Jump to content


WG: the things that make me not want to play.


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

Hurk #1 Posted 15 January 2018 - 04:01 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 524 battles
  • 54
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

im a returning beta tester. the game was too arcadish for me to play originally, but with the holiday planes and 2.0 i thought i would give it a try since i like flight sim games.

these are the things that prevent me from liking this game like i do WoT:

 

1. bots are not fair per team. there is nothing worse to me than massive RNG deciding the outcome of a match. this is why there is soo much hate for arty in WoT, and i think your bots here cause the same issue. they should not be random at all, each team should get the same bots. players should then matter after the fact. 

Alternatively, you can turn this into a PvE game primary, with a PvP queue for those that want to play that mode. (and not conquor mode, just fly and die with a set number of respawns, etc)
 

2. the entire "complete kill" mechanic is not fun and i dont want it in my games. WoT awards far more total exp for damage than for kills. there is only a small per kill bonus, which encourages people to shoot tanks as often as possible, and not to try and wait to shoot, which in a war game is silly.

 

3. uncontested zones. WoWS has contested zones. if their are enemy ships present, you do not earn resources from the zone. same should apply here.

 

4. supremacy should not exist. coupled with 3, contested zones and supremacy should never happen unless all enemy planes are out of all zones of control. 

 

5. respawns and squall. respawns should be limited to 3 per player, and +1 if low tier in the battle. Squall should prevent respawn, except for players that have never died. players should get bonuses for no deaths and for less deaths.

 

6. eliminate the double points hide. i dont care about mastery or battle points. just show exp and credits earned and directly corrilate that to damage done and objectives instead. the double blind makes the game a mess of players not knowing what to do to score things that matter.

 

7. i cannot stress enough, PvE game mode. this would be an excellent PvE game, that i could grab a bunch of friends and play with them against the AI. if we got really good we could try that PvP mode too. but i dont see the value of 1-3 humans vs 1-3 humans with the rest bots per team deciding who wins and loses. 

 

8. you have to fix the client crashes. these are too common. 

 

9. tier scaling needs to make more sense than higher tier wins 90% of the time. (mind you i have only played through tier 5, but its stupid that it is very blatant that tier > everything else for most battles) In case its not clear, i want some amount of skill to play in here, and not just "my planes stats trump yours".

 

10. enemy team should matter at least as much as objectives. nothing worse than being a fighter on the map with 2 factories and being essentially useless to the victory since you are at the whim of your attack craft to cap. or being an attack craft on maps with rockets and not being able to attack since only rocket sites matter, etc. 

basically each enemy plane killed should cost them 30 supremacy points. teams that die a lot will not win even if they control territory. a team that rushes through cap and fights over a final area will lose a lot of cap to dieing over it. conversely, killing enemy planes should grant 20 supremacy. being able to kill a lot of enemy planes should award victory. 

 

think about the WoT balance. capping is useful, and some times necessary, but by no means critical. WoWP should be the same. 


In Theory, there is no difference between Theory and Practice.
In Practice, there is.

vcharng #2 Posted 15 January 2018 - 04:10 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 4582 battles
  • 1,084
  • Member since:
    10-25-2017

View PostHurk, on 15 January 2018 - 04:01 AM, said:

 

5. respawns and squall. respawns should be limited to 3 per player, and +1 if low tier in the battle. Squall should prevent respawn, except for players that have never died. players should get bonuses for no deaths and for less deaths.

 

It is actually very difficult to respawn over 3 times as it is now.

I got trolled by a pair of enemy T9 HFs in my Spit 14 the other day, and I died 3 times in very quick succession. By the time I could die a 4th time the squall has arrived, so there won't be a 4th respawn anyway.

 

And I agree with the PVE stuff to the very bottom of my heart. It is simple, for the player population now it's pretty much a choice between "player versus environment" and "player versus nobody". I mean, even if they make WOWP a single player game, it's still better than a "zero player" game.



SpiritFoxMY #3 Posted 15 January 2018 - 04:26 AM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 5623 battles
  • 3,160
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    12-31-2012
1. Is tough - you'd need mirror matches for it to be actually even because bot competence in certain planes matter... like an Ace bot in an IL20...

***

But a truce to this mournful story

For death is a distant friend

So here's to a life of glory

And a laurel to crown each end


LMG #4 Posted 15 January 2018 - 04:28 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2436 battles
  • 2,119
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

1. I've seen that on 2-human games the bots are almost always mirrored. Or do you mean how they capture different sectors?

2. I'll agree that I'd like to get paid more for doing damage xp-wise. Especially on bombers.

3. I think allowing that could straight up break the balance. All you'd have to do is sit on a bomber over a random cap and call it a day. Hell, that would make maps with 3 caps nigh impossible to properly play with all the bots focusing on the central area.

4. While I don't like games ending too quickly because of a bad team, I can't say I'd like not being rewarded for completely securing the map either.

5. I think I mentioned before that I'd prefer a system where once the squall line hits, all living players get one final respawn, and anyone currently dead spends that final respawn to return into combat.

 

6. I somewhat agree that having Combat Points and Mastery Points only to turn them into credits and EXP is confusing to say the least. Maybe the game uses some sort of conversion value to figure out the total payout based on tier, idk.

7. If we get a PvE mode, I think it would have to be a proper new mode instead of Conquest with one team full of bots. It's far too easy to beat them. However, I'm all in for a proper coop mode :great:

 

9. I believe some planes do have one minor stat that's better than the next tier (usually better turning, though it's not visible anymore with the rounded stats). However, I'll have to agree. It's painful trying to deal with a IL-40 while on an IL-20. However, that would call for a mass-scale rebalance of all the planes in the game, which I don't think WG wants to do so close to the start of 2.0, if at all. We can't just nerf all the stats across the board and call it a day.

 

10. As a GAA player, I disagree completely. It's already tricky enough to capture hostile sectors on my own when enemy players are roaming around the map, the last thing I need is have it all go to waste because of the bot conga line into the middle while I try to out-capture the enemy team's ground pounders :sceptic:

 

From my experience in WoT, I'd rather never have this game become that (kinda why I left in 1.x too)


This is my IL-2 (t). There are many like it, but this one is mine. :child:

vcharng #5 Posted 15 January 2018 - 05:03 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 4582 battles
  • 1,084
  • Member since:
    10-25-2017

View PostLMG, on 15 January 2018 - 04:28 AM, said:

7. If we get a PvE mode, I think it would have to be a proper new mode instead of Conquest with one team full of bots. It's far too easy to beat them. However, I'm all in for a proper coop mode :great:

 

 

10. As a GAA player, I disagree completely. It's already tricky enough to capture hostile sectors on my own when enemy players are roaming around the map, the last thing I need is have it all go to waste because of the bot conga line into the middle while I try to out-capture the enemy team's ground pounders :sceptic:

 

From my experience in WoT, I'd rather never have this game become that (kinda why I left in 1.x too)

7. I think WG knows that, that's why they have the scenario mode in WOWS.

10. yeah, making "the enemy team as important as objectives would mean removing attackers and bombers, they can't hit enemy team at all. If WOWP is going to keep GAAs and bombers, then emphasizing on aerial combat will not be an option.



Mercsn #6 Posted 15 January 2018 - 08:03 AM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2993 battles
  • 3,330
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

Hurk, you're a good player.  You can obviously fly and shoot very well.  Based on your previous and this post, while I do agree with some of your points, one issue you have is that you don't look "big picture".  On some of your points, instead of there being an actual problem, you're just not looking at the situation in a way that will help you realize there really isn't a problem and therefore the solution is in your hands.


 

1. Agree.  Bots are not balanced per team, per aircraft.  This is absolutely broken and either a bug (doubtful), a coding issue (slightly more likely), or a very poor design decision (most likely).   This really needs to be fixed.  I open a ticket at submit screenshots of the bots on one team way out scoring bots in same-type aircraft on the other team.  WG "appreciates my feedback" but I'm sure Kiev is hellbent on the unemployment line and thinks bots deciding matches is good for a "PvP" game.  They either need to balance the bots per team or make the games with bots co-op.


 

2.  Disagree.  I honestly don't find any issue with how XP is passed out other than it's waaaay too fast, especially in tiers 1-4.  You have players in tiers 5+ that have no idea how to fly, shoot, or understand the map and objectives.  XP is VERY fast in this game, whether you get "full kills" or not.  Credits/silver earnings are based on combat points (damage done).  Credits are in much tighter supply than the VERY loose XP.


 

3.  Somewhat Agree.  If we had to clear a zone of enemies to score points, it would make defense a thing.  But, from a design perspective you want to avoid turtling.    And...since there have to be defense bots with this game mode (so fighters have something to shoot at), promoting turtling would mean that whoever caps 2 of 3 or 3 of 5 zones first would win. This would actually lead to the same thing that happens in your 4th point, which you are against.


 

4.  Agree.  Superiority forcing the counter to speed up very fast means that the losing team simply cannot recover.  I've often been on a team or fought against a team that made a slip at a bad time and one team ends up with superiority (say command center bombers flip a zone at the same time players flip a zone).   That team went from 2 of 5 to 0 of 5 zones instantly.  They were in the fight with the match score relatively close, but now the team with superiority is guaranteed a win.  It is unlikely that the "losing" team will even recapture one zone prior to the time running out.  Even though that team is perfectly capable of putting up a good fight and possibly making a comeback to win.  Superiority completely removes this "comeback" possibility.


 

This is compounded by point #1, especially at higher tiers where more "ace" skill level bots begin to rear their ugly heads.  This, again, is a bad game design decision.  It's meant to keep a "bad" team from having to endure a long match of getting slaughtered.  But, again, more often than not, I see this mechanic just beat up a team that was putting up a good fight and had the potential to win.


 

5.  Somewhat agree.  The only real problem I have with respawn is that BOTS DON'T GET INCREASED SPAWN TIMER the way players do.  You shoot them down and they are right back in the battle, even if you kill the same one many times.  Their needs to be some limit, but I feel a team-wide "supply amount" mechanic would work better, especially if tied in to the score.  This would eliminate both the need for the terrible superiority mechanic AND limit respawns...repspawn too much and you lose because you burn up supply points adding to the enemy's score or detracting from your own.


 

Squall needs to be randomized, after a certain amount of game time has elapsed and not have a warning.  Crashing for a fresh plane is stupid.  The devs have admitted as much and say they are working on a solution.  Maybe they'll figure it out before 3.0 (or the unemployment line, whichever comes first).


 

6.  Agree.  I see what they were going for...but again, WG devs having "good ideas" for game design is bad for players.  The game mode is confusing enough with so many bots, zones, ai, etc going on that to also double down on confusing by having unclear metrics (chevrons, combat points, mastery points) and unclear payouts (combat points to credits and mastery points to xp) with no clear list of what gave or caused what is just stupid and needlessly complex.  Sure, it's there and you can figure it out...but you have to take time to look for it.  Just roll combat points and mastery into a "score" and then roll credits and xp payout into that "score".  Simple. Clear. Done. 


 

7.  Agree.  When you consider bot impact on gameplay through points 1, 4, and 5, bots really need to be on one team and humans on the other, with as few bot fill ins as possible.   In response to one of my support tickets regarding bots throwing a match, CS replies, "Use teamwork to achieve victory in the match."  Umm, hi, WG, ni hao?  If I have ZERO human teammates, how am I supposed to use teamwork?!  Now, if that other human and I had been on the SAME team, now there's at least opportunity for teamwork!  Voila!  And, the game isn't really changed because it's still players shooting bots to large extent and teamwork can be used to mitigate higher skilled (or better coded) bots.


 

8.  Agree.  I see very few client crashes, but I see A LOT of disconnects or "drops" when players move from lobby to match or from match to lobby servers.  Then, if you disconnect, you have to go through the wasted time of shutting down the client completely and re-launching to be able to reconnect without the "cannot find DNS" or whatever the error is.  I imagine most players are just giving up in frustration or banging their heads against the keyboard when they repeatedly see that connection error since, while you can get back into a match in progress, I see very few player re-connect that were dropped on the lobby to match server hand-off.


 

9.  Disagree.  I really don't see this.  First, most matches are one solid tier.  Secondly, even when there is 1 or 2 "top tier" of one tier up, they often are not more effective than anybody else in the match.  An exception to this is say, a player in a tier 4 Bf110 in a tier 3 match.  Game over.  But, this is mainly due to the XP just being too fast and not having enough separation in tiers through xp that low tier players who don't know what they're doing will get wrecked by the higher tier who dies.  Once you move up in tier, especially tier 5 (where tier 6 is often barely an upgrade, if at all) the differences per plane is not insurmountable...especially since you start seeing more bots.  What skill level a given bot player plane ends up with is a much bigger factor than if there is 1 or 2 "top tier" planes per match.  But again, I rarely see this, unless a player flights up with somebody not in the same tier.


 

10.  Stop thinking of WoWP as WoT.  It's a different game.  Get your head around the this game mode.  Capping is the thing.  As I pointed out in your other thread, killing planes does matter.  You just have to know where and when to do it.  When you combine this with the bot respawn, even if you spend the entire game killing planes, they'll just keep popping back out every 10 seconds, unless they are player planes.  But, smart players will go to an objective and let you farm bots in a useless piece of airspace.


 

You're not the general.  You're the pilot.  Look at it that way.  The powers that be have decided you and your squadron are to fly into this region and capture and hold these zones.  Getting into a fight enroute does nothing for the rest of your forces (not visible on map, use your 'magination!) on the ground that need you to capture and hold (provide CAS/CAP -close air support/ combat air patrol) those zones.


 


 

This isn't WoT and most planes players don't want it to be.  Besides, if it was WoT, I'd just be telling you, "go away nub!" instead of trying to help you understand that it's a different game and some things you have issues with are actually just you needing to free your mind a bit and look at those things from a different angle.

:honoring:


 


 


 


 


 


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.

poisonousblood #7 Posted 15 January 2018 - 09:42 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5980 battles
  • 470
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    07-19-2012
Please, nobody is forcing you to play. You have only played 300 games in 2.0 version. Learn how the bots works. Each of the types maintain their role. They helps you assist in everything. I have to agree that sometimes in battles where I am the only human player and there are bombers (from CS) flying, I have to make sure that i kill them, bots only injure them. Meaning I have to be everywhere. But please, don't put your judgement when you have little knowledge about the game. And please dont take it personally, I am not calling you a noob or something, I have been in your situation and I played and understood how to take a base asap, how the bots works, what are the strategies to effectively win a game by capping et cetera. You just have to be patient.

SpiritFoxMY #8 Posted 15 January 2018 - 10:13 AM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 5623 battles
  • 3,160
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    12-31-2012

I *thought* I had the bots figured out, then I hit the invisible line which says "You're a man now, son. Have a swarm of Aces".

 

I'm still smarting from that.

 

300 more battles before I officially exist


Edited by SpiritFoxMY, 15 January 2018 - 10:14 AM.

***

But a truce to this mournful story

For death is a distant friend

So here's to a life of glory

And a laurel to crown each end


NorthernPorter #9 Posted 15 January 2018 - 03:16 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Test Veteran
  • 1792 battles
  • 254
  • Member since:
    12-13-2011

I like a lot of the points Hurk brought up, but kind of agree more with LMG.

 

Item 7, regarding PvE and PvP matches, I agree, would be an excellent add to the game. Defiantly would have to make it a different game mode though. Or maybe give you the option of modes, kind of like how WoT you could turn off/on different game modes in the settings menu. Also, maybe its just me, but I need some kind of visible identifier as to who is a Bot or not. Like WoWS, they have a : infront of the Bot's name. Just a simple visual cue to help.

 

Also, adding scenarios like WoWS would be neat. I could see how you have to progress through the map and complete different objectives at each event point.



Zinro #10 Posted 15 January 2018 - 03:48 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1408 battles
  • 345
  • Member since:
    01-01-2012

View PostMercsn, on 15 January 2018 - 02:03 AM, said:

4.  Agree.  Superiority forcing the counter to speed up very fast means that the losing team simply cannot recover.  I've often been on a team or fought against a team that made a slip at a bad time and one team ends up with superiority (say command center bombers flip a zone at the same time players flip a zone).   That team went from 2 of 5 to 0 of 5 zones instantly.  They were in the fight with the match score relatively close, but now the team with superiority is guaranteed a win.  It is unlikely that the "losing" team will even recapture one zone prior to the time running out.  Even though that team is perfectly capable of putting up a good fight and possibly making a comeback to win.  Superiority completely removes this "comeback" possibility.

 

 

Disagree - If a team has allowed the other team to capture all the zones, it is probably close to impossible for that team to all of a sudden get good and turn the battle.  I think of this more as mercy for the loosing team to get it over with.

SpiritFoxMY #11 Posted 15 January 2018 - 03:56 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 5623 battles
  • 3,160
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    12-31-2012

View Postnwlxn12, on 15 January 2018 - 03:48 PM, said:

 

Disagree - If a team has allowed the other team to capture all the zones, it is probably close to impossible for that team to all of a sudden get good and turn the battle.  I think of this more as mercy for the loosing team to get it over with.

 

Disagree. There were plenty of times when all I needed was two more seconds to recover from a mid-game superiority flip. This is most common on the command center maps when a single bad deathball engagement can result in you losing a rapid string of caps due to how the bomber formations work, but I've clawed my way back to wins before from that and could do it more often without the supremacy cap although... I've used the same supremacy counter to stage comebacks before as well. Overall though, the supremacy counter is a bloody nuisance and the only time I'm thankful for it is if I'm in a bomber because at that point there is really nothing left for me to do other than do silly things like playing Whack-a-GAA or Deathball Roulette.


***

But a truce to this mournful story

For death is a distant friend

So here's to a life of glory

And a laurel to crown each end


crzyhawk #12 Posted 15 January 2018 - 04:09 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 5468 battles
  • 1,329
  • [3D_MI] 3D_MI
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

View PostSpiritFoxMY, on 15 January 2018 - 03:56 PM, said:

 

Disagree. There were plenty of times when all I needed was two more seconds to recover from a mid-game superiority flip. This is most common on the command center maps when a single bad deathball engagement can result in you losing a rapid string of caps due to how the bomber formations work, but I've clawed my way back to wins before from that and could do it more often without the supremacy cap although... I've used the same supremacy counter to stage comebacks before as well. Overall though, the supremacy counter is a bloody nuisance and the only time I'm thankful for it is if I'm in a bomber because at that point there is really nothing left for me to do other than do silly things like playing Whack-a-GAA or Deathball Roulette.

 

While it happens, it's rare.  Sometimes you just have to pray for the squal line, and hope you have enough time to kill them all.

USA: XP31; F11C-2; YP29; F2A-1; XF4F-3; Hawk 81A1; P38F; XFL; XF4U-1; P39N; XP55; P-47B; F4U1,4; P51H  

UK: Goldfinch; Skua; Type 224; Wirraway; Bristol 146; Blenheim F; Fantome; Hurricane I, IId; Beaufighter; Boomerang; Venom; Spit I, Ia, XIV; Tornado; Mustang I, Ia; Seafang; Vampire |   

 | Germany: FW56; AR67; BF109B, E, E-3, F, G; Me209v4; Spit V DB605, FW190A5   | Japan: Ki5, 61, 84; A6M1, 3, A7M; | 

  ROC: Hawk II; Ki43c; Tomahawk IIb; P51K | EU: B534; S199 | VVS: LaGG 3(4); P40M105; Yak7M82, 1, 1M, 3; La5


Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #13 Posted 15 January 2018 - 04:33 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 1458 battles
  • 5,264
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostHurk, on 14 January 2018 - 11:01 PM, said:

im a returning beta tester. the game was too arcadish for me to play originally, but with the holiday planes and 2.0 i thought i would give it a try since i like flight sim games.

these are the things that prevent me from liking this game like i do WoT:

 

1. bots are not fair per team. there is nothing worse to me than massive RNG deciding the outcome of a match. this is why there is soo much hate for arty in WoT, and i think your bots here cause the same issue. they should not be random at all, each team should get the same bots. players should then matter after the fact. 

Alternatively, you can turn this into a PvE game primary, with a PvP queue for those that want to play that mode. (and not conquor mode, just fly and die with a set number of respawns, etc)
 

2. the entire "complete kill" mechanic is not fun and i dont want it in my games. WoT awards far more total exp for damage than for kills. there is only a small per kill bonus, which encourages people to shoot tanks as often as possible, and not to try and wait to shoot, which in a war game is silly.

 

3. uncontested zones. WoWS has contested zones. if their are enemy ships present, you do not earn resources from the zone. same should apply here.

 

4. supremacy should not exist. coupled with 3, contested zones and supremacy should never happen unless all enemy planes are out of all zones of control. 

 

5. respawns and squall. respawns should be limited to 3 per player, and +1 if low tier in the battle. Squall should prevent respawn, except for players that have never died. players should get bonuses for no deaths and for less deaths.

 

6. eliminate the double points hide. i dont care about mastery or battle points. just show exp and credits earned and directly corrilate that to damage done and objectives instead. the double blind makes the game a mess of players not knowing what to do to score things that matter.

 

7. i cannot stress enough, PvE game mode. this would be an excellent PvE game, that i could grab a bunch of friends and play with them against the AI. if we got really good we could try that PvP mode too. but i dont see the value of 1-3 humans vs 1-3 humans with the rest bots per team deciding who wins and loses. 

 

8. you have to fix the client crashes. these are too common. 

 

9. tier scaling needs to make more sense than higher tier wins 90% of the time. (mind you i have only played through tier 5, but its stupid that it is very blatant that tier > everything else for most battles) In case its not clear, i want some amount of skill to play in here, and not just "my planes stats trump yours".

 

10. enemy team should matter at least as much as objectives. nothing worse than being a fighter on the map with 2 factories and being essentially useless to the victory since you are at the whim of your attack craft to cap. or being an attack craft on maps with rockets and not being able to attack since only rocket sites matter, etc. 

basically each enemy plane killed should cost them 30 supremacy points. teams that die a lot will not win even if they control territory. a team that rushes through cap and fights over a final area will lose a lot of cap to dieing over it. conversely, killing enemy planes should grant 20 supremacy. being able to kill a lot of enemy planes should award victory. 

 

think about the WoT balance. capping is useful, and some times necessary, but by no means critical. WoWP should be the same. 

 

View Postvcharng, on 14 January 2018 - 11:10 PM, said:

It is actually very difficult to respawn over 3 times as it is now.

I got trolled by a pair of enemy T9 HFs in my Spit 14 the other day, and I died 3 times in very quick succession. By the time I could die a 4th time the squall has arrived, so there won't be a 4th respawn anyway.

 

And I agree with the PVE stuff to the very bottom of my heart. It is simple, for the player population now it's pretty much a choice between "player versus environment" and "player versus nobody". I mean, even if they make WOWP a single player game, it's still better than a "zero player" game.

 

View PostLMG, on 14 January 2018 - 11:28 PM, said:

1. I've seen that on 2-human games the bots are almost always mirrored. Or do you mean how they capture different sectors?

2. I'll agree that I'd like to get paid more for doing damage xp-wise. Especially on bombers.

3. I think allowing that could straight up break the balance. All you'd have to do is sit on a bomber over a random cap and call it a day. Hell, that would make maps with 3 caps nigh impossible to properly play with all the bots focusing on the central area.

4. While I don't like games ending too quickly because of a bad team, I can't say I'd like not being rewarded for completely securing the map either.

5. I think I mentioned before that I'd prefer a system where once the squall line hits, all living players get one final respawn, and anyone currently dead spends that final respawn to return into combat.

 

6. I somewhat agree that having Combat Points and Mastery Points only to turn them into credits and EXP is confusing to say the least. Maybe the game uses some sort of conversion value to figure out the total payout based on tier, idk.

7. If we get a PvE mode, I think it would have to be a proper new mode instead of Conquest with one team full of bots. It's far too easy to beat them. However, I'm all in for a proper coop mode :great:

 

9. I believe some planes do have one minor stat that's better than the next tier (usually better turning, though it's not visible anymore with the rounded stats). However, I'll have to agree. It's painful trying to deal with a IL-40 while on an IL-20. However, that would call for a mass-scale rebalance of all the planes in the game, which I don't think WG wants to do so close to the start of 2.0, if at all. We can't just nerf all the stats across the board and call it a day.

 

10. As a GAA player, I disagree completely. It's already tricky enough to capture hostile sectors on my own when enemy players are roaming around the map, the last thing I need is have it all go to waste because of the bot conga line into the middle while I try to out-capture the enemy team's ground pounders :sceptic:

 

From my experience in WoT, I'd rather never have this game become that (kinda why I left in 1.x too)

 

View PostMercsn, on 15 January 2018 - 03:03 AM, said:

Hurk, you're a good player.  You can obviously fly and shoot very well.  Based on your previous and this post, while I do agree with some of your points, one issue you have is that you don't look "big picture".  On some of your points, instead of there being an actual problem, you're just not looking at the situation in a way that will help you realize there really isn't a problem and therefore the solution is in your hands.


 

1. Agree.  Bots are not balanced per team, per aircraft.  This is absolutely broken and either a bug (doubtful), a coding issue (slightly more likely), or a very poor design decision (most likely).   This really needs to be fixed.  I open a ticket at submit screenshots of the bots on one team way out scoring bots in same-type aircraft on the other team.  WG "appreciates my feedback" but I'm sure Kiev is hellbent on the unemployment line and thinks bots deciding matches is good for a "PvP" game.  They either need to balance the bots per team or make the games with bots co-op.


 

2.  Disagree.  I honestly don't find any issue with how XP is passed out other than it's waaaay too fast, especially in tiers 1-4.  You have players in tiers 5+ that have no idea how to fly, shoot, or understand the map and objectives.  XP is VERY fast in this game, whether you get "full kills" or not.  Credits/silver earnings are based on combat points (damage done).  Credits are in much tighter supply than the VERY loose XP.


 

3.  Somewhat Agree.  If we had to clear a zone of enemies to score points, it would make defense a thing.  But, from a design perspective you want to avoid turtling.    And...since there have to be defense bots with this game mode (so fighters have something to shoot at), promoting turtling would mean that whoever caps 2 of 3 or 3 of 5 zones first would win. This would actually lead to the same thing that happens in your 4th point, which you are against.


 

4.  Agree.  Superiority forcing the counter to speed up very fast means that the losing team simply cannot recover.  I've often been on a team or fought against a team that made a slip at a bad time and one team ends up with superiority (say command center bombers flip a zone at the same time players flip a zone).   That team went from 2 of 5 to 0 of 5 zones instantly.  They were in the fight with the match score relatively close, but now the team with superiority is guaranteed a win.  It is unlikely that the "losing" team will even recapture one zone prior to the time running out.  Even though that team is perfectly capable of putting up a good fight and possibly making a comeback to win.  Superiority completely removes this "comeback" possibility.


 

This is compounded by point #1, especially at higher tiers where more "ace" skill level bots begin to rear their ugly heads.  This, again, is a bad game design decision.  It's meant to keep a "bad" team from having to endure a long match of getting slaughtered.  But, again, more often than not, I see this mechanic just beat up a team that was putting up a good fight and had the potential to win.


 

5.  Somewhat agree.  The only real problem I have with respawn is that BOTS DON'T GET INCREASED SPAWN TIMER the way players do.  You shoot them down and they are right back in the battle, even if you kill the same one many times.  Their needs to be some limit, but I feel a team-wide "supply amount" mechanic would work better, especially if tied in to the score.  This would eliminate both the need for the terrible superiority mechanic AND limit respawns...repspawn too much and you lose because you burn up supply points adding to the enemy's score or detracting from your own.


 

Squall needs to be randomized, after a certain amount of game time has elapsed and not have a warning.  Crashing for a fresh plane is stupid.  The devs have admitted as much and say they are working on a solution.  Maybe they'll figure it out before 3.0 (or the unemployment line, whichever comes first).


 

6.  Agree.  I see what they were going for...but again, WG devs having "good ideas" for game design is bad for players.  The game mode is confusing enough with so many bots, zones, ai, etc going on that to also double down on confusing by having unclear metrics (chevrons, combat points, mastery points) and unclear payouts (combat points to credits and mastery points to xp) with no clear list of what gave or caused what is just stupid and needlessly complex.  Sure, it's there and you can figure it out...but you have to take time to look for it.  Just roll combat points and mastery into a "score" and then roll credits and xp payout into that "score".  Simple. Clear. Done. 


 

7.  Agree.  When you consider bot impact on gameplay through points 1, 4, and 5, bots really need to be on one team and humans on the other, with as few bot fill ins as possible.   In response to one of my support tickets regarding bots throwing a match, CS replies, "Use teamwork to achieve victory in the match."  Umm, hi, WG, ni hao?  If I have ZERO human teammates, how am I supposed to use teamwork?!  Now, if that other human and I had been on the SAME team, now there's at least opportunity for teamwork!  Voila!  And, the game isn't really changed because it's still players shooting bots to large extent and teamwork can be used to mitigate higher skilled (or better coded) bots.


 

8.  Agree.  I see very few client crashes, but I see A LOT of disconnects or "drops" when players move from lobby to match or from match to lobby servers.  Then, if you disconnect, you have to go through the wasted time of shutting down the client completely and re-launching to be able to reconnect without the "cannot find DNS" or whatever the error is.  I imagine most players are just giving up in frustration or banging their heads against the keyboard when they repeatedly see that connection error since, while you can get back into a match in progress, I see very few player re-connect that were dropped on the lobby to match server hand-off.


 

9.  Disagree.  I really don't see this.  First, most matches are one solid tier.  Secondly, even when there is 1 or 2 "top tier" of one tier up, they often are not more effective than anybody else in the match.  An exception to this is say, a player in a tier 4 Bf110 in a tier 3 match.  Game over.  But, this is mainly due to the XP just being too fast and not having enough separation in tiers through xp that low tier players who don't know what they're doing will get wrecked by the higher tier who dies.  Once you move up in tier, especially tier 5 (where tier 6 is often barely an upgrade, if at all) the differences per plane is not insurmountable...especially since you start seeing more bots.  What skill level a given bot player plane ends up with is a much bigger factor than if there is 1 or 2 "top tier" planes per match.  But again, I rarely see this, unless a player flights up with somebody not in the same tier.


 

10.  Stop thinking of WoWP as WoT.  It's a different game.  Get your head around the this game mode.  Capping is the thing.  As I pointed out in your other thread, killing planes does matter.  You just have to know where and when to do it.  When you combine this with the bot respawn, even if you spend the entire game killing planes, they'll just keep popping back out every 10 seconds, unless they are player planes.  But, smart players will go to an objective and let you farm bots in a useless piece of airspace.


 

You're not the general.  You're the pilot.  Look at it that way.  The powers that be have decided you and your squadron are to fly into this region and capture and hold these zones.  Getting into a fight enroute does nothing for the rest of your forces (not visible on map, use your 'magination!) on the ground that need you to capture and hold (provide CAS/CAP -close air support/ combat air patrol) those zones.


 


 

This isn't WoT and most planes players don't want it to be.  Besides, if it was WoT, I'd just be telling you, "go away nub!" instead of trying to help you understand that it's a different game and some things you have issues with are actually just you needing to free your mind a bit and look at those things from a different angle.

:honoring:


 


 


 


 


 

 

View Postpoisonousblood, on 15 January 2018 - 04:42 AM, said:

Please, nobody is forcing you to play. You have only played 300 games in 2.0 version. Learn how the bots works. Each of the types maintain their role. They helps you assist in everything. I have to agree that sometimes in battles where I am the only human player and there are bombers (from CS) flying, I have to make sure that i kill them, bots only injure them. Meaning I have to be everywhere. But please, don't put your judgement when you have little knowledge about the game. And please dont take it personally, I am not calling you a noob or something, I have been in your situation and I played and understood how to take a base asap, how the bots works, what are the strategies to effectively win a game by capping et cetera. You just have to be patient.

 

View PostNorthernPorter, on 15 January 2018 - 10:16 AM, said:

I like a lot of the points Hurk brought up, but kind of agree more with LMG.

 

Item 7, regarding PvE and PvP matches, I agree, would be an excellent add to the game. Defiantly would have to make it a different game mode though. Or maybe give you the option of modes, kind of like how WoT you could turn off/on different game modes in the settings menu. Also, maybe its just me, but I need some kind of visible identifier as to who is a Bot or not. Like WoWS, they have a : infront of the Bot's name. Just a simple visual cue to help.

 

Also, adding scenarios like WoWS would be neat. I could see how you have to progress through the map and complete different objectives at each event point.

 

View PostSpiritFoxMY, on 15 January 2018 - 10:56 AM, said:

 

Disagree. There were plenty of times when all I needed was two more seconds to recover from a mid-game superiority flip. This is most common on the command center maps when a single bad deathball engagement can result in you losing a rapid string of caps due to how the bomber formations work, but I've clawed my way back to wins before from that and could do it more often without the supremacy cap although... I've used the same supremacy counter to stage comebacks before as well. Overall though, the supremacy counter is a bloody nuisance and the only time I'm thankful for it is if I'm in a bomber because at that point there is really nothing left for me to do other than do silly things like playing Whack-a-GAA or Deathball Roulette.

wow... that's a lot of stuff to digest

 


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


poisonousblood #14 Posted 15 January 2018 - 06:31 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5980 battles
  • 470
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    07-19-2012

View PostAce_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 15 January 2018 - 04:33 PM, said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

wow... that's a lot of stuff to digest

 

hope you enjoyed your constipation :teethhappy:



CorvusCorvax #15 Posted 15 January 2018 - 07:23 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 4894 battles
  • 5,427
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

If I could ask for JUST ONE THING, it would be that when I designate a target to take or defend, the bots follow directions.  If I designate an air target to destroy, do that.  If I ask for a tail clear, do that.

 

That way, I can at least get credit for strategic thinking and tactical thinking, not which plane from my quiver just happens to be in a particular piece of airspace..  When I am wearing four air defense aircraft and two bot fighters, plus dodging AA, it might be nice to have a team bot covering my butt, or at least attempting to take some other piece of real estate that's valuable.



LMG #16 Posted 15 January 2018 - 07:41 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2436 battles
  • 2,119
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostRico_CotC_, on 15 January 2018 - 02:23 PM, said:

If I could ask for JUST ONE THING, it would be that when I designate a target to take or defend, the bots follow directions.  If I designate an air target to destroy, do that.  If I ask for a tail clear, do that.

 

That way, I can at least get credit for strategic thinking and tactical thinking, not which plane from my quiver just happens to be in a particular piece of airspace..  When I am wearing four air defense aircraft and two bot fighters, plus dodging AA, it might be nice to have a team bot covering my butt, or at least attempting to take some other piece of real estate that's valuable.

 

I believe they will go to help you if they're not busy. While I'd love to be able to control the bots sometimes, I wouldn't be surprised if we'd end up in a situation when someone spams commands to take full control of the bots and troll everyone.

 

I remember suggesting some time ago that instead each player gets a few bots under their direct command (maybe like 2). That way you get some help while preventing someone from making all the bots sit in spawn by spamming "Follow Me!", as well as dealing with conflicting strategies of players within a team (nothing like that heavy that really wants to cap the enemy's airbase while a fighter is trying to clear the Military Base and the GAA is securing the Mining Facility).


This is my IL-2 (t). There are many like it, but this one is mine. :child:

Hurk #17 Posted 15 January 2018 - 11:22 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 524 battles
  • 54
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View Postpoisonousblood, on 15 January 2018 - 01:42 AM, said:

Please, nobody is forcing you to play. You have only played 300 games in 2.0 version. Learn how the bots works. Each of the types maintain their role. They helps you assist in everything. I have to agree that sometimes in battles where I am the only human player and there are bombers (from CS) flying, I have to make sure that i kill them, bots only injure them. Meaning I have to be everywhere. But please, don't put your judgement when you have little knowledge about the game. And please dont take it personally, I am not calling you a noob or something, I have been in your situation and I played and understood how to take a base asap, how the bots works, what are the strategies to effectively win a game by capping et cetera. You just have to be patient.

I think you are missing the point of my post. these are the issues that will cause me to leave the game and not play. not issues that i feel need to be "fixed" because i dislike them. 

I've got a 30+ year gaming history and many like minded friends. none play wowp because we all agree on most/all of these points. and yes, many of them came back to try it like i did for the holiday bonus codes. the almost universal sentiment was "humans dont matter to win rate, so this isnt fun". the second most common thing was "too many random chances win rather than skill". 

 

i enjoy flight sims. if the game was more enjoyable i would spend more time here. as it is, regardless of my 5+ years in wot, i would rather continue there since my skill matters to the outcome more often.  I think what a few people missed with the wot comparisons is that skill needs to matter more in a pvp game. 

 

so the point being, rather than a customer that plays daily, im simply going to be a once a while player. which is sad, because the game could be much more. 


Edited by Hurk, 15 January 2018 - 11:22 PM.

In Theory, there is no difference between Theory and Practice.
In Practice, there is.

Desmios #18 Posted 16 January 2018 - 12:58 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1251 battles
  • 258
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

World of tanks is pay2win to the core.

 

OP tier 8 cash grab premiums like chrysler GF, defender, patriot, skorp G

Premium ammo being a necessity

crapmatchmaking

corridor maps

crapexp/credit rewards

toxic player base



vcharng #19 Posted 16 January 2018 - 01:15 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 4582 battles
  • 1,084
  • Member since:
    10-25-2017

View PostHurk, on 15 January 2018 - 11:22 PM, said:

I think you are missing the point of my post. these are the issues that will cause me to leave the game and not play. not issues that i feel need to be "fixed" because i dislike them. 

I've got a 30+ year gaming history and many like minded friends. none play wowp because we all agree on most/all of these points. and yes, many of them came back to try it like i did for the holiday bonus codes. the almost universal sentiment was "humans dont matter to win rate, so this isnt fun". the second most common thing was "too many random chances win rather than skill". 

 

i enjoy flight sims. if the game was more enjoyable i would spend more time here. as it is, regardless of my 5+ years in wot, i would rather continue there since my skill matters to the outcome more often.  I think what a few people missed with the wot comparisons is that skill needs to matter more in a pvp game. 

 

so the point being, rather than a customer that plays daily, im simply going to be a once a while player. which is sad, because the game could be much more. 

Then feel free to leave, to us you're the one missing the point of WOWP.

Your suggestions about bots and Pve and some others are solid, but other than that I think you're just not understanding the game, esp. #10.



Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #20 Posted 16 January 2018 - 03:07 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 1458 battles
  • 5,264
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View Postvcharng, on 15 January 2018 - 08:15 PM, said:

Then feel free to leave, to us you're the one missing the point of WOWP.

Your suggestions about bots and Pve and some others are solid, but other than that I think you're just not understanding the game, esp. #10.

 

wow, it is so kind of you/us to give him permission to leave...

I'm sure he felt obligated to stay until you/us gave him the OK to leave...

.

really... 10. bugged you to post your feelings... please, it's a damn opinion and he just expressed it... 

geezis,

 

View PostHurk, on 14 January 2018 - 11:01 PM, said:

10. enemy team should matter at least as much as objectives. nothing worse than being a fighter on the map with 2 factories and being essentially useless to the victory since you are at the whim of your attack craft to cap. or being an attack craft on maps with rockets and not being able to attack since only rocket sites matter, etc. 

basically each enemy plane killed should cost them 30 supremacy points. teams that die a lot will not win even if they control territory. a team that rushes through cap and fights over a final area will lose a lot of cap to dieing over it. conversely, killing enemy planes should grant 20 supremacy. being able to kill a lot of enemy planes should award victory. 

 

think about the WoT balance. capping is useful, and some times necessary, but by no means critical. WoWP should be the same. 

 

I'm so glad the WOT mentality has taken hold here in WoWP...

 


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users