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...
- Altitude
- Firepower
- Airspeed
- Durability
...and Player B who has these advantages...
- 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:
- 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*
- Scale Climb Rate to the altitude scaling, and make it fall off semi-realistically as you approach service ceiling.
- 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.
- Make Heavy Fighters gain airspeed more quickly in a dive. This would be a plus from all the weight they carry.
- 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.
*note
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:
- Remove the gun dispersion.
- Replace it with player-adjusted gun convergence.
- Reduce the spread in gun damage to at most a 20 hp range from low to high.
How this would positively influence the gameplay:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- Reduce damage dealt to Ground Attack aircraft.
- 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:
- Reduce damage dealt to light fighters and heavy fighters by forward facing armament.
- 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:
- 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:
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.
- Only ground kills increase the superiority points of a team.
- 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.
THE GAME WOULD RETAIN THE SIM-CADE ASPECT!
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.
Cheers!
Glenn