Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Might as well post it here
david06
Member Posts: 183
Since alleging that the company intervenes to make one team win or lose(that ww2online isn't really competitive, just a staged battle) is against the terms-of-service and just gets the thread locked/deleted in the official forums, I'll post this here.
It's a bit hard to read but it's a strung-together text from awhile ago between Doc(the lead developer) and a bunch of players who were in the axis high command awhile ago(some have since unsubscribed).
Anyone can read it for themselves, but basically axis was winning too much and the allied players were unsubscribing. So Doc tries to imply-but-not-imply that they should throw the campaign and stop winning, then hints at other measures that he'll have to take for the good of the game.
So one may say "well DOC is right in a sense" or disagree with him, I really don't care but people need to stop pretending that the company doesn't intervene all the time to "balance" out the game.
Allies were losing several campaigns, so the company made a big effort to get a bunch of allied tankers back in the game, nerfed rocket soldiers and had an "unavoidable" server reset to prevent some axis players from capturing Antwerp during a low-populated time and dramatically turning the map around.
When the axis start losing some more I suspect that they'll modify things somehow, maybe try to get some of the veteran players back, etc. As silly as it sounds this has been articulated almost exactly by a lot of players and company staff; all the complaints about gameplay from one team are irrelevant until they've lost several more campaigns in a row.
My point is that the game isn't determined by what the developers think good or balanced gameplay is, it's the result of a series of ham-fisted attempts to cut or lift both player populations to try and make them perfectly even. Among many other things, this explains why currently there are a ridiculous number of tanks per brigade yet only five or ten rocket soldiers; good gameplay is not as important as is the satisfaction of the players CRS is trying to keep subscribed.
So it doesn't matter how well you build your team, or how organized and dedicated you are when playing the game because CRS will do what is has to in order to get the result it wants. I've made the decision to stop playing "for the campaign" and just play for fun and stats; unfortunately game statistics are still down and mentioning this gets the thread locked 
Comments
David, have you ever tried playing Allied?
I was alwayd diehard Axis but I tried playing Allied a few times over the years.
Did a lot to help my sanity.
I'd recommend playing both sides regardness. Nothing teaches the strengh and weaknesses of the others weapons like playing them.
.
Interesting read, kinda reminds be of RDP bombing. Trying and trying to get folks big into the strategic air game, and after the couple of maps it's done to great effect. BAM nerf. Then wonding why no one wants to run hour long missions when there's no end result anymore.
This might be a case where not having AO's would help. If the map was really rolling one way or the other (to the point of it being boring), HC could just not ask for that many players for a big push if they wanted to play along. But currently, it's not like they can't place any AO's, and AO's they do drop will attract all the online players. Before the squads could at least pull the fun, non map related stuff, if they wanted and HC wasn't calling for a big OPS (I always love the AAA/ATG missions to the nearest airfield, muahahaha). Yeah, it's sand bagging, but sometimes for the good of a game you might want to do it, it's not a perfect world. God knows how may L4D2 Verses games I never got to finish. And with the old game freedom you could pull a ton of non capping fun.
Wow DOC is rude as fxxk in that convo I don't even know why people put up with him lol...
Think he might be the reason why people leave, not because of losing :P
What DOC fails to realise is its not just the population issue.
The issues with the Allies low population started years ago, after they lost a few maps due to incompetence on the HC part. There were MANY maps where the allies had pushed the Germans back into Germany and had them pinned but made a bad move or failed to make a move and were stomped.
The game has also been plagued with bugs and glitches that doesnt really draw or keep your typical gamer, even your hardcore gamer isnt going to put up with some of the bugs and glitches that this game has seen. I played Allied when the game launched, and it was WAY OVER POPULATED, I went German because they were the underdog. I stayed German because of the players there. I actually encountered less racism, badgering, and BS as a German player than anytime on the Allied side, even to this day.
So if DOC wants to help the game the easiest way he could help it is, listen to the playerbase, both in the playskool forums and here. Hell between the few posters in this thread at this point I am sure we have more playtime in this game than he has programming experience.
So much crap, so little quality.
Dude, the accusation of racism in game is groundless let alone saying one side does it more than the other
I am talking about the community.
The Allied playerbase, when I played, every other word that showed up in chat was n****r this or jew that, but I am sure that was a handful of individuals. The other things I seen was the badgering of new players with questions, maybe a couple of guys tried to answer them legitametely, most would just scream at them or troll them. That was the bigger problem.
I had screenshots of all this years ago, but thats almost 2 HDD ago and 3 computers.
So much crap, so little quality.
I remember days when racist terms used to get bandied about but I can honestly say I haven't seen that shat for years
As for the point at the centre of this thread, I'm a massive believer in accountability. Players and squads logging in know exactly what the game environment is - whether they're overpopulated, and SD tells them how much they are. That players - as individuals - fail to respond to this alert is the big failing that leads CRS into intervening in minor (supply tweaks) and major ways, to try to deliver a game of broadly equal win/loss.
It is the players who ignore the Balance messages, ignore the SD, ignore that one side might have won 4 on the bounce that are directly responsible for the meltdowns that then occur when the producers feel the need to intervene. The primary balance mechanism in WWIIOL is the playerbase, and the playerbase consistently fail to rise to this challange.
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
I often tune the help channel to directly assist people - its about helping the community, which is the bottom line.
As about one side outnumbering the other - 5:1 to 3:1 or 2:1 we had on side that campaign wasn't it?
To take issue with the company is one thing. But to state certain things about the community itself,no. The community has kept the company afloat. The community is the glue holding the pile together at this time. The community is niche, in itself.
That's why I take issue with the mouth certain "professionals" within CRS have toward the community.
But what do you do if part of the community is killing the other half of the community.
That's not a glue holding the game together, surely?
So I guess you see yourself as the all important person keeping the glue?
Back to blaming the community for the failings of the game.
It's not popular to say the users/public are a cause of the problems - see any issue from supermarkets putting town shops out business to meat producers putting horse meat in beef products to government deficit to banking/credit bubbles bursting to video games that suffer because One side dominates the other.
Unpopular doesn't mean I'm wrong however
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
Yes, a few campaign's worth. It's bit difficult to fall in with a new community and when I went allied I immediately wanted to try out the different planes and tanks...of course they had an abundance of those players but they desperately needed infantry players, people to set FRUs/MS and I was already burnt out from doing that on the axis side. Also, it seemed that whenever I switched axis side got rolled the next campaigns so I wasn't really helping the underdog.
Anyway, I'm not even sure how much I'll be playing anymore(ARMA 3 alpha is out), I just wanted all those guys guarding depots, guarding bunkers, guarding FBs and struggling to set spawn points, all the dedicated guys doing the unpleasant tasks to support their team that it all doesn't matter. The company will do what it takes to get the result that it wants so you are better off just playing for your own satisfaction rather than as part of a larger team effort. If you don't you'll end up extremely frustrated when the nerf bat comes down hard your team after many hours of investment.
Coming out and actually saying that the campaign does not matter would've saved a lot of players a lot of time. I imagine all those players in KGW/ASA would've liked to have known that their large operations were unacceptable because they caused a team to be overpopulated and too overpowered.
The leaders of the Axis squads that dominated the game for long periods had a responsibility to consider the game as a whole.
If I'm playing soccer and the game is too lop-sided, we change the teams. Having a game that isn't nicely balanced isn't ideal - that's not a difficult concept to grasp.
EDIT
But I will add - as things have a horrible habit of being jumped on with venomous relish - that there are myriad of other aspects to consider when discussing where things have come off the rails - AHC leadership and CinC selection, necessary game mechanic adjustments, CRS understanding of the dynamics of the playerbase, lack of command-control tools etc So the blame for the state of the game doesn't lie with the community. But when the entire situation is assessed, one summary is surely that it would have been better forsquads and players to shift to balance the game more easily and more often
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
That's a really bad analogy. The fact is, you're blaming the players for poor game design. If things were red vs blue, players wouldn't care if they were forced to balance the sides. In a game that says you can pay to fly an He 111 for the Germans in WWII it isn't fair to say the players are the problem because they don't want to fly a c47 for the British. It isn't what they are paying for, it isn't what is being offered to them. It's as if you're blaming the customer because the town shops are offering moldy produce while the big chain is offering fresh.
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.
So much crap, so little quality.
The DB7/A20 Douglas Bomber is an outstanding attack aircraft, but a horrible level bomber.
And the Blen... well... there is a reason it was removed from frontline service so early in the war.
Both sides had there strengths and weaknesses. The problem is the way they are presented, and coded means one side has an advantage over the other at one point or another.
So much crap, so little quality.
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
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.
So where will the the Hero money go? If all it does is keep the game on it's feet, I guess that's good enough. Disappointing, but understandable.
So what is it?
Should they balance, should the players balance? Every answer seems to be no, so in assuming this community believes its right that the game operate with one side routinely dominating the other?
Please correct me if I'm misreading
SWG > Aces High > WWIIOL
I'm still having trouble seeing why their requirements are so high, especially since they are down to only a few people. There are a lot of game projects out there that would kill for 150 subcribers paying $30 a month...I just noticed that they pulled the banner/stick about hero builders from the top of their forums.
I'm complaining that the company says they don't, and then they delete/ban any mention of it. So it's dishonest.
Anyway just about all the communities that were "unbalancing" the game have left so if this strategy was working then things should be fine.
Ref the hero banner - don't panic just yet. I've noticed that sometimes it vanishes and then it comes back.
See if it comes back this time.