Jump to content


Dev's **** are you thinking?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
83 replies to this topic

Deadpool0_0 #21 Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:24 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 10 battles
  • 740
  • [AO] AO
  • Member since:
    02-25-2012

View PostAzraeI, on 16 November 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:


Maybe instead of raging you could post a calm and rational post there so the devs get an idea of what you think is wrong with the model and solutions on how to fix it.
Grouchy,I've seen you make intelligent posts..but nobodys gonna listen when you come across with rage in your tone and contempt for what players have to say about said attitude.


That which does not kill me,had better run pretty damn fast!
R.I.P FL"CatOO2O" 332nd VFG...9/23/12


StockerXray #22 Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:26 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 259
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
What was the altitude?
How far behind were you?
What type of heavy was it?
and did he hit you with the bomb, or was it the bomb blast from the ground?

GeorgePatton #23 Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:27 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 735 battles
  • 5,294
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostGrouchySmurf, on 16 November 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Funny thing is, this is always your retort, when someone mentions anything that WOWP's does wrong. George face it your just a WOWP "yes man" like i said you were a year ago. You dont come up with any useful idea's, all you do is come on here and try to be a good little "yes man" and tell WOWP what they want to hear. Well i have a different view about the process. In my view I would want people with many contrasting opinions trying to find problems and suggest new things to make the game better. Instead of another weak minded "yes man" with a herd mentality.....................When you can make a legitimate comparison of WOWP to other flight games and have some intelligent thoughts about making the game better, then i'll be glad to entertain your suggestions. But as long as your just another WOWP "yes man" your words, thoughts, and actions mean nothing to myself or anyone else who would like a GOOD flight game to play, have a nice day Sir. Maybe it's time to grow up and have your OWN thoughts and opinions, and to stop being nothing more than WOWP mouth piece!!  :Smile_izmena:

While it may appear to you that I am 'yes manning' whatever WG does, as a SATV, I have more channels than only the forums to communicate my ideas to the developers. Not all of my suggestions are here on the forums. (I have probably about 1k posts on what needs fixing... most have been archived as far as I'm aware.) I and several others have been working to get the flight model fixed to a point that feels more fun to fly. I will not name anyone else involved here, but if they wish to identify themselves, they are more than welcome.

Seriously, please bury your hatchet and become a constructive member of this (mostly) great community.


Cheers!
Glenn

                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


Heh #24 Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:27 PM

    Sky Whale Historian

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 11,960
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Posted Image
Heh - aeromarine biologist

View Posthahiha, on , said:


OMG Heh you have had so many posts O_O

GrouchySmurf #25 Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:32 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Alpha tester
  • 7 battles
  • 1,111
  • [-D_D-] -D_D-
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postdark_juggalo, on 16 November 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

Grouchy,I've seen you make intelligent posts..but nobodys gonna listen when you come across with rage in your tone and contempt for what players have to say about said attitude.
The entire point of this post, which has been diluted as usual by the same old "yes men", was that IT IS SIMPLY UNREALISTIC FOR A HEAVY TO DROP A BOMB AT MID TO HIGH ALTITUDE AND TO HIT A FIGHTER OR ANOTHER PLANE FOR THAT MATTER. Now in real life did this ever happen? Possibly so but i would be willing to bet that it IS VERY RARE for this to happen, which if it happened rarely in the game i wouldnt have made this post. I really dont see what the difficulty in seeing that a heavy SHOULD NOT ever with the exception of a few instances, be able to bomb a plane. What is so hard to understand about this? I mean  if we are going to just say real life doesnt matter, then strap a laser and a nuclear bomb to my plane.......The whole point here is WE ARE trying to make a better game, but if we, as a community cant even come to an agreement on simple things like this, Then how will this game ever be successful?

Edited by GrouchySmurf, 16 November 2012 - 07:33 PM.

Quote

By The Time You See Me On Your 6, You've Already Been Smurfed!!!!

Quote




Crag_r #26 Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:32 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 4,766
  • [ARMDA] ARMDA
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGeorgePatton, on 16 November 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

Grouchy,

I hope you realize you've broken the forum rules here with all your foul language... As an Alpha Tester, you should be someone the newer people look up to, not a rule breaker. Please try to control yourself in further posts.


Cheers!
Glenn

Im not too sure i saw any bad Language there, after all even Grumpy knows he cannot post any more of this with an RO.



Per Ardua ad Astra "Through Adversity to the Stars"


Royal Australian Air Force


FRAG


CrashTailspin #27 Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:37 PM

    Squadron Lead / Wargaming Stunt Pilot

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 511 battles
  • 1,772
  • Member since:
    10-11-2011
Grouchy, I have kept my opinions to myself through most of your negative rants in regards to the progress of the game.

Not anymore.

My overall observation is this:  if you do not like the game (as has been made perfectly clear in this, among other posts of yours), then why do you continue to play it?  You accomplish nothing by continually belittling the game, pointing out its apparent shortcomings and saying what an absolute "piece of garbage" this game is.

In regards to the flight model - it has improved over the past few builds.  Most aircraft have improved roll rates, speed bleeds off moreso in turns and at high angles of attack than in previous builds, etc.  Everyone knows it's still far from perfect.  But it's getting better.  And to say the flight model is not "workable" is incorrect.  You were never around for the initial Alpha testing, when there was only one server.  THAT was unworkable.  With the current flight model, different aircraft types perform differently, the addition of munitions and upgraded modules affects flight performance, damaged flight controls degrades flight performance, even changes in altitude affect performance.  I know of several games where these factors don't come into play.

Rather than ranting about your computer's poor performance, why not try stating your computer's and internet connection's statistics, what graphics settings you run at, and potentially ask for some help with it, instead of throwing a sarcastic comment out about your sub-par FPS.  I play on a laptop, running WiFi.  I get lag spikes, packet loss, and the occasional dropped signal.  I accept it.  However, I can differentiate when it's my signal that's going haywire or when it's the actual game.  And when it's the game, I save the .log file and report it as such in a ticket.  That's the approved method.

As AzraeI has said, the "plane blown up by a bomb" issue is nothing new.  Here's how this whole debacle started...

When bombs were first introduced on the IL-2(t) and Fw.57, they came with no proximity fuze or timer.  They simply blew up when they struck something.  Since most ground attack aircraft were flying considerably low, and most were very slow aircraft, the blast would destroy the aircraft dropping it.  So, in order to eliminate self-kills via bomb blast, the Devs implemented a delay fuze.  The aircraft would drop the bomb and have enough time to escape the area before the bomb detonated.


Fast forward about 10 builds and you now have aircraft dropping bombs knowing they're being tailed, and having the delayed bomb blast destroy their pursuer.  This has almost become common practice for clever ground attack aircraft.  And some pursuit pilots have wisened up to this, and only attack ground attack aircraft from the sides or from a safe altitude.


In short, wisen up, or suffer the consequences.


As dark_juggalo has stated, we all have seen you post constructive criticisms towards the game (in particular, the WOWP vs WT thread).  This thread, however, tips the scale in the other direction.  How, exactly, do you think any WG Admin member, be it Moderator, Game Master, Community Manager, or Developer, is going to respond to this thread?  Do you really think they're going to respond in a positive manner, and say "Oh yes, GrouchySmurf has a good point!  Maybe we need to have an option to change reticule and target marker colors!!  Maybe we need to work on the flight controls!"

Please.

Jinxx71 has posted several threads labeled "Dev Feedback" for a reason.  Blatantly screaming in a thread what you consider to be serious in-game issues does nothing for your credibility.  I would like to think that you would have taken this to heart, but I guess we can't have everything we wish for.

And insults get you nowhere.  This shouldn't have to be explained to anyone.

My recommendation is this:  Unless you have something constructive to say, I would refrain from attempting to use sarcasm, wit, or belittling of other players to get your point across.  It's not working.  Never did.  If anything, it's made you lose credibility with the testing populous in general.

Oh, and yes, it WAS thought at one time that aircraft could drop bomblets on enemy bomber formations.  Please read the third paragraph under "Corsair Origins" on this page:  The Vought F4U Corsair


Quote

The US Navy ordered a prototype of the Vought design as the "XF4U-1" in June 1938. Armament was planned as two 7.62 millimeter (0.30 caliber) Browning machine guns in the top of the nose and a single 12.7 millimeter (0.50 caliber) Browning machine gun in each wing, for a total of four guns. The prototype also had little bombbays in the outer wings for fragmentation bombs that would be dumped on enemy bomber formations, with a window in the cockpit floor for sighting. The bombbays were a screwball idea that would be quickly abandoned.

Screwball idea, yes.  But an idea nonetheless.

You must not question "The Forum Laws".  Any questioning of "The Forum Laws" results in automatic removal and / or locking of any post, regardless of the level of constructiveness or thought provocation.


GrouchySmurf #28 Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:40 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Alpha tester
  • 7 battles
  • 1,111
  • [-D_D-] -D_D-
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostStockerXray, on 16 November 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

What was the altitude?
How far behind were you?
What type of heavy was it?
and did he hit you with the bomb, or was it the bomb blast from the ground?
The bomb hit me all three times, the planes were different but i know one was a fw57 and one was a bf 110, i dont remember what type of heavy the third one was. I wont lie and say i was watching my altimeter, however i know i was at mid or high altitude because the ground targets were not visable to me, I was actually behind the fw 57 by about 215m, I was directly below the Bf110 by maybe 450m, and I was behind the third one by about 350m. So those bombs are hitting in a big radius, this would be my take on it anyhow. I was in full flight all 3 times, way too high for it to have been a ground blast etc.

Quote

By The Time You See Me On Your 6, You've Already Been Smurfed!!!!

Quote




Unhelequined #29 Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:41 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Alright, I'm going to try and throw a constructive spin on this thread.

Large bombs make large explosions, very large. Some of the blast radii have been cited in this thread already, and they are really a long way. Yes, if a plane gets caught in that (or hit with a falling bomb in mid-air) the plane is toast. This is realistc.

Now, what about the model doesn't work that would see Grouchy eat 3 bombs in under 30 min?

1. It's the internet. Take any game and throw it up for PvP and the players will break the immersion some how. In actual combat, pilots had to save their bombs for the target (orders, and not wanting to have to try again tomorrow) unless there was no alternative. In WoWP however, players are free to try, heck even practice, bombing other planes out of the sky. Likely to the point where some will get uncannily good at it.

2. Altitude compression. This makes bombing a plane so much more likely it's obscene. I really dislike the altitude compression in this game, and bombs hitting planes more often is a symptom of that. Everyone is packed into a tighter vertical plane, the bottom portion of which is vulnerable to bomb blasts.

3. Quick bombing. The bombing mechanics in this game are pretty...detached. Put a circle on target and hit b for a sure hit everytime. This means players can accurately release a bomb far more quickly than real bombers would have. Real bombers would need to align to the target, account for altitude above target and speed, possibly open the bay doors, then finally release. Not really a good way to hit a fighter other than sheer chance or desperation. Now, if you had an instant drop bomb button....

What's the fix? 1 and 3 there isn't a whole lot that can be done. The bombing mechanics could be adjusted to require more guesswork, but GA planes would need to get something in return.  Removing or at least toning down the altitude compression would help, spreading people out and keeping a lower percentage of the useable air space vulnerable to bomb blasts.

GrouchySmurf #30 Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:47 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Alpha tester
  • 7 battles
  • 1,111
  • [-D_D-] -D_D-
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGeorgePatton, on 16 November 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

While it may appear to you that I am 'yes manning' whatever WG does, as a SATV, I have more channels than only the forums to communicate my ideas to the developers. Not all of my suggestions are here on the forums. (I have probably about 1k posts on what needs fixing... most have been archived as far as I'm aware.) I and several others have been working to get the flight model fixed to a point that feels more fun to fly. I will not name anyone else involved here, but if they wish to identify themselves, they are more than welcome.

Seriously, please bury your hatchet and become a constructive member of this (mostly) great community.


Cheers!
Glenn
No hatchet here at all. I just want a GOOD FLIGHT game to play. and sorry to say that this one needs MAJOR work before it will be that. As far as talking to the Dev's etc about idea's. I dont have any inside channels as you might have, however over the last year i have made NUMEROUS posts , mostly about the flight model because for me that IS THE NUMBER 1 PROBLEM THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, and in my opinion shouldve been addressed in Alpha...............I am not trying to be mean or anything else, but the fact is, this IS NOT a fun game to play, I literally play 15-20 mins until i get tired of fighting the joystick more than the enemy and my hands start killing me. Why do i mention this? It's because if WOWP ever expects to make money they will need a game that engages players to come back and play the game because it's fun, it has varied targets and missions. Right now this game is EXACTLY where it was in Alpha as far as gameplay. What do i mean by that? Well the "so called" game play is, jump in your plane, hope some moron doesnt ram you before the battle begins, see an enemy, engage, wow he's dead match over. Now seriously how long can that be fun for anyone? This is the concern i have...........................

Quote

By The Time You See Me On Your 6, You've Already Been Smurfed!!!!

Quote




Heh #31 Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:49 PM

    Sky Whale Historian

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 11,960
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGrouchySmurf, on 16 November 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

The bomb hit me all three times, the planes were different but i know one was a fw57 and one was a bf 110, i dont remember what type of heavy the third one was. I wont lie and say i was watching my altimeter, however i know i was at mid or high altitude because the ground targets were not visable to me, I was actually behind the fw 57 by about 215m, I was directly below the Bf110 by maybe 450m, and I was behind the third one by about 350m. So those bombs are hitting in a big radius, this would be my take on it anyhow. I was in full flight all 3 times, way too high for it to have been a ground blast etc.

450m is a little under the bombing range against propeller planes. Did you slow down when trying to tail the guys? I don't know about the Fw 57 though as its bombs have a tiny blast radius.
Heh - aeromarine biologist

View Posthahiha, on , said:


OMG Heh you have had so many posts O_O

boxtosser #32 Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:53 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Test Veteran
  • 0 battles
  • 906
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011
Can you for once articulate your issues with this game in a manner that does not resemble a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth fanatic?


"If it could cook, I'd marry it." - Eugene Valencia (23 kills) on the F6F

The cat in my avatar does the flying, I just feed him.

CrashTailspin #33 Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:54 PM

    Squadron Lead / Wargaming Stunt Pilot

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 511 battles
  • 1,772
  • Member since:
    10-11-2011
I'm going to assume you didn't play World of Tanks when it was in either Closed Beta or Open Beta.  New game modes didn't come out until....6 months ago?  And the game had been released for over a year before that.  Guess what - people came and played.  A LOT.  As WOWP currently stands, it's got more options for victory, more vehicles, and pretty soon, more nations than WoT did before release.  Add to that what the Devs have stated earlier - escort / intercept type missions.  And medals, crew skills, etc. that came shortly before WoT went into Open Beta.  You can bet they'll be seen in WOWP as well.

That's a lot of replayability.

It may not be fun to you, but it certainly is fun to other people.

We all know the game isn't perfect yet.  That horse has been (as xthetenth put it) beat into a paste and eaten by the weird kid in the corner.  Let's move on, shall we?

You must not question "The Forum Laws".  Any questioning of "The Forum Laws" results in automatic removal and / or locking of any post, regardless of the level of constructiveness or thought provocation.


GrouchySmurf #34 Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:54 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Alpha tester
  • 7 battles
  • 1,111
  • [-D_D-] -D_D-
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCrashTailspin, on 16 November 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

Grouchy, I have kept my opinions to myself through most of your negative rants in regards to the progress of the game.

Not anymore.

My overall observation is this:  if you do not like the game (as has been made perfectly clear in this, among other posts of yours), then why do you continue to play it?  You accomplish nothing by continually belittling the game, pointing out its apparent shortcomings and saying what an absolute "piece of garbage" this game is.

In regards to the flight model - it has improved over the past few builds.  Most aircraft have improved roll rates, speed bleeds off moreso in turns and at high angles of attack than in previous builds, etc.  Everyone knows it's still far from perfect.  But it's getting better.  And to say the flight model is not "workable" is incorrect.  You were never around for the initial Alpha testing, when there was only one server.  THAT was unworkable.  With the current flight model, different aircraft types perform differently, the addition of munitions and upgraded modules affects flight performance, damaged flight controls degrades flight performance, even changes in altitude affect performance.  I know of several games where these factors don't come into play.

Rather than ranting about your computer's poor performance, why not try stating your computer's and internet connection's statistics, what graphics settings you run at, and potentially ask for some help with it, instead of throwing a sarcastic comment out about your sub-par FPS.  I play on a laptop, running WiFi.  I get lag spikes, packet loss, and the occasional dropped signal.  I accept it.  However, I can differentiate when it's my signal that's going haywire or when it's the actual game.  And when it's the game, I save the .log file and report it as such in a ticket.  That's the approved method.

As AzraeI has said, the "plane blown up by a bomb" issue is nothing new.  Here's how this whole debacle started...




When bombs were first introduced on the IL-2(t) and Fw.57, they came with no proximity fuze or timer.  They simply blew up when they struck something.  Since most ground attack aircraft were flying considerably low, and most were very slow aircraft, the blast would destroy the aircraft dropping it.  So, in order to eliminate self-kills via bomb blast, the Devs implemented a delay fuze.  The aircraft would drop the bomb and have enough time to escape the area before the bomb detonated.



Fast forward about 10 builds and you now have aircraft dropping bombs knowing they're being tailed, and having the delayed bomb blast destroy their pursuer.  This has almost become common practice for clever ground attack aircraft.  And some pursuit pilots have wisened up to this, and only attack ground attack aircraft from the sides or from a safe altitude.



In short, wisen up, or suffer the consequences.


As dark_juggalo has stated, we all have seen you post constructive criticisms towards the game (in particular, the WOWP vs WT thread).  This thread, however, tips the scale in the other direction.  How, exactly, do you think any WG Admin member, be it Moderator, Game Master, Community Manager, or Developer, is going to respond to this thread?  Do you really think they're going to respond in a positive manner, and say "Oh yes, GrouchySmurf has a good point!  Maybe we need to have an option to change reticule and target marker colors!!  Maybe we need to work on the flight controls!"

Please.

Jinxx71 has posted several threads labeled "Dev Feedback" for a reason.  Blatantly screaming in a thread what you consider to be serious in-game issues does nothing for your credibility.  I would like to think that you would have taken this to heart, but I guess we can't have everything we wish for.

And insults get you nowhere.  This shouldn't have to be explained to anyone.

My recommendation is this:  Unless you have something constructive to say, I would refrain from attempting to use sarcasm, wit, or belittling of other players to get your point across.  It's not working.  Never did.  If anything, it's made you lose credibility with the testing populous in general.

Oh, and yes, it WAS thought at one time that aircraft could drop bomblets on enemy bomber formations.  Please read the third paragraph under "Corsair Origins" on this page:  The Vought F4U Corsair




Screwball idea, yes.  But an idea nonetheless.

Well lets just make this simple so as to not readdress things we have already addressed. If i am a game Developer, and i have a game that i have put out literally THOUSANDS of invites, and the same thing keeps happening which is most of them come in see how bad the controls are, maybe even post a comment about it and then they leave. And then when you have guys that are very experienced with the game and have been around since Alpha, and they are basicly saying the same thing. Then as a Dev I would think wow we have a MAJOR problem here that needs to be addressed and instead of just throwing in more planes, maps and other bells, I WOULD WORK ON THE FLIGHT MODEL. These testers are voting by LEAVING the game. What part of that are you people not understanding? And by you sitting back and being so agreeable with the WOWP Dev's, your simply giving them the idea that they are on the right path when OBVIOUSLY they arent. So again to summarize you guys just keep telling people how wonderful the game is while myself and others that actually want A FLIGHT GAME, continue to post and hope that the Dev's will begin to take these idea's into consideration......................................

Edited by GrouchySmurf, 16 November 2012 - 08:02 PM.

Quote

By The Time You See Me On Your 6, You've Already Been Smurfed!!!!

Quote




GrouchySmurf #35 Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:01 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Alpha tester
  • 7 battles
  • 1,111
  • [-D_D-] -D_D-
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCrashTailspin, on 16 November 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

I'm going to assume you didn't play World of Tanks when it was in either Closed Beta or Open Beta.  New game modes didn't come out until....6 months ago?  And the game had been released for over a year before that.  Guess what - people came and played.  A LOT.  As WOWP currently stands, it's got more options for victory, more vehicles, and pretty soon, more nations than WoT did before release.  Add to that what the Devs have stated earlier - escort / intercept type missions.  And medals, crew skills, etc. that came shortly before WoT went into Open Beta.  You can bet they'll be seen in WOWP as well.

That's a lot of replayability.

It may not be fun to you, but it certainly is fun to other people.

We all know the game isn't perfect yet.  That horse has been (as xthetenth put it) beat into a paste and eaten by the weird kid in the corner.  Let's move on, shall we?
Crash I respect you, I guess we just have different idea's about how the game is progressing (or the lack thereof). For me i would MUCH rather have a more simplistic game with a nice flight model that you can actually execute BCM correctly. We DO NOT HAVE THAT NOW (horrible 10 degree yaw rate, no spin axis, boost on by itself, hard to gain altitude even in a fighter when pulling full stick backwards). Rather than WOWP just throwing in new planes and maps. Yes the "eye candy" is nice, but for me I would rather better flight controls and indepth gameplay versus just more "eye candy".

Quote

By The Time You See Me On Your 6, You've Already Been Smurfed!!!!

Quote




CrashTailspin #36 Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:05 PM

    Squadron Lead / Wargaming Stunt Pilot

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 511 battles
  • 1,772
  • Member since:
    10-11-2011

View PostGrouchySmurf, on 16 November 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:


Well lets just make this simple so as to not readdress things we have already addressed. If i am a game Developer, and i have a game that i have put out literally THOUSANDS of invites, and the same thing keeps happening which is most of them come in see how bad the controls are, maybe even post a comment about it and then they leave. And then when you have guys that are very experienced with the game and have been around since Alpha, and they are basicly saying the same thing. Then as a Dev I would think wow we have a MAJOR problem here that needs to be addressed and instead of just throwing in more planes, maps and other bells, I WOUDL WORK ON THE FLIGHT MODEL. These testers are voting by LEAVING the game. What part of that are you people not understanding? And by you sitting back and being so agreeable with the WOWP Dev's, your simply giving them the idea that they are on the right path when OBVIOUSLY they arent. So again to summarize you guys just keep telling people how wonderful the game is while myself and others that actually want A FLIGHT GAME, continue to post and hope that the Dev's will begin to take these idea's into consideration......................................

Your first error is placing me in the same bucket as the WOWP Devs.

Don't do that.

As has been stated more times that I care to count in a bad dream, I'm NOT a Developer.  I'm NOT a Moderator.  I'm NOT a Game Master, Community Manager, or any time of Community anything.  I don't work in San Francisco, Paris, Munich, Minsk, Kyiv, or anywhere else there's a WG headquarters.  My signature and avatar show my title.  That is enough for now.

Second - do not assume that I agree with what the Devs are doing.  Just because I have other channels to talk to the Devs does not mean I agree with the pace of the game updates, the direction the game is going, etc.  I've given my opinion in the appropriate threads.  It's up to the Dev team to make use of it.

I know the flight model is not where it should be.  I also know they're working on it.  I know the bomb blast is way out of proportion.  I also know I've reported it through more than one channel.

To combine my opinions, thoughts, or personal beliefs of where said game is with those of WG is a pretty blind observation.

You must not question "The Forum Laws".  Any questioning of "The Forum Laws" results in automatic removal and / or locking of any post, regardless of the level of constructiveness or thought provocation.


Heh #37 Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:07 PM

    Sky Whale Historian

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 11,960
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
So guys, I think my popcorn stand is broken. Keep the arguments down until I get it fixed. D:
Heh - aeromarine biologist

View Posthahiha, on , said:


OMG Heh you have had so many posts O_O

Crackedcanadian #38 Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:07 PM

    ?The squirtgun of doom?

  • Alpha tester
  • 52 battles
  • 803
  • [WARRP] WARRP
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
im just wondering what his definition of "mid to high" altitude is?  I have gotten bomb kills with the SC 1000's in my 609 at around 2000 ft( my altitude) up and most of my other bomb kills are at a similar altitude. Most of my bomb kills are with the 250's on my Ga planes.

I know in real life that is was a real impossible thing to do since the speeds and altitude can change too fast to get accurate timing.

I would rather they fix the climbing issue most of the planes have than mess with the bomb mechanics right now. if planes could regain energy better they would never be stuck at a low altitude. since once you lose most of your energy you can not get it back without spending entirely too much time to get it back.  Some planes can't ever get the energy they spend back.


Aced: Pegas, P-36, Tsh-3, 109Z, I-15 BIS, BF110 B

CrashTailspin #39 Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:08 PM

    Squadron Lead / Wargaming Stunt Pilot

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 511 battles
  • 1,772
  • Member since:
    10-11-2011

View PostGrouchySmurf, on 16 November 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

Crash I respect you, I guess we just have different idea's about how the game is progressing (or the lack thereof). For me i would MUCH rather have a more simplistic game with a nice flight model that you can actually execute BCM correctly. We DO NOT HAVE THAT NOW (horrible 10 degree yaw rate, no spin axis, boost on by itself, hard to gain altitude even in a fighter when pulling full stick backwards). Rather than WOWP just throwing in new planes and maps. Yes the "eye candy" is nice, but for me I would rather better flight controls and indepth gameplay versus just more "eye candy".

Now THAT is an effective post!

The spin axis, as much as I'd like to see it, will not happen unfortunately.  That was decided on early.  Oh well.

Boost by itself - I think I remember seeing someone able to edit their .xml file to get that to work, but I agree, it needs to be separate.

Yaw rate - discussed in jinxx's Dev Feedback thread.  More than once.  See previous dead horse reference.

Altitude gain - that depends on the fighter.  F4U / F2G / P-51JP / 209A1 - they ALL have insane climb rates.  Each aircraft can reach 4,000ft on a single boost from the start of battle.  You may have to be more specific on that one.

You must not question "The Forum Laws".  Any questioning of "The Forum Laws" results in automatic removal and / or locking of any post, regardless of the level of constructiveness or thought provocation.


StockerXray #40 Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:13 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 259
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Well, if I've read correctly, and it's kind of hard to tell. He actually got hit directly by the bomb, not a ground bomb blast.  Which is either incredible luck or bad luck depending on your pov.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users