Jump to content


frontline is going to fail just like rampage


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

Pipinghot #41 Posted Apr 17 2017 - 14:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 25799 battles
  • 6,779
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 12 2017 - 15:52, said:

the big failure with frontline and rampage is that they were separate game modes.

Disagree with that. The real failure was that Rampage was to expensive, even skilled players were losing credits, which means that low-to-average skilled players were bleeding credits.

 

Lots of people were happy to have a separate mode to play, until they realized it was hurting their credit balance, then they instantly abandoned it in droves.



cheapbooks #42 Posted Apr 17 2017 - 15:24

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29409 battles
  • 788
  • [CBKS] CBKS
  • Member since:
    08-21-2013

you said: "Lots of people were happy to have a separate mode to play"

 

this is just absolutely not true. there are so many businesses and products and games that failed because the business segregated its user base. the AW tank game I hear has that problem, they made new game modes that had separate queues which create long wait times and then they lose users. if encounter mode, assault / defend, were taken out of random battles, and were separate modes, no one would play them and they would die. if rampage were part of random battles, we would still be playing it today, the matchmaker would have queued up teams to play, no problem.

 

when there are few people on the NA servers, you often get put into 7 vs 7 games. it probably happens every day, I had it happen often.

 

need to complete a mission, seal clubbing? play a tier 10 tank at 6:30am when they restart the server. you get great tier 10 matchmaking. because there are only 2,000 people online. but it sucks for everyone else.


 

rampage was only too expensive depending on the tanks you played, you r account status, and your consumable and ammo selection. I played it without concern for credit cost.


 

last of all, most users were unaware of the fact that there was a separate rampage game mode.



Rusticles #43 Posted Apr 17 2017 - 17:05

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 23501 battles
  • 33
  • [2MEF] 2MEF
  • Member since:
    01-15-2012

I have very little to agree with in this post. Primarily because it is in "Sandbox" and thus under development. Most of what I saw in this post seemed to be from an individual bent on bashing "frontline" with little or no true input. Nothing seems to be good enough and not to his liking. Try actually playing it until you understand how to utilize the terrain, repair points, and respawns properly.

 

As for the rest of the suggestions... well, getting rid of attacker and defender and replacing them with multiple respawn points around the perimeter and several flags seems a bit much like and overblown version of a combined capture the flag mode and attack and defense (which the game already has one of each). 

As for using us as guinea pigs... well, the idea is to get our input to make it more of what we want as players. If you don't want to be a GP... don't play the "sandbox" and learn to live with what you get.



Pipinghot #44 Posted Apr 18 2017 - 06:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 25799 battles
  • 6,779
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 17 2017 - 09:24, said:

you said: "Lots of people were happy to have a separate mode to play"

 

this is just absolutely not true.

It's interesting how your "absolutely not true" doesn't match the reality that existed at the time. For the first week getting into Rampage battles was very quick and easy, and even for the second week the queue ran fairly quickly. At the beginning lots of people were happy to have a separate mode to play, the statement still stands.

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 17 2017 - 09:24, said:

there are so many businesses and products and games that failed because the business segregated its user base.

That's a delightful red herring, but it doesn't change the fact that there were tons of people in the Rampage queue at first.

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 17 2017 - 09:24, said:

the AW tank game I hear has that problem, they made new game modes that had separate queues which create long wait times and then they lose users.
Another red herring what happens, or happened, in AW has nothing to do with what happened here, you might as well be talking about LoL or CS:Go, because they're all not WoT Rampage.

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 17 2017 - 09:24, said:

if encounter mode, assault / defend, were taken out of random battles, and were separate modes, no one would play them and they would die.
We agree on that, which still says nothing about Rampage, because Rampage didn't have that problem, large numbers of people welcomed it enthusiastically until they saw how bad the credit flow was.

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 17 2017 - 09:24, said:

rampage was only too expensive depending on the tanks you played, you r account status, and your consumable and ammo selection. I played it without concern for credit cost.

I didn't lose credits either, but lots of people did. That was the most common complaint about it on the forums.

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 17 2017 - 09:24, said:

last of all, most users were unaware of the fact that there was a separate rampage game mode.

Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but you're just making it up out of thin air, you have no evidence one way or the other. And even if you're hypotheticaly right, it doesn't change the fact that there were plenty of people playing at first, until large numbers of them experienced cash flow problems.



rich73 #45 Posted Apr 18 2017 - 06:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 40544 battles
  • 4,531
  • Member since:
    10-17-2011
...we dont have the population for this mode here.

cheapbooks #46 Posted Apr 18 2017 - 07:03

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29409 battles
  • 788
  • [CBKS] CBKS
  • Member since:
    08-21-2013

you said: "there were tons of people in the Rampage queue at first."

 

 

the above statement is irrelevant. nobody wants wargaming to make a new game mode that is usable for just a few weeks.

 

I gave very specific reasons why rampage and frontline both are failed game modes.

 


 

you said: "Try actually playing it"

 

I have been playing it for a while, and I have played about 75 games. the game is fun to play but it will fail because it is a separate game mode. after the first few weeks, there will not be enough people to play.

 

I will give another example. many years ago, perhaps in 1996, I used to have a chat web site. I had about 1,500 people visit the chat web site per day.

 

I never saw more than 1 person in the chat room.

 

there are 1440 minutes in every day.

 

12:00:00 person connects to chat

12:00:10 after 10 seconds, person leaves because no one was there

12:01:00 2nd person enters chat

12:01:10 2nd person leaves chat because no one was there

... all day long. 1,500 people per day visiting a chat web site was not enough because they didn't all log in at the same time.

 

the same thing caused rampage to fail and will cause frontline to fail. there will not be enough people queuing in at the same time to keep the game running 24 hours a day because they will instead be queuing into random battles

 


 



Pipinghot #47 Posted Apr 18 2017 - 22:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 25799 battles
  • 6,779
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2017 - 01:03, said:

you said: "there were tons of people in the Rampage queue at first."

True.

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2017 - 01:03, said:

the above statement is irrelevant. nobody wants wargaming to make a new game mode that is usable for just a few weeks.

Your claim of irrelevancy will only be true if the game mode is only usable for a few weeks. On the other hand, if they do things right (by fixing the issues with the economy in Frontline) then your criticisms will be irrelevant. Only time will tell. Keep in mind, I'm agreeing that you might be right about one thing, it might indeed become a failed mode, where we're disagreeing is that you're severely misdiagnosing the problems that caused Rampage to fail.

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2017 - 01:03, said:

I gave very specific reasons why rampage and frontline both are failed game modes.

And your description of Rampage's history is erroneous, and your reasons for Rampage's failure are wrong, which means that your pre-analysis that Frontline will fail may also be wrong. It all depends on whether WG has learned that the credit economy is critical to the success or failure of game modes.

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2017 - 01:03, said:

you said: "Try actually playing it"

No, that wasn't me. It would help you to use quotes from previous posts so you can remember who you're talking to.

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2017 - 01:03, said:

I have been playing it for a while, and I have played about 75 games. the game is fun to play but it will fail because it is a separate game mode. after the first few weeks, there will not be enough people to play.
And we're going to continue to disagree on that point. Your assessment of the failure of Rampage is wrong, and therefore your reasoning for the potential failure of Frontline is flawed, at best. You might be right that it's going to fail, but that doesn't mean that you've assessed the underlying reasons correctly. As they say, even a broken clock is right twice day. You can potentially be right about the failure of Frontline even though your reasons are wrong.

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2017 - 01:03, said:

I will give another example. many years ago, perhaps in 1996, I used to have a chat web site. I had about 1,500 people visit the chat web site per day.

 

I never saw more than 1 person in the chat room.

 

there are 1440 minutes in every day.

 

12:00:00 person connects to chat

12:00:10 after 10 seconds, person leaves because no one was there

12:01:00 2nd person enters chat

12:01:10 2nd person leaves chat because no one was there

... all day long. 1,500 people per day visiting a chat web site was not enough because they didn't all log in at the same time.

You seem to have this strange problem in your thinking, you think that people who disagree with you don't understand what you're saying, that's false. Your comparison to an chat room from 1996 is patently absurd, you might as well start your story with "one time at band camp" because the point you are trying to make is Oh. So. Painfully. Obvious. Everyone gets what you are saying, there is no possible room for confusion or misunderstanding. I understand deep down in my bones the point you are trying to make about Rampage - and I'm still saying that you're wrong. Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree, but your series of godawfully obvious comparisons are not going to change my mind about your reasoning, because I maintain that you are starting your argument from a fundamentally flawed premise.

View Postcheapbooks, on Apr 18 2017 - 01:03, said:

the same thing caused rampage to fail and will cause frontline to fail. there will not be enough people queuing in at the same time to keep the game running 24 hours a day because they will instead be queuing into random battles

I guess only time will tell.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users