Jump to content


WG admits Combat Points and Airplane Type Grades don't map to Victory


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

Hanzle #1 Posted 21 December 2017 - 01:31 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 2038 battles
  • 7
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    08-21-2014

Through support WG has admitted that Combat Points and Airplane Type Grades don't map to Victory.  We've experience it, massive combat point and grade accumulation, and a loss.

 

1)  How do you amass Combat Points and Grades without contributing to victory???

2)  Why would WG have a results page that has nothing to do with victory?

 

Having difficulty getting a straight answer out of WG and wonder what the communities thoughts on this are?  

 

Thanks.



poisonousblood #2 Posted 21 December 2017 - 02:03 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2674 battles
  • 199
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    07-19-2012

You destroy a lot of planes by defending only one base for example. For every kill you get 200 CP. Long story short don't stay over one base defending. You need to attack other base and capture bases. Base capture is more important if you want victory.

 

Regarding roles of aircrafts, if you don't follow the requirement of each planes needed to get Hero badge, you probably get a massive amount of CP even more than 3 of the best players of enemy side combined but no victory.



gmann14 #3 Posted 21 December 2017 - 02:07 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 1094 battles
  • 27
  • Member since:
    10-12-2011

Ugh, after so many of these it's becoming comical.

Wg support admitted that..? I dont get it; how is a player having difficulty grasping game mechanics after 1300 games 

 

1. you amass cp's by getting xp thru plane kills, ground kills, capping/defending.. that's your score. And... victory is achieved by those those little numbers on top of your screen, with the little blue and red circles earning points...... blue circles are yours, earn points for.... your team. Red are the enemy's and earn points for enemy team.

And as the game goes on, side earning more points wins... and why there's is a squall, so even if you're behind on points, you can finish red planes for a win...

So, while you're farming bots in a cap earning your cp's but I'm strafing ground targets in a fighter, helping mong bots cap a mine/rocket base to flip it.. and move on to cap the next objective... guess what, you're gonna lose

So congrats on your massive cp score. You'll end up with oh, 20k and a loss; I might get 10k and a win.

 

It's like in wows... you coulda killed 10 ships on the enemy team, good job! but if the enemy team capped and were earning more points thru out the game.. when the game timer ends, you lose; when their points reach 1000.. you lose.

2. so all the mongs still confused how it works can post their "look at my 50k score in a game.. but it was a defeat" threads. 

 

It's how conquest mode works.. also the community likes it.


Edited by gmann14, 21 December 2017 - 02:10 PM.


MARS_REVENANT #4 Posted 21 December 2017 - 02:11 PM

    Colonel

  • Member
  • 1579 battles
  • 8,276
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Can you post the source link where they admitted it?  Also, where did it say that combat points and type grades are meant to give you a victory?

 

Victories are obtained by capturing sectors and holding them more than the enemy.  And by destroying the entire enemy team after the squall line.  Combat points and type grade scores are secondary.


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.

 


Conal_Cochran #5 Posted 21 December 2017 - 03:26 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 28 battles
  • 200
  • Member since:
    10-04-2014
Hey, I thought the whole point if this re-boot was for pilots to feel better about themselves. So feel better.. Win or lose  you get a trophy...you get a trophy, everyone gets a trophy...enjoy!

comtedumas #6 Posted 21 December 2017 - 04:34 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2425 battles
  • 388
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    04-11-2016

View PostConal_Cochran, on 21 December 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

Hey, I thought the whole point if this re-boot was for pilots to feel better about themselves. So feel better.. Win or lose  you get a trophy...you get a trophy, everyone gets a trophy...enjoy!

 

you were wrong.  Didn't you rage quit?  
Heard on the forum.  "1.9 was a hardcore air combat sim.  And it had a lead indicator"  HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mercsn #7 Posted 21 December 2017 - 05:06 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 969 battles
  • 2,855
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

Combat points = credits + pat yourself on the back

Chevrons = pat yourself on the back

Mastery = XP (kinda hidden in the summary page, so no you're not supposed to pat yourself on the back for this one)


 

TEAM with highest score (or kill all enemies after squall) = win.


 

Imagine you play basketball.  You score 60 points.  The rest of your team combined scores 25.  Your team has 75 points.  You're carrying hard.  The opposing team has 5 players who each score only 20 points.  They aren't very good, individually, but as a TEAM, they have 100 points.  And...they win.


 

So, this isn't the only game where a good PERSONAL performance doesn't lead to a TEAM win.  That said, with all the non-teamwork factors involved in the game, bots (and unbalanced bots!), somewhat random matchmaker, missions that send players off on tasks that have nothing to do with achieving a win, etc, the summary page really should just go back to kills, assists, xp and (for this game mode) sectors captured, instead of making a big to-do about the new "combat points" and "chevrons" stats which are totally friggin meaningless.


 

Sectors captured or defended is a stat that you see on your personal summary, but if you want to see what the other team had you have to click through each player.  Capture and defense are stats that affect win/loss of a match.  The other numbers are just frill.  But, frill you can pat yourself on the back for. 


 


 


 


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.

StoptheViolins #8 Posted 21 December 2017 - 05:08 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1373 battles
  • 727
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
You just have to do well for your aircraft type to rake in the XP. 

Destroyer_Suzukaze #9 Posted 21 December 2017 - 07:15 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 678 battles
  • 511
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

You don't win by getting the most combat points or chevrons. You win by those caps accumulating victory points.

 

Play the objective.

 

I had a game not long ago where we were ahead on points, I had about 8k cp, the guy on the other team had 19k cp

 

I just stayed on my cap as the last plane and took the victory. He made a great effort, but staying in the center cap and defending runs up your stats but doesn't win. 

 


Edited by Destroyer_Suzukaze, 21 December 2017 - 07:16 PM.


vcharng #10 Posted 24 December 2017 - 07:35 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1673 battles
  • 218
  • Member since:
    10-25-2017

think about this: one team captures position #1, then moves on to #2, #3, etc., the other team captures them back one minute after their capture, in the exact same order. They did exactly the same stuff, but the first team will always win for the extra 36 victory points.

What makes CP and chevrons depart from win/loss is timing. epic capture of all positions after them being on the enemy hand for 5 minutes won't help you win. And the problem is that we can't find a way to score a stuff like timing.

And... in a way, I'm actually quite baffled about why is WG so obsessive about capturing something, it's fine for tanks, but there is no such a thing as capture in aerial and naval warfare. They both have to "land" in order to capture something, and that something is always located on dry land.



Destroyer_Suzukaze #11 Posted 24 December 2017 - 09:29 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 678 battles
  • 511
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View Postvcharng, on 23 December 2017 - 11:35 PM, said:

think about this: one team captures position #1, then moves on to #2, #3, etc., the other team captures them back one minute after their capture, in the exact same order. They did exactly the same stuff, but the first team will always win for the extra 36 victory points.

What makes CP and chevrons depart from win/loss is timing. epic capture of all positions after them being on the enemy hand for 5 minutes won't help you win. And the problem is that we can't find a way to score a stuff like timing.

And... in a way, I'm actually quite baffled about why is WG so obsessive about capturing something, it's fine for tanks, but there is no such a thing as capture in aerial and naval warfare. They both have to "land" in order to capture something, and that something is always located on dry land.

 

Chevrons just need to be retooled. Some classes earn them much easier than other classes. 

 

I don't have a problem with capture mechanics as a metaphor for air supremacy over a given area, which is something that actually did happen. They would lock down an area so a ground or sea offense would not see airstrikes. They postponed Operation Torch until they had a sufficient supply of P38s for example just for this reason.

 

Capture points also force you to engage. Otherwise you could play defense, and wait for the other person to make the first move and just sit back until they do. Probably not as true for planes as it is for ships, but people would just sit back all game if they didn't have to make a move. 

 

What I like is all classes can contribute to the victory by playing the objective. And there is offense and defense. 

 

I am open to other modes. 



vcharng #12 Posted 24 December 2017 - 12:12 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1673 battles
  • 218
  • Member since:
    10-25-2017

View PostDestroyer_Suzukaze, on 24 December 2017 - 09:29 AM, said:

 

Chevrons just need to be retooled. Some classes earn them much easier than other classes. 

 

I don't have a problem with capture mechanics as a metaphor for air supremacy over a given area, which is something that actually did happen. They would lock down an area so a ground or sea offense would not see airstrikes. They postponed Operation Torch until they had a sufficient supply of P38s for example just for this reason.

 

Capture points also force you to engage. Otherwise you could play defense, and wait for the other person to make the first move and just sit back until they do. Probably not as true for planes as it is for ships, but people would just sit back all game if they didn't have to make a move. 

 

What I like is all classes can contribute to the victory by playing the objective. And there is offense and defense. 

 

I am open to other modes. 

 

well, the current capture mechanic is actually pretty good (in fact, nothing was captured, it was simply a question of "who destroyed more enemy in this area"), I have to give a "thumbs up" to WG for that. The more problematic one is in WOWS.

As for other modes... uhh I'm a bit worried about that deathmatch thing others are talking about, as just how are GAAs and bombers supposed to participate in a deathmatch? They can hardly be anything beside food.



Destroyer_Suzukaze #13 Posted 24 December 2017 - 10:39 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 678 battles
  • 511
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View Postvcharng, on 24 December 2017 - 04:12 AM, said:

 

well, the current capture mechanic is actually pretty good (in fact, nothing was captured, it was simply a question of "who destroyed more enemy in this area"), I have to give a "thumbs up" to WG for that. The more problematic one is in WOWS.

As for other modes... uhh I'm a bit worried about that deathmatch thing others are talking about, as just how are GAAs and bombers supposed to participate in a deathmatch? They can hardly be anything beside food.

 

I don't fly fighters a lot so I don't see how I can be anything other than fodder in Deathmatch. I mostly fly MR, GA, and Bombers.

Pogo68 #14 Posted 24 December 2017 - 11:26 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1023 battles
  • 1,270
  • [-BFS-] -BFS-
  • Member since:
    11-06-2012

View PostDestroyer_Suzukaze, on 24 December 2017 - 02:39 PM, said:

 

I don't fly fighters a lot so I don't see how I can be anything other than fodder in Deathmatch. I mostly fly MR, GA, and Bombers.

 

There are a number of MR that are a threat to any fighter around.

The T2 I-5 ShKAS for example is not as maneuverable as any of the fighters in its class but it's firepower rivals the Tier 3 fighters.

Even the Skua is a respectable in a dogfight.

The Corsairs, P-47's and Seafang are not to be trifled with.

The IL-10 and IL-40 are just brutal when flown aggressively.

I've caught many an attacking fighter at the top of their loops while using an IL-40.


Edited by Pogo68, 24 December 2017 - 11:27 PM.

DICTA BOELCKE for WoWP
    1. Try to secure the upper hand before attacking.
    2. Always continue with an attack you have begun
    3. Open fire only at close range, and then only when the opponent is squarely in your sights
    4. You should always try to keep your eye on your opponent, and never let yourself be deceived by ruses
    5. In any type of attack, it is essential to assail your opponent from behind
    6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try run away from his attack, but fly to meet it
    7. When over the enemy's lines, always remember your own line of retreat
    8. It is better to attack in groups of four or six. Avoid two aircraft attacking the same opponent

pyantoryng #15 Posted 25 December 2017 - 03:04 AM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 892 battles
  • 7,281
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostPogo68, on 24 December 2017 - 11:26 PM, said:

 

There are a number of MR that are a threat to any fighter around.

The T2 I-5 ShKAS for example is not as maneuverable as any of the fighters in its class but it's firepower rivals the Tier 3 fighters.

Even the Skua is a respectable in a dogfight.

The Corsairs, P-47's and Seafang are not to be trifled with.

The IL-10 and IL-40 are just brutal when flown aggressively.

I've caught many an attacking fighter at the top of their loops while using an IL-40.

 

Good thing I-5 ShKAS wasn't this year's gift...I'd say it's just about on par with Panzer Hotchkiss and perhaps the Nikolai in terms of broken-ness...the firepower is the kind that is effective in tier 4.

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.

Destroyer_Suzukaze #16 Posted 25 December 2017 - 07:01 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 678 battles
  • 511
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View PostPogo68, on 24 December 2017 - 03:26 PM, said:

 

There are a number of MR that are a threat to any fighter around.

The T2 I-5 ShKAS for example is not as maneuverable as any of the fighters in its class but it's firepower rivals the Tier 3 fighters.

Even the Skua is a respectable in a dogfight.

The Corsairs, P-47's and Seafang are not to be trifled with.

The IL-10 and IL-40 are just brutal when flown aggressively.

I've caught many an attacking fighter at the top of their loops while using an IL-40.

 

I really don't like the XF4U-1. So I haven't gone up the line, and I grew up a mile from Sikorsky (who built it...the XF4U-1 was built and flown a mile from my house) so I really want to like it

trikke #17 Posted 28 December 2017 - 01:10 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 847 battles
  • 468
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postvcharng, on 24 December 2017 - 02:35 AM, said:

And... in a way, I'm actually quite baffled about why is WG so obsessive about capturing something, it's fine for tanks, but there is no such a thing as capture in aerial and naval warfare. They both have to "land" in order to capture something, and that something is always located on dry land.

 

that is a valid point...   limited semantics from non-english speakers, probably 

 

it's a carryover from wot?


Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore

I_QQ_4_U #18 Posted 31 December 2017 - 04:39 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 903 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    10-17-2016

View Postvcharng, on 24 December 2017 - 07:35 AM, said:

And... in a way, I'm actually quite baffled about why is WG so obsessive about capturing something, it's fine for tanks, but there is no such a thing as capture in aerial and naval warfare. They both have to "land" in order to capture something, and that something is always located on dry land.

 

Because it's 'World of Planes', there's only planes, no ground forces. If they made all the games just death matches who in their right mind is going to play anything but the best dogfighters? Definitely nobody would be playing bombers or attack aircraft.



StoptheViolins #19 Posted 31 December 2017 - 05:57 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1373 battles
  • 727
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postpyantoryng, on 24 December 2017 - 10:04 PM, said:

 

Good thing I-5 ShKAS wasn't this year's gift...I'd say it's just about on par with Panzer Hotchkiss and perhaps the Nikolai in terms of broken-ness...the firepower is the kind that is effective in tier 4.

Geesh I have one and it's op and very good at killing everything very quickly.  The enemy has only one chance - die enough times by it in hopes that the guns over heat.



Onyx #20 Posted 02 January 2018 - 10:39 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 696 battles
  • 54
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-30-2011

View PostMARS_REVENANT, on 21 December 2017 - 06:11 AM, said:

Can you post the source link where they admitted it?  Also, where did it say that combat points and type grades are meant to give you a victory?

 

Victories are obtained by capturing sectors and holding them more than the enemy.  And by destroying the entire enemy team after the squall line.  Combat points and type grade scores are secondary.

 

The bigger problem I've noticed is the mastery system.  Your rate at getting XP is tied to playing your class of aircraft in a given way.  However, actually winning the game quite often differs from what gives the most mastery rank (separate from combat points, I know, but it's worth bringing it up).  For instance, Light Fighters are best utilized on defense of a capture point to grind an enemy down, and then push when it's "safe" to do so (provided you're tactically allowed to).  But you're rewarded for attacking as a light fighter, not defending.  So there's a disconnect in the mastery rank and what actually wins games.  Personally, I'd like to see that removed and how score is awarded to each plane altered to be more realistic towards what actually wins games.  Promoting bad behavior is a problem in and of itself.

 

View PostI_QQ_4_U, on 30 December 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

 

Because it's 'World of Planes', there's only planes, no ground forces. If they made all the games just death matches who in their right mind is going to play anything but the best dogfighters? Definitely nobody would be playing bombers or attack aircraft.

 

Actually, WoWP was primarily dominated by energy fighters before, because energy fighters could go where other planes couldn't.  The best dogfighters definitely didn't decide matches.

 

View Postvcharng, on 24 December 2017 - 04:12 AM, said:

 

well, the current capture mechanic is actually pretty good (in fact, nothing was captured, it was simply a question of "who destroyed more enemy in this area"), I have to give a "thumbs up" to WG for that. The more problematic one is in WOWS.

As for other modes... uhh I'm a bit worried about that deathmatch thing others are talking about, as just how are GAAs and bombers supposed to participate in a deathmatch? They can hardly be anything beside food.

 

Same way they did before.  Have ground targets they can blow up that gives their team ticking warscore when they have more "points" than the enemy (kills, including ground kills).

 

That horrible abomination of a game mode is part of the reason why WoWP failed, and why heavy fighters were absolutely dominant in WoWP before.  I see no good coming from it.

 

A lot of planes are still largely balanced around a largely defunct game mode, such as the XF-90 having a 17+s turn time when its only defining characteristic is that it can go really fast, and is otherwise outclassed by its peers for the current game.  There's no way they can actually balance the planes for both game modes.  Deathmatch will always favor energy fighters, whereas the current maps favor planes that can get stuck in and efficiently kill their prey.  This is one reason why I consider heavy fighters to be underpowered despite being across the board competent at fighting other planes.  They cannot get stuck in and fight in a base, they have to zoom out, turn, and come back in.  Which just isn't practical in the current mode design.

 

Similarly, planes like the Ju 88 (GA) are just way too slow at actually capturing ground objectives since they're a very binary all or nothing, not being rewarded for each individual kill, and the plane suffers dramatically as a result.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users