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.

11517192021

Comments

  • StugStug Coffee County, TNPosts: 387Member

    P.S. Im not suggesting for one moment when game changes are put in everyone likes them. What I am saying is there are other reasons that people leave over time and simply blaming the game devs is unfair and misleading.

     

  • david06david06 Chantilly, VAPosts: 183Member

    When CRS specifically cites the conduct of squads and experienced players as a major problem in the game, and 100+ size squads leave the game within a short period of time all saying specifically why they left then I think that it was a developer decision that caused them to unsubscribe, not some other factor.


    Go ahead, look back in time on the internet and you will find Killer talking about how a squad of 200 organized players camping and defeating 600 people is bad for business, and the announcements about AOs and HC that would balance the game or something. More recently are those screen captures of Doc berating the axis high command for winning so much, and the squad KGW for being bullies.


    So one big problem is that CRS decided that these large communities were being harmful and took measures to isolate and remove them from the game, but they have been unable to replace them. The game relies on user generated content. The company's attempts to take over content and create theme parks(the "Bloody Battles" scenarios being the most memorable) have not been popular at all.


    The company also does not realize that it places itself in to near-direct competition with superior(but more narrow in scope) products by corralling it's subscribers in to these little areas with little repetitive battles. There are many alternatives to this game if a person wants a more curated play time. The draw to a game like this has always been the large-scale social play, the open world and the emergent experiences that result.

  • axishatraxishatr Grand Island, NEPosts: 167Member

    For at least the thousandth time.......

     

    Removed docs ability to talk to anyone but the mirror on his wall.

    Reduce the sub pricing to $9.99 for EVERYONE, no exceptions.

    Keep your "hero" program for those that wish to donate.

    Stop production of RA, and don't do any more stupid ideas like bloody battles.

    FIx ALL the issues with the game.  Put your eggs in that basket and handle it carefully.  This means having to rehire a person to fix the issues that your current team cannot do.  Get everything working.  Stats included.  Stop making excuses.  Just make the game run and maybe, just maybe, that will bring some people back.

     

    If you cannot do these things then shut it off.  These are the things that choked your game.  You are correct, it's not dead.........but what kind of life is living on life support while people smile at you in the room, but cry and shake their heads when they leave it.

     

    Good luck.

  • HodoHodo Raeford, NCPosts: 542Member
    Originally posted by wrath04
    Originally posted by david06
      Originally posted by wrath04   CRS didn't like YOUR ideas about how to run THEIR game?? So you run here to bitch about it and try to ruin it for those of us who still play...such class!
    Maybe your Ideas sucked, ever think about that? You think you could have made the game last this long? If you answered yes, WTF are you doing here? Dont you have a game to make? or are you just content with running down this one? You think you do anyone any good by running down a good game? Pretty lame.

     

    What about all the builders who donated money just to see CRS squander it?


    For that matter, what about all the angry people who donated to Rapid Assault?


    Are any of them allowed to complain?

                       Everyone is allowed to complain, but to try and ruin something for others just because you feel like you got slighted is just selfish and inconsiderate!  And you sir, are a broken Fn record!

     

                      We get it, you feel like CRS owes you something. I disagree with you on most everything you post...is there something wrong with that? Nothing personal at all. Christ! You act like CRS wrote out your check for you and forced you to subscribe to their product...did they???  Are you a builder? Did you donate money to the RA developement?

     

                        I'm not a builder myself, nor did I donate to RA developement, but if I did, I certainly wouldnt bitch about it, they wouldnt have forced me to spend my own money on anything I didnt want to spend it on, I'd like to think I have ALL the control over where my entertainment dollars are spent. And I do. So should you.

     

                         I have built 2 computers to play this game over the years but do you see me complaining about it?? NO! Why?? Because it was MY decision to do it! And the Game is worth it to me to say the least.

     

                          I'm just as invested in this game as anyone here I can assure you, maybe more than some, difference is, I dont feel like my sub buys me a stake in the game's direction, as you seem to. My sub does buy me access to the game and that's good enough for me.

     

    "what about all the angry people who donated to Rapid Assault?"

                            It's OK to be angry, but at yourself just as much if you arent satisfied with the product YOU donated to, after all, no one forced you.

     

    "What about all the builders who donated money just to see CRS squander it?"

                              Let's see, this question isnt even a valid one considering builders are paying for a service, which they have unlimited access to, so they ARE getting what they paid for from what I see. And as far as CRS squandering it, this is your opinion/observation that not alot of us share or agree with. So how can anyone honestly and factually answer this? they cant!

    So what we need now is something new from you to keep it fresh:)

     

     

    So Wrath04, the problem isnt that people are angry about the product they donated to for Rapid Assault.   They are upset they donated to vapourware!  

     

    So much crap, so little quality.

  • david06david06 Chantilly, VAPosts: 183Member

    I doubt that they are going to improve.


    It's obvious that they gave up on the game awhile ago.


    Even if they did get a surge in funds, use those funds to hire a coder, and then actually worked on WW2online instead of reviving RA or pursuing some new get-rich scheme they could not improve the game because they don't even recognize most of the problems with it. How long did they have the resources to do something yet they left in things like AWS, or the failed brigade system?


    They didn't even acknowledge that there were serious issues with version 1.34 until a lot of people unsubscribed and they didn't have enough money to finish developing Rapid Assault. I don't see any indication that they'll make good decisions even if this software development company does regain the ability to develop it's own software.

  • XOOM-CRSXOOM-CRS Portland, ORPosts: 42Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by david06
    It's obvious that they gave up on the game awhile ago.

    We've never given up on the game, David.

    Xoom@Playnet.com
    Cornered Rat Software

  • StugStug Coffee County, TNPosts: 387Member

    More hate and hyperbole of guesswork I see! I guess you are trying to tar CRS again.

    Lets take this for an example:

    "They didn't even acknowledge that there were serious issues with version 1.34 until a lot of people unsubscribed."

    Now lets look at some facts.

    On the 8th of Nov or thereabouts CRS patched the server to 1.34.

    http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/index.php/component/content/article/10-production-notes/10316-134-shakedown-intermission-underway

    Just 4 days later there is a post about the problems they are working on in some detail.

    Including that and thereafter there are 4 posts on the problems that where being experienced in this version.

    Finally on the 22nd of December there is another post on their progress when if I remember rightly they were succeeding in their efforts:

    http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/index.php/component/content/article/10-production-notes/10648-production-update-12-22-2011

    So tell me how is this NOT acknowledgeing the problems with the server? Sounds like they were trying to sort it out for their players and where communicating the issues clearly the playerbase.

    How individuals responded to these posts is one thing but the point you make is clearly misleading and unfair in relation to what actually happened.

     

    This is just another screaming example of the misleading diatribe being posted by certain individuals on this board.

     

     

     

  • BodkinBarberBodkinBarber BirminghamPosts: 106Member
    It was evident that the patch was messed up within the first hour, not 4 days later...lol
  • pittpetepittpete poughkeepsie, NYPosts: 233Member
    Originally posted by XOOM-CRS
    Originally posted by david06
    It's obvious that they gave up on the game awhile ago.

    We've never given up on the game, David.

    Xoom, it's obvious CRS hasn't given up on the game.

    We appreciate it.

    I'm assuming  that if CRS gave up on the game, the employees left would have to find different employment.

    Subs now are paying their salaries.

    Is their anyway you can share what us whats going on behind the scenes?

    I ask here because I'm looking for an answer and for the thread not to be deleted.

    Don't take this the wrong way please, as it's not meant to infer anything and don't want to sound ungrateful

    I keep hearing how everyone is busting their @ss at CRS.

    What is it that the employees are doing?

    There was a marketing fundraiser on kickstarter & a new video made.

    Is there any positive news coming?

    Thank you

     

     

    image

  • david06david06 Chantilly, VAPosts: 183Member

    1.34 was nearly unplayable and remained so for quite awhile.


    For those of us who didn't unsubscribe, worked though the bugs and stayed with the game, we had postings from Gophur about all the good things in 1.34.10 that were coming up, and all their plans for 1.35. At the same time we had Rafter implore all of us to become builders or subscribe to long-term billing plans for the health of the company.


    That was in May. The very next month instead of a 1.35 announcement we see this focus on RA and they had the kickstarter. What happened to fixing the buggy release of ww2online?


    Okay...so some of us decided to support Rapid Assault despite all our misgivings. I'm not sure where that went, one moment it was essential for WW2online's survival, the next it was just a tech demo and now it's hard to get any information about the project. Now they don't have a coder and we have neither bug fixes, a new product, or our money.


    Consider the above a misleading diatribe if you want.

  • wrath04wrath04 Olympia, WAPosts: 89Member
    Originally posted by david06
    1.34 was nearly unplayable and remained so for quite awhile.
    For those of us who didn't unsubscribe, worked though the bugs and stayed with the game, we had postings from Gophur about all the good things in 1.34.10 that were coming up, and all their plans for 1.35. At the same time we had Rafter implore all of us to become builders or subscribe to long-term billing plans for the health of the company.
    That was in May. The very next month instead of a 1.35 announcement we see this focus on RA and they had the kickstarter. What happened to fixing the buggy release of ww2online?
    Okay...so some of us decided to support Rapid Assault despite all our misgivings. I'm not sure where that went, one moment it was essential for WW2online's survival, the next it was just a tech demo and now it's hard to get any information about the project. Now they don't have a coder and we have neither bug fixes, a new product, or our money.
    Consider the above a misleading diatribe if you want.

                         You bring up good points here IMO, I also think it's hard to have an update on RA without a coder if in fact this is the case.

     

     

                             I think anytime you talk about a business and it's operation from a far, you run the risks associated with not knowing all the details, possibly, in this case. How do we realy know what is really going on?  And if you donated to RA, shouldn't you be able to Email someone to get an "official" answer? I'm just asking this because I don't know... can anyone say?

    image

  • StugStug Coffee County, TNPosts: 387Member
    My point still stands. It is wrong to suggest CRS did not acknowledge the problems with 1.34.
  • pittpetepittpete poughkeepsie, NYPosts: 233Member
    Originally posted by david06
    1.34 was nearly unplayable and remained so for quite awhile.
    For those of us who didn't unsubscribe, worked though the bugs and stayed with the game, we had postings from Gophur about all the good things in 1.34.10 that were coming up, and all their plans for 1.35. At the same time we had Rafter implore all of us to become builders or subscribe to long-term billing plans for the health of the company.
    That was in May. The very next month instead of a 1.35 announcement we see this focus on RA and they had the kickstarter. What happened to fixing the buggy release of ww2online?
    Okay...so some of us decided to support Rapid Assault despite all our misgivings. I'm not sure where that went, one moment it was essential for WW2online's survival, the next it was just a tech demo and now it's hard to get any information about the project. Now they don't have a coder and we have neither bug fixes, a new product, or our money.
    Consider the above a misleading diatribe if you want.

    Nothing false about this statement.

    I bet a lot of the community feels like this.

     

    image

  • TontomanTontoman Toronto, ONPosts: 196Member
    Originally posted by Stug
    P.S. Im not suggesting for one moment when game changes are put in everyone likes them. What I am saying is there are other reasons that people leave over time and simply blaming the game devs is unfair and misleading.  

    There was nothing 'over time' about this. Yeah numbers were dropping, but that doesn't mean it's ok to take a huge hit.  It was a big exodus.  And no, I don't blame CRS for TRYING to put fixing in to stop camping because so much of the community was asking for it.  But that doesn't mean you go destorying much of the gameplay that made WWIIOL what it was with the squads.  Killing the patient to save the arm as it were.  When all hell broke loose with those changes, they had a chance go to back and try working on a different fix instead of having everyone leave. 

    You can deny it all you want,  I was there. I remember all the goodbye posts on the squad web page.  If you want to stick to your story though, fine, just don't rag on other people for posting BS.

    PS. I can blame the devs for putting spawns 5 feet away from the cap point when the attackers are a least 200 feet away (up to 2KM).  Please explain how this design aspect was good, and somehow doesn't put a HUGE bias on defense and basically demands MORE camping?   Gameplay went from 'ok guys, lets pick a town and pull an operation' to, 'ok, we have to team up with basically everyone else to get the numbers to camp every depot from all sides with armor for any hope to cap the CP'.   That made every battle the same and having your unique squad no longer unique.  But no, people left because people changed. BS

     

     

     

  • TontomanTontoman Toronto, ONPosts: 196Member

    Stug.

    "So what you are saying is forcing people to fight and reduce camping was bad for a wargame which is arguably about combat and the people that left the game where the ones who weren't interested in the fighting combat simulator side?

    Sounds like a recipe for success fighting = wargame."

    Except it made it WORSE, much worse as I said in the original post if you read more carefully.  But hey, it looks like you're just more into putting in PR lines.   Spawns now 5 feet away from the cap points made for required mass camping to cap any city. Squads had to group together just to get enough to mass camp because the 20 guys on a squad were no longer enough to cap. With lag, stuffing the CP doesn't work (one SMG charge does it) and tossing nades from the depot window, despawn, repeat also worked a peach for defense.  One trick was to sachel the CP before capping so you could nade spam easily.  It was FUBAR.

    So Sounds like a recipe for people leaving, more camping = bail.  There was plenty of fighting even when camping was going on, much of the camping complaints was due to lost cities, NOT about being stuck with only camping gameplay (that came later with AO's). 

    BTW,  3rd Cdn Div who was so into the 'sim' aspect that they had a 'no camping' policy with the Iron Wolves even though it made capping that much harder, got decimated with those changes.  People left because we basically couldn't cap a city anymore without others helping camping depots, and that's not what we joined WWIIOL for.  So yeah right, it's the non 'sim' players who left, so much for that theory.

     

    "Smart enough to pull it back or unable to put it back? Again you put down CRS without really thinking about what was actually possible..oh to be unfettered by reality eh?

    It was entirely possible to go back to a previous version, it wouldn't be the first time they pulled a change. And after that you can try a different solution, or at least one that doesn't put spawns beside the cap points. Oh to be unfetterend by any knowledge of game design or programming in general eh?  As any programmer knows, pulling changes is a fact of life just as good intentions ('it's a simple fix, doesn't need to be tested', inside joke) don't always pan out (the road to hell is....)

     

  • ZbusZbus shelby, NCPosts: 116Member
    Originally posted by Stug
    "But when they did a large set of gameplay changes (cap system, spawns, AO's) to 'fix' the camping problem.." So what you are saying is forcing people to fight and reduce camping was bad for a wargame which is arguably about combat and the people that left the game where the ones who weren't interested in the fighting combat simulator side? Sounds like a recipe for success fighting = wargame. "..CRS wasn't smart enough to pull it back." Smart enough to pull it back or unable to put it back? Again you put down CRS without really thinking about what was actually possible..oh to be unfettered by reality eh? "..it destroyed the squads and the numbers in a year." I'd actually say the game population has been going down over time anyway as per any MMO, let alone a 13 year old one - do the same number of people play DAOC who played in 2003? I'd also suggest there wasn't a mass exodus as you want to be the case and certainly not in major numbers alluded to, it was more gradual aka AO's stabilised the game....So potentially there may have indeed been benefits to the introduction of AO's which helpded slow decline in pop, as occurs in any MMO due to peoples lives changing (Marriage/divorce/school) as well as other things which might make people leave. So this takes me to the point that you blame game change and bad design when actually it might be PEOPLE change and not CRS's decisions.

    Umm Stug I hate to break this to ya but it didnt even slow down camping in fact one might say it increased with the addition of MSP and star gates. Every town cap now starts and ends with a camp of a depot or AB.

    As for being able to put it back I guess DOC decided to pull the old SWG tag line as a way of avoiding the subject way latter on down the line. He nor any other Dev ever said they couldnt revert the changes after the patch that introduced them they did say however on many posts that they would not becuase they had thier own vision of what the game's development should be regardless of how many customers disagreed with them and unsubed.

    About the avoiding the action thing what a load of BS. At least when we had slow times we could go find some action or make it ourselves todays AO system only allows action in only one or two spots plus gives one the feeling of herding cats or pounding your head against a wall with its once more in to the breach my friends frontal assult into a set defense method of play. 

    Delude yourself all you want but the population drop off in this game is directly tied to the HC/AO system and its complete and utter failure ever since being introduced. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming im not listening does not change that FACTS OF THE MATTER.

  • StugStug Coffee County, TNPosts: 387Member

    Woot! Got a rise from that it would seem. I just think it sounds like the game evolved and you guys couldn't hack having to compete with other players..no..that’s trolling you – im not here to troll im here to remind you that your facts are sometimes dripping with a distinct anti-game/anti-crs bias that as an existing player I find completely wrong, misleading and inaccurate.

     "About the avoiding the action thing what a load of BS."

    No, I’m just suggesting the game became better when the defender had chance to scramble and mount a defence so an attack wasn’t always a camp which is how it used to be. Your telling me you can’t remember the days of the tanks and infantryman?

    Infantry are part of a battle more than ever because of the game changes that have been put in, which has to be a good thing, no?

    And for the record AEF still set up camps but the tactics have changed with the game - which befuddles me why you can't adapt too. Indeed, camping is still part of the game, but you won’t hear me crying about it because people have a chance in today’s game as opposed to the unopposed camps that could occur regularily in the past and you want to promote.

    "Squads had to group together just to get enough to mass camp because the 20 guys on a squad were no longer enough to cap."

    My lord...I didn't realise that CP's weren't being capped in the game..o wait..they still are - more hyperbole from you.

    So what you are saying is there wasn't enough teamwork in this fantastic world that existed before the changes? That the brilliant things that played the game prior to the changes had their noses suddenly pushed out by a change that meant one person had a much reduced chance to take a CP?

    Surely, needing more people to cap a CP means more teamwork, so I can't understand why you are against the change that encouraged more players to work together. I would suggest your comment is just more misleading hyperbole.

    "Delude yourself all you want but the population drop off in this game is directly tied to the HC/AO system..

    Heh - I wonder why they would want to funnel population into specific area's? I mean, logically here's how it might have gone....

    "Hey! We've got so many people playing!

    "yeh! There really enjoying it - we need to funnel them all into one town...!"

    "Yeh! let's do it!"

    No - I think actually the old gamestlye that used to exist was killing the game until AO's where put in to bring a decreased population (because of the old style gameplay which prmoted avoid the fight) into combat with each other, as opposed to being spread out over x+ towns. So actually, AO's saved the game and kept it going.

    I know your not going to beleive that, but I think that is much more logical and I think you are deluding yourself as to the real impact AO’s had – and it wasn;t to kill the game play, it sustained it to where we are today which can either be a glass full or glass empty scenario – but that’s up to you. Just don;t go spreading lies about who it is when it isn’t.

    "t was entirely possible to go back to a previous version,"

    To what extent, to what degree? Surely Any info to back this up – I guess like my perspectives, nothing, apart from my opinion.

    I think the most honest point posted in the above was by Tontoman (Kudos):

    "..I don't blame CRS for TRYING to put fixing in to stop camping because so much of the community was asking for it.  But that doesn't mean you go destorying much of the gameplay that made WWIIOL what it was with the squads.  Killing the patient to save the arm as it were."

    This is exactly what the point is - thank you - game changes have been made to save the game.

    I mean what good is an arm without a body? This is why game changes where made: to save the game - and the game has been going 13 years so far (and long may it continue as we continue play it - the only game we have gone back to for 13 years non-stop....its saved hundreds in not buying other games lol). This supports the idea that AO's where put in to promote gameplay and not spite it, as some of you suggest.

    I am not suggesting there have not been unexpected results from CRS choices but what I am suggesting is you guys are just banging it out there with anti-game and anti-CRS Bull crap - in fact I would go so much as to say you have a "hard on" for bashing a game and community that still exists but does not meet your own prescriptions.

    Has the game thrived like the early days? No Sh*t Sherlock it is 13 years old!

    Is the game still going? Yes.

    Do many people still get enjoyment when they log on? Yes.

    Did CRS change the game and undergo problems to spite you ? NO

  • HodoHodo Raeford, NCPosts: 542Member

    So I played WWIIOL last night for the first time in a couple of weeks.

     

    I spent 15min in game till I got bored.  

     

    I was at a major attack sitting on defence.   It was full EWS, EI were coming from the depot and there were French tanks in town.  

     

    I sat in the bunker for about 5min watching the fighting, trying to see if I could see anything.   I seen 2 shermans, 1 M10, and a half dozen EI.   I ran out of the bunker and went to another location to get a better view.   I seen 2 more M4s and another M10.   And about a dozen total EI.      I could not see the EA overhead but I am sure it was there because we had AA firing up the whole time. 

     

    It wasnt the WWIIOL of years ago, but it did show life.   That is good at least.  

     

    After I logged out I went to PS2 and killed 8 guys in 15min and logged out and went to bed.   I wonder in 12 years will PS2 be the same way?

    So much crap, so little quality.

  • TontomanTontoman Toronto, ONPosts: 196Member

    "This is exactly what the point is - thank you - game changes have been made to save the game."

    As I said before, and will again (as you don't seem to want to read properly), trying ISN'T succeeding.  Try and get THAT point into your head.  So no it didn't save it as they wanted, the changes killed the squads quickly which was one of CRS supporters.    Those changes got a ton of people to leave all the same time and lots of the squads shut down.  And guess what, people didn't come back and people still trickled away even after that exodus.   So what part of that is saving the patient if folks were leaving just as before, but CRS propably fast fowarded their population loss a year or two?  

    Fact of the matter is that period was one of biggest population drops it ever had, it removed lots of the player structure CRS got for free in regards to squads, there was no resurgence in players (the 'instant action' crowd CRS said they were targeting didn't show) and they continued bleeding players,  and then as a result when they started dropping coders and the development turned to shat. 

    BTW...

    "I know your not going to beleive that, but I think that is much more logical and I think you are deluding yourself as to the real impact AO’s had – and it wasn;t to kill the game play, it sustained it to where we are today which can either be a glass full or glass empty scenario – but that’s up to you. Just don;t go spreading lies about who it is when it isn’t."

    When you talk about difference of opinions, you can't also lable someone else's opinion as a 'lie'.   That's BS.  And that type of talk just shows we've gotten into 'stop stop, every bad comment is a lie' as even proper discussion it now seems is done.

    [mod edit]

     

  • wrath04wrath04 Olympia, WAPosts: 89Member
    Originally posted by Tontoman
    "This is exactly what the point is - thank you - game changes have been made to save the game." As I said before, and will again (as you don't seem to want to read properly), trying ISN'T succeeding.  Try and get THAT point into your head.  So no it didn't save it as they wanted, the changes killed the squads quickly which was one of CRS supporters.    Those changes got a ton of people to leave all the same time and lots of the squads shut down.  And guess what, people didn't come back and people still trickled away even after that exodus.   So what part of that is saving the patient if folks were leaving just as before, but CRS propably fast fowarded their population loss a year or two?   Fact of the matter is that period was one of biggest population drops it ever had, it removed lots of the player structure CRS got for free in regards to squads, there was no resurgence in players (the 'instant action' crowd CRS said they were targeting didn't show) and they continued bleeding players,  and then as a result when they started dropping coders and the development turned to shat.  BTW... "I know your not going to beleive that, but I think that is much more logical and I think you are deluding yourself as to the real impact AO’s had – and it wasn;t to kill the game play, it sustained it to where we are today which can either be a glass full or glass empty scenario – but that’s up to you. Just don;t go spreading lies about who it is when it isn’t." When you talk about difference of opinions, you can't also lable someone else's opinion as a 'lie'.   That's BS.  And that type of talk just shows we've gotten into 'stop stop, every bad comment is a lie' as even proper discussion it now seems is done. Welcome to the PR mouthpiece BS poster list Stug.   

    That's not real fair Tonto, This guy wants to see this game go on,as do I.  So what's so wrong with that?

    image

  • StugStug Coffee County, TNPosts: 387Member
    Tonto, there's differences in opinion nn (which I clearly welcome) but what I will not stand is lies and misrepresentnation's.
  • rendusrendus smyrna, TNPosts: 327Member
    Originally posted by Stug
    Tonto, there's differences in opinion nn (which I clearly welcome) but what I will not stand is lies and misrepresentnation's.

    Good, so the next time MouzurX comes in here and says there are 100 vs 100 battles every day I expect you to be the one to call him out on it.

  • pittpetepittpete poughkeepsie, NYPosts: 233Member

    As I said before, and will again (as you don't seem to want to read properly), trying ISN'T succeeding.  Try and get THAT point into your head.  So no it didn't save it as they wanted, the changes killed the squads quickly which was one of CRS supporters.    Those changes got a ton of people to leave all the same time and lots of the squads shut down.  And guess what, people didn't come back and people still trickled away even after that exodus.   So what part of that is saving the patient if folks were leaving just as before, but CRS propably fast fowarded their population loss a year or two?  

    Fact of the matter is that period was one of biggest population drops it ever had, it removed lots of the player structure CRS got for free in regards to squads, there was no resurgence in players (the 'instant action' crowd CRS said they were targeting didn't show) and they continued bleeding players,  and then as a result when they started dropping coders and the development turned to shat. 

    I believe this is exactly what happened.

    There are very few players from 7 or 8 years ago still playing.

    Whole squads dissappeared.

    CRS tried to cater to the instant actioners and it backfired.

    I still want the game to succeed, but they F'd it up royally.

    Hopefully experience teaches them a hard lesson and the few left don't make the same mistakes again.

     

     

    image

  • ZbusZbus shelby, NCPosts: 116Member
    Originally posted by Stug
    Woot! Got a rise from that it would seem. I just think it sounds like the game evolved and you guys couldn't hack having to compete with other players..no..that’s trolling you – im not here to troll im here to remind you that your facts are sometimes dripping with a distinct anti-game/anti-crs bias that as an existing player I find completely wrong, misleading and inaccurate.  "About the avoiding the action thing what a load of BS." No, I’m just suggesting the game became better when the defender had chance to scramble and mount a defence so an attack wasn’t always a camp which is how it used to be. Your telling me you can’t remember the days of the tanks and infantryman? Infantry are part of a battle more than ever because of the game changes that have been put in, which has to be a good thing, no? And for the record AEF still set up camps but the tactics have changed with the game - which befuddles me why you can't adapt too. Indeed, camping is still part of the game, but you won’t hear me crying about it because people have a chance in today’s game as opposed to the unopposed camps that could occur regularily in the past and you want to promote. "Squads had to group together just to get enough to mass camp because the 20 guys on a squad were no longer enough to cap." My lord...I didn't realise that CP's weren't being capped in the game..o wait..they still are - more hyperbole from you. So what you are saying is there wasn't enough teamwork in this fantastic world that existed before the changes? That the brilliant things that played the game prior to the changes had their noses suddenly pushed out by a change that meant one person had a much reduced chance to take a CP? Surely, needing more people to cap a CP means more teamwork, so I can't understand why you are against the change that encouraged more players to work together. I would suggest your comment is just more misleading hyperbole. "Delude yourself all you want but the population drop off in this game is directly tied to the HC/AO system.. Heh - I wonder why they would want to funnel population into specific area's? I mean, logically here's how it might have gone.... "Hey! We've got so many people playing! "yeh! There really enjoying it - we need to funnel them all into one town...!" "Yeh! let's do it!" No - I think actually the old gamestlye that used to exist was killing the game until AO's where put in to bring a decreased population (because of the old style gameplay which prmoted avoid the fight) into combat with each other, as opposed to being spread out over x+ towns. So actually, AO's saved the game and kept it going. I know your not going to beleive that, but I think that is much more logical and I think you are deluding yourself as to the real impact AO’s had – and it wasn;t to kill the game play, it sustained it to where we are today which can either be a glass full or glass empty scenario – but that’s up to you. Just don;t go spreading lies about who it is when it isn’t. "t was entirely possible to go back to a previous version," To what extent, to what degree? Surely Any info to back this up – I guess like my perspectives, nothing, apart from my opinion. I think the most honest point posted in the above was by Tontoman (Kudos): "..I don't blame CRS for TRYING to put fixing in to stop camping because so much of the community was asking for it.  But that doesn't mean you go destorying much of the gameplay that made WWIIOL what it was with the squads.  Killing the patient to save the arm as it were." This is exactly what the point is - thank you - game changes have been made to save the game. I mean what good is an arm without a body? This is why game changes where made: to save the game - and the game has been going 13 years so far (and long may it continue as we continue play it - the only game we have gone back to for 13 years non-stop....its saved hundreds in not buying other games lol). This supports the idea that AO's where put in to promote gameplay and not spite it, as some of you suggest. I am not suggesting there have not been unexpected results from CRS choices but what I am suggesting is you guys are just banging it out there with anti-game and anti-CRS Bull crap - in fact I would go so much as to say you have a "hard on" for bashing a game and community that still exists but does not meet your own prescriptions. Has the game thrived like the early days? No Sh*t Sherlock it is 13 years old! Is the game still going? Yes. Do many people still get enjoyment when they log on? Yes. Did CRS change the game and undergo problems to spite you ? NO

    Did you fall and bump your head or something Stug? Cause really dude EWS was in the game prior to AO/HC and if you got camped it was because you and your squad must have been to lazy to check it.  AO did nothing but annouce to lazy people like yourself  that hey I am about to attack your town  and because we know your to lazy to check the EWS already in game we are going to give you a extra 10 to 15 mins to get setup.

    HC/AO's saved the game really?  Please put down the pipe Stug. Its a failure!!!! Say it with me now FAILURE !!!! Regardless of the intent its still a FAILURE . How you can sit here after so many years and claim its anything else is mind boggleing but maybe in the altered plane of reality you seem to live in called oppisite world babbleing on like this makes sense.

    Loved your intro though questioning others skill level means so much comeing from a guy who plays a dumbed down version of the game with huge amounts of hand holding so your poor little online avatar isnt camped.

  • michniewiczmichniewicz toronto, OKPosts: 6Member
    Originally posted by pittpete
    As I said before, and will again (as you don't seem to want to read properly), trying ISN'T succeeding.  Try and get THAT point into your head.  So no it didn't save it as they wanted, the changes killed the squads quickly which was one of CRS supporters.    Those changes got a ton of people to leave all the same time and lots of the squads shut down.  And guess what, people didn't come back and people still trickled away even after that exodus.   So what part of that is saving the patient if folks were leaving just as before, but CRS propably fast fowarded their population loss a year or two?   Fact of the matter is that period was one of biggest population drops it ever had, it removed lots of the player structure CRS got for free in regards to squads, there was no resurgence in players (the 'instant action' crowd CRS said they were targeting didn't show) and they continued bleeding players,  and then as a result when they started dropping coders and the development turned to shat.  I believe this is exactly what happened. There are very few players from 7 or 8 years ago still playing. Whole squads dissappeared. CRS tried to cater to the instant actioners and it backfired. I still want the game to succeed, but they F'd it up royally. Hopefully experience teaches them a hard lesson and the few left don't make the same mistakes again.    

    BS.    The REAL reason they f'ed up is not because they tried to cater to the action crowd, because they catered to an HC system that runied the gameplay for players on the ground. 

     

    Thats the reason.  TOES was the final nail in the coffin.  A system in theory desinged to emulate an high command structure does not work in a game where people's interests are selfish and paly for entertainment.  No ones ever going to follow orders, someone elses plan like in a real military unless they get paid, in the video game world they will follow their own squads friends, guilds whatever you want to call them, not some nameless facelless , absent system called HC that tells you were you can attack, when you can attack in order to progress the game.

     

      The players felt we had no power in the game by playing any of the units.  Power came from moving the map, we were not allowed to pick targets and therefore get people to organize with us on those targets and therefore have a reason for squads and team work.    You were forced  to go attack here and only here, and you went, then you were forced  to leave before the attack could be finished.  This wouldnt have been so bad if the people making these decisions were people you elected  , you chose to follow (aka squads) but they werent.  They were made by HC.  It was a herk and jerk you around game by nameless faceless losers which ended up making the players on the ground not give a crap about the map, and turned the game into a nothing but a kill farm, instant action game wehre the only fun was in killing the enemy not winning a war.  Guesss what, other games do that better.  Thats what killed the game, some idea that we wanted an HC because the people who wanted control  players not through influence or leadership but through game mechanics (HC)  thought it was fun yet CRS failed to realize this population they catered to made up 1% of the total playerbase and thats what tehy have left,  1% of what they used to have.  Truth hurts, accept it. 

     

    CRS gave power to HC over squads to move the map.  CRS chose 1% of the players (playing in HC) over 99% of the players (playing in squads) .  Guess what.  You guessed it.  Funny even KFS1 acknowledged this one time when said something along the lines of where he questioned dedicating all the resources into a system (HC) that only a fraction of the playerbase used.  Smart man,  last I heard he moved onto better things?  makes sense. 

     

    CRS know nothing about pvp gameplay,  they are WWII nerds, trying to trace a piece of art, they're re-enacters.  No one wants to play a re-enactment event.  We want a GAME.

This discussion has been closed.