445 replies to this topic

[Chuck_norris10]

MARS_REVENANT, on 15 May 2018 - 09:04 AM, said:

 

I'm not sure what the source was, but I basically heard the same thing.  They wont advertise till all the major bugs are worked out.  Could you imagine having 10,000 online players right now?  All the crashes and complaining.  Advertising at this point would do more harm than good imo.  Although, if we had an influx of players, theoretically WG would have an influx of $ and they could afford to throw more developers towards fixing bugs and end-game content.  So it could go both ways.

 

Historically though, I don't think it has worked out well for any company in terms of public perception to have a bunch of hype and then a game flop due to bugs.

 

Well I dont know what numbers are magic but I think DCS world only had a single all time high of 1001 and 24 hour peak was 371 with 269 playing right now.

[MelBrooks]

Time to bring up my question again, not necessarily to the player base, but to the powers that be ( I've asked this several times before and either received a very canned and contrived answer or absolute silence from the dev staff or WGNA employees ). How is it that World of Warships and World of Tanks can have a one and done format? Both of those games can be absolutely brutal on the average, casual player in the mid and higher tiers, yet they maintain very solid populations not only in NA, but also the EU, Asia, and RU. What is it exactly that they are doing that WoWP can not replicate?

I have received numerous and concise answers from many a player on this, but never from Persha or WGNA. Interesting isn't it?

[Perco_lator]

MARS_REVENANT, on 15 May 2018 - 12:04 PM, said:

 

I'm not sure what the source was, but I basically heard the same thing.  They wont advertise till all the major bugs are worked out.  Could you imagine having 10,000 online players right now?  All the crashes and complaining.  Advertising at this point would do more harm than good imo.  Although, if we had an influx of players, theoretically WG would have an influx of $ and they could afford to throw more developers towards fixing bugs and end-game content.  So it could go both ways.

 

Historically though, I don't think it has worked out well for any company in terms of public perception to have a bunch of hype and then a game flop due to bugs.

 

Let's be honest here, just going by what has happened over the last 6 years & more recently the lack of resources put into this game we all know there will never be any point in advertising this game.

 

 

 

P.S.  Nice meme

 

[Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo]

MelBrooks, on 15 May 2018 - 07:23 PM, said:

Time to bring up my question again, not necessarily to the player base, but to the powers that be ( I've asked this several times before and either received a very canned and contrived answer or absolute silence from the dev staff or WGNA employees ). How is it that World of Warships and World of Tanks can have a one and done format? Both of those games can be absolutely brutal on the average, casual player in the mid and higher tiers, yet they maintain very solid populations not only in NA, but also the EU, Asia, and RU. What is it exactly that they are doing that WoWP can not replicate?

I have received numerous and concise answers from many a player on this, but never from Persha or WGNA. Interesting isn't it?

Well Mel,

to quickly and permanently remain a Colonel it helps to have pictures of the Lieutenant General...

this is the only thing I can come up with,

why would anyone stay on the hardest and historically most failing path...

what penance is being repaid when you ask for redemption and you are lead to a desolate abandonment,

time and time and it's not changing...

Tanks... HOMERUN, out of the PARK!!!

Planes... pop fly OUT, bunt to first OUT, hit into a double play 2.0XOUT

Ships... HOMERUN, out of the PARK!!!

I'd say find the common denominator and see what you can do to fix it...

WG.... geezis... stop ef'ing up and go back to versions 1.4-1.9 with a v2.0 intro mix

make a pretty package, spend some money (wisely) on advertising and go for it

ask us the players what sells here on the North/Central/South American continents

don't trust some Euro/Bolshevik's opinion....

we will give you great ideas...

they will give you spaghetti western or idiotic YouTube impressions,

guys and gals that play this game don't fit that mold

JUST ASK...

WG, don't pretend you know it all

 

 

[trikke]

MelBrooks, on 15 May 2018 - 07:23 PM, said:

 How is it that World of Warships and World of Tanks can have a one and done format?

 

Both of those games can be absolutely brutal on the average, casual player in the mid and higher tiers, yet they maintain very solid populations not only in NA, but also the EU, Asia, and RU.

What is it exactly that they are doing that WoWP can not replicate?

 

the only "one-and-done" that i'm aware of...  is that great college basketball players can play only one year and then jump up to the NBA?       is there another meaning?

 

 

never tried warships (not a boat fan) but i tried tanks and i agree that it's brutal in higher tiers...  maybe tanks and ships are just easier to grasp for the general population

 

planes = much harder to learn to drive than either tanks or boats, and faster playstyle... and much much faster in higher tiers

 

hench the attempt to dumb it down for 2.0, they are trying to 'replicate' the success of tanks, using free advertising...  but it's a bridge too far

 

anyone can easily become a good low-mid tier tank player, and many might become successful tankers, but good pilots need 3D situational skills that average tankers might not have

 

you can't dumb that down, and that winnows out the majority of built-in WG players...  so advertising in aviation-specific publications would be money well-spent

 

that's right... we're evolved     

 

we can do something much better than the average person could do, and that's keep a continuous 3D movie of what's going on in our brains, all around us, and above and below

 

and we can keep updating it by using only maps, sounds and visual cues

 

it's really hard shooting at fast maneuvering objects, from a fast maneuverable object...   compare that to the difficulty level of tanks or ships

 

and it's easy to see why planes won't retain average tankers or ship guys

[LMG]

trikke, on 16 May 2018 - 09:53 AM, said:

the only "one-and-done" that i'm aware of...  is that great college basketball players can play only one year and then jump up to the NBA?       is there another meaning?

 

 

never tried warships (not a boat fan) but i tried tanks and i agree that it's brutal in higher tiers...  maybe tanks and ships are just easier to grasp for the general population

 

planes = much harder to learn to drive than either tanks or boats, and faster playstyle... and much much faster in higher tiers

 

hench the attempt to dumb it down for 2.0, they are trying to 'replicate' the success of tanks, using free advertising...  but it's a bridge too far

 

anyone can easily become a good low-mid tier tank player, and many might become successful tankers, but good pilots need 3D situational skills that average tankers might not have

 

you can't dumb that down, and that winnows out the majority of built-in WG players...  so advertising in aviation-specific publications would be money well-spent

 

that's right... we're evolved     

 

we can do something much better than the average person could do, and that's keep a continuous 3D movie of what's going on in our brains, all around us, and above and below

 

and we can keep updating it by using only maps, sounds and visual cues

 

it's really hard shooting at fast maneuvering objects, from a fast maneuverable object...   compare that to the difficulty level of tanks or ships

 

and it's easy to see why planes won't retain average tankers or ship guys

 

aka, you can't park you can't park your plane to enjoy the scenery.

[SpiritFoxMY]

LMG, on 16 May 2018 - 11:40 PM, said:

 

aka, you can't park you can't park your plane to enjoy the scenery.

 

Or hump the map border.

[CorvusCorvax]

One mode or the other doesn't matter to me at all.  I liked 1.5 -> 1.9 okay, but only because I could get on quickly and it wasn't 3 v 3 battles.  Bots were dumb, but the human players were seemingly more sharp.

 

If I did something dumb and got killed, I went to the hangar, picked another plane, and tried again.  Or I would grind a line, or whatever - it was flying.

 

2.0 has actually caused me to spend actual money.  I like the choice of planes, and the variety of play styles.  Doing something dumb doesn't impose the penalty of going directly back to the hangar - I can still learn something in-game.

 

Two game modes mean there need to be double the programmers to deal with the modes.  That's not a good business model.  You stick with one mode, and make it work for the most amount of people.  If you want a game set-up where you die and don't respawn, then that can be done within the 2.0 framework, and offered as a way to make gold instead of silver.  Or cost gold.  IOW, you gamble that you're good enough to play gold matches.  You pony up gold to equip your plane, then you go and fight.  If you win, you get your gold, plus some, back.  Plus free experience.  If you lose, you spend that gold, and you get zero experience.  So, if you think you've got the goods, go for it. 

[mnbv_fockewulfe]

Without the penalty of going back to hanger players are encouraged to do the same stupid thing over and over again. 

I irony being I found that I won more/did better when I died multiple times as opposed to when I stayed alive the whole time. 

This is counter-intuitive and poor game design IMHO. 

[LMG]

One thing I like a lot about 2.0 is that I can pretty much run anything and make a profit consistently

[MelBrooks]

trikke, on 16 May 2018 - 09:53 AM, said:

 

the only "one-and-done" that i'm aware of...  is that great college basketball players can play only one year and then jump up to the NBA?       is there another meaning?

 

 

never tried warships (not a boat fan) but i tried tanks and i agree that it's brutal in higher tiers...  maybe tanks and ships are just easier to grasp for the general population

 

planes = much harder to learn to drive than either tanks or boats, and faster playstyle... and much much faster in higher tiers

 

hench the attempt to dumb it down for 2.0, they are trying to 'replicate' the success of tanks, using free advertising...  but it's a bridge too far

 

anyone can easily become a good low-mid tier tank player, and many might become successful tankers, but good pilots need 3D situational skills that average tankers might not have

 

you can't dumb that down, and that winnows out the majority of built-in WG players...  so advertising in aviation-specific publications would be money well-spent

 

that's right... we're evolved     

 

we can do something much better than the average person could do, and that's keep a continuous 3D movie of what's going on in our brains, all around us, and above and below

 

and we can keep updating it by using only maps, sounds and visual cues

 

it's really hard shooting at fast maneuvering objects, from a fast maneuverable object...   compare that to the difficulty level of tanks or ships

 

and it's easy to see why planes won't retain average tankers or ship guys

 

​Believe it or not trikke, I found warplanes to be the easiest of the three to master. Planes became fairly easy to comprehend once you had a firm grasp of airspeed and the maintenance of it, situational awareness of enemy planes, and clearing of teammates tails. By one and done, once you're dead in the game, you stay dead with no return. I understand your points, but still, it does not answer the fundamental question. Why this drastic change in basic format and design when it has been so successful for the other titles? Because flying planes is harder or the other games are slower is not the answer. Warships can be a much slower pace for sure, but one wrong move, BANG! and you are citadeled and back to port. 

[LMG]

MelBrooks, on 16 May 2018 - 03:38 PM, said:

​Believe it or not trikke, I found warplanes to be the easiest of the three to master. Planes became fairly easy to comprehend once you had a firm grasp of airspeed and the maintenance of it, situational awareness of enemy planes, and clearing of teammates tails. By one and done, once you're dead in the game, you stay dead with no return. I understand your points, but still, it does not answer the fundamental question. Why this drastic change in basic format and design when it has been so successful for the other titles? Because flying planes is harder or the other games are slower is not the answer. Warships can be a much slower pace for sure, but one wrong move, BANG! and you are citadeled and back to port. 

 

Well the format was already different from the start with how Supremacy worked. Unlike WoT and WoWS, WoWP has a PvE component with ground pounding, so they have to add a way to fit it in. So instead of flying in circles over a... well, circle, you blow stuff up. Tanks and Ships are unique in their own ways, but they have the same basic ideas going for them (move on terrain, aim turrets, weakspots, etc.), while in WoWP just the most basic mechanic, being the movement, is drastically different. From there it keeps on drifting away further and further, so it's no wonder that the format had to be different as well.

 

If WoWP wants to be like WoT and WoWS in base gameplay, it'd have to be like them and remove the ground pounding and leave the dogfighters.

Edited by LMG, 16 May 2018 - 09:47 PM.

[mnbv_fockewulfe]

LMG, on 16 May 2018 - 09:44 PM, said:

 

Well the format was already different from the start with how Supremacy worked. Unlike WoT and WoWS, WoWP has a PvE component with ground pounding, so they have to add a way to fit it in. So instead of flying in circles over a... well, circle, you blow stuff up. Tanks and Ships are unique in their own ways, but they have the same basic ideas going for them (move on terrain, aim turrets, weakspots, etc.), while in WoWP just the most basic mechanic, being the movement, is drastically different. From there it keeps on drifting away further and further, so it's no wonder that the format had to be different as well

 

I'm convinced now more than ever that what would've saved the game as far as drastic changes go is adding a global element to the game. Making it so that each battle counted for something bigger than yourself. You know that ground target you just destroyed? Well now the enemy can't move ground troops as fast, or you've stopped them from resupplying or you decreased the reserve pool or the fuel supply or a million other things that contribute to winning. Make getting to the target and getting away from the target exciting by offering challenges during those "boring moments". 

[LMG]

mnbv_fockewulfe, on 16 May 2018 - 04:50 PM, said:

I'm convinced now more than ever that what would've saved the game as far as drastic changes go is adding a global element to the game. Making it so that each battle counted for something bigger than yourself. You know that ground target you just destroyed? Well now the enemy can't move ground troops as fast, or you've stopped them from resupplying or you decreased the reserve pool or the fuel supply or a million other things that contribute to winning. Make getting to the target and getting away from the target exciting by offering challenges during those "boring moments". 

 

Well, there's a reason I love my GAAs. Stealth going in, action during my attack, and high (low) speed chases while flying out when someone saw you. As much as I hate the archipielago map with the CC, the garrison and the Airfield, it often has put me on the edge in a good way as I reach the enemy CC and start destroying it as fast as I can, then get 2 or 3 guys on my tail as I make my escape. I even got a game on my BSh-2 where I ended up with 4 bombkills (3 were accidental )

[soshootmenow]

Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 16 May 2018 - 02:22 AM, said:

Well Mel,

to quickly and permanently remain a Colonel it helps to have pictures of the Lieutenant General...

this is the only thing I can come up with,

why would anyone stay on the hardest and historically most failing path...

what penance is being repaid when you ask for redemption and you are lead to a desolate abandonment,

time and time and it's not changing...

Tanks... HOMERUN, out of the PARK!!!

Planes... pop fly OUT, bunt to first OUT, hit into a double play 2.0XOUT

Ships... HOMERUN, out of the PARK!!!

I'd say find the common denominator and see what you can do to fix it...

WG.... geezis... stop ef'ing up and go back to versions 1.4-1.9 with a v2.0 intro mix

make a pretty package, spend some money (wisely) on advertising and go for it

ask us the players what sells here on the North/Central/South American continents

don't trust some Euro/Bolshevik's opinion....

we will give you great ideas...

they will give you spaghetti western or idiotic YouTube impressions,

guys and gals that play this game don't fit that mold

JUST ASK...

WG, don't pretend you know it all

 

 

 

I thank you All for your contributions on this topic.

Ace....you have this quite correct. WOT's latest update was a grand slam home run. WoWS has done well with progressive, effective, logical updates all on their own.

There are several proposals here both for and against. However......the simple fact of the matter is that we now have a rather large excluded player base that can be brought back.

This would provide a real tangible effective number increase if this was made a two-mode game. WG was correct in bringing an easier arcade style mode to the game so new players can pick up right away without too many complications. This has been effective to a degree. The issue is that there is nothing for them to advance to and they have effectively completely excluded the OP's and what they prefer. They can get the numbers up with a combination of them both and simultaneously provide a player experience that that would be inclusive of all.

   This is easily within reach. If there is a CHOICE not to do it then everyone will eventually be disappointed. WG included.

A two-mode game would satisfy all parties involved and bring a substantial increase to the player population.

  Despite all of the pro or con arguments......can anyone provide a truly viable argument from either a business or customer experience standpoint why this CANNOT be implemented to at least give it a try????

   Is it really so much of a 'Sacred Violation'???

Let's give it a try and see what happens.

  Can I get some backup on this!!??

They have tried everything else.....would it really hurt so bad to try it??

I mean really.....C'mon Man!!!

 

I thank you all for your input on this. Let's all work together to try and make this happen.

 

Thankyou for your time and effort All

I miss flying with you.

 

 

soshootmenow.

 

 

Edited by soshootmenow, 17 May 2018 - 02:29 AM.

[Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo]

soshootmenow, on 16 May 2018 - 09:28 PM, said:

 

I thank you All for your contributions on this topic.

Ace....you have this quite correct. WOT's latest update was a grand slam home run. WoWS has done well with progressive, effective, logical updates all on their own.

There are several proposals here both for and against. However......the simple fact of the matter is that we now have a rather large excluded player base that can be brought back.

This would provide a real tangible effective number increase if this was made a two-mode game. WG was correct in bringing an easier arcade style mode to the game so new players can pick up right away without too many complications. This has been effective to a degree. The issue is that there is nothing for them to advance to and they have effectively completely excluded the OP's and what they prefer. They can get the numbers up with a combination of them both and simultaneously provide a player experience that that would be inclusive of all.

   This is easily within reach. If there is a CHOICE not to do it then everyone will eventually be disappointed. WG included.

A two-mode game would satisfy all parties involved and bring a substantial increase to the player population.

  Despite all of the pro or con arguments......can anyone provide a truly viable argument from either a business or customer experience standpoint why this CANNOT be implemented to at least give it a try????

   Is it really so much of a 'Sacred Violation'???

Let's give it a try and see what happens.

  Can I get some backup on this!!??

They have tried everything else.....would it really hurt so bad to try it??

I mean really.....C'mon Man!!!

 

I thank you all for your input on this. Let's all work together to try and make this happen.

 

Thankyou for your time and effort All

I miss flying with you.

 

 

soshootmenow.

 

 

 

so shoot me if I'm wrong but...

I remember being told that Soon™ after the release of 2.0 that they'd be introducing a deathmatch option/mode....

what ever became of this promise that we were given?

.

.

.

the sad truth is that the one thing around here is that we can always rely on is broken promises

[LMG]

Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 17 May 2018 - 10:10 AM, said:

so shoot me if I'm wrong but...

I remember being told that Soon™ after the release of 2.0 that they'd be introducing a deathmatch option/mode....

what ever became of this promise that we were given?

.

.

.

the sad truth is that the one thing around here is that we can always rely on is broken promises

 

I think that became Attrition, which we got to see earlier this year. Considering some of the advertising people have been finding recently, my best guess would be it'll come with either the next big patch or the one that follows. I'm expecting the latter 

[soshootmenow]

Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 17 May 2018 - 03:10 PM, said:

 

so shoot me if I'm wrong but...

I remember being told that Soon™ after the release of 2.0 that they'd be introducing a deathmatch option/mode....

what ever became of this promise that we were given?

.

.

.

the sad truth is that the one thing around here is that we can always rely on is broken promises

 

Hi Ace,

 

Thankyou for the upvotes and your message.

    I agree that there have been multiple promises made here that did not come through. But the BIG one was the one they made just prior to 2.0 that WG said would give us CHOICES.

This did not happen and now we have a kiddie arcade game that is really not all that much better than some high-end smart phone games that I have seen.

It can attract players that want to come on and just 'play' but it does not do anything for the people who played before in the 1.9 version that required a lot more dedication and skill.

1.9 flight mechanics, effects, and situational awareness were simply vastly superior. It felt like 'flight'. I also felt like I was going into a FIGHT on every flight I took.

 

Corvus...... A dual mode game does not necessarily require double the programmers and resources at all. Especially if you have one mode already extensively developed. And they were able to put the 2.0 mode together with their original resources while maintaining 1.9. So it is most certainly proven to be resource and technically feasible. Before 2.0 was officially released they had a version running concurrently with 1.9 that they used as a feedback model.

    As far as a business model goes you have a valid point but it seems to me only to the extent that it is not as easy as a single mode. Considering the player numbers.....they generally seem to have simply swapped out one set of players for another of generally the same quality/quantity. Also consider the number of flights per player and the amount of effort put in. The 1.9 community in NA was not that large, but it was a pretty dedicated and invested bunch. Same for the EU. There were considerably more on the RU server (and even Google Translate could not interpret the....'harsh'.....commentary about 2.0 on the RU forums). I don't know much at all about the Asian server populations and play rates.

   My intent here is not to criticize but to bring about a solution that I believe would work. World-wide there are thousands of 1.9 players that simply will not be force-fed 2.0 and like it because they have been told to. Putting a 1.9 additional mode would bring them (and their money, good will, skills, knowledge, established Clans, camaraderie, excellent user community, etc..., etc...) BACK to the game. An almost literal overnight increase in the player base by several thousand without even having to advertise would seem to be a pretty good way to start a success story.

   

[trikke]

the bomber line might have been the death knell for DM, because nobody can really touch a high alt bomber in low tiers...  you'd have a thousand 1 vs 1 draws per day

 

and you'll have to purpose-spec your HF for altitude, which would effectively kill maim it for low alt

 

and you could never take that chance and run anything else but that particular HF, or your team could insta-lose, or insta-draw, i meant

 

on the other hand, all-HF battles are really fun, though... as we learned so well in alpha!     

 

edit:  (i miss GeorgePatton...   he was the only one of us with enough gravitas that could corral us all into alpha training rooms to test specific bugs, strategies, etc)

Edited by trikke, 18 May 2018 - 02:24 PM.

[mnbv_fockewulfe]

trikke, on 18 May 2018 - 02:17 PM, said:

the bomber line might have been the death knell for DM, because nobody can really touch a high alt bomber in low tiers...  you'd have a thousand 1 vs 1 draws per day

 

and you'll have to purpose-spec your HF for altitude, which would effectively kill maim it for low alt

 

and you could never take that chance and run anything else but that particular HF, or your team could insta-lose, or insta-draw, i meant

 

on the other hand, all-HF battles are really fun, though... as we learned so well in alpha!     

 

edit:  (i miss GeorgePatton...   he was the only one of us with enough gravitas that could corral us all into alpha training rooms to test specific bugs, strategies, etc)

 

There are a million different solutions to the BMBs in Death Match.

One being a bugout mechanic. 

Ironically despite George getting the flight model he wanted, the game mode and broken promises were what finally turned him away from the game.