Jump to content


Some Things to Start Fixing Warplanes


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

GeorgePatton #1 Posted 28 July 2017 - 06:05 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 7716 battles
  • 5,084
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

At its heart, World of Warplanes seeks to convey the beauty of aviation to a wide audience in the form of an easily accessible videogame. As a pilot and lover of aviation in any form, be it real, simulated, or simply a game – I am disappointed that the World of Warplanes project has diverged so deeply from its original form and intent.

 

I remember the words of Alexander Zezulin “World of Warplanes is a free-to-play MMO-action game dedicated to air combat that will combine features of a flight simulator as well as traditional MMO elements.”

At the time of this interview, there were thousands of players lining up praying for a place in the Alpha test – World of Warplanes was the year’s most anticipated title and winning many awards. Gameplay was fast and fun, lacking many of the ‘random number generator’ aspects that we see now. At this point, the stated development goal was to create a game that was true to real-world flight minus ‘the management of fuel mixtures and complicated things like that which would require a full-cockpit setup’. The game was meant to portray flight in a way which would respect the limitations of an average PC – no fancy simulator hardware required, just a simple joystick or if you didn’t want to spend money on that, a keyboard and mouse (although it was no secret that playing with a keyboard and mouse wouldn’t get you the full experience! There was even talk of partnering with Logitech to offer a special ‘World of Warplanes’ flight stick…)

 

Somewhere between this interview and the Closed Beta Test, the development vision shifted radically, with little information on why. The best answer I ever received to my constant questioning of the development decisions at this point was that ‘we see a specific player having too great an influence on the outcome of all battles in which he participates.’ After further questioning, I was told to go look at my stats. I countered with the argument that there are players who have a very advanced knowledge of real-world aviation and air combat techniques and tactics and that that should reward those players with higher statistics, but the developers wished to ‘even the playing field’ by introducing random elements to the game which eliminated some of the impact a player’s skill and knowledge would have on the outcome of a battle.

 

This was the beginning of a long and dangerous path to the point we now find the game – a shadow of its former glory with less than one tenth the number of players concurrently online than we had during the beta stages. Anyone who sees this and refuses to admit there is something severely wrong with the game chooses to be blind to the development failures of Persha Studia and Wargaming.net in oversight.

In this paper, I will offer my opinions on the current issues the game is facing, and my suggestions to bring back the beauty of the game which attracted the rave reviews of almost every game critic and would-be players.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are many things which are wrong with the game and I will try to categorize them by topic. My suggestions for ways to fix each issue will be placed in bold text following the explained issue.

 

Game Mechanics:

  • One of the largest issues in game mechanics is the lack of parallels with real-world air combat operations. In the real world, pilots were not sent into combat against other aircraft with a group of attack aircraft in tow except on rare occasions. First, there would be a ‘fighter sweep’ to clear any opposing fighters out of the sky so the attack aircraft could focus solely on avoiding anti-aircraft fire and hitting their targets. Then, there were ‘combat air patrols’ to ensure that the airspace remained in the control of the attackers. What we see in the game seems to be based loosely on heavy-bomber missions, which due to distance and time to target requirements, necessitated the fighter sweep and attack missions to be flown simultaneously. It is important to note that these missions suffered heavy losses due to both anti-aircraft fire and opposing fighters. It is also important to note that aircraft like the IL-2 and even the IL-40 were not used for these missions – the aircraft which were used were heavily armed and manned by large crews with multiple gun turrets for defense against fighters. I suggest either removing the attack class aircraft from random battles or giving them a more important place in the match – specifically, create an objective target which, if destroyed, will result in victory for the team that destroyed it. This would accomplish several things:
    • Focus the gameplay on objectives rather than a simple ‘kill, kill, kill’ mentality,
    • Bring heavy fighters more in line with their historic use which was not as the almighty dominators of the battlefield – they were designed to destroy heavily armored aircraft like high-altitude bombers,
    • Create more variety in gameplay – this would effectively change up the ‘get as high as possible and work your way down’ meta that we currently see.

This is important for several reasons – we currently see a lot of complaints in the North American region surrounding the success of heavy fighters against any other aircraft type. I don’t agree that the heavy fighters are as imbalanced as many players consider them to be, but there is some basis for the complaint. Heavy fighters require the least amount of effort to be successful compared to the light and multi-role fighters and when good players fly them, they can be a real pain to combat.

 

  • End Game Content – there is none. World of Tanks has Clan Wars, World of Warships has ranked battles, World of Tanks has Team Battles and now also Ranked Battles – we still only have ‘Standard Battle’ here in Warplanes. Oh, Tanks also has Strongholds and tournaments – I am not sure if Warships has either of these… Give us ranked battles. Give us Clan Wars, which was promised ‘soon’ before release what, 3 years ago now? It’s not hard to do… We’ve seen several community run clan wars events that unfortunately did not pan out do to random issues and conflicts of interest that inevitably arise when players try to run something using a lot of human input. There’s absolutely no good excuse for the lack of clan wars in Warplanes. World of Tanks developers don’t want to share their code – I get that – but it’s not hard to write your own… My suggestion would be to take the global map concept that Tanks has, and make each battle for the territories a two-part thing. Part 1 is fighters vs fighters – no attack aircraft – use this to determine how many aircraft the attacking force is allowed to bring to the second part. Second part is destroying the airbase – the attacking force will have anywhere from 10 to 30 aircraft available for the second part, while the defending force will have 15 regardless of the outcome of the initial battle. Attacking force will have between 1 and 15 fighters, while the rest of the force must be comprised of attack aircraft. As a clan holds territory, they will accumulate anti-aircraft emplacements and the longer the territory is held, the stronger the AA emplacements will be in terms of damage dealt. It should be hard for the attack aircraft to take out the airbase, and impossible for the fighters to back the up unless the attack aircraft take out the AA emplacements first. This would require a lot of teamwork and would balance the attack and defense while making this mode more engaging than a standard battle which would drive participation. This is just an idea, of course at this point anything is better than nothing in terms of clan wars.

 

  • The team-play aspect is extremely lacking. Very seldom was there a ‘lone wolf’ pilot – someone who preferred to fight alone. Most ‘Aces’ or ‘Virtuoso Pilots’ had one or more wingmen who they took into battle and taught how to fight and protect each other and over time they became inseparable and would not go up without the others as they knew how to work well together and keep each other safe. There is a reason a three-ship formation is known as the ‘Missing Man’. The standard operational unit was a 4-ship formation. In World of Warplanes we are limited to a 2-ship formation which does not even comprise the ‘Missing Man’. I suggest allowing up to four players in a ‘flight’ to reflect the historical precedent and also allow players to have more fun interacting with their friends in the game. Air combat is a team endeavor and should be treated as such in a game which seeks to represent it as authentically as possibly, even if the game is trying to make it less challenging than flying a real-world aircraft. To alleviate issues with flights of very good players against flights of mediocre or average players, a simple matchmaker check for ‘flight rating’ could easily fix this. Average the player ratings on each flight, and greater than 1000 points between the averages of flights would make the more highly-rated flight wait in the queue until they could be matched against a flight of comparable pilots. If this ‘Overpowered Flight’ wishes to get matched against other flights more quickly, they should split into two flights, and if a ‘full flight’ of 4 players is desired, pick up other players.

 

  • The atmosphere system is ridiculous and does not work. Due to altitude compression being approximately 3:1 (three meters are compressed into one game-world meter) the ‘Boom and Zoom’ tactic is much too powerful. There is not enough time for a player who is ‘bounced’ by a ‘Boom and Zoom’ player to get out of the way of the attack and airspeed is lost too quickly when the nose is pointed up to try to achieve ‘chasing shots’ on the attacker as he or she zooms away. I suggest removing the altitude compression system. 1 meter should equal 1 meter. I realize that the altitude compression was added to keep the detail required on the maps lower – but why not just artificially limit the altitude of the aircraft? The current system is not realistic, and is detrimental to gameplay, what’s the harm in saying the aircraft can’t go as high as they could in real-life? They already don’t do that anyway… The P-51D could easily achieve 40,000 feet (12,192m) but in the game, cannot even achieve 5,000m. Remove altitude compression entirely. It makes no sense and does not contribute anything to gameplay.

 

Flight Model:

  • Aircraft roll rates are too slow – historical? Maybe. Fun? Definitely not. One of the most exciting aspects of air combat is the speed and adrenaline rush associated with high-performance equipment in a combat environment. To the modern gamer who has been exposed to movies such as ‘Top Gun’ historical combat aircraft are slow and docile. The modern gamer is more attached to an idea of aircraft performance than the actual data. The people want faster – give it to them! Increase roll rates across the board by 25-35% and you’ll see an increase in player engagement and retention. People. Want. Action. They want to feel like they’re in the movie ‘Top Gun’ pulling off impossible stunts and being the ‘Ace Pilot’ even if they don’t get a kill. ‘Cool aviation’ has been flavored by modified WWII aircraft racing at the Reno National Championship Air Races, high-performance aerobatic aircraft racing in the Red Bull Air Races, and jet performance teams such as the Breitling Jet Team and USAF Thunderbirds, USN Blue Angels, Canadian Snowbirds, RAF Red Arrows, The Patrouille de France, etc. Regardless of historical accuracy, this is what people want to feel when they play the game.
  • Aircraft are too slow – again, we live in the age of supersonic jet aircraft with super maneuverability. People don’t want exact historical values (which are not even present in World of Warplanes anyway…) so give them what they do want. Increase airspeed across the board. Don’t make everything supersonic, but make things faster. Increase acceleration rates, make engines more powerful so we don’t lose airspeed as rapidly in climbs, and CERTAINLY not in level flight with the throttle fully open! Also increase the ability of aircraft to slow down – engine idle should be about 30% more effective (simply from a real-world point of view flying a small aircraft) and flaps should be about 75% more effective. Basically, we should have a more direct impact on the performance of our aircraft and ability to ‘yank and bank’ and force it to do what we want. Check out the following videos to see a little bit of what I'm talking about.

    

 

A quick break to talk about a few things… I do advocate historical accuracy to an extent – I think it’s important to acknowledge the history that has brought us to where we are now and I respect Wargaming’s commitment to portraying history wherever possible. I do feel that there is a limit to how far this should be carried in a videogame. In the case of World of Warplanes, I feel that history has been respected in the wrong places at the expense of player enjoyment. Specifically, in the case of aircraft roll rates I find the historical accuracy to be contrary to the general wellbeing of the game. There’s a couple reasons for this – first, these low roll-rates are one thing when you’re actually sitting in the cockpit of the aircraft which blocks your field of view, it’s completely different when you are able to track your opponent wherever they go regardless of where your aircraft is. Your opponent no longer is able to hide behind your cockpit panel where you can’t see to shoot him. Your opponent can no longer pull a turn reversal in your blind spot, etc. From a tactical standpoint, an increase in roll-rate is necessary to accomplish things that were definitely possible in a WWII aircraft. Second, we’re used to everything being bigger, better, faster. We see it in the F-16, SU-27, SU-33, etc. We will never get the same excitement from that ‘400 km/hr milestone’ that ‘XYZ Plane just set!’ that someone who lived in the 1940’s would have gotten. A jet engine isn’t something unheard of. We need to sacrifice historical data for a historical feeling – a historical idea. That sense of wonder and fascination that a kid in the 1940’s felt when he read about the Ace pilots tearing around the sky at 300 miles per hour is the equivalent of a modern kid watching an F-16 fly past at full afterburner just below the sound barrier. Let’s replicate that rather than the dry data that is no longer exciting due to many more advances in technology.

 

  • Maneuvers are lacking. We cannot perform a ‘Snap Roll’, spins and stall-turns are impossible and skids and slips don’t do anything worthwhile. OK, I realize that these are all advanced maneuvers that the average player will know nothing about – but they are also very important maneuvers in combat aviation and neglecting to portray them removes a big part of the overall experience. One of the biggest issues facing World of Warplanes is the lack of ways to avoid an attack – while not having snap rolls may sound trivial, the maneuver saved many a pilot’s life in WWII. I remember reading Saburo Sakai’s memoir ‘Samurai’ and reading a story he told of a time he was attacked by a group of American F4F aircraft which were faster and more heavily armed. Due to their numbers, he was unable to utilize his aircraft’s superior maneuverability to combat them and so entered into a series of left snap rolls to make leading their shots more difficult. He continued pulling up and snapping his aircraft over to the left over and over again, constantly heading towards his anti-aircraft emplacements on the island his squadron was tasked to defend until they opened up on the Americans and he could fly safely back to base. The argument against such maneuvers was that they were too advanced and recovery techniques would be beyond the average player – I agree with this reasoning, but at the same time – we now have an ‘auto level’ button we can press – why not make it work to recover from advanced stalls and spins? What about an option to continue using the current system of stalls which don’t allow spins and snaps, etc but have an option to enable ‘advanced maneuvers’ with a warning that some maneuvers require special recovery techniques? Offer training videos for how to enter into and recover from these maneuvers? There are ways to work these things into the game while giving those who don’t want to fool with it the ability to stay away.

 

 

Game Environment:

First of all, I’d like to say that the game looks amazingly beautiful. I don’t really have many complaints there – my concern with the game environment is mainly focused on gameplay elements.

 

  • Terrain is lacking in terms of usability for aircraft other than attack aircraft. Sure, there are some canyons that can be pretty cool to play around in, but going into these canyons is a last-ditch element due to the fact that we basically have to go to ground level to use them which means we’ll never get back into the battle after we make the other guy break off his chase or crash trying to shoot us. I suggest creating more interesting terrain features at higher altitudes. See these videos for some ideas: 
  • Clouds are lacking as viable combat options. Make more large cloud formations around the maps at higher altitudes to give us something to run into and hide – this was a HUGE part of combat aviation prior to onboard radar and guided missiles. Manfred von Richthofen’s book (The Red Fighter Pilot), Eddie Rickenbacker’s book (Fighting the Flying Circus), Saburo Sakai’s book (Samurai), and many others tell stories of how a dive into a cloud saved the pilot’s life and/or enabled him to reverse roles and become the attacker. Sure, we can never stop in the middle of the air, but the next best thing is to become invisible to our attacker for a while and either wait for them to leave us alone, or pull a reversal and come out of the cloud attacking! There is absolutely no good reason for this to not be portrayed in World of Warplanes. The clouds should be large enough that a player is able to fly around in them without accidentally ‘popping out’. A player who dives into a cloud should be visible for 3 seconds to the target camera and have his or her tag show to the opponents for those 3 seconds, but then should disappear completely until he or she comes out of the cloud. Again, this goes back to having more viable options to change the tables of the fight, and more ways to escape an attack.
  • The Asian map – this map is annoying – the clouds are so close to the ground they’re useless and really only serve to make flight into terrain a very real possibility. The map itself is beautiful at low level – the attention to detail on the Cambodian style temples is really something cool to observe when flying the attack class aircraft, but anyone who goes higher than 2000 meters will understand that this map just looks unfinished from altitude. Bring the clouds up to 2000 meters and add some building Cumulonimbus (thunderstorm) clouds with tops at 7000 meters and this map would be amazing. Perhaps even add some rain effects beneath the Cumulonimbus clouds! You already have a working basis for this in the camera effects at low altitude over water – just adapt it to rain below a cloud!

 

 

If you agree with any of these suggestions, please do give this post an upvote - I don't care if you have personal issues with me - if you think this could help the game, give it a vote. We've all seen GhostPrime's post that said getting people behind ideas and feedback is what brings the change. It's at least worth a try, so let's try to put our differences aside and see if we can bring some positive change to the game. If you don't agree with these suggestions, please quote the suggestion you don't agree with and explain why you think it would be detrimental to the game!

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


GeorgePatton #2 Posted 28 July 2017 - 06:07 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 7716 battles
  • 5,084
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Here are some images of clouds that I think could be inspiring for future map development

 


Edited by GeorgePatton, 28 July 2017 - 06:08 PM.

                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


Mackunaima #3 Posted 28 July 2017 - 06:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 20718 battles
  • 1,582
  • [WHAWK] WHAWK
  • Member since:
    04-09-2012

Set you mind to achieve a defined goal, is one thing.

Keep your mind balanced to achieve the goal, is a totally different thing. You need to be bigger than shadows.

 

Most of managers can't keep their pace under investor deadlines pressures.

 

In my opinion they were lacking in so many ways with this game that I just can't point out where is the major fail. But all of us knows how to solve this. Start it over again, and when you reach 1.4, stop there and hold like a year or more.

 

PS: Im still reading your post. Very long.. :D


"Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?" - Gimli



 


20thCenturyLtd #4 Posted 28 July 2017 - 06:18 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 18513 battles
  • 1,322
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    11-28-2013
C'mon George, why in the hell would you waste your time on this. It's at least 3 years too late and you know damn well the Devs don't even read the NA forums to begin with. They already have 2.0 in the pipe with it's new game mode...that's all we're gonna get, take it or leave it. Your just spitting in the wind pal.

Personnel Officer, Knights of Dracarys

Please PM me if interested in applying or for more information.


PhoinexFire #5 Posted 28 July 2017 - 06:32 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 9086 battles
  • 378
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    12-05-2013
Control C and Control V and you've got a novel...

mnbv_fockewulfe #6 Posted 28 July 2017 - 07:45 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 4506 battles
  • 1,212
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

You forgot to tell us what you think about gun dispersion. :bajan:

Personally I hate it. With a burning passion.


Dat nose

knows does doe

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


GhostPrime #7 Posted 28 July 2017 - 08:46 PM

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 1639 battles
  • 1,946
  • [WGA-B] WGA-B
  • Member since:
    04-22-2013
Thank you for your well thought out post. I read through it and I do see some points you hit on that will be addressed in some manner in the future. 


Please read the WOWP Game and Forum rules.
Forum Rules - Game Rules - EULA - TOS
Find us on Facebook!


Quesnel #8 Posted 28 July 2017 - 11:57 PM

    Open Beta Survivor

  • Community Ace
  • 13095 battles
  • 5,009
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGeorgePatton, on 28 July 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

Check out the following videos to see a little bit of what I'm talking about.

    

 

 

My only real nitpick, instead of showing cinematic scenes of aircraft outside the time period covered with the game, how about real planes that fit within the era....

 

 

One example is this mock dogfight between a Supermarine Spitfire vs Spanish Hispano 1112 Buchon (standing in for a Messerschmitt Bf-109), filmed in 1993.

 

 

Another decent one is this F4U Corsair versus A6M2 Zero, filmed at Airventure 2014.

 

 

One of my favorite clips, despite the "causal" way both pilots fly their respective aircraft a F-86 versus MIG-15 from 2011 Aviation Nation at Nellis AFB Nevada.



MagusGerhardt #9 Posted 29 July 2017 - 01:15 AM

    Horten Test Pilot

  • -Community Ace-
  • 7682 battles
  • 5,123
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Good points, in agreement with most but not all.  +1 given, but I don't see how this can be done, without - as you admitted- scrapping the game as-is and just starting over.

 

And there's zero chance that WG would relaunch this platform if the plug were ever pulled.


 

 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787


rb1951 #10 Posted 29 July 2017 - 01:36 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 29678 battles
  • 26
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013
Well thought out and as soon as hell feezes over I am sure they will take all of this to task!

KloudRains #11 Posted 29 July 2017 - 03:52 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 32142 battles
  • 80
  • [-BFS-] -BFS-
  • Member since:
    06-14-2014
Much appreciate the history and trend perspective! Mostly in agreement. 

losttwo #12 Posted 29 July 2017 - 10:34 AM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 29924 battles
  • 12,608
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012
:great:

BrushWolf #13 Posted 29 July 2017 - 01:17 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 10764 battles
  • 5,641
  • [GWG] GWG
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View PostMagusGerhardt, on 28 July 2017 - 08:15 PM, said:

Good points, in agreement with most but not all.  +1 given, but I don't see how this can be done, without - as you admitted- scrapping the game as-is and just starting over.

 

And there's zero chance that WG would relaunch this platform if the plug were ever pulled.

 

 

A wholesale change to what was originally being developed  would be bad but incrementally pushing the game back in thst direction would be beneficial.


I used to have a handle on life until it broke off.

                             

 

“The church is near but the road is icy, the tavern is far away but I will walk carefully”

Russian Proverb

 


PzrCanuck #14 Posted 29 July 2017 - 03:58 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 27262 battles
  • 46
  • Member since:
    01-15-2013

 a reasonable paper, but just wishful thinking.

GP's comment- "I do see some points you hit on that will be addressed in some manner in the future. "

I read this and think , " where's the ignore button?"



armydoc83 #15 Posted 29 July 2017 - 06:35 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 3002 battles
  • 222
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-19-2013

Block Quote

Game Mechanics:

  • One of the largest issues in game mechanics is the lack of parallels with real-world air combat operations. In the real world, pilots were not sent into combat against other aircraft with a group of attack aircraft in tow except on rare occasions. First, there would be a ‘fighter sweep’ to clear any opposing fighters out of the sky so the attack aircraft could focus solely on avoiding anti-aircraft fire and hitting their targets. Then, there were ‘combat air patrols’ to ensure that the airspace remained in the control of the attackers. What we see in the game seems to be based loosely on heavy-bomber missions, which due to distance and time to target requirements, necessitated the fighter sweep and attack missions to be flown simultaneously. It is important to note that these missions suffered heavy losses due to both anti-aircraft fire and opposing fighters. It is also important to note that aircraft like the IL-2 and even the IL-40 were not used for these missions – the aircraft which were used were heavily armed and manned by large crews with multiple gun turrets for defense against fighters. I suggest either removing the attack class aircraft from random battles or giving them a more important place in the match – specifically, create an objective target which, if destroyed, will result in victory for the team that destroyed it. This would accomplish several things:
    • Focus the gameplay on objectives rather than a simple ‘kill, kill, kill’ mentality,
    • Bring heavy fighters more in line with their historic use which was not as the almighty dominators of the battlefield – they were designed to destroy heavily armored aircraft like high-altitude bombers,
    • Create more variety in gameplay – this would effectively change up the ‘get as high as possible and work your way down’ meta that we currently see.

 Pulling attack aircraft from the game is a no-go. There's a sizable part of the population that has put a lot of time, credits, and yes money, into traveling down the attack lines. Barring them from the vast majority of the game would not only wipe out a major method of swaying the battle, but would pretty much steal away all the effort that these players exerted on their attack craft and throw it into some clan warfare system that they might not even want to use. This game is not about historical strategy. There's British fighters dogfighting Americans while their German allies clear their tails. Pulling out the multiple phases of air superiority does not mesh with a game that is about 15 minute all or nothing fights.

 

I would agree that putting in a ground level 'base' like those that exist in Tanks and Warships would make the game more fascinating. Those players that insist on taking the fight into the stratosphere do so at the risk that their multiple breaks to regain altitude allow GA to get to their target and start hammering it down. Of course you'll then get cries of 'no skill' or flights of HF with rockets trying to get the easy win before the GA even get halfway across the map. GA used to have a much easier time influencing the game when ground targets weren't multiple individual targets. The GA that was ignored could easily build up more than enough points to hide out on the edge of the map and just wait for supremacy to occur. The greater stealth of that time helped with that. Of course, having no armor on the targets meant that you had new players strafing them in their little pew pew biplanes while the fight was being lost higher up. So WG took these steps but consequently took away a small amount of the GA's influence on the game.

 

Block Quote

Clan Wars et al.

 I totally agree.

 

Block Quote

  • The team-play aspect is extremely lacking. Very seldom was there a ‘lone wolf’ pilot – someone who preferred to fight alone. Most ‘Aces’ or ‘Virtuoso Pilots’ had one or more wingmen who they took into battle and taught how to fight and protect each other and over time they became inseparable and would not go up without the others as they knew how to work well together and keep each other safe. There is a reason a three-ship formation is known as the ‘Missing Man’. The standard operational unit was a 4-ship formation. In World of Warplanes we are limited to a 2-ship formation which does not even comprise the ‘Missing Man’. I suggest allowing up to four players in a ‘flight’ to reflect the historical precedent and also allow players to have more fun interacting with their friends in the game. Air combat is a team endeavor and should be treated as such in a game which seeks to represent it as authentically as possibly, even if the game is trying to make it less challenging than flying a real-world aircraft. To alleviate issues with flights of very good players against flights of mediocre or average players, a simple matchmaker check for ‘flight rating’ could easily fix this. Average the player ratings on each flight, and greater than 1000 points between the averages of flights would make the more highly-rated flight wait in the queue until they could be matched against a flight of comparable pilots. If this ‘Overpowered Flight’ wishes to get matched against other flights more quickly, they should split into two flights, and if a ‘full flight’ of 4 players is desired, pick up other players.

 

 This simply would not work unless we got a population that is a factor of 10 or even 100 times greater than now. MM being what it is, it will eventually place those players in a game with 4 randos and a bunch of bots. Do you remember what 3 elite players in 110s or 262s could do to a bunch of new players just learning the ropes? Hillshire Farms remembers. And you'd want to add a 4th to that party? That will drive the game straight into the grave!

 

The worst part is that, with the addition of bots instead of human players, all the flight has to focus on is taking down the players because the bots are going to be going after anybody but the primary threat. They can then statpad at their leisure. This would be the LAST improvement to make after the game has miraculously recovered AND the lines have been rebalanced.

 

Block Quote

  • The atmosphere system is ridiculous and does not work. Due to altitude compression being approximately 3:1 (three meters are compressed into one game-world meter) the ‘Boom and Zoom’ tactic is much too powerful. There is not enough time for a player who is ‘bounced’ by a ‘Boom and Zoom’ player to get out of the way of the attack and airspeed is lost too quickly when the nose is pointed up to try to achieve ‘chasing shots’ on the attacker as he or she zooms away. I suggest removing the altitude compression system. 1 meter should equal 1 meter. I realize that the altitude compression was added to keep the detail required on the maps lower – but why not just artificially limit the altitude of the aircraft? The current system is not realistic, and is detrimental to gameplay, what’s the harm in saying the aircraft can’t go as high as they could in real-life? They already don’t do that anyway… The P-51D could easily achieve 40,000 feet (12,192m) but in the game, cannot even achieve 5,000m. Remove altitude compression entirely. It makes no sense and does not contribute anything to gameplay.

 

I'd add a second thing to this. Make prolonged diving into the yellow start giving you damage and going into the red increase the rate while chancing crits to wings and tails. I've tried to dive straight down from 30,000 feet in IL2. I've seen my wings pop off like the boosters of the space shuttle. Airframes can only take so much stress, put that into the game. Once pilots are forced to take a more nuanced approach to BnZ, they can by all means still use it, and still use it effectively, but the canny Yak or Zero player now has a slightly longer window of pursuit especially if they already have a good bit of velocity they can bleed off.

 

Block Quote

Maneuvers et al.

 

I'm all for this. If we're going to stretch out the maps it makes no sense to take 15 minutes to find the enemy.

 

Block Quote

  • Clouds are lacking as viable combat options. Make more large cloud formations around the maps at higher altitudes to give us something to run into and hide – this was a HUGE part of combat aviation prior to onboard radar and guided missiles. Manfred von Richthofen’s book (The Red Fighter Pilot), Eddie Rickenbacker’s book (Fighting the Flying Circus), Saburo Sakai’s book (Samurai), and many others tell stories of how a dive into a cloud saved the pilot’s life and/or enabled him to reverse roles and become the attacker. Sure, we can never stop in the middle of the air, but the next best thing is to become invisible to our attacker for a while and either wait for them to leave us alone, or pull a reversal and come out of the cloud attacking! There is absolutely no good reason for this to not be portrayed in World of Warplanes. The clouds should be large enough that a player is able to fly around in them without accidentally ‘popping out’. A player who dives into a cloud should be visible for 3 seconds to the target camera and have his or her tag show to the opponents for those 3 seconds, but then should disappear completely until he or she comes out of the cloud. Again, this goes back to having more viable options to change the tables of the fight, and more ways to escape an attack.

 

I'll add something onto this. Start adding blind spots onto the planes. One of the major draws to Tanks was the fact that if the server determined that you couldn't see the enemy, it was invisible to you unless an ally spotted him AND was in range to tell you. We know that the 109 had abysmal field of vision and that the Spitfire had a rear view mirror. We also know that later Mustangs had some of the best views of the war. We also know that there was a huge blind spot below the aircraft where there happened to be a seat, rudder pedals, and instruments.  Bring those into play and force players to actually snap their view behind them to see where a pursuing enemy actually is. This means they can't really keep their eye on their target or where they're flying. Make that a skill to master and give lower flying planes the ability to take advantage of higher altitude planes flying complacently and not flipping over every once in awhile to see who is below them.

 

Block Quote

  • The Asian map – this map is annoying – the clouds are so close to the ground they’re useless and really only serve to make flight into terrain a very real possibility. The map itself is beautiful at low level – the attention to detail on the Cambodian style temples is really something cool to observe when flying the attack class aircraft, but anyone who goes higher than 2000 meters will understand that this map just looks unfinished from altitude. Bring the clouds up to 2000 meters and add some building Cumulonimbus (thunderstorm) clouds with tops at 7000 meters and this map would be amazing. Perhaps even add some rain effects beneath the Cumulonimbus clouds! You already have a working basis for this in the camera effects at low altitude over water – just adapt it to rain below a cloud!

 That map is an attack aircraft's best friend. Don't touch it. Until you've goaded a 109Z to take a dive at you and made him juke into a foggy hillside, you haven't seen the fun in this map. Same thing for Yaks and Zeros submarining in and out of the fog to evade BnZ. In fact, I'd like MORE maps like these to bring extra fun to the low altitude planes.

 

 

 

Now, a few suggestions of my own for what they're worth.

 

Bot intelligence and MM: While I don't really mind the bot's piloting abilities, I have been running into ever more frequent periods of bots on my team dying en masse. Too often to be due to chance. My last round the clock hadn't even hit 13 minutes counting down and I suddenly got a wall of red text as all but 2 GA and I were suddenly left on our team. When that happens too often, the game just isn't fun unless you're already at nosebleed height and can BnZ your way down. Your Zero that just got the glory of forcing a 38 to bleed off its inertia then shoot it down now has all fun stolen away as 8 enemy fighters rendezvous over it and dive down 3 at a time to hit it in crossfire.

 

At that point it has stopped being a game and started being work and it's everything that I can do to lock up the hangar for a few weeks.

 

If there's an MM component to bots. Get rid of it. Let there be true randomness on the teams. Other than flights, we didn't get the luxury of pulling a team that could wipe the other in 4 minutes. It was a mixed bag and you had to make due with what you had. Putting in artificial 'fairness' is just going to drive away the players who have stuck with the game.

 

Besides this, having bots swoop in to steal kills is something that you should be able to stop. If I'm struggling to build up the guns on my 190 so I can do decent DPS against the enemy, the last thing I need is for a friendly Mosquito to take the last 100 HP off the IL2 that I've been whittling down. That XP goes nowhere and the human winds up getting 800XP for the match for a bunch of assists instead of 1600 if he had gotten all the kills. Not a matter of aiming or shooting. It's just a matter of some planes having much more DPS than others and winning in the race towards 0 HP on the target.

 

Of course this isn't quite as aggravating as the AI that they've put on enemy attack planes. An IL, in the right hands, can either shoot down a small handful of damaged opponents (if Ivan is having a good and sober day) or it can swerve and breach and generally use it's flight characteristics of a brick to deny nimble planes a shot without getting a point blank shot from either hurty end. As somebody who's just saving up the cash to buy the IL 20, it is infuriating to watch these planes just passively graze on ground targets when they're the last plane on the team and you're up by a good 100 points and are closer to supremacy. Even moreso when they continue to graze while a plane with just a few HP left leisurely attacks it from above and costs you your hard fought game.

 

So what's the solution to all these complaints?

 

Let the players control the bots. Yes that's right give us direct commands that we can issue to bots instead of this semi-flocking behavior and coin flipping as to whether they focus down a target or not. Simple things in a 'flight leader' screen where you can put out commands like 'fly here', click on a name to give them a priority target, tell them to form on you when they all want to dive to the deck to kill the IL that meandered below our group, tell them to go find another target if you've got the plan ahead of you dead to rights, and, if you see somebody coming up on a bots tail and it is blissfully flying towards a target far away, a command to make them engage in evasive maneuvers. If you're the only human player on the team, it puts a new level of interaction with the game and let's you get the coordination to a limited degree that you used to have with good human teams in days of yore. If there's multiple human players, split the grouping up between them. 2 humans on a 10 plane team? Give them both 4 to work with. At least if your bots fail, it's because you didn't lead them right. And it cuts through a good chunk of the aggravating AI that cannot effectively think on its own.

 

A 20 year old game like X-Wing running out of DOS allowed you to do a lot of this just by hitting shift and a letter key. I'm sure that a game from the 2010s could institute something similar.

 

And finally.

 

Quit hyperstereotyping planes

 

Yes, it makes them more individualized, but as I've mentioned in another thread the A6M5 is the whipping boy of the game meta these days. While the Zero was indeed getting outclassed at the point of the war that the M5 came out, it was still within 30mph of the 109F and Spitfire III. Putting a whole line into a certain 'theme' can make a whole line useless when the game meta is against it or make a whole line overpowered when the meta favors it. Why do you think everybody picks HF when those planes were shown to be obsolete early in the war (110s for the most part obviously not 262s).

 

I would say that GP's suggestions on increasing speed, expanding the altitude of maps, and doing away with the 'shotgun' weapon bursts that we have would help fix this. Heck, allow us to calibrate our targeting lead so that it estimates where we want to put the shots rather than wherever the game wants to make it appear. And if shots fire true, then heavy hitting LF like the Zero and derp Yaks now are much more lethal in the match.



20thCenturyLtd #16 Posted 29 July 2017 - 09:28 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 18513 battles
  • 1,322
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    11-28-2013
^^^Wow, you guys sure have a lot of time on your hands to be wasting it this way. You do realize you're in an echo chamber....nobody that matters(WG/Persha) is listening.

Personnel Officer, Knights of Dracarys

Please PM me if interested in applying or for more information.


TeamTerrible #17 Posted 29 July 2017 - 09:51 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 45726 battles
  • 2,052
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    12-29-2012

View Post20thCenturyLtd, on 29 July 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

^^^Wow, you guys sure have a lot of time on your hands to be wasting it this way. You do realize you're in an echo chamber....nobody that matters(WG/Persha) is listening.

 

Of course they have time on their hands!!!

 

With server issues, poor MM, dimwitted bots, etc etc and etc you are better off venting to a brick wall

 

I'm still waiting for my suggestions from 2015 to be moderated so i'll suggest something after hell freezes over

 

 


 

 

         


mullyman #18 Posted 29 July 2017 - 10:18 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 27174 battles
  • 991
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    06-09-2014
This game was dead the day they put these fcktard bots into the battles.
mullyman.png

mnbv_fockewulfe #19 Posted 29 July 2017 - 10:58 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 4506 battles
  • 1,212
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

This is why I firmly believe WOWP still has a LOT of potential.

The game isn't ment to be played this way. Yet its possible...

and super fun.


Dat nose

knows does doe

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


GeorgePatton #20 Posted 29 July 2017 - 11:21 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 7716 battles
  • 5,084
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View Postarmydoc83, on 29 July 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

 

And finally.

 

Quit hyperstereotyping planes

 

Yes, it makes them more individualized, but as I've mentioned in another thread the A6M5 is the whipping boy of the game meta these days. While the Zero was indeed getting outclassed at the point of the war that the M5 came out, it was still within 30mph of the 109F and Spitfire III. Putting a whole line into a certain 'theme' can make a whole line useless when the game meta is against it or make a whole line overpowered when the meta favors it. Why do you think everybody picks HF when those planes were shown to be obsolete early in the war (110s for the most part obviously not 262s).

 

I would say that GP's suggestions on increasing speed, expanding the altitude of maps, and doing away with the 'shotgun' weapon bursts that we have would help fix this. Heck, allow us to calibrate our targeting lead so that it estimates where we want to put the shots rather than wherever the game wants to make it appear. And if shots fire true, then heavy hitting LF like the Zero and derp Yaks now are much more lethal in the match.

 

Block Quote

 

 Pulling attack aircraft from the game is a no-go. There's a sizable part of the population that has put a lot of time, credits, and yes money, into traveling down the attack lines. Barring them from the vast majority of the game would not only wipe out a major method of swaying the battle, but would pretty much steal away all the effort that these players exerted on their attack craft and throw it into some clan warfare system that they might not even want to use. This game is not about historical strategy. There's British fighters dogfighting Americans while their German allies clear their tails. Pulling out the multiple phases of air superiority does not mesh with a game that is about 15 minute all or nothing fights.

 

I would agree that putting in a ground level 'base' like those that exist in Tanks and Warships would make the game more fascinating. Those players that insist on taking the fight into the stratosphere do so at the risk that their multiple breaks to regain altitude allow GA to get to their target and start hammering it down. Of course you'll then get cries of 'no skill' or flights of HF with rockets trying to get the easy win before the GA even get halfway across the map. GA used to have a much easier time influencing the game when ground targets weren't multiple individual targets. The GA that was ignored could easily build up more than enough points to hide out on the edge of the map and just wait for supremacy to occur. The greater stealth of that time helped with that. Of course, having no armor on the targets meant that you had new players strafing them in their little pew pew biplanes while the fight was being lost higher up. So WG took these steps but consequently took away a small amount of the GA's influence on the game.

 

True, there are a lot of people who put time/money into the GA lines, so you're right - they shouldn't just be removed. As far as HF/flights going after the GA - I think that would happen, and I think that would be a good thing. It would keep the heavies down low (getting rid of the BnZ only meta) and would also put them in a bad position if the GA planes were smart and hung back until the fighters had engaged.

 

Block Quote

 

 This simply would not work unless we got a population that is a factor of 10 or even 100 times greater than now. MM being what it is, it will eventually place those players in a game with 4 randos and a bunch of bots. Do you remember what 3 elite players in 110s or 262s could do to a bunch of new players just learning the ropes? Hillshire Farms remembers. And you'd want to add a 4th to that party? That will drive the game straight into the grave!

 

The worst part is that, with the addition of bots instead of human players, all the flight has to focus on is taking down the players because the bots are going to be going after anybody but the primary threat. They can then statpad at their leisure. This would be the LAST improvement to make after the game has miraculously recovered AND the lines have been rebalanced.

 

The idea behind the flights thing is that they would actually wait until there was a comparable flight in the MM queue. If it took 5 hours for another comparable flight to get on, they're waiting 5 hours... They would not get a battle without a fairly matched (statistics-wise) flight. Also, we saw even more people leave when they limited flights to two players... I don't understand how anyone thinks that made the game better. Sure, the people that were whining about having to fight Fast, SOJO, and Crayola all the time were happy, but nobody else was...

 

Block Quote

 I'd add a second thing to this. Make prolonged diving into the yellow start giving you damage and going into the red increase the rate while chancing crits to wings and tails. I've tried to dive straight down from 30,000 feet in IL2. I've seen my wings pop off like the boosters of the space shuttle. Airframes can only take so much stress, put that into the game. Once pilots are forced to take a more nuanced approach to BnZ, they can by all means still use it, and still use it effectively, but the canny Yak or Zero player now has a slightly longer window of pursuit especially if they already have a good bit of velocity they can bleed off.

 

This is one of those 'too simmy' things IMO. If you get into this, it would only be fair to start limiting the G-forces on turn fighters, and that would be bad. Besides, there's plenty of planes that get nowhere near the red when they're diving. The XF-90 comes to mind with over 1000km/h dive speed being only just in the yellow range.

 

Block Quote

 I'll add something onto this. Start adding blind spots onto the planes. One of the major draws to Tanks was the fact that if the server determined that you couldn't see the enemy, it was invisible to you unless an ally spotted him AND was in range to tell you. We know that the 109 had abysmal field of vision and that the Spitfire had a rear view mirror. We also know that later Mustangs had some of the best views of the war. We also know that there was a huge blind spot below the aircraft where there happened to be a seat, rudder pedals, and instruments.  Bring those into play and force players to actually snap their view behind them to see where a pursuing enemy actually is. This means they can't really keep their eye on their target or where they're flying. Make that a skill to master and give lower flying planes the ability to take advantage of higher altitude planes flying complacently and not flipping over every once in awhile to see who is below them.

 

Again, too simmy. One of the things that makes this game feel really simple and easy to understand is the lack of a cockpit view and having planes randomly disappear in a blindspot you have cannot see from your perspective would feel strange and not-right. Maybe give them slightly less view range to the underside of the plane (like 400m or something) but don't make it completely blind. Also, many of these aircraft don't have any surviving examples, or where never built, so trying to figure out actual view fields would be impossible.

 

Block Quote

 That map is an attack aircraft's best friend. Don't touch it. Until you've goaded a 109Z to take a dive at you and made him juke into a foggy hillside, you haven't seen the fun in this map. Same thing for Yaks and Zeros submarining in and out of the fog to evade BnZ. In fact, I'd like MORE maps like these to bring extra fun to the low altitude planes.

 

There shouldn't be maps that are a specific class's 'best friend'. Maps should be balanced fairly to all play styles and all classes. For the attack aircraft, this means having a way to change the direction of the game quickly. Not conditions in which attacking them is impossible or extremely foolish. The low altitude planes are actually very well balanced. I've flown them to great success myself, even against heavy fighters and other BnZ planes. Check out the second battle from the 'Fly with Wargaming' event on my YouTube channel to see a good example of how to beat the BnZ style in low altitude planes!

 

Block Quote

 Bot intelligence and MM: While I don't really mind the bot's piloting abilities, I have been running into ever more frequent periods of bots on my team dying en masse. Too often to be due to chance. My last round the clock hadn't even hit 13 minutes counting down and I suddenly got a wall of red text as all but 2 GA and I were suddenly left on our team. When that happens too often, the game just isn't fun unless you're already at nosebleed height and can BnZ your way down. Your Zero that just got the glory of forcing a 38 to bleed off its inertia then shoot it down now has all fun stolen away as 8 enemy fighters rendezvous over it and dive down 3 at a time to hit it in crossfire.

 

If there's an MM component to bots. Get rid of it. Let there be true randomness on the teams. Other than flights, we didn't get the luxury of pulling a team that could wipe the other in 4 minutes. It was a mixed bag and you had to make due with what you had. Putting in artificial 'fairness' is just going to drive away the players who have stuck with the game.

 

Mackunaima has put up a really good read about what's going on with the bots crashing and generally derping out. As far as getting bounced by 8 planes - it's not fun, but it happens. I would prefer if they took out the ability of bots to change skill levels during the battle - once a match has been made by MM it should be up to player skill to do what they can with the match, the match shouldn't be constantly changing to try to balance the teams the whole way through.

 

Block Quote

 Let the players control the bots. Yes that's right give us direct commands that we can issue to bots instead of this semi-flocking behavior and coin flipping as to whether they focus down a target or not. Simple things in a 'flight leader' screen where you can put out commands like 'fly here', click on a name to give them a priority target, tell them to form on you when they all want to dive to the deck to kill the IL that meandered below our group, tell them to go find another target if you've got the plan ahead of you dead to rights, and, if you see somebody coming up on a bots tail and it is blissfully flying towards a target far away, a command to make them engage in evasive maneuvers. If you're the only human player on the team, it puts a new level of interaction with the game and let's you get the coordination to a limited degree that you used to have with good human teams in days of yore. If there's multiple human players, split the grouping up between them. 2 humans on a 10 plane team? Give them both 4 to work with. At least if your bots fail, it's because you didn't lead them right. And it cuts through a good chunk of the aggravating AI that cannot effectively think on its own.

 

A 20 year old game like X-Wing running out of DOS allowed you to do a lot of this just by hitting shift and a letter key. I'm sure that a game from the 2010s could institute something similar.

 

This would actually be pretty cool if you got a formation of bots that stuck with you and would follow your commands... "Attack my target" "Clear my Tail" "Break Left" "Break Right" etc... If you didn't request anything, the bots would just stay on your wing as best they could.

 

Block Quote

 Quit hyperstereotyping planes

 

Yes, it makes them more individualized, but as I've mentioned in another thread the A6M5 is the whipping boy of the game meta these days. While the Zero was indeed getting outclassed at the point of the war that the M5 came out, it was still within 30mph of the 109F and Spitfire III. Putting a whole line into a certain 'theme' can make a whole line useless when the game meta is against it or make a whole line overpowered when the meta favors it. Why do you think everybody picks HF when those planes were shown to be obsolete early in the war (110s for the most part obviously not 262s).

 

I actually really appreciate the stereotyping. The reason being that I know if I do well in the tier 4 of a line, I'm probably going to be happy with the tier 7,8,9, and 10 on that same line. Conversely, if I don't like the tier 4... chances are I don't want to invest the time in getting the 10. In World of Tanks I'm faced with the issue of game styles changing going up the line (and not just due to power curve as you get higher up the tiers). I don't like that and it's one of the things that drove me away from that game. You take all this time to get to a tank that is nothing like the one you were playing and you get discouraged. No thanks.

 

The A6M5 is actually one of the best tier 5 planes in the game. People just don't recognize the power of staying low and utilizing out-of-plane maneuvers against players/bots utilizing the BnZ tactics.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users