Jump to content

About time I write my feedback...

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

pyantoryng #1 Posted 24 September 2017 - 08:19 PM


  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2632 battles
  • 8,547
  • Member since:

After ten days, almost 18 hours of playing and knowing the futility of it all, I might as well do it...


I don't think I remember too much to write a very articulated feedback, so I'll just do it in points...

(as a note, I haven't touched War Thunder with a 10-Light Year pole so I can have one less commitment, so please keep that in mind, as many of you forum-goers here may had been there)


- Can now map hide interface button from Home (which require the FN key to access on laptop keyboards) to other keys, but not flap button on Mouse control. Reason unknown. No sign of autoflaps toggle either. Trying to automate the mouse control scheme, or is the entire flight model now built on automation


- Bots weren't programmed with strategy so the strategic options that Conquest could have offered cannot be explored fully...although it might have been worse with random players going to 6 sectors at once... Bots don't seem to utilize repair factilities either, but they sure as heck know how to knock the ones of their enemies' out. The bots dying en masse after the 30-sec locking period meaning that the newly-captured sector would fall almost immediately.


- Respawn means that dying become a part of tactics to consider. Lawndarting to intercept a bomber flight because it happen to fly past your spawn...getting killed to move quickly to another place via respawn...even trying to run away from a sector to die so that you won't concede any points towards enemy capturing that sector and come back in a fresh plane...the list goes on. I believe, this is alien to many existing players...and possibly serve to (pun intended) alienate them.


- Is Respawn a forcible attempt at preventing blowouts and premature game ending from happening? I've seen matches won before Squall Line during test (mostly on maps with mining facilities), but it still take as much time as Ships' blowout (a little over 5 minutes). Respawning means that teams cannot be wiped out before the 7 minute mark (AKA Squall line), preventing winning by wiping out opposition before that point.


- 12 minutes time limit is reasonable, short enough for a good cycling rate compared to Ships, which is often played out to full 20 minutes.


- Matches are forced-filled to 15v15 every time, but the game ends immediately when the last human player dies after Squall Line as opposed to 10v10 but played out to the end? Intended or bug?


- Why remove instrumentations? I believe many players do not take this well and there may well be folks who taken that as an insult to intelligence. Color-coding the speed and altitude numbers does NOT substitute the actual ranges being displayed. For example, the XF5U has 60kph stall speed, but there's no way one would know it outside of by heart because the speed number goes yellow well before that number.


- The lower-left corner had been taken over by module damage and weapon heat. To some it's plain hard to look. While I can adapt to that, at least make the individual guns' indicator be able to always be visible and not locked to Alt/gun overheat, because planes with multiple calibers exists.


- The present/max format numeral boost indicator that stays on while it recharges is one thing that is done right, and should be adopted for existing game.


- What was the rationalization behind the removal of low altitude penalty again? Drawing heavy fighters to come down and kill GAs and boost back up to hunt bombers? Discourage altitude campers? Conquest mode already made fighters' altitude camping not viable because you won't be capturing sectors that way (outside of killing some hapless bombers happening to fly through that sector for four times, what are the odds?), doing so in Conquest is just like waiting for defeat when his team's GA are all killed, his foes ahead in supremacy, and the last remaining enemy is good at hiding and when found, at evading BnZ attacks in live version.


- The even more strict national altitude range and the multirole fighters' heavily decreased altitude range, I've already written about in this other thread. Trying to force multirole fighters to dump their ordnances on targets? With so little penalty to ordnance they would just go fight other planes anyway, and with inaccurate bombing (will elaborate later) they might as well not do it, providing cover for GAs with their massive firepower (e.g. F-94's Vulcan, F7U's quad HF-grade 20mms, J7W's quad 30mms, Fw 190's heavy weapon suites) instead.


- The increased emphasis on bigger weapons' damage, in addition to the fact that heavier equipments almost do not impact aircraft performance, mean that the subtleties in equipping your aircrafts is almost, if not completely gone. In the existing 1.9 version, one may opt to run just the ShKAS on the I-16e to outturn everything in the tier while retaining usable firepower, in 2.0, it seems almost like a necessity to run the 12.7mms for enough power to down planes quickly, with the highly increased in larger caliber weapons' power and nonexistent penalty, it's obviously the way to go. The caliber power's disparity becomes painfully obvious at high tier where the six M3 machine guns many American fighters employ can barely match the XP-75's 10 M2 machine guns three tiers earlier, while the former's power in 1.9 is borderline cannon level. This seems to hark back to the removal of Bf 109's "gondola" gun pods that carried cannons for the F and G models, and all of the LaGG-3's armaments options leaving one linear choice, only this time in a World-wide scale.


- The "circle" bombsight in planes without bombsight view (i.e. anything not bombers) does not help in bombing at all, in fact it makes it even less accurate. Personally, I find it much harder to aim my GA's bombs while making passes over objects at low altitude ("orange monent" tend to be very short). Why this over the crosshair bombsight of the existing version?


- Attack Aircraft's ordnance rearm time could use a buff...although the full bomber tree is yet to be seen and how they will affect gameplay at every tier is not yet known, but as of now, the Attack Aircrafts at mid-high tier are doing an uphill battle against armored targets that are not naval (i.e. cannot be snapped by blowing the main part) and they could use some help.


- Slashing all light fighters' boost in half...afraid of them stealing heavy fighters' job? The highest tier light fighter only get up to 8 second of boost while they can perform all the way up at 2000-2500 meters...while multiroles keep their boost numbers but got slashed altitude performance to keep them bombing targets... Attack aircraft gained a deep reserve of boost because they have to go places quickly and pull the brakes as quickly, then repeat...


- Defense fighters can be almost inextinguishable from targets on the map. This could use some change.


- Having AA gun range displayed on map and separation of low and high AA gun markers is a welcome change and could be used in the existing version.


- Can we have square map (like the big one in the F1 menu) for use as minimap? The current circle one with radar offers almost no situational awareness advantage while concealing all the big picture. Personally, I find radar to be useless so I never used it in 1.9, and the circular map feels almost useless to me in 2.0 too.


- The Bomber class...is it the main reason why the entire gameplay had to be changed (from ground up, no less), just to make their existence possible? Imagine them in 1.9...having only 3-4 drops (later tiers dropping in clusters), dropping from high altitude meaning nonexistent accuracy, and once dropped all their bombs become free kill for the high-flyers...should they be the last one left alive they better pray their team have the lead on supremacy and enemy GAs are all dead, the remaining enemy are Japanese fighters/ too weak to endure rear gun fire, and can fend off the enemy's counterpart... With GAs having bad reload time for their ordnance it's supposed to be up to them to hit hard targets while the GAs do soft (which is proven to be highly effective during gameplay)...however they don't exist at all tiers yet, and their impact and supposed role remain to be seen. Is there supposed to be another test where full bomber trees be ready?

*on a lighthearted note, can UK bombers get one Elsan drop per life?*


- Rear gun control...maybe if you don't want to spend four points on the gunner's skill that let him auto-shoot at weakest target. Outside of that it seems useless as you have reduced ability to evade (and flying in difficult terrain it could be a death sentence), and it's just telling the gunner to fire at specific targets and nothing more than that.


- Letting the NPCs do all the heavy lifting: Should one consider this a mission accomplished and job well done, or plain cheating as rocket strikes capture every sector and bomber flights one-shotting sectors (Yes, if they hit enough armored targets, they can do it)? Should rocket strikes and bomber flights' damage to capture points be capped at 99% [139]?


- Music has lots of dead time and much less appealing than the usual music which is already good. The only sound done right is that of 30mm cannons, sounding much more powerful than the existing one.


- Will there be naval objectives?


I guess I've written long enough...


Simplification is being overdone, and it appears to be truly alienating to the existing playerbase... They may well be all that you have left, and should 2.0 fail, can you shoulder the embarassment of pulling Planes' plug, with it the image of the World of trilogy you built up for years?


The Conquest mode still need refinements. The rigidity of planes' roles need to be relaxed, reconsider the removal of low-flying penalty for high altitude aircrafts as the mode effectively made altitude camping much less viable...Return instrumentations to a usable capability (I doubt that even real pilots fly without instruments?)...Allow more control over Mouse scheme including flap controls. Some things are not yet revealed of their full capability yet...this need further tests, but considering the NA region's participation (while in percentage it amounts to something like 10%-15%, in integers that translates into something like 30-40, of course, not counting players from other games, which I doubt many have caught wind of the test) it's likely just another exercise in futility as many existing players have strongly rejected the massive change that is 2.0, and no one from other games have any information on it.


This is one big gambit for a long-time failing game, and the abyss awaits should it fails. At least don't alienate the existing players any further.

WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

ArrowZ_ #2 Posted 24 September 2017 - 10:24 PM


  • Open Beta Tester
  • 1049 battles
  • 3,274
  • Member since:
It's just not worth it for this server. The mode is heavily biased towards pve and that's what turns me away from it. Don't think im going to bother with my feedback. Many have already voiced it better than I can. If what this chick priola says is true, ill be interested to see what else they can come up with other modes. But im expecting those won't come till next year. 

That Ozi Client Side Lagger

pyantoryng #3 Posted 25 September 2017 - 02:56 AM


  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2632 battles
  • 8,547
  • Member since:

View PostArrowZ_, on 24 September 2017 - 10:24 PM, said:

It's just not worth it for this server. The mode is heavily biased towards pve and that's what turns me away from it. Don't think im going to bother with my feedback. Many have already voiced it better than I can. If what this chick priola says is true, ill be interested to see what else they can come up with other modes. But im expecting those won't come till next year. 


The strategic aspect is biased towards PvP as I've seen it unfold with bots unprogrammed with strategy for the mode and it can become disaster real quick, but indeed, in a full 15v15 PvP scenario there may well be one guy or two that would be very busy intercepting bomber flights all day long (not to mention it actually brings in decent dough)...Skilled players would have made sectors fall very quickly because it only takes four defense planes downed to capture a sector without the foes gaining any points back (Guess that's why mining centers only have 3 fighters defending it).


But WG seems intent to keep the hardcap on human players for the time being, so I guess everything will be biased towards PvE...besides, the MS-1 and Orlan just don't stomp newbies the way I-5 do (man, I'm getting addicted to this line), so it seems likely to be this way as to shield players from really good players.............

WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users