Jump to content


Two Mode Game Suggestion....(Again)


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

mnbv_fockewulfe #81 Posted 09 June 2018 - 01:36 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 247 battles
  • 2,540
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

http://forum.worldofwarplanes.com/index.php?/topic/51167-player-numbers/page__st__40__pid__736752#entry736752

 

2.0 numbers.
 

https://stats.wotapi.ru/stats/wowp/na/total

1.x numbers from 2015 to a few hours after 2.0 hit.

(some extrapolation required which I'll explain in a bit, however first)


 

https://web.archive.org/web/20160810002620/http://worldofwarplanes.com/community/leaderboard/#wowp&lb_tr=28&lb_of=xp_avg&lb_cd=2016-8-8&lb_sg=all

Jimmy crickets batman! The API data is completely pulled from their website.


 

https://worldofwarplanes.com/community/leaderboard/#wowp&lb_tr=28&lb_of=wins_ratio&lb_cd=2018-6-7&lb_sg=all&lb_nick=mnbv_fockewulfe


 

The extrapolation.

The above 1.x population tracker is somewhat inaccurate as there are recorded events of the server breaking 1,000 users after 1.5. Consider 700-900 people a night (representative of 1.7 prime time). Now, it would be a stupid assumption to say that the same 900 people are playing every night. Then you also have to consider all the people who play throughout the day.


 

Spoiler


 

The area under your curve should be the population(?).

I haven't had calculus yet so maybe someone else can enlighten me how to interpret the sample data.

I was thinking of counting the total assuming everyone played 10 battles or an hour's worth of online time.

Which gets you to 7,933 players.
 


 


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


mnbv_fockewulfe #82 Posted 09 June 2018 - 01:36 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 247 battles
  • 2,540
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 June 2018 - 12:48 AM, said:

I don't see how your numbers are anything more than just made up. Igf you have hard numbers from somewhere, I'd love to see them.  It's a longshot WG would  ever bring back 1.x in any form, but 1.4???  Get real.

 

Yes, I did understand the parallel nature of his proposal.  Which is why I suggested that both modes would be diluted.

 

Try reading. If you dilute one mode, you concentrate the other. Diluting both modes doesn't make any sense.

View Postmnbv_fockewulfe, on 09 June 2018 - 12:40 AM, said:

 

Diluting the player base?

What a joke! :D


 

1.4 is brought back on a separate server. The 1.9 population comes back to that game since it nearly all left after 2.0.

The 2.0 population stays on it's server and if it doesn't and switches over to the 1.4 server, the population is still there. If enough people leave the 2.0 server for the 1.4 server that 2.0 becomes unplayable (the game is literally playable with only 50 online), then the population isn't lost but is instead just moved around. You return what you started with and add the population gained from 2.0 and you still have more people playing the game.

Assume 500 vets playing prime time in 1.9 population (a guesstimate 5,000-7,000 players total) plus 500 players prime time 2.0 (4,000-6,000). If a 1.4 server were created, you're adding back the 5,000 players who stopped playing for 2.0. However you're not adding them to the 2.0 gamemode. soshootmenow is suggesting parallel gamemodes. All in all 10,000 people are now playing WOWP and they're free to float between the two modes depending on what events are going on. Throw an event in 2.0 to get some 1.4ers playing and if the players don't like the event (like the last few events *cough*cough*) then they can play 1.4 instead of not playing the game at all.

 


Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 09 June 2018 - 01:47 AM.

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #83 Posted 09 June 2018 - 02:26 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 401 battles
  • 2,797
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View Postmnbv_fockewulfe, on 08 June 2018 - 08:36 PM, said:

 

Try reading. If you dilute one mode, you concentrate the other. Diluting both modes doesn't make any sense.

 

 

it's what happens when you follow bad advice

.

.

. edit: in fact, it's the current path we are taking


Edited by Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo, 09 June 2018 - 03:40 AM.

if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


CorvusCorvax #84 Posted 09 June 2018 - 02:01 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1112 battles
  • 886
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAce_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 09 June 2018 - 02:26 AM, said:

 

it's what happens when you follow bad advice

.

.

. edit: in fact, it's the current path we are taking

 

Folks, try to follow along here.

 

I will make up numbers, to simulate what the claim I'm making here is.  First off, I will make the assumption that if you provide a 1.4, not all the players who left will come back.  They will have moved on to other things, and just never bother to check back.  In fact, I am guessing that the majority of those who have permanently left will not be back.  (For the sake of discussion, those are the folks who left and never check back.)  But, for the sake of argument, I will suggest that 70% of them return.  That 70% will never set foot in the 2.x mode. (again, to make matters simple).  Also, assume that some amount of the current 2.x folks decide they aren't going to play 2.x ever again.  From discussions in the forums, I'm going to say 15% (which I don't believe is even close, the real number is lower.)  Then there are going to be the folks who will play both modes.  (I'm one of those.)  That is the only population where if you dilute one mode, you concentrate the other.  They will play the same amount, but split their time.  The other populations are already set.

 

But here's the deal - even if you drag back 70% of the original players (and I doubt that would be possible) and transfer 15% of the current players permanently, then 10% of the other players go both ways, you still don't have 100% of the original 1.9 population (original population diluted) and you've reduced the population of the new game.  Both populations diluted.  Yes, you have more total players, but maintaining two modes costs more money than maintaining one mode.  So, for that cost, what is the monetary return?  Free game population is an interesting stat, but it doesn't keep the lights on.  Without the cash flow stats, there is really nothing to discuss, because a business decision cannot be made without it.  Even my completely rosy picture of how many of the 1.x crew you could get back doesn't bring that entire population back, and you will have few human players, which will lead to less play (if we are to believe the folks here who prefer human opponents.)

 

 



trikke #85 Posted 09 June 2018 - 04:21 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1729 battles
  • 1,216
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 June 2018 - 10:01 AM, said:

maintaining two modes costs more money than maintaining one mode.  So, for that cost, what is the monetary return?  Free game population is an interesting stat, but it doesn't keep the lights on.  Without the cash flow stats, there is really nothing to discuss, because a business decision cannot be made without it.  Even my completely rosy picture of how many of the 1.x crew you could get back doesn't bring that entire population back, and you will have few human players, which will lead to less play (if we are to believe the folks here who prefer human opponents.)

 

 

yep, too costly to run both even if 100% of the old game folks return, which would never happen 

 

there might be a 3.0 someday, but i doubt it after seeing the latest EU numbers 

 

there could be a DM mode in 2.x in the future, but there will never be a 1.4 again 


Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore

soshootmenow #86 Posted 09 June 2018 - 05:30 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 28 battles
  • 69
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 June 2018 - 02:01 PM, said:

 

Folks, try to follow along here.

 

I will make up numbers, to simulate what the claim I'm making here is.  First off, I will make the assumption that if you provide a 1.4, not all the players who left will come back.  They will have moved on to other things, and just never bother to check back.  In fact, I am guessing that the majority of those who have permanently left will not be back.  (For the sake of discussion, those are the folks who left and never check back.)  But, for the sake of argument, I will suggest that 70% of them return.  That 70% will never set foot in the 2.x mode. (again, to make matters simple).  Also, assume that some amount of the current 2.x folks decide they aren't going to play 2.x ever again.  From discussions in the forums, I'm going to say 15% (which I don't believe is even close, the real number is lower.)  Then there are going to be the folks who will play both modes.  (I'm one of those.)  That is the only population where if you dilute one mode, you concentrate the other.  They will play the same amount, but split their time.  The other populations are already set.

 

But here's the deal - even if you drag back 70% of the original players (and I doubt that would be possible) and transfer 15% of the current players permanently, then 10% of the other players go both ways, you still don't have 100% of the original 1.9 population (original population diluted) and you've reduced the population of the new game.  Both populations diluted.  Yes, you have more total players, but maintaining two modes costs more money than maintaining one mode.  So, for that cost, what is the monetary return?  Free game population is an interesting stat, but it doesn't keep the lights on.  Without the cash flow stats, there is really nothing to discuss, because a business decision cannot be made without it.  Even my completely rosy picture of how many of the 1.x crew you could get back doesn't bring that entire population back, and you will have few human players, which will lead to less play (if we are to believe the folks here who prefer human opponents.)

 

 

 

Hi Corvus

I do understand what you are saying at least in essence. However there are a few additional factors here that come into play.

First, a 1.9 mode does not have to be housed on an additional server to run with a 2.0. As I stated before the box may just need to be upgraded slightly.

Second, Bear in mind that the addition I am describing is a global change. Not just NA. The Russian servers had a substantially higher following in 1.9. Same for the EU server.

Third, The player base for 1.9 appeared to be generally older and with a fair amount more of disposable income. The game format of putting in the time and grinding up the ladder was understood and appealed to the player base there. 2.0 appeals to a more 'jump in and be able to play right away' crowd that seems to be younger. (Granted these are just my impressions....but I don't think I am wrong here.). This is supported by the appeal of the versions to two different player mindset types (as per the surveys and comments).

Fourth, My intention here (as previously stated) was to provide an additional level for newer players to advance to but to do it with 2.0 as the initial level. Thus gaining the aircraft, some of the needed experience, and tactics so they don't get seal-clubbed when they advance to 1.9 mode. Also note that the advancement to 1.9 mode is not required. If 2.0 is the players preference then they would be able to stay and enjoy that version of the game. The same would apply for those that prefer to stay on the 1.9 version or those that would like to float between the two.

Fifth,  Since 2.0 DOES appeal to a particular type of player it therefore still makes it a marketable addition as well as an excellent entry path to the game. The goal is to retain them instead of just creating an endless churn of 'in for a while then gone to the next thing'. Indications are that 2.0 has not shown much in the way of retention beyond 1.9. It seems to get its numbers from a general churn of players.

Sixth,  With two modes WG has an opportunity to embrace both modes and their respective player bases. I have suggested here before that contests & tournaments could be created pitting the two player groups against each other in a (more or less) friendly competition. Each respective player group would take turns playing in the others format (2.0 & 1.9) on an alternating basis for each battle. WG could create an open forum where a (little bit) of smack-talk back and forth could encourage the competition.

Initial Summation,  Whereas the point Corvus  is making is correct and valid, it is effectively based on a static test case model and an assumption of base numbers that do not allow for the dynamics I am including here or the participation and growth potential. There are additional points I have but this will do now for an overall view.


 

Focke, Corvus, Ace, trikke,    Thankyou for your research, efforts, and contributions on this and Thankyou to everyone else contributing to try to finally bring this idea to reality for all those concerned.

        


Edited by soshootmenow, 09 June 2018 - 05:35 PM.


Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #87 Posted 09 June 2018 - 06:14 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 401 battles
  • 2,797
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View Postsoshootmenow, on 09 June 2018 - 12:30 PM, said:

 

Hi Corvus

I do understand what you are saying at least in essence. However there are a few additional factors here that come into play.

First, a 1.9 mode does not have to be housed on an additional server to run with a 2.0. As I stated before the box may just need to be upgraded slightly.

Second, Bear in mind that the addition I am describing is a global change. Not just NA. The Russian servers had a substantially higher following in 1.9. Same for the EU server.

Third, The player base for 1.9 appeared to be generally older and with a fair amount more of disposable income. The game format of putting in the time and grinding up the ladder was understood and appealed to the player base there. 2.0 appeals to a more 'jump in and be able to play right away' crowd that seems to be younger. (Granted these are just my impressions....but I don't think I am wrong here.). This is supported by the appeal of the versions to two different player mindset types (as per the surveys and comments).

Fourth, My intention here (as previously stated) was to provide an additional level for newer players to advance to but to do it with 2.0 as the initial level. Thus gaining the aircraft, some of the needed experience, and tactics so they don't get seal-clubbed when they advance to 1.9 mode. Also note that the advancement to 1.9 mode is not required. If 2.0 is the players preference then they would be able to stay and enjoy that version of the game. The same would apply for those that prefer to stay on the 1.9 version or those that would like to float between the two.

Fifth,  Since 2.0 DOES appeal to a particular type of player it therefore still makes it a marketable addition as well as an excellent entry path to the game. The goal is to retain them instead of just creating an endless churn of 'in for a while then gone to the next thing'. Indications are that 2.0 has not shown much in the way of retention beyond 1.9. It seems to get its numbers from a general churn of players.

Sixth,  With two modes WG has an opportunity to embrace both modes and their respective player bases. I have suggested here before that contests & tournaments could be created pitting the two player groups against each other in a (more or less) friendly competition. Each respective player group would take turns playing in the others format (2.0 & 1.9) on an alternating basis for each battle. WG could create an open forum where a (little bit) of smack-talk back and forth could encourage the competition.

Initial Summation,  Whereas the point Corvus  is making is correct and valid, it is effectively based on a static test case model and an assumption of base numbers that do not allow for the dynamics I am including here or the participation and growth potential. There are additional points I have but this will do now for an overall view.


 

Focke, Corvus, Ace, trikke,    Thankyou for your research, efforts, and contributions on this and Thankyou to everyone else contributing to try to finally bring this idea to reality for all those concerned.

        

hey shootme,

good summation and agreed, Corvus is correct in that highly confined scenario he described

but this is not a static situation as are very few games in the internet

this argument/discussion is moot if we are just talking about 3,000 1.9 players and 3,000 2.0 players...

the game will not (and should not) be around in two years if that is the best that can be achieved...

that would be the definition of failure

.

.

.

whether they know it or not, WG actually is in very good situation (IMVHO)

... putting together a packaged flight game and offering to the public should be the "vision"

also in my belief is:

about 60-80% of both games are stable in design and even more so in programming

need a crew of excellent programmers to come in and finish or rewrite a solid product

need a creative way to blend the two games to make an intuitive path for the new player

once verified as stable and good player retention levels are achieved,

needed advertising blitz with a focused end game and goals for new players

the willy nilly shotgun approach of game design and progression is what landed us where we are now...

 

I too would like to see this game succeed

but the key to that is new players

 

 


Edited by Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo, 09 June 2018 - 06:15 PM.

if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


CorvusCorvax #88 Posted 09 June 2018 - 06:31 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1112 battles
  • 886
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAce_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 09 June 2018 - 06:14 PM, said:

 Corvus is correct in that highly confined scenario he described

 

 

 

My assumptions were about as rosy as you could possibly get, for the "bring back 1.x" crowd.  In reality, the bringback rate will be far less.  In addition, I don't think you're going to get even a 10% bleed of "never come back to 2.x" people.  I think what will happen is both populations will suffer greatly due to the loss of humans playing a particular mode, and that will lead to an overall drop in total people playing the game.

 

If my scenario did not include relevant and game-changing information that would change the calculus significantly, I still haven't seen it.  Yes, the older players might have more disposable income.  But they've already progressed to the point where they aren't spending money to advance.  That feels like a cash-flow wash to me.



Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #89 Posted 09 June 2018 - 08:57 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 401 battles
  • 2,797
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 June 2018 - 01:31 PM, said:

 

My assumptions were about as rosy as you could possibly get, for the "bring back 1.x" crowd.  In reality, the bringback rate will be far less.  In addition, I don't think you're going to get even a 10% bleed of "never come back to 2.x" people.  I think what will happen is both populations will suffer greatly due to the loss of humans playing a particular mode, and that will lead to an overall drop in total people playing the game.

 

If my scenario did not include relevant and game-changing information that would change the calculus significantly, I still haven't seen it.  Yes, the older players might have more disposable income.  But they've already progressed to the point where they aren't spending money to advance.  That feels like a cash-flow wash to me.

 

I'm thinking every blue chip corporate leader should be talking to you about how to improve their market share, product improvements, customer retention, future investments, retirement plans and personal social life as well as spiritual satisfaction...

and I'm being as generous as I can with that remark


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


mnbv_fockewulfe #90 Posted 09 June 2018 - 09:18 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 247 battles
  • 2,540
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 June 2018 - 02:01 PM, said:

 

Folks, try to follow along here.

 

I will make up numbers, to simulate what the claim I'm making here is.  First off, I will make the assumption that if you provide a 1.4, not all the players who left will come back.  They will have moved on to other things, and just never bother to check back.  In fact, I am guessing that the majority of those who have permanently left will not be back.  (For the sake of discussion, those are the folks who left and never check back.)  But, for the sake of argument, I will suggest that 70% of them return.  That 70% will never set foot in the 2.x mode. (again, to make matters simple).  Also, assume that some amount of the current 2.x folks decide they aren't going to play 2.x ever again.  From discussions in the forums, I'm going to say 15% (which I don't believe is even close, the real number is lower.)  Then there are going to be the folks who will play both modes.  (I'm one of those.)  That is the only population where if you dilute one mode, you concentrate the other.  They will play the same amount, but split their time.  The other populations are already set.

 

But here's the deal - even if you drag back 70% of the original players (and I doubt that would be possible) and transfer 15% of the current players permanently, then 10% of the other players go both ways, you still don't have 100% of the original 1.9 population (original population diluted) and you've reduced the population of the new game.  Both populations diluted.  Yes, you have more total players, but maintaining two modes costs more money than maintaining one mode.  So, for that cost, what is the monetary return?  Free game population is an interesting stat, but it doesn't keep the lights on.  Without the cash flow stats, there is really nothing to discuss, because a business decision cannot be made without it.  Even my completely rosy picture of how many of the 1.x crew you could get back doesn't bring that entire population back, and you will have few human players, which will lead to less play (if we are to believe the folks here who prefer human opponents.)

 

 

 

That's a very specific scenario you put forth designed to prove your point in one possibility of many.

I'll grant that you've proved your point, but your point is so entirely specific, that even one percentage off in your assumption changes the outcome dramatically.

Consider this.

I played one battle last night one hour and twenty minutes after the start of the personal points ladder thingy and placed around 570. This means at least 570 people logged on and played at least one battle during prime time last night at around 10:20pm EST.

5:00pm EST today, I placed around 2,200.

This means the average amount of people playing the game in the last 20 hours is only 116 players per hour. Compared to the 378 average of 1.9. If you want comparable hours, the average for my 1.9 sample for 20 hours is 347 starting from 10:00pm to 5:00pm.


 

2.0 is doing more than twice as badly as 1.9. This is abysmal. And because 2.0 obviously non-viable, something should be done.


 

edit: corrected a typo stating 19 hour sample


Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 09 June 2018 - 10:00 PM.

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


CorvusCorvax #91 Posted 09 June 2018 - 09:33 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1112 battles
  • 886
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAce_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 09 June 2018 - 08:57 PM, said:

 

I'm thinking every blue chip corporate leader should be talking to you about how to improve their market share, product improvements, customer retention, future investments, retirement plans and personal social life as well as spiritual satisfaction...

and I'm being as generous as I can with that remark

 

That's very pithy, and yet you still have not provided evidence (never mind actual proof) that somehow having two game modes is going to make money.  The question isn't about how 2.x isn't dragging them in.  The question is how you somehow get the lost sheep back.  Just offering up the other game mode won't make them magically return.

Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #92 Posted 09 June 2018 - 09:37 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 401 battles
  • 2,797
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 June 2018 - 04:33 PM, said:

 

That's very pithy, and yet you still have not provided evidence (never mind actual proof) that somehow having two game modes is going to make money.  The question isn't about how 2.x isn't dragging them in.  The question is how you somehow get the lost sheep back.  Just offering up the other game mode won't make them magically return.

ok... if I can use your scientific logic...

let's call it Corvus Logik:

88% of all people that see what I say will listen to my ideas as facts 100% of the time...

see, I win

 

 


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


mnbv_fockewulfe #93 Posted 09 June 2018 - 09:47 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 247 battles
  • 2,540
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 June 2018 - 09:33 PM, said:

 

That's very pithy, and yet you still have not provided evidence (never mind actual proof) that somehow having two game modes is going to make money.  The question isn't about how 2.x isn't dragging them in.  The question is how you somehow get the lost sheep back.  Just offering up the other game mode won't make them magically return.

 

What about my proofs, eh?
 

1.9 had vastly more players playing and therefore were spending more money than 2.0 is right now.

edit: math magic


 

two possible extrapolations of 2.0 online populations

the blue is 1.9, the orange and grey are last night to today 2.0.


Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 09 June 2018 - 10:25 PM.

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


CorvusCorvax #94 Posted 09 June 2018 - 11:00 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1112 battles
  • 886
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I guess that somehow, by some strange magic that you can't share with us mere mortals, you are going to get those folks to come back.

 

That's why I keep ignoring this "evidence".  Without some way to get those folks back, adding a mode is meaningless. 

 

I will ask a final time - how do you propose to get even a small fraction of those folks to come back?



CorvusCorvax #95 Posted 09 June 2018 - 11:02 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1112 battles
  • 886
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAce_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 09 June 2018 - 09:37 PM, said:

ok... if I can use your scientific logic...

let's call it Corvus Logik:

88% of all people that see what I say will listen to my ideas as facts 100% of the time...

see, I win

 

 

 

Yeah, pithy.  Again, how do you get those folks to come back?  Hmmm?

 

See, that's the "logic" part you are failing.

 



Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #96 Posted 10 June 2018 - 12:03 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 401 battles
  • 2,797
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 June 2018 - 06:02 PM, said:

 

Yeah, pithy.  Again, how do you get those folks to come back?  Hmmm?

 

See, that's the "logic" part you are failing.

 

 

I know, I know... I'm failing at enlightening you to something that is obvious

part of the definition of logic is not insisting that all made up thoughts are facts

I like you rico.... you debate without being an azz... cool dude

.

.

.

the unknown is just that, unknown

to state you are the authority on all that will be in the future is...

well, ridiculous...

I can't debate the extreme limits of your thoughts but I can say you are a good person

peace

 

 


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #97 Posted 10 June 2018 - 12:24 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 401 battles
  • 2,797
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 June 2018 - 06:02 PM, said:

 

Yeah, pithy.  Again, how do you get those folks to come back?  Hmmm?

 

See, that's the "logic" part you are failing.

 

ahhhh, I see... I was being a hard head...

the thought is not to get those players back... no,

it's to get NEW players into the game...

 duh... chasing and appeasing 3k players just to get them back would be stupid

 

 

 


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


soshootmenow #98 Posted 10 June 2018 - 12:25 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 28 battles
  • 69
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

Guys.....let's keep it on the civil side. The goal here is the same for everyone.

As far as bringing people back...well.....the ways would probably be the same for any game and how it was done in the first place. Some adverts here and there, marketing, word of mouth, the forums, Clan websites, small adverts on other WG games, etc.... There is still an already established community here.

If you look at the number of views on this topic as well as the number for previous other related threads there does appear to be quite a bit of interest still. People are paying attention. People are still 'checking back in'. And this would include all of the players that are taking the time to comment, reply, and research items for this topic.

2.0 has brought new players into the game but it just does not look like it is able to keep them for any real length of time and certainly not like 1.9 did. People stayed with that version for years and years.


Edited by soshootmenow, 10 June 2018 - 12:26 AM.


mnbv_fockewulfe #99 Posted 10 June 2018 - 12:53 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 247 battles
  • 2,540
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 June 2018 - 11:00 PM, said:

I guess that somehow, by some strange magic that you can't share with us mere mortals, you are going to get those folks to come back.

 

That's why I keep ignoring this "evidence".  Without some way to get those folks back, adding a mode is meaningless.

 

I will ask a final time - how do you propose to get even a small fraction of those folks to come back?

 

Um, adding the 1.9 mode would bring people back, therefore you're ignoring my evidence that 2.0 is nonviable?

He he...

nice straw man


 


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


CorvusCorvax #100 Posted 10 June 2018 - 12:53 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1112 battles
  • 886
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAce_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 10 June 2018 - 12:24 AM, said:

ahhhh, I see... I was being a hard head...

the thought is not to get those players back... no,

it's to get NEW players into the game...

 duh... chasing and appeasing 3k players just to get them back would be stupid

 

 

 

 

And how will a return to 1.4 accomplish that, hmmm?

 

No kidding chasing those previous players would be stupid.  I made that fairly clear already.  If you can't get new players to play 2.0, how will 1.4 attract some unidentified group?  All this stuff is predicated on some additional players somehow showing up.  And playing two modes, because they aren't going to abandon 2.x. No matter how you slice this pie, you still get less.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users