Jump to content


Eliminate Tiers 7 thru 10

revamp bots

  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

Zapperguy #41 Posted 23 July 2016 - 01:24 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 63 battles
  • 2,820
  • [CLOWN] CLOWN
  • Member since:
    04-04-2012

View Postdityboycom, on 22 July 2016 - 10:10 PM, said:

 

I can tell you right now not much has changed in the past 442 days besides some useless cannon fodder being added, and the amount of humans in each game being minimized again. IMO, the game play was far more interesting and challenging with 3v3 5v5 battles than it is now with 1v1's and 8 bots on each side.

 

Yeah, I sure miss getting stomped by OP flights of 3 vets vs 3 solo pilots. Oh yeah, those were the days.

:facepalm:

I'll take the bots, shorter queue times, bigger battles, 2 man flights, and a blind queue to prevent flights from gaming the MM to achieve an even greater advantage.

Nobody, except those who were regularly doing the stomping in flights of 3, misses them.

 



Snoticus #42 Posted 23 July 2016 - 01:58 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 1,250
  • Member since:
    02-08-2014
and what about us low ranked players...still stuck in low tiers? what happens to us?
tlhIngan maH! Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam!

losttwo #43 Posted 23 July 2016 - 02:54 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 8996 battles
  • 14,780
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

View PostSnoticus, on 23 July 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

and what about us low ranked players...still stuck in low tiers? what happens to us?

 

you will stop playing.

Caecias #44 Posted 23 July 2016 - 03:10 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 233 battles
  • 428
  • Member since:
    06-22-2016

View PostZapperguy, on 23 July 2016 - 08:24 AM, said:

 

Yeah, I sure miss getting stomped by OP flights of 3 vets vs 3 solo pilots. Oh yeah, those were the days.

:facepalm:

I'll take the bots, shorter queue times, bigger battles, 2 man flights, and a blind queue to prevent flights from gaming the MM to achieve an even greater advantage.

Nobody, except those who were regularly doing the stomping in flights of 3, misses them.

 

 

I guess this is the perspective that was needed for me - when faced off in this rationale, I would rather have bots, MM closed to manipulation, and an expansion of tasks, planes, tiers, and /or end game goals. 

 

View PostSnoticus, on 23 July 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

and what about us low ranked players...still stuck in low tiers? what happens to us?

 

Would you consider an alternate sandbox per tier, with easier difficulty? (Players that are more or less of your caliber of skill). I envision tier options that players rated above a certain metric would not be allowed to enter, but you would be allowed to step up to the higher rated sandboxes at your own will. I am thinking that this could only be possible when the numbers of aggregate participants are adequate, and that it might apply to tiers I-V, maybe less, maybe more, depending on those participation numbers, and could quite possibly vary throughout the day.

 

View Postlosttwo, on 23 July 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

 

you will stop playing.

 

Would you consider the same / similar sand boxing schema as above? (e.g. being restricted to prime tiers difficulties because your rating is high (or whatever metric that could possibly be used)).

Edited by Caecias, 23 July 2016 - 05:14 PM.

 

 


dityboycom #45 Posted 23 July 2016 - 03:25 PM

    Colonel

  • Member
  • 1 battle
  • 9,287
  • [BAGG] BAGG
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

View PostZapperguy, on 23 July 2016 - 09:24 AM, said:

 

Yeah, I sure miss getting stomped by OP flights of 3 vets vs 3 solo pilots. Oh yeah, those were the days.

:facepalm:

I'll take the bots, shorter queue times, bigger battles, 2 man flights, and a blind queue to prevent flights from gaming the MM to achieve an even greater advantage.

Nobody, except those who were regularly doing the stomping in flights of 3, misses them.

 

 

Challenge has always been something I have welcomed, bots offer no challenge. Bots should be restricted to bot mode, maybe offer minimal xp for them liek they do in ships coop mode.

Caecias #46 Posted 23 July 2016 - 05:11 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 233 battles
  • 428
  • Member since:
    06-22-2016

View Postdityboycom, on 23 July 2016 - 10:25 AM, said:

 

Challenge has always been something I have welcomed, bots offer no challenge. Bots should be restricted to bot mode, maybe offer minimal xp for them liek they do in ships coop mode.

 

So you are never on the wrong side of the obvious imbalances that persist in some matches; or when you are, you always prevail regardless? 

 

Bot mode vs. non-bot mode is intriguing in and of itself, but what numbers of humans are you expecting to play? 


Edited by Caecias, 23 July 2016 - 05:13 PM.

 

 


losttwo #47 Posted 23 July 2016 - 08:08 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 8996 battles
  • 14,780
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

View PostCaecias, on 23 July 2016 - 10:10 AM, said:

Would you consider an alternate sandbox per tier, with easier difficulty? (Players that are more or less of your caliber of skill). I envision tier options that players rated above a certain metric would not be allowed to enter, but you would be allowed to step up to the higher rated sandboxes at your own will. I am thinking that this could only be possible when the numbers of aggregate participants are adequate, and that it might apply to tiers I-V, maybe less, maybe more, depending on those participation numbers, and could quite possibly vary throughout the day.

 

 

Would you consider the same / similar sand boxing schema as above? (e.g. being restricted to prime tiers difficulties because your rating is high (or whatever metric that could possibly be used)).

 They actually tried to implement a " sandbox " mode back in 1.5 that did not work.

 When I played my P-12 I would end up facing off with players that had 10 battles under their belt.

I would just go hit GT's until they came for me. If they did not come then I would get a thunder medal.

 

WG also initiated a " KARMA " system so people would not lose more than 3 or 5 battles in a row and that did not work.

 

I would have no complaints if there was a metric that placed people of similar metric but WG proved they can not do it effectively.

 

View PostCaecias, on 23 July 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

 

So you are never on the wrong side of the obvious imbalances that persist in some matches; or when you are, you always prevail regardless? 

 

Bot mode vs. non-bot mode is intriguing in and of itself, but what numbers of humans are you expecting to play? 

 

Yes, If WG would allow people to chose PvP mode or a mode that has human and bot mix ( like it is now )

I would personally go for the all human mode.

Of course that has been suggested by me and a few others but it fell on deaf ears.


Edited by losttwo, 23 July 2016 - 08:09 PM.


Caecias #48 Posted 23 July 2016 - 08:19 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 233 battles
  • 428
  • Member since:
    06-22-2016

View Postlosttwo, on 23 July 2016 - 03:08 PM, said:

 They actually tried to implement a " sandbox " mode back in 1.5 that did not work.

 When I played my P-12 I would end up facing off with players that had 10 battles under their belt.

I would just go hit GT's until they came for me. If they did not come then I would get a thunder medal.

 

WG also initiated a " KARMA " system so people would not lose more than 3 or 5 battles in a row and that did not work.

 

I would have no complaints if there was a metric that placed people of similar metric but WG proved they can not do it effectively.

 

 

Yes, If WG would allow people to chose PvP mode or a mode that has human and bot mix ( like it is now )

I would personally go for the all human mode.

Of course that has been suggested by me and a few others but it fell on deaf ears.

 

Interesting take on this...  thanks.

 

 


Snoticus #49 Posted 24 July 2016 - 01:33 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 1,250
  • Member since:
    02-08-2014

 

Would you consider an alternate sandbox per tier, with easier difficulty? (Players that are more or less of your caliber of skill). I envision tier options that players rated above a certain metric would not be allowed to enter, but you would be allowed to step up to the higher rated sandboxes at your own will. I am thinking that this could only be possible when the numbers of aggregate participants are adequate, and that it might apply to tiers I-V, maybe less, maybe more, depending on those participation numbers, and could quite possibly vary throughout the day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

long as it works...and actually keeps the lower tier players in and others out..so we can actually learn without fear of 45 sec games dealing with the mix of bots...vets and other players. 


Edited by Snoticus, 24 July 2016 - 01:33 AM.

tlhIngan maH! Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam!

spider_x #50 Posted 24 July 2016 - 04:40 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 29 battles
  • 52
  • Member since:
    11-20-2013

View PostSnoticus, on 23 July 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

and what about us low ranked players...still stuck in low tiers? what happens to us?

 

Didn't we all have our rear-ends handed to us when we first started and through experience eventually learned the skills necessary to advance in competency?

 

View PostSnoticus, on 24 July 2016 - 01:33 AM, said:

 

Would you consider an alternate sandbox per tier, with easier difficulty? (Players that are more or less of your caliber of skill). I envision tier options that players rated above a certain metric would not be allowed to enter, but you would be allowed to step up to the higher rated sandboxes at your own will. I am thinking that this could only be possible when the numbers of aggregate participants are adequate, and that it might apply to tiers I-V, maybe less, maybe more, depending on those participation numbers, and could quite possibly vary throughout the day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

long as it works...and actually keeps the lower tier players in and others out..so we can actually learn without fear of 45 sec games dealing with the mix of bots...vets and other players. 

 

Yow! Here I was advocating for the reduction of tiers and you want to add alternate sandbox tiers. Here's the one place I think bots make great sense in WOWP: You can create a training room and fly against bots and hone your pilot skills. You can set the number of bots to play against and toggle what tier level of opponent you wish to play against. So just start out easy and and tweak it up harder as you gain the skills. It's free and a great way to get your chops going. 3D warfare is helluva lot harder than 2 dimensional like Tanks and Ships, but man is the payoff way awesome.

 

Victor Kislyi if your still reading I would like to add that the chat function is a major source of inspiring players to get revved up about the game they are playing and should be a top priority for WOWP to implement. How we have gone this long without chat boggles the imagination. I don't play tanks or ships but if those two titles have chat and we don't I'm really at a loss for words. Chat is huge and would help the game grow player camaraderie, and involve new players to integrate into the game. There is absolutely no excuse not to have it. 



dityboycom #51 Posted 24 July 2016 - 06:59 AM

    Colonel

  • Member
  • 1 battle
  • 9,287
  • [BAGG] BAGG
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

View PostCaecias, on 23 July 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

 

So you are never on the wrong side of the obvious imbalances that persist in some matches; or when you are, you always prevail regardless? 

 

Bot mode vs. non-bot mode is intriguing in and of itself, but what numbers of humans are you expecting to play? 

 

Yes, and I don't care 3v3 humans is much better than 10v10 with 1 human on both sides.

Psicko23 #52 Posted 24 July 2016 - 11:31 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 37 battles
  • 2,723
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

The alternate sandbox didn't work. Especially in 1.6. We would regularly have waited in queue for over 20 minutes even though there were 20 people in the same tier as you and you would get a 1v1 with no bots. I remember seeing a screen shot where someone waited just under an hour. Without bots, we don't have the population. Also, if you never face anyone better than you, how are you going to learn? I learned by getting stomped and figuring out how not to get stomped. 

     New people with the bots have it much easier compared to when a lot of the older people started.


Edited by Psicko23, 24 July 2016 - 11:32 AM.


dityboycom #53 Posted 24 July 2016 - 02:52 PM

    Colonel

  • Member
  • 1 battle
  • 9,287
  • [BAGG] BAGG
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

View PostPsicko23, on 24 July 2016 - 07:31 AM, said:

The alternate sandbox didn't work. Especially in 1.6. We would regularly have waited in queue for over 20 minutes even though there were 20 people in the same tier as you and you would get a 1v1 with no bots. I remember seeing a screen shot where someone waited just under an hour. Without bots, we don't have the population. Also, if you never face anyone better than you, how are you going to learn? I learned by getting stomped and figuring out how not to get stomped. 

     New people with the bots have it much easier compared to when a lot of the older people started.

 

There was several iterations of the game between what you're describing and what I am talking about.

Snoticus #54 Posted 24 July 2016 - 07:39 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 1,250
  • Member since:
    02-08-2014

View PostPsicko23, on 24 July 2016 - 06:31 AM, said:

The alternate sandbox didn't work. Especially in 1.6. We would regularly have waited in queue for over 20 minutes even though there were 20 people in the same tier as you and you would get a 1v1 with no bots. I remember seeing a screen shot where someone waited just under an hour. Without bots, we don't have the population. Also, if you never face anyone better than you, how are you going to learn? I learned by getting stomped and figuring out how not to get stomped. 

     New people with the bots have it much easier compared to when a lot of the older people started.

 

maybe by playing people your own caliber until your ready to progress?
tlhIngan maH! Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam!

Psicko23 #55 Posted 24 July 2016 - 07:42 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 37 battles
  • 2,723
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

View Postdityboycom, on 24 July 2016 - 06:52 AM, said:

 

There was several iterations of the game between what you're describing and what I am talking about.

 

I wasn't writing my post to suppliment yours. I was writing in response to someone completely different in regards to the "fair" mm that was implemented. 

Caecias #56 Posted 24 July 2016 - 09:18 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 233 battles
  • 428
  • Member since:
    06-22-2016

View Postdityboycom, on 24 July 2016 - 01:59 AM, said:

 

Yes, and I don't care 3v3 humans is much better than 10v10 with 1 human on both sides.

 

3v3 doesn't really beckon MMO in its true spirit.  Simply put we need more numbers it would seem. 

 

 


losttwo #57 Posted 24 July 2016 - 10:09 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 8996 battles
  • 14,780
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

View PostCaecias, on 24 July 2016 - 04:18 PM, said:

 

3v3 doesn't really beckon MMO in its true spirit.  Simply put we need more numbers it would seem. 

 

WG solution is to add bots to make larger teams

Zapperguy #58 Posted 25 July 2016 - 12:06 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 63 battles
  • 2,820
  • [CLOWN] CLOWN
  • Member since:
    04-04-2012

View Postlosttwo, on 24 July 2016 - 05:09 PM, said:

 

WG solution is to add bots to make larger teams

 

Cheaper than advertising. :sceptic:

 



dityboycom #59 Posted 25 July 2016 - 12:46 PM

    Colonel

  • Member
  • 1 battle
  • 9,287
  • [BAGG] BAGG
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

View PostCaecias, on 24 July 2016 - 05:18 PM, said:

 

3v3 doesn't really beckon MMO in its true spirit.  Simply put we need more numbers it would seem. 

 

No, but realistically it's much more enjoyable to play 3v3 with humans rather than 3v3 with 14 additional bots. Since it's pretty much guaranteed 2 of the three pilots on the other team will pick one of the humans to run down, why do we have to waste our time avoiding bot damage at the same time? Unless you're the "Chosen one," the bots don't clear your tail, and they don't assist you in anyway, so for 2 out of every 3 pilots in these games the bots are useless, unless the one in control of them is vigilant and is willing to delegate them accordingly.

RedSpartacus #60 Posted 25 July 2016 - 01:01 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 1,521
  • Member since:
    02-02-2014
Are we talking about how we should treat Snow White after she had eaten the poisonous apple although we know we need a charming prince that won't show up ?

Edited by RedSpartacus, 25 July 2016 - 01:04 PM.

  RUN WITH THE PACK





Also tagged with revamp, bots

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users