Jump to content


Now Presenting the WOWP Cheatsheet!


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

simplepleasures #1 Posted 14 November 2017 - 04:39 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 453 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    03-06-2017

This is a quick reference guide for equipment and pilot skills.    

Should be handy for newcomers and vets alike.

Post your thoughts/suggestions.

THIS IS AN EVOLVING WORK IN PROGRESS
UK TREE INCOMPLETE AT THIS TIME.
ONCE AGAIN THIS IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS

https://docs.google....t#gid=601624856



TwistedKestrel #2 Posted 14 November 2017 - 05:15 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 168 battles
  • 313
  • [KAIJU] KAIJU
  • Member since:
    04-07-2012

As someone who's been out for a while, what is this based on? i.e. what makes those configurations optimal?

 

If it works the way I think it works, you could probably reduce it down to a decision tree. E.g. What class? (Fighter= Engine T, Lwt AF, Imp Cov) DPS? (High= Sharpshoot, E Guru, Aero Exp)



simplepleasures #3 Posted 14 November 2017 - 05:34 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 453 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    03-06-2017

View PostTwistedKestrel, on 14 November 2017 - 05:15 PM, said:

As someone who's been out for a while, what is this based on? i.e. what makes those configurations optimal?

 

If it works the way I think it works, you could probably reduce it down to a decision tree. E.g. What class? (Fighter= Engine T, Lwt AF, Imp Cov) DPS? (High= Sharpshoot, E Guru, Aero Exp)

 

​​some of the best minds among pre 2.0 players put this together relying on the experience of thousands of battles to make these recommendations.

 



TwistedKestrel #4 Posted 14 November 2017 - 05:36 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 168 battles
  • 313
  • [KAIJU] KAIJU
  • Member since:
    04-07-2012
Ok, but why do they think those are optimal?

Mercsn #5 Posted 14 November 2017 - 05:45 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 432 battles
  • 2,487
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

And...how have things changed in 2.0?


 

Edit: ...and, I only see France.


 

Edit, nation tabs at the bottom, check!

 


Edited by Mercsn, 15 November 2017 - 09:21 AM.

All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

ARCNA442 #6 Posted 14 November 2017 - 05:50 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 299 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    09-10-2016

Why engine tuning for maneuverability fighters? I rarely run out of boost when I'm turn fighting and you're not going to catch a heavy fighter anyway.

 

I've been using control surfaces, lightweight airframe, and a gunsight on my P-40 for maximum maneuverability and a dpm boost.



simplepleasures #7 Posted 14 November 2017 - 06:34 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 453 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    03-06-2017
im waiting for the guy who made those pics to come online and explain why, sorry yall, lol.   that wasnt the part i did

simplepleasures #8 Posted 14 November 2017 - 06:35 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 453 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    03-06-2017

View PostMercsn, on 14 November 2017 - 05:45 PM, said:

And...how have things changed in 2.0?


 

Edit: ...and, I only see France.

 

 

this all relates to current release.    

did you try looking for the tabs at the bottom?

WafflesOfWrath #9 Posted 14 November 2017 - 06:49 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 598 battles
  • 97
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostARCNA442, on 14 November 2017 - 05:50 PM, said:

Why engine tuning for maneuverability fighters? I rarely run out of boost when I'm turn fighting and you're not going to catch a heavy fighter anyway.

 

I've been using control surfaces, lightweight airframe, and a gunsight on my P-40 for maximum maneuverability and a dpm boost.

 

Never use a gunsight on machinegun-armed planes, the entire point is to engage targets at point-blank range (500m or less) which throws the need for a gunsight out the window. Besides, a P-40 is not a maneuverability fighter, it's an energy fighter, you should be using engine tuning in that gunsight slot. The only exception are machinegun armed planes that have very weak firepower for the tier (mig at tier 5, p-51a at tier 6, FJ1, sabre), and trust me, the P40 has GREAT firepower for a t5.

Anything that's a hardcore turnfighter (i-180, zeroes, etc.) will outturn almost everything at the tier, taking 2 maneuverability mods is redundant and doesn't give you any additional edge (except maybe in a mirror match). It's much better to gain some other utility in different areas and become more well-rounded. 2.0 has been designed to allow low-mid alt planes to catch escaping heavies and alt fighters (through climb rates and vertical compression) so having engine tuning to maximize your boosted climb potential (and relocate between cap points) is essential. The only exception to this are turnfighters that are SO slow, they have issues relocating around the map or chasing ANYTHING (mostly Japanese planes), you'll see they don't have engine guru recommended.

Hope this helped!

Edited by WafflesOfWrath, 14 November 2017 - 07:19 PM.


TwistedKestrel #10 Posted 14 November 2017 - 07:29 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 168 battles
  • 313
  • [KAIJU] KAIJU
  • Member since:
    04-07-2012

View PostWafflesOfWrath, on 14 November 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

 

The only exception are machinegun armed planes that have very weak firepower for the tier (mig at tier 5, p-51a at tier 6, FJ1, sabre), and trust me, the P40 has GREAT firepower for a t5.

 

I'm not asking this rhetorically, I know that many WG games have mechanics that are not straightforward - isn't buffing a bad stat still a wasted slot? 



WafflesOfWrath #11 Posted 14 November 2017 - 07:52 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 598 battles
  • 97
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostTwistedKestrel, on 14 November 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

 

I'm not asking this rhetorically, I know that many WG games have mechanics that are not straightforward - isn't buffing a bad stat still a wasted slot? 

 

As a rule, machineguns benefit very little from a gunsight. I would agree, then, with the statement that buffing a bad stat is a poor idea (unless the plane is excellent in every other regard and has nothing to lose from said buff). I rarely use a gunsight on any plane, actually, only planes that specifically rely on their odd weapon system to function (lagg-3 (34), airacobras, etc.)

The planes I listed are all excellent planes, save for their firepower, so it's your call. They could use the small buff to damage or a normal build to buff characteristics. I personally wouldn't take a gunsight, though. The P-40 on the other hand? Definitely doesn't need a gunsight. 6x50s is great for a tier 5.

Edited by WafflesOfWrath, 14 November 2017 - 07:54 PM.


TwistedKestrel #12 Posted 14 November 2017 - 08:13 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 168 battles
  • 313
  • [KAIJU] KAIJU
  • Member since:
    04-07-2012
That makes sense, thanks for the reply.

MagusGerhardt #13 Posted 14 November 2017 - 08:16 PM

    Horten Test Pilot

  • -Community Ace-
  • 187 battles
  • 5,267
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostTwistedKestrel, on 14 November 2017 - 10:36 AM, said:

Ok, but why do they think those are optimal?

 

Because most of these builds were optimal prior to 2.0, and even with all the changes the game went through when the doors closed on 1.9.* the overall characteristics and roles of every plane didn't change very much.

 

 

"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


TwistedKestrel #14 Posted 14 November 2017 - 08:18 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 168 battles
  • 313
  • [KAIJU] KAIJU
  • Member since:
    04-07-2012
I guess this crystallizes the thought that what I really would want is a list what equipment/skills are good and when to use them in the 2.0 meta. I feel like the new meta probably isn't stable yet though.

WafflesOfWrath #15 Posted 14 November 2017 - 08:44 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 598 battles
  • 97
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
The new meta is easy lol - spitfire spam

nwlxn12 #16 Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:32 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 651 battles
  • 35
  • Member since:
    01-01-2012

View PostWafflesOfWrath, on 14 November 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

 

Anything that's a hardcore turnfighter (i-180, zeroes, etc.) will outturn almost everything at the tier, taking 2 maneuverability mods is redundant and doesn't give you any additional edge (except maybe in a mirror match). It's much better to gain some other utility in different areas and become more well-rounded. 

 

I disagree.  Turning faster helps you dodge better and gets you on the tail of a BnZ plane faster which means you can shoot at them faster and when they are slightly closer in range.  So what is better, turning faster to get on a tail faster and at a closer range but the enemy is faster to get out of your range, or substitute a turning mod/skill with speed and getting on their tail slower and further away, but the enemy is slower to get out of your range?  In all honesty, the results are probably close which ever way you decide.

 

All this stuff is very opinionated and really relies on what you want from your plane in game.  Whatever anyone decides or agrees on as an optimum build is an optimum build for them, and unless someone else plays just like you, that build may not be good for them.  I agree that some skills are useless in some planes, but I don't think there is any one optimum build and people should not be afraid to try something that may make their play style stronger.  It only costs credits to change things around to test with.


Edited by nwlxn12, 14 November 2017 - 09:35 PM.


WafflesOfWrath #17 Posted 14 November 2017 - 10:14 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 598 battles
  • 97
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postnwlxn12, on 14 November 2017 - 09:32 PM, said:

 

I disagree.  Turning faster helps you dodge better and gets you on the tail of a BnZ plane faster which means you can shoot at them faster and when they are slightly closer in range.  So what is better, turning faster to get on a tail faster and at a closer range but the enemy is faster to get out of your range, or substitute a turning mod/skill with speed and getting on their tail slower and further away, but the enemy is slower to get out of your range?  In all honesty, the results are probably close which ever way you decide.

 

All this stuff is very opinionated and really relies on what you want from your plane in game.  Whatever anyone decides or agrees on as an optimum build is an optimum build for them, and unless someone else plays just like you, that build may not be good for them.  I agree that some skills are useless in some planes, but I don't think there is any one optimum build and people should not be afraid to try something that may make their play style stronger.  It only costs credits to change things around to test with.

 

The game has undergone fundamental changes in 2.0 to specifically harm BnZ gameplay, and specifically BUFF TnB gameplay. In order to punish BnZ aircraft climb rates were reworked and the engine underwent more severe altitude compression. Boost mechanics were also reworked to give more dramatic increases in speed.

What this means is that most TnB fighters require engine tuning to better punish escaping BnZ planes, this becomes more dramatic as you go higher in tier. As to the "+maneuverability mods allow you to dodge better" argument, we're talking tiny increases of 2/3 %. Muzzle velocities were increased along with the gunnery rework, so completely avoiding damage at all is almost impossible. Add on top of that the fact that crit chances were heavily increased, and you're still looking at scary things happening to your plane, even while dodging. My argument is that planes with decent thrust, like airacobras and spitfires, would benefit much more from a thrust increase than a miniscule turning increase that has limited benefit. Incredibly slow TnB planes like zeros are so slow they don't benefit from engine tuning at all, and this is reflected in the recommended builds.

Edited by WafflesOfWrath, 14 November 2017 - 10:16 PM.


Soylent_Red_Isnt_People #18 Posted 14 November 2017 - 10:19 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 204 battles
  • 31
  • [SOL] SOL
  • Member since:
    12-08-2015

View PostWafflesOfWrath, on 14 November 2017 - 06:44 PM, said:

The new meta is easy lol - spitfire spam

Definitely agree - multiple 'Spits on one team is pretty much the same as seeing multiple I-15Bis or ShKas on the red team.

 

As for Aerodynamics Expert, my understanding of the skills that buff equipment is how they're worth taking if two or more of the kinds affected are mounted on an aircraft, but otherwise the points might be better spent?


Edited by Soylent_Red_Isnt_People, 14 November 2017 - 10:29 PM.


WafflesOfWrath #19 Posted 14 November 2017 - 10:50 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 598 battles
  • 97
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostSoylent_Red_Isnt_People, on 14 November 2017 - 10:19 PM, said:

Definitely agree - multiple 'Spits on one team is pretty much the same as seeing multiple I-15Bis or ShKas on the red team.

 

As for Aerodynamics Expert, my understanding of the skills that buff equipment is how they're worth taking if two or more of the kinds affected are mounted on an aircraft, but otherwise the points might be better spent?

 

Aerodynamics Expert pays off more as you equip more of the modules that it supports, you would be correct. It is recommended on aircraft that have at least 2 of its affected modules. If there's any exception to this rule it's probably an aircraft I'm still editing in the table.

Edited by WafflesOfWrath, 14 November 2017 - 10:58 PM.


ARCNA442 #20 Posted 14 November 2017 - 11:38 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 299 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    09-10-2016

View PostWafflesOfWrath, on 14 November 2017 - 06:49 PM, said:

 

Never use a gunsight on machinegun-armed planes, the entire point is to engage targets at point-blank range (500m or less) which throws the need for a gunsight out the window. 

 

I'm curious as to why you say machinegun planes shouldn't take a gunsight. From my understanding how accuracy works, it should provide a flat 10% dpm boost regardless of range and gun type.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 1 anonymous users