Jump to content


State of the Game Review - Thanksgiving Edition


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

GeorgePatton #1 Posted 28 November 2013 - 09:41 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 40 battles
  • 5,123
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

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... 

 

Spoiler

 

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...

 

Spoiler

 

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.

 

*note

Spoiler

 

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:

 

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.

 

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

 


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


mkloby #2 Posted 28 November 2013 - 10:06 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 67 battles
  • 123
  • Member since:
    03-21-2013
Good post overall. I love the game, but do wish there was a little more reality wrt aircraft performance. I couldn't agree more with you about climb performance. The planes climb and lose speed like they are carrying 5 tallboys!

Heibges #3 Posted 28 November 2013 - 10:19 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Alpha tester
  • 65 battles
  • 1,737
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Great read, and very well put.

 

Agree:

  • Supremacy is not a good game mode, and does not drive the rock/scissors/ relationship.  I would even go so far as to say you should have X number of targets, and if the GA can destroy all those targets they win.   But either way, it fosters more of a team game.   Also, the goals of Supremacy aren't immediatley clear to the new player, and I think a major turnoff to anyone who isn't a major plane nut who will take the time to figure it out.
  • Buff to Rear Gunners against LF.  At least in the Short Range.
  • Proposed Class Specific Changes (the rock/scissors/paper) - totally agree.   It seems right now WG wants the LF and HF to fight each other, while the GA are off doing their own thing.

 

Neutral:

  • Gun Convergence:  I think  this would be a little bit too complicated for the lowbie.  But then again all the low Tier biplanes shoot straight forward so maybe this would be part of the learing curve.  By the time they get to the level where they would need to set it, they would have figured out what their style was.  I like it ( I would set my guns to 175m in IL2), but fear it is too simmy.

 

Disagree:

  • Penalty for Ramming:   It just happens too often by accident to penalize people.   Just putting collision back on the wrecks I think would be enough.

 


"If the Healer gets killed it's the Tank's fault.  If the Tank gets killed it's the Healer's fault.  If the DPS get killed it's their own fault." - various
 

pappabear #4 Posted 28 November 2013 - 10:25 PM

    Community Noob

  • Community Ace
  • 0 battles
  • 2,193
  • [LIGS] LIGS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I like and agree with most of you post.  The part I have a problem with is your recomadaitons for GA planes. Getting coverage from players in game is almost inpossable, I see game after game where players will lead planes to the GA's then run when fighters go for the easy target or see the GA's getting attacked and go the other way.

 

You suggested:

 

  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.

 

  1. This would take away the GA's ability to ambush enemy planes that aren't watching there surroundings. If the GA can't hit them hard while they have the chance then the fighter or heavy climbs or out maneuvers the GA and the GA is dead most of the time.

 

 2. Increaseing tail gunner damage would help, but players are learning how to attack GA's to avoid tail gunners. I see more and more players doing this. ( There are a number of post on the forums telling players how to attack a GA and avoid the tail gunner.)

 

 

WGing has nurfed manuveabilty, speed, climb rate and everything else on the GA line. Without WGing addressing some of the prior nurfs to the GA's the suggestions you are recomending for GA's would make them even worse in game.


Edited by pappabear, 28 November 2013 - 10:26 PM.





Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

Zato27 #5 Posted 28 November 2013 - 10:33 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1 battle
  • 119
  • Member since:
    06-21-2013

I like it GP. Gun convergence is very good idea and I also believe that one should not get XP for ramming. Accidental or not it should never be rewarded as it currently is.

 

Now will WG have the guts to program the test server with the parameters you've suggested? I hope so. 


468 x 100 Really! The rest of the civilized world uses 500 x 100.


Heibges #6 Posted 28 November 2013 - 10:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Alpha tester
  • 65 battles
  • 1,737
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postpappabear, on 28 November 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

I like and agree with most of you post.  The part I have a problem with is your recomadaitons for GA planes. Getting coverage from players in game is almost inpossable, I see game after game where players will lead planes to the GA's then run when fighters go for the easy target or see the GA's getting attacked and go the other way.

 

You suggested:

 

  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.

 

  1. This would take away the GA's ability to ambush enemy planes that aren't watching there surroundings. If the GA can't hit them hard while they have the chance then the fighter or heavy climbs or out maneuvers the GA and the GA is dead most of the time.

 

 2. Increaseing tail gunner damage would help, but players are learning how to attack GA's to avoid tail gunners. I see more and more players doing this. ( There are a number of post on the forums telling players how to attack a GA and avoid the tail gunner.)

 

 

WGing has nurfed manuveabilty, speed, climb rate and everything else on the GA line. Without WGing addressing some of the prior nurfs to the GA's the suggestions you are recomending for GA's would make them even worse in game.

 

I misread #1.  I agree with pappabear.   If you let yourself get in front of those guns, too bad for you.

 

I think you need a game mode that is focused on the role of the GA.


"If the Healer gets killed it's the Tank's fault.  If the Tank gets killed it's the Healer's fault.  If the DPS get killed it's their own fault." - various
 

losttwo #7 Posted 28 November 2013 - 10:44 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 0 battles
  • 12,612
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

DEAD ON, or so I think the only thing I disagree with is the rammng part. The part about it will stop some of the intentional ramming. I truly think most of the raming is from bad piloting. How ever I do agree with you concept of the scoring of the ram, sure you take out an an enemy aircraft but it actually hurts the team because you can no longer attack more aircraft. It is a 1 ot 1 kill yet the enemy has already killed 2 or 3 of your team mates.

15 versus 15 match

enemy takes out 2 friendlies

now it is 13 versus 15

you ram 1 enemy gets 2 more

now it is 10 versus 14

see where I am going with this...lol

seen it in to many matches

I am a somewhat skilled pilot and I still ram although accidentaly because of turn ing to soon, lack of maneuverability, panic, I can lie all I want and say I did it intemtionally.

Yes there are people that do it intentionally, just not my way of playing the game,

I like your solution to the epidemic and if people become aware of the lack of points for COLLISIONS of any sort ( ground not included ) perhaps they would become more succesful pilots.

I strive for the ACES and I can not do that if I am dead. As it stands now ( I am still working the numbers) I have noticed my pilots earn double experience if they live. So do nto quote me on that .

I get side tracked by game play and forget to write things down. this game is so fun to play...lol.

Experience should be earned by weapons systems not by aircraft. Yes you took out an enemy but it did cost.

Although there is currently a penalty in game that most people do not see for ramming perhaps and increase would be good.

I also think you have a valid solution to aircraft roles and purpose. Currently I fly the British Beaufighter and it can dominate the game of played correctly the biggest trouble I have is energy management. On the rare occasion I do it correctly I can take out a BF109,

SO everything in your READ makes sense as I learn more about the game and begiin looking at someof the things people have spoke about, things I have disagreed with in past I am beginning to see. They obvioulsy know more than me and I am willing to look with an open mind. yet others just have opinions.

Thanks for posting this and giving me other directions to look at.



venser #8 Posted 28 November 2013 - 10:46 PM

    Planeswalker

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 1,061
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Very well put, nice job.

 

I agree with you as well on nearly all the topics, and thought you did a good job of in depth analysis on Heavy fighters and their current state in the game. The commentary on Ground Attack Aircraft and fighters was interesting, it would be an interesting experience seeing if these planes were less annoyed by fighters. They have the HP already, so not sure, but... gun dispersion changes. I love this idea, because right now it is bothering the heck out of me, especially when shooting upwards at a plane. I would like to see this change in the game.

 

The only thing I do not agree on is ramming; I think it should be discouraged in a different way, not with a -1. Maybe you were onto something there with the less maneavuerable aircraft impact... we'll see how it turns out.

 

venser

 


Ace: Fw 57
"If the tanks planes succeed, then victory follows." -Heinz (sort of) Guderian
... still a member of FRAG

LordBerk #9 Posted 29 November 2013 - 12:00 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 330
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Well said, I agree with you onthe vast majority of the changes you advocate for - esp the removal of gun dispersion and a tightening of the randomness.

 

Although I cannot wait until GA's are semi viable to play again - the 2-3X damage boost is a bit much espeically when coupled with GA's extraoridnary hit points. I'd rather see the TG values back to cose to back to their previous worth - major annoyance and death when used properly. The removal of the upwards penalty would greatly help GA's defend themselves and that's all I'm really hoping for - a restoration of the TG would be nice but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Great post and +1.



SkywhaleExpress #10 Posted 29 November 2013 - 12:18 AM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4 battles
  • 10,731
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

With exception of your absurd attempt to further nerf Attack Aircraft (keyword ATTACK), this is sport on with my post on balancing. 

Check out my thread in the Suggeston forum. It shows links to actual Military test data on the aircraft . Especially the currently OP P-51A. The altitude ceiling for the A was much lower than the Corsair, but then the B/C models gave them better speed and altitude performance. 

 

The D started to really shine. 

 

Howevet, the CorsIr, from the get go, could climb to 38k+ ft. 

 

 

Overall (again, excepting the absurd extra nerfs to GA), I like your ideas as it's quite like mine. It's not that the HF couldn't climb and the. BnZ, but rather try couldn't freely climb from the middle of a fur ball. Heavies had the sustainable energy, but not the speed in climbing.

 

 



Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


SkywhaleExpress #11 Posted 29 November 2013 - 01:02 AM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4 battles
  • 10,731
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012
I mean, basically bring the game back to 4.1 or even 3.5, and you're good


Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


GeorgePatton #12 Posted 29 November 2013 - 01:03 AM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 40 battles
  • 5,123
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostAlexVandross, on 28 November 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

With exception of your absurd attempt to further nerf Attack Aircraft (keyword ATTACK), this is sport on with my post on balancing. 

Check out my thread in the Suggeston forum. It shows links to actual Military test data on the aircraft .

 

Hey Alex!

 

Your reference to the word 'attack' in the class designation is in error. Ground attack (or 'attack') aircraft were designed to attack ground targets; troops, tanks, lorries, etc. After a quick google search, I cannot find any references to an aerial kill being scored by the forward firing weaponry on an attack aircraft. I'm sure it happened at some point, but this would be the exception rather than the norm. As a rule, attack aircraft were defenseless to attacks from all points but directly from the front and from the rear. That's why tactics were developed to destroy them with slashing attacks from the front quarters and sides. Technically, a gun's a gun's a gun... but these aircraft were not designed to shoot down other aircraft (IL-2 had the nickname 'flying coffin'...) and had to be defended by other aircraft.

 

'Nerfing' the attack aircraft's frontal armament against fighter aircraft would define the role of the attack aircraft more accurately, focusing the pilot on his designated mission; destroying ground targets and gaining Superiority points.

 

I believe that you are still caught up in the current game mechanics, and do not realize that the main form of victory in my envisioned 'Superiority' mode would be a 'Superiority' win. This is only achievable if the attack aircraft carry out their mission succesfully. A team that does not defend their attack planes is most likely going to lose. Basically, the focus of the game would become destroying ground targets (attack plane responsibility) and destroying your opponent's ability to gather Superiority points (heavy fighter responsibility). Fighters would be there to destroy the heavies who are trying to destroy your attack aircraft, while your heavies go after theirs. Just like in a real war.

 

That, I believe, is how the Superiority game mode was supposed to function. Wargaming has repeatedly stated that they want each aircraft to have a well-defined role. They've repeatedly asked for feedback on aircraft role clarity. How the aircraft perform, and how their performance limits them to their intended use. This is why the GA aircraft currently have such strict restrictions on climb rates, etc. People used to use them as doom cannons instead of ground attackers. I understand you used to be one of these players. While I do not have an issue with players who utilize aircraft to their current strengths, I'm always looking for ways to bring the classes more in-line with their intended uses and thus making the game more focused on teamplay and getting a 'job' done.

 

I hope you can understand this. Also, if you look through all my feedback (over 1500 posts of pure feedback...) you'll see that this is something I've been calling for (my entire post...) since before you were involved in the testing process. :)

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

 


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


venser #13 Posted 29 November 2013 - 01:55 AM

    Planeswalker

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 1,061
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

 

GeorgePatton: Posted Today, 05:03 PM

I believe that you are still caught up in the current game mechanics, and do not realize that the main form of victory in my envisioned 'Superiority' mode would be a 'Superiority' win. This is only achievable if the attack aircraft carry out their mission succesfully. A team that does not defend their attack planes is most likely going to lose.

 

 

Interesting idea of the game relying more heavily on Attack Aircraft to destroy ground targets for the win. Right now, I think ground attack operations are fairly balanced: I feel that it helps enough to get a win and that it is not just something pointless to undergo while other planes kill each other.  However, I don't really see a draw for mechanics that more heavily stress protecting an Attack fighter.

 

Of course, escorting an attack fighter is still currently a good tactic: your team gets more Ground kills while the escorter gets to easily shoot at planes focused on someone with massive hp. This is all that it needs to be. As a flight arcade, many people live for the plane on plane dogfighting with little thought of real strategy outside of "How can I shoot this guy more while making it harder for him to hit me?". Teamwork will not always occur when needed; heck, even now I see fighters suddenly zoom to one side of the map leaving a low flying Attack aircraft SOL, since he can't hope to fighter off fighters above him.

 

Currently, the Attack aircraft system is fairly balanced. Players should have to find for themselves the benefits of escorting, while the others can get their plane on plane fights down and still achieve a win.

 

venser


Ace: Fw 57
"If the tanks planes succeed, then victory follows." -Heinz (sort of) Guderian
... still a member of FRAG

pappabear #14 Posted 29 November 2013 - 02:09 AM

    Community Noob

  • Community Ace
  • 0 battles
  • 2,193
  • [LIGS] LIGS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Just my 2 cents.

 

I understand that your looking at makeing each class of plane have a role in the battle. I also understand WGing wants each class of plane to have a certain role in the battle.

 

 

There's one major flaw with this. 95% or better of the players won't and couldn't care less if the GA's are covered or they die in the first min's of battle. They want to go air to air battle and figure if a player brings a GA then there hendering the team and a waste of time.

I truly think if you try to force players to cover GA's through nurfs that the game will fail due to players loseing interest. I for one don't want this to happen as I enjoy this game and hope it grows.

 

WGing took the nurf hammer to the GA and said this is the role GA's are supposed to perform. Well everyone can see the out come of that. GA's are the most hated line in the game becouse of underperformance.

 

Like I said it's just my opinion.






Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

Birdturd #15 Posted 29 November 2013 - 02:43 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 78
  • Member since:
    08-18-2012
I agree with everything here but ramming. As hard as I try to avoid a collision, it's inevitable. Teammate collisions, however, should be penalized. I am sick and tired of ramming into my own teammates after calling out a target and declaring that it is mine so that everyone knows to stay away then some "genius" swoops in to steal my kill. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with killstealing (Which we all have done before. :trollface:) but I just wish people were aware of the risks they were taking...


GeorgePatton #16 Posted 29 November 2013 - 03:10 AM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 40 battles
  • 5,123
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View Postpappabear, on 28 November 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

Just my 2 cents.

 

I understand that your looking at makeing each class of plane have a role in the battle. I also understand WGing wants each class of plane to have a certain role in the battle.

 

 

There's one major flaw with this. 95% or better of the players won't and couldn't care less if the GA's are covered or they die in the first min's of battle. They want to go air to air battle and figure if a player brings a GA then there hendering the team and a waste of time.

I truly think if you try to force players to cover GA's through nurfs that the game will fail due to players loseing interest. I for one don't want this to happen as I enjoy this game and hope it grows.

 

WGing took the nurf hammer to the GA and said this is the role GA's are supposed to perform. Well everyone can see the out come of that. GA's are the most hated line in the game becouse of underperformance.

 

Like I said it's just my opinion.


Perhaps I didn't make it clear... Attack aircraft should get back some maneuverability. The nerf to the guns vs fighters is what really needed to happen. Not the maneuverability and climb nerfs. This should be un-done to a certain extent.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


SkywhaleExpress #17 Posted 29 November 2013 - 03:28 AM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4 battles
  • 10,731
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

Edit: Fixed iPhone grammatical errors

Eh, Glenn.. You of all people would remember that I am NOT hung up with the current mechanics, and have been calling for a more accurate game mechanics. However, your idealism is flawed .

 

First of all, the IL-2 was used to intercept German dive bombers- more for a lack of better interceptor role aircraft than anything- wherein, the frontal guns of the IL series posed a serious threat to German heavies and bombers.

 

If you take that "other game", for a lack of a better reference... It has all the flight mechanics (for the most part) of a proper flight game , with the more realistic maneuverability (yes, an IL could

maneuver and pitch, in fact performing vertical loops) and other mechanisms...

 

Guess what? Not a single fighter will cover your Attack Aircraft there either. It's only when they realize that my PBY Catalina , my A-20G Havoc, and my B-25 Mitchell are being used as frontline gunships ... ON my way in to the target area... That try decide to hover above and wait for the impending chasers who follow me to their AND my doom.

 

that game has already proven that players flying fighters will NOT offer support for their heavies, AND that providing very little armor protection to heavies makes it very frustrating to fly them.

 

 

So, yeah.. When I say it's VERY CRUCIAL to make sure we give a more historically accurate maneuvering capability and armor rating to these aircraft, it's with the intent to make it fun for the player flying them.. With the full knowledge that most decent fighter pilots won't fall prey to a bomb or tail gun killing . 

 

I understand your sentiment of making a metagame that actually encourages the attacking of ground forces... Which is already encouraged in both of these HIGHLY entertaining games. The problem with the logic is that you're wanting to penalize these aircraft for either attempting to engage in unorthodox tactics of assisting their fighters.. AND you're wanting to say to te fighter jocks "hey, here's an even EASIER target for you to squish, since we've already nerfed rockets and bombs from a realistic blast radius to almost nothing..." AND let's not mention the idiotic scattered fuse system. ( instead of my highly accepted and well liked proper rocket flight characteristics)  being completely needed to actually hitting consistently on the VERY ground targets you want us to be relegated to.

 

Again, I understand your desire to make fighters the predominant metagame , but your change to GA is both unrealistic AND would only serve to further infuriate those who actually want to fly GA to attZk targets. After all, we all started off flying our GA with the intention of trying out the GT supremacy system, and realized early on that fighter jocks will NOT protect us. 

 

But don't take my word for it... Take the real life World War II experiences of B-25 and B-17 pilots, and how discouraged and disheartened they were when they kept seeing Caucasian P-51 (most advanced superiority aircraft in The European theatre) pilots rushing off after the glory kills and/or just running from superior numbers... NOW, imagine how they fealt when they found that the only fighter pilots willing and/or brave enough to STAY WITH THEM, were of African American descent , and were flying secondhand P-40s and earlier model P-51's.

 

That last part would be the ideal situation in this and that other game.. However, it hasn't happened in the 14 months I've CBT/OBT/played this game, nor the nearly two years I've been CBT/OBT'ing the other game. It's not going to happen anytime soon, because as soon as us heavies save a fighter nearby us, they either run from the fight, or runoff after their next glory kill . It's the glory/coward syndrome that has forced us to learn to dogfight the underpowered aircraft. 

 

Same  thing happened for over 7 years with the underpowered heavies (y-wing/b-wing/etc.) in Star Wars Galaxies. Only, in that game, we were able to resort to "missile blanketing" tactics where we used our dual warhead tubes to go In flights of two or three bombers into the mix and prioritize the same fighters, thus ensuring a no chaff missile spread to kill our oppressors and then move on to our goal of hitting enemy gunships.

 

 

I do daresay, if you're willing to sacrifice a few secondary or tertiary ground forces of your own, you can force a victory in real life with the tactics of throwing your heavies into the dogfight, strafing it on their way toward their target areas.. Thus enabling your holy hound fighters an upper hand in assaulting your new pursuers. However, in a video game, this is THE ONLY WAY we can guarantee we can  pull off a victory for sure. Lose one forward air base to maintain aerial supremacy.. Take the enemy base as your bounty!

 

 

Again, it's long since been ENOUGH with the nerfing of GA due to fighter pilots lacking any semblance of common sense. If you can't adapt to the situation like we have, then you deserve the loss. Look at any GA on noob meter, and you'll see very few of them ever even broach the balanced , let alone the "OP rating" that some of these inaccurately OP mustangs and other fighters currently hold.

 

Learn to adapt and attack us where we can't force our guns or our munitions to our advantage, and you will be able to handle us.

 

BY the way, this is coming from a primarily multi-role fighter pilot who DOES cover his heavies, much like my beloved Red Tails did.

 

Thanks,

 

Alex - Someone who is NOT hung up on or supporting of current in game mechanics


Edited by AlexVandross, 29 November 2013 - 04:53 AM.


Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


Jinxed_Katajainen #18 Posted 29 November 2013 - 03:39 AM

    Feedback Airedale

  • Alpha tester
  • 47 battles
  • 2,444
  • Member since:
    01-28-2012

The OP's post is pretty much what we have been saying from the beginning of testing on things that 'feel' wrong, could use improvment, or is just totally off from what is expected.

Don't think I can add anything else to this as I agree with all points given, especially on the RNG aspect of things, specifically the lack of convergence and the inclusion of the dispersion mechanic.

 

The modified superiority mode sounds more interesting than what it is now.. it gives more of a defined role to the ground attack aircraft rather than making it a superiorly armed and armored plane with large caliber cannons, but very low maneuverability that people take up dogfighting...



Lou #19 Posted 29 November 2013 - 03:42 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 6 battles
  • 1,157
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Good post. Unfortunately I can see a scenario where well over half of a team is GA, because thats where the game is headed with the changes.

And It may be like before release, when we had the hordes of premium il's dogfighting.

Also, as stated by someone else, Most pilots don't seem to give a flying :playing: about the GA, and just want to get a kill in quick.

Currently in one of my IL's, i'm 10 meters or less in height, and wishing the fighter thats following 'to provide cover' would go away, because until I start shooting and pinging,  i'm nearly invisible, and he's drawing the heavies and everone else in. Then he runs, dies, and I'm spotted.

 

Gun convergence- I love your fix, and want to see changes in this direction. Probably set it at around 300 meters to start with in my fighters  haha :)

 

Ouch. the ramming issue. It happens. sometimes with purpose. I think alot of times its a accident. Hard one there. Any change, or not change, will

Make someone happy, while doing the opposite to someone else. I don't think theres a solution to make everyone satisfied.

 

Theres alot of good ideas in this post. Fleshing them out will be a challenge, but something DOES need to change.

 Thanks for the effort involved in thinking this out, and posting all this.+1

 

Happy Turkey day!!

 



GeorgePatton #20 Posted 29 November 2013 - 04:01 AM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 40 battles
  • 5,123
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Block Quote

 I understand and your sentiment of making a meta game that actually encourages the attacking of ground forces... Which is already encourage in both of these HIGHLY entertaining games. The problem with the logic is that you're wanting to penalize these aircraft for either attempting to engage in unorthodox ractics of assisting their fighters.. AND you're wanting to say to te fighter jocks "hey, here's an even EASIER target for you to squish, since we've already nerfed rockets and bombs from a realistic blast radius to almost nothing..." AND let's not mention the idiotic scattered fuse system. ( instead of my highly accosted and well liked proper rocket flight characteristics)  being completely needing to actually hitting consistently on the VERY ground targets you want us to be relegated to.

 

I think you may have missed part of my proposal there mate. :)

 

  1. Increase damage dealt by tail gunners to light fighters by approximately 2-3x.

 

Right there's your fix. Basically, if you get on a GAs tail in a light fighter, you're gonna die to the TG. Also, I said it should take about a minute for a light to bring down a heavy. Plenty of time for a friend to come help him out, or for him to maneuver to keep his TG on the light fighter. So, in my proposal, Ground Attack aircraft would have a MUCH better chance against light fighters. Basically, the only 'practical' way to bring them down would be with a heavy fighter. This is because only the heavies have the firepower to bring something that well armored down. As it pretty much should be.

 

Adolf Galland said that the only way to bring an IL-2 down was to shoot it in the oil pan... He flew a Bf.109. You had to get pretty lucky to do that.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users