Jump to content


Learning curve too steep


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

Heh #61 Posted 22 November 2013 - 04:52 PM

    Sky Whale Historian

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

View PostActionFigure, on 22 November 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

Who cares about what YOU want, IF and I am saying IF 60+ millions WOT player wants it then Wargaming should make it.


But they aren't wanting it aren't they? Just you. Besides, it's still a plane game, so it should follow the same plane game mantra, and part of that is having to turn your plane in order to get your guns on target.
Heh - aeromarine biologist

View Posthahiha, on , said:


OMG Heh you have had so many posts O_O

von_Krimm #62 Posted 22 November 2013 - 04:55 PM

    Feedback Airedale

  • Community Ace
  • 435 battles
  • 1,348
  • Member since:
    01-09-2012

View PostActionFigure, on 22 November 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

View PostHeh, on 22 November 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

Now, I don't want it to be a sim either, but I don't want it to be a pure rabid fantasy game either. Neither does WG, hence why we actually have energy retention mechanics unlike several arcade plane games.

 

Who cares about what YOU want, IF and I am saying IF 60+ millions WOT player wants it then Wargaming should make it.


where is your data to support your statement that 60+ million woT players desire what you propose?  I play WoT and do not want it in WoWP.  If you are going to make quanitative statements, shoqw your proof.  you are really only comming across as one of those "I can't succeed at the game, so the game must be broken" type of person.  Present your evidence and I'll gladly reconsider my position.  Until then, i will use my experience with a game mechanic that was implement and then removed that effectively granted what you are asking for...BECAUSE IT WAS HORRIBLE AND ALIENATED MOST OF THE PLAYERS.

Edited by Krimakov, 22 November 2013 - 04:57 PM.

I like my <CENSORED> like I like my <CENSORED> ; aged <CENSORED> to <CENSORED> years and mixed-up with <CENSORED> .If you take fire from the spouse-AA about the former, launch flares and dump chaff: $$$visa$$$amex$$$vonKrimm2.png

_Lindy_ #63 Posted 22 November 2013 - 05:10 PM

    Feedback Airedale

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 202 battles
  • 1,154
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012


datum perficiemus munus

 

 


ActionFigure #64 Posted 22 November 2013 - 08:04 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 19
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostHeh, on 22 November 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

But they aren't wanting it aren't they? Just you. Besides, it's still a plane game, so it should follow the same plane game mantra, and part of that is having to turn your plane in order to get your guns on target.

 

Which post did I specifically said I want this? You are just trying to make the argument personal. I am just MAKING A SUGGESTION that unlocking the front MGs and make it more like a tank destroyer may make 60+ millions WOT players feel more at home.

 

View PostKrimakov, on 22 November 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

where is your data to support your statement that 60+ million woT players desire what you propose?  I play WoT and do not want it in WoWP.  If you are going to make quanitative statements, shoqw your proof.  you are really only comming across as one of those "I can't succeed at the game, so the game must be broken" type of person.  Present your evidence and I'll gladly reconsider my position.  Until then, i will use my experience with a game mechanic that was implement and then removed that effectively granted what you are asking for...BECAUSE IT WAS HORRIBLE AND ALIENATED MOST OF THE PLAYERS.

 

1. Where is YOUR data that says 60+ millions WOT players don't want this? You can't even gather enough data to proof that the WOWP community dont want this because less than half of all WOWP players read this forum. I am making a suggestion that this might be something which 60+ millions WOT players want. And since I am not trying to proof that WOT players do in fact want this, I don't need any statistics to back my suggestion.

 

2. In which post did I specifically said I want this? Why are you trying to make this personal?

 

3. Here is the statistics that you wanted -> Only a fraction of WOWP players read this forum, even if everyone in this forum disagree with this idea, it is hardly representative of the WOWP population, not to mention we still haven't heard from 60+ million WOT players. The fact is only the developer can gather enough statistics, therefore no one in this forum has sufficent data to say this is a good idea or not.

 

4. This is the suggestion forum, I can suggest ANYTHING without proof.


Edited by ActionFigure, 22 November 2013 - 08:06 PM.


ActionFigure #65 Posted 22 November 2013 - 08:18 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 19
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostKrimakov, on 22 November 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

In your opinion.  My (and many others) opinion is that completly un-realistic ballistics is what would doom the game.  BTW, we went through a phase in OBT where the bullets tracked to the target; the overwhelming opinion of the player base was to get rid of the effect as it destoyed any semblence of skill and made it all about having the most guns on an aircraft.

 

I agree on this. One way to prevent this is to make the front facing MGs fire in the direction of the retical but not converge to a single point.



IllustriousCheeseburger #66 Posted 22 November 2013 - 08:20 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 372
  • [PTATO] PTATO
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Oh please. If you want weapons that can track to the target, then you should be playing Ace Combat, not a WW2-era flight game. Go play something with guided missiles.

 

Nobody wants guns to track to the target, that was more than proven during the days when the auto-aim was prevelent. 


"Don't worry about me when you see me on the enemy roster. I'm completely harmless."

ActionFigure #67 Posted 22 November 2013 - 08:22 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 19
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostKatariana, on 22 November 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

Oh please. If you want weapons that can track to the target, then you should be playing Ace Combat, not a WW2-era flight game. Go play something with guided missiles.

 

Nobody wants guns to track to the target, that was more than proven during the days when the auto-aim was prevelent. 


This post has nothing to do with auto-aim, please stick to the topic before you embarrass yourself.

Heh #68 Posted 22 November 2013 - 09:14 PM

    Sky Whale Historian

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

View PostActionFigure, on 22 November 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Which post did I specifically said I want this? You are just trying to make the argument personal. I am just MAKING A SUGGESTION that unlocking the front MGs and make it more like a tank destroyer may make 60+ millions WOT players feel more at home.


If you made the suggestion, that means you want what you're suggesting to happen unless you're joking. You aren't joking, so you want that. Therefore, you want what you're suggesting to happen, otherwise you wouldn't have suggested us to try what you're suggesting.

 

Also, let me make it clear to you yet again. Plane games are naturally harder than 1st/2nd/3rd person shooters. Plus it's an entirely different genre, which means yet another mindset to use when playing. It is up to the new player to learn the genre and for other players to try and help new players get acquainted to the genre, not screw the entire genre over just because you don't want to learn another mindset. A great tennis player cannot use his tennis skills to learn to skate; he must learn to skate. By that, he needs a skating mindset. However, according to you, it's skating that should be redefined in order for tennis players to make their skating skills the same as their tennis skills. Why doesn't it work? Because it wouldnt be skating anymore.

 

View PostActionFigure, on 22 November 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

I agree on this. One way to prevent this is to make the front facing MGs fire in the direction of the retical but not converge to a single point.

 

A system like that already exists, but it's not that noticeable. In one patch, there was a bug that caused the area of effect to be exceedingly large when using planes with lots of guns, and so said planes (P-51s, Spitfire mk Is and the like) became horrendously OP. Then the problem was fixed and the barely noticeable autoaim function is back.


Edited by Heh, 22 November 2013 - 09:17 PM.

Heh - aeromarine biologist

View Posthahiha, on , said:


OMG Heh you have had so many posts O_O

ActionFigure #69 Posted 23 November 2013 - 12:14 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 19
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostHeh, on 22 November 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

If you made the suggestion, that means you want what you're suggesting to happen unless you're joking. You aren't joking, so you want that. Therefore, you want what you're suggesting to happen, otherwise you wouldn't have suggested us to try what you're suggesting.

 

Stop accusing me of things I did not said. I am suggesting an idea that may benifit the WOT community.

 

View PostHeh, on 22 November 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

View PostActionFigure, on 22 November 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

I agree on this. One way to prevent this is to make the front facing MGs fire in the direction of the retical but not converge to a single point.

 

A system like that already exists, but it's not that noticeable. In one patch, there was a bug that caused the area of effect to be exceedingly large when using planes with lots of guns, and so said planes (P-51s, Spitfire mk Is and the like) became horrendously OP. Then the problem was fixed and the barely noticeable autoaim function is back.

 

Not sure if you understand what I am suggesting by "not converging", To keep the explaination simple:

 

1. Imagine a P-51 in front of you with its nose pointing into your monitor, this is the plane model that will actually be drawn.  For now, this will remain fixed to your screen.

2. Imagine another "shadow" P-51 copy over lapping the P-51 in step one, this model will not be drawn but this is where the MGs will fire from.

3. Look to the top right corner of your screen.

4. The shadow model from step two rotates from its center of gravity and points its nose towards the top right corner.

5. The shadow model fires.

 

Can you see that it does not matter which direction the shadow model is pointing, the firing characteristic remains identical to what you currently have in game? Obviously I am exaggerating the allowable movement of the shadow model, in reality it can only be deviated by a few degrees as this is not intented to be a full turret mode. 



Worlds_Okayest_Dad #70 Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:16 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 86 battles
  • 742
  • [SICK] SICK
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
He isnt ignorant of how projectile weapons were employed. He is a tanker wanting to make a flying game more like his tank game. That would be akin to me going to the WoT forums and suggesting to that community that if they want planes players to play their game then they need to change the physics model to allow my tank to gently float to the ground when i fall off a cliff. We all know how well that would be received.

PressureLine #71 Posted 24 November 2013 - 02:19 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 840
  • [FTE] FTE
  • Member since:
    07-31-2012

View PostBad_Lag, on 23 November 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

He isnt ignorant of how projectile weapons were employed. He is a tanker wanting to make a flying game more like his tank game. That would be akin to me going to the WoT forums and suggesting to that community that if they want planes players to play their game then they need to change the physics model to allow my tank to gently float to the ground when i fall off a cliff. We all know how well that would be received.

It would however be hilarious. Grab some friends, jump in ELC AMXs, load up a training room, see who can do the longest jumps!

Heh #72 Posted 24 November 2013 - 09:21 AM

    Sky Whale Historian

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

View PostPressureLine, on 24 November 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

It would however be hilarious. Grab some friends, jump in ELC AMXs, load up a training room, see who can do the longest jumps!

 

 


 

Damn relevant.


Heh - aeromarine biologist

View Posthahiha, on , said:


OMG Heh you have had so many posts O_O

Bandet #73 Posted 24 November 2013 - 05:14 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 3,225
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012
"This game is too complex for me to grasp, please make it easier so I don't have to spend time getting better at something"

To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.


Bandet #74 Posted 24 November 2013 - 05:22 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 3,225
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012

OP, here is the thing.

 

They had what you wanted in open beta. It was a bug. We called it "Auto-Aim".

 

Video example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJff5-ESFiE

 

It was unanimously hated by the entire community.


To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.


Claudio67 #75 Posted 24 November 2013 - 05:55 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 545 battles
  • 1,547
  • Member since:
    08-03-2013

If I hadn't misunderstood, what the OP wants is to shoot (and hit) on this situation?

 

 

And in this one?

 

 

Yeah, the game will be amazing, maybe the MG range could be unlimited too...



Bandet #76 Posted 24 November 2013 - 06:00 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 3,225
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012

I'd just fly around in a heavy fighter. I see a furball, turn in the general direction, and hold down fire.

 

10 seconds later, I got an ace.

 

Woo


To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.


Claudio67 #77 Posted 24 November 2013 - 06:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 545 battles
  • 1,547
  • Member since:
    08-03-2013
Without the need of diving. And no overheating guns, in 20 seconds, you have the full entire team. Great, it isn't?

PressureLine #78 Posted 25 November 2013 - 05:43 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 840
  • [FTE] FTE
  • Member since:
    07-31-2012
The only way i could see it working is if it was like a proper 'hybrid' mode. with a camera attached to the aircraft (like vector) but with limited panning (instead of being locked) so you can use standard mouse controls. That would be a) awesome b) the only way to even kinda get what he is wanting without it beiing horrible.

Claudio67 #79 Posted 25 November 2013 - 06:26 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 545 battles
  • 1,547
  • Member since:
    08-03-2013

There's a nice idea, a limited panning that locks somewhere, at a defined angle (could be an option in Settings) to avoid the dreaded camera flipping and losing control beyond certain angle (the AI gets lost don't knowing where to go until you reposition the mouse). Something like the hybrid without the rubber band cursor (maybe an option to not show that is not so hard to implement).

But the weapons should point and fire where the plane is pointing.



Heh #80 Posted 25 November 2013 - 05:26 PM

    Sky Whale Historian

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

View PostClaudio67, on 24 November 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

If I hadn't misunderstood, what the OP wants is to shoot (and hit) on this situation?

 

 

And in this one?

 

 

Yeah, the game will be amazing, maybe the MG range could be unlimited too...


That system doesn't even exist in WoT since turret rotation speed is not instantaneous.
Heh - aeromarine biologist

View Posthahiha, on , said:


OMG Heh you have had so many posts O_O




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users