Jump to content


I like 2.0 I don't get the complaints at all.


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

Lady_Athena #1 Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:32 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 113 battles
  • 44
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Reading through the 2.0 feedback thread is giving me cancer. I don't get 9/10 of the complaints.

 

1) "Gee WGing thanks for making the game an arcade and even more simple"

 

Wasn't this game already uber arcady? You don't play Wargame Games for simulations. World of Warships, World of Tanks, none of them are remotely realistic, and 0% simulations. Why are people whining about this as a reason 2.0 sucks?

 

2) "New game mode sucks!"

 

Really? I find it enjoyable, and interactive. It gives better reason for different types of aircraft to exist in the battle. Before it was more or less zerg the ground targets as a ground attack plane, before you get rofl stomped by a fighter. leave battle, play another.


Wasn't fun. Fighters were the only real way to go, with multi role being ok but ultimately useless in the over all scheme of things in comparison.

 

3) "New game mode is confusing"

 

Really? I haven't played WoWp in 3 years, this is brand new to everyone including me, plus most of the mechanics are like I'm baby new to this. Yet I had no trouble in 2 minutes figuring this uber simplistic game modes out. Pressing F1, and reading the tips, and also reading the tips during the loading screen gave me more than enough information to know where I should be, what I should do, etc. And once I pressed Tab I found out about the ranking system, and how that works rather easily.

 

Then again I take 2 minutes to read whats in front of me... which is more than most people these days it seems.

 

4) "xx.xx version was better!"

 

Yea, that's why WoWp was considered a colossal failure for 3+ years right? Because it was so much superior...

 

Sure the game feels arcady, It is an arcade game after all, and never claimed to be anything else. It plays smooth and well for an arcade game, with obvious easy directions of what needs to be done for anyone who takes 2 seconds to read the text in front of them.

 

Strategy and tactics actually play a bigger role in the new game modes. I find having several planes of the same tier lined up to switch and counter what the enemy is doing can be a major turning point and result in victories for my team.

 

I've ran CAP for a bomber, or ground assault player, just picked a player and protected him from enemy fighters in my 109 while he strafed ground targets. We won 500-0 They couldn't stop him, or me, because I used my 109 to climb high, dive down, keep enemies off his tail, etc.

 

You can argue "oh but they're mostly bots" So? Because another big complaint is "I feel like I don't make as big of an impact in games anymore"...

 

Yes you do, or can.. just takes more strategy and tactics than before. So there goes that "its more simplified" argument out the window too..

 

----------------

 

I like 2.0. Huge improvement over what it used to be.

 

The only argument I can accept that I've seen are 2 things.

 

1) The CBT (apparently there was one? I didn't know there was), had things that were better and most people felt were better. Fair enough.

 

2) They simply liked the older WoWp better.. While I highly disagree with this opinion, its just that, an opinion and is fair enough.

 

But the other complaints? :child:

 

 


"You have x games" is not an argument, or defense for anything. It's a last ditch attempt to save face when you have nothing else to argue your point with.

jack_wdw #2 Posted 15 October 2017 - 10:08 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 4681 battles
  • 1,261
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

Good for you

Enjoy it.
I don't like a thing about it.
It's a totally new game, you can't compare it with the previous ones anymore.
This feels like Air Conflicts or Blazing Angels to me.

FYi only tried it two times so far, got two victories (before calling anyone a salty loser).
But as I experience this new game, there's just nothing that would keep me going...

If they could at least bring back controls, flight models and HUD of the v1.9 (or make this an option), i might give it an other try.
On the brighter side, amazing how much free time i have now.




 


This account is the family car, my other car is wack007@eu

Jack_Pelter_The_Chicken #3 Posted 15 October 2017 - 10:58 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 598 battles
  • 68
  • Member since:
    04-14-2017

yes, the problem is that the game is too different ,especially for people who have played many years.

yes I think ill go and do something less boring instead


 for the rest I wish you many hours of fun



mullyman #4 Posted 15 October 2017 - 11:51 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 39 battles
  • 1,165
  • Member since:
    06-09-2014
...another tester crawls out of the woodwork
mullyman.png

FlakValleyExpress #5 Posted 15 October 2017 - 11:57 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 64 battles
  • 4,196
  • Member since:
    02-09-2012
OP which version of WoWP did you first start playing in? Or is it just version 2.0?  And BTW WoWP has always been an arcade game. Its use to be on a level for adults, but now its at elementary school or slow adult levels.

1.X WoWP veteran - Airborne Scout - Class of 1.0 - Non-Russian

Vae victis

Update 2.0 - It's not a bug, it's a feature- Let's be Professional, Fix it! - Be the gold standard for MMO warplanes. Ditch the Zero and get with a Hero 

"Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in."

 


ArrowZ_ #6 Posted 15 October 2017 - 11:58 AM

    Captain

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 1049 battles
  • 3,274
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013

I'll try my best to help you understand. And don't get this the wrong way. From what I've seen there's a growing few coming out from the beta woodworks to check out 2.0 and consequently liking the change. The reasons could be various. One I suspect is that they greatly disliked their last experience with the old WOWP, even before 1.9, and is surprised by the changes in 2.0 as it is a completely different mode than the former.

 

Now here's where the majority of complaints are coming from = Removing The old Mode completely and replacing with the new (2.0 Conquest) alone. That is a bad development choice & is also inconsiderate of the small demographic that have grown to like the game (for all its flaws) between 1.5 & 1.9, which at this point I'm not sure you are even aware of that public mess. Long Story short lots of major updates that kept failing and a large portion of players left. Which COULD potentially happen with 2.0. It just depends heavily on the devs and WG on how well they promote Conquest. Looking at the current direction now - they really don't give a damn about their loyal playerbase pre 2.0 & are only interested in racking up as much new faces as they can. Which is very, very disappointing.

 

I guess it can really be all summed up into this statement - the longer you invest time/effort/money into something (this case an MMO game), the harder it is to let go and the greater the justification to keep playing.

 

But as for some people it's as easy as 1 battle of 2.0 and if they don't like say goodbye to WG forever. Which is understandable. For me I've spent time. A great amount at that with WOWP, starting from OBT to 2017. I can safely say the competitive pvp aspects of this MMO was far more superior back then with the flawed Standard Battles and a Broken MM, than now with 2.0 Conquest. You can't deny that this new mode heavily skews itself towards pve, as we all know the majority of the make up of the battles are AI. And with a server like NA, especially on offpeak hours you are going to see alot of AI action and less of players. Which goes against what WG has advertised this MMO to be - a highly competitive pvp WWII MMO. All anyone can really hope for here is a magical increase in population and an influx of players actually start to come in. Which to my own opinion is highly unlikely. But I could be very wrong in the next coming months. Or I could be right and they shut this game down due to the high volumes of negativity.

 

Mind you NA isn't the only community that doesn't like 2.0 Conquest. EU & RU have the same correlation of feedbacks towards 2.0. More so for these 2 since they have a larger playerbase than us in NA. Probably over 10x than what we have here. Literally. EU is an exception though. They have dropped quite alot these past few months, or even last year suffering from the same symptoms we in NA have experienced for the last 3 years this game was launched.

 

TL'DR - Too much politics before 2.0. Too much negativity after 2.0. Only the people who have come in to try 2.0 with a fresh mind like it since they've either forgotten what the old WOWP was like or have no clue what happened the last 3-4 years with WOWP - which in essence is a very good thing for the new players coming in to try 2.0. And that's what WG & Persha wants in the end. But it just SUCKS that way they are handling it now. And the sad part about all this is I and many others here have been down this road before and have had it with this developer and this publisher. Once you've seen the same [edited]recurring one too many times it's time for a change.


Edited by ArrowZ_, 15 October 2017 - 12:09 PM.

That Ozi Client Side Lagger


learpilot #7 Posted 15 October 2017 - 01:05 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5 battles
  • 649
  • Member since:
    05-18-2013

2,0 is for Dullards that can't compete.


OHIO STATE Football isn't a matter of LIFE or DEATH,its much more serious than that.

maiingun #8 Posted 15 October 2017 - 01:09 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 127 battles
  • 7
  • [25CDN] 25CDN
  • Member since:
    12-17-2012

I'm with the OP on this.  I like the new mode.  A lot.  I've been with the game since it was in beta.   It was never that much fun.   Now it is fun.  Accurate.  Hell no, not at all.   But an accurate, come on, get real.

 

Look, in REAL battle, a Spitfire had at most 20 SECONDS of ammunition before it emptied.   (see link below).   Yes, 20 SECONDS.   Then you had to land, refuel, take off.   99% of your flight was doing that.   1% of your total flight was actual combat, unless you were doing recon.    So again, seriously, all you guys who want "realistic", sure, lets limit ammo to 20 second per battle.   See how well the game does than.

 

Even modern warplanes are not much better.   The A-10 Thunderbolt - the "Warthog" - the one with the 30mm rotary canon?  I copied this direct from an air force web site:  "The magazine can hold 1,350 rounds of ammunition. The pilot can select a firing rate of 2,100 or 4,200 rounds a minute."  A more modern update states most A-10s now use 3,900 round per minute fire rate.

 

So do the math.   That is a fire rate of 65 rounds per second.   That works out to 21 seconds firing time until you run out of ammo.   Now thing about that.  A Spitfire in 1940 had 20 seconds worth of ammo, and a A-10 in the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan  had 21 seconds of ammo.         So all you "it's not realistic", yes, you are right.  Totally correct.   But a totally realistic game should limit you to 20 seconds of ammo then end the battle.  Regardless of what year or tier you are playing.  Also, one blast up close from a .50 cal or 20mm canon usually killed the pilot on the spot.      I once read an interview of Billy Bishop, the famous WW One Canadian Ace (72 kills, third highest pilot of WW One).  He said he always aimed for the man, the pilot, not the machine.     That is how he got most of his kills.     If you want the game to be "accurate", then in game, a short blast from  most machine guns through the canopy should end the match for you right there, right then.   Again, how will that make the game better?   

 

So yes, it is totally an arcade game.  But the old mode was working for a few, but not most.  WG tried something new, and I thank them for trying.  

 

https://www.quora.co...g-during-battle



Zapperguy #9 Posted 15 October 2017 - 01:24 PM

    First Lieutenant

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

View Postmaiingun, on 15 October 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

I'm with the OP on this.  I like the new mode.  A lot.  I've been with the game since it was in beta.   It was never that much fun.   Now it is fun.  Accurate.  Hell no, not at all.   But an accurate, come on, get real.

 

Look, in REAL battle, a Spitfire had at most 20 SECONDS of ammunition before it emptied.   (see link below).   Yes, 20 SECONDS.   Then you had to land, refuel, take off.   99% of your flight was doing that.   1% of your total flight was actual combat, unless you were doing recon.    So again, seriously, all you guys who want "realistic", sure, lets limit ammo to 20 second per battle.   See how well the game does than.

 

Even modern warplanes are not much better.   The A-10 Thunderbolt - the "Warthog" - the one with the 30mm rotary canon?  I copied this direct from an air force web site:  "The magazine can hold 1,350 rounds of ammunition. The pilot can select a firing rate of 2,100 or 4,200 rounds a minute."  A more modern update states most A-10s now use 3,900 round per minute fire rate.

 

So do the math.   That is a fire rate of 65 rounds per second.   That works out to 21 seconds firing time until you run out of ammo.   Now thing about that.  A Spitfire in 1940 had 20 seconds worth of ammo, and a A-10 in the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan  had 21 seconds of ammo.         So all you "it's not realistic", yes, you are right.  Totally correct.   But a totally realistic game should limit you to 20 seconds of ammo then end the battle.  Regardless of what year or tier you are playing.  Also, one blast up close from a .50 cal or 20mm canon usually killed the pilot on the spot.      I once read an interview of Billy Bishop, the famous WW One Canadian Ace (72 kills, third highest pilot of WW One).  He said he always aimed for the man, the pilot, not the machine.     That is how he got most of his kills.     If you want the game to be "accurate", then in game, a short blast from  most machine guns through the canopy should end the match for you right there, right then.   Again, how will that make the game better?   

 

So yes, it is totally an arcade game.  But the old mode was working for a few, but not most.  WG tried something new, and I thank them for trying.  

 

https://www.quora.co...g-during-battle

 

Non-realistic is fine. Respawn is for muppets. Total deal-breaker for me. Now, skills, plane type, tactics, etc don't matter, because you can die and just come right back into battle.

kodiakalpha #10 Posted 15 October 2017 - 01:39 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 1087 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
I've been around since Alpha and have over 4000 games under my belt.  The previous version of the game was dying, folks.  I was on a  week or so before the update and there were maybe 200 people on the server.  Now the game is getting positive publicity and matches have several humans in them again.  More and more people a trying the game and having fun with it.  This is the only way the game can possibly survive.  On top of that, I'm having fun with it, as well.  It is a far better game than the one-on-one with bots that we were playing before.  It's different, sure, but it had to be to get any interest at all.  Now we have multiple popular YouTube channels promoting the game and people are coming back.  This is a good thing.

TeamTerrible #11 Posted 15 October 2017 - 01:45 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 255 battles
  • 2,137
  • [SS-G1] SS-G1
  • Member since:
    12-29-2012

View Postkodiakalpha, on 15 October 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:

I've been around since Alpha and have over 4000 games under my belt.  The previous version of the game was dying, folks.  I was on a  week or so before the update and there were maybe 200 people on the server.  Now the game is getting positive publicity and matches have several humans in them again.  More and more people a trying the game and having fun with it.  This is the only way the game can possibly survive.  On top of that, I'm having fun with it, as well.  It is a far better game than the one-on-one with bots that we were playing before.  It's different, sure, but it had to be to get any interest at all.  Now we have multiple popular YouTube channels promoting the game and people are coming back.  This is a good thing.

 

Not really a good thing when most of the population dislikes the new game mode.

 

A better thing would of been to enhance the previous versions, advertise it, and continue building on instead of nerfing upon.

 


 

 

         


kodiakalpha #12 Posted 15 October 2017 - 01:50 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 1087 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostTeamTerrible, on 15 October 2017 - 06:45 AM, said:

 

Not really a good thing when most of the population dislikes the new game mode.

 

A better thing would of been to enhance the previous versions, advertise it, and continue building on instead of nerfing upon.

 

 

​Define "most".  There is a very vocal but small group of very experienced players who dislike it.  I get that it is different and you liked it better before.  For that matter, I liked it the way it was before, but I like this as well, and, more importantly, new people are enjoying it as well.  There had to be a big enough change to get interest from new population or this was going nowhere.

Dunkleosteus_Rex #13 Posted 15 October 2017 - 01:50 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 21 battles
  • 8
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

I came to WoWP when it went live after beta on day one, and I came from a background of hardcore flight sims. No, it was never an accurate simulation, but it was fun, at least for me. It was a much more casual entertainment, I could log on for a few matches and enjoy myself in a competitive arena where I got toasted like a noob as often as I won, but always there was the illusion of actually flying.

 

I've given 2.0 a fair shake, despite my initial chagrin, and unfortunately I'm still coming up empty. I won't go into the details, because they don't matter. If you're new to WoWP or someone who grew to hate it and love 2.0, awesome. Good for you. I sincerely hope you get many hours of enjoyment. I don't care what 2.0 is, what galls me is what it isn't. It isn't the game I've been playing faithfully for years despite it's many changes and highs and lows. I feel like they promised us major new features to the game to make it better, and instead they replaced it with an almost entirely different game, one completely devoid of any sense of actual movement through virtual three dimensional space.

 

I'm no hater, and I'm not averse to change. I am averse to having one of my go-to pastimes yanked away without warning. I have no hope that concerns like mine will be addressed. None of our individual concerns matter to WG. Whether their decisions are sound or not, they are in business to make money, not please people.

 


"overkill is underated"

Zapperguy #14 Posted 15 October 2017 - 01:54 PM

    First Lieutenant

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

View PostDunkleosteus_Rex, on 15 October 2017 - 09:50 AM, said:

I came to WoWP when it went live after beta on day one, and I came from a background of hardcore flight sims. No, it was never an accurate simulation, but it was fun, at least for me. It was a much more casual entertainment, I could log on for a few matches and enjoy myself in a competitive arena where I got toasted like a noob as often as I won, but always there was the illusion of actually flying.

 

I've given 2.0 a fair shake, despite my initial chagrin, and unfortunately I'm still coming up empty. I won't go into the details, because they don't matter. If you're new to WoWP or someone who grew to hate it and love 2.0, awesome. Good for you. I sincerely hope you get many hours of enjoyment. I don't care what 2.0 is, what galls me is what it isn't. It isn't the game I've been playing faithfully for years despite it's many changes and highs and lows. I feel like they promised us major new features to the game to make it better, and instead they replaced it with an almost entirely different game, one completely devoid of any sense of actual movement through virtual three dimensional space.

 

I'm no hater, and I'm not averse to change. I am averse to having one of my go-to pastimes yanked away without warning. I have no hope that concerns like mine will be addressed. None of our individual concerns matter to WG. Whether their decisions are sound or not, they are in business to make money, not please people.

 

 

QFT :great:

 



Gnarspall #15 Posted 15 October 2017 - 01:56 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 31 battles
  • 140
  • [R-T-P] R-T-P
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
If respawning is such a deal breaker why not just tie it to certain game modes and not all? Meet in the middle?

deloop #16 Posted 15 October 2017 - 02:14 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 9 battles
  • 11
  • [W-M-D] W-M-D
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

The main problem with 2.0 is its a second rate version of warthunder.  Why play a second rate game when you can just go to warthunder and play the better version ?

they have arcade mode realistic mode and full simulator mode you can switch between tanks and plane gameplay easier and while i used to totally support wargaming  it will take them years to get this game mode even close to the level warthunder has. So it their not going to let me play the game i loved and force me to play a bad version of another game. I,ll just play the better version of the game  so if you like the new 2.0 try warthunder you will never come back to WoWP and if you dont like the new 2.0  the realistic and simulator modes might just make it challenging enough to peak your interest again 



MelBrooks #17 Posted 15 October 2017 - 02:30 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12 battles
  • 1,445
  • Member since:
    01-18-2014

View Postmaiingun, on 15 October 2017 - 08:09 AM, said:

I'm with the OP on this.  I like the new mode.  A lot.  I've been with the game since it was in beta.   It was never that much fun.   Now it is fun.  Accurate.  Hell no, not at all.   But an accurate, come on, get real.

 

Look, in REAL battle, a Spitfire had at most 20 SECONDS of ammunition before it emptied.   (see link below).   Yes, 20 SECONDS.   Then you had to land, refuel, take off.   99% of your flight was doing that.   1% of your total flight was actual combat, unless you were doing recon.    So again, seriously, all you guys who want "realistic", sure, lets limit ammo to 20 second per battle.   See how well the game does than.

 

Even modern warplanes are not much better.   The A-10 Thunderbolt - the "Warthog" - the one with the 30mm rotary canon?  I copied this direct from an air force web site:  "The magazine can hold 1,350 rounds of ammunition. The pilot can select a firing rate of 2,100 or 4,200 rounds a minute."  A more modern update states most A-10s now use 3,900 round per minute fire rate.

 

So do the math.   That is a fire rate of 65 rounds per second.   That works out to 21 seconds firing time until you run out of ammo.   Now thing about that.  A Spitfire in 1940 had 20 seconds worth of ammo, and a A-10 in the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan  had 21 seconds of ammo.         So all you "it's not realistic", yes, you are right.  Totally correct.   But a totally realistic game should limit you to 20 seconds of ammo then end the battle.  Regardless of what year or tier you are playing.  Also, one blast up close from a .50 cal or 20mm canon usually killed the pilot on the spot.      I once read an interview of Billy Bishop, the famous WW One Canadian Ace (72 kills, third highest pilot of WW One).  He said he always aimed for the man, the pilot, not the machine.     That is how he got most of his kills.     If you want the game to be "accurate", then in game, a short blast from  most machine guns through the canopy should end the match for you right there, right then.   Again, how will that make the game better?   

 

So yes, it is totally an arcade game.  But the old mode was working for a few, but not most.  WG tried something new, and I thank them for trying.  

 

https://www.quora.co...g-during-battle

The new mode will be appealing to a new type of player. But as Arrow said, why would you kick a good chunk of the player base to the curb by totally removing a mode that although deeply flawed, was enjoyed. Those of us who have been around a long time, have been promised the moon with clan wars, ranked battles, and end game content. I for one am not upset about the new game mode, it just has become perfectly clear how inept the development team for warplanes is compared to tanks and warships. Those games have multiple game modes to suit a wide variety of game play and they have a much higher player base online, imagine that. This is why we are upset.



Zapperguy #18 Posted 15 October 2017 - 04:08 PM

    First Lieutenant

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

View PostGnarspall, on 15 October 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

If respawning is such a deal breaker why not just tie it to certain game modes and not all? Meet in the middle?

 

If they had released this with multiple game modes, then I'd be fine with that.

 

Here's what they did instead

  • They claimed that they had to upgrade the game engine to be able to progress with game development. That makes sense.
  • They said with this new engine, creating new modes, events, etc would be easy. Sounds good.
  • They ran 3 tests of Conquest to overwhelmingly negative reviews across all 3 servers. That seems to indicate that some major changes and/or adding new modes (remember it's easy now) are in order before release.
  • WG releases 2.0 essentially unchanged other than some bug fixes from the first test. The forums erupt across all 3 servers with dissatisfied customers and people leaving the game.

 

WG's response: Working as intended©

 



Mammoth_Tank_MKI #19 Posted 15 October 2017 - 05:03 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 186 battles
  • 3
  • [KUMA] KUMA
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostThe_World_Needs_A_Hero, on 15 October 2017 - 05:00 PM, said:

 

So, is WG creating fake accounts, slapping alpha/beta tester tags on them, and then using them as some sort of propaganda tool? That is what it smells like to me. Not one of these dwellers that crawled out from under their rocks has been even minutely recognizable. 

 

I'll trust my own opinion and those of the other respected players here. 2.0 may not be complete utter garbage, but it's close. 

 

Or perhaps its people (Like me) who played a bit a few years ago, did not like the game at all, and came back with 2.0, I played back during the open beta of WoWp and got my I-15bis DM-2, calling everyone who likes this update a troll or a "wg shill" is ridiculously conspiratorial.

DarkDaVinci #20 Posted 15 October 2017 - 05:28 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2 battles
  • 142
  • Member since:
    12-23-2016

View PostMammoth_Tank_MKI, on 15 October 2017 - 05:03 PM, said:

 

Or perhaps its people (Like me) who played a bit a few years ago, did not like the game at all, and came back with 2.0, I played back during the open beta of WoWp and got my I-15bis DM-2, calling everyone who likes this update a troll or a "wg shill" is ridiculously conspiratorial.

 

:sceptic: or like u...




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users