No capturing with free accounts?

Nerf09

Big mistake. 

 

You're gonna double or tripple the population of the game with free account infantry, and they will be without the goal of capturing the flag, translation; they will all be wandering the countryside sniping ATG/AA guns (the paying subscribers) and they (the paying subscribers) will not like it.

Tontoman

Yeah, like the ATG game wasn't mostly dead already.  I always found one of two things happen when the armor alert goes off.

A flood of friendly tanks spawn and  rush out (driving past me) to meet them head on  (losing half even if they win) stopping the attack before I saw anything with my ATG which I've pushed to a good spot ouside the town.  Then after about 30 min from start to finished of the warning and the battle, I pushed back and despawn not having fired a shot.

Or, the head on counter attack fails and gets wiped out.  They then respawn the remaining tanks, but by now engies have worked their way closer and these tanks mostly die otw to the enemy again.  They try and respawn again but the tanks are either all gone or just the early stuff left and the players either log for the night or go to another battle.  Thus leaving inf to run around the city free and finding my ATG which I"ve tried to bury as best I can in the bush (except the good stuff which is always blocked by those crazy berms)  and shooting me just 30 seconds before the enemy tanks arrive.

Sometimes you get lucky and you live long enough to kill stuff.  But it's crazy, you end up hoping your counter armor actually fails heh.  

krikeel

Why would only one side have inf? would there not be INF on both sides to counter each other?

Tanks and ATG's have always needed INF support or your tank would be sapped. I dont see a big dif except for more targets for the tanks at longer ranges.

I dont see this as a big issue. I hope all the best for this game.

Tontoman

You mean other than fact that folks don't actually park near a ATG and defend it instead of running out looking for action?

Or is the, 'there's so much large cover you can run staright through (no branches/trunks) standing up without even being seen so you can't stop a IE from running to most areas anyway' issue?

There will be tons of EI zerging around, there is no defending.  It's why even with a loaded city you still camp the caps.  God knows how many times I've seen groups run right past each other in the same bushes after they put in those stupid levels of cover because so many cried they were dying to tanks.

Nerf09

Oh well, I was wrong, the population didn't double or tripple cause you didn't advertise again, and you have the free trial button  buried deep in your web page.

mastaflex

If I could cap with out a subscription I wouldn't subscribe. Get the point?

Nerf09

Originally posted by mastaflex

If I could cap with out a subscription I wouldn't subscribe. Get the point?

Wouldn't make a difference one way or another.  Get the point?

mastaflex

Originally posted by Nerf09

Originally posted by mastaflex

If I could cap with out a subscription I wouldn't subscribe. Get the point?

Wouldn't make a difference one way or another.  Get the point?

Huge difference. You can basically play the game for free with no incentive to subscribe. There has to be some incentive to subscribe and if all you want/can do is play infantry.

Supergrass

Originally posted by mastaflex

Originally posted by Nerf09

Originally posted by mastaflex

If I could cap with out a subscription I wouldn't subscribe. Get the point?

Wouldn't make a difference one way or another.  Get the point?

Huge difference. You can basically play the game for free with no incentive to subscribe. There has to be some incentive to subscribe and if all you want/can do is play infantry.

Not allowing them full access to weapons, vehicles and other social benefits such as squads and ranks are the incentive to subscribe. Those are mainly the reasons why people even play this game.

I understand there would be people who wouldn't subscribe if they could capture towns... but you gotta consider that it would only be a very small group of players. Heck, I can use the same argument that you're using by saying that we shouldn't even have free-to-play because there's a group of people who are fine solely playing riflemen/SMG/AA/whatever and don't care about capturing towns - i.e. not subscribing.

 

You want to bring in new life with free-to-play. Sure, you'll have a few people who won't subscribe.. but you'll also have many, many more who will because they want more. Like I said, the incentive to subscribe are because you'll gain access to so much more.

mastaflex

Originally posted by Supergrass

Originally posted by mastaflex

Originally posted by Nerf09

Originally posted by mastaflex

If I could cap with out a subscription I wouldn't subscribe. Get the point?

Wouldn't make a difference one way or another.  Get the point?

Huge difference. You can basically play the game for free with no incentive to subscribe. There has to be some incentive to subscribe and if all you want/can do is play infantry.

Not allowing them full access to weapons, vehicles and other social benefits such as squads and ranks are the incentive to subscribe. Those are mainly the reasons why people even play this game.

I understand there would be people who wouldn't subscribe if they could capture towns... but you gotta consider that it would only be a very small group of players. Heck, I can use the same argument that you're using by saying that we shouldn't even have free-to-play because there's a group of people who are fine solely playing riflemen/SMG/AA/whatever and don't care about capturing towns - i.e. not subscribing.

 

You want to bring in new life with free-to-play. Sure, you'll have a few people who won't subscribe.. but you'll also have many, many more who will because they want more. Like I said, the incentive to subscribe are because you'll gain access to so much more.

 Capping is the one feature that affects the gameplay the most ... Unsubbed riflemen running around doesn't.

Supergrass

Originally posted by mastaflex

Originally posted by Supergrass

Originally posted by mastaflex

Originally posted by Nerf09

Originally posted by mastaflex

If I could cap with out a subscription I wouldn't subscribe. Get the point?

Wouldn't make a difference one way or another.  Get the point?

Huge difference. You can basically play the game for free with no incentive to subscribe. There has to be some incentive to subscribe and if all you want/can do is play infantry.

Not allowing them full access to weapons, vehicles and other social benefits such as squads and ranks are the incentive to subscribe. Those are mainly the reasons why people even play this game.

I understand there would be people who wouldn't subscribe if they could capture towns... but you gotta consider that it would only be a very small group of players. Heck, I can use the same argument that you're using by saying that we shouldn't even have free-to-play because there's a group of people who are fine solely playing riflemen/SMG/AA/whatever and don't care about capturing towns - i.e. not subscribing.

 

You want to bring in new life with free-to-play. Sure, you'll have a few people who won't subscribe.. but you'll also have many, many more who will because they want more. Like I said, the incentive to subscribe are because you'll gain access to so much more.

 Capping is the one feature that affects the gameplay the most ... Unsubbed riflemen running around doesn't.

True, but it isn't the key element as to why people play this game (which was your original argument). If people wanted to pay $17.99 to play a capture the flag strategy shooter I would direct them to Project Reality, ArmA2 or Red Orchestra series. And you'll find more people online fighting in a server than you would a town in WWIIOL.

Also - what if attackers overrun said town and there's still a good amount of supply left for the defenders? The free-to-play attackers would could potentially be severely limited because a good portion of their players (assuming F2P became popular) wouldn't be allowed to capture flags. Not a likely scenario as a lot comes into taking a town.. but it's quite possible and it would happen. Wouldn't you agree that's a bigger problem?

 

But I think you're missing the bigger picture here. Do you agree that the playerbase is drastically low? The sole reason to even have free-to-play is to bring in more players and have them stay. Like I said, of course there'll be (a very small group of) people who wouldn't subscribe.. but you'll make up for it. You should read up on free-to-play and how/why it works.

Sartoriuss

Imo, that's bad move.Especially because i suggest implement this system for f2p -

	Their "squads" must be temporare battalions, that is formed in rear,
 where they revive(after killing) 
and together move on AI-transports again to front.

Even if they don't will use this system (strange why?), they must understand, 
that infantry's game is almost all about capturing.
Is understandable, if they will make timer for f2p infantry more slow, 
but removing of possibility of capturing as whole, is nonsense.

Nerf09

The boring flag capping stuff should be for paying customers.