Jump to content

Highest Reputation Content

#245502 *Discontinued* DrSinister's Mod Pak Installer v1.11.0 for Patch

Posted DrSinister on 04 July 2013 - 12:43 AM

DrSinister's Mod Pak Installer v1.11.0

Ready for Patch


***This mod pak is discontinued***


Goto WoWp 2.0 Mod Pak thread



Auto Installer v 1.11.0

(This link goes to an external site now).


For this version of my Auto Installer:

1.  There is no "click/hover of item in list to see full details of the mod," you will have to reference the screenshots/videos on Post 1 of this thread. This will come at a later time (if I can figure it out).


To Install:

1. Download the Auto Installer above.

2. Follow the instructions within the Installer.


To Uninstall:

1.  An uninstaller for my Auto Installer gets placed into the root directory for WoWp (C:\Games\World_of_Warplanes folder is default).  Do not click on the Uninstaller that has the WoWp logo, that is for WoWp.


Clear Wargaming Cache .Bat file


Mod List:
Pilot Dismissal Mod - Jeykll_n_Hyde (thread Currently Not Working
Multi-Region Mod US Version - DrSinister  Currently Not Working
Lead Indicator & Ground/Air Target Icons (if you do not want the indicator to resize uncheck it in Game's Settings screen)​:
  • Old Red, Green (3 Sizes), Pink Dot (2 Sizes) - DrSinister.  These replace the Green, White, Violet, Blue, Black, Orange Lead Indicators in the Settings menu.  (Image)
  • Green (3 sizes) & Magenta Dot (2 sizes) Lead + Blue Skull Air Target Icon - DrSinister (Image + Image)
  • Green (3 sizes) & Magenta Dot (2 sizes) Lead Only - DrSinister (Image)
  • Cyan Lead Indicator - Zapperguy (Image)
  • Cyan Lead Indicator - Zapperguy + Blue Skull Air Target Icon - DrSinister (Image & Image)
  • Blue Skull Air Target Icon Only - DrSinister (Image)
  • Smaller Stock Lead Indicators & Blue Skulls - DrSinister (Image & Image)
  • Smaller Stock Lead Indicators Only - DrSinister (Image)

Attitude Indicators:

  • Gradient Colored - DrSinister
  • Gradient Colored v1 - DrSinister (Video)
  • Thin Gradient Colored - DrSinister 
  • Attitude Indicator 4 v1 - roxblnfk (Image) broken

Colored Bullets:

  • Cyan - DrSinister
  • Magenta - DrSinister
  • Purple - DrSinister
  • Red - DrSinister
  • Magenta (13mm and lower Caliber) and Green (20mm + Caliber) - DrSinister

Camera Mods:

  • DrSinister
  • DrSinister v2 (Video)
  • Greyest
  • Hootorez
  • Zapperguy - Joystick Only

Colored Tracers:

  • Black - DrSinister
  • Bright Red - DrSinister (Video)
  • Lighter Red - DrSinister
  • Gray - DrSinister


  • DrSinister 1.9 (Image)
  • Hootorez (updated by Pigeon_Kicker) (Image)

Frames Around Planes (Picture)

Hootorez's Radar Skin (Video)

HUD Markers:

Reticle Fix (the numbers are how much lower the reticle is lowered from the center unmodded is 7680):

The different numbers are for people to fine tune fix of the reticle, each person has different perception of what they feel is centered, so that is why I made what you see below.  The 2 that I hear most people like are 7830 or 7835, so I would use them as a starting point and then adjust from there.

  • 7800
  • 7805
  • 7810
  • 7815
  • 7820
  • 7825
  • 7830 (These 2 are what most people like)
  • 7835 (These 2 are what most people like)
  • 7840
  • 7845
  • 7850
  • 7900 (Old version from past)


Change Logs:


#262608 GeorgePatton's 'State of the Game' 7.28.2013

Posted GeorgePatton on 28 July 2013 - 06:54 PM

Dear Community Members,

TL:DR at the bottom... but please, if possible read the whole thing. I really need community support on these issues.

As an avid fan of anything aviation related, I am very excited to see a free-to-play combat aviation themed game being produced by one of my favorite game studios! I have been waiting for World of Warplanes since I was about 12 years old. World of Warplanes isn't just another air combat game, World of Warplanes is redefining the entire air combat genre. This is why it is important that World of Warplanes be made as awesome as possible.

So, now that that's out of the way, I'll give a short introduction on myself...

I'm (obviously) an aviation nut. I've played everything from Red Ace Squadron to Aces High II. For those of you who don't follow the genre, that is everything from totally arcade to full-real simulator. I am currently working towards getting my Private Pilot's License and have approximately 36 hours of real-world flying experience. I have flown a Diamond DA-20, Piper Cherokee, Piper Archer II, Cessna 152, and a Cessna  172. I have also soloed in a Cessna 172.

I do not wish for this game to become a flight simulator. There are plenty of those out there already. If I wanted to play a flight simulator, I would go play Aces High II or something similar. I want World of Warplanes to become what it was advertised as, the ultimate hybrid of simulator and arcade.

As a tester who has invested a lot of time in World of Warplanes from the earliest stages of Alpha Testing until now; I would like to bring my opinions on the state of the game and the direction the Developers are taking it to both the community and the developers. Please bear in mind as you read this that this is MY OPINION. I am entitled to have my opinions, and everyone else is entitled to have theirs. If you agree or disagree, please state why/why not and make this discussion useful. My last topic like this got closed due to some closed minded people spamming about Warthunder being better. Let's please keep this one alive and helpful!

So, without further ado, we will get down to business!

World of Warplanes' main focus has until recently been on player skill. In many cases it was possible to destroy an aircraft of a higher tier in an aircraft of much lower tier. Not so any more. Some of you may say this is as it should be, however, when we take a deeper look of what makes it work the way it currently works (which I agree a lower tier plane should have a VERY hard time destroying a higher tier plane...) it will quickly become obvious what issues we are running into. In my opinion, there are four main issues we need to look at; Aircraft Tiers, Flight Physics, Control Issues, and Randomization. I will outline each below.

Aircraft tiers - that touchy subject which Wargaming.net really doesn't want us to talk about too much... The aircraft in World of Warplanes were placed in their initial tiers before they were even created. This means they were pretty much abstractly matched at specific tiers. What is the issue with this? The issue is four-fold.
  • Aircraft performance is being tweaked to fit the planes into the tiers they were originally set in. This means that some aircraft get a large buff from what they could realistically accomplish, and some are getting massive nerfs to make them stay where the developers want them without being OP. This obviously results in people being disappointed by the aircraft if they knew anything about the real aircraft. While this is secondary, it is a valid consideration and in no way affects my original point on this topic.
  • Weapon statistics are being changed to try to equalize aircraft which should not be facing each other. Again, this shouldn't be an issue if the planes are matched at the correct tiers.
  • It perpetuates the false idea that World of Warplanes is supposed to be a 'World War II Game'. The developers are trying to match planes that actually fought against each other in the same tiers for 'historical reasons'. This makes the continuity of gameplay an issue when you get to around tier 8. You begin to see aircraft that feel out of place as until then, the focus has been on World War II.
  • Military aircraft designs are based on getting a 'one-up' on your opponent. This means that one nation would create an 'OP plane' which would rule the skies until the next nation made an even more 'OP plane' that made the original 'OP plane' under-powered.
Flight Physics - The topic nobody seems to be able to agree on. If you don't agree with me here, that is perfectly fine. I have had disagreements with a lot of people about this topic. I still believe that there is a good balance we can achieve here and that is what I'd like to work towards in this section.
  • Altitude compression is really messing the game up. It creates a lot of 'traffic jams' in the combat zone that wouldn't be there if the altitude scaled correctly. It also ends up making vertical maneuvers drastically change your aircraft effectiveness due to the optimal altitude zones being so small which again is due to the whole altitude compression system. Also, if you think about it, we have vertical compression, but NOT horizontal compression. This means that for everything to feel realistic, our aircraft will make MUCH larger loops than they should since they loop, etc at the same scale as they turn... this means that we will go up a lot higher than we should during a loop, and also go down a lot more than we should. This results in a bad trade of energy for altitude as it is much harder to get up than down. Altitude compression really needs to go. (Yes, this means maps need to be larger so they don't look stupid.)
  • Roll response should be re-considered. This in my opinion is one of the most frustrating aspects of the current flight model. For some reason, Wargaming.net decided it would be a good idea to make the roll rates very slow. This results in the game not conveying the adrenaline rush of air combat properly in my opinion. Is it realistic? In some cases yes, but in others no. Is it fun? Most definitely not. If anyone has watched the trailers for World of Warplanes, they will quickly notice that the aircraft portrayed in the trailer really convey the adrenaline rush of air combat, and it is through the speed and maneuverability of the aircraft in the trailer that this is properly conveyed. Why would you create a trailer that shows fast-paced action and then make a game that feels like World of Flying Bricks? It doesn't add up. I have been talking to the developers about this for over a year and have only seen backward progress. This needs to change.
  • Stalls - I should really call them 'loss of momentum/falling out of the sky' because that's pretty much what they are. Stalls are not really effected by the aircraft's center of gravity, which makes them very un-predictable. Seriously, there is something wrong when it is easier to stall/recover a plane in real life than it is in a game which is supposedly taking  the hard parts out of flying. Stalls need to be simplified to a quick drop of the nose when the aircraft stalls. Not very realistic, but it gives the basic idea of a stall and is very easy to recover from. No spins, no snaps, just a simple quick nose drop which would automatically initiate a recovery. Get rid of the 'mush' and control slop just before the stall and just bring the stall on as quickly as possible. Right now it is more a combination of a tail slide and a stall and a hammer-head turn. Any one of these three things could be the main contributing factor in any situation, which makes it very un-predictable which = hard to understand which = not much fun.
  • Aircraft speed, plain and simple, our planes need to go faster. Nobody likes flying around at what feels like 50 mph. It just isn't fun. When close to the ground (50m and lower) we shouldn't really be able to see what the terrain looks like directly beside us. The terrain should be going by so quickly we wouldn't be able to focus on it very well. I'm not seeing anything like this in World of Warplanes. Wargaming didn't even attempt to make a motion-blur effect to give us the illusion of speed. This also should be changed. Preferably without the blur effect, but even that would be better than nothing. (Just saying that this will not benefit people with lower end computers if the motion-blur effect is used instead of actually speeding the planes up.) Also, increasing aircraft speed would make effective use of the terrain possible as at those speeds a pilot with the skill to fly close to the ground would in most cases be likely to shake his/her pursuer or cause him/her to crash.
Controls, the issue that has been fixed, broken, fixed, broken, and then 'fixed' again...
  • Mouse 0.4.1 - I don't really know what is going on with this one, I cannot even begin to imagine how to use it. I have tried it several times and every time gave up in utter frustration. I simply cannot follow what is going on with my mouse while I try to fight other aircraft and evade most of the enemy team which somehow always manages to find out where I like to be.
  • 'Mouse' - what used to be called 'World of Tanks Mouse'... I really enjoy this mouse mode when flying my ground attack aircraft. It is much more precise than the keyboard or joystick when trying to aim at a motionless target. It is absolutely terrible for air-to-air combat, but is awesome for air-to-ground operations. The automated processes in the controls file do not properly recognize roll/loop inputs and will often combine them in a very un-expected way. This is a very minor issue in the ground attack role (which I'm pretty sure it was designed for) but can cause major issues in air-to-air combat.
  • Keyboard - the keyboard controls are decent, pretty much what you would expect from a flying game. Unfortunately there isn't really much that can be done to improve the keyboard controls unless somebody designs a vacuum-tube keyboard that could have more than a simple I/O operating method.
  • Joysticks - joysticks are absolutely horrible. They were improved drastically with the inclusion of custom curves, but the response is still very much sub-par. Anyone who has played any flying game using a joystick will agree that there is no other game out there that does not let you aim properly with a joystick. I think the Developers should get a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator X, or any other version of Flight Simulator post 1998 and see how the joystick controls the plane with the flight model set as un-realistically as possible. (Because I don't want y'all to think I'm trying to turn this game into a sim...) THAT is how joystick response should feel. Anything else is un-acceptable.
  • Sadly I have absolutely no experience with a game controller so I will have to leave that out of my topic.
Randomization - probably the single most hated 'feature' of World of Warplanes. Random gun dispersion, random chance to blow a wing/tail/engine off, etc.
What is wrong with randomization? It removes player skill from the game. If I wanted to play a game that had nothing to do with skill, I would go play the lottery. So, I will address my main concerns with randomization.
  • Gun Dispersion is a randomization technique Wargaming is using to attempt to either compensate for lag, or to 'even the playing field'. This is extremely frustrating for decent to good pilots as it absolutely ruins a good attack and can even cost your aircraft in some situations. It voids the skill of being able to hold a perfect lead on a target as your bullets do not even go where you are aiming them all the time. This in my opinion is un-acceptable. I believe that the dispersion from your guns should come from the convergence distance of your guns. This should be player-modifiable within a specific range. See the diagram below for details.
What would this accomplish? Implementing a gun-convergence distance that is player-modifiable would create the 'gun dispersion' that Wargaming is looking to implement in a consistent, predictable way that would not affect player skill. It would allow for the customization of play-style to almost anything a player could ask for as it would be completely customizable to the player's style. If a player likes to get in extremely close before shooting at an opponent, they would set their convergence distance to something like 150-200m. If they like to shoot from far out, they would set it to something like 700m. Anything outside of about a 100m buffer zone (50 meters ahead of, and 50 meters behind the convergence point) would have too much gun dispersion to be effective. Players could still achieve hits and deal damage, but the main weight of fire would not be focused on the opponent's aircraft. (Which is what gun dispersion currently effects in-game.) This would create approximately a 50m 'sweet spot' where almost all of your fire hits your target if you aim correctly. This is consistent with real air combat and makes the game more fun.
  • Random chance for critical damage is also very frustrating. Just like in tanks, you cannot aim at a module and deliberately destroy it. You have to get lucky with the random number generator to get a critical hit that actually is a critical hit. The odds of getting a critical hit in World of Warplanes is obviously a little better than in tanks, but it is still frustrating nonetheless. Please note, the chances of being able to deliberately aim at a module in World of Warplanes is MUCH lower than in World of Tanks due to the speed of the aircraft relative to each other as well, so there should be less 'random' about this than in Tanks simply because of that fact. The random is already there because of the nature of air combat.
So, if the world was perfect, and Wargaming.net would create the game exactly how I would envision it, what would be the result? (sarcasm turned on there about the world being perfect...) World of Warplanes would represent almost all aspects of aviation in an easy to understand package that would give the average gamer a fun game to play that is easy to learn, but hard to master, and it would give the mainly sim guys a fun game to play when they get tired of flying straight-up sims and want some quick action. This would be accomplished by removing the 'slush' from stalls, speeding up all aircraft, re-tiering the aircraft by their capabilities, fixing the control issues, getting rid of altitude compression, increasing roll rates in almost all aircraft (un-realistic, but more fun), and making everything feel more fluid.
If you support any of these ideas, please let the developers know! I have been asking for these changes to be made for about a year now, and I am always being told that we need more support from the community to have stuff like this implemented. I know a lot of you may be comfortable with the way things are now, but the game is not really drawing many people at this point, and there is probably a good explanation for that. Please show some support and post in this thread or +1 this post to show that there is support for this idea!


#232101 When Do I Get My GOLD!?

Posted hathore on 16 June 2013 - 08:10 PM


Since many threads were made and some information is hard to find, I decided to make a separate one for the  events from last week..

When do I get my gold?

We will be sent the results for these events on Monday, the 17th.

They will be processed at that time.

Your gold should be delivered 2 weeks from Monday, so around July 2nd.

Sorry, but this is not an automated event, and must be done manually.

Thanks for understanding!

#152324 November Creative Contest Finalists

Posted Major_Rampage on 30 November 2012 - 05:06 AM



#200342 How To: Skinning Your Planes

Posted SdKfz_181 on 14 April 2013 - 05:16 AM

Posted Image

Ok, this'll be my big all encompassing guide to skinning. To help make it easier to read I'll just go through the process, stopping to explain bits as I go along. Please note: Do read the entire thing, there's some important notes at the end. Anyway, on with the show.

Necessary Software
First off , you'll need some sort of photo editing software that is capable of working with .dds files. The majority of editing software doesn't come WITH the capability of editing .dds files, and for those you will need plugins. Some that come to mind are Gimp, Paint.net and Photoshop, Gimp and Paint.net being freeware and Photoshop costing, well... a lot. Here are a few links to guide you to the proper software:

Gimp (the actual program): http://www.gimp.org/
Gimp (the .dds plugin): http://registry.gimp.org/node/70
Photoshop (the .dds plugin): https://developer.nv...adobe-photoshop
Paint.net (the actual program): http://www.getpaint.net/ (Direct .dds support, does not require plugins)

Obviously I can't link you to the actual program Photoshop, as that's what we call pirating, and that is bad. There may be a trial version however.

You will also need a program to extract the .dds files from the .pkg files that the game uses, as well as repackage your modified .dds files back into the .pkg files. The only ones that come to mind for me are 7zip and Winrar, 7zip being open source software and Winrar being a payed for program, but having a trial time period that you could use. Here's link for those as well:

7zip: http://www.7-zip.org/
Winrar: http://www.win-rar.c...nload.html?&L=0

For the rest of this guide everything you see will be done with Photoshop and Winrar, as that's what I use, though I'd imagine the other programs work pretty similar. Installing everything should be pretty simple so I'm not going to go through that process.

Locating the .dds Files
First off, after you've got your necessary software installed (if you didn't already have it), your going to need to locate the .dds files for the plane you want to skin. For this guide I'll be using the Bf 109 G, since it's the only plane I've FULLY skinned so far.

Navigate to where the .pkg files are located (mine are a little different since I didn't install in the default location, but you'll get the idea) and copy it to, for example, your desktop.

Next, change the file extension from .pkg to .zip, and select yes when it gives you the warning about changing file extensions. (A note on this: Alex mentioned that you do not have to change the file extension, but that you can simply extract the files using whatever extraction software your using.)
SGuide012.jpg SGuide013.jpg

Now, using the extraction software we've got we simply extract the files. I always use the "extract to (insert file destination here)" method, as I find it's the easiest, and I can always move the folder/files around afterwards.

Now we've got all those folders with all those .dds files. (Mind you I've got some extra .psd files from previously working on skins.)

Editing the .dds Files
Let's go ahead and open the GR11_BF109G_hangar file (default skin file). You can do that by opening it through your photo editing software or, since we installed the .dds plugins, simply double click the file. (You may have to right click the file, select properties, and make whatever program your using the default for this to work, and if you do if makes life much easier.)

Once the program starts up and the file opens you'll get a little box like this. Make sure you open the file at the default sizes.

Now you've got your skin open in your photo editing software and your free do play with it as much as you want, just make sure you don't rotate it, or it will look all sorts of weird in game because nothing will match up right. Then when your done playing around with it, simply save it over the currently existing .dds file.
SGuide018.jpg SGuide019.jpg

When you go to save it you'll get yet another dialogue box like this. Make sure you've got everything set like I do in this picture. (It's all default so I'd imagine Gimp users can just leave everything defaulted.)

Repackaging the .dds Files
Now we go ahead and open our extracting/packaging software, locate, and open the games .pkg archive.
SGuide001.jpg SGuide002.jpg SGuide003.jpg SGuide004.jpg

When your locating the .pkg archives within your extracting/packaging software you'll have to make sure it's looking for all file types, as the .pkg files may not show up otherwise. Once you do that you'll be able to see the .pkg file.
SGuide005.jpg SGuide006.jpg

Now, still within the extraction/packaging software, we navigate to where the .dds file is located.
SGuide007.jpg SGuide008.jpg SGuide009.jpg SGuide010.jpg

Now you'll click and drag the .dds file you modified pretty much anywhere in the folder you have open with your extraction/packaging software, with the exception of into one of those top three folders.

Now you'll get one last dialogue box. Make sure you have everything set like I do. (Aka: The default way.)

That's it, now your ready to go fly your pretty new plane!

Final Notes (Notes with dates have been added at a later time, just putting the dates there to make new ones easier to find.)
Please note that you should not have WoWP open while doing all this. Aside from the demand on your computer, you won't be able to repackage your .dds files if it's open. It should also be noted that you need to back up your original .pkg files in case you mess anything up.

I have heard that some planes are not skinnable. I however have not yet run into this problem, though I have not skinned every plane in the game, so you may come across one that you can't. I have also run into problems with blanking out the country insignia, kill markers, unit numbers, and the other common files. The last time I tried messing with them I broke something or other and had to resort to reinstalling to fix the issue. (My fault for not backing anything up.)

It does not SEEM that changing the image size of the .dds file affects the skin, at least not increasing it, as long as you go in multiples rather than decimals. For example, I was able to 4x the size of the P-51A skin with no problem, albiet a huge file size. Another note on that as well, keep in mind if you do increase the size of the image, the greatly increases the size of the file, therefore decreasing game performance. Testing it on the 51A, when I 4x'ed the image, the file size shot up to roughly 30mb, though it does look better. Just something to keep in mind.

I take no responsibility for broken games. Modding any game is a risk, but if you do it properly everything should be fine.

Have any questions? Feel free to ask. Also, if there is any way I can improve this guide, please do let me know, as this is an ongoing project of mine.

Lastly, a big thanks goes out to DrSinister for helping me figure out how to get skins to work in WoWP.

#152321 November Creative Contest Finalists

Posted Major_Rampage on 30 November 2012 - 05:05 AM



#73565 Mouse Control: follow a carrot on a stick ! no thx

Posted Erazor on 05 June 2012 - 11:22 PM

This game is unflyable with the mouse in it's current state.
Im a good pilot on BF3, and Im using the exact same configuration as BF3 for controls in WoWP but those planes are uncontrollable.
The weirdest thing is that green vector+dot. You dont control your plane, you make it follow a carrot on a stick which gives a terrible sensation of laggyness and unprecision.
I don't know who had this terrible idea but you need to get rid of that garbage, or at least give us the possibility of controlling our plane like in BF3 with the mouse.
We want our mouse to "be" the plane and respond to it's movement immediatly, not this horrible thing you invented.

im not flying again untill this is fixed.

#713641 Steelseries free planes giveaway...

Posted SlickChickII on 04 January 2018 - 06:12 PM

They are giving away codes for the following:

  • Vehicles/Planes:
    • Curtiss P-40 M-105 (U.S.S.R.)
    • Messerschmitt Me 209 V4 (Germany)        
    • Vickers Venom (U.K.)
    • Bell XFL-1 Airabonita (U.S.A.) 
    • Curtiss Tomahawk IIb (China)
  • Premium Time: 3 Days
  • Credits: 500,000 
    Enjoy ! Link below..

#351932 Holiday Gold Giveaway ~~ 5 winners, 1250 gold each!

Posted Haswell on 18 December 2013 - 02:46 AM

Free Gold Giveaway!
Just 7 days left until December 24, there’s no better time than now to host an event that gives back to the forum community for your support.  With the addition of discounts when purchasing premium vehicles this month, nobody can deny the upsides of receiving free gold for little to no effort.
So here it goes: everybody who posts in this thread will be eligible to enter a raffle of 5 winners. Every participant will be assigned a number for the draw. Winners will be determined through http://www.random.org/ . Each of these 5 winners will receive 1250 gold delivered as a gift from the Wargaming.net Premium Shop at my personal expense.
Note that this event is entirely organized and sponsored by myself, and is not affiliated with Community in any way other than in the form of this forum thread.
-all participants must post at least once in this thread to be eligible for this raffle. I don’t care what your post is about, or if it gets hammered with red text all over. I only look for names in this thread.
-posts submitted after December 23, 23:59 PST will not be counted towards the draw list. You can spam posts all you want during and after this raffle, so as long as your first post is submitted before the deadline.
-each participant is only eligible to win once
-multiple posts will not increase your chances of winning
-post reputation has no effect on your chances of winning
-the RNG does not discriminate. Please don't try to argue this raffle is rigged, it's about as transparent as I can get it to be.
-winners will be announced after December 23, but no later than December 26
-gold will be distributed to the winners after December 23, but no later than December 31 (just in case PlaySpan decides derp on the transactions)
Good luck to all!

#141904 Dev Feedback: Flight Model, What's broke and how to fix it.

Posted CrashTailspin on 07 November 2012 - 02:49 AM

Flight Model, What's broke and how to fix it.

Here we go.  Make sure you seat backs and tray tables are in their full upright and locked position...
  • There needs to be a sensation of speed, which we're not getting right now.  This may have to do with the relationship of the scale of objects to aircraft.  On National Park, for example, trees feel HUGE compared to the aircraft.  I mean c'mon, they're not Sequoias or Redwoods.  If I'm going over 200mph those trees should be whizzing by like mad, not lazily plodding past like a guy on a bicycle.  At 400mph, low-level, I shouldn't even be able to SEE trees.  It should just be just a green blur.
    • Making the plane shake does NOT imply the feeling of an increase in speed.  It's an annoyance.  It throws off my aim.
    • The zooming in during acceleration works....kind of.
  • Roll inertia is getting better, but it needs to increase more, meaning fighters with "clean" wings should have a more rapid instantaneous roll rate, and bomb- and rocket-laden aircraft should have a drastically reduced instantaneous roll rate.  This would have the side benefit of making people think twice before loading their F4U or La-5 with rockets, bombs, etc.
  • As previously stated, the ceiling needs to be raised, and aircraft performance compensated as such.  The fear that the combat will take place at higher altitudes will be negated by the fact that aircraft will still be attacking ground targets at low-level, and therefore fighters will be forced to either fly low to take these aircraft out or suffer their consequences.
  • Speed loss in a turn still needs to be more.  In a near knife-edge turn, at full power, with flaps deployed, I should still be losing speed, not maintaining it.  I have been forced to "fly the game" rather than "fly the plane" because of this.
  • Stalls need to be abrupt.  Like 1,000% moreso than they are now.  These are big, heavy fighters.  They don't wallow.  They don't "get mushy" when they stall.  They break, and they break hard, and they usually DO NOT break straight ahead when they stall.  Heck, I've had a Piper Arrow break from a stall and nearly spin on me harder than a Corsair stalls in-game (background:  the Piper Arrow III is a notoriously stable single-engine aircraft, whereas the Corsair, improperly flown, could spin very easily).
  • Rudder effectiveness needs to increase nearly 100%.  If I tromp on a rudder in a big fighter such as the ones in-game, the nose should displace at least 20-30% immediately, and continue displacing (at a reduced rate) as long as I hold down the rudder.  Currently it displaces about 10% immediately, and then slows down to about 2-3 degrees per second.  This is laughable.  Also, there is no roll due to yaw.  Basic aerodynamics shows that if you increase airflow over a surface (like in an uncoordinated turn caused by rudder deflection), that surface will create an increase in lifting force.  Therefore, the outside wing in a turn receives more airflow (since it's going momentarily faster), and should raise up in the direction of the turn.  THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN.  It can't be hard to implement, and would add an element of realism to the game.
  • I'm not sure how else to phrase this, but at extremely low altitude (like below 100ft AGL), the ground sometimes seems to "suck" aircraft towards it.  Make it stop.
  • This may not be FM related, but it's frustrating nonetheless.  REDUCE THE BOMB PROXIMITY TIME DELAY.  I cannot count the number of times I've been 500ft AGL or higher, pursuing some aircraft that's equipped with bombs, traililng somewhere around 2,000ft behind it, when all of a sudden...BOOM!....and I'm dead.  Straight from 100% to 0%.  No warning.  Turns out, that aircraft dropped a bomb, and the blast is what got me.  No, it didn't hit me from above - it hit me from below.  I know why the delay was implemented - it was so most GA players didn't kill themselves with the explosion.  However, the delay is SO long that most people are incredibly well-clear of the target when it goes off.  Or re-work the delay where it's 3 seconds OR impact, whichever is longer.

I'm sure there's more.  I'll post more when I think of them.

#741691 Summary

Posted MelBrooks on 12 July 2018 - 04:59 PM

     Here we are gentlemen. I've spent some time reading the forums and have been contacted by many an old timer to this game discussing the current scenario. For all the new and returning players to 2.0, do not feel alone. We understand your plight because we have been there so many times before. As many of you have conveyed to me, new and old, how could they go backwards. Gentlemen, they have always gone backwards, usually in the manner of three small steps up the stairs and then we all tumble down to the bottom.

     To the WG staff and developers, I would really like to understand the thought processes and decision making behind these changes. Being a former business owner and current educator, I simply can not grasp the reasoning and conclusions you made to institute these latest changes. 

     Now 2.0 has been out for nearly nine months, and many old and newer players in this time period have built a very solid game experience and skill to this game. These latest changes remind me so much of all the  numerous attempts in 1.xxxx to  " leveling the playing field." As we recounted before: three man flights removed, mm based on skill level leading to awful wait times, higher rated players getting novice bots versus lower rated players getting veteran bots. We can go on and on about all this, but why should we, it's in the past.

     The developers have never grasped a very simple concept that so many other gaming entities firmly understand. You will have players of many skill levels, therefore, you have to have different scenarios and game mechanisms that accommodate these players. Clan wars and high tier skirmish mode ( 5 on 5 with bonus xp and rewards ) would have given an outlet to your skilled player base. The only outlet they have ever had are player derived tournaments. Your current World of Warships title takes many of these facts into consideration and developed a game with co-op battles, random battles, special operations, ranked battles, and clan battles. 

     I leave you some advice. Several years ago, we were working with Mercedes Truck in Europe. When they received bids on supplied parts, I never saw or heard of them accepting the lowest bid. One day I asked one of purchasing managers about this. He said all suppliers are stringently reviewed by engineering and operations, and the lowest bids are usually determined to be a significant risk to quality and production. They wanted their customers to get the best possible parts in their vehicle because in their analysis the biggest reason customers returned to Mercedes Truck for a purchase was their trouble free experience they had previously. Take it for what it is worth, but there is solid advice and wisdom in that rationale.

#340270 State of the Game Review - Thanksgiving Edition

Posted GeorgePatton on 28 November 2013 - 09:41 PM

Dear Developers and Fellow Community Members,


After reading a lot of the 'nerf this' threads, and playing a little over 100 battles in the release version of World of Warplanes, I have several suggestions that I think would change the course of the game for the better. Please be aware that some of my suggestions may seem very complicated. This is because I (would like to think) understand a lot of the theories behind advanced air combat tactics, and I see where the game falls short in terms of allowing us to use these tactics effectively. Now, before you say 'World of Warplanes is supposed to be a sim-cade'... I want it to remain a 'sim-cade'. If I wanted to play a simulation, I would go play one of the DCS games. What I want from World of Warplanes is exactly what was advertised, a game that's easy to learn, but hard to master. Originally, it was advertised that this would be accomplished through simplifying advanced flight mechanics to the point where players tell their aircraft what to do, and it would manage all the systems for them. (We wouldn't have to adjust propeller pitch, fuel mixture, etc) According to this vision for the game, player skill should have much more impact than the 'Random Number Generator'.


So, with all that, let's get down to business.



How World of Warplanes Plays Now:


Currently, World of Warplanes plays like this... Player A decides to fly a heavily armed aircraft, which also happens to have the best climb rate at-tier. Player B wants to fly something with medium firepower, but lots of maneuverability. Player A right off the start uses his advantage in climb rate to move his gun platform approximately 1000 meters higher than Player B is able to climb. Right now, RNG (Random Number Generator) automatically gives Player A a massive advantage over Player B as gun damage from above is increased.


Altitude increases gun damage output.


This means, not only did Player A start with more firepower than Player B, he also started with the ability to climb higher, and thus grab that all-important firepower boost from RNG. Now, don't get me wrong, Player B still has the maneuverability advantage if Player A decides to try to engage in maneuvering combat. But let's say Player A is a smart player... He will never attempt maneuvering combat with Player B. He's going to use his speed and altitude advantage to avoid Player B's maneuvering advantage. This is how Player A should use his aircraft. This automatically puts Player B at the disadvantage as he has to play a defensive game. Air combat is about grabbing the offensive and keeping it. Traditionally this has been accomplished by gaining an altitude advantage on your opponent.


Why is the altitude advantage so important?


The altitude advantage is important for several reasons.

  • Air combat is based on energy management (you'll see me refer to this as 'Energy Fighting'). A successful pilot balances his Kinetic (airspeed) Energy and Potential (altitude) Energy to manage his situation. 
  • Having the altitude advantage gives you a potential energy advantage going into the combat.
  • Having the altitude advantage means you get to initiate the combat at the time and place of your choosing. If you're below, you will lose a LOT of kinetic energy to gather potential energy. This leaves you vulnerable to a 'bounce' from the pilot with the energy advantage.
  • Holding the altitude advantage means you will be able to perform any maneuver your opponent performs, while having more energy than he does. This gives you a very apparent advantage after the maneuver.


So, now that we know why the altitude advantage is so important, let's continue our discussion.


We now have Player A who has these advantages...

  1. Altitude
  2. Firepower
  3. Airspeed
  4. Durability

...and Player B who has these advantages...

  1. Maneuverability


It is very obvious from this point who is going to win. Sadly, there are still several more things that Player A has in his favor...

  • RNG - Altitude advantage = extra firepower
  • RNG - Altitude advantage = extra accuracy


So, that is how the game currently plays. Let's get on to what's wrong with that, and then how to fix it.



So, you may say 'Player A worked to gain those advantages and should be rewarded'... However, I just have to say, Player A has a MUCH heavier aircraft (that's why it's called a heavy right? actually... not true, see the notes at the bottom please.) which means he should have a harder time gaining altitude. 'But he has two engines!' you object... While he does have two engines, you have to remember that not only are these engines carrying the added weight of themselves, they are also hauling a heavier airframe around, which means not only do they have to move the weight, they also have to account for the increased drag.



For a quick reference, let's compare the Bf.109 series to the Bf.110 series and Me.410 series.


Bf.109 Series:

  • Cruise speed: 590 km/h (365 mph) at 6,000 m (19,680 ft)
  • Maximum speed: 640 km/h (398 mph) at 6,300 m (20,669 ft)


Bf.110 Series:

  • Maximum speed: 560 km/h (348 mph)


Me.410 Series:

  • Maximum speed: 624 km/h (388 mph)


As you can see, the 109 is about 17 mph faster than the 110 and 10 mph faster than the 410. The 109, due to the power:weight ratio would be able to maintain this airspeed more easily in a climb than the 110 and 410 as well, which means the 109 should have a better rate of climb... Let's check the stats... (real life)


Bf.109 Series:

  • Rate of climb: 17.0 m/s (3,345 ft/min)


Bf.110 Series:

  • Rate of climb: 8 min to 6,000 m (20,000 ft) - That's a 12.5 m/s climb rate.


Me.410 Series

  • Climb to 6,000 m (19,680 ft): 10.7 min - That's 9.35 m/s climb rate.


Yep, suspicions confirmed. So, we come to a very important fact... Heavy fighters can get altitude (service ceiling average of 33,900 ft) but it takes them a LONG time to get there. This is why heavy fighters were generally based further back than light fighters. It gave them more time to climb. Now, let's look at the service ceiling of the Bf.109... a light fighter. 39,370 feet... This is certainly contrasting with the current game mechanics. Light fighters should have a generally higher service ceiling than heavy fighters... 




So, the data shows that the light fighters should have a higher service ceiling... Why do we not see this in-game? Two little words... game balance.


Why did Wargaming depart from historical values here, especially when the information is so easily available? I believe the answer lies in the role they are trying to give heavy fighters. So, here we'll have a little air combat history lesson...




In World of Warplanes, the developers have departed from the traditional role of the heavy fighter and given them a new role; destroying enemy fighters. While this would be possible, the danger involved would be so great that any sane heavy fighter pilot would avoid combat with a lighter aircraft. In many cases, heavy fighters were given light fighter escorts when they would be attacking a formation of heavy bombers. Heavy fighters were, quite simply, massive gun platforms. They were built to carry guns, specifically, enough guns to bring down bombers with relative ease. As a direct consequence of their design and build for such a specific purpose, they were not maneuverable. This left them vulnerable to attack by light fighters, hence the gunners and light fighter escort.


This departing from the traditional role is due to a lack of heavy bombers and massive ground attack sweeps in World of Warplanes. Without such formations, heavy fighters really serve no purpose, and thus Wargaming was forced to create a role for the aircraft or remove them. Personally, I would have prefered to see Wargaming introduce larger battles with a greater focus on ground attack, thus giving all aircraft a valuable role. 



So, we've seen a lot on heavy fighters so far. This is due to the massive un-balance centered around the German Heavy Fighter line. 


So, what should be done to fix the situation?


In my opinion, Heavy Fighters need to lose these advantages over light fighters:

  • Climb Rate
  • Service Ceiling
  • Airspeed

I suggest several major changes to the game to fix these issues.


Fix the airspeed mechanics.

Currently, we see a lot of airspeed loss in climbs. Quite frankly, I've seen better climb performance in a Cessna 172. These fighter aircraft, with their high-powered engines and large radius propellers really need to pull through a climb with less airspeed lost. So, suggestions:

  1. Increase aircraft speed retention across the board. Most aircraft need to be able to climb at about 25-30 degrees nose-up without boost at a steady (lower than optimal) airspeed. See note*
  2. Scale Climb Rate to the altitude scaling, and make it fall off semi-realistically as you approach service ceiling.
  3. Make airspeed fall off more dramatically when deploying flaps. Also, bring back the 'updraft' when deploying the flaps. Flaps increase lift while also increasing drag, which would make the aircraft 'rise' when you deploy them suddenly.
  4. Make Heavy Fighters gain airspeed more quickly in a dive. This would be a plus from all the weight they carry.
  5. Give aircraft airspeeds that are close, if not the same, as their real-life counterparts. This would fix the heavy fighters ruling the sky issues, at least as far as airspeed goes.





Fix the gun mechanics:


Currently, we see a lot of 'random' factors in the gun mechanics. Everything from damage dealt, to where your bullets go is affected by the Random Number Generator. This really reduces player skill required to score aerial kills, and indeed penalizes the players who can aim well. I have had an issue with this idea since it was added to the testing process, and have brought it up in all of my 'state of the game' reviews. In my opinion, something needs to be done about this if we want to retain players and grow our community.


So, my suggestions on this:


  1. Remove the gun dispersion.
  2. Replace it with player-adjusted gun convergence.
  3. Reduce the spread in gun damage to at most a 20 hp range from low to high.


How this would positively influence the gameplay:


  1. First, removing the gun dispersion would remove the 'random' factor in aiming, and leave aiming entirely up to player skill. This would work perfectly well, as players have to compensate for many factors, their own movement, opponent trajectory, maneuvers, and also, gun convergence.
  2. Replacing gun dispersion with gun convergence would take the 'random' out of the gunfire, and replace it with a known variable, with a 'sweet spot' where all of your guns would hit in a box approximately 2'x2'. This would ONLY happen in about a 10 meter range, which the player would set anywhere from 100 meters to the maximum range of their guns. This would allow for player individuality in aiming styles, and would allow the player to optimize the 'pattern of fire' to suite their personal play style. Some players like to get in close, some like to shoot from further away. The beauty of this mechanic, is that it makes guns pretty much ineffective outside of the 'sweet spot' as the majority of fire will miss the opponent's aircraft outside this range.
  3. Reducing the spread would allow players to make tactical decisions with more certainty. Currently, when I dive on an opponent, I don't know if I will be able to bring him down or cripple him in that vital first pass, which makes the decision to attack or not into a guess rather than a well-informed decision.



Class Specific Changes:


In my opinion, the classes are all messed up in-game at this point. So I've got a few suggestions to fix the classes and re-define the battlefield.


Light Fighters:

  1. Reduce damage dealt to Ground Attack aircraft.
  2. Reduce damage dealt to ground targets, bombs and rockets should not be affected by this.

The light fighters should not have a nerf against any other class, only ground attackers and ground targets. This leaves them in a good position to bring each other down, as well as heavy fighters, which will be their primary purpose in the re-defined Superiority game mode.


Ground Attack:

  1. Reduce damage dealt to light fighters and heavy fighters by forward facing armament.
  2. Increase damage dealt by tail gunners to light fighters by approximately 2-3x.

These changes ensure that Ground Attack aircraft know their role: destroying ground targets to increase the Superiority count. Increased tail gunner damage vs light fighters ensure that light fighters know their job: defend the heavies and ground attackers. NOT attack the ground attackers. If they should attempt to kill a ground attack aircraft, chances are they will die to the tail gunner.


Heavy Fighters:

  1. Reduce damage to ground targets via forward firing armament. (bombs/rockets excepted)

These changes ensure that the Heavy Fighters know their main objective, bring down the Ground Pounders. Secondary mission is to bring down a couple targets of opportunity with the bombs or rockets they mount should they choose to. Of course, bombs/rockets still affect the flight characteristics of the aircraft, so you'll be better off without them.





Ramming should also be addressed. I think a setup like this would be most effective in reducing intentional ramming:

  • Ramming no longer gives a kill credit.
  • The more maneuverable aircraft involved will receive a -1 kill credit. - optional, not sure how this would work out, but would 'inspire' players to try to avoid ramming.
  • Crews involved in a ramming incident which ends in the destruction of the aircraft will receive no battle experience. (Aircraft still receives research experience.)



The Game Mode:


In my opinion, the 'Superiority' game mode needs a re-work. It needs to focus on the ground game. To achieve this, I suggest a few changes to the mechanics.

  1. Only ground kills increase the superiority points of a team.
  2. Aircraft kills still reset the superiority meter.


This would make the Ground Attack class useful again (currently it doesn't really do much... it's more of an 'easy way out' for pilots who don't want to be bothered with air combat. At least, that's how I use it when I get tired of being killed by heavy fighters...) So, once the ground attack role has become useful again, we're going to need something with the firepower to bring them down... enter the new and improved heavy fighter class. It should take a light fighter about 1 minute to bring down a ground attack aircraft.. This will make it impractical for the lights to bring down the ground attack class, forcing them to focus on attacking fellow light-fighters and bringing down the heavies trying to kill their own Ground Attackers.


So, how would a 'post Patton's changes' World of Warplanes Look?


Light fighters would be used to combat light fighters, kill heavy fighters, and protect heavy fighters and ground attack aircraft.

Heavy fighters would be used to destroy ground attack aircraft and heavy fighters, while attacking light fighters who are not careful about their whereabouts.

Ground attack aircraft would be used to destroy ground targets, the only source of superiority points. That's right, in my opinion, aircraft kills should not change the superiority points for a team.


So, now the game would focus on protecting the Ground Attack aircraft as destroying ground targets will be the only method of accumulating Superiority Points. This will create more teamplay, increase that all-important real-life connection, as well as decreasing ramming incidents! That's right folks! If you ram in this game mode... You're going to be setting your team up for disaster as you'll have one less aircraft to protect your ground pounders, or one less to destroy the opposing team's.


Player individuality would be plainly visible by the gun convergence distances. You will be able to see who is a 'sniper' and who is one of those 'get in close, and when you think you're too close, get in closer' types. Players would be able to set their aircraft up to perform the way they want them to. We would see a lot of variable combat styles, some people trying to avoid close encounters, and some trying to get as close as possible. This would broaden tactical possibilities for all players as gun accuracy range really affects when you can shoot, and when you can't, which would add an all new aspect to maneuvers designed to avoid enemy fire. (mostly the scissors...)


Game dynamics would be based on ground target concentration, Light fighters would 'sweep' looking for the enemy fighters, trying to spot and intercept any heavy fighters, and spot the ground attack aircraft so the Heavy Fighters can go in and take them out. Thus eliminating the opposing team's chance of winning by Superiority. (victory through annihilation is still possible.)


Ramming would be heavily reduced, if not altogether abandoned, as ramming no longer has the same benefit it used to. Ramming now has very little effect on the outcome of the game, and has the potential to ruin a player's stats if attempted too often.



Too Long? Didn't Read? Want the Cliffnotes?


Go take the time to read it...


Serioulsy though, basically, if ALL the changes I suggested were implemented, we would see less ramming, aircraft classes with well-defined roles to play on the battlefield, less random factors in the game, and an increase in player skill. We would also see a much easier to understand and use flight model, which I think would be VERY beneficial. We would also see greater player customizeability in gun performance, which would also greatly add to our available tactics to avoid gunfire.




This is not a thread trying to turn World of Warplanes into a simulator. Just bring it more in-line with some of the tactical areas of real life, and simplify the flight model to a point where you can actually understand what is going on, rather than wonder what it's supposed to be.


If you agree with this post, please give it a +1. If you don't, please give it a -1. That's what the 'reputation' tools are for. Please also make a post explaining why you don't agree if you do not. I want this to be a constructive discussion on the direction of the gameplay.





#152326 November Creative Contest Finalists

Posted Major_Rampage on 30 November 2012 - 05:07 AM



#576547 Please stop the +1 trolls!

Posted broslicer on 16 August 2015 - 02:33 PM

Tired of getting trolled, somebody is +1 all of my posts, whoever it is please stop. This is getting to be a serious problem, not all of my posts deserve a +1, a few of them deserve -10.                                                           (

Thank you,                                                                                                                             (if you can read this give me a +1)

your favorite bro.

(P.S. sorry for my rant and I know this will get locked soon. I'm just really tired of getting a +1 when I know for a fact I do not deserve it, but somebody has the audacity to go around this wonderful NA that we have and +1 all of my posts.)

#433390 Downfall,the WOWP version.

Posted Chuck_norris10 on 20 June 2014 - 04:02 PM

I hope no ones offended by this as it's taken from the movie Downfall.

If so I will delete it.

#403238 Gun Convergence vs Gun Dispersion

Posted GeorgePatton on 03 April 2014 - 01:15 AM

Hello denizens of the forums!


Today I'd like to discuss gun convergence vs gun dispersion, and the effects we'd see in-game. First, I'll talk a little about gun dispersion, which we currently see in-game, and then I'll talk about gun convergence which is the way it was IRL. 


Gun Dispersion:

Currently we see gun dispersion in-game. Gun dispersion is based on a gaussian dispersion which means your bullets fan out in a 'cone' pattern starting from the moment they leave your guns. This effectively gives you a 'shotgun' effect at mid to long distances.



Gives players with a little less aiming ability a greater chance of dealing damage over time at longer ranges.



Results in skill playing less of a role in aiming.

Reduces the effect of maneuvering to avoid gun solutions.



Guns are effective from 0m to maximum range.



Gun Convergence:

Gun convergence is the standard method used to achieve a usable weapons platform for aircraft with wing-mounted weapons. Pilots would find a range at which they liked to open fire, and have their ground crews push the guns in or out to make all of the weapons 'converge' at a certain point for a fixed difference. This gives the weapons a 'triangle' firing pattern at ranges closer than the convergence distance, and an inverted triangle at ranges further than the convergence distance.



More player customization. Players should be able to set their weapon convergence range to suit their play style.

Weapons are not as effective at ranges greater than convergence.

The  'flat' weapon spread makes evasive maneuvering more viable as bullets will not have any up/down scatter.

Pilots who learn to use their convergence range to their advantage will be able to use their weapons more effectively if they maintain the correct range.

Pilots who pay attention to their opponent's convergence ranges will be able to take better evasive action. (using range as well as maneuvers to avoid an opponent. If you get out of the convergence range, the opponent can only hit you with 1 wing's worth of guns.)

Rewards players for learning a skill in-game.



This system is a little more complex for the beginner. Nothing a quick 'flight school' episode can't handle though.

Makes aiming equipment irrelevant for wing-mounted weaponry.



My Suggestion:

Add gun convergence to aircraft with wing mounted weapons. Make it user-customizable. Get rid of dispersion for wing-mounted weapons. Keep dispersion for nose-mounted weapons, but change it to a normal distribution and make the cone a lot smaller. 




#198093 Vote on your Favorite Screensaver!

Posted hathore on 09 April 2013 - 01:55 AM


Posted Image

Attached Files

  • Attached File   Herr_Oberst_Nu.jpg   202.08K

#728339 The end of an era.

Posted GhostPrime on 28 March 2018 - 05:19 PM

Hello Pilots! 


It is with a heavy heart that I announce I will be leaving Wargaming and Admin of this community this Friday.


I began working at Wargaming in April 2013, and quickly fell in love with WoWP. In the beginning, I was in Customer Support, then I was the CS WoWP Specialist, and then community.

It has been a fun and crazy ride with Wargaming (especially WoWP) throughout the years, and I will miss you all. 


I am Ghostprime in other titles too, and I have a Youtube channel where I review Transformers figures if anyone wants to stop by and say hi. 



Until we meet again.



#633247 Hi War Gaming

Posted WhiskeyInYourWater on 14 May 2016 - 01:59 AM


Through the gaps in the roof War Gaming won't repair,Through cracks in the walls they pretended weren’t there.


The trolls have come creeping while the Mod's were all sleeping.


Trolls in their chair, trolls in their bed, Is anything worse than troll's in our head?


I find it a crime Mod's don't have the time, Nothing but minuses and "soon" proclaimed promises.


Many of us think your forums stink.


GhostPrime says hold tight, all will turn out alright.


We've heard it before and this I deplore.


Our community is in despair, get with the program, make a repair.


I was drawn so welcoming and warm, I never guessed it would harm.


A spark will softly glow, but fed by fuel, it will grow.


With that glow comes hope, in the forums we emote.


But by the cold of night came shadow's so tall, updates so bad we can't tear down that wall.


By midnight’s hour our fire is dead! Our mere ashes will smolder instead.


Call me insensitive, I can see that's true. Can you see WG, It's because of you.


If we agree, and you know it's true, it's not about me, it's about YOU.


Compassion and feelings will spring from me, if you will realize you are not guilt free.


If you can understand , this is all about you, not about me.


To thine own self be true, it's all about choices you see. Our choices are about us, and certainly not about you, you see.


Make your choices spring from our desires, Or watch as we build War Plane's funeral pyres.


We have the funds, the money is ours.


You want the funds, but your game sours.


So when free or forced to make your choices, you’ll understand and know it’s true.To decide what will or will not be, It won’t be at all about me, It will be all about you.


What matters isn’t me, while these moments may be few, they’re not about me, not about you.


This time WG, it’s all about “We.”




#395430 State of the Community

Posted Mugsy_ on 12 March 2014 - 08:13 PM

Hello Pilots!


Who is this guy?

Some of you guys may remember me from pre-release but if not you should get to know me over the next month or so.

My name is Mugsy, well my name is Brian but people have been calling me Mugsy since I was 15. It's more than a gamer tag, my girlfriend's grandma calls me Mugsy. 

I have been with Wargaming for a couple years now, I started my tour of duty on World of Tanks and learned a great deal about how to listen and learn from our community. I was responsible for World of Warplanes from the end of Closed Beta until release, then I transitioned into the Specialist role where I craft server-side events, specials, Premium Shop bundles, and now the missions.


Why are you writing this?

Recently, we had a change in staffing, Tadaah has moved on to other endeavors and I am going to be more hands on with the community while a new Community Manager is selected. I expect that it will be a month or so for a new person to be introduced and brought up to speed. Which also means I have a month or so to do everything I can to improve the quality of life in our community. But, obviously I cannot do this alone. Not only will I rely on Gunlion, Alo8ght, Pizzastorm, and our brothers in the Spanish and Portuguese communities - I will also need your help.


Really, we just met you and you are asking for things?

Fair enough phantom bold voice. Before I am audacious enough to ask for something, let me tell you what I will do for you.

I will work to :

  • IMPROVE COMMUNICATION - I want to see meaningful communication, hard ball questions being answered and lines of direct communication opened from you to our devs
  • find cool ways to showcase our community and community members
  • make it easy for people to work together on projects that will benefit everyone (for example guides, videos, streams, mods, skins, fan site kits, and more)
  • increase staff/player interactions with random battle contests, hangout streams, and more personal content pieces
  • MAKE IT FUN - this forum should have a lot more to offer than petty arguments, we should be sharing our passions, talents, hobbies, creativity, and humor
  • EMPOWER - you should feel heard, appreciated, and capable of introducing ideas, content, projects, and impacting your community


Sounds good but what about the game's development?

Also a fair question, though this particular wall of text was aimed at resolving the issues in our community, that is obviously tied to the state of our game. Basically, here is an overview of what is happening behind the curtain: Our updates tend to alternate between content and features. Features are big things like clans, eSports tools, end game content, additional game modes, and our recent mission system. Content includes new nations, aircraft, premium aircraft, equipment, consumables, and those kinds of in game...content. Yes, I used a word in its own definition, lay off me phantom bold voice. 


As each update drops we'll have a stronger and stronger game that will appeal to more and more people. We will get behind each of these additions and really get the most we can out of them. In the coming months you will see a very big push to improve optimization since the system requirements are pretty high for a Free to Play game. The good news is that your input can really help shape how these features and content take shape. I can speak fairly confidently on this subject because when I disappeared from the forums at release it was to really become the NA development advocate. I would reappear every update and sometimes in between to ask for input, feedback, and suggestions. I would then discuss your thoughts with Publishing and Development Producers, the Development Studio Heads, and Designers. 


If you are listening then why are there still overpowered planes?

While we are taking note of balance feedback, and you will see it being adjusted in updates it cannot be the focus at this time. Especially because we are still changing broader mechanics which will end up having a ripple effect on balance anyway. We could get the table all set up perfectly but it won't last if we end up changing the table cloth. Yes, horrible figurative language is my gift. However, as mentioned above, I want to make the quality of life better and better so let's start identifying the worst offenders and pushing to get them brought somewhat into balance with the rest of the group.



Ok, you have won me over, Mugsy you are surely a king amongst men.

Actually, I think it is "among men" but thanks, Boldy. So can I ask for my favor now?



Haha that's like a Viking "yes", maybe the most powerful of all affirmatives. So, I want to accomplish all the things I said above but I need your help. I need everyone to communicate clearly about what they need, want, volunteer to contribute, identify things that aren't working, and let's collectively take ownership of our community, find ways to make it better and better, and have faith. I know people are feeling frustrated, neglected, uninformed, and those of you who have been here for a long time might be feeling worn out. But I earnestly believe that we can fix our problems and set things up to get better and better. I think I have done good by this community in the past and I hope you can bet on me again.


I will be in touch with a more specific outline of how we can start.