› ›

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Quick Links

My Opinion: Why WWIIOL is dead.

1…151617181921»

Comments

  • StugStug Member UncommonPosts: 387

    I agree with you Silky and Argel, by the way, that the game still needs to evolve and can be improved on, naturally. It isn't "rocket Science" to make the observation. :)

  • wrath04wrath04 Member Posts: 89
    Originally posted by argel

    All I can say is that even though I have defended CRS consistently, even my position has changed to the point where I agree that a game with no players will fail, even if the mechanics are 'better' than they were. I actually thought certain changes needed to be made back in the day, but the simple fact is that nothing matters except the bottom line which is disappearing quickly.

    No point in arguing because 99% of us do agree that whatever happens, CRS need to do something, anything to get the game back to being developed again. It's such a basic requirement that if CRS have to eat their words and promise to 'roll back' some of the structural gameplay issues (AO's etc) then that's what they have to do. I understand - and I think everyone else needs to - that because of the way CRS developed the code, it's not possible to roll back to v.1.25 or whatever people would like. That just isn't happening and realistically, it's no good asking them to because I can guarantee that no game of this type could simply be 'rolled back'.

     

    BUT 

    Someone needs to recognise that there are clearly a bunch of dudes who enjoyed WWIIOL for what it was and may - just may -  be persuaded back if they were given a proper incentive to do so. That can only come with a roadmap that allows for more libertarian gameplay (a la Eve) that was one of the big pre-launch selling points. It's clear that many people want it - not just a vocal few - and it's also clear that the current advocates (myself included) are too few to keep the game up and running financially. I actually agree I find it odd that they can't get a coder in but when you work it out, $4000 a month + whatever else they have coming in from 'regular' subs must be less than $8000 a month. Might sound like a lot but I suspect the overheads are big on a game like this and in all fairness, Doc/Gophur - whatever your personal feelings - need to be paid a living wage.

    In the end the only thing preventing them being able to get a coder is that they won't commit to going back to that spirit of 01-05 where it seemed like a genuine sandbox. Even if they just said 'we'll roll back AO's in 1.36 and give all the power back to squads, but if it fails it fails'  they'd actually get the coder they needed and could finish 1.35 before moving on to it. People would come back for that incentive, but it needs to be a clear roadmap with an absolute 100% categorical statement from Gophur, because he is who the players trust.

     

    Hell, they'd probably get 50 subs just if Doc apologised to some of the butthurt guys on here :D 

    I love this post, I hope you're right about a few things here. I would LOVE to see this game rolled back to even 05' gameplay with the graphics the game has now even. Like I have said many times before, let the HC keep the AOs but remove the front line capture restrictions so squad ops can still take place. But I have doubts this will, or even can happen at all.

    As for the people here hurt by the devs, I'm not sure if there is a fix for them, I think from what I have read that only Doc's ass in a meatgrinder would heal their wounds. For some, I dont think anything would bring them back.

     

    One of the unknowns about this idea that you only see barely touched apon in here, is what the current player-base's reaction would be if such changes took place...I mean aside from the vets who would know what to expect. That would be the most interesting thing to see for my money.

     

    Good post man!

    image

  • BodkinBarberBodkinBarber Member Posts: 106
    From the look of it everyone is actually in agreement that CRS should of done AO's/supply better... just some people feel the need to call others BS'ers, whiners etc at the end of their every post to 'help' the game (and cause division)
  • StugStug Member UncommonPosts: 387
    Originally posted by BodkinBarber
    From the look of it everyone is actually in agreement that CRS should of done AO's/supply better... just some people feel the need to call others BS'ers, whiners etc at the end of their every post to 'help' the game (and cause division)

    Stop right there angus.

    Just because I say the game needs to continue to evolve does not mean that magically all your fantasies (and other posters)about how the game was borked, about how evil and nasty CRS are, about how they deliberately killed squads etc etc (a load of hockey-pucjk) are validated by me, because they aren't.

    I am of the opinion, as i have stated, that AO's saved the game. I also beleive that CRS had a lot of bad luck which knocked them back last year. I also beleive that when they make decisions they do so with their business in mind. They are out to please you, but if they please you and the game dies thats not...bery pleasing, is it?

     

    Wrath has it spot on, I don;'t beleive it is honest to say a "game is dead" and beat on it when the game patently is NOT dead, has a population and for a new player holds a whole new world to explore and game to experience. There is no need to be afraid of that fact guys.

     

  • UristMcDwarfUristMcDwarf Member UncommonPosts: 111

    When an MMO has no development support, has to rely on its users with pledge drives - among other things - and has a concurrent playerbase that at best peaks in the lower hundreds.. I think you can arguably label it as dead. So stating it's "alive and kicking" is pretty misleading. Well, unless you're being facetious like you would about your great grandma who just reached her 105th birthday.

     

    Of course there's always semantics.

    Currently Playing:
    nothing :(

  • Skooma2Skooma2 Member UncommonPosts: 697
    I saw this topic on the site's front page.  I do not play the game, but I thought I would check out the thread anyway (I love threads where people say a game is dead.)   I note that the first post was in July,  2012 and the last was today, March, 2013.  Therefore, you goofballs have been arguing about whether the game is "dead" for 8 months.  And, if it were "dead" then  there wouldn't still be this argument and 51 pages of replies.

    Hedonismbot: Your latest performance was as delectable as dipping my bottom over and over into a bath of the silkiest oils and creams.

  • UristMcDwarfUristMcDwarf Member UncommonPosts: 111
    Originally posted by Skooma2
    I saw this topic on the site's front page.  I do not play the game, but I thought I would check out the thread anyway (I love threads where people say a game is dead.)   I note that the first post was in July,  2012 and the last was today, March, 2013.  Therefore, you goofballs have been arguing about whether the game is "dead" for 8 months.  And, if it were "dead" then  there wouldn't still be this argument.

     

    Well, as a user above pointed out - there aren't dozens and dozens of people actively taking part in this discussion. In actuality it's just a few forum regulars arguing back and forth so they can practice their debating skills. So this thread's activity proves nothing, I'm afraid. Well, at least in regards to whether or not this game is alive.

    Currently Playing:
    nothing :(

  • rendusrendus Member UncommonPosts: 329
    Originally posted by Hodo
    Originally posted by rendus
    Originally posted by Reklaw

    7/02/12  > 3/03/13

    Sorry I just keep seeing this topic pop-up, didn't read all the replies, but if this game is so dead then why is it still talked about almost 8 months since this topic started? Just curious....

    Don't let this thread's activity fool you.  It's not 100's of different people discussing the game.  It's a handful of people posting back and forth to each other. That's all.  If it weren't for the subscribers posting in the interest of damage control, this thread would have been 5 pages, tops, and wouldn't have been bumped since last fall.

    *edit to add*

    was bored and had some time on my hands so...drum roll please...

    This thread has had 75 posters.

    Top Five posters by count:

    Pittpete 47

    Axishater 46

    David06 41

    Stug 35

    Wrath04 29

    ...and you have a few more in the low twenties and then it drops off steeply after that.

    Cant believe I didnt make that list. 

    LOL,  I still have my list.  

    You were next with 28!  Then myself with 25.  CeTheGreat and Depot12 tied with 20 each.  And like I said it drops off after that.

    And Axishatr is sort of right, I'd rather chat with you guys about the game than actually play it.

  • ZbusZbus Member Posts: 116
    Originally posted by BodkinBarber
    From the look of it everyone is actually in agreement that CRS should of done AO's/supply better... just some people feel the need to call others BS'ers, whiners etc at the end of their every post to 'help' the game (and cause division)

    Agree but dont say that to loud seems while they dont mind calling others haters they dont enjoy being called on it and report the threads.  Ill start useing that for them now if they even hint at anouther poster being a hater due to a differing view it its being reported.

  • AmanaAmana Moderator UncommonPosts: 3,912
    At this point, this just a giant argument.

    To give feedback on moderation, contact [email protected]

This discussion has been closed.