Jump to content


Some Things to Start Fixing Warplanes


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

armydoc83 #21 Posted 30 July 2017 - 01:28 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 3047 battles
  • 255
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-19-2013

Block Quote

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.

 I meant more along the lines of the base rushing Heavies of old. With rockets etc, a group of 3 HF could make it to whatever the potential 'base' was, destroy it, and get the win for their team before a furball had even formed. They may not have the endurance for air to ground combat that AA do, but they certainly can put out a comparable alpha strike. Maybe the 'base' would need prolonged pounding to go under, and maybe this would be a good thing as HF brought low would be in hostile air and slow to regain their altitude. There'd just have to be safeguards against a 262 rush for a win.

 

Block Quote

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...

 You have to admit that people gamed the system. At least now you can't count how many people are at each tier in order to try to wedge your group into a bunch of folks 1-2 tiers below you. And fighting against the Crayola Circus was never as annoying as flying WITH them. Yes you were pretty much guaranteed a win, but you were likely to get a very mediocre X2 or X3 for that match. That went double if you were in your IL that round and knew that you'd get a handful of GT killed off by the time they mopped things up.

 

How about this? Make a separate team mode and free for all mode? Team mode could second as clan warfare and could allow teams of up to 8. (A team of 8 and 7 for each side at max). Each section could have their own specific dailies and events. That would lay a foundation for legitimate clan wars while also allowing people to play with their friends. This would allow the new players (and the introverts) to have FFA to hone their skills against without being ganked (well ganked with prior coordination).

 

Heck, don't even need to go that far. Just take the Practice out of team practice and let clans and friends get into matches with prize going to the winners.

Block Quote

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.

 Fair enough.

 

Block Quote

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.

 But that's one of the things that made WG so popular. The intense amount of effort they did to generate a fog of war into a 'first tank shooter'. Tanks (at least when I played) could have you with the camera over the shoulder of the turret. Your camera could see over a hill clear as day, but if the commander's scope couldn't clear the top, you wouldn't know if there was anybody behind it until you actually drove up. Even then, somebody who deployed camo netting in a bush might well see you plain as day while they were hidden. Observation and being unobserved were major parts of air combat. WG should do what WG is good at.

 

As for planes being experimental and never fielded, the game put in guesses about their speed, turning rate, climb, durability, and effective range and rof of armament. Is it that much of a stretch to include visibility in there? As soon as you have a model created it is just a matter of seeing where the line of sight is blocked and model that into the observation restrictions.

 

Block Quote

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!

 But there are maps that are at least good buddies to different classes. Hidden Base gives low fliers narrow channels to fly through to give them cover from lateral attacks. Lighthouse (or whatever that open ocean with the coast on the left side and central island is called) leaves low flying planes with only a bit of cloud cover to hide them from the fighters thousands of meters above them. GA love ships that can be cracked with the destruction of the central hitbox compared to fortifications where every red square must be taken down to 0.

 

Asian Border added the fog to keep if from being a jungle version of Arctic Region.

 

Block Quote

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.

 Yeah I read and posted on it. I think my horrible patches of bad luck might have something to do with starting out with my IL 10 and IL 8 when I'm playing. I usually can pick up Thunder and/or a couple of kills with both. Having a couple of matches with 80-100 points in a row MIGHT just give MM a stroke and result in bots flying like target drones. It's way too frequent to be anything else because I am NOT a good enough player to require other players to have an 8:3 handicap against me.

 

Block Quote

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.

 I meant stereotyped in comparison with each other. The Bf 109 had a service ceiling of 12,000 meters. The Zero had one of 10,000m. Not a huge difference in comparison, but that changes to a doubled optimum altitude difference in-game. Same thing to a limited extent with the P-38 and the FW-190. Not a lot of difference in reality, but a 38 can climb to low earth orbit while the 190 struggles to even boost high enough to get into shooting range much less match the 38's altitude (despite there being only a 500m difference in the stats).

 

I don't know what they did to the Zero in the hiatus I took from the game. The A6M2 is actually one of my better planes but most of the missions I had with it were from 2 years ago. I have fond memories of weaving around a 51A's fire, looping back, and boosting up while sniping the 51 to death with my guns. Can't do that anymore.

 

Maybe it has something to do with the aforementioned MM aspect of the bots, but when I go out in the A6M5, I can intentionally try to keep the furball a decent distance away and I'll still get 3 sets of tracers coming at me as bots peel off and seek me out. Never mind the humans who want a low HP target to try to kill.

 

There really isn't much of a difference between the 2 planes (it's actually much closer in stats to the M2 than the A7M, which might mean that it is behind the power curve for Tier VI). But looking at the stats for both planes you'd think I'd started another line or that I'd moved from the T-34-85 to the KV 13 and tried to play them the same way.


Edited by armydoc83, 30 July 2017 - 01:30 AM.


mnbv_fockewulfe #22 Posted 01 August 2017 - 02:25 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 4590 battles
  • 1,326
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

I definitely agree with Persha toning down their stereotyping of planes. All its gotten us is Multi-Roles with decreased stats from what they previously had just to make them fit into a certain category, planes that historically had bombs and rockets getting them taken away, planes that had heavier armaments getting their weapons taken away.

WOWP 2.0 would be the perfect opportunity to give planes back the weapons they had. There are many planes in the current game that would struggle to take down bombers with the light air superiority armaments that they have. Two planes that come to mind are the Bf 109G and the P 51D. Let  the Me 109 have it's gondolas back, let the P 51 have it's rockets back. They're going to need them to take down bombers.

This is basically my idea to get ride of the old MR and LF classes and replace them with an interchangeable Fighter/Bomber class. Let the weapons the pilot chooses to mount on his aircraft dictate the role it has. If the plane only has guns on it, the MM thinks its a Fighter Class. If the plane has bombs and rockets on it, the MM thinks its a Fighter/Bomber class.

Persha should make using lighter guns on a plane where the top configuration uses heavy guns more viable. If I want to fly my Ta 152 with all 20s and provide top cover for the bombers there should be a greater increase to roll, turning, and climbing than there is right now. If I want to stalk some bombers I should want to mount the all 30s.

Letting pilot chosen armament dictate aircraft role and making all different kinds of configurations viable would ultimately add depth to the game.


Dat nose

knows does doe

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


Jaguardian #23 Posted 01 August 2017 - 05:57 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 20071 battles
  • 964
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

You guys mentioned the HQ of old.  Here is another spin that could be interesting.

One HQ

Certain number of supply bases.

HQ regenerates points (repairs itself), the amount of regeneration points per second depends on how many supply bases are still in tact.  Max regen points if all supply bases are alive down to no regen points if all supply bases are destroyed.

Matches could be won by destroying all planes or taking out an HQ.  This turns the supremacy meter of today into an HQ health bar of each team..  This also gives a little more strategy to a match, especially for GA, rather then just mindlessly attacking ground targets.


Edited by Jaguardian, 01 August 2017 - 06:13 PM.


GeorgePatton #24 Posted 01 August 2017 - 11:30 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 7718 battles
  • 5,093
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostJaguardian, on 01 August 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

You guys mentioned the HQ of old.  Here is another spin that could be interesting.

One HQ

Certain number of supply bases.

HQ regenerates points (repairs itself), the amount of regeneration points per second depends on how many supply bases are still in tact.  Max regen points if all supply bases are alive down to no regen points if all supply bases are destroyed.

Matches could be won by destroying all planes or taking out an HQ.  This turns the supremacy meter of today into an HQ health bar of each team..  This also gives a little more strategy to a match, especially for GA, rather then just mindlessly attacking ground targets.

 

I really like this idea, Jaguardian! This would not only make things more interesting, it would also practically eliminate the 'rush HQ' mentality that made the HQ not such a good idea in the first place. One thing I wonder about - do you think it should be possible to bum-rush the HQ and take it out almost instantly like before, or do you think with the regen capabilities it should take about 2 minutes with two GA hitting it unless they destroy the supply bases first?

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


MARS_REVENANT #25 Posted 01 August 2017 - 11:50 PM

    Colonel

  • Member
  • 34638 battles
  • 7,609
  • [SICK] SICK
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
This is all irrelevant. WOWP 2.0 will most likely replace the current game completely.

They won't fix anything major for this game, and will most likely need to fix a lot of other things when 2.0 comes out.

My hope was a better game, but from what I have seen in the closed public test, we are in for something just as bad... But different.

1.9.x Forum Stats: Colonel; Member; 34638 battles; 7,526 message_img.pngMember since: 01-26-2012

 

I never lose; either I win or I learn.

 


Jaguardian #26 Posted 02 August 2017 - 01:06 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 20071 battles
  • 964
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGeorgePatton, on 01 August 2017 - 05:30 PM, said:

 

I really like this idea, Jaguardian! This would not only make things more interesting, it would also practically eliminate the 'rush HQ' mentality that made the HQ not such a good idea in the first place. One thing I wonder about - do you think it should be possible to bum-rush the HQ and take it out almost instantly like before, or do you think with the regen capabilities it should take about 2 minutes with two GA hitting it unless they destroy the supply bases first?

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

 

​I would adjust the amount of hit points on the HQ and the regen rate so that it would be impossible to take out an HQ if most or all the supply bases are in tact.  Of coarse the hit points and regen rate would need to be calculated out and depending on the map the numbers would vary.  Each map would be set up with a different number of supply bases so there would be variations to the game play.  I would make the HQ a non-armored target and I would make the supply bases a variation of both armored and non-armored depending on the total number.  I am no math genius but I am sure there could be a formula for setting up this type of match that would find a "sweet spot" to determine the HQ hit points and regen rate that is determined by the number of supply bases.

 

Another variation could be that, instead of regenerating hit points, you could make it so the HQ only takes a very small percentage of damage depending on how many supply bases are in tact.  A bomb that may do 1500 damage on a regular target, may only do 5% of that on an HQ if all the supply bases were there and that percentage of damage would increase as each supply base was destroyed.  As before, a formula would need to be created to figure out the optimum HP and percentage of damage the HQ takes depending on the number of bases still in tact.



GeorgePatton #27 Posted 02 August 2017 - 01:10 AM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 7718 battles
  • 5,093
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostJaguardian, on 01 August 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:

 

​I would adjust the amount of hit points on the HQ and the regen rate so that it would be impossible to take out an HQ if most or all the supply bases are in tact.  Of coarse the hit points and regen rate would need to be calculated out and depending on the map the numbers would vary.  Each map would be set up with a different number of supply bases so there would be variations to the game play.  I would make the HQ a non-armored target and I would make the supply bases a variation of both armored and non-armored depending on the total number.  I am no math genius but I am sure there could be a formula for setting up this type of match that would find a "sweet spot" to determine the HQ hit points and regen rate that is determined by the number of supply bases.

 

Another variation could be that, instead of regenerating hit points, you could make it so the HQ only takes a very small percentage of damage depending on how many supply bases are in tact.  A bomb that may do 1500 damage on a regular target, may only do 5% of that on an HQ if all the supply bases were there and that percentage of damage would increase as each supply base was destroyed.  As before, a formula would need to be created to figure out the optimum HP and percentage of damage the HQ takes depending on the number of bases still in tact.

 

Yep! Sounds great! This is some really insightful feedback! Thanks for taking the time to post!

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


BrushWolf #28 Posted 02 August 2017 - 12:48 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 10781 battles
  • 5,816
  • [GWG] GWG
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View PostMARS_REVENANT, on 01 August 2017 - 06:50 PM, said:

This is all irrelevant. WOWP 2.0 will most likely replace the current game completely.

They won't fix anything major for this game, and will most likely need to fix a lot of other things when 2.0 comes out.

My hope was a better game, but from what I have seen in the closed public test, we are in for something just as bad... But different.

 

This, my fear is the new mode is really the new game becoming WoWP's NGE, Star Wars Galaxies New Game Experience, The NGE completely changed the game driving the old players away while not bringing in the new players it was supposed to.

Edited by BrushWolf, 02 August 2017 - 12:50 PM.

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

 


Mackunaima #29 Posted 02 August 2017 - 01:32 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 20730 battles
  • 1,621
  • [WHAWK] WHAWK
  • Member since:
    04-09-2012

View PostBrushWolf, on 02 August 2017 - 09:48 AM, said:

 

This, my fear is the new mode is really the new game becoming WoWP's NGE, Star Wars Galaxies New Game Experience, The NGE completely changed the game driving the old players away while not bringing in the new players it was supposed to.

 

So our accounts are going to be reseted?

 

Imagine what is the flavour to grind all the planes again, just killing bots and ground pounding things...


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

 


MARS_REVENANT #30 Posted 02 August 2017 - 02:13 PM

    Colonel

  • Member
  • 34638 battles
  • 7,609
  • [SICK] SICK
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostMackunaima, on 02 August 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

 

So our accounts are going to be reseted?

 

Imagine what is the flavour to grind all the planes again, just killing bots and ground pounding things...

 

not sure about wiping accounts. But I wouldn't rule it out.

1.9.x Forum Stats: Colonel; Member; 34638 battles; 7,526 message_img.pngMember since: 01-26-2012

 

I never lose; either I win or I learn.

 


GeorgePatton #31 Posted 02 August 2017 - 03:55 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 7718 battles
  • 5,093
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Accounts will not be wiped.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


mnbv_fockewulfe #32 Posted 02 August 2017 - 04:44 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 4590 battles
  • 1,326
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

I came up with this idea for game mode that is a sort of culmination of all the other ideas in this thread.


 

What if there was a sort "open world" gamemode for WOWP planes? Here's how it would work.

You would have a "world" map called a "War Theatre" That determines the size and tiers for the open world. This map is divided into 32 quadrants; 8 quadrants long, 4 quadrants wide. Each quadrant is a map like what we have in the game now. Each map functions as a battle room that is open all the time and that anyone can enter. In each map are different objectives that two teams will fight over. Players would start out at there team's airbase, respectively located at opposite corners of the map. There would be two more airbases in the center of the map, located at opposite sides respectively. The distance between each airbase would be 3 quadrants, 5 quadrants if including the quadrants the bases are in. Connecting friendly airbases is a supply train that regenerates the health of the base. In order to attack an enemy quadrant, players would need to fly their planes from an airbase to that enemy quadrant. How far a player can go would be determined by what plane they fly: how much fuel they have and how much range the plane has (loosely based on historical ranges but scaled for the size of the war theatre). For instance, say I was a player and I wanted to fly a P 51D to fly a sortie over enemy airspace. The farthest I would be able to fly is 4 quadrants, in the 4th quadrant I would be able to fly around for 15 minutes before I would have to turn back and fly back to the airbase to refuel. To fly through a friendly quadrant would take 1 tick; 1 tick having a value of 30 seconds to 1 minute. Flying through an enemy quadrant requires you to load into the map and fly through it yourself, with the very real possibility of being bounced. Range can be extended by mounting fuel tanks. You can choose to stay in the air longer than you have the fuel to get home, but if you do you have the event of a crash landing and will have to pay for full repairs. While flying through a friendly quadrant you can choose whether to increase, maintain, or decrease your altitude. Rate of climb can be affected by mounting fuel tanks, bombs, and rockets. You can again choose your altitude when entering an enemy quadrant. Which side of the map you spawn on when you load into a map is dependent on which side you enter the quadrant in the open world map. Players can exit a map by flying into the boundary of a map and choosing a menu to leave. Players will be able to see specifically what enemy planes are in a quadrant if there is a friendly radar station in range and intact or if there is a friendly plane in the quadrant that has eyes on the enemy planes. If there isn't, players won't know more than that there are enemy planes in the quadrant. A quadrant is captured if all of the ground targets in the map are destroyed. Victory for a team is achieved by capturing all of the airbases on the map.


 

That's the gist of it, now here are the ramifications. This open world mode would have the new bomber class, GA, fighters, fighter/bombers, and heavy fighters. BnZ/high alt fighters would be paired with the bomber class and TnB fighters would be pared with GA. This almost completely solves the disparity between BnZ and TnB by making them exclusive of each other (but not entirely exclusive). A player in a TnB fighter won't have to fight a player in a BnZ plane because he isn't locked into the battle until death or victory. If there are only high alt planes in a map on the enemy side, all you have to do is come in with GA and TnB fighters and wipe out the ground targets. If the map is flooded with TnB fighters you just come in with bombers and high alt planes. Heavy fighters would be the best at taking out GA and Bombers, but would be weak to fighters due to fighters having better acceleration, especially initially in a climb. Bombers and GA would also be weak to fighters with rockets, which would in turn be weak to TnB fighters and BnZ respectively. Coordinating an entire team to fly in the extreme of one aircraft class would be easily countered by the other team doing the same except with the counter class or just waiting until the team runs out of fuel. A mixed approach would be the best way to secure a quadrant.


 

There's a whole lot more to this that I could talk about but I've run out of time to write it all.

And yeah, this won't ever happen in this game, but its a cool idea.


Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 02 August 2017 - 04:45 PM.

Dat nose

knows does doe

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


MARS_REVENANT #33 Posted 02 August 2017 - 10:35 PM

    Colonel

  • Member
  • 34638 battles
  • 7,609
  • [SICK] SICK
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGeorgePatton, on 02 August 2017 - 10:55 AM, said:

Accounts will not be wiped.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

 

 

And you know this for certain, because... ?


1.9.x Forum Stats: Colonel; Member; 34638 battles; 7,526 message_img.pngMember since: 01-26-2012

 

I never lose; either I win or I learn.

 


GeorgePatton #34 Posted 03 August 2017 - 02:55 AM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 7718 battles
  • 5,093
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostMARS_REVENANT, on 02 August 2017 - 05:35 PM, said:

 

 

And you know this for certain, because... ?

 

I've asked. :)

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


MARS_REVENANT #35 Posted 03 August 2017 - 02:13 PM

    Colonel

  • Member
  • 34638 battles
  • 7,609
  • [SICK] SICK
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGeorgePatton, on 02 August 2017 - 09:55 PM, said:

 

I've asked. :)

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

 

Well that gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. Care to share the conversation with the rest of us?

 

WG has been less than forthcoming with information on whether 2.0 will be an additional game mode or a replacement for the current game. Doubtful that they will keep 2 game modes running, and will most likely wipe accounts when the replacement is launched... As they did for the original launch.


1.9.x Forum Stats: Colonel; Member; 34638 battles; 7,526 message_img.pngMember since: 01-26-2012

 

I never lose; either I win or I learn.

 


BrushWolf #36 Posted 03 August 2017 - 07:40 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 10781 battles
  • 5,816
  • [GWG] GWG
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View PostMackunaima, on 02 August 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

 

So our accounts are going to be reseted?

 

Imagine what is the flavour to grind all the planes again, just killing bots and ground pounding things...

 

View PostMARS_REVENANT, on 02 August 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

 

not sure about wiping accounts. But I wouldn't rule it out.

 

A reset is unlikely. Our accounts would simply be converted to the new system. What I don't like about this is instead of capitalizing on the good aspects of our game compared to WT they went and copied it.


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

 


GeorgePatton #37 Posted 03 August 2017 - 10:02 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 7718 battles
  • 5,093
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostMARS_REVENANT, on 03 August 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

 

Well that gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. Care to share the conversation with the rest of us?

 

WG has been less than forthcoming with information on whether 2.0 will be an additional game mode or a replacement for the current game. Doubtful that they will keep 2 game modes running, and will most likely wipe accounts when the replacement is launched... As they did for the original launch.

 

I'm not sure about whether or not they are going to completely replace Random Battles with this new mode - I hope they don't - but as I said, I've asked about an account wipe and they said that would not happen. If they did do an account wipe, then they would be looking at potential lawsuits as there are people with a lot of money wrapped up in this game who spent money for specific things in the game. I don't see them issuing anyone a refund... Also, if there was an account wipe coming, there should have been a notification at this point. 

 

View PostBrushWolf, on 03 August 2017 - 02:40 PM, said:

 

 

A reset is unlikely. Our accounts would simply be converted to the new system. What I don't like about this is instead of capitalizing on the good aspects of our game compared to WT they went and copied it.

 

I would say, if you haven't already - go play WT and then compare that to WoWP 2.0 - they're similar but still very different. 

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


armydoc83 #38 Posted 03 August 2017 - 10:44 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 3047 battles
  • 255
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    10-19-2013

View PostGeorgePatton, on 03 August 2017 - 10:02 PM, said:

 

I'm not sure about whether or not they are going to completely replace Random Battles with this new mode - I hope they don't - but as I said, I've asked about an account wipe and they said that would not happen. If they did do an account wipe, then they would be looking at potential lawsuits as there are people with a lot of money wrapped up in this game who spent money for specific things in the game. I don't see them issuing anyone a refund... Also, if there was an account wipe coming, there should have been a notification at this point. 

 

 

I would say, if you haven't already - go play WT and then compare that to WoWP 2.0 - they're similar but still very different. 

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

I'd tend to agree with this. One of the major differences between Beta and the fully released game is that people weren't throwing money into gold and premiums in Beta (why buy a plane you'll lose at the end of the day?). Paying for such things in the real game and having it taken away at the whim of the company would completely kill the game. Nobody would trust Persha with their money because their investment could be wiped with a click of a mouse.

 

Persha might have made some overly awkward design choices for this game, but I doubt they're full on suicidal.



MARS_REVENANT #39 Posted 04 August 2017 - 12:18 AM

    Colonel

  • Member
  • 34638 battles
  • 7,609
  • [SICK] SICK
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGeorgePatton, on 03 August 2017 - 05:02 PM, said:

 

I'm not sure about whether or not they are going to completely replace Random Battles with this new mode - I hope they don't - but as I said, I've asked about an account wipe and they said that would not happen. If they did do an account wipe, then they would be looking at potential lawsuits as there are people with a lot of money wrapped up in this game who spent money for specific things in the game. I don't see them issuing anyone a refund... Also, if there was an account wipe coming, there should have been a notification at this point. 

 

 

I would say, if you haven't already - go play WT and then compare that to WoWP 2.0 - they're similar but still very different. 

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

 

When you say "they said that would not happen" who specifically is "they"?

 

when you say "should have been a notification" do you mean like all the other notifications we get when anything happens? Or all of the other things "they" "should" be telling us about?

 

if you have proof of this conversation that happened... It's time to spill the beans. Not sure why you are trying to hide the facts.


1.9.x Forum Stats: Colonel; Member; 34638 battles; 7,526 message_img.pngMember since: 01-26-2012

 

I never lose; either I win or I learn.

 


BrushWolf #40 Posted 04 August 2017 - 01:21 AM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 10781 battles
  • 5,816
  • [GWG] GWG
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View PostGeorgePatton, on 03 August 2017 - 05:02 PM, said:

I would say, if you haven't already - go play WT and then compare that to WoWP 2.0 - they're similar but still very different. 

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

 

I have played WT and I was not trying to claim 2.0 is a perfect copy, just that the WT influence is obvious.


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

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users