Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

My Opinion: Why WWIIOL is dead.

1101113151621

Comments

  • SartoriussSartoriuss TallinnMember Posts: 29

    In my opinion "repairing" of game is almost impossible. And not because it's insurmountable obstacles as force majeure, but just due human haughtiness. Who would want to admit their mistakes?
    But OK. Theme supposed to be a little more constructive.

    If we compare nowadays game market and WWIIOL pricing plan, then we are scared and rightly so. Look, i haven't interest to compare with H&G and so on, because most of these games was to me disappointments. But if we look at Steam (and similar gameportals), then we understand, that People can buy a lot of games very cheaply now, even so much, that many of them lie unused on HDD, because people lack of time to play.


     Therefore is needed to be very carefully with proclamation of your outrageous prices and light blue dreams about hordes of grateful newcomers.
    I drew one example, which might work. Maybe. I at all didn't touch a gameplay, talking about it changing seems now fairy tale.

    I explain. I my view is wrong merging of F2P and trial. IMO, F"P supposed to be only infantry account, mostly riflemen, better of them (with very good K/D and RTB ratio would be have also right to use submachine gun or even machine gun). But its spawning and fighting area would be predetermined by HC. 4 personas is just soldiers of every nation.

    Trial account would be 12 personas and with some differencies and restrictions (but that's to long story to write).

    "Sergeant" account would be mostly match current Basic, and "Officer" would be match current Premium. Some tweaks would be needed. Names indicate the limit up to which can grow in rank. Also it give a little better explain to new players.
    "HC" account would have possibilities to grow into HC, and so on. Also it can regulate logistics, protection of the strategic buildings and factories in rear (if we see this layer in future in game).

    Big squads can cooperate and make one HC for oneself (that might be real human person with NPC assistant, or only NPC HC). Etc etc..
    Some of these thoughts was suggested from different people many years ago, but...seems that it is like shouting into a well. :o

     

  • StugStug Coffee County, TNMember Posts: 387
    Again I have to intercede with your frankly mis-informing post. Population imbalances are managed by spawn delay, a system not set up to specifically target specific times of playtime.

    So you are frankly lieing. Especially when you suggest players where also vindictive and campaigned to specific timed agenda's.

    Sorry, you are very dishonest to post such twisted statements.
  • StugStug Coffee County, TNMember Posts: 387
    Edit: some interesting discussion here, if you can read through the deliberate negative misrepresentations.
  • pittpetepittpete poughkeepsie, NYMember Posts: 233

    David, notice where Monsjoex is from and what timezone he plays in.

    Population during that time has historically always been low.

    We know the game needs more players across all timezones.

    What satisfaction do you get by posting it day after day?

     

    image

  • aRtFuLThinGaRtFuLThinG MelbourneMember Posts: 1,245 Uncommon
    Originally posted by MouzurX Success story? PS2 has had their player base decrease by 50% the last months. The gameplay is just not keeping players in. It doesn't have a strategic level, what you do today doesn't matter at all for further game sessions. WW2ol has that, what you do today has effect on the frontline of tomorrow. And MMORPGS have that in a way where you rank up/get gear. But PS2 doesn't have a ranking system, yeah well pay-to-get-gear. 

     I really doubt it is 50% (since youa re just throwing random number out there to try to justify your comment). Besides when the Empire Showdown thing happened server was so packed that a lot of people can't even zone in if they get in late.

    The game has been much better at retaining players then WWIIOL ever hope to do. Hell people are still sinking money into the game (not to mention the killing that they made on the triple station cash thanksgiving day).

    Also what you do today in PS2 has not much effect on the frontline tomorrow was because THE POPULATION WAS SO MUCH BIGGER and the lands change hands a lot faster. More players = more constant changing hands of territory. That stagnate state of WWIIOL's territory is not a positive for the game... it is negative.

    In PS2 you pay for sidegrades but you'll still have to earn your attachments and personal upgrades - you don't know that of course because you seem to be getting your info from hearsay.

  • anfiach`anfiach` Steilacoom, WAMember Posts: 109
    Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG
    Originally posted by MouzurX Success story? PS2 has had their player base decrease by 50% the last months. The gameplay is just not keeping players in. It doesn't have a strategic level, what you do today doesn't matter at all for further game sessions. WW2ol has that, what you do today has effect on the frontline of tomorrow. And MMORPGS have that in a way where you rank up/get gear. But PS2 doesn't have a ranking system, yeah well pay-to-get-gear. 

     I really doubt it is 50% (since youa re just throwing random number out there to try to justify your comment). Besides when the Empire Showdown thing happened server was so packed that a lot of people can't even zone in if they get in late.

    The game has been much better at retaining players then WWIIOL ever hope to do. Hell people are still sinking money into the game (not to mention the killing that they made on the triple station cash thanksgiving day).

    Also what you do today in PS2 has not much effect on the frontline tomorrow was because THE POPULATION WAS SO MUCH BIGGER and the lands change hands a lot faster. More players = more constant changing hands of territory. That stagnate state of WWIIOL's territory is not a positive for the game... it is negative.

    In PS2 you pay for sidegrades but you'll still have to earn your attachments and personal upgrades - you don't know that of course because you seem to be getting your info from hearsay.

    PS2 is a low quality arcade shooter. Sadly, that's the kind of games that are popular these days. No commitment, no consequence. Comparing it to WWIIOL is a crime. They aren't even in the same league. The state of the front line in PS2 has nothing to do with population and everything to do with bad game design. It is simply intended not to matter.

  • HodoHodo Raeford, NCMember Posts: 542
    Originally posted by anfiach`
    Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG
    Originally posted by MouzurX Success story? PS2 has had their player base decrease by 50% the last months. The gameplay is just not keeping players in. It doesn't have a strategic level, what you do today doesn't matter at all for further game sessions. WW2ol has that, what you do today has effect on the frontline of tomorrow. And MMORPGS have that in a way where you rank up/get gear. But PS2 doesn't have a ranking system, yeah well pay-to-get-gear. 

     I really doubt it is 50% (since youa re just throwing random number out there to try to justify your comment). Besides when the Empire Showdown thing happened server was so packed that a lot of people can't even zone in if they get in late.

    The game has been much better at retaining players then WWIIOL ever hope to do. Hell people are still sinking money into the game (not to mention the killing that they made on the triple station cash thanksgiving day).

    Also what you do today in PS2 has not much effect on the frontline tomorrow was because THE POPULATION WAS SO MUCH BIGGER and the lands change hands a lot faster. More players = more constant changing hands of territory. That stagnate state of WWIIOL's territory is not a positive for the game... it is negative.

    In PS2 you pay for sidegrades but you'll still have to earn your attachments and personal upgrades - you don't know that of course because you seem to be getting your info from hearsay.

    PS2 is a low quality arcade shooter. Sadly, that's the kind of games that are popular these days. No commitment, no consequence. Comparing it to WWIIOL is a crime. They aren't even in the same league. The state of the front line in PS2 has nothing to do with population and everything to do with bad game design. It is simply intended not to matter.

    Incorrect, PS2 is not a low quality arcade shooter.   It is better quality than WWII Online.     Just because it isnt a so called sim, which WWII Online isnt any more either, then its suddenly low quality?  

     

    Most gamers today want something that looks pretty, runs well, and isnt requiring a 8 week basic training cycle to learn how to shoot a rifle.  

    So much crap, so little quality.

  • anfiach`anfiach` Steilacoom, WAMember Posts: 109
    Originally posted by Hodo
    Originally posted by anfiach`
    Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG
    Originally posted by MouzurX Success story? PS2 has had their player base decrease by 50% the last months. The gameplay is just not keeping players in. It doesn't have a strategic level, what you do today doesn't matter at all for further game sessions. WW2ol has that, what you do today has effect on the frontline of tomorrow. And MMORPGS have that in a way where you rank up/get gear. But PS2 doesn't have a ranking system, yeah well pay-to-get-gear. 

     I really doubt it is 50% (since youa re just throwing random number out there to try to justify your comment). Besides when the Empire Showdown thing happened server was so packed that a lot of people can't even zone in if they get in late.

    The game has been much better at retaining players then WWIIOL ever hope to do. Hell people are still sinking money into the game (not to mention the killing that they made on the triple station cash thanksgiving day).

    Also what you do today in PS2 has not much effect on the frontline tomorrow was because THE POPULATION WAS SO MUCH BIGGER and the lands change hands a lot faster. More players = more constant changing hands of territory. That stagnate state of WWIIOL's territory is not a positive for the game... it is negative.

    In PS2 you pay for sidegrades but you'll still have to earn your attachments and personal upgrades - you don't know that of course because you seem to be getting your info from hearsay.

    PS2 is a low quality arcade shooter. Sadly, that's the kind of games that are popular these days. No commitment, no consequence. Comparing it to WWIIOL is a crime. They aren't even in the same league. The state of the front line in PS2 has nothing to do with population and everything to do with bad game design. It is simply intended not to matter.

    Incorrect, PS2 is not a low quality arcade shooter.   It is better quality than WWII Online.     Just because it isnt a so called sim, which WWII Online isnt any more either, then its suddenly low quality?  

     

    Most gamers today want something that looks pretty, runs well, and isnt requiring a 8 week basic training cycle to learn how to shoot a rifle.  

    It's better quality than WWIIOL? No. Not being a sim has nothing to do with it. BF3 isn't a sim and I found it to be quite high quality despite the poor map design. It is poor quality because it is poor quality. The artwork is nice, but that doesn't make a good game. Maybe you like what I consider to be garbage. I'm sure you like Minecraft and Angry Birds as well.

  • HodoHodo Raeford, NCMember Posts: 542
    Originally posted by anfiach`
     I really doubt it is 50% (since youa re just throwing random number out there to try to justify your comment). Besides when the Empire Showdown thing happened server was so packed that a lot of people can't even zone in if they get in late. The game has been much better at retaining players then WWIIOL ever hope to do. Hell people are still sinking money into the game (not to mention the killing that they made on the triple station cash thanksgiving day). Also what you do today in PS2 has not much effect on the frontline tomorrow was because THE POPULATION WAS SO MUCH BIGGER and the lands change hands a lot faster. More players = more constant changing hands of territory. That stagnate state of WWIIOL's territory is not a positive for the game... it is negative. In PS2 you pay for sidegrades but you'll still have to earn your attachments and personal upgrades - you don't know that of course because you seem to be getting your info from hearsay.

    PS2 is a low quality arcade shooter. Sadly, that's the kind of games that are popular these days. No commitment, no consequence. Comparing it to WWIIOL is a crime. They aren't even in the same league. The state of the front line in PS2 has nothing to do with population and everything to do with bad game design. It is simply intended not to matter.

    Incorrect, PS2 is not a low quality arcade shooter.   It is better quality than WWII Online.     Just because it isnt a so called sim, which WWII Online isnt any more either, then its suddenly low quality?  

     

    Most gamers today want something that looks pretty, runs well, and isnt requiring a 8 week basic training cycle to learn how to shoot a rifle.  

    It's better quality than WWIIOL? No. Not being a sim has nothing to do with it. BF3 isn't a sim and I found it to be quite high quality despite the poor map design. It is poor quality because it is poor quality. The artwork is nice, but that doesn't make a good game. Maybe you like what I consider to be garbage. I'm sure you like Minecraft and Angry Birds as well.

     

    I actually do like Angry Birds, but dont care for Minecraft.   Angry Birds is a fun time waster.    But it is good quality, in other words, it didnt launch with 400 bugs or broken features, it actually loads up every time on my Kindle Fire, and it works.    Lets look at the two games WWII Online and Planetside 2.

     

    WWII Online

    Launched June 6 2001, on that launch date, the server crashed for 8 hours, 45minutes after going live.   On launch there was a massive patch,  even if you bought the game from a store.   Because CRS shipped the older build of the game and had several rebuilds and updates since that CD was made.    CRS had so many problems with WWII Online that for the first 6 months of the game they didnt charge a monthly subscription due to the number of bugs and faults.     The game had such an abbysmal launch that CRS changed the name of the game and relaunched it in hopes of gaining more possitive support.     The list of bugs with every update has only been rivaled by Star Vault and Mortal Online.    

     

    Planetside 2

    Launched November 20 2012, on that date, the game launched with a simple patch that took less than 5 minutes to complete.   The servers stayed up for several days till SOE took the server down for a patch.   The server was down for a couple of hours then returned and ran fine.   There were and still are a few bugs in the game, where you can fall through the map if you clip into some objects by accident.   Overall SOE has put out a quality product that costs nothing per month to play and has few bugs none of which are game breaking.   The gameplay is simple, fast paced and not overly complex.   Dont expect tanks to shrug off smaller caliber rounds or aircraft to die in one hit from a missile.   It is a simple game for a simple game concept.   It doesnt try to be more, or less, it is what it is.  

     

    Now does that make Planetside 2 lower quality than WWII Online?   No.  

    Quality would infer the level of finish to the game, the lack of faults, bugs, broken or missing features and the ease of use.   WWII Online is a lower quality game than Planetside 2, but that is because SOE has, and had more money than CRS have currently.    SOE is and was able to throw more dollars at their product and thus take time and hire more personnel to finish the product correctly.   

    So much crap, so little quality.

  • anfiach`anfiach` Steilacoom, WAMember Posts: 109
    Our disagreement lies with the definition of quality. If I were to look at quality of production in that regard, I would agree with you. If I look at the overall quality of gameplay, I cease to agree with you. I'm not overlooking the flaws of WWIIOL when I say it either. Naturally though, it's only a matter of opinion.
  • HodoHodo Raeford, NCMember Posts: 542
    Originally posted by anfiach`
    Our disagreement lies with the definition of quality. If I were to look at quality of production in that regard, I would agree with you. If I look at the overall quality of gameplay, I cease to agree with you. I'm not overlooking the flaws of WWIIOL when I say it either. Naturally though, it's only a matter of opinion.

    Not really a disagreement in definition.   But a miscommunication on your part of what you meant by quality.

     

    Because when I hear someone say quality I think of this.

     

    qual·i·ty  

    /?kwäl?t?/

    Noun

    1. The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something: "quality of life".
    2. General excellence of standard or level: "quality beers".
     

     

    And even on the part of Quality of Gameplay, I would say PS2 is better, only because of population at this time.   But what hurts PS2 isnt the game design concept but the lack of an anti-cheat detection system.   WWII Online had this problem at one time, but it was never a big enough issue.

    So much crap, so little quality.

  • axishatraxishatr Grand Island, NEMember Posts: 167

    Could maybe, just maybe, these forums be more active then wwiiol official forums because people can say what is really going on and give ideas, whether they are pro or anti current ideals without locking/deleting?

     

    Maybe another lesson could be learned and implemented to continue the wwiiol rebuild?  I'd clear out the Mod staff completely and have one or two new people take that position and proceed with a new outline for players and communication.

     

    The most important being to muzzle and lock DOC away from the public.  If I were a owner (majority owner) of Playnet and was crusing for info about my investment and why it was failing I would surely note the number of complaints involving this man.  He might be the "man who was there when wwiiol was conceived" but that doesn't mean he should be allowed to come up front and talk much.

     

    I knew a guy that could make a hell of a steak........but was the biggest arse hole in the world.  He never met a customer and the resturant is STILL in business.....

  • anfiach`anfiach` Steilacoom, WAMember Posts: 109
    Personally, I've never had an issue with DOC but I have definitely seen how snarky and unproffessional he can be. There shouldn't be any RATS on the forums other than the community managers. It is their job to interact with the players. The RAT  Chats were fine, they helped to inform players about game mechanics and keep them abreast of coming changes but for the most part, they should be working on the game, not trolling the forums. KILL A RAT was fine too because it generated fun for the community. Production managers are not community managers.
  • axishatraxishatr Grand Island, NEMember Posts: 167

    This is very true.  I've seen his good and bad sides.  His bad side is ugly, and for what its worth mine is equally ugly.  That's no hidden thing there.

     

    It's a double edged sword really.  It is special to have the heart and soul of the companies coding out walking around, but it's also bad when they are not able to interact in a "normal" way.  I never cared for the riddles or the "i'm so much smarter then all you stupid plebs (look it up)."

     

    I've seen and received his lashings, sometimes out of no where.  The dish it out comes, and then the lock/delete/ban is given.  Must be nice to call the MMA fighers phags and puzzies and then have them escorted out of the building where they can only see you giving the finger to them and doing that "worlds smallest violin" gesture while they kick at the door.

     

    That's what happens when doc is allowed to wander and the mods become monsters.  Sometimes its needed but a lot of times it is over reacting to simple conversation of people....like people do everyday, everywhere.  It's always bothered me.

     

  • david06david06 Chantilly, VAMember Posts: 183

    I think an abrasive employee would be acceptable if they were truthful, if along with the attitude we got some good information or perspective. Unfortunately DOC just misdirects or speaks in vague terms like any politician or corporate officer.


    I mean just look at this deal with the player statistics. How long has this been a problem, resetting everything each campaign? In all these years they haven't figured out a better way to automate the process or even to cross-train someone else to do it(they're contracting to get it done now I think). When a player suggests that perhaps there is a better way to do things DOC pulls the "this game is complex far beyond your comprehension, what you suggest is not possible" card for the thousandth time.


    He of all people should be familiar with this game's demographic; not everyone is a total laymen when it comes to coding and software and his explanations don't fly. I guess that's why they lock threads whenever someone chimes in with even the most polite objection to their process.

  • axishatraxishatr Grand Island, NEMember Posts: 167

    I think maybe it has more to do with having your company run by lawyers and volunteers rather then businessmen and employees.

     

     

  • pittpetepittpete poughkeepsie, NYMember Posts: 233

    Figured I'd throw this in here just to show how dead the game is.

    This was a planned event FYI...

    I know some will bring up the Eve Online borefest, so please resist

    image

  • mrcheapymrcheapy Bettendorf, IAMember Posts: 56
    too bad this can't happen everyday
  • axishatraxishatr Grand Island, NEMember Posts: 167

    SO.......36 people showed up for a planned apb event?

     

    Sounds pretty....awesome...I guess.

  • XOOM-CRSXOOM-CRS Portland, ORMember Posts: 42 Uncommon
    Originally posted by axishatr
    SO.......36 people showed up for a planned apb event?   Sounds pretty....awesome...I guess.

    We had 60 on each side fighting in the air battle actually. Was a really impressive job conducted by both the CinC's and all the guys who showed up. Nice work everyone

    Xoom@Playnet.com
    Cornered Rat Software

  • mrcheapymrcheapy Bettendorf, IAMember Posts: 56
    Was all the fighting going on at the same time ?
  • pittpetepittpete poughkeepsie, NYMember Posts: 233
    Originally posted by axishatr
    SO.......36 people showed up for a planned apb event?   Sounds pretty....awesome...I guess.

    Dislexic?

    63 on Axis side alone.

    image

  • RigamortisRigamortis Nextdoor, CAMember Posts: 206 Uncommon
    Originally posted by pittpete
    Originally posted by axishatr
    SO.......36 people showed up for a planned apb event?   Sounds pretty....awesome...I guess.

    Dislexic?

    63 on Axis side alone.

     Yes because 63 players on a SATURDAY 11+ years after a game launched is sooooo impressive right?  Overhype much?

  • pittpetepittpete poughkeepsie, NYMember Posts: 233

    You still here?

    No matter what number was posted, you would just insert it into the usual hate thread.

    12 years and a game is still going, yes I'd say thats pretty impressive

    image

  • RigamortisRigamortis Nextdoor, CAMember Posts: 206 Uncommon
    Originally posted by pittpete
    You still here?

     This isn't the official forums or game so I have no clue what your point is.  MY point is as long as there are blinded fans of the game overhyping it and making it out to be something it is not,  I will be here countering it since CRS can't moderate these forums,  and I am sure the crowd on the other side will do the same.  Funny thing is,  its comical seeing the meltdown of certain fans and developers here that can't simply hit the "delete" button for an issue to conveinently disappear.

This discussion has been closed.