRS's position that to go back would be an admission that players are ALWAYS right and would open them up to criticism for every decision.
That's what the root of this is. Control. CRS have too much and didn't listen to key people, but that doesn't mean that either those people are always right or that CRS are always wrong. There's a middle ground based on community relations that was never fully explored, but when you read the pompous, self-aggrandizing posts of some people like Hodo, OtotheJ etc you can understand why they'd want to avoid giving them too much influence.
This is a GREAT point of veiw, and I agree with alot of things here !
I just want people to understand that even though CRS are ultimately responsible for whether the game lives or dies, they're accountable in a way none of us are in that eventually, they won't be able to run their business and will end up out of a job. Whether you feel sympathy or not, that should inform everyone's perspective on why decisions were made to try and grow the business/attract new players by addressing common issues that new players found. With our 20/20 hindsight we can say that it would have been better to cement the existing fanbase and make sure they were provided for, but CRS saw that hundreds of thousands had shown interest in the game and yet only 10% stayed, so I understand why they felt they could attract more by addressing concerns expressed via exit polls.
Ultimately, I want the game to survive and improve, just like almost everyone else here, even the haters. That's why I'm prepared to concede that if the game stays on this path, it will be gone within a year or two at the most. The choice is really this simple now:
1) Continue down the current path, relying on benevolence of the players and supporting the company enough to keep the servers up, until eventually people stop playing the game through either natural causes or because stats/server/technical issues that can't be fixed, break irreparably.
2) Accept that nobody wins if the game dies and that at best the current strategy is only slowing down the game's decline. Agree to change the game mechanics back to the pre 2008 days at the earliest opportunity after 1.35 is completed. Set up a poll system to establish player desires for a roadmap while also retaining the final say over what is or isn't possible. Also set up a player representative panel (as there used to be way back in the day) who can communicate and act as a focal point for player frustrations etc.
The most important thing that players can do now is be magnanimous. Hell, if I was Doc and I read all the personal crap on here I'd probably go 'you know what, f-you all' too, because some of the idiotic hatred is beyond the pale. You can say what you like about how Doc handles players, but how the playerbase has handled Doc doesn't exactly cover people in glory either. Start understanding that you're asking some guys to change everything, yet all you can do is call them names, tell them they're failures etc... They managed to keep a graphically-abysmal game solvent for 13 years. I think they deserve credit for the rise, as well as the fall.
In the end, I can say now that if they told me they'd change player mechanics in the next year, I'd re-sub as a show of support. If enough people did that - boom, there's your coder for 1.35. Once 1.35 goes live you'll have a natural rush of new players again, then you just emphasise that from now on, players will be part of the decision-making process and that the game will focus on it's strengths, rather than trying to be an everyman type of affair.
In the end, go down fighting, CRS, but do it with the support of your core fans, not without it.
I think Doc's biggest concern, btw is ending up at the mercy of perceived 'experts' who insist that certain armour/gun things are wrong, then that gaining traction when people die.
The biggest problem I've found with WWIIOL is that whenever people die, they blame it on a game aspect. It really is rare for people to go 'yeah he got me' and not blame equipment or whatever. If they do bring in player panels etc, that needs to change because otherwise CRS will quite rightly be forced to tell one side or the other that they're wrong.
Therefore I'd propose that any community input into game direction focus on the mechanics, rather than equipment. Anything else is just so divisive it's actually painful for the game.
Oh and they'll need to commit to reducing Spawn Delay to 30secs too. In the end, put things back in the hands of players and let them live or die by it. The trick will be making the mechanics more fun so that losing sides aren't funnelled into fights they can't win...
Even though I stated in here: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/34/view/forums/post/5599329#5599329 that I would support all of the things you guys want, I am not saying it because I think 'OMG CRS GOT IT WRONG THEY ARE CRAP AT DEVELOPING' as some people do at every opportunity. It just entrenches the position on both sides that the decision taken was the only reason the game has fallen so far, and makes CRS reluctant to go back.
What needs to happen is all of these embittered guys need to first of all realise that CRS has held it's path precisely because people like OtotheJ etc have this view that it is a black & white right & wrong style of decision that needs to be made. Clearly that is not the case and while some of the decisions haven't played out well, it's important to remember that to be fair to CRS they created a still-playable game that has a lot of very positive aspects.
What CRS need to focus on is getting that old hardcore squad mentality back. That may be difficult but it isn't impossible and the more people play, the more likely others are to come back. The first step is saying 'we made that decision in good faith, believing it was right, but it hasn't turned out how we wanted and so for that reason we need to get back to basics and give the balance of power back to squads by eliminating AO's and mitigating the effects of TOE's at the earliest available opportunity' - even if that doesn't come about for 6 months to a year, I think people would come back.
If they do that though, CRS shouldn't be vilified for the 'wrong' choice. Remember they didn't want to make the game worse or fail, they wanted to make it better and help it grow. You idiots sitting there with the 'I told you so' mentality just solidified CRS's position that to go back would be an admission that players are ALWAYS right and would open them up to criticism for every decision.
That's what the root of this is. Control. CRS have too much and didn't listen to key people, but that doesn't mean that either those people are always right or that CRS are always wrong. There's a middle ground based on community relations that was never fully explored, but when you read the pompous, self-aggrandizing posts of some people like Hodo, OtotheJ etc you can understand why they'd want to avoid giving them too much influence.
You need to of been here since the beggining to understand why some of us are this bitter. They had this wet dream hc/toe idea going well before it was implented. On paper the mechanics are the most in dep strategic command/logistics concept ever fathomed for a war simulation. A fully squad staffed hc system with veteran leaders and squads working together as a well oiled machine to create a true virual battlefield was a great idea. You even had all the squads and leaders already in the game to work into it
The problem early on with these ideas was absolutely clear though. First, this is the internet. People dont like to be told what to do, where they can go, with what and when by other players. This was proven very early on to be very unpopular. Those of us who yanked our squads from hc in the early days did it because the system was detrimental to our fun and squad.
As an original ghc officer, I was told to keep my mega squad of 150+ players online north of the river. We were one of the primary forces in the area and we fully understood this was our area of the map to control for the better of the team. While this did limit us, it was manageable and allowed us to play the game. The hc at that time did not have any real power and the squads were able to pick their own targets/strategies etc. Then as the system progressed, many unqualifed people came to hold power and tried to control squad play. My last straw was when they instructed me to have my 100+ squadies stay in tienen with the town dead quiet and guard it. They even further threatened to take our many hc ranks away if we didnt start following along with these same type of awful directions.
As a squad leader, I could not except doing this to my squadmates and we were the first large squad to leave the system entirely. We went on to be one of the most successful squads in the game and others like deadlock came along and also chose the anti hc path. Both of us had more squadmates on line than the game does in peak today and delivered play you will never see in the game again. Next time you see a player rally 100+ pieces of armor in liege and drive for 3 hours to tienen you let me know. Ask any of those players how much fun they had doing something that you couldnt get 2 people to do in todays game. We played a completely different game, a game far better than anything on the dev board at crs in a long time.
Secondly, people play the game at different levels. You can not have a new player or average player come in and start directing veterans players with this much control. The veteran leaders and players expect more from the game and simply put a majority of the hc staff were muppets that didnt have a clue. You can only subject players to this for so long before it catches up and leaves you in a box of bland rockem sockem mindless play.
Now, all this was all done by actual design with people like me kicking and screaming the entire way. In 2005, many of us left the game entirely in disgust with hc/toe being delivered. I came back in 2008 and found a laughable mess. My first lol moment was seeing this P1 nonsense. I had to ask what this P1 thing actually was and it took me a few minutes of questioning old players to see how bad the game had gotten so quikly with the hc/toe/ao mechanics. My response to P1 " Your telling me everyone on the side just spawns all half assed and zergs one spot on the map. Thats the only thing going on in this game"
They took tactical squad play across the map with great leaders, gameplay, options for players and jammed into some mindless boxed herd of play with a borked arcade mode supply system and stupid softcaps. That is why the game has no players lol, it blows by design.
The tweak me out haunt this game until it dies drive comes from explaining exactly what you see today evolve since inception. These developers had the balls to actually say at one point they didnt care if people didnt like their concept for hc/toe/ao and those players could leave. Thats the way they wanted the game. Well, smarties more people would be playing the game today had you not develped these game killing ideas. More people now dont play the game than actually play it becuase of these mechanics. To sit here today still in denial and without the resources to even get the stats up much less add content is laughable.
I think Doc's biggest concern, btw is ending up at the mercy of perceived 'experts' who insist that certain armour/gun things are wrong, then that gaining traction when people die.
The biggest problem I've found with WWIIOL is that whenever people die, they blame it on a game aspect. It really is rare for people to go 'yeah he got me' and not blame equipment or whatever. If they do bring in player panels etc, that needs to change because otherwise CRS will quite rightly be forced to tell one side or the other that they're wrong.
Therefore I'd propose that any community input into game direction focus on the mechanics, rather than equipment. Anything else is just so divisive it's actually painful for the game.
Oh and they'll need to commit to reducing Spawn Delay to 30secs too. In the end, put things back in the hands of players and let them live or die by it. The trick will be making the mechanics more fun so that losing sides aren't funnelled into fights they can't win...
Are the equipment debates still going on in the playschool forums? The 3H and that 30mm mantlet was a biggie iirc lol. I'd hope not, but also wouldn't be suprised. Unless there's some real obvious problem (like that rifle that had that fubar fat donut site), you don't want to go balance crazy and get red VS blue gameplay. That's a reason to get stats back up though. Part of that was to see what killed you as everyone thought their tank was killed by that AC plinking them, and not the tank they missed sitting behind them.
I'd hope they wouldn't focus on equipment, just as I did wish they hadn't focused on new equipment while people were still leaving due to the AO's. Frame rates, gameplay etc., would have served them better.
As for the bitterness, you'll get folks being bitter for different reasons, and some more justified than others. There were people who put a TON of time into their squads, and that's squads, not being in the game playing. Personal time to run admin work, setup a squad site, setup a teamspeak server, deal with comings and goings of 100+ members etc. Then to have it blown away in months, must have hurt. Then you see posts calling these folks butt hurt crybabies, and you wonder why there's a forum battle. That's no more correct or productive than calling CRS a bunch of idiots who never did anything right.
And yes, if you want a productive discussion, you'll have to cut the retoric down on BOTH sides. Folks defending any criticism on any decision CRS made just end up trolling the thread, as much as the 'CRS bites' ones.
I was there too OJ, I loved the game back then and Hated the changes with toe/ao's too. I too thought the game had left me behind. But there was nothing to replace it and IMO still nothing to replace it.
The game as it plays now is a shadow of it's former self sure, all kinds of things back that fact up, but what some people dont seem to realize is it is still a good game as far as combined arms combat goes. I still support the game even though I dont agree with the direction it took, in hopes it will right itself again once it gets it's numbers back up. Some of you in here would rather see the game we all love or once loved, die. And that's a shame, to say the least, to alot of us here that still play and support this game.
I think it's great to have opposing opinions on this subject, I really do, but what I think is totally unfair is for people to try their best to discourage potential subscribers, thus, totally screwing the current playerbase. Oj, when you played the game before 05, let's say, and someone was "badmouthing" the game to the point that potential subs were being turned off before they even had a chance to try it out, what would your reaction have been? Would you have been passive? Or proactive?
And yes, if you want a productive discussion, you'll have to cut the retoric down on BOTH sides. Folks defending any criticism on any decision CRS made just end up trolling the thread, as much as the 'CRS bites' ones.
I agree with most of this, might be the first time we agree on something here I think:)
Everyone thinks they are right, that is mostly a fact that will never change, and probably should never change.
What you think to be fair, I do not. Vise-versa. Most of us here have, or have had a love/like for this game, or none of us would be here I hope.
Believe it or not I can understand someone being pissed about the direction the game went, I know I was disappointed about it too, what I fail at understanding I guess, are the ones who have the deep hatered. The ones who admit they dont care about the playerbase at all and want the game to stop breathing period. That's where I fail to understand, or even sympathise with this type of thinking.
I have been wronged before in real life just like everyone else, but even though I get mad at the idiot who cut me off on the freeway, I dont feel like I want to shoot him and end his life. It's that type of thinking that makes us all go backwards IMO.
What I find laughable is that CRS and its current playerbase want older members to return and are begging for support yet will not listen to those same players when they come to sites like this and flat out say (Look if you want me to return here is what needs to happen) only to be called haters by the same people who want you to return.
Seems 10 years of support to a company on promises alone is not enough for some of these guys you have to come back support the game 100% in its current path and only say glowing things about the game and its staff.
Ill pay 30 bucks a month when CRS changes the AO/HC/TOE system and starts to listen to its playerbase. No more promises like we got for 10 years see (1st roadmap) we want to see action. Dont want to do that well then you dont want our support. That simple really change or go under.
What I find laughable is that CRS and its current playerbase want older members to return and are begging for support yet will not listen to those same players when they come to sites like this and flat out say (Look if you want me to return here is what needs to happen) only to be called haters by the same people who want you to return.
Seems 10 years of support to a company on promises alone is not enough for some of these guys you have to come back support the game 100% in its current path and only say glowing things about the game and its staff.
Ill pay 30 bucks a month when CRS changes the AO/HC/TOE system and starts to listen to its playerbase. No more promises like we got for 10 years see (1st roadmap) we want to see action. Dont want to do that well then you dont want our support. That simple really change or go under.
The current playerbase is NOT "Begging" for your support here that I can see, but rather just asking for a fair shake, and Laugh all you want at the current playerbase, but we find the game FUN and worth defending.
We (the current playerbase)have no control over what direction CRS takes here, and we support the game for various reasons, some, for what the game is, some for what it could be, nothing wrong with that. I do not speak for the whole playerbase, but I speak as part of it anyway. And as far as not listening to what the ex-players "Need" to have happen before they support the game again, we have! and some of us who still play want some of the same things you do! Read man Read! What the hell you think we been saying?
You'd rather feel bad about being called/labled a hater and while you do that, seemingly miss some of the points made entirely. Your point is well taken by most, but to try to insult the current playerbase by dismissing our claims counter to yours as being not as important. Some of you have chosen to say you hate the game/CRS/players and were soon after dubbed "haters", and soon after that, some of you decided to make this label your rallying call. So who's fault is that? Is it my fault for calling you a hater if you choose to hate? You tell me.
EDIT:I wish I could have used Pitt's exact wording on this subject, he is exactly right.
And yes, if you want a productive discussion, you'll have to cut the retoric down on BOTH sides. Folks defending any criticism on any decision CRS made just end up trolling the thread, as much as the 'CRS bites' ones.
I agree with most of this, might be the first time we agree on something here I think:)
Everyone thinks they are right, that is mostly a fact that will never change, and probably should never change.
What you think to be fair, I do not. Vise-versa. Most of us here have, or have had a love/like for this game, or none of us would be here I hope.
Believe it or not I can understand someone being pissed about the direction the game went, I know I was disappointed about it too, what I fail at understanding I guess, are the ones who have the deep hatered. The ones who admit they dont care about the playerbase at all and want the game to stop breathing period. That's where I fail to understand, or even sympathise with this type of thinking.
I have been wronged before in real life just like everyone else, but even though I get mad at the idiot who cut me off on the freeway, I dont feel like I want to shoot him and end his life. It's that type of thinking that makes us all go backwards IMO.
Oh I think we've agreed on game mechanics stuff, quite a bit of the stuff actually .
I don't even think it's that much anti game, as opposed to anti people who are for the game. You get accusations of 'lies', 'misleading', flying around (as you mentioned, which are on OPINIONS) which are personal attacks, the obvious way to attack back is to trash the game and counter what pro game poster is doing. If it was always just CRS hate, you'd never have those odd cases where civil discussion of game mechanics occur. But stick one or two of the type of posts in and it's back to flaming/trolling. More of cutting him off in reprisal (one promotes, the other condemns). On the more personal side, some of it might be just against DOC as opposed to the game itself.
Comments
I do wish there was a little more transparency about the mechanic and supply set ups
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
The only thing happening right now is the server is up and running,that's it. And that's all that will be happening. The sooner people start grasping, accepting that logic, the sooner the back and forth with false cheerleading will stop.
That wasn't aimed at you Hodo.
Silk, you don't have to type out my name every time
Whole squads were forced to leave because of the SD.
Squads like KGW and 3PZG, took their $$$$ and left.
Why should it have to fall on the community to balance the population when the company "had" the means to do something about it?
Should KGW have told all their members to stop playing to balance the sides or force them to play allied?
Maybe if CRS had offered new players a reduced sub to play Allied things could've turned out difference.
This isn't a free game, we pay a sub and should have a choice because we pay the companies salaries.
It's all water under the bridge now any way so no use arguing about the past.
My suggestion is that the game is not balanced. This is a design flaw. You're blaming the players for it. You don't entice people to play with unique equipment and then tell them they shouldn't be doing the very thing that brought them to subscribe. " I know this is the reason you play the game, but you really shouldn't be doing that because not enough people like the other stuff". The answer is to unsub, not play for the other side. It isn't like Battlefield 3 where it doesn't matter to people which side they play on.
It isn't only equipment either. Each side has its own culture that appeals to different people. You're asking people to endure behavior that they simply find unacceptable. If I was forced to read Axis side chat day after day I'd go mad. Others cannot tolerate Allied. It won't happen, the answer is to unsub.
Your solution is for people to endure a game experience other than what they are paying for and in the end, the only happy people are going to be CRS as they collect the profits, well, we tried that already and now the game is what it is and not even CRS is happy. I always find that HC members promote the self balancing approach the most. Coincidentally they are largely immune to such suggestions as they are not allowed to switch sides. Always someone else that must sacrifice their enjoyment for the "good of the game".
I wouldn't say that players have zero responsibility here but people aren't going to pay to do things they do not enjoy. That's the whole of it. In the end, it is the responsibility of the developer to create an environment where players can enjoy the game, not the other way around. CRS has failed at this. Far more players have left because of the solutions than because of the problems. TZ3 the game failed to attract enough Allied players. The solution? Tell Axis players that they are bad people and to punish them. The result? Axis players unsub and the game is still not balanced. Red vs Blue, it wouldn't even be an issue.
Feel like you need to manipulate the game? Fine, but don't lie and say the game is player driven when in the end the devs decide if you are allowed to win or not.
With 150 player peak server numbers the game is as good as dead. You cant possibly be this bad at developement planning for years, to the point you cant even keep stats up much yet release new content, and expect this game and this dev crew to progress at this point. Enjoy the complete pos the current product is while it last
Hopefully someday another game creator takes all the good aspects the game had and does it right. Thats the only real future this game has in store for it.
Don't forget that players were encouraged to join squads, and squads are Axis or Allies. So either a squad has to switch, or you're asking someone to leave their squad for a while. That way squads didn't help with balancing.
Best thing you can do is try and entice the folks who will switch, to switch, when it's unbalanced. Maybe some mild spawn delays, points if there was some game buy system (for access to better weapons other than rank) etc. Get some lone wolves to swap at least. Bit of carrot and stick.
And keeping the gameplay good even if you're losing helps, stops the numbers getting even worse. Making you spawn into the one AO battle where you're outnumbered 3-1, not so much.
The bitterness of some people is unreal.
Even though I stated in here: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/34/view/forums/post/5599329#5599329 that I would support all of the things you guys want, I am not saying it because I think 'OMG CRS GOT IT WRONG THEY ARE CRAP AT DEVELOPING' as some people do at every opportunity. It just entrenches the position on both sides that the decision taken was the only reason the game has fallen so far, and makes CRS reluctant to go back.
What needs to happen is all of these embittered guys need to first of all realise that CRS has held it's path precisely because people like OtotheJ etc have this view that it is a black & white right & wrong style of decision that needs to be made. Clearly that is not the case and while some of the decisions haven't played out well, it's important to remember that to be fair to CRS they created a still-playable game that has a lot of very positive aspects.
What CRS need to focus on is getting that old hardcore squad mentality back. That may be difficult but it isn't impossible and the more people play, the more likely others are to come back. The first step is saying 'we made that decision in good faith, believing it was right, but it hasn't turned out how we wanted and so for that reason we need to get back to basics and give the balance of power back to squads by eliminating AO's and mitigating the effects of TOE's at the earliest available opportunity' - even if that doesn't come about for 6 months to a year, I think people would come back.
If they do that though, CRS shouldn't be vilified for the 'wrong' choice. Remember they didn't want to make the game worse or fail, they wanted to make it better and help it grow. You idiots sitting there with the 'I told you so' mentality just solidified CRS's position that to go back would be an admission that players are ALWAYS right and would open them up to criticism for every decision.
That's what the root of this is. Control. CRS have too much and didn't listen to key people, but that doesn't mean that either those people are always right or that CRS are always wrong. There's a middle ground based on community relations that was never fully explored, but when you read the pompous, self-aggrandizing posts of some people like Hodo, OtotheJ etc you can understand why they'd want to avoid giving them too much influence.
Oddly enough despite having fewer players, Face of Mankind is still being developed, even to the point of having its core code rewritten.
Wouldn't disagree about transparency
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
What you said is very similar to this article by Gophur last May. People were excited. Even a lot of the critics were optimistic. Right after that there was no update, only this "life or death of the company" campaign push to get people to donate to Rapid Assault.
The overwhelming majority of the critics are unsubscribed and are no longer following the game's progress(or lack thereof). I do not think that they have prevented CRS from going back on their development decisions. Much more likely are the players who have spent months or years under the current system and don't want it to be changed, and the echo chamber they create on the forums. Just look at who comes out and defends HC/TO&E every time after the latest failure. So in addition to not understanding basic game design CRS has been very selective about which opinions they consider. Their fault.
I don't need to start another recruiting drive, and the game doesn't have any new features to sell even If I felt like it. I can go play ArmA2(or the 3 alpha) right now with a great group of people. We can do what we want and won't encounter crazy game-breaking bugs. Or I can go play ww2online, have some small boring bug-ridden skirmish, sit around and hope the guys I used play with come back to the game.
So there's no persistent server? Big deal. There isn't one in ww2online. There are no player statistics and campaigns are ultimately decided by CRS. The game might as well be a series of instanced battles now.
Your still saying what Argel said....
Read the last few pages of the good game mechanics discussion in 'why WWIIOL is dead' for your answers. What they attempted to do, what happened, and why from the people who left.
Dude your in my squad....
1st Jageurs
...........
This is a GREAT point of veiw, and I agree with alot of things here !
Awesome post Argel!
Thanks dude.
I just want people to understand that even though CRS are ultimately responsible for whether the game lives or dies, they're accountable in a way none of us are in that eventually, they won't be able to run their business and will end up out of a job. Whether you feel sympathy or not, that should inform everyone's perspective on why decisions were made to try and grow the business/attract new players by addressing common issues that new players found. With our 20/20 hindsight we can say that it would have been better to cement the existing fanbase and make sure they were provided for, but CRS saw that hundreds of thousands had shown interest in the game and yet only 10% stayed, so I understand why they felt they could attract more by addressing concerns expressed via exit polls.
Ultimately, I want the game to survive and improve, just like almost everyone else here, even the haters. That's why I'm prepared to concede that if the game stays on this path, it will be gone within a year or two at the most. The choice is really this simple now:
1) Continue down the current path, relying on benevolence of the players and supporting the company enough to keep the servers up, until eventually people stop playing the game through either natural causes or because stats/server/technical issues that can't be fixed, break irreparably.
2) Accept that nobody wins if the game dies and that at best the current strategy is only slowing down the game's decline. Agree to change the game mechanics back to the pre 2008 days at the earliest opportunity after 1.35 is completed. Set up a poll system to establish player desires for a roadmap while also retaining the final say over what is or isn't possible. Also set up a player representative panel (as there used to be way back in the day) who can communicate and act as a focal point for player frustrations etc.
The most important thing that players can do now is be magnanimous. Hell, if I was Doc and I read all the personal crap on here I'd probably go 'you know what, f-you all' too, because some of the idiotic hatred is beyond the pale. You can say what you like about how Doc handles players, but how the playerbase has handled Doc doesn't exactly cover people in glory either. Start understanding that you're asking some guys to change everything, yet all you can do is call them names, tell them they're failures etc... They managed to keep a graphically-abysmal game solvent for 13 years. I think they deserve credit for the rise, as well as the fall.
In the end, I can say now that if they told me they'd change player mechanics in the next year, I'd re-sub as a show of support. If enough people did that - boom, there's your coder for 1.35. Once 1.35 goes live you'll have a natural rush of new players again, then you just emphasise that from now on, players will be part of the decision-making process and that the game will focus on it's strengths, rather than trying to be an everyman type of affair.
In the end, go down fighting, CRS, but do it with the support of your core fans, not without it.
I think Doc's biggest concern, btw is ending up at the mercy of perceived 'experts' who insist that certain armour/gun things are wrong, then that gaining traction when people die.
The biggest problem I've found with WWIIOL is that whenever people die, they blame it on a game aspect. It really is rare for people to go 'yeah he got me' and not blame equipment or whatever. If they do bring in player panels etc, that needs to change because otherwise CRS will quite rightly be forced to tell one side or the other that they're wrong.
Therefore I'd propose that any community input into game direction focus on the mechanics, rather than equipment. Anything else is just so divisive it's actually painful for the game.
Oh and they'll need to commit to reducing Spawn Delay to 30secs too. In the end, put things back in the hands of players and let them live or die by it. The trick will be making the mechanics more fun so that losing sides aren't funnelled into fights they can't win...
You need to of been here since the beggining to understand why some of us are this bitter. They had this wet dream hc/toe idea going well before it was implented. On paper the mechanics are the most in dep strategic command/logistics concept ever fathomed for a war simulation. A fully squad staffed hc system with veteran leaders and squads working together as a well oiled machine to create a true virual battlefield was a great idea. You even had all the squads and leaders already in the game to work into it
The problem early on with these ideas was absolutely clear though. First, this is the internet. People dont like to be told what to do, where they can go, with what and when by other players. This was proven very early on to be very unpopular. Those of us who yanked our squads from hc in the early days did it because the system was detrimental to our fun and squad.
As an original ghc officer, I was told to keep my mega squad of 150+ players online north of the river. We were one of the primary forces in the area and we fully understood this was our area of the map to control for the better of the team. While this did limit us, it was manageable and allowed us to play the game. The hc at that time did not have any real power and the squads were able to pick their own targets/strategies etc. Then as the system progressed, many unqualifed people came to hold power and tried to control squad play. My last straw was when they instructed me to have my 100+ squadies stay in tienen with the town dead quiet and guard it. They even further threatened to take our many hc ranks away if we didnt start following along with these same type of awful directions.
As a squad leader, I could not except doing this to my squadmates and we were the first large squad to leave the system entirely. We went on to be one of the most successful squads in the game and others like deadlock came along and also chose the anti hc path. Both of us had more squadmates on line than the game does in peak today and delivered play you will never see in the game again. Next time you see a player rally 100+ pieces of armor in liege and drive for 3 hours to tienen you let me know. Ask any of those players how much fun they had doing something that you couldnt get 2 people to do in todays game. We played a completely different game, a game far better than anything on the dev board at crs in a long time.
Secondly, people play the game at different levels. You can not have a new player or average player come in and start directing veterans players with this much control. The veteran leaders and players expect more from the game and simply put a majority of the hc staff were muppets that didnt have a clue. You can only subject players to this for so long before it catches up and leaves you in a box of bland rockem sockem mindless play.
Now, all this was all done by actual design with people like me kicking and screaming the entire way. In 2005, many of us left the game entirely in disgust with hc/toe being delivered. I came back in 2008 and found a laughable mess. My first lol moment was seeing this P1 nonsense. I had to ask what this P1 thing actually was and it took me a few minutes of questioning old players to see how bad the game had gotten so quikly with the hc/toe/ao mechanics. My response to P1 " Your telling me everyone on the side just spawns all half assed and zergs one spot on the map. Thats the only thing going on in this game"
They took tactical squad play across the map with great leaders, gameplay, options for players and jammed into some mindless boxed herd of play with a borked arcade mode supply system and stupid softcaps. That is why the game has no players lol, it blows by design.
The tweak me out haunt this game until it dies drive comes from explaining exactly what you see today evolve since inception. These developers had the balls to actually say at one point they didnt care if people didnt like their concept for hc/toe/ao and those players could leave. Thats the way they wanted the game. Well, smarties more people would be playing the game today had you not develped these game killing ideas. More people now dont play the game than actually play it becuase of these mechanics. To sit here today still in denial and without the resources to even get the stats up much less add content is laughable.
Are the equipment debates still going on in the playschool forums? The 3H and that 30mm mantlet was a biggie iirc lol. I'd hope not, but also wouldn't be suprised. Unless there's some real obvious problem (like that rifle that had that fubar fat donut site), you don't want to go balance crazy and get red VS blue gameplay. That's a reason to get stats back up though. Part of that was to see what killed you as everyone thought their tank was killed by that AC plinking them, and not the tank they missed sitting behind them.
I'd hope they wouldn't focus on equipment, just as I did wish they hadn't focused on new equipment while people were still leaving due to the AO's. Frame rates, gameplay etc., would have served them better.
As for the bitterness, you'll get folks being bitter for different reasons, and some more justified than others. There were people who put a TON of time into their squads, and that's squads, not being in the game playing. Personal time to run admin work, setup a squad site, setup a teamspeak server, deal with comings and goings of 100+ members etc. Then to have it blown away in months, must have hurt. Then you see posts calling these folks butt hurt crybabies, and you wonder why there's a forum battle. That's no more correct or productive than calling CRS a bunch of idiots who never did anything right.
And yes, if you want a productive discussion, you'll have to cut the retoric down on BOTH sides. Folks defending any criticism on any decision CRS made just end up trolling the thread, as much as the 'CRS bites' ones.
I was there too OJ, I loved the game back then and Hated the changes with toe/ao's too. I too thought the game had left me behind. But there was nothing to replace it and IMO still nothing to replace it.
The game as it plays now is a shadow of it's former self sure, all kinds of things back that fact up, but what some people dont seem to realize is it is still a good game as far as combined arms combat goes. I still support the game even though I dont agree with the direction it took, in hopes it will right itself again once it gets it's numbers back up. Some of you in here would rather see the game we all love or once loved, die. And that's a shame, to say the least, to alot of us here that still play and support this game.
I think it's great to have opposing opinions on this subject, I really do, but what I think is totally unfair is for people to try their best to discourage potential subscribers, thus, totally screwing the current playerbase. Oj, when you played the game before 05, let's say, and someone was "badmouthing" the game to the point that potential subs were being turned off before they even had a chance to try it out, what would your reaction have been? Would you have been passive? Or proactive?
!S
I agree with most of this, might be the first time we agree on something here I think:)
Everyone thinks they are right, that is mostly a fact that will never change, and probably should never change.
What you think to be fair, I do not. Vise-versa. Most of us here have, or have had a love/like for this game, or none of us would be here I hope.
Believe it or not I can understand someone being pissed about the direction the game went, I know I was disappointed about it too, what I fail at understanding I guess, are the ones who have the deep hatered. The ones who admit they dont care about the playerbase at all and want the game to stop breathing period. That's where I fail to understand, or even sympathise with this type of thinking.
I have been wronged before in real life just like everyone else, but even though I get mad at the idiot who cut me off on the freeway, I dont feel like I want to shoot him and end his life. It's that type of thinking that makes us all go backwards IMO.
What I find laughable is that CRS and its current playerbase want older members to return and are begging for support yet will not listen to those same players when they come to sites like this and flat out say (Look if you want me to return here is what needs to happen) only to be called haters by the same people who want you to return.
Seems 10 years of support to a company on promises alone is not enough for some of these guys you have to come back support the game 100% in its current path and only say glowing things about the game and its staff.
Ill pay 30 bucks a month when CRS changes the AO/HC/TOE system and starts to listen to its playerbase. No more promises like we got for 10 years see (1st roadmap) we want to see action. Dont want to do that well then you dont want our support. That simple really change or go under.
Well, they can't do anything w/o building up the subscriptions first.
Also tough to do when ex players go above and beyond to shit on the game.
Possibly with a built up playerbase, CRS can implement some of the needed changes to make everyone continue playing.
The current playerbase is NOT "Begging" for your support here that I can see, but rather just asking for a fair shake, and Laugh all you want at the current playerbase, but we find the game FUN and worth defending.
We (the current playerbase)have no control over what direction CRS takes here, and we support the game for various reasons, some, for what the game is, some for what it could be, nothing wrong with that. I do not speak for the whole playerbase, but I speak as part of it anyway. And as far as not listening to what the ex-players "Need" to have happen before they support the game again, we have! and some of us who still play want some of the same things you do! Read man Read! What the hell you think we been saying?
You'd rather feel bad about being called/labled a hater and while you do that, seemingly miss some of the points made entirely. Your point is well taken by most, but to try to insult the current playerbase by dismissing our claims counter to yours as being not as important. Some of you have chosen to say you hate the game/CRS/players and were soon after dubbed "haters", and soon after that, some of you decided to make this label your rallying call. So who's fault is that? Is it my fault for calling you a hater if you choose to hate? You tell me.
EDIT:I wish I could have used Pitt's exact wording on this subject, he is exactly right.
Oh I think we've agreed on game mechanics stuff, quite a bit of the stuff actually
.
I don't even think it's that much anti game, as opposed to anti people who are for the game. You get accusations of 'lies', 'misleading', flying around (as you mentioned, which are on OPINIONS) which are personal attacks, the obvious way to attack back is to trash the game and counter what pro game poster is doing. If it was always just CRS hate, you'd never have those odd cases where civil discussion of game mechanics occur. But stick one or two of the type of posts in and it's back to flaming/trolling. More of cutting him off in reprisal (one promotes, the other condemns). On the more personal side, some of it might be just against DOC as opposed to the game itself.